Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Science Fiction > Written > Re: WTC Towers:...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 17 of 31 Topic 20577 of 22999
Post > Topic >>

Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition

by John Schilling <schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 11, 2008 at 06:09 PM

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:29:46 GMT, Gene Ward Smith <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>Walter Bushell <proto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:proto-E93B6E.18244510032008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>70-1-84-166.area1.spcsdns.net:

>> Speaking of politicians sucking, our esteemed and honorable governor of

>> the State of New York has just been brought up on a Federal rap of 
>> violating the Mann Act.

>Indeed. And if someone can explain why what he did had a Federal law
against 
>it, I'd be interested.

Same reason there's a Federal law against buying a handgun outside of your
state of residence.  Different states have, legitimately, different laws
and policies about that sort of thing; it's a monumental pain in the ass
to have States trying to individually regulate interstate commerce with
their own border checkpoints, etc, so if the issue is im****tant enough to
bother with, it's generally the Feds who do the bothering.

If you want to buy a gun, you buy it in your own state according to your
own state's laws.  If you want to buy a hooker, same deal.  If you're
just looking to rent a hooker (or a gun, for that matter) you can do that
in a state you're just visiting, so long as the transaction stays 
in-state.

But I, as a Californian, cannot simply phone over to Nevada and say, "my
state doesn't allow machine pistols or high-class prostitutes; please
deliver one of each", and if I do it will very properly be the Federal
government that says "no".


Admittedly, it may be redundant to apply the Mann act where the underlying
transaction is illegal in *both* states, but that just makes it extra 
stupid to be hiring one's callgirls from an out-of-state service.  Of 
course the Feds are going to be dealing with interstate criminal
conspiracies.  And really, doesn't New York have its own perfectly good
hookers these days?


-- 
*John Schilling                    * "Anything worth doing,         *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP       *  is worth doing for money"     *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner *    -13th Rule of Acquisition   *
*White Elephant Research, LLC      * "There is no substitute        *
*schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
            *  for success"                  *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795      *    -58th Rule of Acquisition   *
 




 31 Posts in Topic:
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Jenn <jennconductsREMO  2008-03-09 03:10:36 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"David Morgan \(MAMS  2008-03-09 06:49:56 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Thomas Armagost <silly  2008-03-09 09:03:10 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
kludge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-03-09 09:36:34 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Gene Ward Smith <gene@  2008-03-09 18:18:49 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"Mike Schilling"  2008-03-09 18:24:02 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Gene Ward Smith <gene@  2008-03-09 18:46:04 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
nance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-03-11 12:34:36 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"Glenn Dowdy" &  2008-03-10 10:06:10 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-03-10 18:23:56 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Walter Bushell <proto@  2008-03-10 18:24:45 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Gene Ward Smith <gene@  2008-03-10 22:29:46 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
kludge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-03-11 09:01:01 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Gene Ward Smith <gene@  2008-03-11 17:51:29 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Gutless Umbrella Carrying  2008-03-11 18:01:12 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Les Cargill <lcargill@  2008-03-11 21:04:32 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
John Schilling <schill  2008-03-11 18:09:12 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Gene Ward Smith <gene@  2008-03-12 01:39:37 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"Mike Schilling"  2008-03-11 18:51:14 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Gene Ward Smith <gene@  2008-03-12 02:03:16 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"Mike Schilling"  2008-03-12 02:28:45 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Gene Ward Smith <gene@  2008-03-12 02:45:32 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
The Kat <news1@[EMAIL   2008-03-11 20:05:30 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
John Schilling <schill  2008-03-12 18:54:53 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"Mike Schilling"  2008-03-11 18:49:09 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
John Schilling <schill  2008-03-12 18:54:53 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"Mike Schilling"  2008-03-13 02:12:14 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Walter Bushell <proto@  2008-03-13 03:53:38 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Walter Bushell <proto@  2008-03-13 03:52:59 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-03-10 19:28:52 
Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"David Morgan \(MAMS  2008-03-11 09:16:34 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Mon Dec 1 16:00:36 CST 2008.