Deadrat wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> Larry wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> "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.ht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ml? 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The part where you're dumber than an anvil:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So tell us again how free speech doesn't cover "shouting fire
>>>>>>>> in a crowded theater".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So tell us again that you're so stupid you really thought it
>>>>>>> meant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So tell us again how you're such a drooling legal imbecile that
>>>>>> you can accurately recite such a simple axiom, eh Larry?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's take a poll: how many times do people think I can get the
>>>>> troll to repost the same tired list of out-of-context quotes?
>>>>
>>>> If you've got a "context" for your absurd legal idiocies, then
>>>> by all means post them so that 1000s of usenet readers can
>>>> decide whether you really are the legal imbecile you appear to
>>>> be, or just a drooling quasi-literate jackass who mispeaks
>>>> every time you open your festering pie-hole.
>>>
>>> I already have, when you asked me to.
>>
>> Your pathetic prevaricating attempt at "context" still
>> leaves your legal absurdities as nothing but lies and falsehoods.
>>
>> Typical spew from Lyin' Larry Glasser, the legal imbecile.
>
> How about leaving Larry alone and giving some context for this, you
> cloth-eared clown:
Here's the context you prevaricating drunkard --
"Larry" <x...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:x-0FF04C.19201412062008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"There have always been limits on what speech is free.
National security, secrets, yelling fire in a crowded theater ..."
>
> <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
|
