On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:25:07 GMT, John R. Carroll wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

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.

Your trust in those individuals is inspirational (in an unwise, naiive
kind of way).

Imagining ( ie imaginary ) future deeds while overlooking or justifuing what
is a clear and present danger just doesn't make sense.

Just think what would happen if _both_ groups got their way.

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

Not in my opinion.

Short memory? How about this gem?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS` "60 Minutes"-- "If I could
have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright
ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all
in, I would have done it."

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.

YES. and if the left has you and I 'turn them all in' all we can do
about it is whine.

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.

Speaking of short memories, did your party's senators vote against the
original one? Other than Russ Feingold, they all went along...)

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:25:07 GMT, John R. Carroll
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

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.

Your trust in those individuals is inspirational (in an unwise, naiive
kind of way).

Imagining ( ie imaginary ) future deeds while overlooking or
justifuing what is a clear and present danger just doesn't make
sense.

Just think what would happen if _both_ groups got their way.

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

Not in my opinion.

Short memory? How about this gem?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS` "60 Minutes"-- "If I could
have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an
outright
ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all
in, I would have done it."


I wish she had Dave. It would have gotten to the Supremes very quickly and
between the courts and the freshly minted congress that would have been the
product of the next election cycle, this issue would have been confronted
head on and dealt with clearly in the appropriate venue. You aren't afraid
to let the system resolve this issue in a definitive way are you? We either
have the greatest system on the planet or we don't. Which is it?

BTW, she was referring specifically to a particular category of fire arm.
Something I suspect you know.



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.

YES. and if the left has you and I 'turn them all in' all we can do
about it is whine.

Well, we'll still be at "war" in 2006 and 2008 Dave so we'll have an
opportunity to see what the other side will do.
Unless of course the courts and the Congress will stand up to W before then.


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.

Speaking of short memories, did your party's senators vote against the
original one? Other than Russ Feingold, they all went along...)

First, I've pretty much dropped any party affiliation but I'm still
registered as a Republican. My office is in Jane Harmon's district but live
in one represented by the clones of B-1 Bob. My youngest brother lives in
what used to be Duke Cunningham's district as a matter of fact and I have a
longstanding business relationship with one of the candidates for that seat,
Allan Uke. I've contributed the maximum to his campaign. Seems fair as he
gave me all of the bussiness I could handle and then some when I was
starting out years back.

Second, what's the difference? The votes that count are the ones about to
occur now, not the ones that didn't, might or might not at some future date.



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

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...
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.

See what happens when you don't take those spelling lessons from the
right-wing blogs? g

--
Ed Huntress
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
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...

Aha, the old "keeps the alligators away" argument. g

How many shots have you fired in the cause of supporting the Fourth
Amendment, Dave? And who was it you were shooting at?

--
Ed Huntress

In article , John R. Carroll
says...

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.

Yep, it's all under the war powers of the president, John. He's the
(what's the phrase) sole arm of american power dealing with terrorists
which means at this point he can do whatever he damn well pleases
and the constitution can simply be ignored. It IS being ignored at
the moment!

Practically nobody seems to care. Indeed you have so many
apologists for the present administration's actions it boggles my
mind. They don't realize if they can destroy the fourth amemdment
"because we need to, to fight tangos" then they can just as easily
shut down any other one simply because "we feel like it today and
it makes the cops' jobs easier and cheaper for us."

Wow. Separation of powers destroyed, the bill of rights destroyed,
the federal budget deficit out of control. Short of actually
toppling the statue of liberty I can't imagine what else those folks
could do to drive home their point: "we're in charge, your
liberty is now offically defunct. Too damn bad. Oh, and BTW your taxes
are going up too."

Gunner sees this as a partisan issue. I don't, I agree with you - any
political party that pushes this line is destroying our govenment in
the long run. It looks like that run's getting pretty short too.

Jim


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

Wow. Separation of powers destroyed, the bill of rights destroyed,
the federal budget deficit out of control. Short of actually
toppling the statue of liberty I can't imagine what else those folks
could do to drive home their point: "we're in charge, your
liberty is now offically defunct. Too damn bad. Oh, and BTW your taxes
are going up too."

Not to worry. Hillary plans a rescue !

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , John R.
Carroll
says...

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.

Yep, it's all under the war powers of the president, John. He's the
(what's the phrase) sole arm of american power dealing with terrorists
which means at this point he can do whatever he damn well pleases
and the constitution can simply be ignored. It IS being ignored at
the moment!

Practically nobody seems to care. Indeed you have so many
apologists for the present administration's actions it boggles my
mind. They don't realize if they can destroy the fourth amemdment
"because we need to, to fight tangos" then they can just as easily
shut down any other one simply because "we feel like it today and
it makes the cops' jobs easier and cheaper for us."

Wow. Separation of powers destroyed, the bill of rights destroyed,
the federal budget deficit out of control. Short of actually
toppling the statue of liberty I can't imagine what else those folks
could do to drive home their point: "we're in charge, your
liberty is now offically defunct. Too damn bad. Oh, and BTW your taxes
are going up too."

Gunner sees this as a partisan issue. I don't, I agree with you - any
political party that pushes this line is destroying our govenment in
the long run. It looks like that run's getting pretty short too.

Jim


This should give everyone a good insight into what it must have been like in
Germany in the 1930s. Everyone was jumping on the Nazi bandwagon and anyone
that didn't go along was labeled a traitor or unpatriotic. We're doing the
same thing today. We're throwing out all the rules that keep the government
under control all for the sake of being safe from the evil terrorists. The
Germans did the same thing. They gave one man unlimited power to do as he
pleased. They threw out all the constraints on his authority. We're in the
process of doing the same thing. The only question is whether we are going
to come to our senses and put the brakes on the unlimited presidency or are
we going to hand over the government to the executive branch? If we don't
stop it soon there is no question that there is going to be a very negative
outcome. How and what it will be is unknown but one thing is for sure;
nothing good is going to come from allowing so much power to be concentrated
in the hands of one man. It never does.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , John R.
Carroll
says...

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.

Yep, it's all under the war powers of the president, John. He's the
(what's the phrase) sole arm of american power dealing with terrorists
which means at this point he can do whatever he damn well pleases
and the constitution can simply be ignored. It IS being ignored at
the moment!

Practically nobody seems to care. Indeed you have so many
apologists for the present administration's actions it boggles my
mind. They don't realize if they can destroy the fourth amemdment
"because we need to, to fight tangos" then they can just as easily
shut down any other one simply because "we feel like it today and
it makes the cops' jobs easier and cheaper for us."

Wow. Separation of powers destroyed, the bill of rights destroyed,
the federal budget deficit out of control. Short of actually
toppling the statue of liberty I can't imagine what else those folks
could do to drive home their point: "we're in charge, your
liberty is now offically defunct. Too damn bad. Oh, and BTW your taxes
are going up too."

Gunner sees this as a partisan issue. I don't, I agree with you - any
political party that pushes this line is destroying our govenment in
the long run. It looks like that run's getting pretty short too.

Jim

This should give everyone a good insight into what it must have been like in
Germany in the 1930s. Everyone was jumping on the Nazi bandwagon and anyone
that didn't go along was labeled a traitor or unpatriotic. We're doing the
same thing today. We're throwing out all the rules that keep the government
under control all for the sake of being safe from the evil terrorists. The
Germans did the same thing. They gave one man unlimited power to do as he
pleased. They threw out all the constraints on his authority. We're in the
process of doing the same thing. The only question is whether we are going
to come to our senses and put the brakes on the unlimited presidency or are
we going to hand over the government to the executive branch? If we don't
stop it soon there is no question that there is going to be a very negative
outcome. How and what it will be is unknown but one thing is for sure;
nothing good is going to come from allowing so much power to be concentrated
in the hands of one man. It never does.

Hawke

Following a trend?....
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/article...democracy.html

Tom

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:13:20 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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-)

Cites?

Gunner

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

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:20:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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

Still waiting Ed.

Gunner

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

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:15:15 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:


"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

So you were ok with Clinton using the IRS against his political
enemies..but not the Republicans?

Speaking of enemies of the state... How are the Waco survivors doing
these days?

Gunner

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

On 24 Jan 2006 08:07:42 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

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

Quite true. Seems the Demorats let em drown. But then...they are
pretty good at letting people die.

Gunner

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

On 24 Jan 2006 05:30:06 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

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

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You will notice it also forbids the free expression of religion. Not
to mention freedom of speech.

Im still waiting for your cites on the claim you made about :freedom
From religion:

Gunner

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

On 24 Jan 2006 20:33:21 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


Wow. Separation of powers destroyed, the bill of rights destroyed,
the federal budget deficit out of control. Short of actually
toppling the statue of liberty I can't imagine what else those folks
could do to drive home their point: "we're in charge, your
liberty is now offically defunct. Too damn bad. Oh, and BTW your taxes
are going up too."

Not to worry. Hillary plans a rescue !


Just like at Waco.

Remember..it was For the Children

Gunner

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

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Aha, the old "keeps the alligators away" argument. g

How many shots have you fired in the cause of supporting the Fourth
Amendment, Dave? And who was it you were shooting at?

I dunno about him (don't interact much any more) but I know
I fired a few shots. I voted for schumer, and he gave scalito
a run for his money....

Does taht qualify as a shot Ed?

Jim


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

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

OTOH, I voted for Reagan as President three times.

A registered member of the Alzheimers party....

Jim


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

In article , Gunner says...

Quite true. Seems the Demorats let em drown. But then...they are
pretty good at letting people die.

Oddly the reconstruction plan formulated by one of your republicans
has been buried by another republican.

Now just *how* are you gonna blame that one on clinton?

There's a whole buncha folks out there who are about to get
a shock about who they thought their political party really
was....

Jim


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

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:41:17 -0500, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote:




"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. :-)
My civics teacher when I was a junior in high school was great. He had
us doing things like walking down the halls while class was in session
loudly chanting "CUT CLASS, CUT CLASS". Then we observed the reactions
of students and teachers alike. Very informative when considering
protests. This was in 1973.
ERS

Tom wrote:
Following a trend?....
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/article...democracy.html

Tom

THANK YOU Tom.
I wish everyone would read that. It's very scary to contemplate
the results predicted by that peice.
...lew...

In article , Gunner says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You will notice it also forbids the free expression of religion. Not
to mention freedom of speech.

Good, you have the full text there. But you are still uncertain
about what it means. Your comment at the end indicates some
confusion and is flatly incorrect. Lay it out in its entirety,
the authors were quite stingy with words even if dead-on gramatically
correct:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people..."

and so on.

The first part is the 'establishment' clause. That guarantees
freedom *from* religion, the govenment cannot create state
religions. The second is the free exercise clause which gives
freedom *of* religion - they cannot ban or restrict it with laws.

Notice this stuff only applies TO THE GOVENMENT. None of this
applies to anyone else - corporations, private individuals, etc.

Im still waiting for your cites on the claim you made about :freedom
From religion:

See comments above. For further details take out a book on constituional
law. But those are the standard views of the document. You can put
whatever spin you want on the document, but if you tried to bluster your
way through a first year law class on it you would be laughed out of
the room.

Jim


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

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:44:10 GMT, John R. Carroll wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:25:07 GMT, John R. Carroll

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS` "60 Minutes"-- "If I could
have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an
outright
ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all
in, I would have done it."

I wish she had Dave. It would have gotten to the Supremes very quickly and
between the courts and the freshly minted congress that would have been the
product of the next election cycle, this issue would have been confronted
head on and dealt with clearly in the appropriate venue.

Passing a bad law in the hopes of a SCOTUS reversal is a poor strategy.

You aren't afraid
to let the system resolve this issue in a definitive way are you? We either
have the greatest system on the planet or we don't. Which is it?

Time will tell. Taking away the second would make the fourth pretty
useless though, wouldn't it.

BTW, she was referring specifically to a particular category of fire arm.
Something I suspect you know.

Some day you need to go look up what "infringed" means, John. Even if
she was only talking about (gasp!) ugly guns, her intent is
unmistakable. As you undoubtedly know, those guns are functionally
identical to millions of other, not-on-that-list guns.

You don't make a stray dog go away by only giving it a little steak.

Speaking of short memories, did your party's senators vote against the
original one? Other than Russ Feingold, they all went along...)

First, I've pretty much dropped any party affiliation but I'm still
registered as a Republican. My office is in Jane Harmon's district but live
in one represented by the clones of B-1 Bob. My youngest brother lives in
what used to be Duke Cunningham's district as a matter of fact and I have a
longstanding business relationship with one of the candidates for that seat,
Allan Uke. I've contributed the maximum to his campaign. Seems fair as he
gave me all of the bussiness I could handle and then some when I was
starting out years back.

Evasion noted.

Second, what's the difference? The votes that count are the ones about to
occur now, not the ones that didn't, might or might not at some future date.

Riiiiight. History doesn't matter, especially when it's inconveniently
at odds with the point you're trying to make. Facts don't exist in a
vacuum, John, especially when we're talking current people in the same
jobs.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:06:58 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

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...

Aha, the old "keeps the alligators away" argument. g

This again, Ed?

How many shots have you fired in the cause of supporting the Fourth
Amendment, Dave? And who was it you were shooting at?

You don't understand the concept of "don't do (thing), it's too risky",
do you Ed.

On 25 Jan 2006 05:02:49 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Aha, the old "keeps the alligators away" argument. g

How many shots have you fired in the cause of supporting the Fourth
Amendment, Dave? And who was it you were shooting at?

I dunno about him (don't interact much any more) but I know
I fired a few shots. I voted for schumer, and he gave scalito
a run for his money....

Yeah, he just answers my points, but has me in his killfile. Isn't that
lovely. Grow some balls, Jim. Either stop answering me, or talk to me
directly.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:04:26 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 24 Jan 2006 05:30:06 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

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

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



You will notice it also forbids the free expression of religion. Not
to mention freedom of speech.

Addendum...forbits prohibition of the free expression. Sorry..it was
late.

Im still waiting for your cites on the claim you made about :freedom
From religion:

Gunner

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

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

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You will notice it also forbids the free expression of religion. Not
to mention freedom of speech.

Good, you have the full text there. But you are still uncertain
about what it means. Your comment at the end indicates some
confusion and is flatly incorrect. Lay it out in its entirety,
the authors were quite stingy with words even if dead-on gramatically
correct:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people..."

and so on.

The first part is the 'establishment' clause. That guarantees
freedom *from* religion, the govenment cannot create state
religions. The second is the free exercise clause which gives
freedom *of* religion - they cannot ban or restrict it with laws.

Notice this stuff only applies TO THE GOVENMENT. None of this
applies to anyone else - corporations, private individuals, etc.

Im still waiting for your cites on the claim you made about :freedom
From religion:

See comments above. For further details take out a book on constituional
law. But those are the standard views of the document. You can put
whatever spin you want on the document, but if you tried to bluster your
way through a first year law class on it you would be laughed out of
the room.

Jim


That was a good explanation but I'm still confused about the freedom
From religion part. Doesn't the First Amendment say that we're free
From the establishment of a (national) religion and nothing else?

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree or that a town
can't have the 10 Commandments on public property. They always cite
this establishment thing but that's a huge stretch.

It almost seems like they have used the establishment clause to beat
down the free exercise clause.
GW

On 25 Jan 2006 05:24:09 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Quite true. Seems the Demorats let em drown. But then...they are
pretty good at letting people die.

Oddly the reconstruction plan formulated by one of your republicans
has been buried by another republican.

Evidently it was not considered to be a good plan by the other
Republican.

Now just *how* are you gonna blame that one on clinton?


Why would I? Now then..there is Ray Nagan and that buffoonish lady
democrat Governor to consider also....

There's a whole buncha folks out there who are about to get
a shock about who they thought their political party really
was....

Indeed. Seems Dems are jumping ship at remarkable rates.

Jim

So..hows Mary Jo Kopechne these days?

Gunner

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

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:44:10 GMT, John R. Carroll
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:25:07 GMT, John R. Carroll


Passing a bad law in the hopes of a SCOTUS reversal is a poor
strategy.


I'd agree with you in many, even most, circumstances but not here because of
the active and well financed nature of the gun lobby.



You aren't afraid
to let the system resolve this issue in a definitive way are you? We
either have the greatest system on the planet or we don't. Which is
it?

Time will tell. Taking away the second would make the fourth pretty
useless though, wouldn't it.

Privacy is under attack by the executive branch today Dave. Not the second.
That makes a big difference to me but I'm for letting the courts interpret
the constitution and the law, not the President. It isn't his job to make
these calls when there is a question.

BTW, she was referring specifically to a particular category of fire
arm. Something I suspect you know.

Some day you need to go look up what "infringed" means, John. Even if
she was only talking about (gasp!) ugly guns, her intent is
unmistakable. As you undoubtedly know, those guns are functionally
identical to millions of other, not-on-that-list guns.

Yes Dave, but in our earlier conversations you managed to impress the value
of being precise and the disingenuous nature of being overly broad. LOL



You don't make a stray dog go away by only giving it a little steak.

I mentioned that regarding privacy rights and you shined it Dave. The camel
and tent flap analogy is the same thing.



Speaking of short memories, did your party's senators vote against
the original one? Other than Russ Feingold, they all went along...)

First, I've pretty much dropped any party affiliation but I'm still
registered as a Republican. My office is in Jane Harmon's district
but live in one represented by the clones of B-1 Bob. My youngest
brother lives in what used to be Duke Cunningham's district as a
matter of fact and I have a longstanding business relationship with
one of the candidates for that seat, Allan Uke. I've contributed the
maximum to his campaign. Seems fair as he gave me all of the
bussiness I could handle and then some when I was starting out years
back.

Evasion noted.

I corrected what was your own false statement Dave. You said something about
"my party" if you will recall.


Riiiiight. History doesn't matter, especially when it's
inconveniently
at odds with the point you're trying to make. Facts don't exist in a
vacuum, John, especially when we're talking current people in the same
jobs.

I don't see that we are at all. The jobs may be the same but they have been
significantly marginalized.

I think we just dissagree on these things Dave. I doubt that I could
influence you and you likely won't influence me. I can live with that.

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

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:36:03 GMT, John R. Carroll wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Passing a bad law in the hopes of a SCOTUS reversal is a poor
strategy.

I'd agree with you in many, even most, circumstances but not here because of
the active and well financed nature of the gun lobby.

The reason the "gun lobby" is active and well financed, John, is because
people like me actively finance it. It's not some nebulous entity, it's
people who give a **** about the issues enough to give time and money to
the effort.

Time will tell. Taking away the second would make the fourth pretty
useless though, wouldn't it.

Privacy is under attack by the executive branch today Dave. Not the second.

Yes, I _UNDERSTAND_ that, John. Would you feel better about what you
see to be Bush's plan, if Clinton and friends had already succeeded in
disarming us?

Some day you need to go look up what "infringed" means, John. Even if
she was only talking about (gasp!) ugly guns, her intent is
unmistakable. As you undoubtedly know, those guns are functionally
identical to millions of other, not-on-that-list guns.

Yes Dave, but in our earlier conversations you managed to impress the value
of being precise and the disingenuous nature of being overly broad. LOL

LOL yourself. "Turn them all in" is pretty damn clear to me. Further,
you missed my point about "infringed". Even if she did mean just those
17 models (which I don't believe given the context, and I've read the
interview several times), it's on obvious step to the next which is "Oh,
look, this one is functionally identical but doesn't have a (flash hider
/ bayonet mount / whatever) and of course the intent of the law was to
ban that, too. Oh, and look, Grandpa's 100 year old Browning fires
every time you pull the trigger, so that's functionally identical too,
and... and pretty soon, you're infringed into oblivion. Don't pretend
that wouldn't be the obvious tactic.

You don't make a stray dog go away by only giving it a little steak.

I mentioned that regarding privacy rights and you shined it Dave. The camel
and tent flap analogy is the same thing.

And you keep missing my point that without the second, the fourth is
worthless. They're both important, and both under threat. If both
sides take away what they want, we're very screwed.

First, I've pretty much dropped any party affiliation but I'm still
registered as a Republican. My office is in Jane Harmon's district
but live in one represented by the clones of B-1 Bob. My youngest
brother lives in what used to be Duke Cunningham's district as a
matter of fact and I have a longstanding business relationship with
one of the candidates for that seat, Allan Uke. I've contributed the
maximum to his campaign. Seems fair as he gave me all of the
bussiness I could handle and then some when I was starting out years
back.

Evasion noted.

I corrected what was your own false statement Dave. You said something about
"my party" if you will recall.

OK, whatever. The party of whose actions you don't seem to have a
problem with then. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you know,
that whole thing.

Riiiiight. History doesn't matter, especially when it's
inconveniently
at odds with the point you're trying to make. Facts don't exist in a
vacuum, John, especially when we're talking current people in the same
jobs.

I don't see that we are at all. The jobs may be the same but they have been
significantly marginalized.

I see Clinton, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, and friends to be
current threats to my rights. They don't stop being a threat just
because they're ineffective at the moment.

I think we just dissagree on these things Dave. I doubt that I could
influence you and you likely won't influence me. I can live with that.

Fair enough.

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

You aren't afraid
to let the system resolve this issue in a definitive way are you? We either
have the greatest system on the planet or we don't. Which is it?

Time will tell. Taking away the second would make the fourth pretty
useless though, wouldn't it.

Taking away the fourth makes the second equally useless.

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

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:36:03 GMT, John R. Carroll
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Passing a bad law in the hopes of a SCOTUS reversal is a poor
strategy.

I'd agree with you in many, even most, circumstances but not here
because of the active and well financed nature of the gun lobby.

The reason the "gun lobby" is active and well financed, John, is
because
people like me actively finance it. It's not some nebulous entity,
it's
people who give a **** about the issues enough to give time and money
to
the effort.

Time will tell. Taking away the second would make the fourth pretty
useless though, wouldn't it.

Privacy is under attack by the executive branch today Dave. Not the
second.

Yes, I _UNDERSTAND_ that, John. Would you feel better about what you
see to be Bush's plan, if Clinton and friends had already succeeded in
disarming us?

No, I wouldn't, but the Patriot Act is up again for renewal next week and
unless I'm mistaken there is no legistlation on this terms calendar that
would involve a more direct challenge to either the 4th or 2nd than that
one. I don't think there is additional specific significant gun law coming
up at all.

I think this might be where we are disconnecting Dave. I'm concerned about
them all as well as you are but my priorities are set according to what is
going on right now - today - that might be influenced and not by what has
happened in the past or might happen at some point in the future after a
change in political alignment. I'd like this to sort itself out so that it
won't matter who's in office - they'll be screwed if they want to violate
anybodies rights. My entire view of government can be stated as "Get Out of
My LIFE", and you should feel free to add the expletive of your choice to
that. I don't want a Nanny State and I don't need another "Father". I have a
dad, he's dead and that is that, I've no need for an elected or appointed
substitute.


LOL yourself. "Turn them all in" is pretty damn clear to me.
Further,
you missed my point about "infringed". Even if she did mean just
those 17 models (which I don't believe given the context, and I've
read the
interview several times), it's on obvious step to the next which is
"Oh,
look, this one is functionally identical but doesn't have a (flash
hider / bayonet mount / whatever) and of course the intent of the law
was to
ban that, too. Oh, and look, Grandpa's 100 year old Browning fires
every time you pull the trigger, so that's functionally identical too,
and... and pretty soon, you're infringed into oblivion. Don't pretend
that wouldn't be the obvious tactic.

I do not think that there is even the slightest chance of that happening. I
agree that the tactic will be tried but I am certain it would fail.
It always has in the past. Think about this. The BMG has been on the list of
things to have banned here in California for years. What got the job done
was the BUSH administration's support of that effort on the basis of the
weapons possible use by terrorists.



You don't make a stray dog go away by only giving it a little steak.

I mentioned that regarding privacy rights and you shined it Dave.
The camel and tent flap analogy is the same thing.

And you keep missing my point that without the second, the fourth is
worthless. They're both important, and both under threat. If both
sides take away what they want, we're very screwed.

It's a matter of priorities Dave, not a basic dissagreement on principal.


First, I've pretty much dropped any party affiliation but I'm still
registered as a Republican. My office is in Jane Harmon's district
but live in one represented by the clones of B-1 Bob. My youngest
brother lives in what used to be Duke Cunningham's district as a
matter of fact and I have a longstanding business relationship with
one of the candidates for that seat, Allan Uke. I've contributed
the maximum to his campaign. Seems fair as he gave me all of the
bussiness I could handle and then some when I was starting out
years back.

Evasion noted.

I corrected what was your own false statement Dave. You said
something about "my party" if you will recall.

OK, whatever. The party of whose actions you don't seem to have a
problem with then. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you know,
that whole thing.

The best thing about Democrats right now is Dean, Kerry and Pelosi - even
the Clintons although if Bill ran for the Presidency tommorrow he'd flatten
Bush. That isn't a partisan judgement Dave, it's the plain and amazing truth
in my opinion. As long as they represent the party they are all toast. You
can't possibly take that bunch seriously as they just aren't credible.
Bush and the neocon Republicans are an entirely different matter. They hold
and excercise the levers of power in both houses of Congress and the
Executive.You can't help but take that very seriously, and the difference
couldn't be more obvious.


Riiiiight. History doesn't matter, especially when it's
inconveniently
at odds with the point you're trying to make. Facts don't exist in
a vacuum, John, especially when we're talking current people in the
same jobs.

I don't see that we are at all. The jobs may be the same but they
have been significantly marginalized.

I see Clinton, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, and friends to be
current threats to my rights. They don't stop being a threat just
because they're ineffective at the moment.

See above.


I think we just dissagree on these things Dave. I doubt that I could
influence you and you likely won't influence me. I can live with
that.

Fair enough.

It really is Dave. I'd like to see that our country remains one in which
that can be the case. AFAIK we agree completely on that.
I could be wrong but I'll stick my neck out that far.
The US isn't a great county because you can succeed Dave, it's a great
nation, and to a certain extent unique, because you are allowed to fail and
learn from the excercise. That's why no one should ever give up all hope.
You can always brush yourself off and try again with greater wisdom and that
is really what's at risk.

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

Gus wrote:

jim rozen wrote:


In article , Gunner says...



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You will notice it also forbids the free expression of religion. Not
to mention freedom of speech.


Good, you have the full text there. But you are still uncertain
about what it means. Your comment at the end indicates some
confusion and is flatly incorrect. Lay it out in its entirety,
the authors were quite stingy with words even if dead-on gramatically
correct:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people..."

and so on.

The first part is the 'establishment' clause. That guarantees
freedom *from* religion, the govenment cannot create state
religions. The second is the free exercise clause which gives
freedom *of* religion - they cannot ban or restrict it with laws.

Notice this stuff only applies TO THE GOVENMENT. None of this
applies to anyone else - corporations, private individuals, etc.



Im still waiting for your cites on the claim you made about :freedom


From religion:

See comments above. For further details take out a book on constituional
law. But those are the standard views of the document. You can put
whatever spin you want on the document, but if you tried to bluster your
way through a first year law class on it you would be laughed out of
the room.

Jim




That was a good explanation but I'm still confused about the freedom
From religion part. Doesn't the First Amendment say that we're free
From the establishment of a (national) religion and nothing else?

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree or that a town
can't have the 10 Commandments on public property. They always cite
this establishment thing but that's a huge stretch.

It almost seems like they have used the establishment clause to beat
down the free exercise clause.
GW



When a religious symbol or ceremony is allowed (placed by the
authorities or with specific permission of the authorities) in a
publicly owned location, it is implied that the government is condoning
the particular religion involved. There is an easy test....If the
courthouse were to put up a pentagram as a symbol of satan as well as a
list of chaos-laws from the satanic bible, would the other side be
protesting up the yazoo? Of course they would...and the argument would
be that the state was condoning and or establishing that satanism was
part of the government process.

Although more subtle, giving a moment of "silence" for prayer in school
condones and establishes that there IS such a thing as a "higher power"
to commune with. In many cases, there would be extreme pressure on the
minority (for example, a 6 year old atheist in a highly christian area)
to pretend along with the other kids in order to not be chastised for
his/her beliefs. Nothing says that you can't pray for yourself 5000
times a day, it only says that having the state make special time for it
is the same as condoning specific religions which believe in prayer as
well as the notion that there is someone/thing to pray to.

Going even further...what about religions that believe in praying via
banging cymbals and similar? Do you think any school would stand for
the clanging and banging of those student's prayers during that "prayer
minute"? Doubtful. Prayer time in schools is really about CHRISTIAN
prayer time, and is establishing a specific religion.

If you allow christmas trees (taking them as a religious symbol which
they really aren't in my opinion) and symbols/text of other religions in
public locations, you also MUST allow the same for weirder
religions...even those which most consider abhorrent like satanism,
witchcraft, (what would be considered by most to be) cults, etc. To
disallow one while allowing another is very specifically and clearly
condoning a specific religion and therefore establishing the state's
preference for that religion.

Better for all of us to allow individual freedom to worship (or not
worship) in their own way on a personal basis than to open the can of
worms of the state condoning specific religions over others. The rights
of the minority must be protected with the same zealousness as the
majority, even when that minority seems "weird" to most. The best way
to protect the rights of minority religions is just as the framers of
the constitution stated....you can't establish (condone) in any way yet
you can't stop anyone from practicing as they believe. This means that
the state, to stay COMPLETELY neutral, must also stay COMPLETELY out of
it. Freedom FROM religion when it comes to government matters. Freedom
OF religion when it comes to personal matters.

Or, if you live in rural Utah, would you rather have your kids being
pressured to follow Mormon teachings and told by the school, courts and
government that Joseph Smith probably had it right, even though you
believe differently? Maybe excerpts from the book of Mormon should be
on posted outside the courtrooms in Utah as well as pictures of Joseph
Smith appearing in schools. Maybe in Utah, they should be teaching the
Mormon view of the earth's creation as well to "balance" out that nasty
evolutionism being taught. Maybe in school in the morning, all the
Mormon's in your kid's class should be allowed to get together in a
condoned "moment of silence" to pray, leaving your kid and maybe one
other standing by the wayside and feeling pressures of being the "odd
man out". ( Mormon was just picked randomly, by the way, because of the
high percentage in one state (now just below 50% IIRC) as well as the
notion of most Christian religions that they are a cult of some kind. )

Koz

"Gus" wrote

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree


_Public_ schools, funded by taxes, operated by government.
Private schools can have any kind of tree they want, and make their students
pray to it. And if government tries to stop _them_, the ACLU will take
_their_ side.


or that a town can't have the 10 Commandments on public property.


Again, town _government_ is forbidden to endorse religion.
"I am the Lord, thy God. You shall have no other gods before me," is
religion, just like "Allahu akhbar".

Let me put it to you the other way, Gus: suppose your mayor puts up a
plaque in City Hall that reads, in its entirety:

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Nothing about keeping the sabbath holy, or taking anybody's name in vain. I
don't know what the ACLU would say about such a plaque -- it's not my turn
to watch them this week. But what would _you_ say about it?

-- TP

"Gunner" wrote

So you were ok with Clinton using the IRS against his political
enemies..but not the Republicans?


I will tell you after you tell me this:
are _you_ OK with the Republicans doing it?


Speaking of enemies of the state...
How are the Waco survivors doing
these days?


Speaking of non-sequitors, did Clinton ship any of them to Gitmo?

-- TP

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

Aha, the old "keeps the alligators away" argument. g

How many shots have you fired in the cause of supporting the Fourth
Amendment, Dave? And who was it you were shooting at?

I dunno about him (don't interact much any more) but I know
I fired a few shots. I voted for schumer, and he gave scalito
a run for his money....

Does taht qualify as a shot Ed?

Hmm...where'd you him 'em?

--
Ed Huntress

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:06:58 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

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...

Aha, the old "keeps the alligators away" argument. g

This again, Ed?

How many shots have you fired in the cause of supporting the Fourth
Amendment, Dave? And who was it you were shooting at?

You don't understand the concept of "don't do (thing), it's too risky",
do you Ed.

No, I don't, and I seriously doubt if you do either, Dave. Why don't you
explain it to us? Tell us about how many alliga...er, Democrats, you've kept
away by threatening them with your guns.

Hey, a guy threatened me with a gun just two years ago. He was a
medical-technician student, but it turned out he didn't have a gun. He spent
a half day with his lawyer in the local cop shop anyway, though.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:13:20 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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-)

Cites?

Haha! Gunner, the whole point is that they WON'T TELL YOU WHAT THEY'RE
DOING. IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. YOU AREN'T PART OF THE NEOCON
ADMINISTRATION. They've spent about 40,000 words telling us WHY they can do
it all in secret. Keeping everyone, particularly the press, in the dark is
the whole point!

Get it? And then, do you still recognize a smiley at the end of a sentence?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
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

Still waiting Ed.

Gunner

I see a man with a beard and a holstered gun standing at a podium, looking
at his watch, and then out at the audience...looking at his watch, and then
out at the audience...

Finally, he says his first words to the audience: "Well, aren't you going to
say anything?" ggg

Hey, Gunner, let's try it again. You said something about the TV networks
not covering Clinton's "poncho" remark in Romania or somewhere. I asked how
you knew they didn't cover it. You apparently don't know, so you started
spinning.

You're going to screw yourself into the ground like a posthole auger if you
keep it up. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 24 Jan 2006 05:30:06 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

No. It says NO LAW. None.

Jim

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You will notice it also forbids the free expression of religion. Not
to mention freedom of speech.

Im still waiting for your cites on the claim you made about :freedom
From religion:

Gunner

Since you're so fond of strict construction of the Constitution, you can
find your answer at the Merriam-Webster site, in which 12 basic categories
of description for the preposition "of" can be found, including this one:

"...used as a function word to indicate something from which a person or
thing is delivered eased of her pain or with respect to which someone or
something is made destitute robbed of all their belongings"

It's the most general and inclusive of prepositions. Medical writers use it
too much. I slap their hands for it regularly.

It's typical of the vagueness and intentional ambiguity of many parts of the
Constitution, which has a historical and political purpose. For example, the
2nd Amendment, which is a Nominative Absolute construction, the most
intentionally vague construction that relates a phrase to a clause.

--
Ed Huntress

"Eric R Snow" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:41:17 -0500, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote:

My civics teacher when I was a junior in high school was great. He had
us doing things like walking down the halls while class was in session
loudly chanting "CUT CLASS, CUT CLASS". Then we observed the reactions
of students and teachers alike. Very informative when considering
protests. This was in 1973.
ERS

Hoho! A direct lesson in freedom of speech. g

That sure beats the heck out of my civics class. But by 1973, I had a staff
of ten at a large publishing company and was wearing a suit to work. I was
born a few years too early.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:28:32 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

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...

Aha, the old "keeps the alligators away" argument. g

This again, Ed?

Evasion noted.

How many shots have you fired in the cause of supporting the Fourth
Amendment, Dave? And who was it you were shooting at?

You don't understand the concept of "don't do (thing), it's too risky",
do you Ed.

No, I don't, and I seriously doubt if you do either, Dave. Why don't you
explain it to us? Tell us about how many alliga...er, Democrats, you've kept
away by threatening them with your guns.

Ed. I never said anything of that sort, so please don't presume to
speak for me. My point, which is blisteringly clear, is that if the
democrats were to disarm us, then when when anyone else tries to take
away the rest of our rights, we'll be powerless to do anything. Nobody
is crossing the line, _because_ we can do something about it if they
try.

Clearer now?

Hey, a guy threatened me with a gun just two years ago. He was a
medical-technician student, but it turned out he didn't have a gun. He spent
a half day with his lawyer in the local cop shop anyway, though.

Good. Lucky he didn't end up dead. And you still don't get it.