Deadrat wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>> 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.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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
>>>> -- Larry the legal stooge
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> So tell us again how dense you have to be to contribute this gem:
>>>
>>> <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.
>>
>>
>> Why do you attempt to defend Larry's lies?
>>
>> Tell us again how the 1st Amendment does not
>> protect someone "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater"
>> and why a ****eating rodent would attempt to defend lyin' Larry's
>> false quoting of the simple axiom ?
>
> "Oh, look! Over there! It's Larry!" That's pathetic. Try to defend
> your own immediate evacuations. Why not answer my questions here.
> Then everyone can see what a dolt you are.
Why do you attempt to defend Larry's lies?
|
