B&H and Adorama Closed!

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by carrigman, Oct 22, 2005.

  1. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    Yep, the Bushies would see it as a means of "containing costs"
    and it'd be great for "accountability" -- just think, government
    agents in every household to monitor for "subversive activities". Joe
    McCarthy's already wetting his coffin at the thought.
     
    kashe, Nov 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. carrigman

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Yes it does.
    Yes I do. The relevant text is quoted above. Or are you really going
    to try and pretend that married people don't count as people?
    You're a kook.
    So you're a right-wing facist who wants limitless powers for the
    government.
    What an impresssively stupid statement.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. They "count as people" exactly as much as, and no more than, any other
    people do. They do not have any special "right" to privacy in the
    Constitution.

    Only my aversion to name-calling keeps me from pointing out that you are an
    ignorant nincompoop.

    I'm right wing. Fascists were left wing. Mussolini started as a socialist
    and communist, and though he abandoned communism per se, he never strayed
    from the idea of the state grabbing all power for itself (and himself), just
    as communist leaders have since Stalin established the model. Hitler
    likewise; read Mein Kampf and you'll find it loaded with leftist slogans and
    terminology. Mao, Castro, Pol Pot--all communists, all totalitarians. Not a
    right-winger in the bunch.

    It's the right wing that generally sets limits on government. The left wing
    *always* wants bigger, more intrusive government. Why do you suppose the
    Democrats have such a well-earned reputation for tax-and-spend? What do you
    suppose they want to spend *on*?

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 4, 2005
  4. Not in the least. BIG GOVERNMENT telling little state and local governments
    what they must do and must not do is hardly "setting limits on government,"
    unless you believe that BIG GOVERNMENT is more or less like God and
    intrinsically above all limt-setting. Which, of course, is exactly how
    leftist-"liberals" seem to see it.
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 4, 2005
  5. carrigman

    Jim Guest

    Sometime, one learns the hard way, one doesn't go photo shopping in NYC
    on the high holy days or the Sabbath (Saturday). Once upon a time
    buying a diamond in NYC was extremely difficult on Saturday. Its
    tough when you are on vacation and hit the week. Somewhat like going
    to Paris in August. Its too bad you didn't get to see the place. It
    really is amazing.. not only the variety and quanity of merchandise,
    but the totally automated way they run the purchasing operation.
    Hopefully you will get back some day.

    I hope you otherwise enjoyed your trip to NYC. My wife and I had a
    great time in Ireland in May ( managed to avoid all hedgerows, curbs
    and sheep!) Maybe if I stopped hanging around these NG's I would
    have time to actually finish the web page with photos.
     
    Jim, Nov 4, 2005
  6. carrigman

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Thus, married people have a right to privacy.
    Didn't mention any "special" right.
    I have no such aversions, kook.
    Fascist were and are right-wing.

    fascism:
    a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)
    that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands
    for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial
    leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible
    suppression of opposition

    [...]
    LOL! By that standard the republicans and the religious conservatives
    must all be left wing.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 5, 2005
  7. carrigman

    Ray Fischer Guest

    When the federal government prevents the states from violating the
    rights of individuals then it is setting limits.

    States have no rights. Only people have rights.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 5, 2005
  8. Griswold and Roe were telling states what they cannot do.[/QUOTE]

    Based on the Supreme Court majority's *feelings* about what's right and
    what's wrong, not on anything that can actually be found in the
    Constitution.

    Nor is it the first time they've done this, by a long shot. This is the one
    weakness in our system of checks and balances: there are no checks or
    balances at all when you get to the U.S. Supreme Court; at that lofty level
    all depends on the honesty and honor of the justices themselves, they cannot
    be gainsaid and there is no further appeal.

    Obviously this is unavoidable, since all chains of appeals must end
    somewhere. But it places absolute power in the hands of those nine
    individuals, and when a majority of them are themselves driven by some
    political agenda, the result can be disastrous to everything the framers of
    the Constitution had in mind. If the Supreme Court says "three" means five
    and "up" means down, then that becomes the law of the land.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 5, 2005
  9. There is no constitutional "right to privacy," apart from those specifically
    mentioned in the Bill of Rights ("to be secure in their persons, houses,
    papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," etc.).
    Married or unmarried, you have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy beyond
    what the Constitution says you have. (Duh.)

    As it is increasingly apparent that this obvious truth will ever penetrate
    the thick casing of solid bone surrounding the small growth at the upper end
    of your spinal cord, this conversation is hereby ended.

    Plonk.
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 5, 2005
  10. carrigman

    ASAAR Guest

    That action seems to be the last resort of those with exceedingly
    weak constitutions. Pull that plunger too often and you and your
    similarly inclined brethren will most likely end up with a painful
    RSI to your right wing.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 5, 2005
  11. I never "pull that plunger" as you put it without adequate reason; I regard
    stubborn and repetitive stupidity on the other's part as adequate reason.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 5, 2005
  12. carrigman

    ASAAR Guest

    Fortunately you live with a double standard, otherwise you would
    have plonked yourself long ago. :)
     
    ASAAR, Nov 5, 2005
  13. carrigman

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Right-wing propaganda. There is ample support for the position that
    the constitution does not allow the states to intrude in what a
    private decisions.

    And we notice that you are arguing for MORE government power over
    people.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 5, 2005
  14. carrigman

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Which is a right to privacy.
    In other words, you have no right to privacy beyond your right to privacy.
    Run away, neocon.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 5, 2005
  15. Nope; not based on feelings, but on sound constitutional analysis.

    I notice that you aren't arguing any more against those decisions being
    conservative ones.[/QUOTE]

    I'm against decisions being either conservative or liberal. What we need on
    SCOTUS are more justices like Scalia and Thomas (and the late Rehnquist) who
    will rule according to what the Constitution says, and not effectively make
    laws themselves. Chief Justice Roberts looks very good, as does Alito. One
    or two more like that, and SCOTUS will completely return to sanity.

    You did notice that the majority of SCOTUS then was still in the *liberal*
    camp, didn't you? Three strict constructionists (whom leftists of course
    call "conservative"), one dingbat and five more or less liberal activists.
    And even *they* could understand that you can't keep recounting increasingly
    damaged ballots forever.

    Bush won the election and won every recount. For Gore it was close but no
    cigar. C'est la vie.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 6, 2005
  16. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't read
    the exchange that led up to the plonk. The plonkee in this case is an
    individual who thinks that "Is not!" or "Is too!" repeated over and over
    constitutes a logical argument; who thinks that name-calling is a valid way
    of advancing one's case; and whose grasp of human history, and the various
    conditions of humanity, is such that he thinks the American Indians were
    true environmentalists and conservationists, with a legal system and culture
    2500 years ahead of ours. If there is any point in going around and around
    in the same circle with such a character, or paying any further attention to
    him at all, it escapes me. Hence the plonk.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 6, 2005
  17. Sorry I couldn't put "CONSTITUTIONAL" in 36-point bold for you, but such are
    the limits of ordinary text, and HTML is frowned on in newsgroups.
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 6, 2005
  18. carrigman

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Which they do not do. They rule in favor of an ever more powerful government.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 6, 2005
  19. carrigman

    Ray Fischer Guest

    We should point out that YOU were the one involved in that very
    exchange.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 6, 2005
  20. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    The USA Patriot act calls bullshit on you.

    As do all the intrusive (neocon-generated) laws curtailing
    prvacy. Note the two-order-of-magnitude increase in FBI surveillance
    of private citizens cited in
    Sure as shit not on diminishing your rights to privacy.

    Oops, you can't see me since you plonked me, huh?
     
    kashe, Nov 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.