Oh yeah, I forgot...
They can take the money out of monopoly games, pretend it is real, and spend
it among themselves to... just not in real stores... anything which makes
'em happy--it is their right in a free country...

Warmest regards,
John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
... on gay marriage, they can do anything they want, but can't marry in my
church which holds gays to be an abomination (I don't share anything in
common with them either so they are best with others of their type, as I
am with mine) however, NO tax breaks for them, NO spousal benefits paid by
the gov't, and NO other hidden costs to taxpayers to support their
"lifestyle." Then let them "marry" all they want...

Regards,
John

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the
"corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow
government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the
"Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens
from Zeti-Reticuli.


Dave, you're a friggin' loon.

I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.


Zeti-Reticuli?


You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.


Even after -MONTHS- of discussion on the topic you -STILL- don't get
it. I'll make this -really- simple so even -you- can understand it:

Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it.


This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the
recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.


Wrong. The majority of -voters- choose. And the person they choose is
not the "winner", as if being a public official was some sort of
prize. It's not. It's a job. And their job is to work in the best
interests of -ALL- their constituents, not just those that voted them
into office.

And just for your information, your right to vote is granted by the
state, not guaranteed by the Constitution. There have been many
efforts to add a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee every
citizen the right to vote, but each attempt has been blocked by the
Republicans. That's just another tidbit you never hear about from the
"left-wing liberally biased news media".


You have the right to
think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as
you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence,

Try to refuse to pay your taxes,


Now -there's- a great idea -- demand that the goverment protect your
country and your freedoms then squirm away when the bill comes.


cry fire in a crowded theater,


Are you so uneducated that you don't even know where that phrase
originated?


attempt to approach an elected official without permission,


Attempt to enter my house without permission and see what happens.


posses
contraband,


Contraband, by definition, is illegal.


or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious.


You can blame Bush's Patriot Act for that one.


Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government.


Of course rights have some limitations because there are circumstances
where exercising those rights can infringe on the rights of others.
How does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave?


Some of
your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a
license).


The lack of a driver's license doesn't prevent you from travelling
freely, just not with a motor vehicle. Regardless, you can drive a
motor vehicle without a license if you are on private property. Kids
do it all the time at the go-kart tracks. Farmers do it all the time
in their fields. Need more examples of your ignorance?


etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.


If your guy loses on election day, you don't lose the rights and
freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution.


The USA is NOT a democracy

No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary
rule.

-- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and
FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned.

You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you)
knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing
wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins.


When you find a majority that is willing to give up the Constitution
then you let me know.


If you
don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if
you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively
undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda,
and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and
let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution
and the country.

It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't
understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist.


So were the founding fathers.


Reality is a concept
that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment
clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are
the words separation of church and state in there.


You tried that spin once before and it didn't work. Why would you
think it's going to work if you use it a second time?


Either you are for the Constitution or you are against it. So it's
time for you to make a choice, Dave -- are you an American or not?

I am for it.


Excellent. Now learn something about it. For starters, try "The
Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and its Application" by
Thomas James Norton. This book should be kept on your desk right next
to your barely-used dictionary and over-worked computer.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:32:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.
*****

First I never stated that our system was the only way to go. While it
has its problems, the good of our system overrides the bad. What I
have stated is that if the citizens do not stand in vigilance of their
elected officials this government will degrade into Facism or a
dictatorship.

Second since I vote, I have the right to complain whether you like it
or not.

Third if I don't like what the elected officials are doing I DO VOTE
against them.

Fourth we have a Constitution to protect the Rights of the Minority
and not the Rights of the Majority. The Majority never needs
protection.

Fifth I don't ask that everything that I want to be enacted. I do
waccept the rule of the majority. I do expect the majority to hear the
voice of the minority and compromise.

james

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:


I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.
*******

I am not a conspiracy nut. All you have to do is follow the money
trail and it becomes as obvious as the nose on your face that Congress
has been influienced by "money" Senators and Congressmen don't need
warchests of millions of dollars but for one thing, to get relected.
Who contributes to these warchests? Mostly Corporate America and
Foreign Global Companies.

Look at the legislation passed. Who does it favor? Why does Bush and
key republicans want to weaken EPA laws? To help companies that emmit
pollutants. Why? Because the costs to add additional equiptment to
meet the standards impact profits. Lower profits means that either
companies relocate outside the US or pass on the increased costs to
consumers. Yes companies use blackmail to get legislation in their
favor. They don't always get what they want and at times they get none
of what they want. But if y ou think that Corporate America does not
have any influence on Congress then I suggest that you come out of
Wonderland and quit chasing rabbits.

james

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.
*****

Actually a majority of the voters that vote. In reality, there has not
been a president elected in the past 50yrs with a majority of eligable
voters. The 1996 election had only 49.6% of voting age population
turnout to vote. IN 2000 it was 50.1%. In 1960 over 65% of Voting age
Population voted. Voter turnouts of all voting age population in
national elections have dropped steadily since 1964.

Basically GW Bush was elected with about 30% of all voting age
population in this country.

If you want to research more try www.fec.gov. That is the Federal
Elections Commision.

james

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.
******

Hello it is not tough cookies. The preisident does not have carte
blanche to just crush those that did not vote for him into the dirt.

G W Bush is not the president of republicans. He is the president of
all political parties. Any president has to realize that he must weigh
the needs of all the people of this country and not beholden to his
party. That is where the partizen politics have degraded in this
country over the past 40 yrs.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:16:32 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Zeti-Reticuli?
******

I think he meant Zeta Reticuli. A binary star system in the
Constelation Reticulum. Composed of two stars Zeta1 and Zeta2. Both
are 5th magnitude stars and are visable from the most extreme southern
parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

james

On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:49:42 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

James:

If you haven't noticed, we ARE right in the middle of the right place to
find enemies... if you don't think there are tightly knit groups of
radicals right in Iraq and most of the other surrounding countries, think
again... better to fight them there than here... at least the gauntlet has
been thrown down on foreign soil and the battles and war can take place
there... life goes on as usual here, children attend school, retired people
vacation and there are NO suicide bombings or terrorist attacks--there is
enough there to busy their hands... let the war stay there...

Warmest regards,
John
****

Personally I do not like the idea of fighting radicals like the
insurgents of Iraq on their home land. Not a good strategy. They will
play the game of attritian. They will die to remove us. The only way
to fight that kind of fight was lost two years ago. We should have
pacified the country and we did not. Now we have to fight a war in
which the enemy refuses to show their face.

They are willing to sacrifice bodies to kill us. Each one of them that
dies is a hero and a martyr. In reality we can never truly win in
Iraq. The best that we now can hope for is a situation where both
sides will grow so tired of fighting that they wish to quit. Five
years from now Iraq will be an Islamic state very much like Iran.
Irregardless of what we do now. I predict that the democracy that we
set up, will not last beyond five yrs.

james

Well, a cleaver man (group) could escalate it, wipe 'em out and be back to
business... it has been done before--I think of this time period as giving
them a chance--frankly, I think that time has just about ended, I am ready
for a more aggressive stance...

Warmest regards,
John

"james" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:49:42 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

James:

If you haven't noticed, we ARE right in the middle of the right place to
find enemies... if you don't think there are tightly knit groups of
radicals right in Iraq and most of the other surrounding countries, think
again... better to fight them there than here... at least the gauntlet
has
been thrown down on foreign soil and the battles and war can take place
there... life goes on as usual here, children attend school, retired
people
vacation and there are NO suicide bombings or terrorist attacks--there is
enough there to busy their hands... let the war stay there...

Warmest regards,
John
****

Personally I do not like the idea of fighting radicals like the
insurgents of Iraq on their home land. Not a good strategy. They will
play the game of attritian. They will die to remove us. The only way
to fight that kind of fight was lost two years ago. We should have
pacified the country and we did not. Now we have to fight a war in
which the enemy refuses to show their face.

They are willing to sacrifice bodies to kill us. Each one of them that
dies is a hero and a martyr. In reality we can never truly win in
Iraq. The best that we now can hope for is a situation where both
sides will grow so tired of fighting that they wish to quit. Five
years from now Iraq will be an Islamic state very much like Iran.
Irregardless of what we do now. I predict that the democracy that we
set up, will not last beyond five yrs.

james

From: (John=A0Smith)
Yes, I very much think groups in Iraq and

Saudi Arabia financed terrorism--

No one ever said otherwise. In fact, you can add South America, China,
Malaysia, Singapore, Chad, Sudan, Phillipines, Central America, France,
Russia, Ireland, N Korea,
to your revelation, but what you are unable, is establish or cite a link
between Iraq and 911.
For that, you need look to BL, Afghanistan, and yes, Saudi Arabia..


in the case of the Saudis'--still do--and it

"overlooked" by those in control there... if and

when we find them as long as someone

assures they end up dead I will be quite

happy...



Well, Bush swore on national tv in front of the entire country BL was
responsible for 911 and he was our number one priority and that he would
not rest until he was captured and that
he would spare no expense to captre him and would hunt him down to the
"four corners" of the earth if necessary. Approximately a year later,
Bush flip-flopped, claiming he no longer cared about BL and even said he
was no longer a priority. So, you -have- been "assured" by Bush, but as
he illustrates, it was lipservice and menat absolutely nothing.


If they simply wish to retain different views and
are peaceful--leave 'em alone...


There are dozens of countries who do not share your definition of what
constitutes "peaceful". When do we invade?


Warmest

regards,

John


Backatcha cha cha*

*(slight echo you love so much)

Dave Hall Said:
"Actually Hitler gained his power after Paul Von Hindenburg died in
1934. Before that Hitler was just a chancellor and had been unable to
beat Hindenburg in the last election. So in many ways, fate was
responsible for Hilter's chance at power. "


Wrongo. Hitler's "emergency" powers were granted by Hindenburg in 1933
as a response to the Reichstag fire.

The German parliment building was torched and the Nazi's blamed
communist agitators, said that the country needed stronger leadership
to beat off attempts by the communists to take it over, etc.

Actually, the Nazis themselves did the torching, specifically to
agitate public opinion in favor of Nazi policies by blaming
anti-government forces for the deed.

Hitler said that Germany was being threatened, the people saw the
Reichstag fire as proof. Hindenburg gave in and let the Nazis run the
show.

Hitler would have blown a goat at the Berlin Zoo to get that power...a
little arson was definitely only the beginning if he had not gotten it.