wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:28:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:21:20 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So is "the pursuit of happiness" (driving make me happy) but that is
a
goal, not a protected right.

As long as that happiness doesn't intrude on others. And, yes, it's a
goal.
A good one. One that makes sense morally and fiscally. Your happiness
in
driving your car, isn't even close to the same thing.

Why not? What if driving my car was a condition of my employment.

Which has little to do with "happiness" as described.

Keeping my job would make me happy but happiness should include
driving because you like to drive..

The point is you lefties are real quick to quibble about my right to
bear arms, parsing a comma in a passage that says "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" but you make up
rights that don't exist.

Give me a break. Suddenly, when you run out of logical argument, you
claim
it's the lefties taking your guns. I guess you forgot about the recent
Supreme Court ruling.

I also know the DC government is defying that ruling.

It's being litigated. Are you claiming that you don't think the courts
will
uphold a Supreme Court ruling?

What is being litigated is the DC government's failure to follow the
Heller ruling. The courts have already made the ruling, the DC
government is ignoring it.

You seem to think Wikipedia is the I-Ching, read this,particularly the
last page. It is what is happening in DC


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence



It just says "Promote the general welfare", it says nothing about
"providing" it..

So, how is ignoring 40 million without healthcare promotion?

They are not ignored. If they are really poor they get medicaid and
the current bills are extending that to 133?% or 150% of the federally
defined poverty level.

And what about the people who are working who aren't offered coverage and
who can't afford it on their own??????

Car or medical insurance ;-)
In real life the poverty level is set high enough where most of the
people you are talking about qualify for medicaid.
Perhaps some people just need to reevaluate their priorities.
One of the points made in the legislation is a way to bring down the
cost is to make everyone buy insurance, whether they think they can
afford it or not.


For that matter, "privacy" is not guaranteed either.
I suppose the founding fathers didn't foresee the internet and the
wire tap.

Sure... sounds like you're in favor of restricting women's rights.
That's
the typical argument. Your right to have a gun is ok, but a woman's
right
to
have control over her own body isn't. Insurance covers Viagra.


You would be wrong, I am pro choice

In that case, what's your problem with regulating the ownership of guns?
Are
you afraid Obama will knock on your door?

This is not about me particularly but the fear is not that Obama will
knock on your door, they are afraid of a BATF sniper shooting their
unarmed wife who was carrying a deadly baby. (Randy Weaver)

Ruby Ridge... Do you think it's at all possible that human beings make
mistakes? Do you seriously believe it's a conspiracy?

This was all over loaning a BATF informant a hacksaw and then showing
him how to use it.
In case you think this was justifiable,. this is what the review board
says
"The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Ruby
Ridge Task Force Report (10 June 1994) stated in section I. Executive
Summary subhead B. Significant Findings that the second shot did not
satisfy constitutional standards for legal use of deadly force. That
review also found the lack of a request to surrender was
"inexcusable", since Harris and the two Weavers were running for cover
without returning fire and were not an imminent threat."

We don't fear government per se, it is government run amok that
troubles us.
The same ones you gripe about when the NSA is sniffing packets from
your Email but nobody died from a government wiretap.




--
Nom=de=Plume