OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
#311
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
start to fly.
If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
Constitution.
I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
that he's entitled to a fair trial.
Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
others views, opinions, and customs.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
start to fly.
If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
Constitution.
I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
that he's entitled to a fair trial.
Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
others views, opinions, and customs.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
#312
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
start to fly.
If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
Constitution.
I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
that he's entitled to a fair trial.
Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
others views, opinions, and customs.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
start to fly.
If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
Constitution.
I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
that he's entitled to a fair trial.
Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
others views, opinions, and customs.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
#313
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
start to fly.
If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
Constitution.
I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
that he's entitled to a fair trial.
Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
others views, opinions, and customs.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
start to fly.
If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
Constitution.
I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
that he's entitled to a fair trial.
Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
others views, opinions, and customs.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
#314
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
In article <pan.2004.08.14.21.31.09.402243@twcny.rr.com>,
"F. Robert Falbo" <rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
> > As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> > more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
> While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
> compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
> of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
> real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
> they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
> start to fly.
Very well said. Excellent points all around. I might add that this
whole issue of military service only arose as a way to avoid addressing
substantive issues. Rather than address factual inaccuracies in their
posts, a few individuals dodged by making military service an issue.
Nobody has been complaining about the government in this thread, yet
some people have acted like flags were being burnt and made it an issue
of patriotism.
"F. Robert Falbo" <rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
> > As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> > more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
> While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
> compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
> of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
> real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
> they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
> start to fly.
Very well said. Excellent points all around. I might add that this
whole issue of military service only arose as a way to avoid addressing
substantive issues. Rather than address factual inaccuracies in their
posts, a few individuals dodged by making military service an issue.
Nobody has been complaining about the government in this thread, yet
some people have acted like flags were being burnt and made it an issue
of patriotism.
#315
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
In article <pan.2004.08.14.21.31.09.402243@twcny.rr.com>,
"F. Robert Falbo" <rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
> > As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> > more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
> While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
> compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
> of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
> real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
> they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
> start to fly.
Very well said. Excellent points all around. I might add that this
whole issue of military service only arose as a way to avoid addressing
substantive issues. Rather than address factual inaccuracies in their
posts, a few individuals dodged by making military service an issue.
Nobody has been complaining about the government in this thread, yet
some people have acted like flags were being burnt and made it an issue
of patriotism.
"F. Robert Falbo" <rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
> > As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> > more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
> While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
> compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
> of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
> real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
> they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
> start to fly.
Very well said. Excellent points all around. I might add that this
whole issue of military service only arose as a way to avoid addressing
substantive issues. Rather than address factual inaccuracies in their
posts, a few individuals dodged by making military service an issue.
Nobody has been complaining about the government in this thread, yet
some people have acted like flags were being burnt and made it an issue
of patriotism.
#316
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
In article <pan.2004.08.14.21.31.09.402243@twcny.rr.com>,
"F. Robert Falbo" <rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
> > As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> > more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
> While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
> compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
> of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
> real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
> they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
> start to fly.
Very well said. Excellent points all around. I might add that this
whole issue of military service only arose as a way to avoid addressing
substantive issues. Rather than address factual inaccuracies in their
posts, a few individuals dodged by making military service an issue.
Nobody has been complaining about the government in this thread, yet
some people have acted like flags were being burnt and made it an issue
of patriotism.
"F. Robert Falbo" <rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
> > As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> > more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
> While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
> compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
> of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
> real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
> they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
> start to fly.
Very well said. Excellent points all around. I might add that this
whole issue of military service only arose as a way to avoid addressing
substantive issues. Rather than address factual inaccuracies in their
posts, a few individuals dodged by making military service an issue.
Nobody has been complaining about the government in this thread, yet
some people have acted like flags were being burnt and made it an issue
of patriotism.
#317
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
In article <pan.2004.08.14.21.31.09.402243@twcny.rr.com>,
"F. Robert Falbo" <rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
> > As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> > more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
> While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
> compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
> of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
> real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
> they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
> start to fly.
Very well said. Excellent points all around. I might add that this
whole issue of military service only arose as a way to avoid addressing
substantive issues. Rather than address factual inaccuracies in their
posts, a few individuals dodged by making military service an issue.
Nobody has been complaining about the government in this thread, yet
some people have acted like flags were being burnt and made it an issue
of patriotism.
"F. Robert Falbo" <rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
> > As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> > more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
> While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
> compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
> of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
> real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
> they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
> start to fly.
Very well said. Excellent points all around. I might add that this
whole issue of military service only arose as a way to avoid addressing
substantive issues. Rather than address factual inaccuracies in their
posts, a few individuals dodged by making military service an issue.
Nobody has been complaining about the government in this thread, yet
some people have acted like flags were being burnt and made it an issue
of patriotism.
#318
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:30:02 GMT, "F. Robert Falbo"
<rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
>> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
>> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
>While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
>compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
>of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
>real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
>they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
>start to fly.
>
>If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
>large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
>Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
>Constitution.
>
>I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
>too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
>him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
>that he's entitled to a fair trial.
I haven't paid much attention to the Scott Peterson trial, but I've
heard nothing about it that indicates guilt. Much of what I've heard
is simply distaste.
>Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
>plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
>The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
>have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
>public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
>if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
>Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
>their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
The problem is that the courts cannot deal with 'enemy combatants'. I
define 'enemy combatants' as those captured on the field of battle.
There isn't enough court rooms, judges juries or lawyers to prosecute
and defend prisoners of war.
Jose Padilla is not an enemy combatant and should be granted full
rights and a trial.
>"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
>religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
>and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
>Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
>a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
>this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
>that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
>can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
>Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
>Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
>everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
>and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
Marriage is not a 'right' for anybody. Sexuality is not sufficient
cause to grant special considerations to anybody whether heterosexual,
homosexual or asexual.
Marriage is an institution that predates written history and modern
civilization. Governments have had to recognize marriage because that
was the way things were.
>These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
>because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
>others views, opinions, and customs.
When people wish to dip into my pocket (ala Marriage and social
security survivor and tax benefits) they had best come up with a damn
good cause. Eternal bliss and happiness is not a damn good cause in my
book.
You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. Your
assertion of being 'correct' with me being 'intolerant' is what is
actually dividing this nation.
<rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
>> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
>> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
>While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
>compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
>of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
>real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
>they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
>start to fly.
>
>If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
>large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
>Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
>Constitution.
>
>I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
>too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
>him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
>that he's entitled to a fair trial.
I haven't paid much attention to the Scott Peterson trial, but I've
heard nothing about it that indicates guilt. Much of what I've heard
is simply distaste.
>Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
>plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
>The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
>have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
>public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
>if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
>Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
>their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
The problem is that the courts cannot deal with 'enemy combatants'. I
define 'enemy combatants' as those captured on the field of battle.
There isn't enough court rooms, judges juries or lawyers to prosecute
and defend prisoners of war.
Jose Padilla is not an enemy combatant and should be granted full
rights and a trial.
>"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
>religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
>and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
>Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
>a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
>this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
>that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
>can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
>Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
>Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
>everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
>and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
Marriage is not a 'right' for anybody. Sexuality is not sufficient
cause to grant special considerations to anybody whether heterosexual,
homosexual or asexual.
Marriage is an institution that predates written history and modern
civilization. Governments have had to recognize marriage because that
was the way things were.
>These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
>because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
>others views, opinions, and customs.
When people wish to dip into my pocket (ala Marriage and social
security survivor and tax benefits) they had best come up with a damn
good cause. Eternal bliss and happiness is not a damn good cause in my
book.
You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. Your
assertion of being 'correct' with me being 'intolerant' is what is
actually dividing this nation.
#319
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:30:02 GMT, "F. Robert Falbo"
<rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
>> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
>> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
>While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
>compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
>of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
>real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
>they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
>start to fly.
>
>If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
>large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
>Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
>Constitution.
>
>I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
>too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
>him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
>that he's entitled to a fair trial.
I haven't paid much attention to the Scott Peterson trial, but I've
heard nothing about it that indicates guilt. Much of what I've heard
is simply distaste.
>Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
>plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
>The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
>have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
>public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
>if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
>Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
>their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
The problem is that the courts cannot deal with 'enemy combatants'. I
define 'enemy combatants' as those captured on the field of battle.
There isn't enough court rooms, judges juries or lawyers to prosecute
and defend prisoners of war.
Jose Padilla is not an enemy combatant and should be granted full
rights and a trial.
>"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
>religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
>and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
>Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
>a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
>this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
>that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
>can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
>Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
>Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
>everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
>and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
Marriage is not a 'right' for anybody. Sexuality is not sufficient
cause to grant special considerations to anybody whether heterosexual,
homosexual or asexual.
Marriage is an institution that predates written history and modern
civilization. Governments have had to recognize marriage because that
was the way things were.
>These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
>because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
>others views, opinions, and customs.
When people wish to dip into my pocket (ala Marriage and social
security survivor and tax benefits) they had best come up with a damn
good cause. Eternal bliss and happiness is not a damn good cause in my
book.
You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. Your
assertion of being 'correct' with me being 'intolerant' is what is
actually dividing this nation.
<rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
>> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
>> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
>While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
>compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
>of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
>real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
>they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
>start to fly.
>
>If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
>large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
>Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
>Constitution.
>
>I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
>too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
>him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
>that he's entitled to a fair trial.
I haven't paid much attention to the Scott Peterson trial, but I've
heard nothing about it that indicates guilt. Much of what I've heard
is simply distaste.
>Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
>plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
>The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
>have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
>public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
>if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
>Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
>their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
The problem is that the courts cannot deal with 'enemy combatants'. I
define 'enemy combatants' as those captured on the field of battle.
There isn't enough court rooms, judges juries or lawyers to prosecute
and defend prisoners of war.
Jose Padilla is not an enemy combatant and should be granted full
rights and a trial.
>"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
>religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
>and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
>Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
>a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
>this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
>that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
>can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
>Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
>Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
>everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
>and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
Marriage is not a 'right' for anybody. Sexuality is not sufficient
cause to grant special considerations to anybody whether heterosexual,
homosexual or asexual.
Marriage is an institution that predates written history and modern
civilization. Governments have had to recognize marriage because that
was the way things were.
>These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
>because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
>others views, opinions, and customs.
When people wish to dip into my pocket (ala Marriage and social
security survivor and tax benefits) they had best come up with a damn
good cause. Eternal bliss and happiness is not a damn good cause in my
book.
You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. Your
assertion of being 'correct' with me being 'intolerant' is what is
actually dividing this nation.
#320
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:30:02 GMT, "F. Robert Falbo"
<rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
>> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
>> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
>While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
>compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
>of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
>real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
>they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
>start to fly.
>
>If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
>large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
>Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
>Constitution.
>
>I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
>too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
>him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
>that he's entitled to a fair trial.
I haven't paid much attention to the Scott Peterson trial, but I've
heard nothing about it that indicates guilt. Much of what I've heard
is simply distaste.
>Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
>plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
>The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
>have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
>public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
>if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
>Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
>their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
The problem is that the courts cannot deal with 'enemy combatants'. I
define 'enemy combatants' as those captured on the field of battle.
There isn't enough court rooms, judges juries or lawyers to prosecute
and defend prisoners of war.
Jose Padilla is not an enemy combatant and should be granted full
rights and a trial.
>"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
>religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
>and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
>Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
>a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
>this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
>that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
>can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
>Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
>Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
>everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
>and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
Marriage is not a 'right' for anybody. Sexuality is not sufficient
cause to grant special considerations to anybody whether heterosexual,
homosexual or asexual.
Marriage is an institution that predates written history and modern
civilization. Governments have had to recognize marriage because that
was the way things were.
>These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
>because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
>others views, opinions, and customs.
When people wish to dip into my pocket (ala Marriage and social
security survivor and tax benefits) they had best come up with a damn
good cause. Eternal bliss and happiness is not a damn good cause in my
book.
You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. Your
assertion of being 'correct' with me being 'intolerant' is what is
actually dividing this nation.
<rfalbo1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:
>
>> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
>> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.
>
>While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
>compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
>of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
>real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
>they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
>start to fly.
>
>If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
>large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
>Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
>Constitution.
>
>I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
>too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
>him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
>that he's entitled to a fair trial.
I haven't paid much attention to the Scott Peterson trial, but I've
heard nothing about it that indicates guilt. Much of what I've heard
is simply distaste.
>Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
>plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
>The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
>have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
>public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
>if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
>Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
>their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.
The problem is that the courts cannot deal with 'enemy combatants'. I
define 'enemy combatants' as those captured on the field of battle.
There isn't enough court rooms, judges juries or lawyers to prosecute
and defend prisoners of war.
Jose Padilla is not an enemy combatant and should be granted full
rights and a trial.
>"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
>religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
>and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
>Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
>a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
>this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
>that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
>can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
>Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
>Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
>everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
>and limit other people's "Freedoms"??
Marriage is not a 'right' for anybody. Sexuality is not sufficient
cause to grant special considerations to anybody whether heterosexual,
homosexual or asexual.
Marriage is an institution that predates written history and modern
civilization. Governments have had to recognize marriage because that
was the way things were.
>These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
>because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
>others views, opinions, and customs.
When people wish to dip into my pocket (ala Marriage and social
security survivor and tax benefits) they had best come up with a damn
good cause. Eternal bliss and happiness is not a damn good cause in my
book.
You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. Your
assertion of being 'correct' with me being 'intolerant' is what is
actually dividing this nation.