An On-Air Editorial

[PITbull]

Please Garfield, when you say these things could you give me an example? Blanket statements like that are easy to say but I think you need to cite some specifics to add credence to your statement.

Hmm, how about the right of "choice"??? Out of that entire post, is that all you could come up with???

Typical.

 

[Seatacus]

Hmm, how about the right of "choice"??? Out of that entire post, is that all you could come up with???

Typical.

That was the one that I figured you could come up with an example. Just trying to make it easy on you. I knew he meant "choice", I prefer people to cite what they mean instead of quoting some bumper sticker slogan. "Choice" is still the law and it will stay that way until the will of the people changes. If anything the Supreme Court will make it so that states can make their own laws regarding this issue. "Choice" is not in the Constitution and anything not enumerated in the Constitution is to be left up to the states to make their own laws according to their constituents. Any other pre-1920's examples of how women will be treated or was "choice " the only one?

 

[Garfield1966]

Please Garfield, when you say these things could you give me an example? Blanket statements like that are easy to say but I think you need to cite some specifics to add credence to your statement.

Meant to type 70's not 20's in regard to a womans right ot end a pregnancy at her choosing. Sorry for the typo.

edited

Why is it that we all live in one country yet it is ok for someone in one state to be deprived of the same rights entitled to someone in another state. Not to mention that I sure as heck do not see anything in the constitution that allows the government to dictate what a woman may do with her body. But then again, when the constitution was written, it was done by white male land owners (Non-whites, people who did not own land and women were not considered citizens) who made the rules to suit their own needs and interests.

The idea of a republic does not hold any water any more either. Back in the 1700's, economies were pretty much independent. It was like a bunch of little countries getting together. In today's world where we all pay federal tax and we all get federal aid in terms of school funding, roads and what not … it seems completely unfair that a woman in the deep south should be penalized by a bunch of bible thumping hooligans by not being afforded the same rights allowed in lets say New York or California. IMO, we should all be entitled to the same basic rights regardless of where one chooses to live. BTW, the constitution makes no mention of who may be married so by that standard, any state that allows gay marriage should be allowed to do so and since there is that clause in the constitution (I for got what it is called) that states other states must recognize any laws in other states that gays would be able to get married in MA for example and all 50 states would have to recognize it. I guess that sword cuts both ways. Then again, if the Reps have it their way, that will be another right taken way by the radical fundamentalist religious wackos. BTW, where does the constitution out line the tenants of marriage?

I would not be so sure how the Supreme Court will decide. I think it depends largely on who gets the white house next term as to what will happen. If the reps get the white house, I am almost certain there will be 1 or 2 more vacancies to fill and then the Supreme court will be so right wing that almost anything is possible. In the end, it is the poor and disenfranchised who will be left out in the cold by Congress and the Courts.

Maybe I was right with the 20's, 1820's that is.

 

[PITbull]

That was the one that I figured you could come up with an example. Just trying to make it easy on you. I knew he meant "choice", I prefer people to cite what they mean instead of quoting some bumper sticker slogan. "Choice" is still the law and it will stay that way until the will of the people changes. If anything the Supreme Court will make it so that states can make their own laws regarding this issue. "Choice" is not in the Constitution and anything not enumerated in the Constitution is to be left up to the states to make their own laws according to their constituents. Any other pre-1920's examples of how women will be treated or was "choice " the only one?

Garland is correct. Its the "rights" of women to choose, meaning to carry pregnancy, to marry same sex, etc...

Edit: I mean't Garfield1966 ( )

 

[Seatacus]

Why is it that we all live in one country yet it is ok for someone in one state to be deprived of the same rights entitled to someone in another state. Not to mention that I sure as heck do not see anything in the constitution that allows the government to dictate what a woman may do with her body.

Sounds like you want a do-over on the Constitution.
Look, like I said, the Constitution cannot address everything so that's why they left it up to the states. Not every state is alike. Even today there are many states with different views on things than other states. Look at Utah and Nevada. One has gambling and brothels and the other has a majority of Mormons who see things differently.I don't see anything wrong with each state having their own laws that aren't enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Seatacus]

Garland is correct.

You're talking Judy, right????

The idea of a republic does not hold any water any more either. Back in the 1700's, economies were pretty much independent. It was like a bunch of little countries getting together. In today's world where we all pay federal tax and we all get federal aid in terms of school funding, roads and what not

Sounds like you want just to have one big state. Would it be majority rules?? Do you want the high density population areas to determine what everyone should have for laws? You would have Presidential campaigns where the nominees would just visit the big cities where the votes are and forget about the people in fly-over land.

 

[local 12 proud]

Sounds like you want just to have one big state.

We could call it the 'USSRA'

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

M
I would not be so sure how the Supreme Court will decide. I think it depends largely on who gets the white house next term as to what will happen. If the reps get the white house, I am almost certain there will be 1 or 2 more vacancies to fill and then the Supreme court will be so right wing that almost anything is possible. In the end, it is the poor and disenfranchised who will be left out in the cold by Congress and the Courts.

Maybe I was right with the 20's, 1820's that is.

I fear that the Dems will find some way of blowing the '08 election; And we will end up with more Supremes like Thomas and Alito. It wont be only the poor and disenfranchised who will be left out in the cold by Congress and the Courts.

 

[Don Smith]

They are bringing back prayer to schools, setting back womens right to pre 1920’s. They are giving business cart’ blanch to do what ever it is they want to do. Our civil rights are being whittled away right in front of our eyes and no one seems to give a crap because W has the masses convinced that our rights are not important when compared to the threat of Sadam et’al.

Exactly where, oh EDITED BY MODERATOR...cat are you getting this information?
I have kids in public school and there is no corporate prayer in the classroom.
My wife can still vote and drive a car
I'd feel safer knowing that someone is eavesdropping on suspected terrorists. I've got nothing to hide. Exactly what rights have YOU had violated monseur EDITED BY MODERATOR?

 

[Garfield1966]

You're talking Judy, right????
Sounds like you want just to have one big state. Would it be majority rules?? Do you want the high density population areas to determine what everyone should have for laws? You would have Presidential campaigns where the nominees would just visit the big cities where the votes are and forget about the people in fly-over land.

Last time I checked it was the Federal Supreme court that decided Row v Wade to allow all women in the country to have an abortion. So there are already isses that the Feds have ruled on that superceed State laws. Class I narcotics are another Federally controled issue that I can think of off the top of my head. Both by the way are not address in the Constitution. I did not say nor do I advocate that the Feds control everything. I do think that fundamental rights such as control over ones own body should be decided at the Federal level and not the State level. As far as I am aware, the law is not determined by a vote, but by the merit of the case so I am not sure what you are saying.

We were talking about federal v state rights and now you are bring campaign issues in. How does that relate?

 

[delldude]

Has anyone noticed the wolves turning on the GOP? Its like the twilight zone. They say the current Republicans have screwed everything up. Mostly in a fiscal/big government way, but some complain about foreighn policy too. Let the current Republicans get swept out they say, so they can get a new, more actually conservative bunch in the next election cycle.
I have heard this on Rush, as well as some of the midwest conservative shows, and on FOX. I am talking about hard core conservatives here. Cato institute types. WTF?

then maybe your boys can fix the whole shebang .

USA nuked by camel riding zealots,John Dean invites Osama to the white house for a state dinner. :huh:

dude you just made public proclamation that you subscribe to right wing talk radio and tv

Tax cuts for the rich can be reversed, troops can be moved and relocated, national security can be fixed … all this stuff is temporary. The real concern is and should always be the Supreme Court. The assignments that this pecker has made are for life. These conservative hacks are young and we will be stuck with them for 30 years or more. afraid of no more end runs on the constitution? They are bringing back prayer to schools,JEEZUS CHRIST,YOU'RE KIDDING? setting back womens right to pre 1920’s. babies and cleaning is all they're good for,more jobs for men They are giving business cart’ blanch to do what ever it is they want to do.we let them everyday Our civil rights are being whittled away right in front of our eyes and no one seems to give a crap because W has the masses convinced that our rights are not important when compared to the threat of Sadam et’al.

It amazes me that people are shocked that the economy is in the crapper with a Rep in power.funny these numbers are better than when slick willie was in power Reagan screwed it up fighting the "other" evil empire, Bush I screwed it up fighting is little private war and now Bush II (the sequel) has royally screwed us for 8 years with his vendetta against crap that does not exist. Were it not for the Supreme Court, I would let the Rep’s have the white house next year again and let them wallow is the squalor that they have produced. Unfortunately, some one has to step up to the plate and try to fix the unholy mess these hammer heads have created.

 

[Mr Eagle]

I Was Thinking That This Was AN AIRLINE {{{{US AIRWAYS}}} Forum for The Purpose of Dicussing Airline's. May Be I am Mistaken & Have Signed up for the Wrong Forum.. For Give Me MWW

 

[TWAnr]

I Was Thinking That This Was AN AIRLINE {{{{US AIRWAYS}}} Forum for The Purpose of Dicussing Airline's. May Be I am Mistaken & Have Signed up for the Wrong Forum.. For Give Me MWW

Perhaps you missed the description of this particular forum:

The Water Cooler
Just Conversation - Everything BUT aviation... well, ok... not everything.

 

[Garfield1966]

I Was Thinking That This Was AN AIRLINE {{{{US AIRWAYS}}} Forum for The Purpose of Dicussing Airline's. May Be I am Mistaken & Have Signed up for the Wrong Forum.. For Give Me MWW

Thisis the water cooler .. any thing goes. Cjheck for your airline of choice in the form section and you can see what you are looking for there.
ie AA would be here

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php?showforum=30