B&H and Adorama Closed!

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 16:37:00 -0500, Neil Harrington wrote:

As it is increasingly apparent that this obvious truth will ever
penetrate
the thick casing of solid bone surrounding the small growth at the
upper end of your spinal cord, this conversation is hereby ended.

Plonk.

That action seems to be the last resort of those with exceedingly
weak constitutions. Pull that plunger too often and you and your
similarly inclined brethren will most likely end up with a painful
RSI to your right wing.

I never "pull that plunger" as you put it without adequate reason; I
regard
stubborn and repetitive stupidity on the other's part as adequate reason.

Fortunately you live with a double standard, otherwise you would
have plonked yourself long ago.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't read
the exchange that led up to the plonk. The plonkee in this case is an
individual who thinks that "Is not!" or "Is too!" repeated over and over
constitutes a logical argument; who thinks that name-calling is a valid way
of advancing one's case; and whose grasp of human history, and the various
conditions of humanity, is such that he thinks the American Indians were
true environmentalists and conservationists, with a legal system and culture
2500 years ahead of ours. If there is any point in going around and around
in the same circle with such a character, or paying any further attention to
him at all, it escapes me. Hence the plonk.

Neil

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

There is no constitutional "right to privacy," apart from those
specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights ("to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures," etc.). Married or unmarried, you have no
CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy beyond what the Constitution says you
have. (Duh.)

So we return to your rejection of the ninth amendment.

Sorry I couldn't put "CONSTITUTIONAL" in 36-point bold for you, but such are
the limits of ordinary text, and HTML is frowned on in newsgroups.

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

I'm against decisions being either conservative or liberal. What we
need on SCOTUS are more justices like Scalia and Thomas (and the late
Rehnquist) who will rule according to what the Constitution says, and
not effectively make laws themselves.

Scalia and Thomas rule according to their own personal and religious
convictions, regardless of what the Constitution says.

Chief Justice Roberts looks very good, as does Alito. One or two more
like that, and SCOTUS will completely return to sanity.

Sanity as defined by the inmates of the asylum.

True, as demonstrated with the majority vote concerning the Florida
vote count in 2000.

You did notice that the majority of SCOTUS then was still in the
*liberal* camp, didn't you?

No, I didn't notice that, because I notice facts, not fantasy.

Three strict constructionists (whom leftists of course call
"conservative"),

Three right-wing ideologues (whom right wingers of course call
"constructionists").

one dingbat

That would be Thomas, but we're still at three.

and five more or less liberal activists.

Thus proving that extreme right wingers can't discern the difference
between moderate/centrist and liberal.

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

There is no constitutional "right to privacy," apart from those
specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights ("to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures," etc.). Married or unmarried, you have no
CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy beyond what the Constitution says
you have. (Duh.)

So we return to your rejection of the ninth amendment.

Sorry I couldn't put "CONSTITUTIONAL" in 36-point bold for you, but
such are the limits of ordinary text, and HTML is frowned on in
newsgroups.

As I said, SO WE RETURN TO YOUR REJECTION OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT. Put
that in 72-point bold, red text.

"Strict constructionist" right wing term for "the constitution means
what I want it to mean--nothing more and nothing less"

Neil Harrington wrote:

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

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.

Nope; not based on feelings, but on sound constitutional analysis.

I notice that you aren't arguing any more against those decisions being
conservative ones.

I'm against decisions being either conservative or liberal. What we need on
SCOTUS are more justices like Scalia and Thomas (and the late Rehnquist) who
will rule according to what the Constitution says,

Which they do not do. They rule in favor of an ever more powerful government.

--
Ray Fischer

Neil Harrington wrote:

"ASAAR" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 16:37:00 -0500, Neil Harrington wrote:

As it is increasingly apparent that this obvious truth will ever
penetrate
the thick casing of solid bone surrounding the small growth at the
upper end of your spinal cord, this conversation is hereby ended.

Plonk.

That action seems to be the last resort of those with exceedingly
weak constitutions. Pull that plunger too often and you and your
similarly inclined brethren will most likely end up with a painful
RSI to your right wing.

I never "pull that plunger" as you put it without adequate reason; I
regard
stubborn and repetitive stupidity on the other's part as adequate reason.

Fortunately you live with a double standard, otherwise you would
have plonked yourself long ago.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't read
the exchange that led up to the plonk. The plonkee in this case is an
individual who thinks that "Is not!" or "Is too!" repeated over and over
constitutes a logical argument;

We should point out that YOU were the one involved in that very
exchange.

--
Ray Fischer

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:45:05 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:



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

The USA Patriot act calls bull**** on you.

As do all the intrusive (neocon-generated) laws curtailing
prvacy. Note the two-order-of-magnitude increase in FBI surveillance
of private citizens cited in
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html


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*?

Sure as **** not on diminishing your rights to privacy.

Oops, you can't see me since you plonked me, huh?



Neil

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:28:07 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


If the Supreme Court says "three" means five
and "up" means down, then that becomes the law of the land.


Well, to the extent that they defined the tomato as a vegeable
instead of a fuit, I guess you're right.


Neil

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 08:32:38 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


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

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.

Nope; not based on feelings, but on sound constitutional analysis.

I notice that you aren't arguing any more against those decisions being
conservative ones.

I'm against decisions being either conservative or liberal. What we need on
SCOTUS are more justices like Scalia and Thomas (and the late Rehnquist) who
will rule according to what the Constitution says, and not effectively make
laws themselves.

Just presidents -- what a relief.

Chief Justice Roberts looks very good, as does Alito. One
or two more like that, and SCOTUS will completely return to sanity.

As defined by Kafka.



Bush won the election and won every recount.

Easy to do when your friends stop the recount before
completion, while it's going your way.

For Gore it was close but no
cigar. C'est la vie.

Neil


For you, it's tough, because you can't see my postings. C'est
la vie.

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:44:06 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


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

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.

There is no constitutional "right to privacy," apart from those specifically
mentioned in the Bill of Rights ("to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," etc.).
Married or unmarried, you have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy beyond
what the Constitution says you have. (Duh.)

You're exactly the kind of power-hungry kook some of the
founders feared when they believed some fool would interpret the Bill
of Rights as an exclusive and exhaustive list of rights granted to the
people.

It is the government which is denied rights not explicitly
granted. All others are reserved to the people. Buy a copy of the
Constitution and read it carefully, not like some of our right-wing SC
justices.

It is rthe rabid neocons who established the laws specifying
that the government be allowed to examine the private records of
citizens, then mandated that the citizen must be excluded from even
the knowledge of such examination, under pain of law, by the entity
forcd to hand over such records.



As it is increasingly apparent that this obvious truth will ever penetrate
the thick casing of solid bone surrounding the small growth at the upper end
of your spinal cord, this conversation is hereby ended.

Plonk.