[FirstChair]

talaniman, Ok, trying not to jump to conclusions without facts. As we all should know the media is a powerful source for truth and misinformation. I live in an area where air pollution not an issue, but the ground might be another issue with radon reported in some outlining areas. I'm thousands of feet above sea level and Venus is bright in the sky most nights. It does snow and rain here, nights are cool in the summer and very cold in the winter. I never thought about us having acid rain here... I've got to check this out. Well it reads my air quality is "Good" and Ozone is 100 percent, and pollutants at zero. Thanks for the link... it's in my favorites now.

[tomder55]

Tal ,the proof is in the effect it has had on the industry . If it was so profitable to live under the draconian EPA regs then of course the industry would be doing that instead of shut downs and layoffs. It really is a shame . We are sitting on the Saudia Arabia of coal energy potential ;and the President wants to strangle the industry . Meanwhile unregulated plumes of coal emissions float across the Pacific ocean to the American West coast. You think the Chinese are doing anything to restrict energy production in their country ?

The proof in what I say is the stat I stated ;and of course the fact that in the heart of the coal country ,they'd rather vote for a Federal convict than the President. Obiously he's not looking out for their interests .

In fact ;when given the choice between labor(especially proven sources of energy production) and extreme environmentalism , the President has consistently sided with the extreme environmentalists .

[paraclete]

Okay Tom so that makes BO a greenie and a poof, far as I see they go together like you can have one without the other, but seriously, you want the utopia the greenies are offering you have to let go of something. So let the coal lay in the ground, its not going anywhere and one day China will be looking for it, then the worm will have turned.

It's all coming back to whether you are a climate change believer or not

[tomder55]

Yeah I've heard that argument before . Hold onto your resources and burn the imports of others. I think it's dumb. We kill our trade balance and it impacts our national security.

Oh ,and I reject utopianism as a general rule . Utopia cannot be realized on this earth. Even the best of us live under rules built by imperfect people. That is why I go by a philosophy that thinks it's better to limit and enumerates the power that Caesar has .

[excon]

Oh ,and I reject utopianism as a general rule . That is why I go by a philosophy that thinks it's better to limit and enumerates the power that Caesar has .

Hello again, tom:

With the exception, MAYBE, of abortion.. If we gave Caesar the POWER, it COULD be eliminated... Drugs too.

Utopians unite! All Hail to Caesar!

excon

[tomder55]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Abortion doesn't even guarantee the baby due process.

[excon]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

Abortion doesn't even guarantee the baby due process.

Hello again, tom:

You'll forgive me, but over the years I've noticed that YOU have list of PEOPLE, who YOU don't believe are entitled to "due process", so I don't think we even agree on WHAT "due process" is. Certainly, I believe a woman has dominion over her own body. Isn't that a right YOU have? Why should SHE be treated differently? Where's her "due process"?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Where is the child's "due process?"

[excon]

Where is the child's "due process?"

Hello again, Steve:

They're NOT recognized by the majority, just like the due process rights of Muslims to put their Mosque where THEY wanted, wasn't recognized by the majority. You might have even been a PART of that majority.

excon

[speechlesstx]

My mosque remarks are easy enough to find without rehashing that old story. Since you just swerved past the last one I'll ask your question, Why should THE CHILD be treated differently?

[TUT317]

My mosque remarks are easy enough to find without rehashing that old story. Since you just swerved past the last one I'll ask your question, Why should THE CHILD be treated differently?

Hi Steve,

They don't have any because of the way the 14 Amendment has been interpreted "Roe v Wade", I think it was.

Strange isn't it? The 14 Amendment works against the unborn while the same Amendment works for a non-living entity,viz corporate personhood.

Tut

[excon]

Why should THE CHILD be treated differently?

Hello again, Steve:

Simply put, when the child's rights are in conflict with the mothers, the mother wins.

excon

[tomder55]

To sum up the difference. There is no God given right to build where one wants to . There are too many examples of community standards to document as an example of the restrictions.
But life was universally considered an unalienable right that one does not forfeit without due process(5th and 14th amendment ) .

[excon]

to sum up the difference. there is no God given right to build where one wants to .

Hello tom:

Not looking for a God given right - just a Constitutional one, and there IS one of them.

Plus, I see that you're QUANTIFYING "due process". Looks you you think some peoples due process rights are more important than others. And, that those rights should be protected while others aren't.

excon

[speechlesstx]

There IS a constitutional right to freedom of religion that you're willing to trample but there is no constitutional right to the termination of unborn life.

The only conceivable right that would conflict with the mother's is her right to life. Murder for the sake convenience isn't covered in the constitution.

[TUT317]

The only conceivable right that would conflict with the mother's is her right to life. Murder for the sake convenience isn't covered in the constitution.

Hi again Steve,

It is actually. As I said before, it is an unfortunate interpretation of the 14 Amendment.

Google " Roe v Wade"

[excon]

The only conceivable right that would conflict with the mother's is her right to life. Murder for the sake convenience isn't covered in the constitution.

Hello again, Steve:

You asked me about the law - NOT to justify it. I cannot.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hi again Steve,

It is actually. As I said before, it is an unfortunate interpretation of the 14 Amendment.

Google " Roe v Wade"

Oh I'm familiar with Roe v. Wade, and the mother's right to life trumping that of the child is one I can acknowledge. It's all those other alleged "rights" of the mother's trumping that of the child's I don't see, like the right to party.

[tomder55]

It is actually. As I said before, it is an unfortunate interpretation of the 14 Amendment.

The 14th covers that emanations from penumbras that divined the so called 'right to privacy ' out of whole cloth ;whereas the right to life is enumerated in the Bill of Rights(5th amendment ) AND the 14th (sec 1)

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;3113363 It's all those other alleged "rights" of the mother's trumping that of the child's I don't see, like the right to party.[/QUOTE]

Hi Steve,

The short answer to that is, absence of evidence in not evidence of absence. Justice Scalia seems to like this one.

The long answer is that sometimes the tail wags the dog. The decision handed down in Roe versus Wade is probably a reflection of the social and political conditions of the time. In other words, the political leanings of SCOTUS at the time.

Tut