On May 2, 12:11 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause





wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:34:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
On 02 May 2007 02:14:37 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:

In , Harry Krause sprach
forth the following:

The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove
protections for a rare jumping mouse
My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare
jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does?
I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while
impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they
are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable
laws?
There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding
of the Constitution, the government, or process.

You mean like "hate speech" laws?

Oh, I think there's a place for federal laws against certain kinds of
"hate speech." There are certain thoughts involving violence and hate
that one should not be able to say in public.

Give me an example of "hate speech".

Or something, other than shouting fire in a theatre, that one should
not be able to say in public.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, currently California is trying to pass a law that would call the
mention of Mommy and Daddy, or other suggestions of hetero families,
hate speech to be banned in schools. Personally, I don't like being
reffered to as "cracker", or "breeder" but I don't think it should be
banned.