I Suggest You Read This Article Closely!!

[freakazoid]

I have supported George Bush, BUT...Bush is OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!


"If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fpr esident%2Fgwbbio.html&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex)), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold."

I SUGGEST YOU READ THIS ARTICLE CLOSELY!! VERY CLOSELY!!

See - http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail...

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

"This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd109%3Ah.r.03402%3A&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex). Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison. "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aclu.org%2F&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex). "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fstraylight.law.cornell. edu%2Fsupct%2Fhtml%2F93-986.ZC1.html&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex) magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

[beelzebub]

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
"What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

HAHA HAHAHAHA This is classic.

Here is freakazoid: Concerned that someone else will decide that he is a fanatic or annoying. Too much government control for you Freak?

Well in our abortion discussions. You don’t seem to have the same vehemence! Is that because in that argument the rules don't apply to you?

Hypocrite! :p

[freakazoid]

HAHA HAHAHAHA This is classic.

Here is freakazoid: Concerned that someone else will decide that he is a fanatic or annoying. Too much government control for you Freak?

Well in our abortion discussions. You don’t seem to have the same vehemence! Is that because in that argument the rules don't apply to you?

Hypocrite! :p

Hardly the same issue, beelzebub. No Hypocrisy, just concern. :eek:

[Korono]

This?! This is what makes you realize tha Bush is a douche? Not his proposed SS plan, not Affirmative Action, not the Patriot Act, not "human-animal hybrids," not illegal wire-tapping, but this?

[beelzebub]

Hardly the same issue, beelzebub. No Hypocrisy, just concern. :eek:


It’s exactly the same issue. There are people that believe that it is not such a small thing to give up these civil liberties and there are people who want to control others in the way your article outlines. They have good arguments for their case. It’s about "making you safer" you see. ;)

Then there is US who DO NOT want government control or censorship. We want liberty, truth and freedom to do what WE THINK is right. Not having the government making decisions for us. :mad:

And you can’t see the parallel between abortion and this issue? If this is true then I don’t think you are able to learn. You view is too myopic and narrow.

[chewbaccaplymouth]

This?! This is what makes you realize tha Bush is a douche? Not his proposed SS plan, not Affirmative Action, not the Patriot Act, not "human-animal hybrids," not illegal wire-tapping, but this?
quite right bush is a moron i live in the uk and have to suufer the same idiocy with tony blair why do we keep electing these guys when most people know theyre idiots in my opinion

IMEACH BUSH

this on the grounds that he lied to the american people and the world:mad:

[freakazoid]

This?! This is what makes you realize tha Bush is a douche? Not his proposed SS plan, not Affirmative Action, not the Patriot Act, not "human-animal hybrids," not illegal wire-tapping, but this?
:eek: Who said only this? I am aware of the others and have discussed these other matters with people at other times. But given that "this" law has considerable relevancy to discussion boards like this one, it should be obvious as to why I posted what I did here...QED.


And yes..."this," which is just as important...

[freakazoid]

quite right bush is a moron i live in the uk and have to suufer the same idiocy with tony blair why do we keep electing these guys when most people know theyre idiots in my opinion

IMEACH BUSH

this on the grounds that he lied to the american people and the world:mad:
Maybe we feel safer with idiots? Could be.

[freakazoid]

It’s exactly the same issue. There are people that believe that it is not such a small thing to give up these civil liberties and there are people who want to control others in the way your article outlines. They have good arguments for their case. It’s about "making you safer" you see. ;)

Then there is US who DO NOT want government control or censorship. We want liberty, truth and freedom to do what WE THINK is right. Not having the government making decisions for us. :mad:

And you can’t see the parallel between abortion and this issue? If this is true then I don’t think you are able to learn. You view is too myopic and narrow.

Abortion is NOT a "civil liberties" issue. You simply don't have the "civil liberties" to kill an unborn living human being anymore than you have "civil liberties" to kill anyone else out of convenience. Abortionists have been hiding behind issues such as "women's rights" and nonsense like "civil liberties" to kill unborn children for way too long. It is time that is seen in the reality that it is. It is nothing more than a deception in an attempt to fool idiots into that believing that the murder of innocent human beings is justified. You could not be more wrong.

[beelzebub]

[QUOTE=freakazoid]Abortion is NOT a "civil liberties" issue. [QUOTE=freakazoid]

These are your CIVIL LIBERTIES:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.


The one in bold above is the civil liberty that Rowe-v-Wade is based on

It is a civil liberties issue. THINK THINK THINK and then try to reply.

[freakazoid]

[quote=freakazoid]Abortion is NOT a "civil liberties" issue. [quote=freakazoid]

These are your CIVIL LIBERTIES:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.


The one in bold above is the civil liberty that Rowe-v-Wade is based on

It is a civil liberties issue. THINK THINK THINK and then try to reply.
I do think, and I think that you are a complete moron. How's that for clear thinking and a reply? Pretty good, eh? Read on, if you know how...

I don't give a damn what the Supreme Court has decided, at one time they "decided" that Blacks were only 5/8 of a person and slavary was constitutional. So much for the wisdom of the "Supreme" Court. As far as any idiot confusing your right to your Civil Rights, all I can say is stop lying to me and other people on this board. You could give a damn about the civil rights of anyone other than yourself, so give up your ranting; you're not fooling anyone, especially me. The concept of Civil Rights was NEVER intended to afford you the right to kill an unborn innocent human being. Civil Rights, you say? What about the "Civil Rights" of the unborn human being? I guess you have forgotten that they have the "Civil Right" to LIVE. Something for you to "Think" about for once, maybe? Give it a try, you won't hurt yourself.

[beelzebub]

[QUOTE=freakazoid] I don't give a damn what the Supreme Court has decided, at one time they "decided"[QUOTE=freakazoid]

Then don’t use terms that are associated with their decisions to express what you mean you illiterate ass hole.

[QUOTE=freakazoid] You could give a damn about the civil rights of anyone other than yourself, so give up your ranting; you're not fooling anyone, especially me. [QUOTE=freakazoid]

How the hell would you know? It surprises me that you even write this. YOU DONT KNOW ME AT ALL! It’s amazing how your pea sized brain coughs up this garbage to defend yourself when you don’t have anything to say.

[QUOTE=freakazoid] What about the "Civil Rights" of the unborn human being? [QUOTE=freakazoid]

Unborn human beings don’t have CIVIAL RIGHTS dumbass.
This is something that is a human concept made into law. How can you give a part of a human separate rights from the whole? Essentially you make that Human a prisoner. Unconstitutional!

Try to develop thinking skills please.

[freakazoid]

[quote=freakazoid] I don't give a damn what the Supreme Court has decided, at one time they "decided"[quote=freakazoid]

Then don’t use terms that are associated with their decisions to express what you mean you illiterate ass hole.

[quote=freakazoid] You could give a damn about the civil rights of anyone other than yourself, so give up your ranting; you're not fooling anyone, especially me. [quote=freakazoid]

How the hell would you know? It surprises me that you even write this. YOU DONT KNOW ME AT ALL! It’s amazing how your pea sized brain coughs up this garbage to defend yourself when you don’t have anything to say.

[quote=freakazoid] What about the "Civil Rights" of the unborn human being? [quote=freakazoid]

Unborn human beings don’t have CIVIAL RIGHTS dumbass.
This is something that is a human concept made into law. How can you give a part of a human separate rights from the whole? Essentially you make that Human a prisoner. Unconstitutional!

Try to develop thinking skills please. Resulting to insults tells me you are up against the wall and fighting to get out. You can't make a convincing argument so you throw insults. In others words, you have not won a debate on abortion yet. It's a sad old story. If you can't defeat a person's logical argument, then resort to insulting them and their person. An old deversion tactic. Sorry, it didn't work. You must be frustrated.

My value system (as with most people) seeks to protect human life, yours it would seem, does not. It's that simple. For me, end of debate.

[beelzebub]

[quote=freakazoid] What about the "Civil Rights" of the unborn human being?[quote=freakazoid]

It does not have any rights. The rights of the host organism supersede the fetus.

[quote=freakazoid]Resulting to insults tells me you are up against the wall and fighting to get out. You can't make a convincing argument so you throw insults. [quote=freakazoid]

I was just following your lead! I can’t believe you are writing this. You of all people should defiantly not say this because YOU insult WAY TOO MUCH. I guess you weren't up against the wall .... you were under it!

For example:

[quote=freakazoid]Then don’t use terms that are associated with their decisions to express what you mean you illiterate ass hole.[quote=freakazoid]

You are a total hypocrite!

[quote=freakazoid]You must be frustrated.[quote=freakazoid]

I am frustrated when people can’t read an argument, keep the points in their head (pea size or larger) and provide logical discourse.

[quote=freakazoid]My value system (as with most people) seeks to protect human life, yours it would seem, does not. It's that simple. For me, end of debate.[quote=freakazoid]

Your value system, intentions aside, has the eerie property of making decisions for others concerning how they live and conduct their body.

[Korono]

Firstly, slaves were 3/5 of a person. Secondly, it wasn't the supreme court that decided this. It was decided by your forefathers at the beginning of the Union.

Now, there's the interperitation of the Constitution and what makes a person. Now, the way I see it a person is a person when they recieve conciousness. Once they are self-aware, then they are people. But, as implied, that's my opinion. Right now, they have it decided that a person is a person when they are alive, and that is, supposedly, when the heart begins to beat.

Also, stop with the fucking flaming. Your arguments lose all credibility when insult enters the debate, because then it stops being a debate.

[freakazoid]

Firstly, slaves were 3/5 of a person. Secondly, it wasn't the supreme court that decided this. It was decided by your forefathers at the beginning of the Union.

Now, there's the interperitation of the Constitution and what makes a person. Now, the way I see it a person is a person when they recieve conciousness. Once they are self-aware, then they are people. But, as implied, that's my opinion. Right now, they have it decided that a person is a person when they are alive, and that is, supposedly, when the heart begins to beat.

Also, stop with the fucking flaming. Your arguments lose all credibility when insult enters the debate, because then it stops being a debate.

Firstly, slaves were 3/5 of a person. Secondly, it wasn't the supreme court that decided this. It was decided by your forefathers at the beginning of the Union.

Wrong. Geeeee, I guess you forgot that my "forefathers" wrote that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. In today's nomenclature...we are all born with the same equal rights in the United States.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

I was just following your lead! I can’t believe you are writing this. You of all people should defiantly not say this because YOU insult WAY TOO MUCH. I guess you weren't up against the wall .... you were under it!

For example:

['quote=freakazoid]Then don’t use terms that are associated with their decisions to express what you mean you illiterate ass hole.['quote=freakazoid]

You are a total hypocrite!


You need to read that closer. He was quoting what you had said previously, those were your words and not his. THe problem is that neither of you had yet figured out how to quote one another properly. Be careful when making lude comments about someone else's brain size, it often gives the reader a better estimate of the size of the author's brain.:rolleyes: