B&H and Adorama Closed!

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:02:55 -0900, Floyd Davidson
wrote:


Yes, if it were repealed we would *immediately* have troops
billeting in private homes.

Yep, the Bushies would see it as a means of "containing costs"
and it'd be great for "accountability" -- just think, government
agents in every household to monitor for "subversive activities". Joe
McCarthy's already wetting his coffin at the thought.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:

Which is as arrogant an example of legislating from the bench as you can
find. Griswold was about the right of a married couple to practice
contraception, which was then against Connecticut state law. (It was a
nonsensical law and practically unenforceable anyway.) The very
left-leaning
Supreme Court then "discovered" something in the Constitution which no
one
who reads plain English can find the a "right to marital privacy."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated
4th Amendment

Which makes no mention of any "right to marital privacy."

Yes it does.

It does not.

Yes it does.

Read it from beginning to end and you will find no such thing
as a "right to marital privacy."

Yes I do. The relevant text is quoted above. Or are you really going
to try and pretend that married people don't count as people?

You've been hornswoggled.

You're a kook.

Keep listening to "liberal" Democrats and you'll
never get anything right.

So you're a right-wing facist who wants limitless powers for the
government.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th Amendment

And you think that means what?

"right to marital privacy."

I always wonder at supposedly conservative people arguing on favor of
a fascist state where the government is free to impose any number of
dictates upon people.

Leftist-"liberals" seem to have this strange love for the word "fascist,"

Fascists hate liberalism.

Sure, but no more than leftist-"liberals" do,

What an impresssively stupid statement.

--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:

Which is as arrogant an example of legislating from the bench as you
can
find. Griswold was about the right of a married couple to practice
contraception, which was then against Connecticut state law. (It was a
nonsensical law and practically unenforceable anyway.) The very
left-leaning
Supreme Court then "discovered" something in the Constitution which no
one
who reads plain English can find the a "right to marital privacy."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated
4th Amendment

Which makes no mention of any "right to marital privacy."

Yes it does.

It does not.

Yes it does.

Not.



Read it from beginning to end and you will find no such thing
as a "right to marital privacy."

Yes I do. The relevant text is quoted above. Or are you really going
to try and pretend that married people don't count as people?

They "count as people" exactly as much as, and no more than, any other
people do. They do not have any special "right" to privacy in the
Constitution.



You've been hornswoggled.

You're a kook.

Only my aversion to name-calling keeps me from pointing out that you are an
ignorant nincompoop.



Keep listening to "liberal" Democrats and you'll
never get anything right.

So you're a right-wing facist who wants limitless powers for the
government.

I'm right wing. Fascists were left wing. Mussolini started as a socialist
and communist, and though he abandoned communism per se, he never strayed
from the idea of the state grabbing all power for itself (and himself), just
as communist leaders have since Stalin established the model. Hitler
likewise; read Mein Kampf and you'll find it loaded with leftist slogans and
terminology. Mao, Castro, Pol Pot--all communists, all totalitarians. Not a
right-winger in the bunch.

It's the right wing that generally sets limits on government. The left wing
*always* wants bigger, more intrusive government. Why do you suppose the
Democrats have such a well-earned reputation for tax-and-spend? What do you
suppose they want to spend *on*?

Neil

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

It's the right wing that generally sets limits on government.

Well, then, the Griswold and Roe decisions were right wing because they
set limits on government.

Actually, the right wing doesn't want to set limits on government. The
right wing wants the government to have complete control over people's
lives, especially their sexual practices and religious practices.

I'm not saying that the left doesn't want to set limits on government;
of course it does--it's just that it wants to place the limits on
different aspects of government than the right does.

"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

It's the right wing that generally sets limits on government.

Well, then, the Griswold and Roe decisions were right wing because they
set limits on government.

Not in the least. BIG GOVERNMENT telling little state and local governments
what they must do and must not do is hardly "setting limits on government,"
unless you believe that BIG GOVERNMENT is more or less like God and
intrinsically above all limt-setting. Which, of course, is exactly how
leftist-"liberals" seem to see it.

On 2005-10-22 07:20:15 -0400, "carrigman"
said:

I'm just back from a trip to New York City where high on my agenda was
a visit to B&H to buy a Canon lens. Off I went one morning only to find
the store closed for the week. No word of explanation. No matter, there
was always Adorama. So I hightailed it down to West 18th Street only to
find myself, together with a bunch of other bemused photographers,
staring at shuttered windows and a notice saying they too were closed
for the week!

All to do with a Jewish holiday, I understand. Surely they have enough
non-Jewish employees to cater for the rest of us? I didn't see any
other major New York stores closed for religious reasons and I think it
is outrageous for these two firms to treat its customers like this.

John,
Ireland

Sometime, one learns the hard way, one doesn't go photo shopping in NYC
on the high holy days or the Sabbath (Saturday). Once upon a time
buying a diamond in NYC was extremely difficult on Saturday. Its
tough when you are on vacation and hit the week. Somewhat like going
to Paris in August. Its too bad you didn't get to see the place. It
really is amazing.. not only the variety and quanity of merchandise,
but the totally automated way they run the purchasing operation.
Hopefully you will get back some day.

I hope you otherwise enjoyed your trip to NYC. My wife and I had a
great time in Ireland in May ( managed to avoid all hedgerows, curbs
and sheep!) Maybe if I stopped hanging around these NG's I would
have time to actually finish the web page with photos.


--
Jim

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

It's the right wing that generally sets limits on government.

Well, then, the Griswold and Roe decisions were right wing because
they set limits on government.

Not in the least. BIG GOVERNMENT telling little state and local
governments what they must do and must not do is hardly "setting
limits on government,"

Griswold and Roe were telling states what they cannot do. It limited
their Big Brother intrusions into people's lives. Same thing for
Lawrence vs. Texas this year; it limited Big Brother intrusions by
declaring that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

All three of those decisions set limits on state government. Further,
none of those decisions granted any powers to the federal government; in
fact, they did not affect the federal government at all.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:

Which is as arrogant an example of legislating from the bench as you
can
find. Griswold was about the right of a married couple to practice
contraception, which was then against Connecticut state law. (It was a
nonsensical law and practically unenforceable anyway.) The very
left-leaning
Supreme Court then "discovered" something in the Constitution which no
one
who reads plain English can find the a "right to marital privacy."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated
4th Amendment

Which makes no mention of any "right to marital privacy."

Yes it does.

It does not.

Yes it does.

Not.

Does.

Read it from beginning to end and you will find no such thing
as a "right to marital privacy."

Yes I do. The relevant text is quoted above. Or are you really going
to try and pretend that married people don't count as people?

They "count as people" exactly as much as, and no more than, any other
people do.

Thus, married people have a right to privacy.

They do not have any special "right" to privacy in the
Constitution.

Didn't mention any "special" right.

You've been hornswoggled.

You're a kook.

Only my aversion to name-calling keeps me from pointing out that you are an
ignorant nincompoop.

I have no such aversions, kook.

Keep listening to "liberal" Democrats and you'll
never get anything right.

So you're a right-wing facist who wants limitless powers for the
government.

I'm right wing. Fascists were left wing.

Fascist were and are right-wing.

fascism:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)
that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands
for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial
leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible
suppression of opposition

[...]
It's the right wing that generally sets limits on government.

LOL! By that standard the republicans and the religious conservatives
must all be left wing.

--
Ray Fischer

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Nikon User" wrote in message
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

It's the right wing that generally sets limits on government.

Well, then, the Griswold and Roe decisions were right wing because they
set limits on government.

Not in the least. BIG GOVERNMENT telling little state and local governments
what they must do and must not do is hardly "setting limits on government,"

When the federal government prevents the states from violating the
rights of individuals then it is setting limits.

States have no rights. Only people have rights.

--
Ray Fischer

"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

It's the right wing that generally sets limits on government.

Well, then, the Griswold and Roe decisions were right wing because
they set limits on government.

Not in the least. BIG GOVERNMENT telling little state and local
governments what they must do and must not do is hardly "setting
limits on government,"

Griswold and Roe were telling states what they cannot do.

Based on the Supreme Court majority's *feelings* about what's right and
what's wrong, not on anything that can actually be found in the
Constitution.

Nor is it the first time they've done this, by a long shot. This is the one
weakness in our system of checks and balances: there are no checks or
balances at all when you get to the U.S. Supreme Court; at that lofty level
all depends on the honesty and honor of the justices themselves, they cannot
be gainsaid and there is no further appeal.

Obviously this is unavoidable, since all chains of appeals must end
somewhere. But it places absolute power in the hands of those nine
individuals, and when a majority of them are themselves driven by some
political agenda, the result can be disastrous to everything the framers of
the Constitution had in mind. If the Supreme Court says "three" means five
and "up" means down, then that becomes the law of the land.

Neil