|
And if the really dumb prevail...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:30:57 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: ...this gal will be allowed to breed: And I hope she does. The girl has guts and I applaud her for it. Later, Tom |
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:30:57 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: ...this gal will be allowed to breed: Teen sues over Confederate flag prom dress LEXINGTON, Kentucky (AP) -- A teenager is suing her school district for barring her from the prom last spring because she was wearing a dress styled as a large Confederate battle flag. So I take it, you oppose the first amendment? Or is it that you only agree with it, when those views are in sync with your own? Dave |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
... ...this gal will be allowed to breed: Teen sues over Confederate flag prom dress LEXINGTON, Kentucky (AP) -- A teenager is suing her school district for barring her from the prom last spring because she was wearing a dress styled as a large Confederate battle flag. Frankly Harry, I don't blame her, although she could probably achieve her purpose by simply raising hell over the issue in the newspaper. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... ...this gal will be allowed to breed: Teen sues over Confederate flag prom dress LEXINGTON, Kentucky (AP) -- A teenager is suing her school district for barring her from the prom last spring because she was wearing a dress styled as a large Confederate battle flag. Harry, we in the south fought the war of "states rights" not for the right to have slavery but against special interest that wanted a larger share of the world market in Cotton Goods (cloth). The export tariff on raw cotton killed the agrarian economy of the south. The first shot of the war was against a fort enforcing the tariff. Lincoln was trying to institute Federal policies that would have eliminated slavery SLOWLY. Paying for some to be repatriated to Africa and the rest given land as reparations for being forced into slavery. Much like the Union soldiers got as a mustering out. He was outvoted in Congress and the special interests forced a war on this country. After the war (as a popular president) he had plans to follow thru on his vision and was killed some say by other special interests who saw an opportunity to rape the South. In many cases the "Plantations" in the south were broken up into smaller plots and given to the slaves. You will find in researching the ownership of surviving "Plantations" that most were picked up by people or corporations from the north. True or not that is the prevailing opinion here in the south. While in the North (N.Y. State) I listened to news reports of a newly discovered Cemetery where multiple thousands of black children and adults were found in mass graves. Speculation was that they were from the "Industrial era" just after the Civil War where blacks including children were worked to death in factories and buried in mass graves (The Northern answer to slavery). While there is enough guilt to go around for both the North and the South, on neither side did the PEOPLE fight the War for the reasons attributed to them. The North fought to free the Slaves and the South fought against an overbearing government that wanted to destroy the economy of the south. Your education contains Cultural Bias Harry. |
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 07:47:24 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:30:57 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: ...this gal will be allowed to breed: Teen sues over Confederate flag prom dress LEXINGTON, Kentucky (AP) -- A teenager is suing her school district for barring her from the prom last spring because she was wearing a dress styled as a large Confederate battle flag. So I take it, you oppose the first amendment? Or is it that you only agree with it, when those views are in sync with your own? Dave The confederate flag is an offensive symbol of white supremacy, racism and slavery to millions upon millions of people. Tough. Get over it. Fashioning it into a dress that you wear to a prom is as offensive as fashioning the Nazi swastika into a dress you wear to a prom. Doing either is only meant to inflame and to offend. How do you know that was the intention - do you know this girl? The appropriate place for either symbol is on a pickup truck that some redneck pigs might use in Texas to drag blacks or Jews attached to a chain to their deaths. It's also a reminder of a disturbing war fought valiantly on both sides. It stand for much more than your narrow definition of what is appropriate and what isn't. And if you can't see that, then you aren't as broad minded as you like to say you are. Later, Tom |
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:11:03 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 07:47:24 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:30:57 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: ...this gal will be allowed to breed: Teen sues over Confederate flag prom dress LEXINGTON, Kentucky (AP) -- A teenager is suing her school district for barring her from the prom last spring because she was wearing a dress styled as a large Confederate battle flag. So I take it, you oppose the first amendment? Or is it that you only agree with it, when those views are in sync with your own? Dave The confederate flag is an offensive symbol of white supremacy, racism and slavery to millions upon millions of people. Tough. Get over it. Fashioning it into a dress that you wear to a prom is as offensive as fashioning the Nazi swastika into a dress you wear to a prom. Doing either is only meant to inflame and to offend. How do you know that was the intention - do you know this girl? The appropriate place for either symbol is on a pickup truck that some redneck pigs might use in Texas to drag blacks or Jews attached to a chain to their deaths. It's also a reminder of a disturbing war fought valiantly on both sides. It stand for much more than your narrow definition of what is appropriate and what isn't. And if you can't see that, then you aren't as broad minded as you like to say you are. Later, Tom I'm not one of those who romanticizes the south, either pre or post Civil War, nor did I ever buy into the revisionism of southern "sympathizers" who claim slavery wasn't an overriding issue of that war, and whose ancestors spent some time afterwards lynching blacks, Jews, and Catholics, and who even in the 1960s were resisting the most basic of civil rights for all. And I'm not claiming the rest of the country was "perfect" in the area of civil rights, either. But the south set the standard, as it were. There was nothing glorious about the old south, not if you had dark skin, and that one fact, slavery and the desire to continue it, negates any concept of "valiant" behavior on its side. If you ever want to read about the "righteous" North sometime, look up Frederick Douglas's experiences in the shipyards of Baltimore and his time in Mystic Connecticut. Then come back and tell me about "valiant" behavior. You may not understand it, you may not want to understand it and that's fine. But the men who died for a cause have every right to be remembered, their history, lives and sacrifices celebrated as their descendants choose - not at the dictates of some individuals who have their PC undies in a bunch. Later, Tom |
Harry,, you moron
Wasn't it you who was defending the Islamic and Allah and Mohammed there in another post??? Islamic and Muslim who are taught to hate non islams and nonmuslims. You are now defending those who suffered slavery by your people,, Harry you are all over the place man, you spin from one direction to another,, your more confused than a termite in a yo-yo. Read this again,,, http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/ Read the part about your Mohammed you so nicely defended earlier,, read about his approx 30ith wife, the 6 year old. Or didn't he kill his brother only to marry his wife. Come on there Harry, give the head a shake,,, "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... ...this gal will be allowed to breed: Teen sues over Confederate flag prom dress LEXINGTON, Kentucky (AP) -- A teenager is suing her school district for barring her from the prom last spring because she was wearing a dress styled as a large Confederate battle flag. The lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court claims the Greenup County district and administrators violated Jacqueline Duty's First Amendment right to free speech and her right to celebrate her heritage at predominantly white Russell High School's prom May 1. She also is suing for defamation, false imprisonment and assault. "Her only dance for her senior prom was on the sidewalk to a song playing on the radio," said her lawyer, Earl-Ray Neal. Duty, 19, is seeking actual and punitive damages in excess of $50,000. She said she worked on the design for the dress for four years, though she acknowledged that some might find the Confederate flag offensive. "Everyone has their own opinion. But that's not mine," she told reporters outside the courthouse. "I'm proud of where I came from and my background." Duty, now a college student, said school officials told her before the prom not to wear the dress, but she didn't have another one and decided to see if administrators would change their minds. According to her lawsuit, she was met outside by two police officers and principal Sean Howard. She said the principal intimidated her by striking the vehicle she was in. School offices were closed Wednesday. Superintendent Ronnie Back did not immediately respond to a call to his home seeking comment. The Sons of Confederate Veterans has promised to help pay some of her legal expenses. http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html |
Of course you do harry,,,
The only reason my posts are required to be so long, is because I enjoy proving you wrong,, pointing out your stupidity. Sometimes takes a lot of time. For my languages,,, lol,,, you ****ing moron,,, English is not my primary you ****ing racist,, Go read your koran you coward. Harry, that is exactly what you are, an ignorant coward. A back stabbing coward,,, you stabbed your fellow Americans right in the back,,, If you do not like the country you're living in, then move. Why don't you move to Malasia or somewhere where there is high percentage of the muslim and islams you so admire,,, you moron,, lol,,, how many languages do you speak there Einstein??? I didn't think so,,, you just keep reading my posts there Harry and pretend to ignore them,, loll,, It is just that your too stupid to know how to answer them. Try taking a trip sometime harry,, get out of that bar and expand your mind,, And about the drugs,,, lol,,, well your more the demographic for that,, being a laborer on he union your whole life,,,lol,,, I don't know why I waste my time with a union laborer like you,,, lol,,, go paint your boat again,,, "Harry Krause" wrote in message news:1103831340.2901354a30faaba46ba91f937a7aa530@t eranews... Tuuk wrote: Harry,, you moron Wasn't it you who was defending the Islamic and Allah and Mohammed there in another post??? `Sorry, Tuuk, but you have me confused with whatever narcotic you drink all day. Or inject. In addition, your command of English is so ****-poor, it is obvious you don't understand 90% of what you think you are reading. By the way, there's no need for you to aim your long, badly written posts at me. I don't read them. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... About the only group that has a good track record of defending all types of free speech is the ACLU. :-) And they have other issues...... What issues are those, Dave? |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:19:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . About the only group that has a good track record of defending all types of free speech is the ACLU. :-) And they have other issues...... What issues are those, Dave? Look it up. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:19:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. About the only group that has a good track record of defending all types of free speech is the ACLU. :-) And they have other issues...... What issues are those, Dave? Look it up. Dave I have, for the past 30 years. They've defended people and ideas that even YOU would agree with. YOU look it up, instead of focusing on the three instances you're marginally aware of. |
About the only group that has a good track record of defending
all types of free speech is the ACLU. :-) Dave Hall wrote: And they have other issues...... What issues are those, Dave? Dave Hall wrote: Look it up. "Look it up"..... Translation- Dave Hall doesn't have a clue, but he has been programmed to hate the ACLU and badmouth the organization, it's programs, and it's supporters. This is the kind"positive moral values" and "freedom" that our current President & Vice President really like to encourage. DSK |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:10:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:19:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... About the only group that has a good track record of defending all types of free speech is the ACLU. :-) And they have other issues...... What issues are those, Dave? Look it up. Dave I have, for the past 30 years. They've defended people and ideas that even YOU would agree with. YOU look it up, instead of focusing on the three instances you're marginally aware of. 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. That's the problem when you take on the role of public rights advocate. You have to defend the most sleazy, despicable, and abhorrent behavior, or come off as hypocritical. The end result is that we have to "allow" bad behavior because the purveyors have a "right" to do it. I believe that the majority of society should decide what's acceptable and appropriate behavior and appearance, not some "group" which defends bad behavior on principle alone without any due consideration for the effects that it has on society. Dave |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:46:36 -0500, DSK wrote:
About the only group that has a good track record of defending all types of free speech is the ACLU. :-) Dave Hall wrote: And they have other issues...... What issues are those, Dave? Dave Hall wrote: Look it up. "Look it up"..... Translation- Dave Hall doesn't have a clue, but he has been programmed to hate the ACLU and badmouth the organization, it's programs, and it's supporters. Better translation: Dave Hall doesn't want to get dragged into another senseless "debate" with someone who is just looking to pick at nuances while ignoring core principles. If he were truly interested in seeing the truth, he would indeed "look it up". But he just wants another excuse to make me go through the pains of showing him how off-base he is. Just like I did when he tried to claim that it was within his legal right to kill neighborhood dogs.... But I'm getting tired of it. This is the kind"positive moral values" and "freedom" that our current President & Vice President really like to encourage. Independent thinking? Yea, I'd say that's a positive value. Dave |
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. Many people feel the same way, it's rare that someone will openly admit it. I believe that the majority of society should decide what's acceptable and appropriate behavior and appearance, not some "group" which defends bad behavior on principle alone without any due consideration for the effects that it has on society. I believe that adults should think for themselves. One of the most precious aspects of American liberty has apparently and sadly been wasted on you. We protect the non-criminal minority from the social tyrrany of the majority. One reason America has been the home of so many inventions and innovations is that we teach our children that it's OK to be non-conformist and to look for new ways to consider things, even when the "majority" would disagree. There must be some deep, dark, secret aspect of your life where you don't perceive yourself to be in the "majority". Shall we all prohibit you from lawfully and non-violently practising those actions or thinking those thoughts? |
How about this, Dave? Anything on this page you agree with?
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/...cticesMain.cfm |
|
"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. You realize, of course, that the opposite to reasonable restriction is a slippery slope chain of events which leads to anarchy. Unless you support anarchy, the only difference between you and I, is where we draw the line. Define "anarchy". I believe that adults should think for themselves. That's fine until one of those "free thinking adults" does something which infringes on the rights of someone else. Then what? What's wrong with that? You advocate infringing on private property rights all the time, remember? It's funny that you seem to be advocating a free-for-all attitude with respect to freedom, yet also seem to support the right of minority people to be "offended" by the acts, customs, and traditions of the majority. A curious duplicity if I must say. Being offended is one thing. Physically stopping someone's actions is another. I think nose, tongue and eyebrow rings are disgusting and that the people who wear them are idiots. But, I have no intention of doing anything to stop the behavior. YOU would put a stop to certain actions for another, very common reason: You have an abnormal need to control other people. |
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 |
Dave Hall wrote:
Better translation: Dave Hall doesn't want to get dragged into another senseless "debate" with someone who is just looking to pick at nuances while ignoring core principles. You mean like the core principle that a gov't which deliberately uses torture as an instrument of state cannot be good? If he were truly interested in seeing the truth, he would indeed "look it up". Look up what, Dave? The fact that the ACLU has defended the civil liberties of people you'd rather see locked up for life without trial... maybe tortured? Independent thinking? Yea, I'd say that's a positive value. The problem is that your idea of "independent thinking" means goose-stepping along with the current gov't... the most secretive, most destructive of Constitutional rights... and coincidentally, heavily profiting from the "war on terror"... of any in US history. DSK |
"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. |
"Harry Krause" wrote ... You're much more contemplative than I am, Chuckster. Me, I think Dave is a jumble of repressed sexuality. I offer the following without comment... -rick- -- http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory. Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience. Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence. Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.' |
"-rick-" wrote in message
... "Harry Krause" wrote ... You're much more contemplative than I am, Chuckster. Me, I think Dave is a jumble of repressed sexuality. I offer the following without comment... -rick- -- http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal Dave's gonna want to spank you real hard for posting this. If you refuse, he'll tie you up with his belt. |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:04:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "-rick-" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote ... You're much more contemplative than I am, Chuckster. Me, I think Dave is a jumble of repressed sexuality. I offer the following without comment... -rick- -- http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal Dave's gonna want to spank you real hard for posting this. If you refuse, he'll tie you up with his belt. Why would I do that? I'm not homophobic. The fact that I don't approve of the lifestyle and that I find it biologically abnormal, does not mean that I "fear" them. Dave |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 07:12:53 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "-rick-" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote ... You're much more contemplative than I am, Chuckster. Me, I think Dave is a jumble of repressed sexuality. I offer the following without comment... -rick- -- http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal Dave's gonna want to spank you real hard for posting this. If you refuse, he'll tie you up with his belt. There's nothing quite like the hypocrisy of the far right, especially on matters sexual. The Republicans sure know how to play those tunes, eh? 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. Keep your activities to yourself. The rest of us don't care what the top 1000 women surveyed did in the bedroom last night...... Dave |
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? You realize, of course, that the opposite to reasonable restriction is a slippery slope chain of events which leads to anarchy. Unless you support anarchy, the only difference between you and I, is where we draw the line. Define "anarchy". You're a smart guy (I think), you look it up. I believe that adults should think for themselves. That's fine until one of those "free thinking adults" does something which infringes on the rights of someone else. Then what? What's wrong with that? You advocate infringing on private property rights all the time, remember? I advocate nothing of the sort. But be careful Doug, by embracing anarchy, your property rights go out the window. It's funny that you seem to be advocating a free-for-all attitude with respect to freedom, yet also seem to support the right of minority people to be "offended" by the acts, customs, and traditions of the majority. A curious duplicity if I must say. Being offended is one thing. Physically stopping someone's actions is another. I think nose, tongue and eyebrow rings are disgusting and that the people who wear them are idiots. But, I have no intention of doing anything to stop the behavior. Stopping silly little expressions which have no potential to harm another person, either physically or mentally, makes little sense, and has no logical basis. But those activities which do adversely affect other people, should be regulated for the greater good of the community. YOU would put a stop to certain actions for another, very common reason: You have an abnormal need to control other people. I have no such need. You simply cannot comprehend the principles, so therefore you project your thoughts onto me. Funny thing, you seem to have no problem with restrictions on thing like dogs, when it suits you..... Dave |
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 |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:36:57 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... What I consider brutality is when the cops use more force than necessary, or when they use force when the perpetrator is sufficiently restrained. How about when the cops use deadly force to bring down someone who has done nothing wrong, or is reaching for his wallet to produce ID? There is a simple way to avoid being shot by the cops. When instructed to freeze, you do so, and place your hands in the air in a non-threatening posture. Making moves which could be interpreted as aggressive is a sure fire way to get a bullet through the chest. A cop is under life threatening circumstances every day. In many cases he has a split second to make the decision to use deadly force. If he hesitates too long, HE might become the victim. I know a bunch of cops, one of which is a neighbor. I do not envy their jobs. The have a lot of responsibility and seemingly diminishing support from the community. While there are certainly some "bad" cops, who do not deserve to wear the badge, I hold no ill will toward a cop who shoots someone who makes a threatening gesture our of either defiance or stupidity. Dave |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
... 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. Krause tags his opponent on the chin without even spilling his beer, and picks up another 5 points......and we break for a word from our sponsors. |
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com