Yes, they are banning foriegn built cars that are built in California,
Indiana and Kentucky:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-115531.htm

And they spit on the USMC!!!!

Unions = communionists

They will all burn in hell!!!!

Amen!

Bob Crantz

Bob Crantz wrote:
Yes, they are banning foriegn built cars that are built in California,
Indiana and Kentucky:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-115531.htm

And they spit on the USMC!!!!

Unions = communionists

They will all burn in hell!!!!


I thought conservatives believed in property rights.

*** *** quote *** ***
"UAW International will no longer allow members of the 1st Battalion
24th Marines to park at Solidarity House if they are driving foreign
cars or displaying pro-President Bush bumper stickers

"While reservists certainly have the right to drive nonunion made
vehicles and display bumper stickers touting the most anti-worker,
anti-union president since the 1920s, that doesn't mean they have the
right to park in a lot owned by the members of the UAW," the union said
in a statement released Friday. "
*** *** end quote *** ***

Personally, I am not a fan of most unions and don't like their taking it
out on military reservists, they own the place. They have every right to
say who can park there. They can ban anybody they chose, including
Marines driving foreign cars with pro-Bush bumper stickers, or
left-handed banjo players with the middle initial 'M'.

DSK

Dave wrote:
One should never confuse what can be done without violating the law with
what is right.


That's a funny thing for a lawyer to say.

But notice that I do not approve of, nor agree with, this particular
exercise of private property rights. Just noting that "conservatives"
attacking it are being rather two-faced.

If you're not willing to stand on your principles when it's
inconveneient or even costly, then you don't have any. And standing on
principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real conservative.

DSK

"DSK" wrote


Personally, I am not a fan of most unions and don't like their
taking it
out on military reservists, they own the place. They have every
right to
say who can park there. They can ban anybody they chose, including
Marines driving foreign cars with pro-Bush bumper stickers, or
left-handed banjo players with the middle initial 'M'.


They can't ban Blacks, or Jews, or Indians, or Canadians, well OK,
they can ban Canadians.

SBV

Scott Vernon wrote:
They can't ban Blacks, or Jews, or Indians, or Canadians, well OK,
they can ban Canadians.


Where they gonna park their snowmobiles now, eh?

Actually, you can ban anybody you want from your own property, certainly
including minorities... but if your private property includes something
attractive to the public, you might have to endure them kicking up a fuss.

....I think bagpipe players would be on more lists than banjo players,
but it might be a close call...


DSK

Oddly, I like the sound of bagpipes. Of course, I haven't had to listen to
them for more than a few minutes at a time.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Scott Vernon wrote:
They can't ban Blacks, or Jews, or Indians, or Canadians, well OK,
they can ban Canadians.


Where they gonna park their snowmobiles now, eh?

Actually, you can ban anybody you want from your own property, certainly
including minorities... but if your private property includes something
attractive to the public, you might have to endure them kicking up a fuss.

...I think bagpipe players would be on more lists than banjo players, but
it might be a close call...


DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Dave wrote:

But notice that I do not approve of, nor agree with, this particular
exercise of private property rights. Just noting that "conservatives"
attacking it are being rather two-faced.

I whole heartedly approve of property rights! Regardless of that, labor
unions are still stupid.


If you're not willing to stand on your principles when it's
inconveneient or even costly, then you don't have any.

What about standing on them when it matters regardless of the cost? Or even
better, simply living them.


And standing on
principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real conservative.

DSK


Doug, there's no place in hell for you!

Amen!

Bob Crantz

One should never confuse what can be done without violating the law with
what is right.


That's a funny thing for a lawyer to say.


Dave wrote:
Not at all. There seems to be an unfortunate trend among many to say that if
anything is morally wrong, there ought to be a law against it. The converse
of that notion is that if there's no law against something it's morally
right. Both are dodges of any responsibility to exercise moral judgment,
consigning one's conscience to the custody of legislators and judges.


Agreed. Attempts to legislate morality (either by omission or comission)
is automatically doomed to failure, for one thing, and my personal
tastes run more towards freedom than straight-jacketing all citizens
according to the cultural whimsy of the current clique in power
(whomever they may be). This is one of the reasons why I regard the U.S.
Constitution as a work of genius.


A lawyer is an expert in what the law allows, and to some extent what the
law allows you to get away with. But a lawyer has no more expertise than his
neighbor in assessing what is morally right. He can raise the question for a
client, and perhaps help the client think it through. But he cannot answer
it for the client.


Sure. But not all lawyers think that way, unfortunately... nor do all
accountants

I'm reminded on a conversation I had recently with one of my partners, who
is an orthodox Jew. He represented another orthodox client whose spouse was
in arrears on child support. One of the remedies available was to have the
delinquent spouse jailed for contempt for failing to pay. He told me that
Jewish law prohibits a Jew from "ratting out" another Jew to be jailed by
the civil authorities, and asked whether he should tell his client that this
option was available. I told him he was ethically obligated under the canons
of ethics to zealously represent the client, and that meant he had to tell
the client the option was available. What else he told her, if anything,
about the moral choice, was beyond the scope of the canons of ethics. To
become the keeper of the client's conscience by withholding the option was
entirely improper.

An interesting dilemma. I assume he also told her that he could not
pursue such action and would need to retain another lawyer.

Your partner basically has to decide which set of rules has the higher
priority... but it seems to me, that by telling the client that she had
the option of putting the ex in jail, he certainly violated the spirit &
intent if not the letter of the Judaic civil authority re/jail prohibition.

I have read a bit about medical ethics situations that were altogether
impossible... also read enough to have a low opinion of most "ethicists."

DSK

And standing on
principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real conservative.


Bob Crantz wrote:
Doug, there's no place in hell for you!


Me auld Irish granny would smile down upon you for saying so.

However when she was standing right in front of me, she disagreed with
your above statement ratehr violently...

DSK

Doug, you think for yourself. That alone is a perceived threat to others.
That's why they wish you hell. Hell, if its full of independently minded
souls, may not be such a bad place.

Amen!

Bob Crantz
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
And standing on
principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real conservative.


Bob Crantz wrote:
Doug, there's no place in hell for you!


Me auld Irish granny would smile down upon you for saying so.

However when she was standing right in front of me, she disagreed with
your above statement ratehr violently...

DSK