Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #241 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Karen Winter's Abject Ignorance of Constitutionality

Karen Winter lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:


Resto

>> Karen Winter lied:


end-restore

>
> >>Leif Erikson wrote:

>
> > Congress has passed lots of laws subsequently held to be
> > unconstitutional. The fact that Congress passed laws
> > authorizing the parks is not evidence that the Constitution provides
> > for that power.

>
> It does show Congress -- which is full of constitutional
> lawyers -- saw no Constitutional barrier to the law.


Congress is *not* full of Constitutional lawyers. Congress is full of
garden-variety ambulance-chasers.

The fact that Congress "saw no barrier" is irrelevant. Congress saw no
problem with the shoddy evidence for WMD in Iraq, either. Congress is
myopic.


> > As a totalitarian statist, you would pretty
> > much tear it up in order to do what you think should be done, anyway.

>
> Not me --


Yes, you, Karen. You are a totalitarian at heart, as John Mercer and I
both recognized many years ago, and you would shred the Constitution
faster than Bush.

  #242 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,soc.culture.usa
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Parks


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> pearl wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions
>> as documented below, before believing you're not just using
>> the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so.

>
> Both he and Leif are. There are so many more
> unconstitutional and egregious violations of law
> and the constitution by the Bush government, yet
> they attack *national parks*?
>
> <snip>
>
>> Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an
>> invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories,
>> possessions or armed forces.

>

< Oscar's snip while taking out the trash>

I have no trouble continuing this conversation in the right newsgroup....

You must really love horses... you are always on your high horse... ride 'em
over to an appropriate group and I'll just love to join you there where we
can probably pick up some good input.

Oscar


  #243 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,soc.culture.usa
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Parks


"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Karen Winter lied and committed further errors:
>> shithead lied:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions
>> > as documented below, before believing you're not just using
>> > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so.

>>
>> Both he and Leif are.

>
> I am not, and I doubt the other guy is, either.


Correct... I am not "just" using <blah blah blah.... snip> either.
>
> I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably
> easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some
> constitutionally provided power. My point in this is that your - Karen
> Winter's - belief that they can exist because they aren't forbidden is
> flatly wrong. Furthermore, I gleefully point out that you are emerging
> as the ardent supporter of intrusive, invasive government - it can do
> whatever isn't prohibited to it, rather than it can do *only* what is
> constitutionally permitted to it - that John Mercer and I always said
> you have been.


I happen to like the national parks also.. though I think they should be
"state parks."

>> There are so many more
>> unconstitutional and egregious violations of law
>> and the constitution by the Bush government, yet
>> they attack *national parks*?

>
> I am not attacking national parks. I am attacking your totalitarian
> statist's rationale for government's doing whatever it wants, Karen.
> You are, indeed, a totalitarian statist, Karen, just as I have said for
> nearly seven years, and as John Mercer has said for even longer.


And I wasn't attacking "parks" either... Further, in keeping with the notion
of smaller national government I believe, both from a Constitutional point
and a practical one they should be state parks... and have no other changes
in mind.

Oscar


  #244 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,soc.culture.usa
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Parks


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions
>> > as documented below, before believing you're not just using
>> > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so.

>>
>> Both he and Leif are. There are so many more
>> unconstitutional and egregious violations of law
>> and the constitution by the Bush government, yet
>> they attack *national parks*?

>
> Anything that may in any way disturb their precious livestock industry.
>
>> <snip>


<garbage detail yet again>

Anything to protect your precious carrot soup industry.

Killed me a fish... boy did he flop all over the damn boat. Having trout
with almonds tonight Pearl. Perhaps some shrimp cocktail before and there
are two more slices of that banana cream pie, with real moo-juice on the
top. Wanna stop over?


  #245 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default National Parks

Leif Erikson wrote:

>><snip>


>>>I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably
>>>easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some
>>>constitutionally provided power.


>>As I said.


> That's *not* what you said.


What I asked was why national parks would be unconstitutional.
You provided no answer, and have now come around to stating you believe
they are constitutional also -- although you *ALSO* have cited
no "constitutionally provided power" which you claim makes them
constitutional.

To ask why something is claimed to be unconstitutional -- which
was the claim Oscar put forward -- is not the same as saying
anything not specifically prohibited is constitutional. That's
why the judicial system has the authority to review laws passed
by Congress -- because laws *may* be unconstitutional. But it
is not up to Congress to determine that; it is up to the
Supreme Court.

That's basic civics.

> BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet?


I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not.





  #246 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,soc.culture.usa
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Status of animals


----- Original Message -----
From: "pearl" >
Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,soc.culture.usa
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: The Status of animals


> > wrote in message ...
>
>> (as the Constitution states --

>
> I find it incredible that a poster who votes for Bush "Stop throwing
> the Constitution in my face, It's just a goddamned piece of paper!",
> keeps bringing up the U.S Constitution in response to invitations
> to the American public to exercise their constitutionally protected
> right of freedom of speech, concerning the protection of native
> species, in their own right, and as part of their/our natural heritage.


The word is "Voted." I never said he was perfect. He isn't. I am not voting
for him as we speak so the use of the word "votes" is grammatically
incorrect.

Of course I keep bringing up the Constitution.... is there a reason I
shouldn't. However, I have never said that anyone should not exercise any of
their freedoms. Where did I do so? Exercise away...

>
> I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions
> as documented below, before believing you're not just using
> the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so.


Of course it serves my purpose to do so... I believe in it, am saddened when
it is not followed... and have never suggested it should be any other way.
BTW, it not only serves my purpose, but the other citizens of this great
country to do so. It would never have been written by the group who did so
if it had not served the peoples purpose. Who's purpose should it serve?

<garbage smokescreen begins>
> 'Despite opposition by many prominent Republicans, Dick Cheney
> and George W. Bush are mounting an intensive public relations
> campaign to justify their pre-ordained invasion of Iraq. A preemptive
> strike against Iraq would violate the Constitution and the United Nations
> Charter.

<mercifully snipping the rest of the garbage smokescreen>


> Well... what say you, oscar?


What happened to the national parks, horse, grizzly, animal, vegetable,
mineral discussion?




  #247 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default National Parks

Karen winter, chronic liar, reflexively lied again:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >><snip>

>
> >>>I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably
> >>>easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some
> >>>constitutionally provided power.

>
> >>As I said.

>
> > That's *not* what you said.

>
> What I asked was why national parks would be unconstitutional.


No, Karen, you liar. You asked where in the Constitution does it
forbid that kind of thing to the federal government, and I gave you a
badly needed lesson in civics and the correct way to look at the
Constitution: the presumption is that activities are prohibited to the
federal government unless they are authorized by the Constitution,
rather than presumed to be permitted unless they are forbidden. Your
interpretation is wrong, but because you're a stubborn asshole you
can't admit your error.


>
> > BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet?

>
> I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not.


Yes, Karen, you most certainly have. You told us a couple of years ago
that your son is in the Army in Iraq. Cut the shit, Karen. Just
answer the question: has he been killed carrying out the Bush
administration's invasion, an invasion you claim to oppose? Are you
still proud of your son, Karen?

  #248 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Parks


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>><snip>

>
>>>>I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably
>>>>easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some
>>>>constitutionally provided power.

>
>>>As I said.

>
>> That's *not* what you said.

>
> What I asked was why national parks would be unconstitutional.
> You provided no answer, and have now come around to stating you believe
> they are constitutional also -- although you *ALSO* have cited
> no "constitutionally provided power" which you claim makes them
> constitutional.
>
> To ask why something is claimed to be unconstitutional -- which
> was the claim Oscar put forward -- is not the same as saying
> anything not specifically prohibited is constitutional. That's
> why the judicial system has the authority to review laws passed
> by Congress -- because laws *may* be unconstitutional. But it
> is not up to Congress to determine that; it is up to the
> Supreme Court.


Funny you should mention that.... because it is possible for all three
branches of the government to make that determination. You see, if the
Supreme Court should happen to decide that something is Constitutional...
like killing people because they are black-skinned (granted unlikely, but
theoretically possible)... it is possible for the other two branches to
correct the problem without the court.

I am sure someone will be more than ready to argue the point... and I am
ready, with a judge sitting next to me at this very moment.

>
> That's basic civics.
>
>> BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet?

>
> I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not.
>
>
>



  #251 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Status of animals


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>> wrote:

>
>>> <snip>

>
>>>> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which a
>>>> central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and as
>>>> they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities
>>>> to the individual states or the citizens of those states.

>
>>> Glorfindel:

>
>>> But it does not say that the citizens have to act only
>>> at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of
>>> the United States as a whole, and can act at a national
>>> level in the persons of their congressional representatives.

>
>
>> Congress may not pass laws that establish things not permitted to the
>> federal government in the Constitution.

>
> However, there is nothing in the Constitution which
> does not permit the national government to set up national
> parks.


The point I think Leif was trying to get across to you is that there is
nothing in the Constitution that allows it....

The presence of some specific don'ts does not mean that if they are not in
there they are OK....

>
> Some things are not permitted, for example to establish a state
> religion. These things are explicitly stated in the Constitution
> or the Bill of Rights. Things which do not violate any of the
> provisions stated in the Constitution can be established by the
> authority given to the people, by the elected representatives
> of the people in Congress.


Wrong... The authority is not given "TO"' the people it is derived "FROM"
the people. They give the authority "TO" the government... not through their
representatives, but through the rule of law... Constitutional Law.
Otherwise we have government by people, not government by law.

> If someone believes a specific
> law is unconstitutional, it can be challenged in court. That's
> what the legal system is for: to determine if something is
> constitutional or not.
>
> If you think national parks are unconstitutional, hire a lawyer
> and challenge the law. Don't you think you would be better
> occupied challenging the constitutionality of Bush's wiretapping
> scheme?


No I don't... but if you do, go for it!


  #252 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default The Status of animals

wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Karen Winter flim-flammed and dissembled:
> >
> >>
wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which a
> >>> central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and as
> >>> they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities
> >>> to the individual states or the citizens of those states.
> >>
> >>
> >> Glorfindel:

> >
> > No, Karen Winter. You are Karen Winter. Drop the charade, Karen.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> But it does not say that the citizens have to act only
> >> at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of
> >> the United States as a whole, and can act at a national
> >> level in the persons of their congressional representatives.

> >
> > Congress may not pass laws that establish things not permitted to the
> > federal government in the Constitution. It's that simple. Your error is
> > that easy to establish.

>
> Well Leif, I hope you will allow that Congress has done exactly that...


I meant to say that Congress may not *constitutionally* pass laws to
establish things not permitted to the feds by the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers vested in the Congress:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the
Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the
high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and
make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money
to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession
of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat
of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or
in any Department or Officer thereof.


The only clause that appears as if it might authorize national parks is
#17, and the reading of that clause makes clear that that the purchase
of the land must be with the consent of the legislature of the state in
which the land resides, *and* that the land must be used for the
fulfillment of constitutionally provided duties spelled out in the
other clauses. As none of the preceding 16 clauses could possibly be
interpreted as providing for national parks, and as none of the
amendments to the Constitution even address the issue, I think the
establishment of the parks looks constitutionally suspect.

  #253 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default The Status of animals

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers vested in the Congress:
>
> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
> States;


<snip>

> The only clause that appears as if it might authorize national parks is
> #17,


I'd say it could be considered part of providing for the
general welfare. I'd certainly consider having areas of
wilderness available to the public a benefit to general
welfare of the population.

<snip>
  #254 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default [the lack of constitutional authority for] National Parks

Karen Winter, proud mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq and
ardent defender of powerful, intrusive government, lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Karen Winter, chronic liar, lied again:
>
> >>What I asked was why national parks would be unconstitutional.

>
> > You asked where in the Constitution does it
> > forbid that kind of thing to the federal government

>
> How does that differ from asking why national parks would
> be unconstitutional


It doesn't differ at all, you ****ing ****. And it's *still* the wrong
question. As I have patiently tried to explain to you: the
Constitution does not explicitly forbid powers to Congress. Activities
and powers are *understood* to be forbidden to Congress *unless* they
are granted in the Constitution. You keep getting it backward, but
because you're a stubborn, arrogant asshole who wrongly thinks you're
the smartest person in the newsgroup, you're incapable of learning.
You are wrong on all of it, not least your unwarranted opinion of
yourself.


> The Constitution was an 18th-century document.


Irrelevant.


> There are a vast array


There IS a vast array of things, you idiot. The verb must agree in
number with the subject. Array is singular. You ****.


> thing things which did not exist in
> the 18th century which the federal government had had
> to deal with in the last 200-plus years, and national parks
> are one of them.


No, absolutely not, and an astonishingly weak defense of your position.
Parks already existed at the time of the drafting of the Constitution,
and other nations had national parks and preserves. This is something
the Founders - good white men, all of them - could easily have provided
for, unlike (say) electronic communications regulation or space
exploration.

Also, there is an amendment process to the Constitution that can be
employed to deal with the kind of development of events and
technologies that were unforeseeable to the Founders. No ratified
amendment can possibly interpreted as authorizing the parks, and
clearly none of the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution can be interpreted that way either.


> > > > BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet?


> > > I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not.


> > Yes, Karen, you most certainly have. You told us a couple of years ago
> > that your son is in the Army in Iraq. Cut the shit, Karen. Just
> > answer the question: has he been killed carrying out the Bush
> > administration's invasion, an invasion you claim to oppose? Are you
> > still proud of your son, Karen?


No comment, Karen? Come on, Karen - are you proud of your son?

  #255 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default The Status of animals

Karen Winter, ignorant totalitarian statist and proud mother of a
jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq, lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers vested in the Congress:
> >
> > Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
> > Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
> > common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
> > Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
> > States;

>
> <snip>
>
> > The only clause that appears as if it might authorize national parks is
> > #17,

>
> I'd say


You'd say anything, you ****ing Gestapo agent.


> it could be considered part of providing for the
> general welfare.


The general welfare is only mentioned in the Preamble, which does *NOT*
provide any meaningful constitutional authority for anything, Karen.
The Preamble only states the sentiment and intent of the People of the
United States in implementing the Constitution.

Funny you'd mention that, though, because once you make it that vague,
then anything goes, and George W. Bush certainly can claim to be
promoting the general welfare of the people *as he sees it*. Nice job,
Karen - you just provided the necessary constitutional cover for Bush
to have sent your jack-booted kid to Iraq to kill babies.

Anarchist my ass...

You are really funny in some ways, Karen.



  #256 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default The Status of animals

Leif Erikson wrote:

<snip>

> The general welfare is only mentioned in the Preamble, which does *NOT*
> provide any meaningful constitutional authority for anything.
> The Preamble only states the sentiment and intent of the People of the
> United States in implementing the Constitution.


Yes.

> George W. Bush certainly can claim to be
> promoting the general welfare of the people *as he sees it*.


Yes, of course he can. However, some of the things he has
done directly violate provisions of the Constitution
which *are* specifically set out in the document.

<snip>

  #257 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default National Parks



I don't necessarily think that federal control of wilderness lands is
better than state or local control of wilderness lands. It depends
on the state. In New Mexico at least, the governor and the state
attorney general are fighting the federal government and the BLM
to protect wilderness areas from oil and gas exploration and
drilling. So I'd side with the state in this case.
  #258 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default The Status of animals

Karen Winter, ignorant totalitarian statist and proud
mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq, lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The general welfare is only mentioned in the Preamble, which does *NOT*
>> provide any meaningful constitutional authority for anything.
>> The Preamble only states the sentiment and intent of the People of the
>> United States in implementing the Constitution.

>
>
> Yes.


Yes. <smirk>


>
>> George W. Bush certainly can claim to be
>> promoting the general welfare of the people *as he sees it*.

>
>
> Yes, of course he can.


So you're hosed.


> However, some of the things he has
> done directly violate provisions of the Constitution
> which *are* specifically set out in the document.


Not that anyone is going to take *your* word on that,
Karen.



>>>> BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised

explosive device yet?


>>> I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not.



>> Yes, Karen, you most certainly have. You told us a

couple of years ago
>> that your son is in the Army in Iraq. Cut the

shit, Karen. Just
>> answer the question: has he been killed carrying

out the Bush
>> administration's invasion, an invasion you claim to

oppose? Are you
>> still proud of your son, Karen?



No comment, Karen? Come on, Karen - are you proud of
your son?

  #259 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default The Status of animals

Leif Erikson wrote:

> proud mother of a
> jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq


>>> George W. Bush certainly can claim to be
>>> promoting the general welfare of the people *as he sees it*.


>> Yes, of course he can.


> So you're hosed.


What does "hosed" mean? All political figures claim to be
acting for the welfare of the people they control,
whatever they see as the source of their authority. It
does not mean they are. Would you expect Bush to admit
he is acting unconstitutionally? Would you even expect
Bush to *know* he is acting unconstitutionally?


> >>> I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not.


> Are you
> >> still proud of your son?


You are amusing, Leif. Here you are trying the same clumsy and
transparent technique you tried when you attacked science
fiction -- a variant on "Have you stopped beating your wife."
If I did have a son, and if I claimed not to be proud of him,
you would attack with claims that I did not display
proper maternal feelings. If I had a son, and claimed to be
proud of him, you would use the sophomoric language above.
"Jack-booted baby killer" sounds like something a stoned
hippie from the 60's would say. Grow up.

"Hey, Hey LBJ -- how many kids did you kill today?"

Hmmm...possibly the slogan could use recycling...but by
someone with more literary talent than Leif.
  #260 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default The Status of animals

Karen Winter, ignorant totalitarian statist and proud
mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq, lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter, ignorant totalitarian statist and proud mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq, lied:

>
>
>>>> George W. Bush certainly can claim to be
>>>> promoting the general welfare of the people *as he sees it*.

>
>
>>> Yes, of course he can.

>
>
>> So you're hosed.

>
>
> What does "hosed" mean?


You're not that naive.


>>>>BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet?
>>>
>>> I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not.

>>
>> Yes, Karen, you most certainly have. You told us a couple of years ago
>> that your son is in the Army in Iraq. Cut the shit, Karen. Just
>> answer the question: has he been killed carrying out the Bush
>> administration's invasion, an invasion you claim to oppose? Are you
>> still proud of your son, Karen?

>
> You are amusing, Leif.


Not a fraction as amusing as you, Karen. All the
regulars here - Dutch, Rick, ****wit, Mr. Suspect (when
he drops in), Derek, and I - know that you're Karen
Winter, despite your oafish denials. It's a real hoot
seeing you continue your little solo dance.

You have a son you detest, and yet strangely you've
expressed pride in him; you have a grandson whom you
hope to turn into a queer. YOU are the transparent
one, Karen.


> If I had a son,


You do; or, at least, you did.


> and claimed to be proud of him,


You have done, in the past, even though you also detest
him. You're very weird, Karen.


  #261 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default The Status of animals

Karen Winter, ignorant totalitarian statist and proud
mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq, lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
> .>> So you're hosed.
>
>>> What does "hosed" mean?

>
>
>> You're not that naive.

>
>
> I don't know the word.


There's lots of useful stuff you don't know, Karen,
beginning with a proper understanding of the
Constitution, and the basics of logic. What you know
is stale left-wing dogma from the mid 1960s and
earlier. You're a ****ing dinosaur, Karen.


>>> You are still amusing, Leif.

>>
>>Not a fraction as amusing as you, Karen. All the regulars
>>here - Dutch, Rick, ****wit, Mr. Suspect (when he drops in),
>>Derek, and I - know that you're Karen Winter, despite your
>>oafish denials. It's a real hoot seeing you continue your
>>little solo dance.
>>
>>You have a son you detest, and yet strangely you've expressed
>>pride in him; you have a grandson whom you hope to turn into
>>a queer. YOU are the transparent one, Karen.
>>
>>> If I had a son,

>>
>>You do; or, at least, you did.
>>
>>> and claimed to be proud of him,

>>
>>You have done, in the past, even though you also detest him.
>>You're very weird, Karen.



And getting weirder every day.

So, you never answered, Karen: was your son blown up
by an IED in Iraq? If so, I think Sylvia must have
been ecstatic. Sylvia Stevens is a foul lump of shit.
Some day, I'm going to send her right over the edge,
and I'll never get within a thousand miles of her. Ha
ha ha ha ha!
  #262 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default The Status of animals

Karen Winter attempted to explain her error:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Karen Winter lied:
>
> >>The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress
> >>are the representatives of the people.

>
> > Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the
> > Constitution does not allow it to do. This is basic civics.

>
> If it is not stated specifically in the Constitution, then
> powers are reserved to the States *OR* to the people.
> As their elected representatives, Congress are the people.


This is simply false. Congress is the body of the people's elected
representatives *only* for the purpose of the federal government.
Congress enacts federal laws. They may *only* constitutionally enact
federal laws in areas allowed to them by the Constitution.

Your interpretations of the Constitution are getting screwier all the
time. First, the Constitution does not tell Congress the areas in
which they may *not* act; it tells them the areas in which they *are*
authorized to act, and everything else is BY PRESUMPTION forbidden to
them.

Secondly, Congress is NOT "the people". It is the body of the people's
representatives *only* for the purpose of the federal government.

  #263 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default National Parks

Karen Winter, motivated only by her false belief of herself as the
smartest person around, lied:

> I don't necessarily think that federal control of wilderness lands is
> better than state or local control of wilderness lands. It depends
> on the state. In New Mexico at least, the governor and the state
> attorney general are fighting the federal government and the BLM
> to protect wilderness areas from oil and gas exploration and
> drilling. So I'd side with the state in this case.


In other words, Karen, there is no principle behind your stance, save
the principle of trying to get what you want by any means possible.

But we already knew that.

  #264 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default National Parks

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel:

>>I don't necessarily think that federal control of wilderness lands is
>>better than state or local control of wilderness lands. It depends
>>on the state. In New Mexico at least, the governor and the state
>>attorney general are fighting the federal government and the BLM
>>to protect wilderness areas from oil and gas exploration and
>>drilling. So I'd side with the state in this case.


> In other words, there is no principle behind your stance,


That's even more feeble than usual for you, Leif.
You're losing it.
  #265 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default National Parks

Karen Winter, motivated only by her false belief of herself as the
smartest person around, lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Karen Winter, motivated only by her false belief of herself as the smartest person
> around, lied:
>
> >>I don't necessarily think that federal control of wilderness lands is
> >>better than state or local control of wilderness lands. It depends
> >>on the state. In New Mexico at least, the governor and the state
> >>attorney general are fighting the federal government and the BLM
> >>to protect wilderness areas from oil and gas exploration and
> >>drilling. So I'd side with the state in this case.

>
> > In other words, Karen, there is no principle behind your stance, save
> > the principle of trying to get what you want by any means possible.
> >
> > But we already knew that, Karen.


>
> That's even more


That's exactly right, Karen, and it's laughably obvious. If you can
get what you want in some instance by favoring states' rights, you'll
do it; if you can get what you want in another by favoring federal
power, you'll do that.

You do not operate according to any principle other than the principle
of getting what you want. That is, you are unprincipled as most people
understand the word.

But we already knew that, Karen.



  #266 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default The Status of animals

Somewhere between "tasty" and "nutritious", I believe...


--

--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I got a million of 'em Nancy Young[_8_] General Cooking 10 23-08-2015 08:44 PM
Imagine if you could get one million people to give you one dollar.The Internet Million Dollar Donation Recipe [email protected] General Cooking 1 01-07-2012 08:31 PM
FYI: There's still time for $222 Million Andy[_15_] General Cooking 0 27-05-2009 05:41 PM
2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT 127.0.0.1 General Cooking 11 14-11-2007 06:55 AM
8 million die every year etc. J. Davidson[_2_] General Cooking 0 05-03-2007 01:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"