"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

you realy should try learning english

Oh Lord.

"Honus" wrote in message
news:LQY2f.25226$3w.20208@trnddc07...

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

you realy should try learning english

Oh Lord.



Has any one else noticed that all Markie does is copy the opponents
argument? Even to the exact words.

Dan/W4NTI

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...


not at all

but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is
violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate
whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating
violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country
would be locked up.

not at all

the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced
doesn't change the law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened'
to do something and got charged. The legal system hasnt gone to
hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. I could threaten
people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what
my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting
confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening
to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of
threat dont mean squat and never has.


J

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:GZZ2f.427494$_o.84828@attbi_s71...


Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened'
to do something and got charged. The legal system hasnt gone to
hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. I could
threaten
people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what
my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting
confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening
to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of
threat dont mean squat and never has.

Lord, I just can't help myself.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3461

Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did
and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for
making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true
threat".

Therein lie your answers. ;)

"Honus" wrote in message
news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06...

Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did
and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for
making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true
threat".

Therein lie your answers. ;)

Oh, nuts...here's an article with examples for you. Don't say I never did
you guys any favors. ;)

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=556

Jeff (nospam) wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...


not at all

but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is
violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate
whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating
violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country
would be locked up.

not at all

the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced
doesn't change the law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened'
to do something and got charged.

happens all the time mostly in mob cases

and there are people still in jail for merely threatening reagan as a
joke

people were arested for threatening Mrs Bush on the campiagn trail

The legal system hasnt gone to
hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats.

guess you have never read the hate crimes laws in the nation


I could threaten
people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what
my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting
confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening
to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of
threat dont mean squat and never has.


J

Honus wrote:
"Honus" wrote in message
news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06...

Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did
and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for
making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true
threat".

Therein lie your answers. ;)

Oh, nuts...here's an article with examples for you. Don't say I never did
you guys any favors. ;)

I can't promise to never say it (I can be forgetfull) but if I should
do so in the future do remind me and I promise to apologize sir

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=556
form the above link quote

On appeal, the defendants argued that the content of the posters and
Web site were protected speech under the First Amendment. But the full
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ACLA's liability, finding that
the content on the posters and Web site constituted an unprotected true
threat.

The court defined a true threat as a statement made when a "reasonable
person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those
to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of
intent to harm." [See Planned Parenthood, 290 f.3d at 1074, 1088.] The
test is an objective one; the defendant does not have to actually
intend to, or be able to, carry out the threat. [Id. at 1076.] In the
Planned Parenthood case, the Ninth Circuit found that it was reasonable
for ACLA members to foresee that the named abortion providers would
interpret the posters and Web site postings as a serious expression of
ACLA members' intent to harm them.

unquote

an old friend wrote:
Jeff (nospam) wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...


not at all

but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is
violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate
whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating
violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country
would be locked up.

not at all

the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced
doesn't change the law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened'
to do something and got charged.

happens all the time mostly in mob cases

You watch too much TV, Marky.

and there are people still in jail for merely threatening reagan as a
joke

people were arested for threatening Mrs Bush on the campiagn trail

Marky the imbecile always gets it wrong.


The legal system hasnt gone to
hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats.

guess you have never read the hate crimes laws in the nation

It's obvious you can't read, period.

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
an old friend wrote:
Honus wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
news:TyF2f.418739$x96.87311@attbi_s72...

"an old friend" wrote in message

you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created
equal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Only under the eyes of the law.....

You're both wrong; shame on you. It's the Declaration of Independence, and
it's predicated on the belief that government serves only to secure the
rights that we're all born with.

it is in the principle on which the constitution and its framer built
the govt of the USA

To whit:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
Powers from the consent of the governed, -- "

Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-,
eh?

no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress
It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery
clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of
SC

Wrong, stupid Marky, Thomas Jefferson, one of the principal authors of
the Declaration of Independence, WAS a slave-owner.

Inded he was as I said without naming him but of course he was ONE
person not "slaveholders" pural

you realy should try learning english

You are the one that said to this statement:
Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-,
eh?

You replied:

"no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress
It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery
clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of

SC"

YOU are the one who said the document wasn't written by slaveholders,
when anybody with a modicum of education knows differently, Marky.

anyone one with a real education knows that it was written by A slave
Holder, not by a group of them, but I guess that lets you out

Yet, YOU are the one who said it wasn't, not anybody else, Marky. And
trying to use my exact same argument back to me is lame, but you are a
world class fool.


You are the one in desperate need of learning English, child abuser.

As were many
others. It wasn't just written by one person, either, Marky.

the other authors (whose roles were minor) Adams, Franklin, Livingston,
and Sherman were not slave holders

You are even more stupid then you show on here, Marky, if you think
that... Adams and Franklin were not minor roleplayers, either, stupid.

Minor in American indenpendance no in the writing of the document yes,

No, stupid. You are wrong, as usual.

at Adams is a minor player in that drama according to Adams, Franklin
according to Adams and Jefferson, one the few things Adamas and
jefferson agred on in later year

You are really ****ing stupid, Marky. You need to go back to school,
also.


and none of the other persona mention ( Adams, Franklin, Livingston,
and Sherman) were slave holders at all

therefore again the document was not written by slaveholders in the
pural

God are you stupid, Marky. What about the authors of the document from
all the Southern Colonies which later became states?

shocking the lack of education displayed

Oh, the irony, Marky.


Rutledge
needed the clause to be stricken for economic reasons. The agrarian
economy at the time in the South depended upon slaves as a workforce

yes of that was the reason advanced, beat then you are into beating
dead horses

Wrong stupid, as usual.

I am right on target

No, stupid, you missed by a parsec.

"Honus" wrote in message news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06...

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:GZZ2f.427494$_o.84828@attbi_s71...


Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened'
to do something and got charged. The legal system hasnt gone to
hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. I could
threaten
people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what
my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting
confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening
to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of
threat dont mean squat and never has.

Lord, I just can't help myself.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3461

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I should have prefaced my statement by "except" the
president, etc. I was talking private citzen to private citizen.