"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must be
interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have slavery
if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly prohibit it),
states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because the constitution
does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has no right to regulate
drug sales (because the constitution does not expressly provide for it). If
the intent of the framers is so important, the surely the "arms" mentioned
in the 2nd amendment does not include repeating pistols and automatic rifles
because the framers did not know of such things and could not possibly have
intended them to be included in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must be
interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have slavery
if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly prohibit it),
states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because the constitution
does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has no right to
regulate drug sales (because the constitution does not expressly provide
for it). If the intent of the framers is so important, the surely the
"arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment does not include repeating pistols
and automatic rifles because the framers did not know of such things and
could not possibly have intended them to be included in the definition of
"arms."

Peter Aitken


There is an amendment prohibiting slavery in the US. Drug sales are
interstate commerce. Expressly allowed to be controlled by the Fed's. The
Fed's do overstep their authority at times. Is why we have courts that can
rule on such cases. The state of Texas should have sued the Fed's over
Waco. Was clearly a case of Fed's overstepping their authority. Actually
people should have been tried for murder and gone to jail for other crimes
in that case. Calling out the active duty military, should have had
everyone who authorized it unemployed. If we want to change the
constitution, there are procedures. Been used to pass 16 admendments in
addition to the Original 10 Bill of Rights.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:19:50 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
wrote:

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
hlink.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must be
interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have slavery
if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly prohibit it),
states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because the constitution
does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has no right to regulate
drug sales (because the constitution does not expressly provide for it). If
the intent of the framers is so important, the surely the "arms" mentioned
in the 2nd amendment does not include repeating pistols and automatic rifles
because the framers did not know of such things and could not possibly have
intended them to be included in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken

Have you read the Constitution in the last 130 or so years? It clearly
says that slavery is illegal in the US or its territories. It clearly
says that the right to vote cannot be denied due to gender or race and
even the original Constitution clearly says that the federal
government can regulate INTER-STATE drug sales. Hell, even in those
days there were "arms" that were more powerful than flintlocks. They
had cannon, they had mortors, they had bombs and they even had
rudimentary torpedos. All of which were regularly owned by private
individuals. They understood that the the word "arms" meant more than
muskets, rifles and pistols. Pick up a copy of the Constitution at
your local book store tomorrow as we celebrate Constitution Day and
give it a quick glance. You appear to be the reason Bobby Byrd passed
a law requiring the teaching of the Constitution each year on
September 17 (or the day before or after if it falls on a weekend as
it does this year) in every federally publicly funded school and
federal agency.

The Other Dave Hall
Dave Hall

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it." -- G.B. Shaw

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message

I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly
Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why
can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without
requiring the gov't to get involved?

What are "Xtians", Peter? I've never heard of that group. Is it anything
like Xlims, or Xists? I've never heard of them, either. If, on the other
hand, you're merely attempting to make some oh-so-clever commentary through
contrived word usage, please clarify. It has been many, many years since
I've left junior high school, and I don't interpret juvenile innuendo very
well anymore. If you have something to say, then say it.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Aitken wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.


I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never
be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences
between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for
a Supreme Court.

Wrong. The primary purpose of the Supreme court is to resolve differences
between the states and to ensure that the President and Congress don't do
anything to crazy.

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I
interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is
a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.

Horse****.

There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution.

It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the
Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended


Do you believe the following?

1) States should be able to have slavery if they wish.

No.

2) Gun owners should be limited to the types of guns available when the
constitution was written - flintlocks.

No.

3) Women and blacks should not be able to vote.

Everyone except women :)

4) Companies can sell horse pee and claim it cures cancer.

If the claim is correct, yes.


These are the consequences of your position on the constitution. Do you
believe them? Do you think they are consistent with American values? If so
then you are at least consistent although a wretched human being. If not
then you need to re-examine your position.

The contstitution has a process for change and it is the amendment process
that is driven by the people through their state legislatures and the
national legislature. The judicial branch was never intended to amend the
constitution all on its own.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must
be interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have
slavery if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly
prohibit it), states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because
the constitution does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has
no right to regulate drug sales (because the constitution does not
expressly provide for it). If the intent of the framers is so important,
the surely the "arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment does not include
repeating pistols and automatic rifles because the framers did not know
of such things and could not possibly have intended them to be included
in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken


There is an amendment prohibiting slavery in the US.

You are corerct - my mistake.

Drug sales are interstate commerce. Expressly allowed to be controlled by
the Fed's.

Interpretation! Where are drugs mentioned in the constitution? Or why can't
drug companies sell horse pee within a state?

The Fed's do overstep their authority at times. Is why we have courts
that can rule on such cases. The state of Texas should have sued the
Fed's over Waco. Was clearly a case of Fed's overstepping their
authority. Actually people should have been tried for murder and gone to
jail for other crimes in that case.

Oh please. A law enforcement officer knocks on a door to serve a legal
warrant and is shot. Feeble-minded religious nutcases armed wth machine guns
set their own compound on fire. This has been investigated to death and only
the most fervid conspiracy theory nitwits still whine about it.

Calling out the active duty military, should have had everyone who
authorized it unemployed.

What? That makes no sense at all. Lay off the gin, will ya g?

If we want to change the constitution, there are procedures. Been used to
pass 16 admendments in addition to the Original 10 Bill of Rights.

Yes. And your point is....?

--
Peter Aitken

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message

I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly
Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why
can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without
requiring the gov't to get involved?

What are "Xtians", Peter? I've never heard of that group. Is it anything
like Xlims, or Xists? I've never heard of them, either. If, on the
other hand, you're merely attempting to make some oh-so-clever commentary
through contrived word usage, please clarify. It has been many, many
years since I've left junior high school, and I don't interpret juvenile
innuendo very well anymore. If you have something to say, then say it.


Nice try, but no one could possibly be so dumb as to not be aware the Xtians
is shorthand for Christians. Well, maybe you are the exception. Do you know
what Xmas means?


--
Peter Aitken

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Aitken wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I
interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.


I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never
be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences
between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for
a Supreme Court.

Wrong. The primary purpose of the Supreme court is to resolve differences
between the states and to ensure that the President and Congress don't do
anything to crazy.



You comment is astoundingly ignorant. No offense meant, but if you really
think that then you are in a really bad way.


--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Aitken wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation
of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it
was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I
interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.


I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never
be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences
between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for
a Supreme Court.

Wrong. The primary purpose of the Supreme court is to resolve differences
between the states and to ensure that the President and Congress don't do
anything to crazy.



You comment is astoundingly ignorant. No offense meant, but if you really
think that then you are in a really bad way.

There really aint a whole lot in article III, is there?

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must
be interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have
slavery if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly
prohibit it), states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because
the constitution does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has
no right to regulate drug sales (because the constitution does not
expressly provide for it). If the intent of the framers is so
important, the surely the "arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment does not
include repeating pistols and automatic rifles because the framers did
not know of such things and could not possibly have intended them to be
included in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken


There is an amendment prohibiting slavery in the US.

You are corerct - my mistake.

Drug sales are interstate commerce. Expressly allowed to be controlled
by the Fed's.

Interpretation! Where are drugs mentioned in the constitution? Or why
can't drug companies sell horse pee within a state?

The Fed's do overstep their authority at times. Is why we have courts
that can rule on such cases. The state of Texas should have sued the
Fed's over Waco. Was clearly a case of Fed's overstepping their
authority. Actually people should have been tried for murder and gone to
jail for other crimes in that case.

Oh please. A law enforcement officer knocks on a door to serve a legal
warrant and is shot. Feeble-minded religious nutcases armed wth machine
guns

A fully armed contingent of ATF agents attack the compound on trumped up
charges. Machines guns are not against the law in some states. You have to
have a Federal Destructive weapons Permit. $200 / year. Koresh oftern had
lunch with the sheriff of Waco. Go present the warrant then. Then they
come up with child molestation to justify the raid. Federal crime?

set their own compound on fire. This has been investigated to death and
only the most fervid conspiracy theory nitwits still whine about it.

And proof they set the compound on fire. Lots of tear gas canisters flying,
all can start a fire, a tank knocking down wall. That can start a fire
also.


Calling out the active duty military, should have had everyone who
authorized it unemployed.

What? That makes no sense at all. Lay off the gin, will ya g?

The only allowable legal reasons to engage the active military in a raid
with in the USA is Insurrection and Drugs. The drug charge was used, way
after the situation was out of control. No proof of illegal drug trade ever
came up. I guess you think the Army can be used anytime the Fed's want? I
guess you think it is OK to commandeer your house and bivouac troops
therein.


If we want to change the constitution, there are procedures. Been used
to pass 16 admendments in addition to the Original 10 Bill of Rights.

Yes. And your point is....?


My point is that it is up to the states and people to ammend the
constitution via the rules that allow it. Not 5 judges in black robes. My
point is also you are very ignorant of the Constitution.

--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message news:vjIWe.52862.


Nice try, but no one could possibly be so dumb as to not be aware the
Xtians is shorthand for Christians.


And likewise I thought no one could so easily miss the point. You make me
laugh. What baseline insecurity prompts the need for shorthand of this
type? Are you fearful of writing the full word "Christmas"? Have you been
brainwashed into thinking that merely by writing the letters "C-h-r-i-s-t"
as part of a routinely accepted word you are allowing yourself to be made a
complicite lackey of the great universal right-wing Christian conspiracy?
I have never seen Muslims refer to Xdan, nor have any of my Jewish friends
spoken or written of Xkah during the winter months, so the need for
shorthand appears to be not universal. I conclude, therefore, that you
likely have some particular aversion to the word. Or do you simply not have
the time to type the full word, busy man? If that be the case, I'd suggest
you can't spare any further seconds bloviating upon newsgroups.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message news:vjIWe.52862.


Nice try, but no one could possibly be so dumb as to not be aware the
Xtians is shorthand for Christians.


And likewise I thought no one could so easily miss the point. You make me
laugh. What baseline insecurity prompts the need for shorthand of this
type? Are you fearful of writing the full word "Christmas"? Have you
been brainwashed into thinking that merely by writing the letters
"C-h-r-i-s-t" as part of a routinely accepted word you are allowing
yourself to be made a complicite lackey of the great universal right-wing
Christian conspiracy? I have never seen Muslims refer to Xdan, nor have
any of my Jewish friends spoken or written of Xkah during the winter
months, so the need for shorthand appears to be not universal. I
conclude, therefore, that you likely have some particular aversion to the
word. Or do you simply not have the time to type the full word, busy man?
If that be the case, I'd suggest you can't spare any further seconds
bloviating upon newsgroups.


Fer chrissake you blithering nitwit, I am just saving some typing. And since
X is a cross, symbol of christianity, that's why it is used in Xtian and
Xmas but not in abbreviations for other religions. Please save your 5th
grade psychologizing for people who are down at your intelligence and
educational level.


--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message



Fer chrissake you blithering nitwit, I am just saving some typing. etc.,
etc.....

LMAO

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the
next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of
America.

I agree. Those damned college-educated liberals who dare to think outside
the box and take a world view on issues. Damn their altruism! I'm moving
to one of them states where science and reason take a back seat to religion.
Now all I have to do is figure out who's religion is the right one; wait, no
worries, I'll just ask Pat "Assassinate them all" Robertson; he'll know.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P Fritz" wrote in message

The nitwits are the people that seem to believe the constitution somehow
reads "freedom from religion"

It means "freedom from YOUR religion", nitwit. How would you like it if
the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under god"?


We've got it all wrong. Shouldn't the pledge say "... under God, Buddah,
Allah, Yaweh, etc." Then we could all get along. Whenever a new religion
comes along we can add that deity as well.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote in message news:CO%Ve.1155


How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of
"under
god"?


I don't know. I've often felt underbuddha, but it usually passes in a
day
or two.

Eisboch





Here's what I have to say about that:

http://tinyurl.com/9zgyq


Harry,
I'm not Jewish and I find your contribution to be that of a pure
unadulterated asshole.
To use the vandalism of anyone's grave as humor is outside the realm of
deceny.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message

They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states were
allowed to do as they choose.


No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

Why is it perversion for a government of the people to evolve?

"Ben" . net wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the
next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of
America.

I agree. Those damned college-educated liberals who dare to think outside
the box and take a world view on issues. Damn their altruism! I'm moving
to one of them states where science and reason take a back seat to
religion. Now all I have to do is figure out who's religion is the right
one; wait, no worries, I'll just ask Pat "Assassinate them all" Robertson;
he'll know.

Why you can practice any religion you want, just don't try to force your
views, religious or political on others. The problem with the liberals is
that they can't get the majority of the citizens to agree with them anymore
so that have to rely upon the liberal judges to implement their views.

"Ben" . net wrote in message
...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message

They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states
were
allowed to do as they choose.


No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

Why is it perversion for a government of the people to evolve?

It is not a perversion for the people to evolve. But, it is a problem for a
minority of the poeple (i.e. liberals) to impose their view of evolving
without getting the majority's approval.

Ben,

This is not vandalism, or anti-Semitic, nor was it made to desecrate the
gravesite. It was a tribute to the deceased, made by someone placing
pennies at gravesite to spell out NYUK.

There is a Jewish custom of placing stones on the gravesite (instead of
Flowers), to indicate someone has come to visit the grave. I and most
people would look at the pennies as the same remembrance as the Jewish
custom of placing stones at the grave.


"Ben" . net wrote in message
m...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote in message news:CO%Ve.1155


How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of
"under
god"?


I don't know. I've often felt underbuddha, but it usually passes in a
day
or two.

Eisboch





Here's what I have to say about that:

http://tinyurl.com/9zgyq


Harry,
I'm not Jewish and I find your contribution to be that of a pure
unadulterated asshole.
To use the vandalism of anyone's grave as humor is outside the realm of
deceny.

For that matter, it might be stones of the same size (IE pea grave pebbles)


"Star-bucks" wrote in message
...
Ben,

This is not vandalism, or anti-Semitic, nor was it made to desecrate the
gravesite. It was a tribute to the deceased, made by someone placing
pennies at gravesite to spell out NYUK.

There is a Jewish custom of placing stones on the gravesite (instead of
Flowers), to indicate someone has come to visit the grave. I and most
people would look at the pennies as the same remembrance as the Jewish
custom of placing stones at the grave.


"Ben" . net wrote in message
m...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote in message
news:CO%Ve.1155


How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of
"under
god"?


I don't know. I've often felt underbuddha, but it usually passes in a
day
or two.

Eisboch





Here's what I have to say about that:

http://tinyurl.com/9zgyq


Harry,
I'm not Jewish and I find your contribution to be that of a pure
unadulterated asshole.
To use the vandalism of anyone's grave as humor is outside the realm of
deceny.

"Ben" . net wrote in message
m...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P Fritz" wrote in message

The nitwits are the people that seem to believe the constitution somehow
reads "freedom from religion"

It means "freedom from YOUR religion", nitwit. How would you like it if
the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under god"?


We've got it all wrong. Shouldn't the pledge say "... under God, Buddah,
Allah, Yaweh, etc." Then we could all get along. Whenever a new religion
comes along we can add that deity as well.




God is a collective name.

"Ben" . net wrote in message
m...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote in message news:CO%Ve.1155


How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of
"under
god"?


I don't know. I've often felt underbuddha, but it usually passes in a
day
or two.

Eisboch





Here's what I have to say about that:

http://tinyurl.com/9zgyq


Harry,
I'm not Jewish and I find your contribution to be that of a pure
unadulterated asshole.
To use the vandalism of anyone's grave as humor is outside the realm of
deceny.


Jerome Howard was Curly of the 3 stooges.

"Ben" . net wrote in message
...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message

They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states
were
allowed to do as they choose.


No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

Why is it perversion for a government of the people to evolve?



The government can change, but do it according to the rules. Amend the
Constitution, not shop for a judge that will rule in your favor of the rule
change. The Fed's have perverted the states rights issues, but taxing the
people of the states and then sending back their own money with strings
attached. There was not a department of Education until about 1960. Now it
is a huge bureaucracy. Stating what had to be taught in the school. Maybe
why we have such poor results from our education system.

Harry,
Please accept my apology.
I'm a little sensitive when it comes to desecration of graves, churches,
synagogues, temples, mosques, shrines, schools, well, you get my point.
With your explanation I see how wrong my interpretation was.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Ben wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote in message
news:CO%Ve.1155


How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of
"under
god"?
I don't know. I've often felt underbuddha, but it usually passes in a
day
or two.

Eisboch




Here's what I have to say about that:

http://tinyurl.com/9zgyq


Harry,
I'm not Jewish and I find your contribution to be that of a pure
unadulterated asshole.
To use the vandalism of anyone's grave as humor is outside the realm of
deceny.


D'oh. Do you know whose grave that is? Do you know the significance of
"Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk?" Do you know the significance of the pennies?

Probably not.

Jerome Howard was "Curly." Does that ring a bell?

The coins and other objects are left on his grave as a sign of affection
and remembrance. They indicate Curly has not been forgotten. I'll leave it
to you to figure out the "Nyuk" significance.



--
- - -
George W. Bush, our hero!

"I'm looking forward to a good night's sleep on the soil of a
friend."—Bush, on the prospect of visiting Denmark, Washington D.C., June
29, 2005
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Ben" . net wrote in message
m...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P Fritz" wrote in message

The nitwits are the people that seem to believe the constitution
somehow
reads "freedom from religion"

It means "freedom from YOUR religion", nitwit. How would you like it if
the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under god"?


We've got it all wrong. Shouldn't the pledge say "... under God, Buddah,
Allah, Yaweh, etc." Then we could all get along. Whenever a new
religion comes along we can add that deity as well.




God is a collective name.

Didn't Eisenhower put under God in the pledge to take a Christian stand
against Communism? If that's true, then God is not a collective term. And
still,if not, it's exclusive of those who choose not to believe in a
Judaeo-Christian God.

Harry Krause wrote:


No problem. Howard is a most revered American. It would be hard to
imagine what sort of slime might desecrate his grave.


I did like his character 'Curley' better than the one he replaced in the
3 Stooges.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Ben wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
"Ben" . net wrote in message
m...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
The nitwits are the people that seem to believe the constitution
somehow
reads "freedom from religion"
It means "freedom from YOUR religion", nitwit. How would you like it
if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under god"?

We've got it all wrong. Shouldn't the pledge say "... under God,
Buddah, Allah, Yaweh, etc." Then we could all get along. Whenever a
new religion comes along we can add that deity as well.



God is a collective name.

Didn't Eisenhower put under God in the pledge to take a Christian stand
against Communism? If that's true, then God is not a collective term.
And still,if not, it's exclusive of those who choose not to believe in a
Judaeo-Christian God.


This country and everyone in it would be far better off if we just kept
our religious believes to ourselves, our churches, our homes and our
families. Look around the world and see what horrors are committed by
religious zealots. Many of the fundie Christians in this country have more
in common with Islamists and with Taliban than they do with what made and
kept America great.


Seems as if most of the help in the South came from religious groups.
Salvation Army, Catholic Charities. And they did not fly in on chartered
Gulfstreams as the Red Cross honchos are want to do.

"Ben" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Ben" . net wrote in message
m...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P Fritz" wrote in message

The nitwits are the people that seem to believe the constitution
somehow
reads "freedom from religion"

It means "freedom from YOUR religion", nitwit. How would you like it if
the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under god"?


We've got it all wrong. Shouldn't the pledge say "... under God,
Buddah, Allah, Yaweh, etc." Then we could all get along. Whenever a
new religion comes along we can add that deity as well.




God is a collective name.

Didn't Eisenhower put under God in the pledge to take a Christian stand
against Communism? If that's true, then God is not a collective term.
And still,if not, it's exclusive of those who choose not to believe in a
Judaeo-Christian God.


Shiva is a God, All religions have a God or Gods. Is a pretty generic
term.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:39:31 GMT, "Peter Aitken" wrote:


Fer chrissake you blithering nitwit, I am just saving some typing.

Saving typing???

Hee, hee!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:29:04 GMT, "Ben" . net wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Here's what I have to say about that:

http://tinyurl.com/9zgyq


Harry,
I'm not Jewish and I find your contribution to be that of a pure
unadulterated asshole.
To use the vandalism of anyone's grave as humor is outside the realm of
deceny.


Ben, don't let Harry's crap affect your serenity. He's not worth it.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:47:12 -0400, "Star-bucks"
wrote:

Ben,

This is not vandalism, or anti-Semitic, nor was it made to desecrate the
gravesite. It was a tribute to the deceased, made by someone placing
pennies at gravesite to spell out NYUK.

There is a Jewish custom of placing stones on the gravesite (instead of
Flowers), to indicate someone has come to visit the grave. I and most
people would look at the pennies as the same remembrance as the Jewish
custom of placing stones at the grave.


Do you honestly think krause was paying a tribute to the dead with his post?

I don't.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

JohnH,
It is hard to tell what Krause meant, I was talking about the person who
spelled out NYUK.


--

Starbuck

.... Do well, hear of it never. Do ill, hear of it forever.
"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:47:12 -0400, "Star-bucks"

wrote:

Ben,

This is not vandalism, or anti-Semitic, nor was it made to desecrate the
gravesite. It was a tribute to the deceased, made by someone placing
pennies at gravesite to spell out NYUK.

There is a Jewish custom of placing stones on the gravesite (instead of
Flowers), to indicate someone has come to visit the grave. I and most
people would look at the pennies as the same remembrance as the Jewish
custom of placing stones at the grave.


Do you honestly think krause was paying a tribute to the dead with his
post?

I don't.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:51:59 -0400, "Starbuck"
wrote:

JohnH,
It is hard to tell what Krause meant, I was talking about the person who
spelled out NYUK.

I was referring to the context of the messages involved.

"Here's what I have to say to that....."
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."