OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:49:02 -0500, wrote:
> 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.
A rose is a rose, and a spade is a spade. Calling POWs another name
shouldn't diminish their rights. These people aren't even being charged
with "War Crimes". What has happened is that this Administration is
using symantics to attempt to evade International Law.
> 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.
What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. I don't see a noticible
impact on SSI happening from such mariages. More likely, problems will
come from the current Admin trying to destroy the SSI program so that
it will benefit the money lenders more than the recipients.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
> 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.
A rose is a rose, and a spade is a spade. Calling POWs another name
shouldn't diminish their rights. These people aren't even being charged
with "War Crimes". What has happened is that this Administration is
using symantics to attempt to evade International Law.
> 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.
What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. I don't see a noticible
impact on SSI happening from such mariages. More likely, problems will
come from the current Admin trying to destroy the SSI program so that
it will benefit the money lenders more than the recipients.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:49:02 -0500, wrote:
> 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.
A rose is a rose, and a spade is a spade. Calling POWs another name
shouldn't diminish their rights. These people aren't even being charged
with "War Crimes". What has happened is that this Administration is
using symantics to attempt to evade International Law.
> 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.
What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. I don't see a noticible
impact on SSI happening from such mariages. More likely, problems will
come from the current Admin trying to destroy the SSI program so that
it will benefit the money lenders more than the recipients.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
> 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.
A rose is a rose, and a spade is a spade. Calling POWs another name
shouldn't diminish their rights. These people aren't even being charged
with "War Crimes". What has happened is that this Administration is
using symantics to attempt to evade International Law.
> 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.
What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. I don't see a noticible
impact on SSI happening from such mariages. More likely, problems will
come from the current Admin trying to destroy the SSI program so that
it will benefit the money lenders more than the recipients.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:49:02 -0500, wrote:
> 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.
A rose is a rose, and a spade is a spade. Calling POWs another name
shouldn't diminish their rights. These people aren't even being charged
with "War Crimes". What has happened is that this Administration is
using symantics to attempt to evade International Law.
> 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.
What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. I don't see a noticible
impact on SSI happening from such mariages. More likely, problems will
come from the current Admin trying to destroy the SSI program so that
it will benefit the money lenders more than the recipients.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
> 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.
A rose is a rose, and a spade is a spade. Calling POWs another name
shouldn't diminish their rights. These people aren't even being charged
with "War Crimes". What has happened is that this Administration is
using symantics to attempt to evade International Law.
> 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.
What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. I don't see a noticible
impact on SSI happening from such mariages. More likely, problems will
come from the current Admin trying to destroy the SSI program so that
it will benefit the money lenders more than the recipients.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - I just got this in my email and thought I would share
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:49:02 -0500, wrote:
> 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.
A rose is a rose, and a spade is a spade. Calling POWs another name
shouldn't diminish their rights. These people aren't even being charged
with "War Crimes". What has happened is that this Administration is
using symantics to attempt to evade International Law.
> 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.
What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. I don't see a noticible
impact on SSI happening from such mariages. More likely, problems will
come from the current Admin trying to destroy the SSI program so that
it will benefit the money lenders more than the recipients.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
> 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.
A rose is a rose, and a spade is a spade. Calling POWs another name
shouldn't diminish their rights. These people aren't even being charged
with "War Crimes". What has happened is that this Administration is
using symantics to attempt to evade International Law.
> 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.
What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. I don't see a noticible
impact on SSI happening from such mariages. More likely, problems will
come from the current Admin trying to destroy the SSI program so that
it will benefit the money lenders more than the recipients.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
S_A_W
Standard Auto Wreckers
0
Sep 27, 2012 10:53 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)