On 29 Jan 2012 18:05:33 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 29 Jan 2012 13:39:28 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Jan 2012 22:06:10 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news:JfqdneDfqcm6M7_SnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@earthli nk.com:

In article ,
Han wrote:
I agree that the "prohibition" against decorations etc has gone a
bit too far. Student-led prayer is a different thing, since then
a majority, or even a minority, can easily become coercive. Look
at a (perhaps crazy) example. If you allow that in a majority
Christian/Catholic/Baptist school, you need to allow it also in a
majority Jewish community, or Muslim community. I can see it
already, before a public high school football game 3/4 of the
students prostrate themselves facing east ...
I was talking more about specific functions. For instance if
the
students vote to include a prayer at graduation ceremonies, which
is forbidden. In many instances, they have said a person couldn't
use even a biblical reference in their validictory speech.

OK, as an agnostic, and father of an equally agnostic valedictorian
at a public high school, I would say the following: A prayer at
graduation is a no-no for me. But, words with a similar meaning
without references to God or religion should be easy to find. You
come up with the prayer, and I'll "translate", OK? A biblical
reference, similarly, I think. I hope I didn't bite off more than I
can chew ...

How about the state decide to "edit" everything you have to say?

That's off topic here. We are dealing with minors and public schools.
Seems there is a valid reason for preemptive censoring/editing.

No, it's not. You're saying that one should submit his speech to
another to have it edited before giving it. Once you edit speech for
"religious" content, is political content vary far off? You lefties
really are all about controlling thought.

Sorry for not making it clearer. I am saying that a statement in the
form of a prayer can also be rephrased so that it isn't formally a
prayer. I am NOT suggesting that something like that should become a
formal censoring step. More like an evasive maneuver so that a prayer
isn't a prayer anymore.

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can censor it.
That's called "prior restraint".

On another level: In Holland, and I believe Britain too, the Queen
cannot say what she wants, since as head of state she represents the
"government", and the prime minister's office has to approve
everything she is going to say. Up to and including whether she may
were a headscarf - sorry, it's in Dutch about a state visit of the
queen to Oman:
http://nos.nl/koningshuis/artikel/33...ek-onderdrukt-
niet.html "beatrix headscarf represses not"

Something *SHE* chooses to do. BTW, there was a war fought to
separate us from the Queen.

Around 1848 there were revolutions going on in Europe (some more, some
less violent). The then current King Willem II of Holland had an
overnight epiphany to avoid a violent revolution and charged his prime
minister (?) Thorbecke to rewrite the constitution. That led to the
modern form of a constitutional monarchy, similar to Britain's, wherein
the power to govern rests with the prime minister, subject to
parliamentary support. The Queen/King has very little, if any, actual
power. So (perceived) abuses of power as left and right have accused US
president of, do not happen. On the other hand, cabinets fall sometimes
because of petty "no confidence" motions.

Crap! When *haven't* there been revolutions going on in Europe. It's not
like it has *anything* to do with this thread.

snipped the rest of the irrelevant Europeon ****

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt

Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.

all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better

So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Malia are then by definition sluts.
It's your logic, after all.

to repubs, all young girls are sluts



If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

None would have you.

au contraire

You're a liar.

I'm waiting for you to provide proof

No self respecting babe would have someone as stupid as you.

by definition republican sluts are not self-respecting. but you knew that
because I've explained that's the reason they won't screw republicans

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant

slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.

In article ,
JimT wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much
better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant

slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.

Yeah nobody ever brought up the hijinks of the Bush kids. Heck, I think
the last kid that wasn't smacked around to a certain extent was Amy
Carter, and that was largely because she was also possibly the most
boring (g). Although she did utter my favorite First Kid quote:

"No"

Amy Carter when asked if she had a message for the children of
America.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 1/29/2012 7:04 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In astnet,
wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much
better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant
slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.
Yeah nobody ever brought up the hijinks of the Bush kids.snip


Assholes did.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:40:12 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt

Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.

all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better

So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Malia are then by definition sluts.
It's your logic, after all.

to repubs, all young girls are sluts

Ah, so if the politician's children are young they're not sluts, but if
they're adults they are? Is that how Democrat "logic" works? Please let us
in on the magic of the Demonic brain!

If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

None would have you.

au contraire

You're a liar.

I'm waiting for you to provide proof

No self respecting babe would have someone as stupid as you.

by definition republican sluts are not self-respecting. but you knew that
because I've explained that's the reason they won't screw republicans

I suppose, if there were such. slut = ^self-respecting, sure. But the rest
make zero sense. I wouldn't expect more from someone who tars children with
the same brush as their parents.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:59:56 -0600, JimT wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant

slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.

Bull****. It wasn't I who brought in politician's kids. I thought I might
end it, though. Nope, you lefties have no shame.

On 1/29/2012 7:22 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:59:56 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant
slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.
Bull****. It wasn't I who brought in politician's kids. I thought I might
end it, though. Nope, you lefties have no shame.


Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make it right.

The ones with no shame are the tools that bring up kids in these types
of discussions. Otherwise, not much bugs me.

In article ,
JimT wrote:


Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make it right.

But three do.

http://www.leoslyrics.com/national-l...iorata-lyrics/

With all it's hopes, dreams, promises and urban renewal
The world continues to deteriorate.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:27:37 -0600, JimT wrote:

On 1/29/2012 7:22 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:59:56 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant
slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.
Bull****. It wasn't I who brought in politician's kids. I thought I might
end it, though. Nope, you lefties have no shame.


Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make it right.

Moron, I brought them into it because it is wrong. I was trying to make a
point but you lefties are too dense.

The ones with no shame are the tools that bring up kids in these types
of discussions. Otherwise, not much bugs me.

Which is why I did it but you and "Mal" too stupid to understand simple logic.

" wrote in
:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can censor
it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make your
praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary meaning of your
words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other religions
generally share the same values, if you snip out the wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking at public
high schools.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/29/2012 8:04 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:27:37 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 7:22 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:59:56 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant
slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.
Bull****. It wasn't I who brought in politician's kids. I thought I might
end it, though. Nope, you lefties have no shame.

Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make it right.
Moron, I brought them into it because it is wrong. I was trying to make a
point but you lefties are too dense.

The ones with no shame are the tools that bring up kids in these types
of discussions. Otherwise, not much bugs me.
Which is why I did it but you and "Mal" too stupid to understand simple logic.

Okay little mousey.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:08:36 -0600, Jim T wrote:

On 1/29/2012 8:04 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:27:37 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 7:22 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:59:56 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant
slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.
Bull****. It wasn't I who brought in politician's kids. I thought I might
end it, though. Nope, you lefties have no shame.

Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make it right.
Moron, I brought them into it because it is wrong. I was trying to make a
point but you lefties are too dense.

The ones with no shame are the tools that bring up kids in these types
of discussions. Otherwise, not much bugs me.
Which is why I did it but you and "Mal" too stupid to understand simple logic.

Okay little mousey.

We agree once again; you're too stupid to understand simple logic.

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can censor
it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make your
praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary meaning of your
words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other religions
generally share the same values, if you snip out the wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking at public
high schools.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.

On 1/29/2012 8:15 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:08:36 -0600, Jim wrote:

On 1/29/2012 8:04 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:27:37 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 7:22 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:59:56 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant
slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.
Bull****. It wasn't I who brought in politician's kids. I thought I might
end it, though. Nope, you lefties have no shame.

Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make it right.
Moron, I brought them into it because it is wrong. I was trying to make a
point but you lefties are too dense.

The ones with no shame are the tools that bring up kids in these types
of discussions. Otherwise, not much bugs me.
Which is why I did it but you and "Mal" too stupid to understand simple logic.
Okay little mousey.
We agree once again; you're too stupid to understand simple logic.

You fell for it. That makes you the dupe. Simple logic. So simple even
you should be able to grasp it. Kudos to you for at least seeing the
error of your ways.

Okay Little Mousey?

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can
censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make your
praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary meaning of your
words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other religions
generally share the same values, if you snip out the wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking at
public high schools.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views. If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go ahead,
but public schools are for everyone, just like government is for
everybody. If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in a
movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever was
prior restraint, that is it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:



Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

This is the part that I have the most trouble with. People often spout
about the need to respect other's views by pretty much disrespecting MY
views. If those views aren't the ones they are happy with.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:



Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

This is the part that I have the most trouble with. People often spout
about the need to respect other's views by pretty much disrespecting MY
views. If those views aren't the ones they are happy with.

I admit that's a tricky thing, and I had to edit my response before I sent
it along grin. If I sometimes write too stridently, it's "the heat of
the moment", and no disrespect is intended, except in answer to truly
egregious statements 'nother grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:



Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

This is the part that I have the most trouble with. People often spout
about the need to respect other's views by pretty much disrespecting MY
views. If those views aren't the ones they are happy with.

I admit that's a tricky thing, and I had to edit my response before I sent
it along grin. If I sometimes write too stridently, it's "the heat of
the moment", and no disrespect is intended, except in answer to truly
egregious statements 'nother grin.

Same with me, that was a general observation based on your observation.
Nothing business, its just personal (grin)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Have you noticed that the folks calling for diversity tend to all be
liberals, homosexuals, and socialists? And that they really criticize
conservatives, straights, and capitalists?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

This is the part that I have the most trouble with. People often spout
about the need to respect other's views by pretty much disrespecting MY
views. If those views aren't the ones they are happy with.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:40:12 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt

Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.

all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much
better

So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Malia are then by definition sluts.
It's your logic, after all.

to repubs, all young girls are sluts

Ah, so if the politician's children are young they're not sluts, but if
they're adults they are?

How do I respond to this pedantic statement? I say that to you all young girls
are sluts, you reply if they're young they're not sluts, so obviously you don't
understand english. OTOH I never mentioned "children" meaning the male
children, but newt puts that to sleep.


Is that how Democrat "logic" works? Please let us in on the magic of the
Demonic brain!

If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant unless they
are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

None would have you.

au contraire

You're a liar.

I'm waiting for you to provide proof

No self respecting babe would have someone as stupid as you.

by definition republican sluts are not self-respecting. but you knew that
because I've explained that's the reason they won't screw republicans

I suppose, if there were such. slut = ^self-respecting, sure. But the rest
make zero sense.

too bad for you I guess

I wouldn't expect more from someone who tars children with
the same brush as their parents.

as opposed to you that tars all "liberals" as bad?

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:07:08 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:40:12 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt

Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.

all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much
better

So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Malia are then by definition sluts.
It's your logic, after all.

to repubs, all young girls are sluts

Ah, so if the politician's children are young they're not sluts, but if
they're adults they are?

How do I respond to this pedantic statement?

"Pedantic"? You are illiterate.

I say that to you all young girls
are sluts, you reply if they're young they're not sluts, so obviously you don't
understand english. OTOH I never mentioned "children" meaning the male
children, but newt puts that to sleep.

You answer by telling us what you really feel; if they're a Republican's
family, they're fair game for your vile insults but leave the Democrat's alone
- that's just not right. Have I got your logic down pat yet?

Is that how Democrat "logic" works? Please let us in on the magic of the
Demonic brain!

If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant unless they
are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

None would have you.

au contraire

You're a liar.

I'm waiting for you to provide proof

No self respecting babe would have someone as stupid as you.

by definition republican sluts are not self-respecting. but you knew that
because I've explained that's the reason they won't screw republicans

I suppose, if there were such. slut = ^self-respecting, sure. But the rest
make zero sense.

too bad for you I guess

Too bad for me that you don't make any sense? Illiteracy can be fixed, you
know. I'd recommend something other than a public school, though. It seems
to not be working for you.


I wouldn't expect more from someone who tars children with
the same brush as their parents.

as opposed to you that tars all "liberals" as bad?

Tsk, tsk. The word is "progressive", now. "Liberal" has such negative
connotations.

Yes, I've *plenty* of evidence of that here.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:21:35 -0600, Jim T wrote:

On 1/29/2012 8:15 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:08:36 -0600, Jim wrote:

On 1/29/2012 8:04 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:27:37 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 7:22 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:59:56 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant
slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.
Bull****. It wasn't I who brought in politician's kids. I thought I might
end it, though. Nope, you lefties have no shame.

Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make it right.
Moron, I brought them into it because it is wrong. I was trying to make a
point but you lefties are too dense.

The ones with no shame are the tools that bring up kids in these types
of discussions. Otherwise, not much bugs me.
Which is why I did it but you and "Mal" too stupid to understand simple logic.
Okay little mousey.
We agree once again; you're too stupid to understand simple logic.

You fell for it. That makes you the dupe. Simple logic. So simple even
you should be able to grasp it. Kudos to you for at least seeing the
error of your ways.

IKWYABWAI is your best defense.

Okay Little Mousey?

Whatever that means.

On 30 Jan 2012 02:34:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can
censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make your
praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary meaning of your
words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other religions
generally share the same values, if you snip out the wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking at
public high schools.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

Bull****. You want to censor others views. PC is *exactly* that.

If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go ahead,
but public schools are for everyone, just like government is for
everybody.

Does it hurt you if I pray for an 'A'? Does it hurt you if the football team
prays for a win? Does it kill you if a pastor blesses a scout father-son
diner being served in a public school?

If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in a
movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever was
prior restraint, that is it.

If other don't want to pray, yes, they can simply shut up. What damage is it
really causing them?

On 1/29/2012 11:24 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:21:35 -0600, Jim wrote:

On 1/29/2012 8:15 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:08:36 -0600, Jim wrote:

On 1/29/2012 8:04 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:27:37 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 7:22 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:59:56 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant
slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.
Bull****. It wasn't I who brought in politician's kids. I thought I might
end it, though. Nope, you lefties have no shame.

Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make it right.
Moron, I brought them into it because it is wrong. I was trying to make a
point but you lefties are too dense.

The ones with no shame are the tools that bring up kids in these types
of discussions. Otherwise, not much bugs me.
Which is why I did it but you and "Mal" too stupid to understand simple logic.
Okay little mousey.
We agree once again; you're too stupid to understand simple logic.
You fell for it. That makes you the dupe. Simple logic. So simple even
you should be able to grasp it. Kudos to you for at least seeing the
error of your ways.
IKWYABWAI is your best defense.

Okay Little Mousey?
Whatever that means.

Means....http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...99028744_n.jpg

have a nice day little mousey

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:34:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can
censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make
your praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary meaning
of your words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other religions
generally share the same values, if you snip out the wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking at
public high schools.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

Bull****. You want to censor others views. PC is *exactly* that.

If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go
ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like government is
for everybody.

Does it hurt you if I pray for an 'A'? Does it hurt you if the
football team prays for a win? Does it kill you if a pastor blesses a
scout father-son diner being served in a public school?

If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in a
movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever was
prior restraint, that is it.

If other don't want to pray, yes, they can simply shut up. What
damage is it really causing them?

Don't change the subject. We were talking about one "representative" of
a group of public high school kids leading the whole group, or giving a
valedictorian speech or some such. That's totally different from an
individual mumbling a prayer for him/her self. I have no objection to
that unless it is coercive. Or if it leads to mass hysteria as those
girls in a high school near Buffalo NY, who got into weird tics of some
kind.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views. If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go ahead,
but public schools are for everyone, just like government is for
everybody. If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in a
movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever was
prior restraint, that is it.


The so-called "respect for other people's views" is nothing but crude
justification for silencing those whose views YOU do not like
It's disingenuous to the point of downright dishonest.
PC )Political Correctness) is nothing but a variant of prior restraint.
Free Speech must include 2 things to be free
1) The only restraint is the one the speaker chooses voluntarily to
avoid being offensive
2) The Speaker can NOT be muzzled to avoid offending others.
PC fails on both counts

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.
If you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go
ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like government is
for everybody. If you want to do those things to others, they have
the right to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to
yell fire in a movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if
there ever was prior restraint, that is it.


The so-called "respect for other people's views" is nothing but crude
justification for silencing those whose views YOU do not like
It's disingenuous to the point of downright dishonest.
PC )Political Correctness) is nothing but a variant of prior
restraint. Free Speech must include 2 things to be free
1) The only restraint is the one the speaker chooses voluntarily
to avoid being offensive
2) The Speaker can NOT be muzzled to avoid offending others.
PC fails on both counts

PC? what does that have to do with anything?

And I wish that speakers would always choose voluntarily to avoid being
offensive. That would be best. A speech at the end of a school year by
a teenager to a bunch of teenagers may need review to comply with the
avoidance of being offensive. I can't remember whether my daughter's
speech was reviewed, but I was impressed by what she concocted on that
occasion.

As to your number 2 - since listening to a valedictorian speech isn't
entirely voluntary, I can envision some review. But, as before, I don't
know whether it is practiced.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:



If other don't want to pray, yes, they can simply shut up. What
damage is it really causing them?

Don't change the subject. We were talking about one "representative" of
a group of public high school kids leading the whole group, or giving a
valedictorian speech or some such. That's totally different from an
individual mumbling a prayer for him/her self. I have no objection to
that unless it is coercive. Or if it leads to mass hysteria as those
girls in a high school near Buffalo NY, who got into weird tics of some
kind.
I would say that not allowing a person in their OWN speech to make some
sort of religious remark because that somehow establishes a government
religion is completely off base. Now if they were leading a prayer, that
could be something entirely different.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.
If you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go
ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like government is
for everybody. If you want to do those things to others, they have
the right to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to
yell fire in a movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if
there ever was prior restraint, that is it.


The so-called "respect for other people's views" is nothing but crude
justification for silencing those whose views YOU do not like
It's disingenuous to the point of downright dishonest.
PC )Political Correctness) is nothing but a variant of prior
restraint. Free Speech must include 2 things to be free
1) The only restraint is the one the speaker chooses voluntarily
to avoid being offensive
2) The Speaker can NOT be muzzled to avoid offending others.
PC fails on both counts

PC? what does that have to do with anything?


Not surprised you're clueless about that
At least you're consistent



snip irrelevant anecdote

As to your number 2 - since listening to a valedictorian speech isn't
entirely voluntary, I can envision some review. But, as before, I don't
know whether it is practiced.

--

Funny how not knowing doesn't stop you from pontificating

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:wISdnR9DqMR-
:

I would say that not allowing a person in their OWN speech to make some
sort of religious remark because that somehow establishes a government
religion is completely off base. Now if they were leading a prayer, that
could be something entirely different.

Indeed, that was my point, in somewhat softer language.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's
views. If you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your
views, go ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like
government is for everybody. If you want to do those things to
others, they have the right to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're
not supposed to yell fire in a movie theatre, especially if there
is no fire. Now if there ever was prior restraint, that is it.


The so-called "respect for other people's views" is nothing but
crude justification for silencing those whose views YOU do not like
It's disingenuous to the point of downright dishonest.
PC )Political Correctness) is nothing but a variant of prior
restraint. Free Speech must include 2 things to be free
1) The only restraint is the one the speaker chooses
voluntarily to avoid being offensive
2) The Speaker can NOT be muzzled to avoid offending others.
PC fails on both counts

PC? what does that have to do with anything?


Not surprised you're clueless about that
At least you're consistent



snip irrelevant anecdote

That type of anecdote (the one you snipped, a valedictorian's address)
was what this was about ...

As to your number 2 - since listening to a valedictorian speech isn't
entirely voluntary, I can envision some review. But, as before, I
don't know whether it is practiced.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

And having been cleared of all allegations (if that is indeed the case),
the GOP now gladly turn turn their backs on him.

A guy I was in student government with WAY back in college was one of
the 1994 Freshman that put Newt in the Speaker's office. He as also one
of the leaders of the coup that tossed him out. The GOP did not turn
their backs on the Newt as much as he systematically burned every bridge
he came across. Think chickens coming home to roost.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
" wrote:

I say that to you all young girls
are sluts, you reply if they're young they're not sluts, so obviously you
don't
understand english. OTOH I never mentioned "children" meaning the male
children, but newt puts that to sleep.

You answer by telling us what you really feel; if they're a Republican's
family, they're fair game for your vile insults but leave the Democrat's
alone
- that's just not right.

it's also not what I said, but why would that matter to you?


Have I got your logic down pat yet?

no

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:44:23 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

I say that to you all young girls
are sluts, you reply if they're young they're not sluts, so obviously you
don't
understand english. OTOH I never mentioned "children" meaning the male
children, but newt puts that to sleep.

You answer by telling us what you really feel; if they're a Republican's
family, they're fair game for your vile insults but leave the Democrat's
alone
- that's just not right.

it's also not what I said, but why would that matter to you?

That is precisely what you said, liar.

Have I got your logic down pat yet?

Indeed I have; you don't.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:29:35 -0600, JimT wrote:

On 1/29/2012 11:24 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:21:35 -0600, Jim wrote:

On 1/29/2012 8:15 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:08:36 -0600, Jim wrote:

On 1/29/2012 8:04 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:27:37 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 7:22 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:59:56 -0600, wrote:

On 1/29/2012 5:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
z wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt
Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.
all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better
So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Maliasnip idiotic rant
slap That's out-of-line. Leave kids out of your BS.
Bull****. It wasn't I who brought in politician's kids. I thought I might
end it, though. Nope, you lefties have no shame.

Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make it right.
Moron, I brought them into it because it is wrong. I was trying to make a
point but you lefties are too dense.

The ones with no shame are the tools that bring up kids in these types
of discussions. Otherwise, not much bugs me.
Which is why I did it but you and "Mal" too stupid to understand simple logic.
Okay little mousey.
We agree once again; you're too stupid to understand simple logic.
You fell for it. That makes you the dupe. Simple logic. So simple even
you should be able to grasp it. Kudos to you for at least seeing the
error of your ways.
IKWYABWAI is your best defense.

Okay Little Mousey?
Whatever that means.

Means....http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...99028744_n.jpg

have a nice day little mousey

Whatever that means.

On 30 Jan 2012 02:34:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can
censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make your
praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary meaning of your
words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other religions
generally share the same values, if you snip out the wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking at
public high schools.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

No it is *NOT*. You said you would "edit" for content. That's prior
restraint.

If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go ahead,
but public schools are for everyone, just like government is for
everybody.

There is nothing protecting you from speech in a public place. OTOH, you can
choose not to listen.

If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely.

No, they do not. They have a right to make that request but other have no
right to shut you up. That *is* censorship (prior restraint).

E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in a
movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever was
prior restraint, that is it.

You're way over the line. That's reckless endangerment. There is absolutely
*no* comparison between this and religious speech (which *IS* protected).
I suggest a little remedial civics.

On 30 Jan 2012 14:28:32 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:34:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can
censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make
your praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary meaning
of your words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other religions
generally share the same values, if you snip out the wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking at
public high schools.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

Bull****. You want to censor others views. PC is *exactly* that.

If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go
ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like government is
for everybody.

Does it hurt you if I pray for an 'A'? Does it hurt you if the
football team prays for a win? Does it kill you if a pastor blesses a
scout father-son diner being served in a public school?

If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in a
movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever was
prior restraint, that is it.

If other don't want to pray, yes, they can simply shut up. What
damage is it really causing them?

Don't change the subject.

I'm not.

We were talking about one "representative" of
a group of public high school kids leading the whole group, or giving a
valedictorian speech or some such.

Or a football team. Or a scout troup. Or...

That's totally different from an
individual mumbling a prayer for him/her self. I have no objection to
that unless it is coercive. Or if it leads to mass hysteria as those
girls in a high school near Buffalo NY, who got into weird tics of some
kind.

Mass hysteria? I'm glad you're a doctor who can diagnose such from 300mi.
You're better than House.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:44:23 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

I say that to you all young girls
are sluts, you reply if they're young they're not sluts, so obviously you
don't
understand english. OTOH I never mentioned "children" meaning the male
children, but newt puts that to sleep.

You answer by telling us what you really feel; if they're a Republican's
family, they're fair game for your vile insults but leave the Democrat's
alone
- that's just not right.

it's also not what I said, but why would that matter to you?

That is precisely what you said, liar.

Have I got your logic down pat yet?

Indeed I have; you don't.

have a nice day little mousey

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:33:10 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:44:23 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

I say that to you all young girls
are sluts, you reply if they're young they're not sluts, so obviously you
don't
understand english. OTOH I never mentioned "children" meaning the male
children, but newt puts that to sleep.

You answer by telling us what you really feel; if they're a Republican's
family, they're fair game for your vile insults but leave the Democrat's
alone
- that's just not right.

it's also not what I said, but why would that matter to you?

That is precisely what you said, liar.

Have I got your logic down pat yet?

Indeed I have; you don't.

have a nice day little mousey

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's talking
points. You don't know what it means either.