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

In message , Harry Krause sprach
forth the following:

The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove
protections for a rare jumping mouse
My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare
jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does?

I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while
impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they
are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable
laws?



There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding
of the Constitution, the government, or process. One might conclude the
"male pros" is one of those. I've got him filtered.

On Wed, 02 May 2007 08:49:22 -0400,
wrote:

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

In message , Harry Krause sprach
forth the following:

The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove
protections for a rare jumping mouse

My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare
jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does?

I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while
impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they
are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable
laws?

No these are all perfectly appropriate areas for states to legislate
against. I am not nearly as sure that they are in any way appropriate
areas for the federal government to legislate about except to the
extent that they somehow impair "interstate commerce". I can't for the
life of me see how child porn does this, but that is the justification
used for making it a federal issue. States should make it a capital
offense, however, in my opinion.

Dave Hall

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

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

In message , Harry Krause sprach
forth the following:

The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove
protections for a rare jumping mouse
My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare
jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does?

I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while
impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they
are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable
laws?

There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding
of the Constitution, the government, or process.

You mean like "hate speech" laws?

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

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

In message , Harry Krause sprach
forth the following:

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

You mean like "hate speech" laws?


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

On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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

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

In message , Harry Krause sprach
forth the following:

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

You mean like "hate speech" laws?

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

Give me an example of "hate speech".

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

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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

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

In message , Harry Krause
sprach
forth the following:

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

You mean like "hate speech" laws?

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

Give me an example of "hate speech".


"Cram it up your ass Doug. Sideways."

:-) :-)

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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

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

In message , Harry Krause
sprach
forth the following:

The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove
protections for a rare jumping mouse
My copy of the Constitution does not contain "protections for a rare
jumping mouse". What Article and Section of yours does?
I don't think the Constitution says anything about driving while
impaired, bank robbery, or child porn so, shall I conclude that they
are all undesirable, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable
laws?
There's an entire subpopulation of "righties" who have no understanding
of the Constitution, the government, or process.
You mean like "hate speech" laws?
Oh, I think there's a place for federal laws against certain kinds of
"hate speech." There are certain thoughts involving violence and hate
that one should not be able to say in public.
Give me an example of "hate speech".


"Cram it up your ass Doug. Sideways."

:-) :-)



Depending on the guy and the relationship, that might be love talk.

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





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

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

In , Harry Krause sprach
forth the following:

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

You mean like "hate speech" laws?

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

Give me an example of "hate speech".

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

- Show quoted text -

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

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".

Inciting to riot.

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:16:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:02 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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

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

In message , Harry Krause
sprach
forth the following:

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

You mean like "hate speech" laws?

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

Give me an example of "hate speech".

"Cram it up your ass Doug. Sideways."

That's not hate speech - that's a love tap. :)