Ed Huntress wrote:
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.

There you go. That makes sense.
GW

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:fceBf.11602$Dh.132@dukeread04...
"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.

But think about what they'd be reading if they didn't have that right-wing
trash: Spider Man comic books and Maxim.

At least this way they've learned to spell "Constitution," not to mention
"per currium" and "retard." All they'd learn from Maxim is six new
euphemisms for "vagina."

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:06:35 -0500, Glenn Ashmore wrote:

"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.

Or the Big 3 media, or trust the faxes from the DNC.

Seems to be a common failing around here.

Gunner

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:35:27 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

"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.

First Amendment, Freedom OF Religion and expression thereof.

There is two for a start. Odd how the very FIRST TWO are badly infringed.

I take it you are ok with that, Comrade?

Gunner

In article ain,
ldomain says...
er Democrat, wants to remain ignorant
From: gunner
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking

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

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."

That sure sounds like the establishment of a state religion to me.


Yes and? You know much about Sharia Law?


Enough to know that there are various interpretations of Sharia that
would make Earl Warren and Antonin Scalia look like kissing cousins.

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.


Nothing there denies an official state religion. I'd give you good odds
that ten years after we've left it'll be hard to tell the difference
between Iran and Iraq. Unless we just move the troops next door, then
Iran 2010 will look like Iraq 2006, and Iraq 2020 = Iran 2006.

Ned Simmons

In article ain, gunner
says...

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.

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.

Ah, stooping to ad hominin now, eh?

OK, a wee quiz here.

1) who can affect how the first amendment is applied - the supreme
court, or the ACLU?

2) who does the first amendment apply to - the federal government,
the state governments, or private corporations?

Waiting for your answers, I remain - Jim

Jim


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

In article ,
says...
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:


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.


So are you an originalist or a fan of the Living Sharia?

Ned Simmons

"gunner" wrote in message
news

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

First Amendment, Freedom OF Religion and expression thereof.

So, where's the beef? Who has prevented you from practicing or expressing a
religion?

C'mon. SPECIFICS! Don't give us a list of unspecified gripes, tell us about
a case that's been decided badly by those big, bad liberals on the Supreme
Court.


There is two for a start. Odd how the very FIRST TWO are badly infringed.

I take it you are ok with that, Comrade?

Pfhhht. Those are stinkers. We want to hear what those liberals have done to
you, not about your indigestion. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

First Amendment, Freedom OF Religion and expression thereof.

So, where's the beef? Who has prevented you from practicing or expressing a
religion?

C'mon. SPECIFICS! Don't give us a list of unspecified gripes, tell us about
a case that's been decided badly by those big, bad liberals on the Supreme
Court.

Geeze Gunner, come ON here. You have to holler about that idiot
judge with that stupid Ten Commandmants Tombstone! They borked that
one right off the bat, it wasn't even close.

And how about the Creationism case in PA? Doesn't that one count?
Oh, that was a circuit court, not the USSC.

Gunner must be having a bad day or something. I know I was, had a
gastrointestinal bug all last night.

Jim


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

In article , Ed Huntress says...

At least this way they've learned to spell "Constitution," not to mention
"per currium" and "retard." All they'd learn from Maxim is six new
euphemisms for "vagina."

Ouch.

I wish they had paid better attention in civics class though.

Jim


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

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

First Amendment, Freedom OF Religion and expression thereof.

So, where's the beef? Who has prevented you from practicing or expressing
a
religion?

C'mon. SPECIFICS! Don't give us a list of unspecified gripes, tell us
about
a case that's been decided badly by those big, bad liberals on the
Supreme
Court.

Geeze Gunner, come ON here. You have to holler about that idiot
judge with that stupid Ten Commandmants Tombstone! They borked that
one right off the bat, it wasn't even close.

And how about the Creationism case in PA? Doesn't that one count?
Oh, that was a circuit court, not the USSC.

Gunner must be having a bad day or something. I know I was, had a
gastrointestinal bug all last night.

My sympathies, I had one of those right after Christmas, when I had my first
days off in months.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

At least this way they've learned to spell "Constitution," not to mention
"per currium" and "retard." All they'd learn from Maxim is six new
euphemisms for "vagina."

Ouch.

I wish they had paid better attention in civics class though.

Well, maybe you had a good civics class. Mine was like the Golden Book
version of American history, as taught by the Republican National Committee
and the Police Athletic League.

I largely ignored it, recognizing that it was a collection of fantasies and
legends, and worse than useless.

--
Ed Huntress

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:fceBf.11602$Dh.132@dukeread04...
"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


They don't get a real picture because they don't want one. What they want is
for someone to validate their views. That's what they get from the right
wing media, a news outlet that makes no effort to put out objective
information. What's funny is that the right wingers make such a fuss about
the bias of the "left wing media" yet when an obviously biased right wing
outlet like Fox or AM radio comes along they can't see it's just as biased
but only in another direction. Of course, the truth is they don't want a
balanced, objective media. What they want is bias. They just want it to be
right wing bias. One thing is for sure. If there was nothing but right wing
media they would see nothing wrong with that at all. They only see a problem
when the bias is to the left. That's just the kind of people they are.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote

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.


Hey, Ed:

Do you think pyotr will be singing the same tune when it's Barak and
Hillary, rather than Dick and Dubya, claiming that "we're spying on you to
protect you"?

And what additional unilateral powers do you figure pyotr will want Dick and
Dubya to have next week, if (god forbid) there should be another major
attack tomorrow?

-- TP

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.


So are you an originalist or a fan of the Living Sharia?

Ned Simmons


He's got to be an "originalist" (love that term). But as for instituting an
Islamic state it's all a matter of language. There is no doubt that this is
just one more miscalculation by the Bush Administration. They replaced a
dictator by force but the last thing they thought when they did it was that
they would be replacing it with a fundamentalist Islamic state that would be
the antithesis of an American democracy. This is one time where they get to
say whoops!

Whether they institituted it or facilitated is immaterial. All that counts
is that what they are winding up with is probably going to be worse than
what they had before. Instead of the idyllic Jeffersonian democracy they
fantasized about when they thought about removing Saddam what they are going
to get is either a mini Iran or three separate states that will cause even
more instability in the region. The Iraq war is a monument to the concept of
unintended consequences. Nothing that is happening there is what the Bush
Administration expected, and it's all going far worse than they ever
imagined. Which just goes to show how much smarter and politically savvy the
older Bush was. He could have done just what Jr. did back in 1991 but knew
better. This is what happens when the boy tries to out do the father instead
of governing rationally. So far the war with Iraq has to be the biggest
blunder of this century.

Hawke

"gunner" wrote in message
news
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

What makes you think you have any kind of grip on the Constitution or
specifically the Bill of Rights. From what I have seen you know about
machine tools not law or politics. So where do you get off shooting your
mouth off about those things? And talk about flailing around the subject,
you're the last person to be criticizing anyone else. You're just plain
ignorant. Of course, that never stopped your kind from thinking you know
what you're talking about. Maybe you should go to college and learn about
the Constitution before you go around telling others about it. You just
sound really stupid when you run your mouth about stuff you don't know the
first thing about. Oh, and quoting blogs doesn't count as knowledge.

Hawke

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
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


The reason that you hear all the squawking from the right wingers concerning
religion is because they have an agenda they are pushing, and pushing hard.
Those of us who are sane, simply want religion kept where it belongs, in the
churches and homes of those who are believers. Unfortunately, the religious
right wing has a game plan to put their religion back where it used to be in
the bad old days, in schools, the government, the public square, and the
courts. They are fighting hard on all fronts to reinstall the Christian
religion in every institution in the country.

That's why you hear of all the fights about intelligent design, Ten
Commandments in courthouses, prayer in schools, religious displays on public
property, and the like. The right wing is actively pushing it's religion,
Christianity, on everyone and in everyplace. Part of their gameplan is to
accuse others of persecuting them and trying to drive them out of the public
square when in reality it's they who are trying to insinuate their religion
and their views every where they can. Fortunately for us the ACLU and the
Democrats are there to prevent them from turning the US into a Theocracy. I
say more power to them and keep up the good work.

Hawke

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:01:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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.

Then based on the actions of the State of California over the past 10
yrs..the Constitution is in its death throes.

Gunner

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

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:01:57 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:fceBf.11602$Dh.132@dukeread04...
"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.

But think about what they'd be reading if they didn't have that right-wing
trash: Spider Man comic books and Maxim.

At least this way they've learned to spell "Constitution," not to mention
"per currium" and "retard." All they'd learn from Maxim is six new
euphemisms for "vagina."

We also know how to spell RINO ****tard.

Gunner

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

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:59:20 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"gunner" wrote in message
news

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

First Amendment, Freedom OF Religion and expression thereof.

So, where's the beef? Who has prevented you from practicing or expressing a
religion?

C'mon. SPECIFICS! Don't give us a list of unspecified gripes, tell us about
a case that's been decided badly by those big, bad liberals on the Supreme
Court.


There is two for a start. Odd how the very FIRST TWO are badly infringed.

I take it you are ok with that, Comrade?

Pfhhht. Those are stinkers. We want to hear what those liberals have done to
you, not about your indigestion. d8-)

Still waiting to hear how all you Leftists are being Oppressed.

Gunner

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

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:52:25 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote

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.


Hey, Ed:

Do you think pyotr will be singing the same tune when it's Barak and
Hillary, rather than Dick and Dubya, claiming that "we're spying on you to
protect you"?

And what additional unilateral powers do you figure pyotr will want Dick and
Dubya to have next week, if (god forbid) there should be another major
attack tomorrow?

-- TP

The difference is...the Republicans spy on foreign enemies. The
Democrats spy on everyone who is not a far leftwing extremist fringe
kook.

Seems like you will be safe Tony. Unless you **** them off and they
turn the IRS loose on you.

Gunner

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

"tonyp" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote

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.


Hey, Ed:

Do you think pyotr will be singing the same tune when it's Barak and
Hillary, rather than Dick and Dubya, claiming that "we're spying on you to
protect you"?

And what additional unilateral powers do you figure pyotr will want Dick
and
Dubya to have next week, if (god forbid) there should be another major
attack tomorrow?

Next they send someone to open your mail and read it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

And what additional unilateral powers do you figure pyotr will want Dick
and
Dubya to have next week, if (god forbid) there should be another major
attack tomorrow?

-- TP

The difference is...the Republicans spy on foreign enemies.

snip

But that's anyone who didn't vote Republican. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:01:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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.

Then based on the actions of the State of California over the past 10
yrs..the Constitution is in its death throes.

You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till. Scalia, Roberts, and Alito start
exercising their opinions about states' rights.

You'll be wishing for a liberal Court that thinks the 14th Amendment is
living and breathing. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

But think about what they'd be reading if they didn't have that
right-wing
trash: Spider Man comic books and Maxim.

At least this way they've learned to spell "Constitution," not to mention
"per currium" and "retard." All they'd learn from Maxim is six new
euphemisms for "vagina."

We also know how to spell RINO ****tard.

Yes, you do. Those were your spelling-challenge questions for *last* month,
right?

And you got a gold star.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:59:20 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"gunner" wrote in message
news

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

First Amendment, Freedom OF Religion and expression thereof.

So, where's the beef? Who has prevented you from practicing or expressing
a
religion?

C'mon. SPECIFICS! Don't give us a list of unspecified gripes, tell us
about
a case that's been decided badly by those big, bad liberals on the
Supreme
Court.


There is two for a start. Odd how the very FIRST TWO are badly
infringed.

I take it you are ok with that, Comrade?

Pfhhht. Those are stinkers. We want to hear what those liberals have done
to
you, not about your indigestion. d8-)

Still waiting to hear how all you Leftists are being Oppressed.

I wouldn't know about that. You'll have to ask a leftist.

C'mon, Gunner, can't you come up with a single one? Is all of your ranting,
after all, based on bull**** and blue smoke?

No, wait, scratch that...another tautology...g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
snip

At least this way they've learned to spell "Constitution," not to mention
"per currium" and "retard." All they'd learn from Maxim is six new
euphemisms for "vagina."

"Per currium"?

R,
Tom Q.

--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

I want one which is fair, and honest about it's agenda.

You really are clueless about the constitution, and the background
behind it, aren't you? You don't have the slightest idea about
why the first amendment is there, or what it means.

You are completely in the dark about the reason that political
speech is the *highest* protected form of free speech, that in the US
anyone can say anything about a politician, without fear of prosecution.

You do not know that it is practically impossible to slander or libel
a politician, because this is exactly what the framers of the US
constitution WANTED to be the case. They WANTED the press to be
completely biased, unfair, and dishonest about what they printed.

They recognized that any government that could not stand up to the
inferno of a competely unfettered press was doomed to failure, and
that any govenment that could not tolerate same was doomed to devolve
into tyranny.

You do not appreciate this, nor do you apparently care.

Tell me sir, once they crown you emperor, how do you enforce the
fairness requirement on the press?

Well, the first thing you would have to do is pass a law about it.

Right there you run afoul of the constitution, because of that thing
that says "Congress shall pass no law...."

What does it say - some kind of law? Only laws about fairness? Or
maybe only laws that favor the current adminstration? Small laws?

No. It says NO LAW. None.

Jim


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

"Ed Huntress" wrote

Well, maybe you had a good civics class. Mine was like the Golden Book
version of American history, as taught by the Republican National
Committee
and the Police Athletic League.

I largely ignored it, recognizing that it was a collection of fantasies
and
legends, and worse than useless.

You too? My high school civics teacher was a card carrying Birchite. J.
Edgar's "Master's of Deceit" was the text book. The political science
classes at the Citadel were even worse. Fortunately I had a grandfather
who, while he hated FDR, loved the constitution and gave me some immunity
to the propaganda on both sides. Needless to say I was not the most popular
student in that class. :-)

--
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

gunner wrote:
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.

If that's the case it isn't obvious Gunner and it's your buddies running the
show who are infringing on things - not the imaginary group of lefty friends
that seem to populate your head.



"As Editor & Publisher has it, Knight Ridder reporter Jonathan Landay asked
Hayden during a talk at the National Press Club Monday about the "probable
cause" standard set forth in the Fourth Amendment. Hayden interrupted him.
"No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against
unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "But the --."

Hayden: "That's what it says."

Landay "But the measure is 'probable cause,' I believe --."

Hayden: "The amendment says 'unreasonable search and seizure.'"

Landay: "But does it not say 'probable --.'"

Hayden: "No. The amendment says ... 'unreasonable search and seizure.'"

Landay: "The legal standard is 'probable cause,' General ... And a FISA
court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before
them and say 'we reasonably believe'; you have to go to the FISA court, or
the attorney general has to go to the FISA court, and say, 'We have probable
cause.' And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to
this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the
FISA court by creating a new standard of 'reasonably believe' in place of
'probable cause' because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on
'reasonable belief,' you have to show 'probable cause.' Could you respond to
that, please?"

Hayden: "Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful
order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the
order. Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to
the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar
with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth
Amendment."

For those keeping score at home, the Fourth Amendment says: "The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

It was an embarrassing episode for a man who once assured us that we
shouldn't be concerned about the spying program because nobody's calls were
monitored unless a "shift supervisor" at the NSA signed off first. But
Hayden's constitutional dipsy-doodle wasn't the only truth-challenged moment
for the Bush administration Monday.

Defending his spying program in a talk at Kansas State University Monday,
Bush said: "You know, it's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he was just
breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing
Congress?" But Bush didn't "brief Congress" on the spying program; members
of his administration chose to brief only a handful of members of Congress,
a decision that the Congressional Research Service says was probably, in and
of itself, a violation of the law."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

In article , Pete C. says...

Many of those in Florida were elderly, but with a week warning they
still should have been able to request assistance evacuating either from
the state or their relatives or for that matter the management of some
of those retirement communities. Even those who specifically chose to
remain did nothing to prepare like filling a bathtub or containers with
water or insuring they had an adequate supply of their medication and a
way to keep it cool if needed.

Yeah, all those folks in the nursing homes who died really
should have been out there filling sandbags before the levees
broke.

Might have kept them high-n-dry for an extra three minutes.

Jim


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

"Gunner" wrote

The difference is...the Republicans spy on foreign enemies. The
Democrats spy on everyone who is not a far leftwing extremist fringe
kook.

Seems like you will be safe Tony. Unless you **** them off and they
turn the IRS loose on you.


You raise an interesting point, friend Gunner.

To fight the Global War On Terror, even a Republican government needs money.
Tax evasion, which deprives the government of money, can therefore be
defined as aid and comfort to the enemy. Better be scrupulously honest on
your tax returns, or you become one of Dick and Dubya's "enemy combatants".

Before they disappear you, they will of course monitor your electronic
communications, to identify possible accomplices. You communicate a lot, on
the internets, with this here "rcm" group, some of whose regulars are
foreigners! Bingo!! Another sleeper cell uncovered by our Dear Leader's
tireless efforts to win the Global War on Terror!!! Sieg Heil.

-- TP

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:57:03 GMT, John R. Carroll wrote:

If that's the case it isn't obvious Gunner and it's your buddies running the
show who are infringing on things - not the imaginary group of lefty friends
that seem to populate your head.

The Clintons, Boxer, Schumer, Kennedy, and friends are imaginary? That's
_wonderful_ news!

Oh wait, you're talking about the fourth, not the second. Well then,
that's _completely_ different. I mean, it's not like the second
guarantees the continued existance of the fourth or anything...

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:57:03 GMT, John R. Carroll
wrote:

If that's the case it isn't obvious Gunner and it's your buddies
running the show who are infringing on things - not the imaginary
group of lefty friends that seem to populate your head.

The Clintons, Boxer, Schumer, Kennedy, and friends are imaginary?
That's _wonderful_ news!

No, but they lack the same relevance Dave. The whole of them couldn't order
much more than lunch at the present time and I wouldn't want them to be able
to do even that. I guess I'm fed up with the justification that todays
wrongs can be excused by yesterdays misdeeds. That's both childish and
unproductive. It's also tantamount to admitting an unwillingness to learn
from past mistakes as well as one of Gunners hallmarks.


Oh wait, you're talking about the fourth, not the second. Well then,
that's _completely_ different. I mean, it's not like the second
guarantees the continued existance of the fourth or anything...

It's all of a piece. Get the camels nose under the flap an you have a
problem. Pretty soon the camel owns all of the real estate inside the tent
and you end up o the outside looking in.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

In article , John R. Carroll
says...

No, but they lack the same relevance Dave. The whole of them couldn't order
much more than lunch at the present time and I wouldn't want them to be able
to do even that. I guess I'm fed up with the justification that todays
wrongs can be excused by yesterdays misdeeds. That's both childish and
unproductive. It's also tantamount to admitting an unwillingness to learn
from past mistakes as well as one of Gunners hallmarks.

What's that song? "Lost in the 60s, tonight..."

Except here we have a case of fixation on anything, anything at
all before, say, right now. Teapot Dome, anyone?

Jim


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

jim rozen wrote:
In article , John R.
Carroll says...

No, but they lack the same relevance Dave. The whole of them
couldn't order much more than lunch at the present time and I
wouldn't want them to be able to do even that. I guess I'm fed up
with the justification that todays wrongs can be excused by
yesterdays misdeeds. That's both childish and unproductive. It's
also tantamount to admitting an unwillingness to learn from past
mistakes as well as one of Gunners hallmarks.

What's that song? "Lost in the 60s, tonight..."

Except here we have a case of fixation on anything, anything at
all before, say, right now. Teapot Dome, anyone?


Why stop there? Might as well go all the way back to the Chinese Fleet
discovering what would become America and establishing a trading outpost.
I'm sure there were sufficient intrigues even then and they'd be about as
relevant.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:42:00 GMT, John R. Carroll wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

The Clintons, Boxer, Schumer, Kennedy, and friends are imaginary?
That's _wonderful_ news!

No, but they lack the same relevance Dave. The whole of them couldn't order
much more than lunch at the present time and I wouldn't want them to be able
to do even that. I guess I'm fed up with the justification that todays
wrongs can be excused by yesterdays misdeeds. That's both childish and
unproductive. It's also tantamount to admitting an unwillingness to learn
from past mistakes as well as one of Gunners hallmarks.

Easy now, John. You said that the threat from the left was "imaginary".
I provided a counterexample. And it's not their past misdeeds that
worry me, it's their future misdeeds.

Oh wait, you're talking about the fourth, not the second. Well then,
that's _completely_ different. I mean, it's not like the second
guarantees the continued existance of the fourth or anything...

It's all of a piece. Get the camels nose under the flap an you have a
problem. Pretty soon the camel owns all of the real estate inside the tent
and you end up o the outside looking in.

Problem is the left wants to disarm people so they can't do anything
about other threats.

On 24 Jan 2006 10:40:34 -0800, jim rozen wrote:

What's that song? "Lost in the 60s, tonight..."

There is little more pathetic than hiding behind a killfile and yet
sniping at that person, Jim. Not that you'll see this, though, right?
Decide if you do, or don't, want to have a dialog with me.

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ain,
says...

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

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."

That sure sounds like the establishment of a state religion to me.

Mainly what those quotes show is that the people who drafted the Iraqi
constitution had no clue about how to draft a constitution. It punts the
job of deciding what the "Supreme Federal Court" should be, and its
duties, to the legislature. This is exactly the sort of question that
has to be nailed down in the constitution; otherwise the legislature can
override the court whenever it feels like it, by changing the law that
governs the court. (Yes, the law that defines the *membership* of the
court needs a two-thirds majority, but the more important laws that
define its *duties* do not. "Ahmed, Akbar, and Mohammed, your duties as
Supreme Federal Court Judges are now to go suck sand.")

And Article 2 is pure feel-good bull****. What are "the principles of
democracy"? One could argue about that forever -- likewise about which
of the rules of Islam are "undisputed". (Undisputed by who? I dispute
them all!) With such vague and meaningless rules, perhaps it's good the
court enforcing them is to be toothless.

Consider another of the articles:

| Article (22): 1st - Work is a right for all Iraqis in a way that
| guarantees them a good life.

That sounds like communism.

But it isn't. It's just propaganda. Most of the document is just
propaganda. It makes no sense as a set of rules to be lived by; it is
rather a description of how an ideal country works. (Ideal in Iraqi
eyes, that is.) To quote from article 29:

| Children have the right to upbringing, education and care from their
| parents; parents have the right to respect and care from their children,
| especially in times of want, disability or old age.

Yeah, right.


--
Norman Yarvin http://yarchive.net

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:42:00 GMT, John R. Carroll
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

The Clintons, Boxer, Schumer, Kennedy, and friends are imaginary?
That's _wonderful_ news!

Easy now, John. You said that the threat from the left was
"imaginary".
I provided a counterexample. And it's not their past misdeeds that
worry me, it's their future misdeeds.

Your examples are real, what isn't ( in my mind of course) is the threat
they present.
Imagining ( ie imaginary ) future deeds while overlooking or justifuing what
is a clear and present danger just doesn't make sense.
I'd rather be absolutely certain that equal treatment and protection under
the law and constitution are enforced today. The future will then be able to
take care of itself. In the last five years we have seen the "one law for
all" nature of our government thrown very publicly out the window. We have
American citizens detained but not charged for years on American soil and
now the abridgement of both holdings and privacy. If I'm the only one
excited about that OK, but I'm gonna continue to be up in arms if you don't
mind, even if you do.

It's all of a piece. Get the camels nose under the flap an you have a
problem. Pretty soon the camel owns all of the real estate inside
the tent and you end up o the outside looking in.

Problem is the left wants to disarm people so they can't do anything
about other threats.

Not in my opinion. There are skunks in both parties on this issue and they
are being handed the tools they need - today - to achieve their aims at a
later date. Any situation that requires a benevolent ruler needs avoiding
like the plague. We'll have a less benevolent one at some point and it'll be
too late then. Think about what would happen in the aftermath of the next
terrorist attack if Bush and Co started beating the drum for the surrender
of certain types of weapons to prevent future attacks. His stated position
is presently one which would allow him to compel such an action using his
war powers as commander in chief. The President of the United States clearly
stated that he feels he has the authority to override, without
supervision/oversight or consent, the other branches of government in the
40 plus page justification for domestic intelligence gathering just
released.

You can spare me the prying out of my cold dead hands stuff. A compelling
case might get real traction and then you would find yourself on the "wrong"
side of the issue and an outlaw. You might, in fact, be classified as a
terrorist and your habeas corpus rights, among others, would be out the
window courtesy of the USA Patriot Act. Now THERE is a misnomer if ever
there was one.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com