Deadrat wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> "Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> richard <member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:43:52 -0400, Larry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> richard <member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? tag=nefd.lede#com me nts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your beloved Attorney Generally has single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handedly decided to wage war on usenet. He has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated to the ISP's, either shut it down, or we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOW, he wants to put a halt to YOUR freedom of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speech rights. Time Warner, Sprint, and Verizon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be pulling the plug. If not all of usenet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least the ALT hierarchy resides.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In an effort to combat child ****ography
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> access, Cuomo and his team found 88 usenet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups that contained the stuff. However,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was no mention of how child ****ography
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was defined. ****ity in itself is not illegal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never has been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know what? I didn't look at the name of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poster of this story.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just saw the subject, and started reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, when I got to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above paragraph, I said to myself, "This sounds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like something Richard would write." Lo and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behold, he did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your complaint is that the story posted on CNET
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't contain a definition of child
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****ography? Complain about the author, then,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the Attorney General (not the Attorney
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Generally, as you call him in the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence). Seeing as he is a lawyer, and has a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> staff of lawyers, I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure he knows what is legal in New York and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't, Richard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as millions of citizens "KNOW" what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal. Cuomo has no legal authority to enforce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his personal beliefs. He MUST follow the law as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is written. That includes rulings of the US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court. So if it is legal within the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States, then he can not make it illegal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in his state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More accurately, if it is Constitutionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protected, then it cannot be made against state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security of a free state, the right of the people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whooops ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whaddaymean "Whooops ...."? That's exactly what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened. The Constitution (See the 2nd Amendment)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not allow the feds to disarm the states. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guess what? The states all have militias that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many NUKES and other WMD do the individual states
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is STUPID even by your STANDARDS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About your stupid comment? Or your standards?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not having ALL weaPONS is NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same THING as having NO WEAPons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah yes ... there's the rub.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do tell.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you knew that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, per your own admission, the Feds can, and do, deny
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the people (well regulated militia included) the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep and bear arms, given your new assertion that as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as the Feds allow the possession of at least the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smallest, least effective "arm" -- to the exclusion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all other arms -- they haven't violated the letter of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the law, eh ratzo ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's no doubt that they both can and do. They may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not deprive the states of the ability to operate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effective militia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, I can not find the "right to operate an effective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> militia" clause anywhere in the Constitution. Was that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the square root of -1 amendment?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, you cannot find mention of an air force anywhere in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Constitution. Yet we have one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is having an air-force a constitutional right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, but no.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, you cannot find mention of unanimous jury verdicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Constitution. Yet that's what it takes in federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal trials.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is having a unanimous verdict a constitutional right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, but in federal cases, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, you *can* find mention of jury trials in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution for "all criminal prosecutions," but if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heaviest sentence possible isn't heavy enough, you still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't get one. Was that the square root of -6 amendment?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or your StrawRat amendment of digression, perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, but no. Now answer the question about the square
>>>>>>>>>>> root of -6.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, you cannot find the word "privacy" mentioned in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution, yet you still have the right of privacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Inferred from and implied by the 8th Amendment, as decreed
>>>>>>>>>>>> by SCOTUS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, but yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, you keep making out that you're ignorant of things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know perfectly well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny you keep pointing out that issues NOT covered by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution do NOT appear in the Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Imagine that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, but jury trials are (sorry, ARE) covered by the
>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Funny, but you switched the topic back to Jury Trials from
>>>>>>>>>> your original misdirection of Verdict Unanimity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So tell us again where in the Constitution a "unanimous"
>>>>>>>>>> verdict is required ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <cue crickets chirping>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jury trials are covered by the Constitution, but a unanimous
>>>>>>>>> federal jury
>>>>>>>>> verdict comes from a Supreme Court decision. Sometimes the
>>>>>>>>> literal words
>>>>>>>>> of the Constitution won't tell you everything you need to
>>>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, but some issues not *mentioned* specifically in the
>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution still have the force of Constitutional law.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yet the topic under discussion is the INVERSE of what you
>>>>>>>>>> have speciously digressed to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do I have to type slower so you'll understand? To understand
>>>>>>>>> Constitutional law, you'll need to know about Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>> rulings. The
>>>>>>>>> text won't stand on its own.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now back to the topic at hand -- per your argument and
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion: so long as the Gov't allows some/any "arms"
>>>>>>>>>>>> possession, they may prohibit all others and still be in
>>>>>>>>>>>> compliance with the 2nd, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, but yes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Funny sense of humor.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that level of satiation apply to the other
>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitutional amendments ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, but no. Is there some reason that uniform
>>>>>>>>>>> "satiation" must apply?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason it shouldn't ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, yes there is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, not *that* funny.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No more than the Third Reich ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Isn't that what the kids write?)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How would you know, legal eagle, when you write crap like
>>>>>>>>> this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>>>>> Bull****. Not only can one yell FIRE in a theater, crowded or>
>>>>>>>>> otherwise,
>>>>>>>>> one has a moral obligation to do so if the theater is in> fact
>>>>>>>>> on fire, or if immediate evacuation is needed for the health
>>>>>>>>> or safety of the occupants, based upon the reasonable belief
>>>>>>>>> of the person(s) doing the yelling
>>>>>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What part don't you comprehend?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't speak for him,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't even speak for yourself you stammering simpleton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably
>>>>>> committed the crime, or likely committed them, or possibly
>>>>>> committed them - *or* that he was in
>>>>>> fact innocent."
>>>>>> -- Larry the legal imbecile Glasser
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and
>>>>>> 1 for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is
>>>>>> of no legal relevance in terms of bail."
>>>>>> -- Larry the legal imbecile
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where you
>>>>>> can still smoke."
>>>>>> -- Larry the idiot
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
>>>>>> -- Larry the legal stooge
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " I don't know a single attorney, public or private, who knows
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> his/her attorney registration number."
>>>>>> -- Larry doing his Alberto Gonzales
>>>>>> impersonation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Actually, as an Assistant District Attorney, I know precisely
>>>>>> who should be in prison"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Larry the delusional jackass
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kent Wills: "I'm just the guy who can travel without restriction
>>>>>> to several Latin American countries."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UM: "Why not all the Latin American countries then, eh Kent?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry the idiot Glasser: "Federal law, dumbass. No citizen can
>>>>>> go to some of the nations from the US."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ====
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And lets not forget Lyin' Larry's claim that 0.625 grams is "far
>>>>>> more than a gram".
>>>>>
>>>>> And let's not forget this:
>>>>>
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> Bull****. Not only can one yell FIRE in a theater, crowded or
>>>>> otherwise, one has a moral obligation to do so if the theater is
>>>>> in fact on fire, or if immediate evacuation is needed for the
>>>>> health or safety of the occupants, based upon the reasonable
>>>>> belief of the person(s) doing the yelling.
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Prof. Jonez the empty pot casting about for a kettle to
>>>>> insult
>>>>
>>>> So tell us again how the 1st Amendment doesn't allow
>>>> someone to "shout fire in a crowded theater", numbnuts.
>>>>
>>>> What next? You and Larry the moron going to claim
>>>> it isn't legal to "write a check" because the law
>>>> proscribes writing bad checks ?
>>>
>>> You're awful quick to call Larry a moron,
>>
>> Larry's legal absurdities speak for themselves, you delusional
>> rodent.
>
> Then why do you have to speak about them ad infinitum?
>
> I'd rather talk about your legal idiocies. Like this one:
>
> <quote>
> Bull****. Not only can one yell FIRE in a theater, crowded or
> otherwise, one has a moral obligation to do so if the theater is in
> fact on fire, or if immediate evacuation is needed for the health or
> safety of the occupants, based upon the reasonable belief of the
> person(s) doing the yelling, ....
> </quote>
>
> -- The Prof
>
> How about the firing squad example? Favor us with a pronouncement on
> that one.
How about you tell us why you would even attempt to defend lyin' Larry's
false
statements?
|
