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
  #256 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-02-2006, 02:14 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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  
Old 17-02-2006, 02:23 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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  
Old 17-02-2006, 04:29 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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  
Old 17-02-2006, 01:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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  
Old 17-02-2006, 03:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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  
Old 17-02-2006, 03:55 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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  
Old 17-02-2006, 09:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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  
Old 17-02-2006, 09:32 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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  
Old 17-02-2006, 11:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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  
Old 17-02-2006, 11:33 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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  
Old 16-03-2006, 08:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
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 05:55 AM
8 million die every year etc. J. Davidson[_2_] General Cooking 0 05-03-2007 12:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017