top bar
QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

AHS Class of 80

(not accepting new messages)
^               8017-8032 of 8032  8001-8016 >>
8032
Sue MacIntosh
11-17-2002
11:56 PM ET (US)
8031
Sue MacIntosh
11-17-2002
11:55 PM ET (US)
Unless someone else is posting at this very moment, this will be the last post to the original "Class of 80" Quick Topic. I hope you will all join me at our new Quick Topic. If it works as I expect, I will create a branch from this topic, and disallow topics to this current topic. This topic won't be deleted, at least not by me, unless I get a request from Steve Yost, administrator of the entire site. Even if I do have to delete it, rest assured that we have archives! I've been saving all my digest emails, and can also access the site and save it again, if necessary.

At any rate, thanks so much for your participation in our online community. I visit with you, my friends, everyday, and am so thankful to be able to reconnect and get to know all of you better.

See you at the new site...

Love,

Sue
8030
John M. Bauer
11-17-2002
11:35 PM ET (US)
Gaby: Interesting comment. We recently had a conversation with our three year old daughter about where she came from. She knows she was in mommy's tummy before coming home, but then we decided to probe to see what she would say about where she was before mommy's tummy. Her response was that she was in the light waiting for the right time to be with us. We asked her, why she didn't come sooner and she simply just said that she wasn't ready. Now we're not religious and souls aren't part of our vocabulary so her perspective at such a young age was very intersting. Needless to say, we switched brands of soy milk we were giving her...

Laurie: Re: Marathon...well, if in your dreams we can make it together through a 26 mile run...well, you just flatter me <g>.
8029
Gabriela Hebin
11-17-2002
10:42 PM ET (US)
Man, you guys have been BUSY!!! I go away for a few days and look at all that happens!

Went to see my dad for his birthday, y da la casualidad que mis jefes viven a unas cuadras de la reunion de todas las clases del Americano, Reconnecting. Se vieron muchos graduados de la decada de los sesentas, y varios de los ochentaytantos. I hung out with Felicia, and I had a great time reconnecting con las hermanas Valero. What great women! I wish I had spent more time with them in school. Several people flaked (Scott Macias, Collette), possibly due to inclement wether and tornado warnings (Floridians just don't deal with weather much, it blows them away). Felicia, hablame, deje mi librito telefonico en tu carro!

Just one more thing on the abortion issue... I believe that the 3 souls who are now my children, would have ended up being my children whether I had 10 miscarriages and/or abortions or zero; regardless of which sperm fertilized which egg. The soul finds the right place to thrive, the egg & sperm do not in themselves create the soul (remember we gave up on spontaneous generation long ago?).

How's THAT for a pro-choice religious argument?
8028
Laurie
11-17-2002
03:04 PM ET (US)
Hi all. Glad we are finally off the abortion topic. I agree we weren't going anywhere with it. I'm not going to talk about it anymore because I'm worn out by it, and truthfully the whole thing has left me depressed and sad.

Had a close encounter with a famous personality yesterday. I literally bumped into General McCarrick (is that how it's spelled??). He was coming into church and I was going out (through a tiny door) and we did that stupid little dance of "you first, no you first". It was embarassing when I realized who he was! I always manage to embarass myself around famous people. Figures . . .

There's a new topic: What's been your most embarassing experience?

It's raining in DC, which is good since we are still in a drought.

John, send me the photos when you can. If you have any idea what the marathon meant, let me know, 'cause I can't figure it out!!
8027
Tennyson
11-17-2002
10:13 AM ET (US)
Marivi, my point about "how many idiots drive" is that you have to be licensed to drive and how many people drive irradically, unsafe and under the influence. Having that license did not change their behavior. Issuing citations and putting people in jail (accountability) for their actions seems to be a deterrent for some.
8026
Tennyson
11-17-2002
10:07 AM ET (US)
No, Marivi, in my opinion not licensing. After all, how many idiots drive. I think it's more accountability and regulation. If you made the gun owner accountable, I'd be willing to bet people would buy more gun locks and gun lockers to prevent access by children or others. One stat that gun control advocates like to bring up (and I'm surprised Julio hasn't) is that many criminals steal their guns from law-abiding citizens that purchased them legally. So if you prevent people from owning guns, there are no guns for the criminals to steal. Unfortunately, that won't solve the problem because they can get access to weapons from other sources. But if people take on more responsibility for their guns, it will help curtail that problem.

I think Julio and I are closer on this subject than it seems. I am for regulation to an extent that it keeps people safe. But I am not for licensing and definitely not for an all out ban. I have not heard (or do not remember) Julio call for an all out ban. So the only issue seems to be licensing. Which brings me to my last question, what good will licensing do?
8025
Marivi
11-16-2002
01:49 PM ET (US)
T: I think it is interesting that you wrote "idiots shouldn't own guns." How would you keep irresponsible idiots (the kind that don't keep locks on their guns or don't know to keep them out of children's reach) from owning guns? Licensing, maybe?
8024
Marivi
11-16-2002
01:46 PM ET (US)
Julio: There are many Jews who do not support Israel, some for political reasons, others for religious ones. However, they are all very aware of being a religious minority in this country, and are probably very nervous about political parties whose members are more likely to blur the church/state line. (Even more nervous than atheists!)
8023
Tennyson
11-16-2002
12:45 PM ET (US)
Notice I said license, not regulate. I am for some regulation. Or should I say some MORE regulation?
8022
Tennyson
11-16-2002
12:42 PM ET (US)
I've always said I would uphold the law whatever it is. I have been and I will if it changes. But let me ask you this, what good will licensing do? And why license? It is just another government intervention that will not make us much safer. What will it accomplish? Come on Julio, argue with me :)! Give me some ammo (no pun intended)!
8021
Julio Marquez
11-16-2002
12:27 PM ET (US)
Well, T, at least you're no longer saying the 2nd amendment says something it doesn't say. TOO MANY NRA types go on and on about the 2nd amendment without reading it. And they all think they have a Constitutional-given right to hunt. (Think about this: as normal as hunting was back in the 1776-1789 period... the framers didn't even expressly allow it on the Constitution. Keep all this in mind next time you witness an NRA convention, with Charlton Heston holding a rifle and saying he'd rather die before the authorities take away his weapon, as if he we're talking about his daughter or something).

So now we're on a discussion just about upholding the law. I agree we should uphold the law. But then I will hope you will also uphold the law when the law changes so that guns must be registered and gun owners must be licensed, without worrying too much about the 2nd amendment, since we can take care of it through the establishment of well-regulated militias!

I think the only reason why people must be licensed to drive cars is the DANGER they pose to others. In fact, I believe that the only reason ANYTHING should require a license from the government is precisely when that activity may result in physical danger to people. Because that is the only really justified function of government in my book: to provide security to its citizens from physical attack by other citizens or by enemies from abroad. Hence my statement about getting the gov't off our backs is not contradictory with my stance on gun control, because gun control falls under the category of protection. Strong defense, strong police, all these things are made easier by regulating and licensing guns and other weapons.

---
As an aside, I never mean to put words in your mouth. Thanks for correcting me whenever that happens. I've debated these issues for such a long time that sometimes I aim to anticipate arguments, but I shouldn't do that.
8020
Tennyson
11-16-2002
11:04 AM ET (US)
Wow, where to begin?

What is it about people wanting to misquote me? Message 8012: "You want it to say...."! I never said I want the 2nd Amendment to read that way. I interpreted it to mean that we have the right to own firearms to defend ourselves. You corrected me in message 8012, "Wait a minute T, just because something's open to interpretation doesn't mean you can go ahead and interpret it any way you want." OK, I can't interpret it any way I want. So I won't. But the law now states that you can own firearms. And as I have stated, I will abide by the law. But let's go back just a little bit to message 8007, "Couldn't 'the people' be interpreted to mean groups of people, that is, a community? Perhaps they mean we could keep armories in our neighborhoods..." "interpreted"! "perhaps they mean"! I guess that means you can interpret but I cannot? Granted, you formed yours in the form of a question so how 'bout I say, "Couldn't the people be interpreted to mean individuals? Perhaps they mean we could keep arms in our homes to keep our families safe from outside intrusion..." Or do you still say I have no right to interpret even in the form of a question? If so, please retract what you wrote because you certainly do not have any more rights than I do. Speaking of rights. In message 8007 you also wrote, "Where does it say that 'hunting' is a right?" I never said it was a RIGHT, did I? It is clearly a privilege because as you stated later, it is licensed. Even fishing. Again, I don't hunt so I'm not sure why you brought that one up.

Message 8012, "Computers aren't objects DESIGNED to kill people." True. Cars are not either but you need to be licensed to operate one. Why would you suppose? What is a bow and arrow designed to do? Throwing knives? Bayonets? Spears? Blow Darts? Can't think of anything they were designed to do but kill. So we should obviously regulate them as well.

Manufacturers should be liable if someone kills someone else???? What? Come on! People kill people. Whether with a gun, a knife, an arrow, a car! People kill people.

I do agree with you that there should be more safety measures for idiots. Actually, idiots shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon. More safety measures for people who don't think. I have gun locks on all my weapons by the way. And they are locked in a gun locker. Understand me, Julio, I think there should be some regulation, just not licensing. Make it hard on me, make me wait, check me out, just don't infringe. Because as soon as you infringe, you make it less safe for me to protect myself and my family. After all, criminals do not get their weapons legally.

By the way, Julio, guns are regulated. Granted not to the extent that you want, but there are some regulations. Finally, my favorite quote of all: In message 8016, "...which could then free our intellectual capacities to figure out additional ways to get the government off our backs." I'll leave that open for interpretation!
8019
Julio Marquez
11-16-2002
09:52 AM ET (US)
and another one.

http://www.indypressny.org/article.php3?ArticleID=365


Gaby, Stephanie's explanations were Ok, but there needs to be more scrutiny. She said Jews vote against WASP control... yet the Democrats are also full of WASPs. She said the Democrtas "reach out" more... how? Not by supporting Israel as much as the Republicans have been doing! You'd think if there was ONE issue that would move Jewish voters, it's the stance on Israel. Also, Jews are generally wealthier than Hispanics, but THAT doesn't move them either (Republicans have been making huge inroads with Hispanic voters). And finally: do Jews and blacks, as groups, have that much in common? I don't think so! Not with the likes of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan more closely aligned with the Democrats... yet Jews and blacks behave very similarly at the polls!

Dana?
8018
Julio Marquez
11-16-2002
09:39 AM ET (US)
Article on the subject:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.07.26/oped1.html
8017
Julio Marquez
11-16-2002
09:35 AM ET (US)
Actually, Dana, I just re-read my post of yesterday and admit I goofed. I wrote it so quickly 'cause I wanted to go home and had much to cover. So I've edited it, correcting many other things (such as I had said I wanted to say 3 things but said 4, spellings, etc.). The confusion/goof was the ninth month vs 40 weeks. The doctor keeps saying 40 weeks 40 weeks so I got that number in my head. Anyway, when I say I'm pro-choice I mean it, ergo 40 weeks. Anything less than that requires flexibility on the other side, and I'm willing to go all the way down to the first trimester in exchange for settling the issue, but I think there will always be many many people who equate the killing of a conceived ovum as killing a human being or an innocent soul or a defenseless baby so we'll never really settle the matter and we'll all depend on the make-up of the Supreme Court.

Which brings us back to the question of Jewish voters...
^               8017-8032 of 8032  8001-8016 >>