On Mon, 02 May 2011 21:11:04 -0500, Ignoramus896
wrote:


He is reposting birther crap that is posted on a bazillion of other
forums, and tries to pass it as his own.

http://www.google.com/search?q=conce...ist+until+1963

i

So we know know that Iggy didnt vote for a Republican in the last
election.

"birther crap" is the key words that Identify who and what he believes
in.

Pity.

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:14:20 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed?

What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that?

So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is
needed?

Stop changing the subject.

No..you are refusing to engage in dialog. Sorry Doughy..but Ive already
stated my case. You didnt like it.
So Ive asked you a number of questions that you have refused to answer.

Try again


You made the specific claim that a birth certificate is required. When
challenged to substantiate that, you can't. All you can do is continually
change the subject, in a feeble attempt to distract attention from the fact
that you made a false claim that you can't back up.

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:15:36 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

So how does one show that one is a natural born citizen?

Does that mean that Arnold Swartzenegger could run for President as a
Democrat and the DNC would certify him?

Is that your claim?

Stop changing the subject.

See previous post.

Answer the questions posed to you or lose by default.

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 May 2011 21:11:04 -0500, Ignoramus896
wrote:


He is reposting birther crap that is posted on a bazillion of other
forums, and tries to pass it as his own.

http://www.google.com/search?q=conce...ist+until+1963

i

So we know know that Iggy didnt vote for a Republican in the last
election.

"birther crap" is the key words that Identify who and what he believes
in.

Pity.

Says Gunner, who yells about the terrible quality of public education, and
then opens his mouth and proves it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:14:20 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed?

What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that?

So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is
needed?

Stop changing the subject.

No..you are refusing to engage in dialog. Sorry Doughy..but Ive already
stated my case. You didnt like it.

That's because you didn't answer the question. And that's because you found
out that you were full of crap, and immediately went into your little dance.

So Ive asked you a number of questions that you have refused to answer.

He asked first. Then we can get to your butthead misunderstanding of
"natural born," as it's been decided by the courts. I've already provided
links and quotes from the relevent Supreme Court cases.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:15:36 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

So how does one show that one is a natural born citizen?

Does that mean that Arnold Swartzenegger could run for President as a
Democrat and the DNC would certify him?

Is that your claim?

Stop changing the subject.

See previous post.

Answer the questions posed to you or lose by default.

You lose, Gunner. You completely dodged his question and then danced around
with diversions.

I'd post the score, but your numbers on the losing side produce a nasty line
break.

--
Ed Huntress

Gunner Asch on Mon, 02 May 2011 20:56:23 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

President Washingtons birth was recorded in the family bible. Its very
much in there still

Since there were no such things as Birth Certificates in those
days..they did what they could.

Or "would". Some folks didn't take to the idea of keeping track.
Say the illiterate or the underclass. Hells bells, I'm sure there
are even today, people who only recorded the birth of their children
in order to report it to the welfare office.

His school records are in the Library
of Congress.

Gunner


--
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Tue, 3 May 2011 15:23:50 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A. Falk)
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

Still waiting for the question about how to prove Natural Born to be
answered by you.

How did Lincoln prove it?

Good question. Ive not looked it up. Family bible? Sworn affidavids
from other people?

Tell us.

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On 5/2/2011 3:26 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
"__ Bøb __" wrote:

... How
can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated
1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?]

All this hoo-hah is moot - the commie ******* has already been in power
for 2 1/2 years, and is running the country headlong down the toilet of
socialism.

He's already committed enough crimes against the Constitution that the
sonofabitch belongs at the end of a rope.


If there was any justice in the world, anti American comments like you
just made would land you in prison, or better yet, you would be the one
at the end of the rope for making terrorist threats.

Hawke

On 5/3/2011 4:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 5/2/2011 3:29 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
Edward A. Falk wrote:

So: Anybody claiming Obama wasn't born in the U.S. should be able to
come up with evidence to the contrary that has *fewer* inconsistencies
than the officially-accepted story.

It's moot anyway - he's here, he's in power, and he's running the country
headlong into the bottomless abyss of communism.


Now if only you could get someone to explain Communism to you. Then you
would understand why your statement is completely false.

Hawke

Rich is a libertarian. To him, *everyone* is a communist.g



Oh ****!, that's right. How could I forget? When you're as far to the
right as you can go that makes everyone else a "leftist".

Hawke


Hawke

On 5/4/2011 11:46 AM, wrote:
On May 3, 2:24 pm, wrote:

If there was any justice in the world, anti American comments like you
just made would land you in prison, or better yet, you would be the one
at the end of the rope for making terrorist threats.

Hawke

I do not agree with Rich's comments. However his comments are not
anti American. They are anti Obama comments. And he did not make any
threats.

Dan



You're entitled to that opinion, but I can assure you that many other
people would judge what he said as not only anti American but as a
threat to the president's life.

Hawke

On 5/3/2011 8:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 May 2011 21:11:04 -0500, Ignoramus896
wrote:


He is reposting birther crap that is posted on a bazillion of other
forums, and tries to pass it as his own.

http://www.google.com/search?q=conce...ist+until+1963

i

So we know know that Iggy didnt vote for a Republican in the last
election.

"birther crap" is the key words that Identify who and what he believes
in.

Pity.

Says Gunner, who yells about the terrible quality of public education, and
then opens his mouth and proves it.



And then tells you how only he got a first class education from the same
low quality "government" schools.

Hawke

On 5/3/2011 5:42 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In articleAZSdnZzKzMIkBF3QnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@earthlink .com, "Michael A. wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article ?, "Michael A.
Terrell" ? wrote:
?
?Doug Miller wrote:
??
?? In article ?, "Michael A.
? Terrell" ? wrote:
?? ?
?? ? I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
?? ?to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.
?? ?
??
?? While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would
not
?? have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.
?
?
? So what?

So what's the point of creating additional qualifications for the office, if
they don't serve to weed out the incompetent or the dishonest?


You make that claim, so prove that it won't.

I already did.

Since you apparently weren't paying attention, I'll spell it out for you:

Suppose that criterion had been in place from the beginning. It would not have
prevented the election of Nixon (dishonest), Carter (incompetent), and LBJ
(both incompetent and dishonest). Nor would it have prevented the candidacies
of John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, or Walter Mondale. All seven of these
men are veterans, with (AFAIK) honorable discharges.


It's all about what you know. The people saying military backgrounds are
needed for our leaders just don't know what they are talking about. It's
been known for thousands of years that being in the military is of no
use when it comes to political jobs. I've read this exact point from
writers living during the Roman Empire. They said that having been a
general was of no use in being a political leader.

They knew this two thousand years ago. Lots of us know this today. It's
not a surprise that someone like that idiot Terrell wouldn't. I guess he
never got a liberal arts education. Too bad. That ignorance shows in
things like this.

Hawke

On 5/4/2011 12:21 PM, wrote:
On May 3, 2:57 pm,


You're entitled to that opinion, but I can assure you that many other
people would judge what he said as not only anti American but as a
threat to the president's life.

Hawke

I can not see how you can say that. Explain to me exactly what was
anti American. His comments were against an individual, not against a
country or the government.

And while you are at it, explain what threat he made. He did not say
that he was going to take any action.

But if you can find many people that say his remarks were anti
American and that he made threats, have them post their comments
here. I am always open to being surprised by how many stupid people
there are.

Dan



Okay, lots of people see it as anti American when someone is highly
critical of and directs personally derogatory statements toward the
president of the United States. I'm not saying I feel this way but when
you show deep public disrespect for the president a lot of people see
that as anti American. You don't know people who think that? If not, I'd
be surprised.

He also said he'd like to see the president at the end of a rope. If
nothing else that implies he'd like to see him dead, lynched. Many
people interpret statements like that as a threat. Send a letter to the
president that says that and see if the Secret Service thinks that is a
threat. I can tell you they will.

That's why I said people would see what Rich said as anti American and
as a threat. To the casual observer I would think it's obvious.

Hawke

On 5/4/2011 12:31 PM, wrote:
On May 4, 2:58 pm, "Ed wrote:


Fortunately for Rich, we're not under the thumb of the Founding Fathers
these days. If we were, he would be tried under the Sedition Act and would
spend many of his remaining years in federal prison.

--
Ed Huntress

The Sedition Act limited the time in prison to 2 years and the act
itself limited the amount of time the act was in force to three
years. So Rich would not have spent many years in prison. And since
the act was passed in 1798 when George Washington was no longer
president, I am not sure the Sedition Act qualifies as being passed by
the Founding Fathers.

Dan



John Adams was behind the passing of that law. Last I checked he was one
of the founding fathers.

Hawke

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 22:16:09 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , "Michael A.
Terrell" wrote:

I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.


While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would not
have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.

Still waiting for the question about how to prove Natural Born to be
answered by you.

There you go, changing the subject again. I'm still waiting for you to back up
your claim that candidates are required to produce their birth certificates.

In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Michael A.
Terrell" wrote:

I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.


While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would not
have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.


So what?

So what's the point of creating additional qualifications for the office, if
they don't serve to weed out the incompetent or the dishonest?

In article , wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:14:20 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed?

What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that?

So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is
needed?

Stop changing the subject.

No..you are refusing to engage in dialog.

No, actually, that would be you -- refusing to respond to a simple request:
prove your claim that candidates are required to produce birth certificates.

You can't do that, and you know it, so you keep changing the subject, trying
to distract attention, anything to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

In article , wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:15:36 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

So how does one show that one is a natural born citizen?

Does that mean that Arnold Swartzenegger could run for President as a
Democrat and the DNC would certify him?

Is that your claim?

Stop changing the subject.

See previous post.

Answer the questions posed to you or lose by default.

That's pretty funny, Gummer, considering that the whole thing started with
*your* false claim that candidates are required to produce birth certificates
to prove their citizenship -- a claim that you have repeatedly been unable to
substantiate.

You've already lost, a long time ago.

Why can't you just admit that you were talking through your hat?

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 5/2/2011 3:29 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
Edward A. Falk wrote:

So: Anybody claiming Obama wasn't born in the U.S. should be able to
come up with evidence to the contrary that has *fewer* inconsistencies
than the officially-accepted story.

It's moot anyway - he's here, he's in power, and he's running the country
headlong into the bottomless abyss of communism.


Now if only you could get someone to explain Communism to you. Then you
would understand why your statement is completely false.

Hawke

Rich is a libertarian. To him, *everyone* is a communist. g

--
Ed Huntress

Anybody care to watch this ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9St...ature=youtu.be


and give their opinion ??? ???

Doug Miller wrote:

In article ?, "Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote:
?
?Doug Miller wrote:
??
?? In article ?, "Michael A.
? Terrell" ? wrote:
?? ?
?? ? I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
?? ?to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.
?? ?
??
?? While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would not
?? have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.
?
?
? So what?

So what's the point of creating additional qualifications for the office, if
they don't serve to weed out the incompetent or the dishonest?


You make that claim, so prove that it won't.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article ?, "Michael A.
Terrell" ? wrote:
?
?Doug Miller wrote:
??
?? In article ?, "Michael A.
? Terrell" ? wrote:
?? ?
?? ? I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
?? ?to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.
?? ?
??
?? While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would
not
?? have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.
?
?
? So what?

So what's the point of creating additional qualifications for the office, if
they don't serve to weed out the incompetent or the dishonest?


You make that claim, so prove that it won't.

I already did.

Since you apparently weren't paying attention, I'll spell it out for you:

Suppose that criterion had been in place from the beginning. It would not have
prevented the election of Nixon (dishonest), Carter (incompetent), and LBJ
(both incompetent and dishonest). Nor would it have prevented the candidacies
of John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, or Walter Mondale. All seven of these
men are veterans, with (AFAIK) honorable discharges.

On May 3, 8:11*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article ?, "Michael A.. Terrell" ? wrote:
?
?Doug Miller wrote:
??
?? In article ?, "Michael A.
? Terrell" ? wrote:
?? ?
?? ? * I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
?? ?to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.
?? ?
??
?? While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would not
?? have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.
?
?
? * So what?

So what's the point of creating additional qualifications for the office, if
they don't serve to weed out the incompetent or the dishonest?

* *You make that claim, so prove that it won't.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

THAT'S QUITE A CONVERSATION TERROLL, RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY, INCOMPETENT
AND DISHONEST.
I ASKED YOU NICE TO CONTROL YOUR TROLL......NOW YOU ARE GOING TO
PAPER.

TGITM

On May 3, 7:40*pm, "__ Bøb __" wrote:
* * * * Anybody care to watch this ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9St...ature=youtu.be

and give their opinion ??? ???

Adobe PDF files are often layered by the scanning software - Adobe
Acrobat Professional does this - in an attempt to separate the various
elements to aid in OCR. You could scan a picture of the ten
commandments carved in stone and get the same sort of results. It
doesn't mean the original was layered - it means the scanning software
deconstructed the scanned image to create a layered file.

Had this file been compressed back to a jpg, well, what would the
birthers be doing today?

Doug Miller wrote:

In article ?, "Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote:
?
?Doug Miller wrote:
??
?? In article ?, "Michael A.
? Terrell" ? wrote:
?? ?
?? ?Doug Miller wrote:
?? ??
?? ?? In article ?, "Michael A.
?? ? Terrell" ? wrote:
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ? I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
?? ?? ?to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.
?? ?? ?
?? ??
?? ?? While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would
? not
?? ?? have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.
?? ?
?? ?
?? ? So what?
??
?? So what's the point of creating additional qualifications for the office, if
?? they don't serve to weed out the incompetent or the dishonest?
?
?
? You make that claim, so prove that it won't.
?
I already did.

Since you apparently weren't paying attention, I'll spell it out for you:

Suppose that criterion had been in place from the beginning. It would not have
prevented the election of Nixon (dishonest), Carter (incompetent), and LBJ
(both incompetent and dishonest). Nor would it have prevented the candidacies
of John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, or Walter Mondale. All seven of these
men are veterans, with (AFAIK) honorable discharges.


Sigh.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

"Michael A.Terrell" wrote:

On May 3, 8:11 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" ?
wrote:
? Doug Miller wrote:
?
? ? In article ?, "Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote:
? ? ?
? ? ?Doug Miller wrote:
? ? ??
? ? ?? In article ?, "Michael A.
? ? ? Terrell" ? wrote:
? ? ?? ?
? ? ?? ? I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
? ? ?? ?to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.
? ? ?? ?
? ? ??
? ? ?? While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would not
? ? ?? have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.
? ? ?
? ? ?
? ? ? So what?
?
? ? So what's the point of creating additional qualifications for the office, if
? ? they don't serve to weed out the incompetent or the dishonest?
?
? You make that claim, so prove that it won't.
?
? --
? You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
? Teflon coated.

THAT'S QUITE A CONVERSATION TERROLL, RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY, INCOMPETENT
AND DISHONEST.
I ASKED YOU NICE TO CONTROL YOUR TROLL......NOW YOU ARE GOING TO
PAPER.

TGITM

Another lame ass, stalking troll by

Roy J Quijano
415 E 151st St
Bronx, NY 10455
(718) 292-1943


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

On May 3, 3:37*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:15:36 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

So how does one show that one is a natural born citizen?

Does that mean that Arnold Swartzenegger could run for President as a
Democrat and the DNC would certify him?

Is that your claim?

Stop changing the subject.

See previous post.

Answer the questions posed to you or lose by default.

That's pretty funny, Gummer, considering that the whole thing started with
*your* false claim that candidates are required to produce birth certificates
to prove their citizenship -- a claim that you have repeatedly been unable to
substantiate.

You've already lost, a long time ago.

Why can't you just admit that you were talking through your hat?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He can't even come up with proof that he owns the stuff that he is
selling on Usenet.

TMT

On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:03:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:14:20 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed?

What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that?

So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is
needed?

Stop changing the subject.

No..you are refusing to engage in dialog. Sorry Doughy..but Ive already
stated my case. You didnt like it.

That's because you didn't answer the question. And that's because you found
out that you were full of crap, and immediately went into your little dance.

So Ive asked you a number of questions that you have refused to answer.

He asked first. Then we can get to your butthead misunderstanding of
"natural born," as it's been decided by the courts. I've already provided
links and quotes from the relevent Supreme Court cases.


AND he's neglected to post Pres. Washington's birth certificate and
school records that he said had been published.

damn and I'd really liked to see that
Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On Tue, 3 May 2011 15:23:50 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

Still waiting for the question about how to prove Natural Born to be
answered by you.

How did Lincoln prove it?


Well, Gunner says that every president other then Obama has published
his birth certificate and school records.....

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On 4/27/2011 11:49 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...th-certificate




Check this out ,

I'm no 'birther' and I'm certainly no computer geek but, I found this
kid's video fascinating…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9St...layer_embedded










--
Kevin (Bluey)
"I'm not young enough to know everything."

"Kevin(Bluey)" wrote in message
. au...
On 4/27/2011 11:49 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...th-certificate




Check this out ,

I'm no 'birther' and I'm certainly no computer geek but, I found this
kid's video fascinating…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9St...layer_embedded


This is days behind the curve, Kevin. Numerous Adobe experts have spoken up
and debunked this whole theory. What happens is that Acrobat attempts to OCR
any text -- or anything it thinks might be text -- and puts it in various
layers, which are saved in the PDF file.

Anyone who has used the professional versions of Acrobat to scan documents
is familiar with this phenomenon in general.

--
Ed Huntress

On May 3, 2:24*pm, Hawke wrote:

If there was any justice in the world, anti American comments like you
just made would land you in prison, or better yet, you would be the one
at the end of the rope for making terrorist threats.

Hawke

I do not agree with Rich's comments. However his comments are not
anti American. They are anti Obama comments. And he did not make any
threats.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On May 3, 2:24 pm, Hawke wrote:

If there was any justice in the world, anti American comments like you
just made would land you in prison, or better yet, you would be the one
at the end of the rope for making terrorist threats.

Hawke

I do not agree with Rich's comments. However his comments are not
anti American. They are anti Obama comments. And he did not make any
threats.

Dan

Fortunately for Rich, we're not under the thumb of the Founding Fathers
these days. If we were, he would be tried under the Sedition Act and would
spend many of his remaining years in federal prison.

Wishing for a regime that's based on the ideas of the FFs is a double-edged
sword.

--
Ed Huntress

On May 3, 2:57*pm, Hawke


You're entitled to that opinion, but I can assure you that many other
people would judge what he said as not only anti American but as a
threat to the president's life.

Hawke

I can not see how you can say that. Explain to me exactly what was
anti American. His comments were against an individual, not against a
country or the government.

And while you are at it, explain what threat he made. He did not say
that he was going to take any action.

But if you can find many people that say his remarks were anti
American and that he made threats, have them post their comments
here. I am always open to being surprised by how many stupid people
there are.

Dan

On May 4, 2:58*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Fortunately for Rich, we're not under the thumb of the Founding Fathers
these days. If we were, he would be tried under the Sedition Act and would
spend many of his remaining years in federal prison.

--
Ed Huntress

The Sedition Act limited the time in prison to 2 years and the act
itself limited the amount of time the act was in force to three
years. So Rich would not have spent many years in prison. And since
the act was passed in 1798 when George Washington was no longer
president, I am not sure the Sedition Act qualifies as being passed by
the Founding Fathers.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On May 4, 2:58 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Fortunately for Rich, we're not under the thumb of the Founding Fathers
these days. If we were, he would be tried under the Sedition Act and would
spend many of his remaining years in federal prison.

--
Ed Huntress

The Sedition Act limited the time in prison to 2 years...

It would depend on whether he was convicted under Section 1 (which applies
to individuals, not just to conspiracies) or Section 2. Surely he would be
guilty under Section 2. If I were the prosecutor, I'd go for Section 1, as
an act of "counseling," in which case he could get five years, and a five of
up to $5,000 (in 1798!), "and further, at the discretion of the court may be
holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such
time, as the said court may direct."

and the act
itself limited the amount of time the act was in force to three
years. So Rich would not have spent many years in prison.

Up to five.

And since
the act was passed in 1798 when George Washington was no longer
president, I am not sure the Sedition Act qualifies as being passed by
the Founding Fathers.

Dan

John Adams signed it. What was he, chopped liver? g

--
Ed Huntress

On May 4, 4:02*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

It would depend on whether he was convicted under Section 1 (which applies
to individuals, not just to conspiracies) or Section 2. Surely he would be
guilty under Section 2. If I were the prosecutor, I'd go for Section 1, as
an act of "counseling," in which case he could get five years, and a five of
up to $5,000 (in 1798!), "and further, at the discretion of the court may be
holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such
time, as the said court may direct."

and the act
itself limited the amount of time the act was in force to three
years. *So Rich would not have spent many years in prison.

Up to five.

And since
the act was passed in 1798 when George Washington was no longer
president, I am not sure the Sedition Act qualifies as being passed by
the Founding Fathers.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

John Adams signed it. What was he, chopped liver? g

--
Ed Huntress

It never crossed my mind that Rich was counseling. You might get a
conviction on Section !, but it would not be as easy as Section 2.

And yes John Adams is a founding father, but does not qualify as " The
Founding Fathers ".

Dan

wrote in message
...
On May 4, 4:02 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

It would depend on whether he was convicted under Section 1 (which applies
to individuals, not just to conspiracies) or Section 2. Surely he would be
guilty under Section 2. If I were the prosecutor, I'd go for Section 1, as
an act of "counseling," in which case he could get five years, and a five
of
up to $5,000 (in 1798!), "and further, at the discretion of the court may
be
holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such
time, as the said court may direct."

and the act
itself limited the amount of time the act was in force to three
years. So Rich would not have spent many years in prison.

Up to five.

And since
the act was passed in 1798 when George Washington was no longer
president, I am not sure the Sedition Act qualifies as being passed by
the Founding Fathers.

Dan

John Adams signed it. What was he, chopped liver? g

--
Ed Huntress

It never crossed my mind that Rich was counseling.

See? You made a wise decision not to be a prosecutor....

You might get a
conviction on Section !, but it would not be as easy as Section 2.

True. I don't know how nasty juries were in those days. That's what it would
depend upon.


And yes John Adams is a founding father, but does not qualify as " The
Founding Fathers ".

Uh....I'm not going to ask what size pencil you're using to draw that
line...no, I promise I won't... (he's usually counted among the Founding
Fathers by historians, but each to his own.)

--
Ed Huntress

On May 4, 5:13*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On May 4, 4:02 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



It would depend on whether he was convicted under Section 1 (which applies
to individuals, not just to conspiracies) or Section 2. Surely he would be
guilty under Section 2. If I were the prosecutor, I'd go for Section 1, as
an act of "counseling," in which case he could get five years, and a five
of
up to $5,000 (in 1798!), "and further, at the discretion of the court may
be
holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such
time, as the said court may direct."

and the act
itself limited the amount of time the act was in force to three
years. So Rich would not have spent many years in prison.

Up to five.

And since
the act was passed in 1798 when George Washington was no longer
president, I am not sure the Sedition Act qualifies as being passed by
the Founding Fathers.

Dan

John Adams signed it. What was he, chopped liver? g

--
Ed Huntress
It never crossed my mind that Rich was counseling.

See? You made a wise decision not to be a prosecutor....

You might get a
conviction on Section !, but it would not be as easy as Section 2.

True. I don't know how nasty juries were in those days. That's what it would
depend upon.



And yes John Adams is a founding father, but does not qualify as " The
Founding Fathers ".

Uh....I'm not going to ask what size pencil you're using to draw that
line...no, I promise I won't... (he's usually counted among the Founding
Fathers by historians, but each to his own.)

--
Ed Huntress

I agree he is one of the Founding Fathers. He is not " the Founding
Fathers" plural. There was more than one Founding Father.

Dan