From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:05:02 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

stalker@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Javier LaSalle Williams) writes:

>In article <BD.92Nov7090655@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>>
>>>Of course, thanks to liberals, the Bill of Rights is 
>>>considered to have only 9 amendments already, so Clinton won't have
>>>as big a job to do.
>>
>>I'm a liberal - which one of the amendments is it I'm
>>supposed to not be in support of?
>>
>>Since it's the conservatives who are threatening the right
>>to privacy (with their anti-abortion stance) and the
>>conservatives who are threatening the right to free speech (with
>>their wanting an amendment to prohibit flag-burning) I am
>>confused about why it is you think liberals are attacking
>>the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>I understand why conservatives dasagree with liberals on a number 
>>of issues, but what is it that makes you conservatives lie about us 
>>liberals so much?
>>-- 
>>   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
>>                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
>>             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
>>                              DoD # 0698
>
>Id like you to email me your basis for the 'right to privacy'.  I believe
>the consititution is silent on this.  What the hell does the 'right to 
>privacy' have to do with abortion.  Do I have the right to take you in my
>bedroom, and stab you repeatedly with a screwdriver?  I have the right to
>'privacy in my own room'.  Dont I?  Of course, Im sure you would understand
>fully while I am killing you.  Ok, enough of that, you get the point.  I
>dont believe the 'right to privacy' pertains to abortion.  Sure as long as
>abortion is legal, you may have the right to keep it private unless you are
>under age, but it is not contingent on the actual act of having an abortion.

The "right to privacy" has everything to do with abortion.  The argument
is that a woman has the right to do with her own body what she
wants, unless some higher need of the state takes precedence (as it would
in your example of having the right to stab me repeatedly in the privacy
of your bedroom).

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, and don't claim to be one.  My 
understanding is that the Supreme Court first explicitly talked 
about the right to privacy in a case (Griswold vs. the 
State of Connecticut?) where a woman claimed that her 
right to privacy prevented the state of Connecticut from telling 
here what kind of contraception she could use in the privacy of 
her own home.  I might have the details wrong, but the basic 
concept is correct and has been upheld by the court many times.

People who have pointed out that this right is not explicitly 
mentioned in the Constitution are correct, however, and my inclusion
of this in rebuttal to someone saying the "liberals" were attacking
the Bill of Rights was a mistake.

>And about conservatives against burning the flag, that was something Bush
>spewed forth in his 88 campaign, and Im sure there are conservatives out
>there that go along with a 'ban on flag burning'.  I myself feel it is 
>disrespectfull, but I dont think we should make it illegal no more than we
>should control the biased media.  These things will happen, you have to go
>along with it, it's part of democracy.  Conservatives arent alone in 
>complaining about things you know.  And as I point out all conservatives
>arent the selfish, greedy, white, rich, hetrosexual, people the press and
>the liberals paint them to be.  Look at Clarence Thomas, he was black, for
>him to get in the Supreme Court would be a fine example for other blacks,
>expecially youths.  You dont have to be liberal just because you are black,
>but the civil rights leaders want you to believe so.  That is probally why
>in the last few days of his confirmation hearings, some of Congress and 
>Anita Hill, tryed to destroy him.  Geez, his character is destroyed, over
>something that there is no evidence for.  What happened to 'innocent until
>proven guilty'?  Well anyway, not all conservatives are for the flag ban.
>Geez, why do liberals lie so much?   :-)

Re-read my post.  I never said that *all* conservatives were trying
to ban the burning of flags, merely that it was conservatives who 
were doing so.  Not a lie, nor even a distortion.

It was more than a Bush '88 campaign ploy, however.  Immediately after
the decision that burning the flag was protected speech, there was
a lot of noise all over the country about the issue, including
bumper stickers in New Hampshire that said something like "Burn the 
Court, not the Flag".  It was not the liberals who had this bumper 
sticker on their vehicles.

I maintain that it is the Right, especially the religious Right, 
that is working to curtail an individuals rights in this country, 
not the left.


-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh