Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 22:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
in understanding what words mean.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 22:32:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution.... and make Liberal laws.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.

But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 23:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Slavery as a punishment seems like it may be less cruel than being
locked up (many people locked up will volunteer for outside work to get
out of an 8X8 PRISON CELL) and it's NOT unusual since many people over
many centuries were slaves and ObamaCare is a form of slavery so the
method of slavery could even be legal slavery like picking up trash or
attending a drunk driver mandated class or a halfway house where
behavior is required to live there, or house arrest where you are
required to be there and pay for that privilege. Or boot camp for some.
--
That's Karma
Scout
2017-01-23 02:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Slavery as a punishment seems like it may be less cruel than being
locked up (many people locked up will volunteer for outside work to get
out of an 8X8 PRISON CELL) and it's NOT unusual since many people over
many centuries were slaves and ObamaCare is a form of slavery so the
method of slavery could even be legal slavery like picking up trash or
attending a drunk driver mandated class or a halfway house where
behavior is required to live there, or house arrest where you are
required to be there and pay for that privilege. Or boot camp for some.
Let's just call it was it is, involuntary servitude, and save the confusion
over semantics.

Personally, I think prisoners should be forced to work in a manner that
supports their own incarceration. From growing food, running some services
of the prison, and even doing such work as the prison gets paid for them to
perform. In the end, it shouldn't cost the state anything to house, cloth,
feed, and otherwise serve the needs of the inmates. Their own forced labor
should be covering all those needs and expenses.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement as
punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.

After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such a
sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 03:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
Slavery, of course, is not permitted.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 22:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.

I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced. I have supplied many links to sites at
which people argue about whether or not a particular president achieved
a "mandate." If scooter's narrow dictionary definition were all that
was needed, then there would never be any argument, and every president
could be said to have a mandate, rendering the term useless. The
irrefutable fact that people do argue over it is proof that scooter is
wrong.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition". Dictionaries can and do offer
more nuanced meanings.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion". But dictionaries can be used to
support the very type of "more nuanced" meaning you advocate,
so you irrationally reject a source of support for your position.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
Ask me if I care whether you're right or wrong.
Q: Do I care?
A: No.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
Ask me if I care whether you're right or wrong.
Q: Do I care?
A: No.
Yeah, you do.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
No, several people have corrected you. Proven their position with cites.
Your response as been that of foot stomping and yelling that it aint so.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 03:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
No,
Yes.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/17/13658374/trump-mandate-history-presidential-politics
Scout
2017-01-23 02:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
How? By quoting the applicable definition directly from the dictionary?

I've invited you numerous times to provide a cite to an authoritative
dictionary setting forth the definition you assert is valid.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
How?
By ignoring contemporary American political discourse, to your peril.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
How?
By ignoring contemporary American political discourse, to your peril.
I can't help it if some reporters are illiterates.

Doesn't make their usage correct, proper or accepted.

Scout
2017-01-23 02:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
When Rudy is just making it up as he goes along, any sort of facts are of no
help to him.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
When Rudy is just making it up as he goes along,
Never. I never do that.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 22:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when the person on the other side of the discussion
is an acolyte of the Humpty-Dumpty school of etymology.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when
a plodder like scooter doesn't like his "boy" being delegitimized.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when
a plodder like scooter doesn't like his "boy" being delegitimized.
Nothing you say can or could 'delegitimize' him.

Rather my issues with you have to do with your lack of honesty, proof and
facts.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when
a plodder like scooter doesn't like his "boy" being delegitimized.
Nothing you say can or could 'delegitimize' him.
Nonsense.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when
a plodder like scooter doesn't like his "boy" being delegitimized.
Nothing you say can or could 'delegitimize' him.
Nonsense.
What you say is nonsense.

Happy to see you can finally admit it.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Like when you're talking to an illiterate person such as yourself?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Like when you're talking to an illiterate person such as
you? Yes.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 22:38:09 UTC
Permalink
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Scout
2017-01-23 01:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the time
to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make chattel
slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?

Just because SCOTUS says it, doesn't make it so.

The question you should always ask yourself is "What does the Constitution
have to say about it?"

After all, it's not that hard to read and understand the Constitution.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Cite.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?

Really Rudy, you shouldn't ask of others that which you refuse to do
yourself.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 22:42:12 UTC
Permalink
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
No, scooter. The thirteenth amendment does not permit chattel slavery.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 22:48:55 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned... a right
is a constitutional suggestion for the courts to decide the amount of
that suggestion you will be allowed as you privilege that you receive
from the government?

[""""""Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its
extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful
*liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within* *limits*
*drawn* *around us by the equal rights of others* ....."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819."""""""]
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Did it hurt when your mother dropped you on your head when you
were an infant?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Did it hurt when your mother dropped you on your head when you
were an infant?
It is a complete waste of time, *every* time, to attempt to engage with
that fool.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life".
There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Did it hurt when your mother dropped you on your head when you
were an infant?
It is a complete waste of time, *every* time, to attempt to engage with
that fool.
So what? 99% of everything EVERYONE posts here, including you and me
too, is a waste of time. That's never stopped anyone before.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-23 00:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life".
There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Did it hurt when your mother dropped you on your head when you
were an infant?
It is a complete waste of time, *every* time, to attempt to engage with
that fool.
So what? 99% of everything EVERYONE posts here, including you and me
too, is a waste of time. That's never stopped anyone before.
Well, I actually learn something from what I post.... And something
from what others post so I consider it worthwhile.

Did I save the world, maybe I had an idea that will eventually touch the
right person and they'll do the leg work to save the world.
--
That's Karma
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 22:52:31 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play. None of them
challenge the basic principal that you are entitled to protect yourself
with deadly force against an opponent who accosts you with deadly force.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
Post by Just Wondering
None of them
challenge the basic principal that you are entitled to protect yourself
with deadly force against an opponent who accosts you with deadly force.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
None of them
challenge the basic principal that you are entitled to protect yourself
with deadly force against an opponent who accosts you with deadly force.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement from
arguing with such a 100% clueless fuckwit. He is wrong about
*everything*, every time. I get amusement from arguing with people who
seem to have some intelligence but are wrong. I like showing them to be
wrong. The fuckwit in question here never says anything worth
addressing in any way.
Just Wondering
2017-01-23 00:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement from
arguing with such a 100% clueless ***.
And I don't understand why you would post three-fourths of the bullshit
you post either. Perhaps that makes us even on that score.
Post by Rudy Canoza
I get amusement
Then we at least agree our own amusement is a reason why we're here.
Post by Rudy Canoza
from arguing with people who
seem to have some intelligence but are wrong.
I like showing them to be wrong.
Unless you persuade them that they ARE wrong, you haven't shown
them anything. And you never seem quite able to do that.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 01:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement from
arguing with such a 100% clueless ***.
And I don't understand why you would post three-fourths of the bullshit
you post either.
I never post bullshit. Perhaps some of what I post isn't on topics that
interest you.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
I get amusement
Then we at least agree our own amusement is a reason why we're here.
It's not the only reason I'm here.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
from arguing with people who
seem to have some intelligence but are wrong.
I like showing them to be wrong.
Unless you persuade them that they ARE wrong, you haven't shown
them anything.
I've shown them.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement from
arguing with such a 100% clueless ***.
And I don't understand why you would post three-fourths of the bullshit
you post either.
I never post bullshit.
What a load of utter bullshit.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 03:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at
you
with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in,
you
can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a
rifle
from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement from
arguing with such a 100% clueless ***.
And I don't understand why you would post three-fourths of the bullshit
you post either.
I never post bullshit.
What a load of
No.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:24:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:54:20 -0500, "Scout"
Yet Attila would assert that all our rights are all addressed within the
law. When challenged Attila is unable to produce the statutes that define
some of the most basic rights, such as the right to life.
No, I am waiting for a reference that actually proves such a right
exists.
Well, until you get it, seems that your position is that people have no
rights at all.
Your usual erroneous interpretation of what was said.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:54:20 -0500, "Scout"
Yet Attila would assert that all our rights are all addressed within the
law. When challenged Attila is unable to produce the statutes that define
some of the most basic rights, such as the right to life.
No, I am waiting for a reference that actually proves such a right
exists.
Well, until you get it, seems that your position is that people have no
rights at all.
Your usual erroneous interpretation of what was said.
You're the one who said they are waiting for someone to provide you with the
references that prove rights exist within the law.

I can only go by what you say.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:25:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-23 01:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.
As is your opinions. So why don't you stick with what you can prove?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.
As is your opinions. So why don't you stick with what you can prove?
Heed your own advice, boy.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.
As is your opinions. So why don't you stick with what you can prove?
Heed your own advice, boy.
I usually do.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:26:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:51:27 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:31:19 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Which is my right regardless of the content of a statute.
Which is my right even if a statute says otherwise - the
statute would be unconstitutional.
You would still join a number of others in jail who felt the same way.
Being free isn't safe, but it's a damn sight better that the sort of
existence you would advocate.
It's no different from what we have today.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:51:27 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:31:19 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Which is my right regardless of the content of a statute.
Which is my right even if a statute says otherwise - the
statute would be unconstitutional.
You would still join a number of others in jail who felt the same way.
Being free isn't safe, but it's a damn sight better that the sort of
existence you would advocate.
It's no different from what we have today.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.
Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.
At which point, according to you, it would be your RIGHT to get such an
income.

After all, anything the government says, is what you accept, right?
Attila
2017-01-22 23:28:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:00:26 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:49:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very
good reason.
So anyone else can kill you with impunity?
According to Attila the right has to be rigidly defined within the law or
such a right doesn't exist.
Shall we look at a few definitions?
No, I would rather see you produce the statutes you claim exist that fully
define and delineate these rights as you assert exist within the law.
I would rather you stop clipping my comments in order to respond to
one part of them but I doubt either of us will achieve our desires.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:00:26 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:49:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very
good reason.
So anyone else can kill you with impunity?
According to Attila the right has to be rigidly defined within the law or
such a right doesn't exist.
Shall we look at a few definitions?
No, I would rather see you produce the statutes you claim exist that fully
define and delineate these rights as you assert exist within the law.
I would rather you stop clipping my comments
You don't get to dictate anything.
Scout
2017-01-23 01:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:00:26 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:49:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very
good reason.
So anyone else can kill you with impunity?
According to Attila the right has to be rigidly defined within the law or
such a right doesn't exist.
Shall we look at a few definitions?
No, I would rather see you produce the statutes you claim exist that fully
define and delineate these rights as you assert exist within the law.
I would rather you stop clipping my comments in order to respond to
one part of them but I doubt either of us will achieve our desires.
Why bother, when the validity of the rest of what you say hinges on your
ability to support your opening assertion?
Attila
2017-01-22 23:31:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:03:45 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:47:01 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases, I
would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has
been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Courts can conclude and have it mean something. For everyone else it
is just an opinion.
So, you're too stupid to be able to read it for yourself and determine it's
meaning?
I am saying my opinion of it's meaning is irrelevant since only the
opinion of a court matters.

BTW, your opinion is equally meaningless but we all knew that.
I suppose that makes sense, given that you don't even know what your rights
are unless someone else tells you what they are.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-23 01:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:03:45 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:47:01 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases, I
would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has
been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Courts can conclude and have it mean something. For everyone else it
is just an opinion.
So, you're too stupid to be able to read it for yourself and determine it's
meaning?
I am saying my opinion of it's meaning is irrelevant since only the
opinion of a court matters.
Oh, so now we're not governed by the Constitution, but rather 9 men in
robes?

Meanwhile, I acknowledge you need to be told what to think, apparently
because you're unable to do so for yourself.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:36:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.

Look at all of those illegal "sanctuary cities" and the immigration
laws that are ignored.
Certainly all the petitions, writs, etc by the Colonists weren't making an
impression....but one good olde armed revolt, and they could no longer
deny
it. Heck they were no longer in a position to do much about it.
A successful armed uprising is always a final option.
Agreed, but it is always an option.
Thanks for your admission that people can, have and do defend their rights
even when the law neither defines such a right or enforces such a right.
An armed uprising can occur for any reason, and defending rights is
usually at the bottom of the list.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen to the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 23:37:33 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned... a right
is a constitutional suggestion for the courts to decide the amount of
that suggestion you will be allowed as you privilege that you receive
from the government?

[""""""Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its
extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful
*liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within* *limits*
*drawn* *around us by the equal rights of others* ....."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819."""""""]

I don't have the right to shoot you, and you don't have the right to
disarm me.

If I shoot you it violates your rights, if you in any way try to disarm
me it violates my rights. You violate my rights you go to jail, I
violate your rights and I go to jail.

Shouldn't some of the gun confiscators be going to jail? I can't pass a
law to allow me to shoot you, neither can you pass any laws to take my
gun so I can't use it if I need it.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Tell your mother you forgive her for the damage she caused
by dropping you on the head as an infant.
Mary W. Moffat
2017-01-22 23:52:31 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
*unlimted*, you fucking illiterate cunt-hair.

"murderred", "murderrer"
"abandonned"
"prisonner"
"bigotted"
"wonderred", "wonderring"
"happenned"
"mentionned"
"threatenning"
"biasses"
"edittor", "edittorial"
"marketting"
"civillian"
"Neighbourring"
"conquerred"
"deliverred"
"cowerring"
"sufferring"
"limitted"
"registerring"
"pardonned"
"developping"
"modelled"
"anchorred"
"uppitty"
"coverred"
"considerred"
"riotting"
"warmongerring"
"discoverred"
"botherred"
"biassed"
"conquerred"
"triggerred"

And now

"unlimitted"

Why do you work so hard at being a stupid shitbag?
Scout
2017-01-23 01:52:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
Tell that to the States that called for a Constitutional Convention.
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was
unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete constitutiona
convention.
Depends on who you ask. Some expected it to be.

The end result is anytime you have a Constitutional Convention, anything or
everything can be changed, altered, modified, or simply thrown out.

It's then up to the states to decide if they will ratify the result.

The states ratified it.

End of story.
They had no mandate (yes!) to replace the Articles.
Agreed, yet the states didn't need to ratify it if they found it utterly
objectionable, or felt the delegates exceeded their authority.
Yet the states did ratify it, and thus the Articles of Confederation
were replaced by the US Constitution and the nation changed how it's
central government was formed and functioned.
The states didn't ratify it in accord with the specification for
amendments in the Articles.
Actually they did, since eventually every state ratified it.

However, since it wasn't an Amendment for the Articles, but rather a
replacement, they didn't need to follow the specification set for Amendments
in the Articles.

See that's why a Constitutional Convention is such a double edged sword,
they can make changes you wanted, or they can do something else entirely.
It wasn't unanimously ratified when it was declared adopted. That's
unconstitutional.
Not according to the Constitution.

Article VII

The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for
the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the
same.

You will note the Constitution only applied if at least 9 states ratified
it, and then ONLY to the states that ratified it.

Hardly improper.

9 states ratified it, those 9 states adopted it, and eventually every other
state ratified and adopted it.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
Tell that to the States that called for a Constitutional Convention.
The mandate - yes! - was not to write an entirely new constitution.
Post by Scout
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was
unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete
constitutional convention.
Depends on who you ask.
No, it doesn't.

You're lying out your ass now - making it up as you go along.
Scout
2017-01-23 01:58:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has
been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without
a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
That is prohibited by the Constitution.
And WHERE exactly is it prohibited?
Thirteenth amendment.
"Article XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
Involuntary servitude.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:56:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has
been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life
without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
That is prohibited by the Constitution.
And WHERE exactly is it prohibited?
Thirteenth amendment.
"Article XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
Involuntary servitude.
As I said ;-)
Scout
2017-01-23 03:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has
been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life
without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
That is prohibited by the Constitution.
And WHERE exactly is it prohibited?
Thirteenth amendment.
"Article XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
Involuntary servitude.
As I said ;-)
Nothing relevant to your assertion.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:05:38 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
On the contrary, everyone willing to read exactly what it says all
reach
the same meaning.
As evidence by the discussion in this newsgroup, no. Also consider
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
"This Article is about the hidden complexity of the textual exception
to
the
Thirteenth Amendment. The amendment mandates that there shall be no
slavery “except as a punishment for crime.” "
Thus your own cite supports my assertions about the meaning and
allowances of the 13th Amendment.
The author's particular viewpoint may (or may not) match yours, but
the article presents various plausible viewpoints. That's enough to
demonstrate there is no consensus.
No, as far as the meaning of the 13th, the author presents ONE and ONLY
ONE meaning for the 13th.
The various viewpoints exist on how the 13th is, should, or was applied.
Not what it says.
I think those applications - particularly the prison guard as slave
owner - gover rise to different interpretations of the text.
No, more likely judges being unwilling to accept what it says and apply it
in that manner.

After all, I think it's clear that no person can make another person a
slave, no matter how you try to read the 13th. So clearly any judges that
say otherwise aren't dealing with a different interpretation, but rather a
denial and/or refusal to accept and apply the 13th.

The only case in which one can be enslaved under the 13th is as a court
ordered sentence after being found guilty of a crime.

What is happening to those prisoners is NOTHING the court ordered as part of
their sentence.
As I noted the complexity is an artifact of the courts...NOT the
Amendment.
And as I noted, the courts don't have a consensus that the Amendment is
simple.
So, you're saying the 13th allows for the enslavement of people even though
not as a punishment for crime?

That is what you're saying if you're claiming that what those courts say has
any valid basis on the language of the 13th Amendment.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-23 03:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
{snip}
On the contrary, everyone willing to read exactly what it says all
reach
the same meaning.
As evidence by the discussion in this newsgroup, no. Also consider
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
"This Article is about the hidden complexity of the textual
exception to
the
Thirteenth Amendment. The amendment mandates that there shall be no
slavery “except as a punishment for crime.” "
Thus your own cite supports my assertions about the meaning and
allowances of the 13th Amendment.
The author's particular viewpoint may (or may not) match yours, but
the article presents various plausible viewpoints. That's enough to
demonstrate there is no consensus.
No, as far as the meaning of the 13th, the author presents ONE and ONLY
ONE meaning for the 13th.
The various viewpoints exist on how the 13th is, should, or was applied.
Not what it says.
I think those applications - particularly the prison guard as slave
owner - gover rise to different interpretations of the text.
No, more likely judges being unwilling to accept what it says and apply
it in that manner.
After all, I think it's clear that no person can make another person a
slave, no matter how you try to read the 13th. So clearly any judges
that say otherwise aren't dealing with a different interpretation, but
rather a denial and/or refusal to accept and apply the 13th.
The only case in which one can be enslaved under the 13th is as a court
ordered sentence after being found guilty of a crime.
What is happening to those prisoners is NOTHING the court ordered as
part of their sentence.
As I noted the complexity is an artifact of the courts...NOT the
Amendment.
And as I noted, the courts don't have a consensus that the Amendment
is simple.
So, you're saying the 13th allows for the enslavement of people even
though not as a punishment for crime?
Of course not. The question being debated is whether the 13th permits
the government to have chattel slavery - distinguished from involuntary
servitude - as a punishment for a crime. That issue is not settled.
Post by Scout
That is what you're saying if you're claiming that what those courts say
has any valid basis on the language of the 13th Amendment.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Which exist in dictionaries.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Which exist in dictionaries.
No, the one used in American political discourse doesn't seem to exist
in dictionaries.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Which exist in dictionaries.
No, the one used in American political discourse doesn't seem to exist in
dictionaries.
So just because they use a word in a manner inconsistent with it's meaning
does NOT mean that everyone has to accept their misuse of the word or their
made up definition.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:13:17 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
Wrong. In our system, anything not defined to be illegal
is presumed to be legal.
This is the original meaning of "the exception that proves the
rule".
That's not the original meaning of the saying, and
it's a stupid saying anyway. It's a simple fact that
exceptions to rules do not prove those rules. In fact,
it's more likely that an exception will disprove a rule.
That's wrong. *An* exception by itself doesn't necessarily disprove a
rule. A whole spate of them might.
Anyway, you're right about the obnoxious little sophomore being wrong
about the original meaning of the figure of speech.
What was its original meaning (with citations, please)?
LOL!
Expecting you to know what you're talking about
I always do, else I don't post.
Lying again, I see.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 03:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
{snip}
Wrong. In our system, anything not defined to be illegal
is presumed to be legal.
This is the original meaning of "the exception that proves the
rule".
That's not the original meaning of the saying, and
it's a stupid saying anyway. It's a simple fact that
exceptions to rules do not prove those rules. In fact,
it's more likely that an exception will disprove a rule.
That's wrong. *An* exception by itself doesn't necessarily disprove a
rule. A whole spate of them might.
Anyway, you're right about the obnoxious little sophomore being wrong
about the original meaning of the figure of speech.
What was its original meaning (with citations, please)?
LOL!
Expecting you to know what you're talking about
I always do, else I don't post.
Lying again
No.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/17/13658374/trump-mandate-history-presidential-politics
Scout
2017-01-23 02:15:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as
part
of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to
aid, or
simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery under
all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop.
Involuntary servitude is not.
Which to believe.... the 13th Amendment, or Rudy?
My correct interpretation of what the thirteenth amendment reads.
A correct interpretation wouldn't have to change what's there.
I didn't change a word of it.
But you did make changes to the punctuation.
No, the punctuation in the amendment is what it is. I said what the
implied punctuation is.
Sorry, there is no implied punctuation.
There is. There also is the unfortunate matter of the conjunction used.
Unfortunate because it makes it harder for you to assert that the
language says something other than it does?
No, because what you need is a positive statement with an "and".
So unless it's slavery AND involuntary servitude only then would the 13th
apply?

So if you were merely subjected only to involuntary servitude, then that
would be Constitutional, no matter under what circumstances?

I suggest you think about what you just asserted before you continue in this
line of 'reasoning'
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 03:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted
criminals as
part
of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to
aid, or
simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery
under all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop.
Involuntary servitude is not.
Which to believe.... the 13th Amendment, or Rudy?
My correct interpretation of what the thirteenth amendment reads.
A correct interpretation wouldn't have to change what's there.
I didn't change a word of it.
But you did make changes to the punctuation.
No, the punctuation in the amendment is what it is. I said what the
implied punctuation is.
Sorry, there is no implied punctuation.
There is. There also is the unfortunate matter of the conjunction used.
Unfortunate because it makes it harder for you to assert that the
language says something other than it does?
No, because what you need is a positive statement with an "and".
So unless it's slavery AND involuntary servitude only
AND is what is needed for the thirteenth amendment to countenance both
with its exception clause.
Loading...