In article ,
Dave wrote:
I suppose I must have given you too much credit in inviting you to explain
the structure of your earlier sentence. Apparently your problem isn't a
grammar problem--it's a basic comprehension problem. The rest of the folks
here are able, I think, to read the part of my sentence beginning "the
guvmin should avoid."

I think you give yourself too much credit. So, what exactly are you
trying to tell us? Should the gov't restrict women's rights or should
they not? At the moment, women pretty much have the right to choose.
Are you advocating removing that right and saying that each state
should determine their rights, rights they already have?



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
I strongly suspect that CBS, the Times and Kerry are gonna end up with egg
all over their faces on this one. So long, Rather.

Well, we strongly suspect that you're an idiot. I'm wondering if Bush
is now going to fire the former mayor of NY. g

When Bush was asked about the missing weapons, he had NO
response. None. He just stood there, open-mouthed.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:46:35 +1000, OzOne said:

I strongly suspect that if there was no substance to the report then
Bush wouldn't be running around like a chook without a head trying to
find someone to blame!

I'm reserving judgment, but no one has, so far as I know, come up with a
believable explanation of how, in a period of a few weeks, 35 or 40
truckloads of explosives were moved to an undisclosed location without
detection at a time when about the only traffic on the roads was U.S.
military vehicles.

Dave is such an even-handed guy that he ALWAYS reserves judgement
about Bush's reported failings, but never reserves judgement about
Kerry's.

Perhaps we should keep an open mind about the ballot fiasco going on
right now in Florida:

Banks execute millions of ATM transactions every day, giving the
customer a printed receipt if requested, and get them all right all
the time. Not a margin of 1%, no recounts, but 100% right all the
time. Why can't we make a voting system that is 100% right all the
time? It would seem to me that the right way to do this would be a
touch screen machine that asks the voter to make choices for the
various offices in a language chosen by the voter (with audio output
if desired), and when all done prints a paper ballot the voter can
personally verify and deposit in the ballot box. The computer total
would be available instantly after the polls close but in the event of
a challenge, these paper ballots could be optically scanned or even
hand counted. I can't believe a system like this is infeasible and it
would certainly help restore faith in the electoral process.

But the problems aren't only technological. There may be deeper forces
at work. Today's New York Times reports that tens of thousands of
absentee ballots in Florida's heavily Democratic Broward County have
mysteriously vanished. The county says it mailed them but the post
office says it never got them.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
I'm saying that that decision and similar ones should not be made for all
States by nine wise men acting as a super-legislature based on nothing more
than what they happen to think is a good idea today. And that each State
should, through the political process, adopt the position which you claim is
supported by an overwhelming majority.

Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is
that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim
of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very
same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose
under federal law.





--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote:
In article ,
katysails wrote:

[huge snip]

No. I want us to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view.

Ah, but what about those minority rights? You seem to have forgotten
about
them quite conveniently.

Since Jon wants people to follow the rule of law and respect the
majority view, Jon supports capital punishment.

I used to, but now I don't. I think it's much more cruel to force
someone to live in a tiny cell for the rest of their life.

Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them
out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I
know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid
rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes
of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere
(and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority
of crime was committed by the same small group of the population.

PDW

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:
I'm saying that that decision and similar ones should not be made for all
States by nine wise men acting as a super-legislature based on nothing more
than what they happen to think is a good idea today. And that each State
should, through the political process, adopt the position which you claim is
supported by an overwhelming majority.

Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is
that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim
of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very
same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose
under federal law.

Not really analogous. Blacks make up what, 10% of the population? Women
make up fractionally over 50%.

As for Dave, you guys can always have a constitutional convention and
amend your constitution. Why not try that if you think your SC is so
badly out of line?

Personally, since I'm never gonna have to carry a baby, I'm buying
right out of it. Let the pregnant woman make the choice, up to a point
in the pregnancy where the foetus can survive unaided. That's where
this whole debate gets real messy.

Jon, answer this: do you support the right of a woman to abort a 32
week foetus? Yes or no.

PDW

In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is
that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim
of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very
same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose
under federal law.

Not really analogous. Blacks make up what, 10% of the population? Women
make up fractionally over 50%.

Quite analogous I'd say, especially since women were denied the right
to vote.

As for Dave, you guys can always have a constitutional convention and
amend your constitution. Why not try that if you think your SC is so
badly out of line?

Davey and BushCo don't have the balls, I mean the votes, to make it
happen. So, they try end runs around the law.

Personally, since I'm never gonna have to carry a baby, I'm buying
right out of it. Let the pregnant woman make the choice, up to a point
in the pregnancy where the foetus can survive unaided. That's where
this whole debate gets real messy.

Can or should? What about the fetus that would only survive a few
minutes, due to some terrible defect?

Jon, answer this: do you support the right of a woman to abort a 32
week foetus? Yes or no.

Sorry, but it's not quite so simple... it depends on the situation,
something the woman, her diety, and the doctor should decide.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 28 Oct 2004 15:17:48 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

When Bush was asked about the missing weapons, he had NO
response. None. He just stood there, open-mouthed.

You, on the other don't seem to suffer from such an infirmity. So perhaps
you can provide that believable explanation of how, in a period of a few
weeks, 35 or 40 truckloads of explosives were moved to an undisclosed
location without detection at a time when about the only traffic on the
roads was U.S. military vehicles. I'm willing to consider the possibility
that the explosives were there when the first troops arrived, and also the
possibility that they were removed before the troops arrived. But I have to
ask which is the more likely scenario. What's the Dem party line on this
specific question? How were those explosives moved?

No idea. The inspectors were told to leave by the Bush
administration. I think there needs to be an investigation,
something Bush was incapable of articulating.

He stood there incapable of saying anything. He's an embarrassment.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 28 Oct 2004 15:30:39 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Dave is such an even-handed guy that he ALWAYS reserves judgement
about Bush's reported failings, but never reserves judgement about
Kerry's.

Kerry has reported failings? g

I was just being even-handed. g

Perhaps we should keep an open mind about the ballot fiasco going on
right now in Florida:

...as he tries to change the subject. What about those 35 or 40 truckloads,
Jon? Did they take them out by camel? How many camels would it take?

No. Bringing up another one. Can't handle change? Must be a
Republican!


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote:
Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them
out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I
know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid
rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes
of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere
(and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority
of crime was committed by the same small group of the population.

The risk is minimal. Do you really expect anyone to let a serial
killer out... ooops... well, let's not use that example. g But,
mostly, life in prison without the possibility of parole, means
exactly that. Also, if for example, DNA evidence turns up that
exonerates someone, you don't have to dig them up.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."