Wow.

The pro-life argument is about Constitutionally-protected life.

Nice try, JSM. It is only your opinion that the fetus is a “Constitutionally-protected life.”

And yet, according to the US Supreme Court, it is not.

Nice try, Bill. It is only your opinion that the Negro is a “Constitutionally-protected person.”

And yet, according to the US Supreme Court, it is not.

If the suporters of the Sunday ban weren’t such hypocrites, they would only go to church on Sunday and then straight home. No eating out at restaurants, stopping by the grocery store, no trips to the mall or Wal Mart. They wouldn’t even be in any store where they could be offended at the sight of some hellbound heathen purchasing a six-pack.

Next thing they’ll do is cancel Christmas! Oh wait.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43438

Those Bastards!

Nice try, JSM. It is only your opinion that the fetus is a “Constitutionally-protected life.”

And yet, according to the US Supreme Court, it is not.

So being able to afford lobbyists is the justification for individuals not having rights?

Apples and oranges.

Thus my entire argument that the pro-life people are flat wrong on abortion.

Thank you very much, JSM, for quite the salient point.

(see how far irrelevant postings can take you?)

So are you a Unitarian like William Taft?

Owners of restaurants, bowling alleys, hotels, stadiums, and convention centers over 3500 capacity have enough money to pay for lobbyists and large campaign donations. So, they get a pass.

You don’t, and so, you don’t.

One more reason to chuckle today.

Thanks for that visual.

(Now back to guarding against Bill Simon picking on unsuspecting black preacherfolk.)

I am not liking this ‘retail’ restriction. Restaurants, bowling alleys, hotels, stadiums, convention centers over 3500 capacity all get a Sunday pass and can sell alcohol. Just because my building only holds 600 should not be a reason to lump me in with night clubs, the true target of sunday blue laws.

Being a 5 minute scooter ride to the Dome makes me motivated to do some lobbying myself.

Right, the government is made up of people who are supposed to represent We the People. However, I don’t elect people to tell me how to run my personal life–I elect them to manage the system that protects my freedom, my property, and my physical life. I set my own personal moral standards by how I live.

While government is a representation of the people, it should have limits so that those given the responsibility of representation don’t weasel their way too far into my personal affairs.

If the people in a community don’t want alcohol sold on Sunday, they won’t go out and buy it on Sunday. No other regulation is needed.

Allow local control without interference by the political class.

Not saying I disagree with that, jsm. But if I live in a community — and again, we’re talking, like, a town here — where the majority of people don’t want Sunday sales allowed, and are willing to vote that way (either directly or by electing officials who agree), then I see nothing wrong with that.

My subdivision’s Homeowners’ Association has restrictions concerning what I can do with my property. If I don’t like those restrictions, then I (a) shouldn’t have moved here if they existed previously, or (b) should work to get the representatives on the HOA replaced to change the rules, or (c) move, maybe just down the street.

Again, Icarus’ eyes aside, “limited government” doesn’t mean “anarchy.” Local communities should have every right to set their local standards as they see fit.

“To be quite honest, community standards will only be held up by the people of a community — not the government.”

To be quite honest, the local community’s government IS the people of that community – or at least is representative of the people of that community. There’s no such thing as “government” as an entity; you can’t touch it, you can’t smell it (knock it off, Icarus), you can’t see it, etc. Civil government is simply an agreed-upon concept, and if a local community can’t set their own community’s standards, and act accordingly either directly or through their elected representatives, then you aren’t engaging in “freedom” or “liberty” — you’re engaging in anarchy.

And I agree with Doug: The state is not a “community” by any stretch of the imagination.