http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Cheaper Kindle - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/83369cb7977feb61?hl=en
* Now Available--Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/a1ec18db1299613c?hl=en
* Palin trailing Brown - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/37d3e6487f37c105?hl=en
* Home-business has become need of time nowadays - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/a386f9367cceb014?hl=en
* Men At Arms by Terry Pratchett - A Review. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/71eca8f6ea63890d?hl=en
* Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE) - 13
messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
* SCAM: Mandatory Health Insurance, NO Public Option - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/f793922b9f00bc0f?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheaper Kindle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/83369cb7977feb61?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 3:41 pm
From: Errol
On Oct 13, 10:13 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Errol <Erro...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:972f2ddd-427b-4824-b9f1-9eccf462faa6@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Does Kindle-on-iPhone have any particular advantages over say Stanza
> > as a ebook reader if you don't have a Kindle account? Is it even
> > usable?
>
> I for one intend to buy the next JD Robb on it, since otherwise I'd buy
> the hardcover and I have the iPhone anyway. Some other non-Baen books may
> fall into the same category.
>
> The only problem I've found with the Stanza, two days in, is that it
> strips out a few niceties of formatting like italics and linked
> footnotes. I'd like to see the Kindle as an option, anyway.
Stanza _can_ display italics (e.g in the Jeffrey A. Carver books from
Tor, what I have on the iPhone is an ePub, and I can't remember the
exact steps taken to get it there), it's certainly possible that
format-shifting could remove them. I haven't read anything with
internal links (e.g. footnotes) other than a table of contents, and it
doesn't seem handle external links at all elegantly (i.e. with a bit
of mucking round I can get the url into the clipboard, and paste into
Safari).
--
Errol Cavit | "You should never bet against anything in science at
odds of more than about 10^12 to 1."
Attributed to Ernest Rutherford.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 2:30 am
From: netcat
In article <hb0445$eif$1@solani.org>, kurt@busiek.com says...
> On 2009-10-12 06:20:30 -0700, netcat <netcat@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> said:
> > Theoretically, one could purchase a Kindle and resell it while keeping
> >>> the use of the account, no?
> >>
> >> I would think not, unless the person to whom you sell the Kindle
> >> intends to use it as a decorative paperweight.
> >
> > You just said yourself that Kindle can read a variety of other formats
> > besides azw. It would thus not be a paperweight.
>
> Good luck finding someone to sell it to who doesn't want to use an
> Amazon account as well. There are plenty of other ways to read those
> other files, so ether you're losing a lot of money buying and reselling
> it in order to have the account, or the buyer is overpaying.
Yes, yes. The deal is, I really don't need a Kindle, considering their
backward way of doing things. I need an e-reader capable of handling
plain html, and preferably also PDF documents I already own or create
myself, without having to mail them somewhere or run them through a
string of slightly illegal conversion scripts.
But I very much _would_ like the use of Amazon's store for buying
ebooks.
But there's no way of doing that without actually buying a Kindle.
Damn stupid of them.
rgds,
netcat
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 4:34 pm
From: peachyashiepassion
Jim Gysin wrote:
>
> peachyashiepassion sent the following on 10/10/2009 9:11 PM:
>> netcat wrote:
>>> In article <hal6pa$8te$1@solani.org>, kurt@busiek.com says...
>>>> On 2009-10-08 05:17:52 -0700, netcat <netcat@devnull.eridani.eol.ee>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6821cddd-a198-4b5a-a72e-23e30f032051
>>>>> @l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, willadams@aol.com says...
>>>>>> On Oct 7, 4:09 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>>>>> Do any of these alternatives offer an operating system that is not
>>>>>>> under remote control? i.e., no files can be deleted from the device
>>>>>>> unless the operator of the device deletes them?
>>>>>> That's the nature of DRM. I simply choose not to read any DRM files
>>>>>> and don't worry about such.
>>>>> I woulda thunk it more the nature of always-online devices that phone
>>>>> home.
>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, Amazon just settled a lawsuit and promised not to do that
>>>>>> again.
>>>>> I don't want promises, I want it to be physically impossible for
>>>>> them to
>>>>> paw at the content of my device whenever it suits them. Can the Kindle
>>>>> wireless connection be disabled?
>>>> It can be turned off, if that's what you mean.
>>>>
>>>> It's not required -- you can buy stuff, download it to your computer
>>>> and put it on the Kindle by hooking up your Kindle to your computer;
>>>> the phone link is a convenience rather than a requirement, so you
>>>> could theoretically leave it off at all times.
>>>>
>>>> In normal use, you kep it turned off most of the time anyway,
>>>> because it drains the battery quickly while in use, so the way you
>>>> get that two-week battery time they promote is to leave it off when
>>>> you're not actually buying something.
>>> So it's possible to turn if off in a way that it won't start again
>>> unless _you_ turn it on? Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.
>>>
>>> rgds,
>>> netcat
>>
>>
>> You know, that's why I didn't answer. I'm not at all sure they
>> didn't leave some back door in. If they are sufficiently evil, they
>> may well have.
>
> I was gonna ask you what you're doing on RAM, and then I saw the
> crosspost. At least none of the usual dysfunctional groups was included!
>
> As for the Kindle or any other similar device, I'd almost be surprised
> if they *didn't* build in a "feature" like that for themselves.
>
True enough.
You CAN always make a backup copy of everything on your Kindle, so if
they swipe your stuff, you would still have your backup. So it has that
going for it.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 4:51 pm
From: Kurt Busiek
On 2009-10-13 16:34:34 -0700, peachyashiepassion
<exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> said:
> Jim Gysin wrote:
>>
>> peachyashiepassion sent the following on 10/10/2009 9:11 PM:
>>> netcat wrote:
>>>> In article <hal6pa$8te$1@solani.org>, kurt@busiek.com says...
>>>>> On 2009-10-08 05:17:52 -0700, netcat <netcat@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <6821cddd-a198-4b5a-a72e-23e30f032051
>>>>>> @l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, willadams@aol.com says...
>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 4:09 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do any of these alternatives offer an operating system that is not
>>>>>>>> under remote control? i.e., no files can be deleted from the device
>>>>>>>> unless the operator of the device deletes them?
>>>>>>> That's the nature of DRM. I simply choose not to read any DRM files
>>>>>>> and don't worry about such.
>>>>>> I woulda thunk it more the nature of always-online devices that phone
>>>>>> home.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWIW, Amazon just settled a lawsuit and promised not to do that again.
>>>>>> I don't want promises, I want it to be physically impossible for them to
>>>>>> paw at the content of my device whenever it suits them. Can the Kindle
>>>>>> wireless connection be disabled?
>>>>> It can be turned off, if that's what you mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not required -- you can buy stuff, download it to your computer
>>>>> and put it on the Kindle by hooking up your Kindle to your computer;
>>>>> the phone link is a convenience rather than a requirement, so you could
>>>>> theoretically leave it off at all times.
>>>>>
>>>>> In normal use, you kep it turned off most of the time anyway, because
>>>>> it drains the battery quickly while in use, so the way you get that
>>>>> two-week battery time they promote is to leave it off when you're not
>>>>> actually buying something.
>>>> So it's possible to turn if off in a way that it won't start again
>>>> unless _you_ turn it on? Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.
>>>
>>> You know, that's why I didn't answer. I'm not at all sure they
>>> didn't leave some back door in. If they are sufficiently evil, they
>>> may well have.
>>
>> I was gonna ask you what you're doing on RAM, and then I saw the
>> crosspost. At least none of the usual dysfunctional groups was
>> included!
>>
>> As for the Kindle or any other similar device, I'd almost be surprised
>> if they *didn't* build in a "feature" like that for themselves.
>
> True enough.
>
> You CAN always make a backup copy of everything on your Kindle, so
> if they swipe your stuff, you would still have your backup.
I do that as a matter of course. I've got a 2 GB memory stick that I
use simply for backup copies of e-books. Not because I think Amazon's
out to get me, but in case of untoward mistakes.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 4:52 pm
From: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
peachyashiepassion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hb32pn031dm@news1.newsguy.com:
> Jim Gysin wrote:
>>
>> peachyashiepassion sent the following on 10/10/2009 9:11 PM:
>>> netcat wrote:
>>>> In article <hal6pa$8te$1@solani.org>, kurt@busiek.com says...
>>>>> On 2009-10-08 05:17:52 -0700, netcat
>>>>> <netcat@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <6821cddd-a198-4b5a-a72e-23e30f032051
>>>>>> @l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, willadams@aol.com says...
>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 4:09 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do any of these alternatives offer an operating system
>>>>>>>> that is not under remote control? i.e., no files can be
>>>>>>>> deleted from the device unless the operator of the device
>>>>>>>> deletes them?
>>>>>>> That's the nature of DRM. I simply choose not to read any
>>>>>>> DRM files and don't worry about such.
>>>>>> I woulda thunk it more the nature of always-online devices
>>>>>> that phone home.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWIW, Amazon just settled a lawsuit and promised not to do
>>>>>>> that again.
>>>>>> I don't want promises, I want it to be physically
>>>>>> impossible for them to
>>>>>> paw at the content of my device whenever it suits them. Can
>>>>>> the Kindle wireless connection be disabled?
>>>>> It can be turned off, if that's what you mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not required -- you can buy stuff, download it to your
>>>>> computer and put it on the Kindle by hooking up your Kindle
>>>>> to your computer; the phone link is a convenience rather
>>>>> than a requirement, so you could theoretically leave it off
>>>>> at all times.
>>>>>
>>>>> In normal use, you kep it turned off most of the time
>>>>> anyway, because it drains the battery quickly while in use,
>>>>> so the way you get that two-week battery time they promote
>>>>> is to leave it off when you're not actually buying
>>>>> something.
>>>> So it's possible to turn if off in a way that it won't start
>>>> again unless _you_ turn it on? Thanks. That's all I wanted to
>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> rgds,
>>>> netcat
>>>
>>>
>>> You know, that's why I didn't answer. I'm not at all sure
>>> they
>>> didn't leave some back door in. If they are sufficiently
>>> evil, they may well have.
>>
>> I was gonna ask you what you're doing on RAM, and then I saw
>> the crosspost. At least none of the usual dysfunctional groups
>> was included!
>>
>> As for the Kindle or any other similar device, I'd almost be
>> surprised if they *didn't* build in a "feature" like that for
>> themselves.
>>
>
> True enough.
>
> You CAN always make a backup copy of everything on your
> Kindle, so if
> they swipe your stuff, you would still have your backup. So it
> has that going for it.
>
If they can activate the wireless remotely to delete stuff, it's
trivial to keep you from restoring it.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Now Available--Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/a1ec18db1299613c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 5:30 am
From: Dan Clore
PRESS RELEASE
EVENT:
Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon, by Dan Clore, published by
Hippocampus Press, is now available.
Purchase from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0982429649/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Dan Clore is a freelance writer and scholar whose works are well known
to fans of H.P. Lovecraft (1890-1937), a noted and influential author of
weird fiction. Mr. Clore's publishing credits include critical essays in
Lovecraft Studies, Studies in Weird Fiction, Necrofile; the Review of
Horror Fiction, Weird Times, the anthologies A Century Less a Dream:
Selected Criticism of H.P. Lovecraft, The Freedom of Fantastic Things:
Selected Criticism on Clark Ashton Smith, and Supernatural Fiction of
the World: an Encyclopedia. His fiction has appeared in publications
such as The Urbanite, Deathrealm, Terminal Fright, Epitaph, Black
October Magazine, Cthulhu Sex, Lore, and several others. His work is
anthologized in The Last Continent: New Tales of Zothique and in
Eldritch Horrors: Dark Tales. His collected works appeared as The
Unspeakable and Others in 2001. A new, expanded edition, illustrated by
Allen Koszowski, is scheduled for 2009.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Dan Clore
1805 7th Street
Columbia City, OR 97018-9733
503 397-4430
clore@colcenter.org
Eldritch . . . cacodaemoniacal . . . lucubration . . . Have you ever
wondered about the meaning of these and other esoteric words used by
Lovecraft and his colleagues? In this Cyclopean dictionary, the product
of aeons of erudition and research into the most recondite recesses of
literature, Dan Clore not only defines thousands of words found in the
work of A. Merritt, H. P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Robert E.
Howard, and many others in the weird fantasy tradition, but supplies
their etymologies and, most impressively, provides parallel usages of
the words from centuries of English usage, citing authors ranging from
Cotton Mather to Henry Kuttner, from Edmund Spenser to William S.
Burroughs, from Edgar Allan Poe to Robert Anton Wilson. This is a volume
that scholars of English usage, enthusiasts of fantasy and horror
literature, and readers who love the beauty of the English language will
find richly rewarding . . . either to read from beginning to end or to
dip into as the mood strikes them.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"Tho-ag in Zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas
zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch-hog not; Thyan-Kam
not; Lha-Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not;
Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang
and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho-og Yinsin in
night of Sun-chan and Yong-grub (Parinishpanna),
&c., &c.,"
-- The Book of Dzyan.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 6:21 am
From: "icarpenter@aol.com"
Wonderful, Dan!
I can't wait to get my copy. Wilum already posted a review
Matt
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 11:34 am
From: Al Smith
On 10/13/2009 8:30 AM, Dan Clore wrote:
> PRESS RELEASE
>
> EVENT:
>
> Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon, by Dan Clore, published by
> Hippocampus Press, is now available.
>
> Purchase from Amazon:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0982429649/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
>
>
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
>
> Dan Clore is a freelance writer and scholar whose works are well known
> to fans of H.P. Lovecraft (1890-1937), a noted and influential author of
> weird fiction. Mr. Clore's publishing credits include critical essays in
> Lovecraft Studies, Studies in Weird Fiction, Necrofile; the Review of
> Horror Fiction, Weird Times, the anthologies A Century Less a Dream:
> Selected Criticism of H.P. Lovecraft, The Freedom of Fantastic Things:
> Selected Criticism on Clark Ashton Smith, and Supernatural Fiction of
> the World: an Encyclopedia. His fiction has appeared in publications
> such as The Urbanite, Deathrealm, Terminal Fright, Epitaph, Black
> October Magazine, Cthulhu Sex, Lore, and several others. His work is
> anthologized in The Last Continent: New Tales of Zothique and in
> Eldritch Horrors: Dark Tales. His collected works appeared as The
> Unspeakable and Others in 2001. A new, expanded edition, illustrated by
> Allen Koszowski, is scheduled for 2009.
>
>
> CONTACT INFORMATION:
>
> Dan Clore
> 1805 7th Street
> Columbia City, OR 97018-9733
> 503 397-4430
> clore@colcenter.org
>
>
> Eldritch . . . cacodaemoniacal . . . lucubration . . . Have you ever
> wondered about the meaning of these and other esoteric words used by
> Lovecraft and his colleagues? In this Cyclopean dictionary, the product
> of aeons of erudition and research into the most recondite recesses of
> literature, Dan Clore not only defines thousands of words found in the
> work of A. Merritt, H. P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Robert E.
> Howard, and many others in the weird fantasy tradition, but supplies
> their etymologies and, most impressively, provides parallel usages of
> the words from centuries of English usage, citing authors ranging from
> Cotton Mather to Henry Kuttner, from Edmund Spenser to William S.
> Burroughs, from Edgar Allan Poe to Robert Anton Wilson. This is a volume
> that scholars of English usage, enthusiasts of fantasy and horror
> literature, and readers who love the beauty of the English language will
> find richly rewarding . . . either to read from beginning to end or to
> dip into as the mood strikes them.
>
Way to go, Dan. You finally got this sucker out the door. Should be
a fun book to browse.
-Al-
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palin trailing Brown
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/37d3e6487f37c105?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 5:35 am
From: Stratum101
Well, here's some kind of mixed blessing.
According to the Wikipedia, Sarah Palin and
Lynn Vincent's book _Going Rogue_ "had fallen
to the #3 spot on Amazon's bestseller list
by October 8th, trailing Dan Brown's _The Lost
Symbol_ and Jeff Kinney's Diary of a Wimpy Kid:
Dog Days_."
Somebody at a local Borders store was supposed
to let me have a surreptitious peek at _Wolf Hall_
which is supposed to go on sale in the United
States today. (However, this person was
unable to deliver.) I guess I'll read it. The
Man Booker has been pretty reliable from my
perspective. In the l980s, it was from the
Booker that I first learned of V. S. Naipaul and
Iris Murdoch. Murdoch received it for
_The Sea, the Sea_, but as it turned out,
that was the second thing of hers I'd
read. I went looking for it after reading
a long piece about the Booker Prize
in the L.A. Times and found _Nuns
and Soldiers_ instead, which I still think is
among her very best, second only
after _The Bell_.
What do I know? I don't have a Critic's
License and they won't lend me an advance
copy of _Wolf Hall_, let alone Sarah
Palin's collaboration.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Home-business has become need of time nowadays
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/a386f9367cceb014?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 6:16 am
From: "a.gunde619@gmail.com"
Dear friends,
Home-business has become need of time nowadays. Apart from your stream
profession or business,you can earn passive income through
homebusiness.However,overnight success may not be possible in
homebusiness.You need to be patient in persuing homebusiness. There
are instances of homebusiness like Medical transcription, Survey
taking,Affiliate marketing etc. I have come across certain genuine
homebusiness after doing thorough search. I am listing out them for
your use. If you are sincere and serious in making some extra income
through home-business , I am sure this will be of great value and use
to you. Best of luck.
Pl. visit this website for genuine home-business
http://tinyurl.com/yh89nly
www.financiallegalsearches.blogspot.com
www.supermedicaltranscription.blogspot.com
Regards
Arun
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Men At Arms by Terry Pratchett - A Review.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/71eca8f6ea63890d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 8:06 am
From: Gabriel
In Search of a King
"Cuddy had only been a guard for a few days, but already he had
absorbed one important and basic fact: it is almost impossible for
anyone to be in a street without breaking the law."
The great Discworld city of Ankh-Morpork is ruled with the velvet
covered iron fist of the Patrician, Havelock Vetinari, but once upon a
time it was ruler by a king, strong and wise. Okay, actually he may
have been a bit of a bastard. But he was king! And the day will come
when the citizens of Ankh-Morpork will rise up to restore their
kingdom. All they need is the right man for the job.
Edward d'Eath is an Assassin and the last surviving son of a great
family that has fallen into hard times. After long hours of research,
he thinks he may have uncovered the lost heir to the throne. And when
his attempts to rouse the nobility to action fail, He decides he has
to take matters into his own hands, and so our story begins.
In Guards! Guards!, we found that the Ank-Morpork Night Watch wasn't
what it once was. It's commander, Captain Samuel Vimes, had turned to
the bottle, then the gutter. Sergent Fred Colon and Corporal Nobby
Nobbs were doing their best to stay out of trouble. But the Carrot
Ironfoundersson came along and shook them from their ennui. Now we
find a Watch that is expanding, with three new recruits joining the
ranks as part of the city's new affirmative action policies: Angua von
Überwald, Cuddy the dwarf, and Detritus the Troll. Yes, you remember
Detritus, last time we saw him he was a big shot star in Moving
Pictures. Once that crumbled, the love of his life, Ruby, insisted he
get a real job, and the best he could find was the Watch. The recruits
had better learn the ropes quickly, because somewhere in the city is a
man with a weapon like nothing they've seen before.
It seems that someone has broken into the Assassin's guild and a
weapon that should have been destroyed long ago has now been placed in
the unstable hands of a man filled with grief. As the body count
starts to rise, the Watch finds that modern policing in Ankh-Morpork
is far more dangerous than ever.
The rest of the review is available http://hubpages.com/hub/Men-At-Arms
. I hope you'll stop and look, and once again, any feedback is greatly
appreciated. Thanks
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 1:09 pm
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Stanley Moore wrote:
> "William December Starr" <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:haibgc$hpj$1@panix3.panix.com...
>> In article <14CdnQ69c4jAaVXXnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> "Stanley Moore" <smoore20@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Now that was a truly hateful screed <G>. Texas is like nowhere
>>> else. Yes, it has problems; what place doesn't? Yes, there are a
>>> few blowhards; where can you not find them? Sure there are some
>>> drug dealers as well as very nice hardworking Hispanic
>>> families. But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather live. You
>>> have immense diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and
>>> Texas is well renowned for its friendly people. Take care
>> I noticed this a few days ago...
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/yboo6jb>
>>
>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/texas-judge-rules-gay-mar_n_307532.html>
>>
>> Texas Judge Rules Gay-Marriage Ban Violates U.S. Constitution
>> MATT CURRY | 10/ 1/09 11:43 PM | AP
>>
>> DALLAS -- A Texas judge cleared the way for two Dallas men to
>> get a divorce, ruling Thursday that Texas' ban on same-sex
>> marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal
>> protection under the law.
>>
>> Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he'd appeal the ruling,
>> which he labeled an attempt to strike down the ban approved by
>> voters in 2005.
>>
>> "The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define
>> marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman,"
>> Abbott said in a written statement. "Today's ruling purports to
>> strike down that constitutional definition - despite the fact
>> that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters."
>>
>> [ remainder of article deleted ]
>>
>> ...which gives the impression that Texas is blessed with an Attorney
>> General who believes that a 75% plebiscite by state voters suffices
>> to override the United States Constitution.
>>
>> (Oh, and I see that judges are elected there too -- a malfunction
>> that's hardly unique to Texas, of course -- and this particular
>> Dallas County judge, a Democrat, is up for reelection in 2010.
>> I predict a sedate, civilized campaign.)
>>
>> -- wds
>>
>
> It is not entierly clear that Texas's (and many other state) constitutionals
> bans on gay marriage do violate the US Constitution. On the amendment in
> question I voted against as I would like to get married but I expect it will
> be a good long while until I can here in Texas. Take care
Hi Stanley,
The states where courts have overturned the laws restricting
marriage to heterosexual couples have done so on the basis
of the state constitutional protections - which usually
mirror the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution. One or more may have also invoked
that clause, but what made the cases unappealable to the
U.S. Supreme Court is that they were decided under the state
constitutions.
What the Texas Attorney General seems confused about is the
difference between (a) a court decision allowing same sex
marriages in Texas and (b) the obligation under Section 1 of
Article IV of the U.S. Constitution to give "full faith and
credit . . . to the public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings of every other state." The Texas judge had to
recognize that this couple was married under the laws of
another jurisdiction. Given that, and since they were
domiciled in Texas, he would then have had to apply the law
of the other jurisdiction and allow them to get a divorce.
The judge was exactly correct in his handling of the matter.
A little ancient history - from the 1950s, that is. After
WWII, Americans began to try different ways of getting
divorces without having to prove either adultery or extreme
cruelty, the only grounds available at the time. First,
people went to Mexico and got quickie divorces there based
on residency requirements of mere days. After initial
resistance from a number of states to those divorces on the
basis that there was no real connection with the
jurisdiction, New York recognized the foreign divorces.
Then Nevada went into the divorce business with a 14 days
residency requirement. Business boomed in Reno and other
cities and the other 47 states found that they could not
toss off Nevada divorces the way they did Mexican divorces.
The reason was the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Once it
became apparent that anyone wanting a divorce on the basis
of irrevocable breakdown of the marriage could do so in
Nevada, the dam broke. By the end of the 60s, just about
every state had revised its divorce laws to provide for
"no-fault" divorce.
The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage. At
least as to divorce and probate matters, it is going to
compel every state to recognize marriages made in other
states. I should note that Connecticut, unlike
Massachusetts, does not have a residency requirement for
getting married here. As a result, Greenwich is doing a
booming marriage business with people coming from New York.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 1:15 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
FFaC has never applied to marriage. If it did, the couple in Loving
vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state, rather
than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 2:01 pm
From: wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr)
In article <hb2n50$snr$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> said:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>
> FFaC has never applied to marriage. If it did, the couple in
> Loving vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another
> state, rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme
> Court.
You are mistaken as to the facts of _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1
(1967), <http://tinyurl.com/6evy6>,
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1>.
To quote from the decision itself, written by Chief Justice Warren:
In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro
woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the
District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their
marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established
their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term,
1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury
issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating
Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959,
the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to
one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the
sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the
Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for
25 years.
The Lovings then moved back to the District of Columbia and appealed
their conviction in Virginia's courts, while also seeking to have a
federal court declare the Virginia laws unconstitutional. The
federal court decided to hold off until the state court appeals were
completed. When Virginia's highest court upheld the convictions,
the U.S. Supreme Court, as best as I can tell from the record, chose
to reach down and take the case directly from the lower federal court.
-- wds
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 2:14 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
William December Starr wrote:
> In article <hb2n50$snr$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>
>> FFaC has never applied to marriage. If it did, the couple in
>> Loving vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another
>> state, rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme
>> Court.
>
> You are mistaken as to the facts of _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1
> (1967), <http://tinyurl.com/6evy6>,
> <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1>.
>
> To quote from the decision itself, written by Chief Justice Warren:
>
> In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro
> woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the
> District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their
> marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established
> their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term,
> 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury
> issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating
> Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959,
> the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to
> one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the
> sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the
> Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for
> 25 years.
>
> The Lovings then moved back to the District of Columbia and appealed
> their conviction in Virginia's courts, while also seeking to have a
> federal court declare the Virginia laws unconstitutional. The
> federal court decided to hold off until the state court appeals were
> completed. When Virginia's highest court upheld the convictions,
> the U.S. Supreme Court, as best as I can tell from the record, chose
> to reach down and take the case directly from the lower federal
> court.
OK, I should have said more generally "appeal to the federal courts".
My main point, though, that FFaC doesn't apply to marriages, stands.
The case was decided on due process and equal protection grounds; FFaC
was not an issue.
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 6:19 pm
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>
> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
challenged again.
> If it did, the couple in Loving
> vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state, rather
> than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.
>
Wrong again. Please read _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1,
87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967). The Lovings did
in fact leave Virginia to go to D.C. to get married. The
problem arose when they returned as a married couple to
Virginia and were prosecuted as criminals under the Virginia
miscegenation laws, with the authorities actually using
their marriage certificate as evidence of the crime. It was
only after the Virginia Supreme Court upheld their criminal
convictions that the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 6:26 pm
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <hb2n50$snr$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>
>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage. If it did, the couple in
>>> Loving vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another
>>> state, rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme
>>> Court.
>> You are mistaken as to the facts of _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1
>> (1967), <http://tinyurl.com/6evy6>,
>> <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1>.
>>
>> To quote from the decision itself, written by Chief Justice Warren:
>>
>> In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro
>> woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the
>> District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their
>> marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established
>> their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term,
>> 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury
>> issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating
>> Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959,
>> the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to
>> one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the
>> sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the
>> Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for
>> 25 years.
>>
>> The Lovings then moved back to the District of Columbia and appealed
>> their conviction in Virginia's courts, while also seeking to have a
>> federal court declare the Virginia laws unconstitutional. The
>> federal court decided to hold off until the state court appeals were
>> completed. When Virginia's highest court upheld the convictions,
>> the U.S. Supreme Court, as best as I can tell from the record, chose
>> to reach down and take the case directly from the lower federal
>> court.
>
> OK, I should have said more generally "appeal to the federal courts".
Well, they had no choice but to appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court. The Virginia Supreme Court had upheld their criminal
conviction. They had no further route of appeal except to
the Supremes. By the way, they would not have been allowed
to take the case to the U.S. District Courts, because the
federal laws regarding jurisdiction, dating from 1792, allow
only appeals to the Supremes from the highest court of the
state in which a judgment may be had,.
> My main point, though, that FFaC doesn't apply to marriages, stands.
> The case was decided on due process and equal protection grounds; FFaC
> was not an issue.
>
>
Still wrong. See my post of a few minutes ago. Loving was
not a case of recognition of foreign marriage case.
Virginia, as I said, used their marriage certificate as
evidence that the crime of miscegenation occurred. But
there are plenty other full faith and credit cases involving
divorce. Read the cases I cited.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 6:37 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>
>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>
>
> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
> challenged again.
>
Those are divorces, not marriages.
>
>> If it did, the couple in Loving
>> vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state,
>> rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.
>>
>
> Wrong again. Please read _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1,
> 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967). The Lovings did
> in fact leave Virginia to go to D.C. to get married. The
> problem arose when they returned as a married couple to
> Virginia and were prosecuted as criminals under the Virginia
> miscegenation laws, with the authorities actually using
> their marriage certificate as evidence of the crime. It was
> only after the Virginia Supreme Court upheld their criminal
> convictions that the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme
> Court.
They were married legally in DC but Virginia did not recognize that
marriage as legal. That's a violation of FFaC. When the Supreme
Court overturned Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, the grounds were
Equal Protection and Due Process, not the fact that is violated FFaC.
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 6:39 pm
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <hb2n50$snr$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
>> My main point, though, that FFaC doesn't apply to marriages, stands.
>> The case was decided on due process and equal protection grounds; FFaC
>> was not an issue.
>>
>
> Still wrong. See my post of a few minutes ago. Loving was not a case
> of recognition of foreign marriage case. Virginia, as I said, used their
> marriage certificate as evidence that the crime of miscegenation
> occurred. But there are plenty other full faith and credit cases
> involving divorce. Read the cases I cited.
>
P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
provision.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 6:40 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Still wrong. See my post of a few minutes ago.
And my reply to that.
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 6:42 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
> provision.
I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
would be clearly unconstitutional.
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 6:54 pm
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>>
>> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
>> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
>> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
>> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
>> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
>> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
>> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
>> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
>> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
>> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
>> challenged again.
>>
>
> Those are divorces, not marriages.
And divorces do not come from marriages???? Divorces do not
affect marital status? Do you think the Supreme Court did
not understand that the underlying question was the ability
of any state to affect marital status of a person and have
that recognized in the rest of the states???? Before you
answer so quickly, you should have read the cases I cited.
For instance, Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 at
298-299:
"Divorce decrees are more than just in personam judgments.
They involve the marital status of the parties. Domicil
creates a relationship to the state which is adequate for
numerous exercises of state power. . . . Each state as a
sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the
marital status of persons domiciled within its borders."
And again at 301:
"Certainly if decrees of a state altering the marital status
of its domiciliaries are not valid throughout the Union even
though the requirements of procedural due process are wholly
met, a rule would be fostered which could not help but bring
'considerable disaster to innocent persons' . . . ."
The Supreme Court knew exactly what it was affecting.
Really, read first, then post.
>
>>> If it did, the couple in Loving
>>> vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state,
>>> rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.
>>>
>> Wrong again. Please read _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1,
>> 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967). The Lovings did
>> in fact leave Virginia to go to D.C. to get married. The
>> problem arose when they returned as a married couple to
>> Virginia and were prosecuted as criminals under the Virginia
>> miscegenation laws, with the authorities actually using
>> their marriage certificate as evidence of the crime. It was
>> only after the Virginia Supreme Court upheld their criminal
>> convictions that the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme
>> Court.
>
> They were married legally in DC but Virginia did not recognize that
> marriage as legal. That's a violation of FFaC. When the Supreme
> Court overturned Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, the grounds were
> Equal Protection and Due Process, not the fact that is violated FFaC.
>
>
You have wholly missed the point and that is because you
refuse to actually take a few minutes and read the case.
The Lovings were prosecuted under § 20-58 of the Virginia Code:
"Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and
colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose
of being married, and with the intention of returning, and
be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in
it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as
provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by
the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The
fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be
evidence of their marriage."
So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 7:13 pm
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>> provision.
>
> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>
>
For the third (fourth?) time, _please_ read the Supreme
Court cases I cited which say the opposite of what you say.
You completely do not understand.
As to DOMA, the argument for its legitimacy comes from the
second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which
provides "And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the
manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be
proved, and the effect thereof." Now that says _general_
laws, though, and DOMA is clearly not a general law, but one
of specific application, and it can be argued that it only
gives Congress the power to say - generally - how full faith
and credit is to be given. So, that is a double-edged sword
and many are arguing that Congress exceeded its power under
Art. IV, Sec. 1. There are also due process and equal
protection arguments against DOMA.
It takes a while for cases to get to the Supreme Court. In
the case of DOMA, while it was passed in 1996, it has only
been in the last few years that states have allowed same sex
marriages, so the issue which it addressed in advance is
much more recent. Then cases have to go first to the trial
courts, then the state or federal appeals courts, and then
to the Supremes. As it is, one federal judge has declared
DOMA unconstitutional.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html
There are cases working their way toward the Supreme Court.
One thing you should understand about Supreme Court
jurisdiction. There are cases they have to take (appeals),
and cases that they may choose to take or not take
(certiorari). Decisions from the Circuit Courts of Appeal
upholding federal laws are in the latter category. Often,
the Supremes use that power to decline cases until the
various circuits have had time to make a number of
conflicting decisions. The reason? So that the Supremes
get to better understand the issues before they have to
decide. They do not have that liberty if the circuit court
of appeals declares the federal law unconstitutional.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 7:17 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>>>
>>> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
>>> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
>>> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
>>> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
>>> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
>>> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
>>> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
>>> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
>>> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
>>> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
>>> challenged again.
>>>
>>
>> Those are divorces, not marriages.
>
> And divorces do not come from marriages????
Divorces and marriages are different things. Related but different.
Honestly.
>
> So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
> DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
Of course it took place. There was a license and everything. Maybe
even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.
:Look. Show me a place where a state was forced to recognize a
marriage as legal because of FFaC and we'll talk. Oh, and if you'd
like to explain why FFaC doesn't make DOMA facially unconstitutional,
I'd be interested in that too.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: SCAM: Mandatory Health Insurance, NO Public Option
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/f793922b9f00bc0f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 6:00 pm
From: Just Me
Idiots. Numskulls. Patsies and Pushovers! How antithetical to a
laissez-faire democracy can this get? This is NOT like mandatory auto
insurance, which is restricted to a liability policy. You get deaf,
blind and clueless on the road, it protects the other guy. But when
Congress gets deaf, blind and clueless, where is the liability
insurance I can buy against that?
Every citizen is here imposed upon to empty his wallet to keep all
those greedy, price inflating, fat flying bastards in the medical
industry rich. I do not WANT to make them rich. Why am I being forced
to keep those leaches full, fat and engorged with my life's blood? I
DON'T want to give them my money. Pass the public option and it
becomes my duty as a citizen to participate, just as I pay my taxes.
With no public option this is forcing me to patronize a business I'd
rather piss on than look at; participate in my own financial
destruction to the benefit of those greedy rats. This is not money
going to our own collective health care account, it is going into the
bottomless investment schemes of the insurance companies; it is the
building of another Too Big to Fail corporate hegemony not one whit
different than AIG.
Why am I being forced to do business with anyone? I thought that was
MY choice! And not only that, I am coerced under penalty of fine do
business with precisely the kind of sleaze-bags that I despise more
than any other. Yeah, I'd rather do business with the Mafia or the Tea
Baggers than shell out one cent to the people that are making these
crooks in Congress like Baucus all so rich and sassy as we see.
I don't WANT to do business with those people, so WHY should I? What
the hell kind of government is this anyway that it operates to mug its
own citizens to prop up the profits of a class of bureaucrats that,
given the public option, have no earthly reason to exist?
Some investigative reporter needs to put a tail on Baucus and Snow,
get to the bottom of this and find out what other than graft can be
causing them to turn traitor to the principles of their own parties.
What gives them the chutzpah? What? You KNOW what.
--
JM
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 7:16 pm
From: "dangerousbill@gmail.com"
On Oct 13, 6:00 pm, Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ..Why am I being forced
> to keep those leaches full, fat and engorged with my life's blood?
Because Baucus is bought and paid for by the insurer lobby, and
delivered up a bill that's too flawed to pass, or if it does pass,
will make Scamalot Insurance even wealthier than it is.
There's still time to contact your Congressperson, and if necessary
put in some time campaigning against them next year.
Of course, I did that in 2006 and helped elect a Democrat who promptly
went out and sold her ass to the military, drug and insurance
lobbies.
DB
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Has laoreet percipitur ad. Vide interesset in mei, no his legimus verterem. Et nostrum imperdiet appellantur usu, mnesarchum referrentur id vim.
0 comments:
Post a Comment