ZACK IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Theron]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

>Sorry, my statements on the subject

>are not "uninformed guesses."

>Anyone who can read English

>can understand the Constitution.

>So many people who talk

>about the Constitution have

>never actually read it or

>read The Federalist, a detailed

>commentary on its provisions by

>the Framers. I have.

 

I agree, having read it they are not "uninformed guesses." I cannot agree that anyone who can read English can understand the Constitution, even scholars, who dedicate their entire lives to studying it, have different interpretations of various parts of it. Having read it, Reg, does not mean you can interpret it, or speak of it with any credibility, but somehow I am not surprised to learn that you "think" you can.

 

 

>>>R...Like the Pledge of Allegiance?

>

>>Sorry, never ratified by states or voted on by Congress.

>

>Are you quite sure about that?

 

Why not, just state the facts to clear it all up: By proclamation of President Benjamin Harrison, the pledge was first used on October 12, 1892, during Columbus Day observances in the public schools. The pledge was amended subsequently by the substitution of the words "the flag of the United States of America" for the phrase "my flag." The newly worded pledge was adopted officially on Flag Day, June 14, 1924. By joint resolution of Congress the pledge was further amended in 1954 by the addition of the words "under God."

 

>>>J...Amendments to the Constitution can certainly be understood as mechanisms to update/revise the Constitution.

>>

>>>R...But they require a super-majority of states to consent.

>>

>>agreed. don't get your point.

>

>My point is simple. You

>seem to be suggesting that

>the Framers wanted to encourage

>changes to the Constitution.

>I say that the requirement

>of a super-majority was meant

>to discourage such changes.

 

hmmmm, I cannot agree that the Framers wanted to discourage changes to the Constitution. Because of the weight and importance of the document, I think they wanted to ensure that a great deal of thought and agreement were put into changing it, and thereby imposed a super-majority. Is the glass half empty, or half full? We can almost certainly, Reg., count on you to tell us it is half empty, and so that must be considered as we consider your opinions.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[+ deej]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

<< Is the glass half empty, or half full? We can almost certainly, Reg., count on you to tell us it is half empty, and so that must be considered as we consider your opinions >>

 

You were doing well until this part sweetie.

 

Attack the issue, not the poster.

 

As for the constitutional issue, I'll agree that scholars and the Judiciary are in constant flux on interpretation. In my long-legged career I worked for the US Federal Judiciary and had fascinating discussions with Federal Judges about what I thought were mundane issues. When they explained their points of view as framed by the constitution, I gained a newfound respect for that document and all its hard-won ammendments.

 

The framers did not want to discourage change, they wanted to discourage *frivolous* change. They wanted to encourage *considered* change. They left the idea open to change because they knew society would change.

 

Every time I re-read that document, I'm struck by the power and beauty of the language. It's very carefully constructed.

 

Let's not knock each other out over whether change was intended. It clearly was intended or provisions for change wouldn't have been put in.

 

Most of all, let's not knock each other out. :-)

[bluenix]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

>Having read it,

>Reg, does not mean you

>can interpret it, or speak

>of it with any credibility,

>but somehow I am not

>surprised to learn that you

>"think" you can.

 

>Is the glass

>half empty, or half full?

> We can almost certainly,

>Reg., count on you to

>tell us it is half

>empty...

 

Theron, please re-read the header: "Attack the issues, not the people." Not everyone shares your antipathy to Regulation. Indeed, I thought his arguments were stronger than Jizz's, though I enjoyed reading both authors' posts.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

Dear Reggie:

 

You are quite right about several points in your response above. Sorry I referred to our "uninformed opinions." I should have referred to "my uninformed opinion and to your certainly-very-well-informed-but-less-than-totally-definitive-in-every-courtroom-in-the-land opinion." I'm assuming this qualification is valid else many judges and constitutional lawyers would be unemployed now. I was in a bit of a quandry about this all day but the posts following from Theron and deej set me at ease a bit, though I in no way share their ardor.

 

I will say that I am embarrassed about my lack of knowledge about the workings of our government and their legal underpinnings--embarrassed enough to go the library tomorrow and get a copy of the Federalist Papers and read it, along with the Constitution itself. And actually I thank you for embarrassing me into this.

 

I feel very much at ease now about abandoning discussion of points raised in the previous two posts now.

 

Thanks,

Jizz

 

p.s.: Have not forgotten your points re. Cuba. As Cuba has very much been one of the hot-button topics in foreign affairs I'm preparing a response which I'm deliberating carefully before posting.

p.p.s.: What is dyspepsia?

[Boston Guy]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

Hey, Jizz -

 

Check out this site -- it's pretty good. :-)

 

http://www.usconstitution.net

[Guest jizzdepapi]

but not ducking everything

 

p.p.s.: not to duck your important question, of course anti-choice activists have a right to demonstrate at abortion clinics. choosing to block clinics, trespass and, in the very worst cases, commit acts of violence, of course, makes them liable for arrest.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

thanks BG. we'll have to meet midway between Boston and New Haven and get some hot papis (can you get into this scene?) to crack estos libros con nosotros? entiendes?

 

muchas gracias,

jizz

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: more than anyone EVER wanted to hear from jizz

 

Sweet words, Zach. Thanks. Maybe not ideal, but hopefully better!

 

We all have that power. IMHO, all it takes is getting pissed off at the system enough to do something about it. So the next time you see some injustice on the streets, in the paper, or on the news, (and don't take this personally; it's for everyone) GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GO FIND SOMEONE WHO IS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THE ISSUE. You can effectively do something about it with others.

 

That's how I got my start and sure enough caring people to work with were right under my nose.

 

Best,

Jizz

 

P.S.: IMHO, U.S. citizens helping other U.S. citizens are the best patriots we have.

[Guest Theron]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

Dear Deej and Bluenix,

 

I agree, your points are very well taken. Indeed, I stray from the issue. I was wrong to do that, and apologize to list members, and to Regulation.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Nocturnal]

Welcome back Zack!

[Guest regulation]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Dear Reggie:

>

>You are quite right about several

>points in your response above.

>Sorry I referred to our

>"uninformed opinions." I should have

>referred to "my uninformed opinion

>and to your certainly-very-well-informed-but-less-than-totally-definitive-in-every-courtroom-in-the-land opinion."

>I'm assuming this qualification is

>valid else many judges and

>constitutional lawyers would be unemployed

>now. I was in a

>bit of a quandry about

>this all day but the

>posts following from Theron and

>deej set me at ease

>a bit, though I in

>no way share their ardor.

 

 

Jizz, you don't owe me an apology. And let me try to make clear the difference between understanding the Consitution and interpreting it, which several other posters seem to miss. Anyone who can read can understand that the Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in a "Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts" as Congress shall create. There is no possible interpretation of Article III in which the judicial power is vested entirely in entities other than a Supreme Court. That is not a matter susceptible of interpretation.

 

Article III also provides that the compensation of federal judges may not be diminished during their continuance in office. Some years ago a group of federal judges brought suit under this provision to compel the federal government to adjust their salaries for inflation, failure to do so constituting, in their opinion, the sort of diminishment prohibited by Article III. Since the article says nothing directly about this issue, this IS a matter susceptible of interpretation. Would you like to know the result of the suit?

 

>I will say that I am

>embarrassed about my lack of

>knowledge about the workings of

>our government and their legal

>underpinnings--embarrassed enough to go the

>library tomorrow and get a

>copy of the Federalist Papers

>and read it, along with

>the Constitution itself. And actually

>I thank you for embarrassing

>me into this.

 

My intention was not to embarrass you. I wasn't really referring to you when I mentioned people who talk about the Constitution but don't read it. But if anything I've done has kindled in you an interest in the Constitution and its history, I am glad. The Federalist is a delightful document. Enjoy.

 

>

>I feel very much at ease

>now about abandoning discussion of

>points raised in the previous

>two posts now.

 

Feel free to resume whenever you wish. I'll be around.

 

>p.s.: Have not forgotten your points

>re. Cuba. As Cuba has

>very much been one of

>the hot-button topics in foreign

>affairs I'm preparing a response

>which I'm deliberating carefully before

>posting.

>p.p.s.: What is dyspepsia?

 

It's a rather old-fashioned term for indigestion.

[Guest delhi]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

>Theron, please re-read the header: "Attack

>the issues, not the people."

>Not everyone shares your antipathy

>to Regulation. Indeed, I thought

>his arguments were stronger than

>Jizz's, though I enjoyed reading

>both authors' posts.

 

I agree. Reg's and Jizz's posts are interesting. These insults are not.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>p.p.s.: What is dyspepsia?

 

It's a rather old-fashioned term for indigestion.

 

well, when Gary Wills pretends to be a moderate, I get an upset stomach. Does that make him an old crank? }> And whenever I hear Rush, I want to. oh never mind, I'm going to bed.

[Guest Theron]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

I apologized at 9:10 PM. Your post comes a couple of hours later. I'm, curious, were you just wanting to grind the ax? A person simply cannot win around here, not if they are an escort, anyhow -- the deck is stacked against them. If you review the message center, pleanty of people have said pleanty of things that could be interpreted as attacking the person and not the issue, including Regualtion, and never apologized for it. Let an escort say something, and WHAM people are on it like shit on flies. And while we are on the subject, the insults you refer to were opinions. Opinions I certainly am entitled to hold or express, and based on past behavior of a certain member, not totally unfounded, either. And it is amazing that while we are on in...in a discussion about the Constitution, that we would tell anyone they are not free to express opinions.

 

Frankly, I've decided I'm going to keep expressing my opinions, just like tons of other people in the Message Center have done, since its inception. What is this anyhow, a double standard? It sure feels like it.

 

I'm just so mad at myself right now that I ever apologized for expressing heart felt sentiments. I will certainly NEVER do it again.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

...at least not as long as there is a double standard around here.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Zach DC]

RE: more than anyone EVER wanted to hear from jizz

 

Hey Jizz,

When I spoke of an ideal world, I meant our destination, the arrival date is pending. Evolution is unavoidable and constant. We humans, with our developed brains and opposable thumbs, have the power to guide our destiny. It's our highest attribute, and, therefore, we agree, our responsibility.

 

I was moved by your post and thus responded. After my reply I happened upon a whole thread in another section where you were at odds with HungRedneck and his bareback promotion. I hadn't seen any of it develop, I just caught it yesterday and read through all the heated posts.

 

I almost responded in that thread in defense of HungRedneck, particularly where you called him "evil." But I stopped myself thinking, damn, I just praised Jizz's words and now I am considering challenging him.

 

But, Jizz, I realize you are genuine and sensible, and therefore, apt to appreciate other points of view. I respect your convictions and your vision of a perfect world. But I disagree with your attacking HungRedneck, a man you barely know, and your public summation that he is evil.

 

HungRedeck is one person living his life as he wants. Not in an evil fashion and certainly not evil incarnate. Actually, he appears bright and friendly. I realize he's promoting himself. Who isn't guilty of capitalism?

 

The only thing I found offensive in all of HungRedneck's posts was where he said something about finding a dick covered in latex "disgusting." That was a little alarming, him publicly loathing standard safer sex practices. But even so, I hope those words were spoken by the "roughneck" character he promotes, not him personally.

 

HungRedneck is but one person and not a barricade in our quest for an ideal world. Of course, Jizz, you might argue, HungRedneck is just one person, but he represents and promotes others' ways of thinking. That said, then you must admit that there is a community of people that may not follow your rules or even your quest. Evil people? No. Just people--people who share your planet but not your plans.

 

We all have personal goals. Some of us share a unified dream. We take positive actions in our quest forward. But I can't condone hostility against anyone who appears to be standing in our way. Invite them to join or step around and continue forward.

 

And Jizz, I'm not implying you are genuinely hostile. You seem to be a caring person as well as a caring malcontent. I just wanted to share a bit of my perspective.

[Barry]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

>I apologized at 9:10 PM.

>Your post comes a couple

>of hours later. I'm,

>curious, were you just wanting

>to grind the ax?

 

OK Theron. Sit back, take a deep breath and think. Is it possible that Delhi read the post by Bluenix and hit the reply button without reading your apology/reply? Not everyone on a message board reads all of the posts before responding. Is your interpretation one stemming from a "half empty or half full glass"?

 

>A person simply cannot win

>around here, not if they

>are an escort, anyhow --

>the deck is stacked against

>them.

 

>Let an escort say something,

>and WHAM people are on

>it like shit on flies.

 

Sadly this is an US vs. THEM attitude and if this board ever truely becomes such, I will certainly no longer visit. What makes this board a bit unusual and certainly valuable is the fact it is populated by people on opposite sides of what amounts to a business transaction. I admit that sounds a bit cold but it's true. There will be times when the adversarial nature of all business relationships shows it's face. So what? We learn and move on. It also helps us see both sides of the equation and hopefully increase the frequency of win/win encounters.

 

Of the almost 1K members of this board I think it's reasonable to assume escorts are in the minority. They also do not have the advantage of anonymity so what they say and how they say it may impact their business. So we can agree that posters are not all on equal ground here. But I respectfully submit that some escort posters have not been treated badly here. On the other side of the coin some non-escort posters have. Over the life of this board we have seen every variation including escorts attacking clients and escorts assuming aliases to attack other escorts. We have also experienced some vicious client to client cat fights. Thus is the nature of the internet.

 

Additionally we all come from different backrounds, educations and professions. How we discuss, debate and/or argue will be DIFFERENT. What one person perceives as arrogant or condescending may be the nature of normal everyday speech to another. But by virtue of the internet we interact with people that we would never have the opportunity to in our normal daily lives. Never forget that in these communications we only see the words. We don't hear intonation or see facial expressions and body language. The actual words are the smallest part of day to day communication. Emoticons help but are no replacement for face to face. (for the legal minded, I understand that the WORDS are EVERTHING in contracts and the like)

 

>I'm just so mad at myself

>right now that I ever

>apologized for expressing heart felt

>sentiments. I will certainly

>NEVER do it again.

 

An apology is a very powerful thing that should come from the heart as well as the mind. It is either sincere or hollow. Never get mad at yourself for offering it and never offer it unless you mean it.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: more than anyone EVER wanted to hear from jizz

 

Hi Zach,

 

I'm glad you ran into the other thread. I hope every visitor to the Message Center does. It's important that these discussions take place, especially since the government still does so little to spread the word about safer sex and the numbers of people becoming infected with AIDS are on the rise.

 

Here's the quote to which you refer: "I'd like to state that I don't judge barebacking as an intrinsically evil choice but as a proven lethal one. The choice Dick has made to engage in this activity with multiple partners and to actively promote it IS evil."

 

I tried to be very clear when I wrote that. Sure, we live in a capitalistic society and Dick needs to make money--maybe he needs to make more money now for whatever reason and that's why he's embarking on this new venture. I certainly retain the right to criticize it and suggest that maybe he could have found another way to increase his income without promoting deadly sexual behavior. Other escorts and website owners have certainly found the creative juices to do this. Whether Dick chooses to face the truth or not, if one young person views this deadly cam and decides that it would be okay to try barebacking (even if just once), he could be responsible for that person's acquiring a deadly disease.

 

I do believe in the presence of evil in our society and don't use the word or idea frivolously. I have seen people with evil intent murder people in this country and internationally for profit and to increase or maintain their share of power; I've seen politicains lie to the media and voters who elected them, military lie to regulating branches of government, diplomats lie to representatives of other governments. I've also met desparate campesinos in other countries who were forced by their governements to take up arms against their brothers, to murder civilians, to take part in rape and pillage. Are they evil for doing this; no, they were desparate and did what they had to. Were their leaders evil; it' s hard to say no but here but I think it is the truth. I do think they made evil choices and it is very hard for the rest of us when a powerful or influential person makes an evil choice.

 

I was very careful when Dick slithered/stormed (take your pick) into the thread not to attack him personally. In his outbursts, he made lots of accusations but never once addressed many specific question. He even lied and said that Kiki would have had no problem with his barebacking cam. Most of the posters stuck to the issues and didn't take up his bait. Finally, you make reference to my "rules." I'm not a scientist, not a health careworker. I didn't make barebacking deadly. That's just the way it is and thank the goddess for the people who have spread this message and the number of lives they have saved.

 

Regards,

Jizz

[Guest Zack Evans]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

HOW did IR discussion come into my play with "Zack is Back!!!!"??????????????????

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

IR?

[Guest delhi]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

>If you review the

>message center, pleanty of people

>have said pleanty of things

>that could be interpreted as

>attacking the person and not

>the issue, including Regualtion, and

>never apologized for it.

 

I didn't see any post by Reg or Jizz in this thread that says anything negative about another poster. They were disagreeing but in a friendly way. Your post got into the middle of the conversation and was obviously stuck in for the purpose of taking a poke at someone you don't like. That's the point bluenix made and I agree with it.

 

 

>And it

>is amazing that while we

>are on in...in a discussion

>about the Constitution, that we

>would tell anyone they are

>not free to express opinions.

 

The constitution has nothing to do with expressing opinions on a privately owned internet message board. The owner of a board is free to put any restrictions he wants on the opinions that can be expressed there. The owner of this board wants people to avoid personal attacks on other posters. If you don't want to follow the rule then you are free to find another board.

 

>I'm just so mad at myself

>right now that I ever

>apologized for expressing heart felt

>sentiments. I will certainly

>NEVER do it again.

 

If you are going to bash someone and then apologize and then just repeat the same pattern again your apology doesn't mean anything so why bother.

[+ deej]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Article III also provides that the

>compensation of federal judges may

>not be diminished during their

>continuance in office. Some

>years ago a group of

>federal judges brought suit under

>this provision to compel the

>federal government to adjust their

>salaries for inflation, failure to

>do so constituting, in their

>opinion, the sort of diminishment

>prohibited by Article III.

>Since the article says nothing

>directly about this issue, this

>IS a matter susceptible of

>interpretation. Would you like

>to know the result of

>the suit?

 

I happen to know the outcome, but I also know the background that you left out too. ;-)

 

Congress passed an unpopular pay increase for members of Congress and Federal Judges during a time of recession. I remember it well. The amount of the *increase* they gave themselves was more than my annual salary at the time.

 

Due to voter backlash, Congress rescinded the pay raise. Article III does indeed state that Judges' compensation "may not be diminished" and the Justices argued that rescinding the pay increase for them was "diminishing" and unconstitutional, and they were technically correct.

 

They kept the increase.

 

Granted, you may be referring to a different incident. This one I'm sure of.

 

And, by the way, "while in office" really doesn't apply. Federal Judges are appointed for life. That's why Judicial appointments are so hotly contested.

[Guest regulation]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Granted, you may be referring to

>a different incident. This one

>I'm sure of.

 

Yes, I am referring to a different incident. I would have though that that would be clear from the completely different set of facts that I described in my post.

 

>And, by the way, "while in

>office" really doesn't apply. Federal

>Judges are appointed for life.

>That's why Judicial appointments are

>so hotly contested.

 

I can't imagine what you mean by saying that the phrase I used, "continuance in office," "really doesn't apply," since those are in fact the exact words used in Article III. Go and look for yourself if you wish. If you do, you will find that Article III says nothing about judges being "appointed for life" as you put it.

[+ deej]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>I can't imagine what you mean

>by saying that the phrase

>I used, "continuance in office,"

>"really doesn't apply," since those

>are in fact the exact

>words used in Article III.

> Go and look for

>yourself if you wish.

>If you do, you will

>find that Article III says

>nothing about judges being "appointed

>for life" as you put

>it.

 

I'll provide an exact quote of the WHOLE passage instead of the half-quote you refer to:

 

====================

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,

and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and

establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold

their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for

their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their

Continuance in Office.

====================

 

They serve "during good Behavior". It says it right there. In other words, as long as they keep their noses clean.

 

I don't remember the last Judicial impeachment. Was it Nixon? (The judge, not the President.) In reality, Federal Judges serve for life. When they retire, they become "Senior Judges" (and yes that is an official payroll category within the Federal Judiciary), but they are still Judges and still draw salary as such. It takes an impeachment to get rid of them.

 

They serve for life.

[Guest Theron]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

It is obvious to me, your message, after my apology was only meant to bring the issue back up, and to put me down for it. So what were you attacking?

 

And as far as your telling me I can go find another board, well why don't you go take a long walk off a short pier?

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html