Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Just Wondering
2017-01-11 07:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What would be the point of the rest of the constitution if the
congress can violate all the other constitutional limitations by
simply claiming there is a "general welfare" reason behind it.
Can the congress eliminate free speech because it's in the General
Welfare of the nation?
No.
Why?
The Fist Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the
freedom of speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Out of context quote... the 2nd referred to the right of a state militia to
be armed.
Did it hurt, being dropped on your head as a baby?
RD Sandman
2017-01-11 17:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 08:12:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Congress has broad latitude in determining what is in the
general welfare.
What would be the point of the rest of the constitution if the
congress can violate all the other constitutional limitations by
simply claiming there is a "general welfare" reason behind it.
Can the congress eliminate free speech because it's in the
General Welfare of the nation?
No.
Why?
The Fist Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging
the freedom of speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
Out of context quote... the 2nd referred to the right of a state
militia to be armed.
No, it didn't. It gave *a* reason for arming the people. Heller said it
in very simple language:



Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.
2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's
interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The
Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the
people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized
standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny
Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and
bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22-28.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Bob Officer
2017-01-11 20:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
What would be the point of the rest of the constitution if the
congress can violate all the other constitutional limitations by
simply claiming there is a "general welfare" reason behind it.
Can the congress eliminate free speech because it's in the General
Welfare of the nation?
No.
Why?
The Fist Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the
freedom of speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Out of context quote... the 2nd referred to the right of a state militia to
be armed.
Did it hurt, being dropped on your head as a baby?
Take a good look at the 2nd. Run it through a language parser, if you do
not have that skill set.

I wish they still taught language arts in grammar school.
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-12 04:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Just Wondering
What would be the point of the rest of the constitution if the
congress can violate all the other constitutional limitations by
simply claiming there is a "general welfare" reason behind it.
Can the congress eliminate free speech because it's in the
General Welfare of the nation?
No.
Why?
The Fist Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging
the freedom of speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Out of context quote... the 2nd referred to the right of a state
militia to be armed.
Did it hurt, being dropped on your head as a baby?
Take a good look at the 2nd. Run it through a language parser, if you do
not have that skill set.
I wish they still taught language arts in grammar school.
You are perhaps the most illiterate ass I've seen on here recently.

"The right of the people" is about states having militias? Do you drink or
are you just stoopid?
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Just Wondering
2017-01-12 09:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Just Wondering
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
the 2nd referred to the right of a state militia to
be armed.
Did it hurt, being dropped on your head as a baby?
Take a good look at the 2nd. Run it through a language parser,
if you do not have that skill set.
Run it by the United States Supreme Court. Oh, that's already
been done.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to
possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia

If you have a problem with that, don't bring it to me, take it
up with Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. I'd have
said Scalia but that would be hard, he being deceased and all.

But even without Heller, grade school grammar tells one that
the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-12 19:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall tell
what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding cakes.
Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told not to
discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.

Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.

People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.

If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
--
That's Karma
Siri Cruise
2017-01-12 21:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall tell
what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding cakes.
Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told not to
discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
This was in San Francisco. They thank you for the endorsement.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-12 23:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
This was in San Francisco. They thank you for the endorsement.
Here's hoping an earthquake or a North Korean nuke cures you.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-12 23:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.

Of course they were tough and didn't whine about it. They overcame and
succeded.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-13 02:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it ended
due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although Irish and
Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a discriminatory
factor as race.

You people feed yourselves shit and pronounce it steak. What lying
assholes.
Scout
2017-01-15 00:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks were
the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it ended due to
intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although Irish and Italians
were Catholic, religion was never as much of a discriminatory factor as
race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the Protestants...even
Roman Catholic were discriminated against.

Sorry, but religion has been a discriminatory factor as much if not more so
than race through out most of human history.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 01:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.

Protestants were never the victims of widespread discrimination in the
United States.
sugar glider
2017-01-15 04:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Not remotely like blacks, a
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
sugar glider
2017-01-15 04:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Not remotely like blacks, a
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Scout
2017-01-15 05:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, but still doesn't mean it wasn't the
basis of discrimination.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Protestants were never the victims of widespread discrimination in the
United States.
Oh, so now it's only about the US. Which means you wish to ignore the
overwhelming bulk of human history and much of the world for the small time
period you would examine.

Seems rather like....cherry picking to me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 06:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, bu
So you concede.
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Protestants were never the victims of widespread discrimination in the
United States.
Oh, so now it's only about the US.
Of course it's only about the U.S. That's what the thread is about.
Try to keep up, Lazarus.
Scout
2017-01-15 08:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, bu
So you concede.
Certainly, because it's immaterial to whether such discrimination existed.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Protestants were never the victims of widespread discrimination in the
United States.
Oh, so now it's only about the US.
Of course it's only about the U.S. That's what the thread is about. Try
to keep up, Lazarus.
No, you're looking at a few examples in the US and then trying to
extrapolate them for all of human history and the rest of the planet.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 18:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, bu
So you concede.
Certainly, because it's immaterial to whether such discrimination existed.
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Protestants were never the victims of widespread discrimination in the
United States.
Oh, so now it's only about the US.
Of course it's only about the U.S. That's what the thread is about.
Try to keep up, Lazarus.
No, you're looking at a few examples in the US and
It's only about the U.S., Lazarus.
Scout
2017-01-15 20:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being
discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, bu
So you concede.
Certainly, because it's immaterial to whether such discrimination existed.
No.
So you can't discriminate on anything that takes more than a glance?

Interesting.

Weird, untrue, and utterly delusional, but still an interesting assertion.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Protestants were never the victims of widespread discrimination in the
United States.
Oh, so now it's only about the US.
Of course it's only about the U.S. That's what the thread is about.
Try to keep up, Lazarus.
No, you're looking at a few examples in the US and
It's only about the U.S., Lazarus.
Then discrimination only occurs within the US?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 21:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
In article
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being
discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, bu
So you concede.
Certainly, because it's immaterial to whether such discrimination existed.
No.
So you can't discriminate on anything that takes more than a glance?
Once again: your straw man is a failure.
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Protestants were never the victims of widespread discrimination in the
United States.
Oh, so now it's only about the US.
Of course it's only about the U.S. That's what the thread is about.
Try to keep up, Lazarus.
No, you're looking at a few examples in the US and
It's only about the U.S., Lazarus.
Then discrimination only occurs within the US?
No, but the discrimination being discussed in this thread, and the laws
enacted to try to stop it, only pertain to the U.S. Do try to keep up,
Lazarus.
Scout
2017-01-16 00:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
In article
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've
been
told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the
Jim
Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against
the
same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling
either
group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new
Civil
rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, bu
So you concede.
Certainly, because it's immaterial to whether such discrimination existed.
No.
So you can't discriminate on anything that takes more than a glance?
Once again: your straw man is a failure.
First you claim it's material, then you assert it isn't.

And you wonder why people don't believe you.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-16 01:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
In article
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve
shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've
been
told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a
problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed.
the Jim
Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws
against the
same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate
against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the
government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling
either
group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new
Civil
rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, bu
So you concede.
Certainly, because it's immaterial to whether such discrimination existed.
No.
So you can't discriminate on anything that takes more than a glance?
Once again: your straw man is a failure.
First you claim it's material,
Your straw man isn't based on what I said is immaterial.
Scout
2017-01-16 01:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
In article
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve
shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell
wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've
been
told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a
problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed.
the Jim
Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws
against the
same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government
out
of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate
against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to
sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the
government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling
either
group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws
limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new
Civil
rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated
against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, bu
So you concede.
Certainly, because it's immaterial to whether such discrimination existed.
No.
So you can't discriminate on anything that takes more than a glance?
Once again: your straw man is a failure.
First you claim it's material,
Your straw man isn't based on what I said is immaterial.
You said it above. Are you denying your own words?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-16 03:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
In article
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve
shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell
wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've
been
told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a
problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed.
the Jim
Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws
against the
same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get
government out
of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't
discriminate
against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being
discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to
sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the
government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government
can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling
either
group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws
limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new
Civil
rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated
against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, bu
So you concede.
Certainly, because it's immaterial to whether such discrimination existed.
No.
So you can't discriminate on anything that takes more than a glance?
Once again: your straw man is a failure.
First you claim it's material,
Your straw man isn't based on what I said is immaterial.
You said it above.
No, scooter. You're just repeating your shabby straw man.
Scout
2017-01-16 06:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
In article
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery
but ve
shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell
wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've
been
told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a
problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed.
the Jim
Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws
against the
same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get
government out
of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate
against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being
discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to
sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the
government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government
can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling
either
group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws
limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new
Civil
rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated
against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as
blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it
ended due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although
Irish and Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a
discriminatory factor as race.
You might want to try that assertion to Jews....or the
Protestants...even Roman Catholic were discriminated against.
Not remotely like blacks, and unlike race, people can't tell you're
Catholic at a glance.
True, it takes more than a glance, bu
So you concede.
Certainly, because it's immaterial to whether such discrimination existed.
No.
So you can't discriminate on anything that takes more than a glance?
Once again: your straw man is a failure.
First you claim it's material,
Your straw man isn't based on what I said is immaterial.
You said it above.
No, scooter. You're just repeating your shabby straw man.
My Statement:
"Certainly, because it's immaterial to whether such discrimination existed."

Your Response: "No."

(Meaning you're claiming it is material to whether such discrimination
existed.)

You said it, I just proved it.

Seems the only strawmen....are actually your own words.
Attila
2017-01-15 10:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:38:32 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Sorry, but religion has been a discriminatory factor as much if not more so
than race through out most of human history.
Much more than any other factor. For thousands of years.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 18:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:38:32 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Sorry, but religion has been a discriminatory factor as much if not more so
than race through out most of human history.
Much more than any other factor.
No, tribalism much more so.
Attila
2017-01-16 00:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:38:32 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Sorry, but religion has been a discriminatory factor as much if not more so
than race through out most of human history.
Much more than any other factor.
No, tribalism much more so.
I would disagree but there is no way to prove who is correct.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-15 20:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:38:32 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Sorry, but religion has been a discriminatory factor as much if not more so
than race through out most of human history.
Much more than any other factor. For thousands of years.
I would tend to say so, given that often ones religion was the defining
factor rather than the color of your skin. Even today that exists within at
least one religion.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-15 04:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it ended
due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although Irish and
Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a discriminatory
factor as race.
You people feed yourselves shit and pronounce it steak. What lying
assholes.
Like you know anything about anything. You are a blowhard dickhead. Who
knows shit about life.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 06:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[followups vandalism by stupid piss-ant shitbag repaired]
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil
rights
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it ended
due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although Irish and
Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a discriminatory
factor as race.
You people feed yourselves shit and pronounce it steak. What lying
assholes.
Like you know anything about anything.
I know lots about lots of things - more than you about anything.

You're an ignorant squat-to-piss cocksucker who knows nothing about
anything.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-12 20:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
I wholeheartedly agree.
'Lay down a mortar barrage! I'm going to pantry for more flour!'
Dreaming that you live in that Venezuelan Socialist utopia again?
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-01-13 11:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 09:41:52 -0500, NoBody <***@nowhere.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-13 15:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Alex W.
2017-01-14 18:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
A right is a socially agreed-upon legal fiction detailing what people
may or may not do, their behaviour, their social status. Without such a
consensus, a right does not exist, cannot exist. For example, many
civilisations have flourished quite successfully without considering
there to be a universal right to life.

A society may, as part of its culture, consider a right to exist and yet
be unable to exercise and enforce it. Then the right is no more than an
ideal, or folklore.

If there is no general consensus on a particular right, then any
insistence to the contrary is by definition immoral and quite possibly
insane. At best it is eccentric.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-14 19:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
A right is a socially agreed-upon legal fiction detailing what people
may or may not do,
A right is something you have before the creation of a socially agreed
upon legal fiction, attempts to regulate it.

Once it's regulated "it's NO longer a right" it's a power that the
socially legal fiction (government), has been delegated.

Because it's slavery.

The 13th amendment tells you that you can be made a slave for violating
laws, so when the government steals your rights, they become the slave
masters. Which means that government is legal slavery. The more
government you have the more slavery there is being created.
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-01-14 22:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-14 22:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
Ted
2017-01-14 22:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
Loading Image...
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-14 22:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
Not just implied it - they stated it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.

You don't have to believe in a "creator" to understand that we are
endowed with rights by virtue of being born human. Whether or not those
rights are well respected is another matter altogether. Also, the state
and state-created law are not the only option for securing and enforcing
rights. It may well be the best means, but plenty will disagree.
Ted
2017-01-14 23:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
You don't have to believe in a "creator" to understand that we are
endowed with rights by virtue of being born human. Whether or not those
rights are well respected is another matter altogether. Also, the state
and state-created law are not the only option for securing and enforcing
rights. It may well be the best means, but plenty will disagree.
Thanks Rudy. Then it's beyond doubt.
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg
sugar glider
2017-01-15 04:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Thanks Rudy. Then it's beyond doubt.
-- "This troll is one of the dumbest,
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Ted
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Ted
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
sugar glider
2017-01-15 04:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Thanks Rudy. Then it's beyond doubt.
-- "This troll is one of the dumbest,
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Ted
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Ted
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
sugar glider
2017-01-15 04:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
sugar glider
2017-01-15 04:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Attila
2017-01-15 09:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Attila
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
In the DofI, which is a political document. It is missing in the
actual governing document, the Constitution.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You don't have to believe in a "creator" to understand that we are
endowed with rights by virtue of being born human. Whether or not those
rights are well respected is another matter altogether. Also, the state
and state-created law are not the only option for securing and enforcing
rights. It may well be the best means, but plenty will disagree.
What is another option?


--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 18:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Attila
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
In the DofI, which is a political document.
Irrelevant. It is stating what the founders all knew: rights are
antecedent to government and law.
Attila
2017-01-16 00:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Attila
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
In the DofI, which is a political document.
Irrelevant. It is stating what the founders all knew: rights are
antecedent to government and law.
So-called rights are meaningless unless there is an enforcement
mechanism in place.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 00:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Attila
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
In the DofI, which is a political document.
Irrelevant. It is stating what the founders all knew: rights are
antecedent to government and law.
So-called rights are meaningless unless there is an enforcement
mechanism in place.
They may be meaningless to you....but nice to know that if your 'rights' are
violated and there is no enforcement mechanism in place then neither you nor
anyone else should concern themselves with the violation of your 'rights'

Happy to know that no government has EVER violated the rights of their
citizens or anyone else because without an enforcement mechanism, any such
violations were meaningless.
Attila
2017-01-16 06:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:50:07 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
In the DofI, which is a political document.
Irrelevant. It is stating what the founders all knew: rights are
antecedent to government and law.
So-called rights are meaningless unless there is an enforcement
mechanism in place.
They may be meaningless to you....but nice to know that if your 'rights' are
violated and there is no enforcement mechanism in place then neither you nor
anyone else should concern themselves with the violation of your 'rights'
Happy to know that no government has EVER violated the rights of their
citizens or anyone else because without an enforcement mechanism, any such
violations were meaningless.
My basic question is what can you do about it?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 07:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:50:07 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
In the DofI, which is a political document.
Irrelevant. It is stating what the founders all knew: rights are
antecedent to government and law.
So-called rights are meaningless unless there is an enforcement
mechanism in place.
They may be meaningless to you....but nice to know that if your 'rights' are
violated and there is no enforcement mechanism in place then neither you nor
anyone else should concern themselves with the violation of your 'rights'
Happy to know that no government has EVER violated the rights of their
citizens or anyone else because without an enforcement mechanism, any such
violations were meaningless.
My basic question is what can you do about it?
Already asked and answered. Do you think you will get another answer asking
a question you already know the answer to?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-16 01:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Attila
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
In the DofI, which is a political document.
Irrelevant. It is stating what the founders all knew: rights are
antecedent to government and law.
So-called rights are meaningless unless there is an enforcement
mechanism in place.
No.
Attila
2017-01-16 06:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Attila
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
In the DofI, which is a political document.
Irrelevant. It is stating what the founders all knew: rights are
antecedent to government and law.
So-called rights are meaningless unless there is an enforcement
mechanism in place.
No.
Why not? If they aren't enforced they can be ignored by anyone at any
time.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
sugar glider
2017-01-15 04:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
That's what the FF implied.
-- "This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Ted
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Ted
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
sugar glider
2017-01-15 04:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
That's what the FF implied.
-- "This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Ted
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Ted
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
sugar glider
2017-01-14 22:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
No right is "created"
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
sugar glider
2017-01-14 22:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
No right is "created"
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Attila
2017-01-15 09:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 18:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not the only
way to do that.
Attila
2017-01-16 00:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced. Just what other enforcement
mechanism for 'rights' exists that does not rely upon the law?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 00:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to
observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,
which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced. Just what other enforcement
mechanism for 'rights' exists that does not rely upon the law?
People standing up and taking a stand that you will NOT violate their rights
no matter what the law says.

Oh, but that's right, you would NEVER fight for such beliefs because
according to you whatever the law allows is the extent of your rights. If
the law says you can be rounded up and murdered....then you have to meekly
agree and get into the box car.
Attila
2017-01-16 06:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:52:12 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement
is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to
observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,
which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his
religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced. Just what other enforcement
mechanism for 'rights' exists that does not rely upon the law?
People standing up and taking a stand that you will NOT violate their rights
no matter what the law says.
Just how do they do that? Riots?
Post by Scout
Oh, but that's right, you would NEVER fight for such beliefs because
according to you whatever the law allows is the extent of your rights. If
the law says you can be rounded up and murdered....then you have to meekly
agree and get into the box car.
I am amused by how you pick laws that do not exist as examples.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 07:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:52:12 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 07:47:45 -0800, Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement
is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to
observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,
which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his
religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced. Just what other enforcement
mechanism for 'rights' exists that does not rely upon the law?
People standing up and taking a stand that you will NOT violate their rights
no matter what the law says.
Just how do they do that? Riots?
Asked and answered. Do try to make some attempt to keep up.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-16 01:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced.
The right is not defined by what's in the law. The definition of the
right is antecedent to all law.
Attila
2017-01-16 06:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced.
The right is not defined by what's in the law. The definition of the
right is antecedent to all law.
To be of any use it must be enforced, and in our society the only
enforcement mechanism is the legal system.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 07:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 07:47:45 -0800, Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your
statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to
observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,
which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his
religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced.
The right is not defined by what's in the law. The definition of the
right is antecedent to all law.
To be of any use it must be enforced, and in our society the only
enforcement mechanism is the legal system.
No, it isn't.

Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-14 23:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Attila <, a fellow of the strangest mind in the world. Ye spongey
Post by Attila
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law
An armed robber's right to hold you up at gunpoint and demand all your
cash and valuables.
Post by Attila
and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
Take a wild guess.
--
[DISCLAIMER] Prizes are not transferrable or redeemable for cash. The
content does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either my ISP,
myself, my company or employer, my friends (if any,) my goldfish or
my neighbour's mad dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on
anything; all rights reserved; the post is distribution copyrighted to
the extent that you may distribute the post and all its associated
parts freely but you may not make a profit from it or include the post
in commercial publications without written permission from the Prime
Minister of Hutt Province; other copyright laws for specific posts
apply wherever noted or not noted, either deliberately, negligently, or
otherwise; posts are subject to change without notice; posts are
slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to actual persons,
living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; hand wash
only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or
spindle; do not pass go; do not collect $200; your mileage may vary; no
substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; the post is void where
prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; the post is provided "as
is" without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full
liabilities; not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal
opportunity abuse employer; no shoes, no shirt; quantities are limited
while supplies last; if defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix
them yourself but return to an authorised post service centre; caveat
emptor; read at your own risk; parental advisory - explicit words; text
may contain material some readers may find objectionable, parental
guidance is advised; not suitable for children; not suitable for
adults; not for human consumption; keep away from sunlight, pets and
small children; limit one-per-family; no money down; no purchase
necessary; to approved purchasers only; facsimiles are acceptable
in South Australia; you need not be present to read this post; some
assembly required; batteries not included; action figures sold
separately; no preservatives added; tools not included; safety goggles
may be required during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if
the safety seal is broken; call before you dig; for external use only;
if a rash, redness, irritation or swelling develops, discontinue use;
use only with proper ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store
in a cool, dry place; keep away from open flames, naked flames and old
flames; avoid inhaling fumes; avoid contact with mucous membranes; do
not puncture, incinerate, or store above 60 degrees Centigrade; do not
place near flammable or magnetic source; smoking the post may be
hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second only to
abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; text used on the post is
made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals
were used to test the hilarity of this post other than Patrick; no
salt, MSG, artificial colour or flavour added; may contain traces of
replies to nuts; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms
persist, consult your humourologist; post is ribbed for your pleasure;
slippery when wet; must be 18 to read; possible penalties for early
withdrawal; post offer valid only in participating newsgroups; slightly
higher in South Australia; allow four to six weeks for delivery; damage
from hurricane, lightning, tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, climate
change, earthquake, flood, orgasm, misuse, self-abuse, neglect,
unauthorised repair, damage from improper installation, broken antenna,
marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered serial
numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear
blasts or other Acts of God are not covered; incidents owing to
aeroplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle accidents, leaky roof,
broken glass, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, flying
projectiles or dropping the item are also excluded; other restrictions
may apply. If something offends you, lighten up, get a life, and move
on. All conditions apply. Not available in all stores. Facts have been
changed to protect the guilty.
Scout
2017-01-15 00:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
The right for you to breath.

Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
Siri Cruise
2017-01-15 02:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Scout
2017-01-15 05:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.

2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.

3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.

4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Attila
2017-01-15 09:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-15 20:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do
you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my rights
even if the law will not.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 21:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
Attila
2017-01-16 00:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 01:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Legislative changes.....to armed revolt.

I seem to recall our Founding Fathers doing those things.
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.
Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.
If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-16 06:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:05:03 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Legislative changes.....to armed revolt.
Legislative changes means change he laws that define and enforce
rights. Armed revolt will be met by a lot more people than you can
raise. Such as the entire US Army for example.
Post by Scout
I seem to recall our Founding Fathers doing those things.
And overthrew an entire government to do it. Do you think that would
happen today because you had a 'right' that was violated?
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-16 01:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.
Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.
If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 01:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
Or acting to support someone's defense of their rights....regardless of the
law.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.
Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.
If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-16 03:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
Or acting to support someone's defense of their rights....regardless of
the law.
That, too.
Attila
2017-01-16 06:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried. Not just
arrested and then released.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-16 00:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:29:43 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do
you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my rights
even if the law will not.
How? With a gun? A club? Would you not be in violation of the law
in doing so?
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
And thus making you subject to arrest and trial for murder.

If you enact law to support your rights is that not defining and
enforcing those rights under the law, just as I originally said?
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
The question is what can you do about it?
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
I have made no such admission.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 01:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:29:43 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do
you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my rights
even if the law will not.
How? With a gun? A club? Would you not be in violation of the law
in doing so?
By whatever means I feel are proper and necessary. Yes, I might be in
violation of the law, but it's better than being a slave. Which is what you
would end up being.
Indeed, and those pretty little rights you see in the law today....are
because of people like me who FOUGHT to get our rights recognized and
accepted as such. You? Would still be paying tribute to the lord up in the
castle.

Without people forcing the issue by defending their rights, then we would
still have no enforcement within the law.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
And thus making you subject to arrest and trial for murder.
Being free doesn't make you safe, but then neither would your choice of
being a slave.
Post by Attila
If you enact law to support your rights is that not defining and
enforcing those rights under the law, just as I originally said?
No, because the rights exist prior to the law and do not depend on the law
to exist.

Indeed, I think SCOTUS once said something very similar in their ruling upon
a Constitutional rights issue.

"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any
manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

You can only invoke a protection if the right already exists.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
The question is what can you do about it?
Already answered above.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
I have made no such admission.
"You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you
any good until they're enforced."

By your own admission I have rights that exist even if not enforced by the
law.

Point. Set. Match.
Attila
2017-01-16 06:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:04:04 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:29:43 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do
you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know I have them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend my rights
even if the law will not.
How? With a gun? A club? Would you not be in violation of the law
in doing so?
By whatever means I feel are proper and necessary. Yes, I might be in
violation of the law, but it's better than being a slave. Which is what you
would end up being.
If you are violating the law you should be arrested and tried.
Post by Scout
Indeed, and those pretty little rights you see in the law today....are
because of people like me who FOUGHT to get our rights recognized and
accepted as such. You? Would still be paying tribute to the lord up in the
castle.
The debate is not about the rights that are defined and enforced by
law. It is about 'rights' that are not so defined and enforced. I am
still waiting for an example of such a right.
Post by Scout
Without people forcing the issue by defending their rights, then we would
still have no enforcement within the law.
The enforcement of existing laws are an entirely different issue.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
2) My rights exist whether the law recognizes them or not.
But what happens if someone violates one of those rights? Please be
specific.
Then I and others take action against such violations. From mild such as
working to enact law...to fatal as in killing the person violating those
rights.
And thus making you subject to arrest and trial for murder.
Being free doesn't make you safe, but then neither would your choice of
being a slave.
Your actions in violation of the law should result in your arrest and
trial for such actions.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
If you enact law to support your rights is that not defining and
enforcing those rights under the law, just as I originally said?
No, because the rights exist prior to the law and do not depend on the law
to exist.
For example?
Post by Scout
Indeed, I think SCOTUS once said something very similar in their ruling upon
a Constitutional rights issue.
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any
manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
You can only invoke a protection if the right already exists.
If there is no law there is no way to protect anything.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
3) Just because I have a right does not mean I have to always exercise it.
True. But if you don't who cares whether it exists or not?
Because even if I don't exercise a right doesn't mean I want people to
violate that right either for myself or for others.
The question is what can you do about it?
Already answered above.
Not really. I am still waiting for an example of such a right.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
4) I acknowledge your weak admission that rights exist independent of what
the law defines or enforces.
Please give an example.
See above where you made the admission.
I have made no such admission.
"You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you
any good until they're enforced."
By your own admission I have rights that exist even if not enforced by the
law.
No, I did not. I was pointing out you can call anything you like a
'right' but if it isn't enforced it doesn't matter what you call it.

Or how many you think you have.

You can claim to have a right to have cream in your coffee. Who
cares?
Post by Scout
Point. Set. Match.
Not even close.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-15 09:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:05:49 -0800, Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
A 'right' only comes into play when a second party tries to dictate
actions involving that 'right'. A person cannot violate their own
rights.

If I am living alone on a desert island does it matter what rights I
have, if any?


--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 18:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
in alt.atheism with message-id
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
A 'right' only comes into play when a second party tries to dictate
actions involving that 'right'. A person cannot violate their own
rights.
If I am living alone on a desert island does it matter what rights I
have, if any?
Rights exist in human society.
Attila
2017-01-16 00:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
in alt.atheism with message-id
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
A 'right' only comes into play when a second party tries to dictate
actions involving that 'right'. A person cannot violate their own
rights.
If I am living alone on a desert island does it matter what rights I
have, if any?
Rights exist in human society.
And they are meaningless unless they are defined and enforced under
the law in our society.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 01:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
in alt.atheism with message-id
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
A 'right' only comes into play when a second party tries to dictate
actions involving that 'right'. A person cannot violate their own
rights.
If I am living alone on a desert island does it matter what rights I
have, if any?
Rights exist in human society.
And they are meaningless unless they are defined and enforced under
the law in our society.
So you have no real objection to the Holocaust then? After all any 'rights'
of the Jews were meaningless since they weren't defined and enforced under
the laws of Germany?

Go ahead, tell us were your philosophy takes you.....
Attila
2017-01-16 07:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:06:50 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
in alt.atheism with message-id
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
A 'right' only comes into play when a second party tries to dictate
actions involving that 'right'. A person cannot violate their own
rights.
If I am living alone on a desert island does it matter what rights I
have, if any?
Rights exist in human society.
And they are meaningless unless they are defined and enforced under
the law in our society.
So you have no real objection to the Holocaust then? After all any 'rights'
of the Jews were meaningless since they weren't defined and enforced under
the laws of Germany?
Those laws existed. The enforcement of existing laws are an entirely
different subject.

The Nazi's didn't bother to change many of the basic laws of the
country - they just ignored them.

That is an example of a society in which the basic social structure
was destroyed and went far beyond simply violating the rights of some
of it's citizens. After all, it took a war to end the existing
structure and re-establish the rule of law that existed prior to the
imposition of National Socialism. It wasn't done internally.
Post by Scout
Go ahead, tell us were your philosophy takes you.....
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-16 01:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
in alt.atheism with message-id
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
A 'right' only comes into play when a second party tries to dictate
actions involving that 'right'. A person cannot violate their own
rights.
If I am living alone on a desert island does it matter what rights I
have, if any?
Rights exist in human society.
And they are meaningless unless they are defined and enforced under
the law in our society.
False.
Attila
2017-01-16 07:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
in alt.atheism with message-id
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Scout
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going to do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
A 'right' only comes into play when a second party tries to dictate
actions involving that 'right'. A person cannot violate their own
rights.
If I am living alone on a desert island does it matter what rights I
have, if any?
Rights exist in human society.
And they are meaningless unless they are defined and enforced under
the law in our society.
False.
Why? How about an example of such a 'right' that exists but is not
defined by the law.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-15 09:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:42:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
That is a natural process, not a right. But if you really want to go
there, preventing my breathing is a violation of a number of laws
involving murder and those laws are defined and enforced under the
law.

Laws are not restricted to just rights.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 18:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:42:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
That is a natural process, not a right.
It's part of a real right: the right to life.
Attila
2017-01-16 00:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:42:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
That is a natural process, not a right.
It's part of a real right: the right to life.
Please give a reference to where I can find this right defined. I am
interested in the details such as what it covers and exactly how it is
defined.

Does my 'right to life' give me the right to take food from you? To
take your kidney? Your blood?

Is there any reason I cannot sit and munch on a hamburger and watch
you starve to death? Can I sit and play a game on my cell phone while
you bleed to death a few feet away?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 01:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:42:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement
is
a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to
observe
his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,
which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
That is a natural process, not a right.
It's part of a real right: the right to life.
Please give a reference to where I can find this right defined. I am
interested in the details such as what it covers and exactly how it is
defined.
Really? You don't know what your own life is much less how much you desire
to retain your life against whatever you think that right covers?

Hey, if you don't know the definition and details of what you think your
right to life entails, then I doubt that anyone here could tell you what
that is for you.
Attila
2017-01-16 07:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:08:32 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:42:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement
is
a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to
observe
his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,
which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his
religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
That is a natural process, not a right.
It's part of a real right: the right to life.
Please give a reference to where I can find this right defined. I am
interested in the details such as what it covers and exactly how it is
defined.
Really? You don't know what your own life is much less how much you desire
to retain your life against whatever you think that right covers?
My life is currently protected by the laws that define the
circumstances under which I can be legally killed. My actions do not
place me at risk.
Post by Scout
Hey, if you don't know the definition and details of what you think your
right to life entails, then I doubt that anyone here could tell you what
that is for you.
I note your failure to provide the requested location.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-16 01:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:42:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe
his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
That is a natural process, not a right.
It's part of a real right: the right to life.
Please give a reference to where I can find this right defined.
Start with something by John Locke.
Attila
2017-01-16 07:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:42:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is
a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe
his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his
religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that right.
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing it.
That is a natural process, not a right.
It's part of a real right: the right to life.
Please give a reference to where I can find this right defined.
Start with something by John Locke.
Not an answer. I am looking for specifics not generalizations.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-15 00:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
For once we agree.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-15 02:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
For once we agree.
We agree on much more than you think, Lazarus. It's just that on the
issues on which we disagree, the basis for your disagreement is always
unsound - for instance, that the right to keep and bear arms means you
can have just any type of arm you want, of any capacity.
sugar glider
2017-01-15 04:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
We agree on much more than you think, Lazarus.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
sugar glider
2017-01-15 04:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
We agree on much more than you think, Lazarus.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Scout
2017-01-15 00:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then I can kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend only on what
the law defines and enforces?

Hmmm..

So much for all those human rights violations people keep getting upset
over, after all according to you under the law they have no such rights.
Attila
2017-01-15 10:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then I can kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend only on what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where I can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly what
it covers.

For example, if I am starving do I have the right to steal your food?
If I am dying do I have the right to take your kidney? Or your blood?
Post by Scout
Hmmm..
So much for all those human rights violations people keep getting upset
over, after all according to you under the law they have no such rights.
True. While there are various laws in various jurisdictions that
govern certain 'rights' that are considered 'human rights' there is
nothing to enforce the single umbrella concept of 'human rights' as
such.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-15 20:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then I can kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend only on what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where I can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend yourself and which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with impunity and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have never
violated your rights.

Seems that sort of thing has happened before in the past, when people felt
that rights depended on the law rather than the human condition.

Example: The Holocaust.
Attila
2017-01-16 00:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then I can kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend only on what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where I can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend yourself and which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with impunity and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have never
violated your rights.
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail.. Including the possibility that
I was an enemy soldier in time of war and you were also in the
military.

Just what laws currently enforce any 'right to life'? Murder laws
simply define the circumstances under which I cannot kill you.
Post by Scout
Seems that sort of thing has happened before in the past, when people felt
that rights depended on the law rather than the human condition.
Example: The Holocaust.
Which violated any number of laws that existed at the time, including
a number of German laws. These were not publicized like the Nuremberg
trials but a lot of cases were tried in German courts after the war
involving violations of existing German laws. The Nazi's frequently
did not bother to repeal the laws (which they could have legally done)
but just ignored them.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-16 01:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement
is
a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,
which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then I can kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend only on what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where I can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend yourself and which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with impunity and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have never
violated your rights.
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail..
Not if those laws don't apply to you because the law says they don't.

I mean how do you think the Jews in the Holocaust were killed?
Post by Attila
Including the possibility that
I was an enemy soldier in time of war and you were also in the
military.
Just what laws currently enforce any 'right to life'? Murder laws
simply define the circumstances under which I cannot kill you.
Ultimately, the will to survive. If you need anything else, then you don't
understand what rights are.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Seems that sort of thing has happened before in the past, when people felt
that rights depended on the law rather than the human condition.
Example: The Holocaust.
Which violated any number of laws that existed at the time, including
a number of German laws.
Sorry, but as you pointed out there was no enforcement. Thus by your own
standards the Jews had no rights.

Come on, you either stick to your philosophy all the time, or admit you're
just a hypocrite who doesn't really know what he believes.
Attila
2017-01-16 07:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:15:10 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement
is
a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,
which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then I can kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend only on what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where I can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend yourself and which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with impunity and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have never
violated your rights.
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail..
Not if those laws don't apply to you because the law says they don't.
I mean how do you think the Jews in the Holocaust were killed?
Mostly by violation of existing laws. No laws were ever enacted that
said Jews could be killed for just being Jews. Nor were they made
exempt from existing laws against murder.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Including the possibility that
I was an enemy soldier in time of war and you were also in the
military.
Just what laws currently enforce any 'right to life'? Murder laws
simply define the circumstances under which I cannot kill you.
Ultimately, the will to survive. If you need anything else, then you don't
understand what rights are.
So a murderer who is sentenced to be executed is justified in killing
as many as necessary in order to escape?
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Seems that sort of thing has happened before in the past, when people felt
that rights depended on the law rather than the human condition.
Example: The Holocaust.
Which violated any number of laws that existed at the time, including
a number of German laws.
Sorry, but as you pointed out there was no enforcement. Thus by your own
standards the Jews had no rights.
I never said that. The enforcement or non-enforcement of existing
laws is an entirely different subject. The discussion is about those
'rights' that do NOT exist under the present laws and not those that
are violated under those present laws.
Post by Scout
Come on, you either stick to your philosophy all the time, or admit you're
just a hypocrite who doesn't really know what he believes.
Belief is irrelevant. I am discussing facts.

I am still waiting for an example of a right that exists entirely
separate from the law and is not defined and enforced by law.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-16 01:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then I can kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend only on what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where I can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend yourself and which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with impunity and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have never
violated your rights.
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail.
Laws against murder do not even pretend to defend lawful self defense.
Scout
2017-01-16 01:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement
is
a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to
observe
his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,
which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then I can kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend only on what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where I can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend yourself and which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with impunity and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have never
violated your rights.
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail.
Laws against murder do not even pretend to defend lawful self defense.
Nor do they apply to government ordered executions.
Attila
2017-01-16 07:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:35:14 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail.
Laws against murder do not even pretend to defend lawful self defense.
Nor do they apply to government ordered executions.
Such executions are in compliance with existing laws. They cannot be
legally ordered on any other basis.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-16 07:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then I can kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend only on what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where I can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend yourself and which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with impunity and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have never
violated your rights.
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail.
Laws against murder do not even pretend to defend lawful self defense.
Such laws plus those involving self defense do define and protect such
actions if they are performed legally. If the action is illegal the
perpetrator should be arrested and tried.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
sugar glider
2017-01-14 18:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That won't earn you a pass either.
peace and justice,
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
Poor dumb Curt
2017-01-14 18:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That won't earn you a pass either.
peace and justice,
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
sugar glider
2017-01-14 18:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
And their right to object
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
Poor dumb Curt
2017-01-14 18:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
And their right to object
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
sugar glider
2017-01-14 18:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
nce and wrote your stupid question.
"Thou shall not bake cakes for queers"
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
Poor dumb Curt
2017-01-14 18:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
nce and wrote your stupid question.
"Thou shall not bake cakes for queers"
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
sugar glider
2017-01-14 18:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What faith has tenets about cake baking?
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
sugar glider
2017-01-14 18:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What faith has tenets about cake baking?
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
Poor dumb Curt
2017-01-14 18:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What faith has tenets about cake baking?
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
Loading...