"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:50:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..


No, I believe that freedom of expression (speech is only one aspect of
it) should be limited to those activities which are deemed appropriate
by the majority of society. What *I* think is only relevant if it is
in agreement with what the majority wants.

Based on THAT sort of nonsesnical thinking, you and the "majority" could
make it illegal for teens to wander around the mall with rings through
their
noses or eyebrows.

If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it? Have you
always wanted to swim upstream, or had some deep rooted desire to be
"different" just to **** other people off?

Here's something that makes me physically ill: Fat women in pink sweatpants.
I know for a fact that I'm not alone in this regard. Can we make it illegal
to appear in public dressed that way?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:35:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:05:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

How about this, Dave? Anything on this page you agree with?

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/...cticesMain.cfm


I agree that the cops should be allowed to do their jobs. Rodney King
should be in jail, and not the recipient of a large sum of money.

When people are told to freeze by the cops, they should do so.
Responding with any action which could be interpreted as resisting
arrest is an opening for the cops to use whatever force they deem
necessary to subdue you.

What I consider brutality is when the cops use more force than
necessary, or when they use force when the perpetrator is sufficiently
restrained.

If a cop needs 41 shots to kill his suspect, he needs to go back to
the range for some remedial firearms training and practice. It
shouldn't take more than two or three well placed shots to bring down
a scumbag. There's no need to waste good ammo.......

Dave



Good. Then you agree that the ACLU does some good work. Thank you. I knew
you didn't mean what you said earlier.


I never said that EVERYTHING the ACLU does is bad. God!, what does a
person have to do to pound in some sense into your thick head.

I said that the ACLU, as a rights advocate, has the duty to take on
all cases of "rights" abuse, including some cases which should never
see the light of day. By doing so they blaze the trail for all sorts
of deviant behavior to see the light of day, under the guise of
"freedom of expression".

Dave



We're going in circles here. "Deviant behavior" is too broad a term.

Dave Hall wrote:
If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Once again, another demonstration of ignorance from Dave Hall. This is
getting boring.

DSK

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:43:05 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:47:08 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:

On 05 Jan 2005 16:18:39 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:



THAT is the problem. They'll defend the right of people to do just
about anything. I don't believe that certain things should be allowed
to be displayed in public out of respect. I don't want to see bare
chested women, (or men) walking around in public. I don't think the
KKK has a right to exist let along parading around in a public parade.
I don't want to see drag queens flaunting their abhorrent , deviant
behavior in a public parade that I want to take my 5 year old to.

In summary, you support the first amendment only as long as those exercising
freedom of speech confine that speech to something *you* think is appropriate.


No, I believe that freedom of expression (speech is only one aspect of
it) should be limited to those activities which are deemed appropriate
by the majority of society. What *I* think is only relevant if it is
in agreement with what the majority wants.

Your kinds of limitation on freedom of expression is what leads to
pogroms, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.


Harry, you are too busy admiring every word you write to ever take the
time to understand what other people really think.

Dave


Truthfully, Dave, it is very difficult to understand what you think,
since so little of it makes any sense from any perspective but that of a
close-minded, ignorant, control freak.

You want to limit freedom of expression to what the "majority" rules as
appropriate. The Bush Administration does not like peaceful
demonstrations against its policies, and neither do Republicans. If the
Republicans, now the majority party, decided that there should be no
peaceful demonstrations against Bush policies because they were
"inappropriate," you would endorse that decision?

I prefer the Constitutional approach on this issue...the one that says
"Congress shall make no law..."

Though you conservatives have a lot of trouble with that phrase, it is
among the simplest to understand:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

How noble Harry. You go ahead and wrap yourself up in the
constitution. Then when someone does something that you don't like, I
want to watch you dance, when you want to ban them, against the:
"Congress shall make no law..." clause.

You see, the door swings both ways............

Dave

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:02:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:50:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


No, I believe that freedom of expression (speech is only one aspect of
it) should be limited to those activities which are deemed appropriate
by the majority of society. What *I* think is only relevant if it is
in agreement with what the majority wants.

Based on THAT sort of nonsesnical thinking, you and the "majority" could
make it illegal for teens to wander around the mall with rings through
their
noses or eyebrows.

If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it? Have you
always wanted to swim upstream, or had some deep rooted desire to be
"different" just to **** other people off?

Here's something that makes me physically ill: Fat women in pink sweatpants.
I know for a fact that I'm not alone in this regard. Can we make it illegal
to appear in public dressed that way?


Call the fashion police.....

Dave

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:57:06 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Bull ****. Our republic is set up exactly so that the will of the
majority of the people can prevent the tyranny of ONE (or a few)
dictator (a minority). It is exactly set that way so that the wishes
of the majority will be heard.

It makes logical sense that the needs of the majority outweighs the
needs of the few.

Once again, another demonstration of ignorance from Dave Hall. This is
getting boring.

I'm not the one who's ignorant.

Dave

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:44:09 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:35:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:05:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


How about this, Dave? Anything on this page you agree with?

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/...cticesMain.cfm


I agree that the cops should be allowed to do their jobs. Rodney King
should be in jail, and not the recipient of a large sum of money.

When people are told to freeze by the cops, they should do so.
Responding with any action which could be interpreted as resisting
arrest is an opening for the cops to use whatever force they deem
necessary to subdue you.

What I consider brutality is when the cops use more force than
necessary, or when they use force when the perpetrator is sufficiently
restrained.

If a cop needs 41 shots to kill his suspect, he needs to go back to
the range for some remedial firearms training and practice. It
shouldn't take more than two or three well placed shots to bring down
a scumbag. There's no need to waste good ammo.......

Dave



Good. Then you agree that the ACLU does some good work. Thank you. I knew
you didn't mean what you said earlier.



I never said that EVERYTHING the ACLU does is bad. God!, what does a
person have to do to pound in some sense into your thick head.

I said that the ACLU, as a rights advocate, has the duty to take on
all cases of "rights" abuse, including some cases which should never
see the light of day. By doing so they blaze the trail for all sorts
of deviant behavior to see the light of day, under the guise of
"freedom of expression".

Dave



I consider your fear of sexual expression to be deviant behavior.


Since your are in the minority, your view is irrelevant. Besides, I
have no "fear" of sexual expression. I just find it distasteful and
selfish in nature. It's nothing more than people shouting "look at
me!!". Self indulgence is not something I have any empathy for.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:57:06 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Bull ****. Our republic is set up exactly so that the will of the
majority of the people can prevent the tyranny of ONE (or a few)
dictator (a minority). It is exactly set that way so that the wishes
of the majority will be heard.

You are wrong here.......the consitution was set up as a republic to protect
minority rights from that of the majority's wishes, and second, to limit the
power of the federal guvmint.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42248


It makes logical sense that the needs of the majority outweighs the
needs of the few.

But it makes greater sense that the RIGHTS of the individual outweigh the
wants of the majority.




Once again, another demonstration of ignorance from Dave Hall. This is
getting boring.

I'm not the one who's ignorant.

Dave

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:04:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:35:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:05:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

How about this, Dave? Anything on this page you agree with?

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/...cticesMain.cfm


I agree that the cops should be allowed to do their jobs. Rodney King
should be in jail, and not the recipient of a large sum of money.

When people are told to freeze by the cops, they should do so.
Responding with any action which could be interpreted as resisting
arrest is an opening for the cops to use whatever force they deem
necessary to subdue you.

What I consider brutality is when the cops use more force than
necessary, or when they use force when the perpetrator is sufficiently
restrained.

If a cop needs 41 shots to kill his suspect, he needs to go back to
the range for some remedial firearms training and practice. It
shouldn't take more than two or three well placed shots to bring down
a scumbag. There's no need to waste good ammo.......

Dave



Good. Then you agree that the ACLU does some good work. Thank you. I knew
you didn't mean what you said earlier.


I never said that EVERYTHING the ACLU does is bad. God!, what does a
person have to do to pound in some sense into your thick head.

I said that the ACLU, as a rights advocate, has the duty to take on
all cases of "rights" abuse, including some cases which should never
see the light of day. By doing so they blaze the trail for all sorts
of deviant behavior to see the light of day, under the guise of
"freedom of expression".

Dave



We're going in circles here. "Deviant behavior" is too broad a term.

And subjective. Isn't legislation fun?

Dave

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:21:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Sex belongs in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms. Not on the
pages of the news, the prime time TV channels, or in "flash and
glitter" magazines.


You should have explained that to the GOP during the Clinton years.

Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave