In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.
See Ed's post about Thomas, it's true. Granted that was a dissent
but this is what he came right out and said.

What brand of religion would you personally like to have installed
in CA? And remember you have to tith 1/3 of your income, mandatory.

I also just hate it when the president comes right out and says,
I busted the fourth amdment to the constitution, and I'm gonna
do it again. Sure hate that one.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
writes on 12 Jan 2006
05:49:46 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :


Bush's NSA fiasco broke the law.

So did the leaker and the New York Times.

New York Times v. United States, 1971: First Amendment claim sustained,
per
curium decision.

No contest.

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that what the NY Times did by breaking the NSA story is
probably legal but if the story harms national security I don't think
it was the right thing to do. However, I don't think they worry about
trivial matters like that.

Well, I don't know how often you read the NYT or what you've read of the
editors' positions on these issues, but they're pretty cautious about
revealing anything that would pose an immediate threat to security.

What they weigh is whether they have a duty to report government
malfeasance, or possible malfeasance, against a claim by the government that
doing so would compromise security.

Curiously, the government ALWAYS argues the security case when the press
finds out about some illegal practice involving either breaking the law or
violating the Constitution. So we have to decide if we prefer a free press,
as Jefferson did, or a censored one, which Adams preferred.

Which one do you prefer?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jan 2006 20:39:22 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Shutting down our constitution and the bill of rights is the
*ultimate* comfort to our enemies. As ms mulligan is fond
of saying, the favorite right-wing ditty nowadays is "they hate
us for our freedoms. So we'll destroy our own freedoms and
then they won't hate us any more."

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

How about if we give you all the guns you want, and let you put a cross --
burning or not, as you choose -- on the front lawn of your town hall? Will
you then lay off the 4th Amendment and let the rest of the country have its
Bill of Rights -- the *whole* Bill of Rights?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 05:04:29 GMT, "John Chase"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote

The Times has the power to *destroy* the government when it
misbehaves. That's what the folks who penned the constituion
*wanted*.

The [Press] also has the power to *enshrine* a government of its own
design,
which is what appears to be happening "as we speak".

-jc-

So when is the Times going to release the Barrett Report?

(this is the report on the Clinton Administration using the IRS as
their own Einsatzgruppen used to attack political enemies)

Why do we need the NYT to publish the report? You already seem to know
what's in it. Why don't you just tell us yourself?

Or are you afraid that no one would believe you, but that they believe The
New York Times?

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.
See Ed's post about Thomas, it's true. Granted that was a dissent
but this is what he came right out and said.

I check my facts. g

Now, how much should we gamble on the idea that Thomas, having said that the
First Amendment only applies to the federal government, would take it the
next step and say that the states have a perfect right to prevent the
"expression of" unsanctioned religions?

Thomas is a hard-boiled originalist. If they were eggs, Scalia would be a
soft-boiled one. Likewise Roberts and Alito.

Give them one more, and we'll have a hard-and-soft-boiled egg salad deciding
what's constitutional and what's not.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , says...
In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.

The administration seems to be making very good progress on state
religion. Except in the wrong state and not their preferred religion.

That'd be Iraq and Islam for the irony impaired.

Ned Simmons

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.
See Ed's post about Thomas, it's true. Granted that was a dissent
but this is what he came right out and said.

I check my facts. g

Now, how much should we gamble on the idea that Thomas, having said that the
First Amendment only applies to the federal government, would take it the
next step and say that the states have a perfect right to prevent the
"expression of" unsanctioned religions?

Oh, he most certainly would say that. His comment about allowing
a state religion was indeed a dissent, *for*the*time*being*. Given
the current direction the court nominees are heading in, he may well
be in the majority in short order.

Basically once you invalidate one bit of it, the whole thing
comes unravelled. I could easily imagine the current crop of
born-agains deciding that what the US needs is just a big dose of
that ol' time religion, and the best way to see it done is by
passing some laws.

At the same time of course, any terrorist religions will be outright
banned.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:37:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 05:04:29 GMT, "John Chase"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote

The Times has the power to *destroy* the government when it
misbehaves. That's what the folks who penned the constituion
*wanted*.

The [Press] also has the power to *enshrine* a government of its own
design,
which is what appears to be happening "as we speak".

-jc-

So when is the Times going to release the Barrett Report?

(this is the report on the Clinton Administration using the IRS as
their own Einsatzgruppen used to attack political enemies)

Why do we need the NYT to publish the report? You already seem to know
what's in it. Why don't you just tell us yourself?

Or are you afraid that no one would believe you, but that they believe The
New York Times?

http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm

I wonder..why the Dems managed to get 1/4 of it redacted....
Any clues from your handlers at the DNC, Ed?

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 22 Jan 2006 08:40:20 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.
See Ed's post about Thomas, it's true. Granted that was a dissent
but this is what he came right out and said.

What brand of religion would you personally like to have installed
in CA? And remember you have to tith 1/3 of your income, mandatory.

I also just hate it when the president comes right out and says,
I busted the fourth amdment to the constitution, and I'm gonna
do it again. Sure hate that one.

Jim


Jim..what part of

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

do you not understand?

Now address the part about gun control
laws..ifyouwouldbeveddyveddykind....

Gunner


"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:28:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 20 Jan 2006 20:39:22 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Shutting down our constitution and the bill of rights is the
*ultimate* comfort to our enemies. As ms mulligan is fond
of saying, the favorite right-wing ditty nowadays is "they hate
us for our freedoms. So we'll destroy our own freedoms and
then they won't hate us any more."

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

How about if we give you all the guns you want, and let you put a cross --
burning or not, as you choose -- on the front lawn of your town hall? Will
you then lay off the 4th Amendment and let the rest of the country have its
Bill of Rights -- the *whole* Bill of Rights?

We HAVE the Bill of Rights, subject to those infringed by the Left
over so many years. We simply need to remove those infringments.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:38:15 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

In article , says...
In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.

The administration seems to be making very good progress on state
religion. Except in the wrong state and not their preferred religion.

That'd be Iraq and Islam for the irony impaired.

Ned Simmons

Please explain? The US is instituting a Religous Government in Iraq?

Use as much white space as necessary

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 22 Jan 2006 12:31:05 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.
See Ed's post about Thomas, it's true. Granted that was a dissent
but this is what he came right out and said.

I check my facts. g

Now, how much should we gamble on the idea that Thomas, having said that the
First Amendment only applies to the federal government, would take it the
next step and say that the states have a perfect right to prevent the
"expression of" unsanctioned religions?

Oh, he most certainly would say that. His comment about allowing
a state religion was indeed a dissent, *for*the*time*being*. Given
the current direction the court nominees are heading in, he may well
be in the majority in short order.

Basically once you invalidate one bit of it, the whole thing
comes unravelled. I could easily imagine the current crop of
born-agains deciding that what the US needs is just a big dose of
that ol' time religion, and the best way to see it done is by
passing some laws.

At the same time of course, any terrorist religions will be outright
banned.

Jim

Like Liberalism?

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:41:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.
See Ed's post about Thomas, it's true. Granted that was a dissent
but this is what he came right out and said.

I check my facts. g

Now, how much should we gamble on the idea that Thomas, having said that
the
First Amendment only applies to the federal government, would take it the
next step and say that the states have a perfect right to prevent the
"expression of" unsanctioned religions?

Thomas is a hard-boiled originalist. If they were eggs, Scalia would be a
soft-boiled one. Likewise Roberts and Alito.

Give them one more, and we'll have a hard-and-soft-boiled egg salad
deciding
what's constitutional and what's not.

Good..better than having Liveing Document Marxist/Socialists doing the
deciding.

As you often say, be careful what you wish for. And be glad that Thomas is
the hard-boiled one. He doesn't have the talent for sophistry that would
keep the judicial results from starting a civil war.

A really "dead" Constitution would end up with confiscation of your guns,
religious wars, and the State of California moving in on your liberties, one
by one.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:28:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 20 Jan 2006 20:39:22 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Shutting down our constitution and the bill of rights is the
*ultimate* comfort to our enemies. As ms mulligan is fond
of saying, the favorite right-wing ditty nowadays is "they hate
us for our freedoms. So we'll destroy our own freedoms and
then they won't hate us any more."

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

How about if we give you all the guns you want, and let you put a
cross --
burning or not, as you choose -- on the front lawn of your town hall?
Will
you then lay off the 4th Amendment and let the rest of the country have
its
Bill of Rights -- the *whole* Bill of Rights?

We HAVE the Bill of Rights, subject to those infringed by the Left
over so many years. We simply need to remove those infringments.

No, you have it backwards. The history of it is that the liberal Court,
installed first in the 1930s, reversed the activist conservative Court that
was in the process of turning over your rights to corporations and big
property owners. You'd be a peasant by now if they had continued, paying
rents and tolls to the upper class, limited in what you could speak or
write. In fact, you'd be dead. Hospitals wouldn't have had to accept you if
you couldn't pay up front.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:38:15 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

In article , says...
In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.

The administration seems to be making very good progress on state
religion. Except in the wrong state and not their preferred religion.

That'd be Iraq and Islam for the irony impaired.

Ned Simmons

Please explain? The US is instituting a Religous Government in Iraq?

I'd say they're facilitating, rather than instituting, an Islamic state.


Use as much white space as necessary

http://www.iraqigovernment.org/constitution_en.htm

See specifically Article 2 and Article 90.

Ned Simmons

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:37:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 05:04:29 GMT, "John Chase"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote

The Times has the power to *destroy* the government when it
misbehaves. That's what the folks who penned the constituion
*wanted*.

The [Press] also has the power to *enshrine* a government of its own
design,
which is what appears to be happening "as we speak".

-jc-

So when is the Times going to release the Barrett Report?

(this is the report on the Clinton Administration using the IRS as
their own Einsatzgruppen used to attack political enemies)

Why do we need the NYT to publish the report? You already seem to know
what's in it. Why don't you just tell us yourself?

Or are you afraid that no one would believe you, but that they believe
The
New York Times?

http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm

I wonder..why the Dems managed to get 1/4 of it redacted....
Any clues from your handlers at the DNC, Ed?

I have no information about it, Gunner. Try your unimpeachable sources: read
more Drudge, and check the right-wing blogs.They use ultrasound, I think, or
maybe a ouiga board.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
jim rozen wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.
See Ed's post about Thomas, it's true. Granted that was a dissent
but this is what he came right out and said.

What brand of religion would you personally like to have installed
in CA? And remember you have to tith 1/3 of your income, mandatory.

I also just hate it when the president comes right out and says,
I busted the fourth amdment to the constitution, and I'm gonna
do it again. Sure hate that one.

Jim

You ever notice that the guys harping on the second amendment to
protect themselves from an oppressive government are among the first to
support the government when it starts to get oppressive?

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

"B.B." u wrote in message
news
You ever notice that the guys harping on the second amendment to
protect themselves from an oppressive government are among the first to
support the government when it starts to get oppressive?

Oh, yeah. We've noticed. d8-)

If it wasn't for the income tax and attacks on the Second Amendment, there
would be no libertarians. Certainly there would be no fair-weather
libertarians, which is to say, most of them.

--
Ed Huntress

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: "tonyp" writes on Fri, 20 Jan 2006
21:05:08 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

"pyotr filipivich" wrote

One more time for the Left Coast Audience":
the New York Times does not have government powers,
no matter how self important they consider themselves.


Right. We have a government of _enumerated_ powers. The press does not
have "powers", it has _rights_, just like you do. Which of the NYT's rights
would you like to take away?

Hmm, how about the right to make asses of themselves. No, that
wouldn't be fair, or plausible. Too many Democrats would have to go to
jail.

How about the "right" to aid and comfort the enemies of this country
under the guise of "freedom of the press"?

How about the right to conspire to over throw the government by force
or violence? Or the right to conspire to commit mass murder? Democrats
seem to find that protecting the rights of anyone so inclined to trump the
responsibility of governments to protect the citizenry.

I realize that it is a stretch for Democrats to accept, but the New
York Times is not part of the government, and reporting what you consider
to be misdeeds to them doesn't constitute notifying the proper authorities.

I've yet to see a Democrat make a connection between bars to
information collecting and the subsequent inability of the government to
"connect the dots" before an atrocity is committed.
Deputy AG Gorelick was the one who wrote the memo making it effectively
illegal for intelligence operations and criminal investigators to share
information. Too bad, otherwise there might not have been a September
Eleven operation against the US. Then where would the Democrats be,
without a reason to wonder why the world hates them.

For your conservative audience: whatever rights mr. filipivich takes away
from the NYT, he also takes away from _you_.

So, in your efforts to forestall further attacks on the US, what
adjustment in your way of life are you intending to demand be made? Shall
the Government control the means of production of media products, the
better to stop offending third world Victorians? What a match up that
would make, "progressive" liberals joining with the Baptists to get
Disneyland to stop having their special Gay Day. And the progressive will
no doubt be joining with the Cardinal of New York to keep the homosexuals
out of the St Patrick's day parade. Hmm, would they join with the Amish to
get the issuing of driver's licences to women stopped? It is a half
measure for the Amish, maybe.

Then the progressive can join with the Wahhabist Immans to require
every woman to cover herself when in public, and to not go into the public
areas without a responsible male escorting her.

What say you you don't want to stop doing those things? But those are
just the sort of offensive behaviors which make the Wahhabists loathe you
and consider the US the Great Satan. And you don't want to know that, nor
what is being plotted against you. Fine, you may resume the position of
the Ostrich.

tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: jim rozen writes on 22 Jan 2006
08:40:20 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.

You've been smoking your socks again. Its the ACLU and the Democrats
who want their religion made state policy, which is to say, they want to
suppress any hint of Christianity form the public square.

Fine. So what is wrong with stringing them up from lampposts?

Or just declaring them "un persons" and having them disappear into the
night and smog?


--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:58:29 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:38:15 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

In article , says...
In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.

The administration seems to be making very good progress on state
religion. Except in the wrong state and not their preferred religion.

That'd be Iraq and Islam for the irony impaired.

Ned Simmons

Please explain? The US is instituting a Religous Government in Iraq?

I'd say they're facilitating, rather than instituting, an Islamic state.


Use as much white space as necessary

http://www.iraqigovernment.org/constitution_en.htm

See specifically Article 2 and Article 90.

Ned Simmons

Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source

of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms

outlined in this constitution.



2nd - This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the

Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of

creed and religious practices.

Article (90): 1st - The Supreme Federal Court is an independent judicial

body, financially and administratively, its work and its duties will be defined by

law.

2nd - The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and

experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law, whose number and manner of

selection will be defined by a law that should be passed by two-thirds of the

parliament members."

Yes and? You know much about Sharia Law?

You also missed Article 1

Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the

system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary)

republic.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:37:45 +0000, pyotr filipivich wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: jim rozen writes on 22 Jan 2006
08:40:20 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.

You've been smoking your socks again. Its the ACLU and the Democrats
who want their religion made state policy, which is to say, they want to
suppress any hint of Christianity form the public square.

Fine. So what is wrong with stringing them up from lampposts?

Or just declaring them "un persons" and having them disappear into the
night and smog?

Actually..I dont see anywhere in the First Amendment anything about
Freedom From Religion. Would someone please point it out to me?

Gunner

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:36:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:37:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 05:04:29 GMT, "John Chase"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote

The Times has the power to *destroy* the government when it
misbehaves. That's what the folks who penned the constituion
*wanted*.

The [Press] also has the power to *enshrine* a government of its own
design,
which is what appears to be happening "as we speak".

-jc-

So when is the Times going to release the Barrett Report?

(this is the report on the Clinton Administration using the IRS as
their own Einsatzgruppen used to attack political enemies)

Why do we need the NYT to publish the report? You already seem to know
what's in it. Why don't you just tell us yourself?

Or are you afraid that no one would believe you, but that they believe
The
New York Times?

http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm

I wonder..why the Dems managed to get 1/4 of it redacted....
Any clues from your handlers at the DNC, Ed?

I have no information about it, Gunner. Try your unimpeachable sources: read
more Drudge, and check the right-wing blogs.They use ultrasound, I think, or
maybe a ouiga board.

WHAT!!!! Something Fast Eddie doesnt know about?????

Well **** me blind..theres a first!!

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

I realize that it is a stretch for Democrats to accept, but the New
York Times is not part of the government, and reporting what you consider
to be misdeeds to them doesn't constitute notifying the proper
authorities.

You'd better go back and read NYT v. US (1971). It was the "proper
authorities" who had violated the law. That's why we have a free press in
the first place.

--
Ed Huntress

pyotr filipivich writes:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: jim rozen writes on 22 Jan 2006
08:40:20 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.

You've been smoking your socks again. Its the ACLU and the Democrats
who want their religion made state policy, which is to say, they want to
suppress any hint of Christianity form the public square.

Sounds good. As far as religion is concerned believe whatever you
please at home but please don't get any on me.


Fine. So what is wrong with stringing them up from lampposts?

No due process.


Or just declaring them "un persons" and having them disappear into the
night and smog?


Nah, thats what Dubya & Co do already.

Greg

In article ain, gunner
says...

Actually..I dont see anywhere in the First Amendment anything about
Freedom From Religion. Would someone please point it out to me?

You really are clueless, aren't you?

There are two parts to that amendment - "Congress shall make no
law respecting the establishment of religion..." - that's the
one that says the government cannot force religion on you, and
then "...nor respecting the free exercise thereof."

The second part says they cannot ban religions by law.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Ed Huntress wrote:
So we have to decide if we prefer a free press,
as Jefferson did, or a censored one, which Adams preferred.

Which one do you prefer?

I'll take a free press that is also fair. One that doesn't take sides
politically. I get the feeling that sometimes they let their Bush
hatred overtake their journalistic responsibility.
GW

In article , Gunner says...

How about if we give you all the guns you want, and let you put a cross --
burning or not, as you choose -- on the front lawn of your town hall? Will
you then lay off the 4th Amendment and let the rest of the country have its
Bill of Rights -- the *whole* Bill of Rights?

We HAVE the Bill of Rights, subject to those infringed by the Left
over so many years. We simply need to remove those infringments.

You may HAVE it but you sure don't understand what it means or how
it works. I think you should take a 6th grade civics class before
anything you say about the constitution is guffawed at.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Well, I don't know how often you read the NYT or what you've read of the
editors' positions on these issues, but they're pretty cautious about
revealing anything that would pose an immediate threat to security.

The Times actually *had* the NSA wiretapping story before the last
presidential election, and decided not to run it. That single fact
alone shoots anyone's claim that they're a left wing liberal bastion.
They had it and chose not to run it, thereby handing the election over
to the malefactors.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.

... Its the ACLU and the Democrats
who want their religion made state policy, which is to say, they want to
suppress any hint of Christianity form the public square.

I was unaware that the democratic party had an official religion - but
the present crop of born-again idiots in the white house sure *do*.

Also, the last time I checked, the ACLU wasn't the government. How
come there are about a thousand organizations devoted to installing
religion in government (oddly, very few of them churches) yet the
only one anybody ever squawks about is the ACLU? Maybe that's because
they're so effective. At promoting the bill of rights. Not promoting
any religion.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:50:27 -0800, jim rozen wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

How about if we give you all the guns you want, and let you put a cross --
burning or not, as you choose -- on the front lawn of your town hall? Will
you then lay off the 4th Amendment and let the rest of the country have its
Bill of Rights -- the *whole* Bill of Rights?

We HAVE the Bill of Rights, subject to those infringed by the Left
over so many years. We simply need to remove those infringments.

You may HAVE it but you sure don't understand what it means or how
it works. I think you should take a 6th grade civics class before
anything you say about the constitution is guffawed at.

Jim

Actually Jimmy...I suspect Ive a much tighter grip on it than you do.
Watching you flail around on the subject is fascinating..though a bit like
watching a retarded child with his first ice cream cone.

Gunner

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:29:41 -0800, jim rozen wrote:

In article ain, gunner
says...

Actually..I dont see anywhere in the First Amendment anything about
Freedom From Religion. Would someone please point it out to me?

You really are clueless, aren't you?

There are two parts to that amendment - "Congress shall make no
law respecting the establishment of religion..." - that's the
one that says the government cannot force religion on you, and
then "...nor respecting the free exercise thereof."

The second part says they cannot ban religions by law.

Jim

Im still waiting for you to show me the freedom from religion part. Care
to try again?

Gunner

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: "Ed Huntress" writes on Mon, 23
Jan 2006 07:32:08 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
"pyotr filipivich" wrote:
I realize that it is a stretch for Democrats to accept, but the New
York Times is not part of the government, and reporting what you consider
to be misdeeds to them doesn't constitute notifying the proper authorities.

You'd better go back and read NYT v. US (1971). It was the "proper
authorities" who had violated the law. That's why we have a free press in
the first place.

So let me see if I have this correct. When you uncover evidence of
what you consider to be a crime, the proper response is to call a reporter
and tell them, and not to report it to those who have any responsibility
for proper enforcement of the law?

Hmm, must be interesting at the old newsroom. "Hey Charlie, Ed's on
the line again, wants to report that his house was broken into.." "Has he
called the cops?" "You know Ed, he believes he's suppose to call the
newspaper first."

From the evidence in this case, it appears that a disgruntled employee
who opposed Bush decided to rat out America's interests to the press,
rather than take it up the chain of command.

So of course the democrats believe him. Just as they believed the fake
but accurate memos about Lt Bush's time in the TANG.

Right, and I have a bridge for sale, and it not dear.


tootles
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Ned Simmons writes on Sun, 22 Jan 2006
19:58:29 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article ,
says...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:38:15 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

In article , says...
In article , Gunner says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.

The administration seems to be making very good progress on state
religion. Except in the wrong state and not their preferred religion.

That'd be Iraq and Islam for the irony impaired.

Ned Simmons

Please explain? The US is instituting a Religous Government in Iraq?

I'd say they're facilitating, rather than instituting, an Islamic state.

I'd say they're facilitating, rather than instituting, an Iraqi state.
It is also possible that the Iraqis, seeing what happens when organizations
like the ACLU search for [penumbras of emanations, decided to spell out in
no uncertain terms, what it was they based their national government on.
Liberal Democrats (old or new style) they are not.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: "Gus" writes on 23 Jan 2006
07:42:18 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Ed Huntress wrote:
So we have to decide if we prefer a free press,
as Jefferson did, or a censored one, which Adams preferred.

Which one do you prefer?

I'll take a free press that is also fair. One that doesn't take sides
politically. I get the feeling that sometimes they let their Bush
hatred overtake their journalistic responsibility.

I want one which is fair, and honest about it's agenda. The current
batch of journalist majors are anti-Bush, but in denial that that they are,
and also in denial that they oppose this administration because it is
Republican. They're also in denial that they are not "objective". They are
objective, they do quote from both sides, but they are not fair in their
manner.

When I am acclaimed Emperor, there will be one network which considers
the reason that the sun rises in the east is because the Republicans are in
Washington, and another which considers the reason the sun rises in the
east is so that God can keep an eye on those same republicans, and a third
which considers the first two networks to be just so many blathering
idiots.
But in the mean time, the blogosphere is fact checking the MSM before
the second edition can hit the printers. (Do they even have 1st 2nd and
final edition of news papers anymore?)


tschus
pyotr

Will be Emperor for machine tools.
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and what significance it all has.

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
So we have to decide if we prefer a free press,
as Jefferson did, or a censored one, which Adams preferred.

Which one do you prefer?

I'll take a free press that is also fair. One that doesn't take sides
politically. I get the feeling that sometimes they let their Bush
hatred overtake their journalistic responsibility.
GW

A free press is a partisan press; always has been, probably always will be.
In Jefferson's time they were little more than scandal sheets.

They are more balanced and neutral now than at any time in history. This is
as good as it gets, Gus. What you can do, like people in this country and in
other English-speaking countries have done for a couple of centuries, is to
find one you like and read that one.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

How about if we give you all the guns you want, and let you put a
cross --
burning or not, as you choose -- on the front lawn of your town hall?
Will
you then lay off the 4th Amendment and let the rest of the country have
its
Bill of Rights -- the *whole* Bill of Rights?

We HAVE the Bill of Rights, subject to those infringed by the Left
over so many years. We simply need to remove those infringments.

Darn, I missed that Gunner message. What a loss. g

Tell us, Gunner: Except for the 2nd, which of the BofR amendments has been
infringed by the left?

No general grumbling, now. Let's hear some specifics.

--
Ed Huntress

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: "Ed Huntress" writes on Mon, 23
Jan 2006 07:32:08 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
"pyotr filipivich" wrote:
I realize that it is a stretch for Democrats to accept, but the New
York Times is not part of the government, and reporting what you
consider
to be misdeeds to them doesn't constitute notifying the proper
authorities.

You'd better go back and read NYT v. US (1971). It was the "proper
authorities" who had violated the law. That's why we have a free press in
the first place.

So let me see if I have this correct. When you uncover evidence of
what you consider to be a crime, the proper response is to call a reporter
and tell them, and not to report it to those who have any responsibility
for proper enforcement of the law?

If the perpetrator is the president, you either call a big paper that has
guts, or nothing will happen. What do you think the Justice Dept. would have
done with the news that the NSA was bypassing the check-and-balance
requirement to get court approval, if you took the issue to them?

HAHAHAhoho...hoho,,,wheeze! g


From the evidence in this case, it appears that a disgruntled employee
who opposed Bush decided to rat out America's interests to the press,
rather than take it up the chain of command.

There is no "chain of command." This is the United States, not some
third-world dictatorship. And neither you nor the frat boy in the White
House gets to decide what America's interests are. That's for the American
People to decide...and they're not real high on the decisions being made in
that regard by the current resident of the White House.

--
Ed Huntress

pyotr filipivich wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: "Ed Huntress" writes on Mon, 23
Jan 2006 07:32:08 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking :


"pyotr filipivich" wrote:


I realize that it is a stretch for Democrats to accept, but the New
York Times is not part of the government, and reporting what you consider
to be misdeeds to them doesn't constitute notifying the proper authorities.


You'd better go back and read NYT v. US (1971). It was the "proper
authorities" who had violated the law. That's why we have a free press in
the first place.



So let me see if I have this correct. When you uncover evidence of
what you consider to be a crime, the proper response is to call a reporter
and tell them, and not to report it to those who have any responsibility
for proper enforcement of the law?

Hmm, must be interesting at the old newsroom. "Hey Charlie, Ed's on
the line again, wants to report that his house was broken into.." "Has he
called the cops?" "You know Ed, he believes he's suppose to call the
newspaper first."

From the evidence in this case, it appears that a disgruntled employee
who opposed Bush decided to rat out America's interests to the press,
rather than take it up the chain of command.


The top of the chain of command is.....THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. This
"disgruntled" employee seems to have taken it straight to the top.

You seem to be confusing Bush's job with that of an emperor. He works
for about 300 million of us...we don't work for him.


So of course the democrats believe him. Just as they believed the fake
but accurate memos about Lt Bush's time in the TANG.

Right, and I have a bridge for sale, and it not dear.


tootles
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.

"Ed Huntress" wrote

What you can do, like people in this country and in
other English-speaking countries have done for a couple of centuries, is
to
find one you like and read that one.


Unfortunately that is exactly what pyrotr, gummer and their ilk are doing.
You really can't get a real picture if you limit yourself to trusting only
O'Reilly, Rush and Anne.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com