Journalism
zepp
Bias is one thing; lying another
by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
03/29/04
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/journalism.htm
The Sacramento Bee has an ombudsman, a fellow who is independent
of the chain of authority at the paper, who does not answer to the
bosses, and whose job it is to address the concerns and questions of
the general public from inside the newspaper. A number of newspapers
have such a position, and they are considered positive elements in
keeping newspapers honest and responsive to their readers.
In the Bee's case, the ombudsman, a former New York Times
staffer named Tony Marcano, has been the ombudsman for the past year.
After a somewhat self-conscious start (it is an unusual job for a
reporter to switch to reporting to the public about the newspaper
itself), he's settled into the position, and is getting favorable
response from the readership.
He recently tackled the subject of the "credibility crisis" in
journalism. The public, for a wide variety of reasons, don't trust
the media any more, and at least some of that blame lies with the
media itself.
The most prevalent complaint is that it has "lost touch with the
people" although in a population as diverse as America's it's pretty
hard to imagine just where "the people" want to be touched.
Marcano was addressing the Bee's journalistic stance
specifically, but American journalism in general is in disgraceful
shape these days.
Journalism cannot be perfect. I hold the Sacramento Bee in high
regard, but feel they downplay stories that I feel are important, and
overplay stories that are, in my estimation, trivial. I shake my head
sadly over some of the comics they choose to run, and eye the opinion
section with jealous regard for adequate representation of my views.
In short, I'm a typical Bee reader; I like and respect the newspaper,
and watch it like a hawk, ready to yell if it doesn't behave the way I
think it should.
I don't bother much with network television news. It isn't
going to tell you much. Cable is even worse. Faux news sued
(successfully) for the right to lie to its viewers, which pretty much
tells you all you need to know about Faux. (Some folks may find it
odd to discover that I agreed with the judge in the case, but I find a
television station arguing that it has the right to lie to its
audience faintly better than the notion that the government should
decide if a station is lying or not – and punish accordingly.) Radio,
outside of NPR, is a complete disgrace, of course.
But CNN (for example) is watchable simply because I know where
their biases lie, and I know I'm only going to get part of the story.
Anyone who depends solely on CNN for their news isn't getting much
news.
There isn't a journalistic outlet in the world that has ALL the
news. They pick and choose what you see and hear, and none, taken
alone, is reliable. As long as there is a wide variety of independent
voices, you can get more complete views of current events.
Nor is any news outlet perfect. I regard the London Guardian as
the world's finest newspaper, but they have a real problem with the
late Doctor Atkins and his diet regimen, and have run stories with
headlines about the dangers of Atkins' – headlines that usually aren't
supported by the stories they cover. Most recently, they somewhat
gleefully reported that Atkins weighed 18 stone (about 250 pounds) at
the time of his death, a weight that would be considered morbidly
obese. What the story didn't mention is that when the Doctor was
admitted to the hospital a week earlier with severe brain trauma
following a fall, his weight was a much more reasonable 192. With his
brain nearly dead, his heart wasn't functioning properly – in fact, he
was in chronic cardiac failure -- and his fluid levels built up
immensely. The Guardian apparently felt no need to consider such an
obvious point in order to take a potshot at the late doctor.
But that's minor, and can be forgiven. I tend to be forgiving
of such foibles. All journalistic outlets have biases, all have
shortcomings. As long as there are many different voices, you can
work things out. (One reason I consider such as Michael Powell,
chairman of the FCC, and outfits like Faux and Clear Channel are
menaces to America is because they want to greatly reduce the variety
of voices on the air).
But there is an example of a great newspaper committing the
unforgivable: deliberately lying to me about something important.
The newspaper in question was the New York Times, and the lie
was the way in which the newspaper presented the results of the NORC
survey of the 2000 Florida vote.
The survey was supposed to be released in late September, 2001,
but 9/11 happened, and they decided to hold off for four months before
releasing it. It didn't seem the time to remind people of why Putsch
and not Gore was president.
When it was released, quite a few journalistic outlets gave it
little or no attention, believing that it made no difference anyway.
Others that carried the story stated that the results were
inconclusive. That is a reasonable appraisal, since most of the
hypothetical standards applied to the recount had Gore winning with
between 60 and 171 votes out of over five million cast. You can't be
certain in a count that close, and while NORC addressed the issue of
over-votes on the butterfly ballots (which went three to one Gore over
Putsch, a difference of 46,000 votes), they would not have been legal
ballots and wouldn't be counted any way. However, NORC did NOT
address the tens of thousands of Floridians who were illegally
disenfranchised by the phony "felons list" that Kathleen Harris, Jeb
Bush and Database Technologies whipped up. On that list were some
50,000 people who, it turned out, had never been convicted of
felonies. Some had the same names as convicted felons. Some had the
same first initial and last name. Some had different names but moved
into the same house a felon once occupied. At least one was convicted
of his felony in 2005. Most – 80% – were Democrats. The study also
couldn't count the ballots – some 20% of the total cast – that were
mysteriously and quite illegally destroyed in the months following
Bush vs. Gore.
So how did the New York Times address this? They decided to lie
to their readers. They ran the story on page one under the headline,
"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the
Deciding Vote."
Well, they did, and the study indicates that they did. In fact,
so does the news story. You had to read down about 800 words to find
it, but they show the different criteria used. In every case, they
showed Gore winning, if only by the very thinnest of margins. Only
one scenario led to a Bush win, and that was the one in which only the
four counties that Gore contested had recounts. The Florida Supreme
Court struck that idea down as being a little TOO selective.
That was the only circumstance under which Putsch would have won
legally.
Yes, the Supremes DID decide the Florida vote, and the NORC
survey suggests they did so wrongly.
Headline writers make mistakes. Recently, a Guardian headline
read, "Kansas board to allow evolution to be taught." Kansas is a
strange place, but it isn't THAT strange. Although it's working on
it. I read the news article, and discovered that Kansas had decided
to allow the silly nonsense once known as Creationism and now called
"Intelligent Design" to be taught.
But the strange antics of hinterlanders thousands of miles away
make such a mistake forgivable and understandable.
The New York Times headline went beyond the realm of being just
a mistake. Someone in the paper decided the American people couldn't
handle the truth, and set it up so a casual reader would come away
with the entirely wrong impression.
I expect journalists to make mistakes, and editors to set
inexplicable priorities. I also know that my criticisms are
subjective, and as often as not, the problem lies with me and not the
paper. I can consider bias – my own and the sources – and allow for
it.
But a paper that is accurate and honest 99.999% of the time, but
lies to me on a critical .0001% of stories is useless, and worse than
useless. Gleeful right wingers on the net still post that misleading
headline to "show" that Putsch won legitimately, and as far as I know,
the Times has never tried to correct the error. If it was an error,
which I doubt.
Perhaps they need an ombudsman.
I can watch Faux and allow for them being Rupert clones who WANT
to lie to me. Only a fool thinks Rush informs; he's there to amuse
and provoke. Jon Stewart is the funniest man in America, but he is a
comedian and not a journalist.
But if a paper declares itself to be the avatar of journalism,
and strives mightily for true fairness and honesty in reporting, and
then tells a small lie on a big story and never corrects it, that's
not something to forgive. I simply do not trust the NY Times. It's
not the contempt I have for the Murdoch, Scaife and Moon organs. But
it's there: don't trust the Times. When the chips are down, they will
lie to you.
That's far more dangerous than the comically blatant propaganda
of O'Reilly or Hannity.
*******************
"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known
knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there
are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, making things clear
To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For essays ONLY, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_...@yahoogroups.com/join
For my fiction, http://www.finestplanet.com/~zepp/
Foxtrot
>Journalism
>Bias is one thing; lying another
>
>by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>03/29/04
>http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/journalism.htm
> I don't bother much with network television news. It isn't
>going to tell you much. Cable is even worse.
TV has its uses. Some news events should be seen on the
big screen TV instead of the tiny Real Player window!
> So how did the New York Times address this? They decided to lie
>to their readers. They ran the story on page one under the headline,
>"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the
>Deciding Vote."
> The New York Times headline went beyond the realm of being just
>a mistake. Someone in the paper decided the American people couldn't
>handle the truth, and set it up so a casual reader would come away
>with the entirely wrong impression.
>I simply do not trust the NY Times.
It really tweaks you that the prestigious New York Times
took away your favorite excuse to bitch about Bush, doesn't
it? Poor Zipp, forced to face the fact that Bush is the real
legitimately elected POTUS.
E.E.Bud Keith
"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
news:qjjk60tg7jq5h19fj...@4ax.com...
called facts he faces are those which he invents. If he were forced to deal
in facts he would have nothing to say.
zepp
>zepp <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
>
>>Journalism
>>Bias is one thing; lying another
>>
>>by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>>03/29/04
>>http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/journalism.htm
>
>> I don't bother much with network television news. It isn't
>>going to tell you much. Cable is even worse.
>
>TV has its uses. Some news events should be seen on the
>big screen TV instead of the tiny Real Player window!
The trouble is, some of us just don't think Janet Jackson's boob was
all that important a story, you know?
>
>> So how did the New York Times address this? They decided to lie
>>to their readers. They ran the story on page one under the headline,
>>"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the
>>Deciding Vote."
>
>> The New York Times headline went beyond the realm of being just
>>a mistake. Someone in the paper decided the American people couldn't
>>handle the truth, and set it up so a casual reader would come away
>>with the entirely wrong impression.
>
>>I simply do not trust the NY Times.
>
>It really tweaks you that the prestigious New York Times
>took away your favorite excuse to bitch about Bush, doesn't
>it? Poor Zipp, forced to face the fact that Bush is the real
>legitimately elected POTUS.
And yet the story itself contradicted the headline. By every
legitimate standard, Gore won.
You're going to keep hearing that until the American government is
restored, or they start shooting people for dissenting.
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 4/30/2001.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>legitimate standard, Gore won.
Except the standard by which the president is elected....
>You're going to keep hearing that until the American government is
>restored, or they start shooting people for dissenting.
<LOL> Zepp thinks that anybody cares about his pathetic whining and
whimpering over the 2000 election.
--
Good news for you liberals. I'm going to leave this
Friday with some friends of mine for some new fun and
adventures. Be gone for several weeks. Have fun
while I'm gone.
zepp
<Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:12:39 -0800, zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
>wrote:
>>And yet the story itself contradicted the headline. By every
>>legitimate standard, Gore won.
>
>Except the standard by which the president is elected....
>
>>You're going to keep hearing that until the American government is
>>restored, or they start shooting people for dissenting.
>
><LOL> Zepp thinks that anybody cares about his pathetic whining and
>whimpering over the 2000 election.
And yet, here you are. Obviously you care very deeply.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:55:47 GMT, Steve Canyon
><Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:12:39 -0800, zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
>>wrote:
>>>And yet the story itself contradicted the headline. By every
>>>legitimate standard, Gore won.
>>
>>Except the standard by which the president is elected....
>>
>>>You're going to keep hearing that until the American government is
>>>restored, or they start shooting people for dissenting.
>>
>><LOL> Zepp thinks that anybody cares about his pathetic whining and
>>whimpering over the 2000 election.
>
>And yet, here you are. Obviously you care very deeply.
>
<LOL> Zepp thanks that when people poke fun and laugh at him it's
because they care about him.
Nobody has to read much of your silly output to figure out that you're
just a poor little leftist that isn't enough of a mature enough to
take the whippings you've been handed in the last few elections, but
that doesn't mean we can't laugh at you whenever you pop out of your
hole to vent your frustrations.
David Moffitt
Steve Canyon wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:12:39 -0800, zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
>wrote:
>>And yet the story itself contradicted the headline. By every
>>legitimate standard, Gore won.
>
>Except the standard by which the president is elected....
>
>>You're going to keep hearing that until the American government is
>>restored, or they start shooting people for dissenting.
>
><LOL> Zepp thinks that anybody cares about his pathetic whining and
>whimpering over the 2000 election.
%%%% I find it quite entertaining that the lib/dem/socialist avoid
mentioning that by every count made after the election that Bush still won!!
:o)
David Moffitt
zepp wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:55:47 GMT, Steve Canyon
><Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:12:39 -0800, zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
>>wrote:
>>>And yet the story itself contradicted the headline. By every
>>>legitimate standard, Gore won.
>>
>>Except the standard by which the president is elected....
>>
>>>You're going to keep hearing that until the American government is
>>>restored, or they start shooting people for dissenting.
>>
>><LOL> Zepp thinks that anybody cares about his pathetic whining and
>>whimpering over the 2000 election.
>
>And yet, here you are. Obviously you care very deeply.
%%%% LMAO!! He like myself enjoys making a fool of you d-cup!!
"Suppose something happened here, and you had to scram to another country in
a hurry to save your ass. Would you renounce your American citizenship
after a few years?" --Zepp Jamieson 1997
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3372a9c3.258180564%40news.snowcrest.net
Jeffrey Scott Linder
zepp
And you are tossing straw? It's your M.O., Jeffy.
>
>JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Poor Zepp...you often put misleading and downright false headlines on
the stories you repost.
JSL
Milt
above-the-fold headline is either misleading or false.
When you come down more forcefully on "journalists" who practice that,
then you might have some credibility. But then, given the number of
times you've slandered me without apology, not likely...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Sure Milt, whatever you say.
>When you come down more forcefully on "journalists" who practice that,
>then you might have some credibility. But then, given the number of
>times you've slandered me without apology, not likely...
Poor Milty.....
JSL
Old Samurai
wrote:
>Journalism
>Bias is one thing; lying another
>
>by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>03/29/04
>http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/journalism.htm
>
>releasing it. It didn't seem the time to remind people of why Putsch
>and not Gore was president.
Putsch?
You really need to lose that childish habit.
It ruins your credibility.
But you get the cheap ya-yas, that's all that matters.
zepp
>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:20:58 -0800, zepp <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Journalism
>>Bias is one thing; lying another
>>
>>by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>>03/29/04
>>http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/journalism.htm
>>
>
>
>>releasing it. It didn't seem the time to remind people of why Putsch
>>and not Gore was president.
>
>Putsch?
>
>You really need to lose that childish habit.
>It ruins your credibility.
I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
legitimately elected president.
>
>But you get the cheap ya-yas, that's all that matters.
>
>
>
-
Stuart Grey
news:40798036...@news.prodigy.net:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:20:58 -0800, zepp
> <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
>
>>Journalism
>>Bias is one thing; lying another
>>
>>by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>>03/29/04
>>
>
>
>>releasing it. It didn't seem the time to remind people of
>>why Putsch and not Gore was president.
>
> Putsch?
>
> You really need to lose that childish habit.
> It ruins your credibility.
>
> But you get the cheap ya-yas, that's all that matters.
Credibility? Zepp claimed to have voted in U.S. elections,
but it turns out he’s not even American, he’s a Canadian.
That means he’s either a liar or a criminal. Credibility?
Zepp had no credibility to ruin! Just look at how he starts a
topic, and the very subject of his thread is a LIE as shown
by the actual articles he cites.
That he acts like a third grade schoolyard bully is just
consistent with his whinny loser outlook on life.
Bill Bonde ( Not the man who knows everything, just the man who knows the important things )
zepp wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:22:23 GMT, Old Samurai <rar...@home.ja> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:20:58 -0800, zepp <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Journalism
> >>Bias is one thing; lying another
> >>
> >>by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
> >>03/29/04
> >>http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/journalism.htm
> >>
> >
> >
> >>releasing it. It didn't seem the time to remind people of why Putsch
> >>and not Gore was president.
> >
> >Putsch?
> >
> >You really need to lose that childish habit.
> >It ruins your credibility.
>
> I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
> legitimately elected president.
>
You are utterly dishonest. Either Bush or Gore had to become president,
they both couldn't be. Bush won the election in Florida on every recount
therefore he got the job. If Gore had been given it, he'd be even less
legitimate by your own statements. Would you prefer that, Al Gore, the
putschy putsch?
MikeSoja
<zeppn...@finestplanet.com> posted:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:22:23 GMT, Old Samurai <rar...@home.ja> wrote:
>>Putsch?
>>You really need to lose that childish habit.
>>It ruins your credibility.
>I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
>legitimately elected president.
Bush became the legitimately elected president both times Gore
conceded.
Mike Soja
Old Samurai
>>Putsch?
>>
>>You really need to lose that childish habit.
>>It ruins your credibility.
>
>I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
>legitimately elected president.
Suggest you re-evaluate that particular strategy.
>>But you get the cheap ya-yas, that's all that matters.
Right?
zepp
knows everything, just the man who knows the important things )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
There were no recounts. Antonin Scalia stopped them.
But the NORC survey shows Gore would have won.
Gore would have continued the eight years of peace and prosperity we
enjoyed under Clinton. He wouldn't have looted the treasure for his
undeserving rich buddies.
zepp
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:35:07 -0700, zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Putsch?
>>>
>>>You really need to lose that childish habit.
>>>It ruins your credibility.
>>
>>I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
>>legitimately elected president.
>
>Suggest you re-evaluate that particular strategy.
Thanks, but I think it works just fine.
>
>
>>>But you get the cheap ya-yas, that's all that matters.
>
>Right?
I get grumpy whines from right wingers who don't like to be reminded
their blind party partisanship has turned them into traitors.
zepp
wrote:
Mistake on Gore's part. But you do know that concession does not
determine outcome, right?
>
>Mike Soja
MikeSoja
<zeppn...@finestplanet.com> posted:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:43:40 -0400, MikeSoja <mso...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:35:07 -0700, zepp
>><zeppn...@finestplanet.com> posted:
>>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:22:23 GMT, Old Samurai <rar...@home.ja> wrote:
>>>>Putsch?
>>>>You really need to lose that childish habit.
>>>>It ruins your credibility.
>>>I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
>>>legitimately elected president.
>>Bush became the legitimately elected president both times Gore
>>conceded.
>Mistake on Gore's part. But you do know that concession does not
>determine outcome, right?
Gore's concession was the recognition of the outcome. Gore's
concession was his signature to the legitimacy of the Bush
presidency.
Your ignorance, fat Jamieson, is signatory to the illegitimacy of
your corruptly communist proclivities.
Mike Soja
David Moffitt
"zepp" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:rp7j709kccria3qii...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:12:32 GMT, Old Samurai <rar...@home.ja> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:35:07 -0700, zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>Putsch?
> >>>
> >>>You really need to lose that childish habit.
> >>>It ruins your credibility.
> >>
> >>I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
> >>legitimately elected president.
> >
> >Suggest you re-evaluate that particular strategy.
>
> Thanks, but I think it works just fine.
> >
> >
> >>>But you get the cheap ya-yas, that's all that matters.
> >
> >Right?
>
> I get grumpy whines from right wingers who don't like to be reminded
> their blind party partisanship has turned them into traitors.
%%%% BRAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA------ Patriotism lectures from an alien who cannot
become a citizen---- How sweet!! :o)
Hummmm------What is zepp hiding from?
zepp
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:02:27 -0700, zepp
><zeppn...@finestplanet.com> posted:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:43:40 -0400, MikeSoja <mso...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:35:07 -0700, zepp
>>><zeppn...@finestplanet.com> posted:
>
>>>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:22:23 GMT, Old Samurai <rar...@home.ja> wrote:
>
>>>>>Putsch?
>
>>>>>You really need to lose that childish habit.
>>>>>It ruins your credibility.
>
>>>>I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
>>>>legitimately elected president.
>
>>>Bush became the legitimately elected president both times Gore
>>>conceded.
>
>>Mistake on Gore's part. But you do know that concession does not
>>determine outcome, right?
>
>Gore's concession was the recognition of the outcome. Gore's
>concession was his signature to the legitimacy of the Bush
>presidency.
Poor sistah soja. So how come the first concession didn't decide the
election? If they made it official, why did the counting continue?
>
>Your ignorance, fat Jamieson, is signatory to the illegitimacy of
>your corruptly communist proclivities.
Got that shopping cart for your retirement yet, sistah soja?
zepp
Why, Stewie, I do believe you're getting the hots for me!
Old Samurai
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:12:32 GMT, Old Samurai <rar...@home.ja> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:35:07 -0700, zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Putsch?
>>>>
>>>>You really need to lose that childish habit.
>>>>It ruins your credibility.
>>>
>>>I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
>>>legitimately elected president.
Then do that. Why ruin your other-topic essays.
For example, I WAS considering sending off this
essay. Well done, good thoughts, except your childish
terminology screamed: disregard this childishly
obvious hit piece.
>>
>>Suggest you re-evaluate that particular strategy.
>
>Thanks, but I think it works just fine.
So your object is preaching to the choir
and feelsgoodism. Then good strategy.
What percentage of America do you suppose
knows what "putsch" means? 5? 10?
>>
>>
>>>>But you get the cheap ya-yas, that's all that matters.
>>
>>Right?
>
>I get grumpy whines from right wingers who don't like to be reminded
>their blind party partisanship has turned them into traitors.
Feels real good does it?
Why bother with putting self in the back seat and
letting strategy drive? That's not much fun, is it?
Nothing wrong with kicking the cat now and then,
but habits are habits, and those get warriors killed.
>>
>
>-
>"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
>just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
>extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
>senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
>mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
>terrorism.'"
laugh. I know where you stole that.
good strategy.
zepp
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:41:27 -0700, zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:12:32 GMT, Old Samurai <rar...@home.ja> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:35:07 -0700, zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Putsch?
>>>>>
>>>>>You really need to lose that childish habit.
>>>>>It ruins your credibility.
>>>>
>>>>I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
>>>>legitimately elected president.
>
>Then do that. Why ruin your other-topic essays.
>For example, I WAS considering sending off this
>essay. Well done, good thoughts, except your childish
>terminology screamed: disregard this childishly
>obvious hit piece.
Eh. Somehow I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.
>
>>>
>>>Suggest you re-evaluate that particular strategy.
>>
>>Thanks, but I think it works just fine.
>
>So your object is preaching to the choir
>and feelsgoodism. Then good strategy.
>What percentage of America do you suppose
>knows what "putsch" means? 5? 10?
I've only had one person ever ask what it meant, and that was one of
the more inept Usenet trolls, David Moffitt. He's since gone on to
ask it several more thousand times. Perhaps you should sit down with
him and commisserate.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>But you get the cheap ya-yas, that's all that matters.
>>>
>>>Right?
>>
>>I get grumpy whines from right wingers who don't like to be reminded
>>their blind party partisanship has turned them into traitors.
>
>Feels real good does it?
>
>Why bother with putting self in the back seat and
>letting strategy drive? That's not much fun, is it?
>
>Nothing wrong with kicking the cat now and then,
>but habits are habits, and those get warriors killed.
>>>
>>
>>-
>>"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
>>just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
>>extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
>>senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
>>mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
>>terrorism.'"
>
>laugh. I know where you stole that.
>
>good strategy.
>
*******************
"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known
knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there
are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, making things clear
To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For essays ONLY, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_...@yahoogroups.com/join
For my fiction, http://www.finestplanet.com/~zepp/
Old Samurai
>>>>Suggest you re-evaluate that particular strategy.
>>>
>>>Thanks, but I think it works just fine.
>>
>>So your object is preaching to the choir
>>and feelsgoodism. Then good strategy.
>>What percentage of America do you suppose
>>knows what "putsch" means? 5? 10?
>
>I've only had one person ever ask what it meant, and that was one of
>the more inept Usenet trolls, David Moffitt.
About the only thing I admire about Bill Gates is his
habit of saying "educate me."
> He's since gone on to
>ask it several more thousand times. Perhaps you should sit down with
>him and commisserate.
Perhaps so. At first I didn't know what it meant.
I had a vague feeling.
...and you are talking to one of the people who
can define fascism sans Nazism. ...who actually
read Rise and Fall....
or..........
...or perhaps you should consider pulling your
head out of your ass and stop masturbating, and
consider doing something half-assed meaningful
with your time?
David Moffitt
"Old Samurai" <rar...@home.ja> wrote in message
news:407b8ad0...@news.prodigy.net...
>
> >>>>Suggest you re-evaluate that particular strategy.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks, but I think it works just fine.
> >>
> >>So your object is preaching to the choir
> >>and feelsgoodism. Then good strategy.
> >>What percentage of America do you suppose
> >>knows what "putsch" means? 5? 10?
> >
> >I've only had one person ever ask what it meant, and that was one of
> >the more inept Usenet trolls, David Moffitt.
>
> About the only thing I admire about Bill Gates is his
> habit of saying "educate me."
>
> > He's since gone on to
> >ask it several more thousand times. Perhaps you should sit down with
> >him and commisserate.
>
> Perhaps so. At first I didn't know what it meant.
> I had a vague feeling.
> ...and you are talking to one of the people who
> can define fascism sans Nazism. ...who actually
> read Rise and Fall....
>
> or..........
> ...or perhaps you should consider pulling your
> head out of your ass and stop masturbating, and
> consider doing something half-assed meaningful
> with your time?
%%%% A "putsch" is a German beerhall uprising and I do not make one ounce of
sense in any of the current ways the left tries to use the term unless they
are great fans of Nazism and Hitler.
"On 8th November, 1923, the Bavarian government held a meeting of about
3,000 officials. While Gustav von Kahr, the prime minister of Bavaria was
making a speech, Adolf Hitler and armed stormtroopers entering the building.
Hitler jumped onto a table, fired two shots in the air and told the audience
that the Munich Putsch was taking place and the National Revolution had
began"
z
> wrote:
>
> >Journalism
> >Bias is one thing; lying another
> >
> >by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
> >03/29/04
> >http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/journalism.htm
Despite the continual whining about the liberal media, as though there
needed to be affirmative action for conservative media, the most
germand observation is this: that 'liberal media' are reporters first,
liberal second; whereas 'conservative media' are conservatives first,
reporters second. Can anyone argue that Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al
do not begin and end with a conservative axe to grind, then search the
news for something to grind it on?
Steve Canyon
>
>>>>>Suggest you re-evaluate that particular strategy.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks, but I think it works just fine.
>>>
>>>So your object is preaching to the choir
>>>and feelsgoodism. Then good strategy.
>>>What percentage of America do you suppose
>>>knows what "putsch" means? 5? 10?
>>
>>I've only had one person ever ask what it meant, and that was one of
>>the more inept Usenet trolls, David Moffitt.
>
>About the only thing I admire about Bill Gates is his
>habit of saying "educate me."
>
>> He's since gone on to
>>ask it several more thousand times. Perhaps you should sit down with
>>him and commisserate.
>
>Perhaps so. At first I didn't know what it meant.
>I had a vague feeling.
>...and you are talking to one of the people who
>can define fascism sans Nazism. ...who actually
>read Rise and Fall....
>
>or..........
>...or perhaps you should consider pulling your
>head out of your ass and stop masturbating, and
>consider doing something half-assed meaningful
>with your time?
That presupposes that Zepp *can* actually do something half-assed
meaningful with his time. The fact is that all Zepp and his little
band of usenet fools can do is whimper and whine and console each
other about the elections they've lost.
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Milt
As opposed to you, who whines about nothing in particular and takes
great [ride in demonstrating his ignorance daily.
> ----
>
> "Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
> want, they stop being terrorists."
>
> --Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
> trying to kill one of his family members
No, he wasn't, and you know that. Which makes you not only stupid, but a
liar.
It's true. If you give terrorists what they want, they do stop being
terrorists. That does not mean you should always give them what they
want, however. Ridding the world of them also stops them from being
terrorists...
>
> "The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
> sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
> and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
>
> --Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
> had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
> was elected.
It was superseded by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but it was never declared
unconstitutional. It didn't become unconstitutional until the 13th
Amendment was passed. Zepp's point was that the end of slavery was near.
He may have gotten a few minor details wrong, but so did you. So why do
you think yourself better? Oh, that's right; that's what you do; ignore
the main point and nit the details...
> "No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
Yep. Individual people pay personal income taxes. Corporations pay
corporate taxes.
> "the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
Yep. A corporation is a certificate sitting in a Secretary of State's
office.
>
> --Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
> on the corporation he says he created
The fact that I never said such a thing makes you not only stupid, but a
liar.
> "The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
>
> --Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
No gender discrimination is legal. The problem is, you don't know the
definition of legal discrimination.
> "Attacking the movie? Not me."
> "The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
> "But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
> and suffering"
> "....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
>
> --Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
> fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
I don't recall anyone calling for Gibson to burn the prints of the
movie, or even take it oout of the theaters. Mike is probably as amazed
as I am by the collective mental illness demonstrated by people who feel
"blessed" by watching a graphic depiction of the icon of their religion
being beaten to death.
> "Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
> "There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
> long straight skis nowadays"
>
> --Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
> he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
> could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
> skis.
>
Dumbass. "Straight" skis are traditional skis without the beveled edges.
I don't know any instructor who would teach a beginner on anything but
straight skis.
Christ; is there anything you're not ignorant of?
I could handle the ignorance, but you act as if you're so smart.
That's you're entire sig. Your responses are far stupider than anyone
else's comments...
David Moffitt
"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:DK2dndqcW-y...@comcast.com...
%%%% I wonder which weasel zippy will trot out of the weasel circlejerk to
defend him next?? :o)
>
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Speaking of ignorant whines.. I seem to remember you making the
claim that only congress can amend the Constitution.
>> ----
>>
>> "Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
>> want, they stop being terrorists."
>>
>> --Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
>> trying to kill one of his family members
>
>No, he wasn't, and you know that. Which makes you not only stupid, but a
>liar.
>
>It's true. If you give terrorists what they want, they do stop being
>terrorists. That does not mean you should always give them what they
>want, however. Ridding the world of them also stops them from being
>terrorists...
Except that Jamieson *was* advocating giving the terrorists what they
wanted.
>>
>> "The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
>> sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
>> and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
>>
>> --Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
>> had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
>> was elected.
>
>It was superseded by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but it was never declared
>unconstitutional. It didn't become unconstitutional until the 13th
>Amendment was passed. Zepp's point was that the end of slavery was near.
>He may have gotten a few minor details wrong, but so did you. So why do
>you think yourself better? Oh, that's right; that's what you do; ignore
>the main point and nit the details...
"Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the court’s opinion that the
Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional." --The Columbia
Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001
I got nothing wrong while Zepp's entire statement was wrong.
>> "No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
>
>Yep. Individual people pay personal income taxes. Corporations pay
>corporate taxes.
And corporate taxes are always passed on to people.
>> "the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
>
>Yep. A corporation is a certificate sitting in a Secretary of State's
>office.
<LOL> So you think that a certificate pays taxes?
>> --Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
>> on the corporation he says he created
>
>The fact that I never said such a thing makes you not only stupid, but a
>liar.
Why would you mind?
>> "The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
>>
>> --Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
>
>No gender discrimination is legal. The problem is, you don't know the
>definition of legal discrimination.
<LOL> There are many forms of legal gender discrimination, you moron,
including discrimination against one gender when selecting someone to
date.
> > "Attacking the movie? Not me."
>> "The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
>> "But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
>> and suffering"
>> "....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
>>
>> --Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
>> fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
>
>I don't recall anyone calling for Gibson to burn the prints of the
>movie, or even take it oout of the theaters. Mike is probably as amazed
>as I am by the collective mental illness demonstrated by people who feel
>"blessed" by watching a graphic depiction of the icon of their religion
>being beaten to death.
No-one expects you to understand it, just like I don't understand why
all you liberal guys are so willing to emasculate yourselves and act
like a bunch of frightened old women.
My criticism of Ross has nothing to do with his amazement, it has to
do with his vehement attack on the movie. What makes someone hate a
movie?
> > "Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
>> "There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
>> long straight skis nowadays"
>>
>> --Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
>> he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
>> could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
>> skis.
>>
>
>Dumbass. "Straight" skis are traditional skis without the beveled edges.
>I don't know any instructor who would teach a beginner on anything but
>straight skis.
First of all, skis have always had a side cut. The skis I learned on
back in the fifties were thinner at the waist than at the tips, and
secondly, the modern hourglass skis are much easier to ski on and
therefore are *EXACTLY* what instructors teach beginners on.
You probably don't know *any* instructors. You don't seem to know much
of anything.
>Christ; is there anything you're not ignorant of?
>
>I could handle the ignorance, but you act as if you're so smart.
>
>That's you're entire sig. Your responses are far stupider than anyone
>else's comments...
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Milt
I was wrong and I admitted it. I also challenged you to come up with one
instance where the Constitution's been amended without Congress starting
the process.
IOW, theory is one thing. Practice is another.
>
>>>----
>>>
>>>"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
>>>want, they stop being terrorists."
>>>
>>>--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
>>>trying to kill one of his family members
>>
>>No, he wasn't, and you know that. Which makes you not only stupid, but a
>>liar.
>>
>>It's true. If you give terrorists what they want, they do stop being
>>terrorists. That does not mean you should always give them what they
>>want, however. Ridding the world of them also stops them from being
>>terrorists...
>
>
> Except that Jamieson *was* advocating giving the terrorists what they
> wanted.
>
No, he wasn't. Terrorists aren't born, they're made.
>
>>>"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
>>>sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
>>>and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
>>>
>>>--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
>>>had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
>>>was elected.
>>
>>It was superseded by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but it was never declared
>>unconstitutional. It didn't become unconstitutional until the 13th
>>Amendment was passed. Zepp's point was that the end of slavery was near.
>>He may have gotten a few minor details wrong, but so did you. So why do
>>you think yourself better? Oh, that's right; that's what you do; ignore
>>the main point and nit the details...
>
>
> "Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the court’s opinion that the
> Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional." --The Columbia
> Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001
>
> I got nothing wrong while Zepp's entire statement was wrong.
Bullshit. You just confirmed your inability to read. The court's
opinion, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, was not an
actual legal opinion.
For those who'd like to read the entire section to which Stevie refers,
go here:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/dr/DredScot.html
Note the phrase, "which had, in fact, been voided by the Kansas-Nebraska
Act of 1854..."
For those who know anything about the law, the word "moot" comes to mind...
>>>"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
>>
>>Yep. Individual people pay personal income taxes. Corporations pay
>>corporate taxes.
>
>
> And corporate taxes are always passed on to people.
So is the cost of pens and light bulbs. That doesn't mean "the people"
buy IBM's light bulbs.
At least try to think about the "logic." If IBM doesn't pay its taxes
because its money comes from others, you don't pay your taxes, either.
>
>
>>>"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
>>
>>Yep. A corporation is a certificate sitting in a Secretary of State's
>>office.
>
>
> <LOL> So you think that a certificate pays taxes?
A corporation does, yes. You're too narrow-minded to actually figure
that out, aren't you.
>
>
>>>--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
>>>on the corporation he says he created
>>
>>The fact that I never said such a thing makes you not only stupid, but a
>>liar.
>
>
> Why would you mind?
Just another nail in your credibility coffin.
>
>
>>>"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
>>>
>>>--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
>>
>>No gender discrimination is legal. The problem is, you don't know the
>>definition of legal discrimination.
>
>
> <LOL> There are many forms of legal gender discrimination, you moron,
> including discrimination against one gender when selecting someone to
> date.
>
That is not legal discrimination, you idiot.
Like I said, you're too stupid for words.
>
>> > "Attacking the movie? Not me."
>>
>>>"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
>>>"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
>>>and suffering"
>>>"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
>>>
>>>--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
>>>fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
>>
>>I don't recall anyone calling for Gibson to burn the prints of the
>>movie, or even take it oout of the theaters. Mike is probably as amazed
>>as I am by the collective mental illness demonstrated by people who feel
>>"blessed" by watching a graphic depiction of the icon of their religion
>>being beaten to death.
>
>
> No-one expects you to understand it, just like I don't understand why
> all you liberal guys are so willing to emasculate yourselves and act
> like a bunch of frightened old women.
Why would you think I don't understand it? I understand it better than
you think. I grew up Catholic, and I've studied religion quite a bit
since I gave it up for Lent. I have no problem with God, but most
religion seems to be mass psychosis.
> My criticism of Ross has nothing to do with his amazement, it has to
> do with his vehement attack on the movie. What makes someone hate a
> movie?
>
Because it sucks. Passion of the Christ was horrible. It was an exercise
in sadism, and anyone who sat through it and felt "blessed" somehow
needs a fucking psychiatrist. There was nothing spiritual in it; it was
a snuff film. (And yes, I saw it. Thank goodness I didn't pay for it...)
BTW, more than a few friends of mine, some of whom happen to be Jesuits,
felt the same way about it.
>
>> > "Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
>>
>>>"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
>>>long straight skis nowadays"
>>>
>>>--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
>>>he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
>>>could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
>>>skis.
>>>
>>
>>Dumbass. "Straight" skis are traditional skis without the beveled edges.
>>I don't know any instructor who would teach a beginner on anything but
>>straight skis.
>
>
> First of all, skis have always had a side cut.
That has nothing to do with the concept of "straight skis." It's a
specific type of ski, you moron.
> The skis I learned on
> back in the fifties were thinner at the waist than at the tips, and
> secondly, the modern hourglass skis are much easier to ski on and
> therefore are *EXACTLY* what instructors teach beginners on.
No they are not. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
>
> You probably don't know *any* instructors. You don't seem to know much
> of anything.
>
I was an instructor for a year, moron. I'm an excellent skier. Or was,
until my knee blew. Now that it's healed though, I'd probably be back on
the black runs pretty quickly...
Straight skis are a type of ski. It doesn't mean they're perfectly
straight. And curved skis confuse beginners, especially adults.
Here's a discussion of straight vs shaped skis. Maybe you'll learn
something. I'm not holding my breath...
http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic192
zepp
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
Ridding the world of them is usually the far harder and least
productive option. I think the reason Parkie obsesses on that remark
(and, as you note, lies about the circumstances under which it was
made) is because he can't answer it, and that makes him indignant.
How many Americans were killed by Iraqis prior to March of last year?
None. If Americans left Iraq, that happy state of affairs would be
restored.
The funny thing is that American fiction has an entire genre devoted
to "freedom fighters rising up against oppression" -- what Parkie,
this week, is calling "terrorists" "Rambo" "Red Dawn" "Fifth Column"
and even those gawdawful "Battlefield Earth" series by Elron all fit
the genre.
The message was the same, over and over: beat the oppressor, and then
we can return to being happy and free and live in peace.
I wonder if Parkie knows the real story behind the Tea Revolt in
Boston.
Let's ask him, shall we?
Parkie, why did the colonists stage the Boston Tea Party?
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 4/30/2001.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
<LOL> But why would you make such a silly challenge? Let's see,
you'd been humiliated and you thought it might regain you some
respect...
Too bad....
Of course,the question was not about what had happened, it was about
what could happen.
>IOW, theory is one thing. Practice is another.
The issue is not about theory vs. practice. The fact that Congress is
not the only way through which an amendment can be initiated is not
theory, it's a fact, as I educated your dumb ass about.
>>>>
>>>>"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
>>>>want, they stop being terrorists."
>>>>
>>>>--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
>>>>trying to kill one of his family members
>>>
>>>No, he wasn't, and you know that. Which makes you not only stupid, but a
>>>liar.
>>>
>>>It's true. If you give terrorists what they want, they do stop being
>>>terrorists. That does not mean you should always give them what they
>>>want, however. Ridding the world of them also stops them from being
>>>terrorists...
>>
>>
>> Except that Jamieson *was* advocating giving the terrorists what they
>> wanted.
>>
>No, he wasn't. Terrorists aren't born, they're made.
Yes he was. The question he was responding to was: "Tell us, Zepp,
does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy when the terrorists kill
people then get what they want as a result?"
>>>>"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
>>>>sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
>>>>and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
>>>>
>>>>--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
>>>>had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
>>>>was elected.
>>>
>>>It was superseded by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but it was never declared
>>>unconstitutional. It didn't become unconstitutional until the 13th
>>>Amendment was passed. Zepp's point was that the end of slavery was near.
>>>He may have gotten a few minor details wrong, but so did you. So why do
>>>you think yourself better? Oh, that's right; that's what you do; ignore
>>>the main point and nit the details...
>>
>>
>> "Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the court’s opinion that the
>> Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional." --The Columbia
>> Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001
>>
>> I got nothing wrong while Zepp's entire statement was wrong.
>
>Bullshit. You just confirmed your inability to read. The court's
>opinion, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, was not an
>actual legal opinion.
HUH? A chief justice delivering the Supreme Court's decision is not
an "actual legal opinion?"
Once again Milt shows us what a moron he is.
>For those who'd like to read the entire section to which Stevie refers,
>go here:
>
>http://www.bartleby.com/65/dr/DredScot.html
>
>Note the phrase, "which had, in fact, been voided by the Kansas-Nebraska
>Act of 1854..."
<LOL> I also pointed that fact out to Jamieson after he ignorantly
claimed that Lincoln was going to uphold it.
>For those who know anything about the law, the word "moot" comes to mind...
<LOL> So Zepp claimed that Lincoln was going to uphold the Missouri
Compromise after it had been voided *and* declared unconstitutional.
What a moron...
>>>>"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
>>>
>>>Yep. Individual people pay personal income taxes. Corporations pay
>>>corporate taxes.
>>
>>
>> And corporate taxes are always passed on to people.
>
>So is the cost of pens and light bulbs. That doesn't mean "the people"
>buy IBM's light bulbs.
Of course. All of the corporations expenses are passed on to people.
>At least try to think about the "logic." If IBM doesn't pay its taxes
>because its money comes from others, you don't pay your taxes, either.
>>
>>
>>>>"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
>>>
>>>Yep. A corporation is a certificate sitting in a Secretary of State's
>>>office.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> So you think that a certificate pays taxes?
>
>A corporation does, yes. You're too narrow-minded to actually figure
>that out, aren't you.
>>
>>
>>>>--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
>>>>on the corporation he says he created
>>>
>>>The fact that I never said such a thing makes you not only stupid, but a
>>>liar.
>>
>>
>> Why would you mind?
>
>Just another nail in your credibility coffin.
<LOL> I note that you didn't answer the question.
>>>>"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
>>>>
>>>>--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
>>>
>>>No gender discrimination is legal. The problem is, you don't know the
>>>definition of legal discrimination.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> There are many forms of legal gender discrimination, you moron,
>> including discrimination against one gender when selecting someone to
>> date.
>>
>That is not legal discrimination, you idiot.
Huh? You think it's not legal to discriminate when selecting someone
to date?
>Like I said, you're too stupid for words.
<LOL> You challenged me to provide three examples
of gender discrimination that the law allowed, Milt, and I produced
far more than three. I cannot imagine why you would think that
something that was "allowed" by the law would be anything but "legal."
As usual, Milt said something very stupid and I slapped him down for
it and now he's backpeddling.
>>> > "Attacking the movie? Not me."
>>>
>>>>"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
>>>>"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
>>>>and suffering"
>>>>"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
>>>>
>>>>--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
>>>>fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
>>>
>>>I don't recall anyone calling for Gibson to burn the prints of the
>>>movie, or even take it oout of the theaters. Mike is probably as amazed
>>>as I am by the collective mental illness demonstrated by people who feel
>>>"blessed" by watching a graphic depiction of the icon of their religion
>>>being beaten to death.
>>
>>
>> No-one expects you to understand it, just like I don't understand why
>> all you liberal guys are so willing to emasculate yourselves and act
>> like a bunch of frightened old women.
>
>Why would you think I don't understand it?
Obviously you don't understand it or you wouldn't be "amazed" at the
people who went to see the movie and who consider the torture and
suffering of Jesus as a very special part of their religion.
>I understand it better than
>you think. I grew up Catholic, and I've studied religion quite a bit
>since I gave it up for Lent. I have no problem with God, but most
>religion seems to be mass psychosis.
Speaking from the position of an agnostic, having never been involved
in organized religion, I have no problem understanding why people went
to the movie and enjoyed the experience.
>> My criticism of Ross has nothing to do with his amazement, it has to
>> do with his vehement attack on the movie. What makes someone hate a
>> movie?
>>
>Because it sucks. Passion of the Christ was horrible. It was an exercise
>in sadism, and anyone who sat through it and felt "blessed" somehow
>needs a fucking psychiatrist.
<LOL> I suppose you're not attacking it either?
> There was nothing spiritual in it; it was
>a snuff film. (And yes, I saw it. Thank goodness I didn't pay for it...)
IOW, you secularists took a real beating on this issue and you just
can't stand it. That's the only reason you guys would be squealing
about it so loudly.
>BTW, more than a few friends of mine, some of whom happen to be Jesuits,
>felt the same way about it.
<LOL> Who cares how you or your friends felt about it? Why would you
even bother to relate that?
Oh, I see, you think that your opinion, and that of your friends who
you probably invented is a valid rebuttal to the many millions of
people who thought otherwise.
>>> > "Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
>>>
>>>>"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
>>>>long straight skis nowadays"
>>>>
>>>>--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
>>>>he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
>>>>could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
>>>>skis.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Dumbass. "Straight" skis are traditional skis without the beveled edges.
>>>I don't know any instructor who would teach a beginner on anything but
>>>straight skis.
>>
>>
>> First of all, skis have always had a side cut.
>
>That has nothing to do with the concept of "straight skis." It's a
>specific type of ski, you moron.
<LOL> Dumb ass Arne didn't know that if you take any ski made in the
last 150 years and push it up against a "straight" wall you will note
that there's a gap between the wall and the ski in the center. The
only difference between the older skis and the new hourglass skis is
the size of that gap.
http://www.skileb.com/lessons/lessons.asp?DocID=124
> > The skis I learned on
>> back in the fifties were thinner at the waist than at the tips, and
>> secondly, the modern hourglass skis are much easier to ski on and
>> therefore are *EXACTLY* what instructors teach beginners on.
>
>No they are not. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Once again Milt open his mouth without know what *he's* talking about.
The new hourglass or "parabolic" skis are much easier to ski on.
That' why they made them.
http://www.skileb.com/lessons/lessons.asp?DocID=124
>> You probably don't know *any* instructors. You don't seem to know much
>> of anything.
>>
>
>I was an instructor for a year, moron. I'm an excellent skier. Or was,
>until my knee blew. Now that it's healed though, I'd probably be back on
>the black runs pretty quickly...
You don't actually think that I believe you? <LOL> Any instructor
wouldn't make the mistake of not realizing that the new hourglass skis
are simply an extreme example of something that has been around for a
long time. Actually, even the extreme side cuts have themselves been
around for a while in the form of custom made skis for the racing
crowd.
>Straight skis are a type of ski. It doesn't mean they're perfectly
>straight. And curved skis confuse beginners, especially adults.
<LOL> First, all skis are curved. The new parabolic skis are simply
an extreme example of the same old shape that has been around almost
forever.
Second, beginning skiers, especially adults, are already confused. As
soon as they get through the "only snowplow"stage, and allow the skis
to run parallel a little they can utilize the easier turning
capabilities of the new hourglass skis.
>Here's a discussion of straight vs shaped skis. Maybe you'll learn
>something. I'm not holding my breath...
>http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic192
You might try learning from the discussions as well. Try this one.
http://www.skileb.com/lessons/lessons.asp?DocID=124
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Steve Canyon
wrote:
<LOL> Zepp made the stupid comment after being accused of liking it
when the Terrorists got their way. He obviously approves of that.
>How many Americans were killed by Iraqis prior to March of last year?
>None. If Americans left Iraq, that happy state of affairs would be
>restored.
Zepp thinks that Saddam's regime was a "happy state of affairs."
>The funny thing is that American fiction has an entire genre devoted
>to "freedom fighters rising up against oppression" -- what Parkie,
>this week, is calling "terrorists" "Rambo" "Red Dawn" "Fifth Column"
>and even those gawdawful "Battlefield Earth" series by Elron all fit
>the genre.
Zepp watches too much TV, I think. Well, that's probably because he's
too physically unfit to do much of anything but sit on a couch.
>The message was the same, over and over: beat the oppressor, and then
>we can return to being happy and free and live in peace.
Zepp's message is to roll over and give in whenever you are
threatened.
>I wonder if Parkie knows the real story behind the Tea Revolt in
>Boston.
>
>Let's ask him, shall we?
>
>Parkie, why did the colonists stage the Boston Tea Party?
Here's my post from last august which is probably where *you* learned
that it wasn't about the British putting to high a tax on the tea.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7hr1kv8gd7bl2c1msp52rc2tqf4mvohrel%404ax.com
here's my post last April where I chided Mhirtsie for thinking that
the "Boston Tea Party" was about the British putting to high a tax on
the tea.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=v7u4av8j838n6bhp16f9gl966dbjefsmb5%404ax.com
Face it you moron, I know lots more American History than you will
ever know, as is obvious by your stupid claim that Lincoln was going
to uphold the Missouri Compromise.
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Steve Canyon
they all rush out to defend each other. A liberal simply isn't
capable of standing by himself.
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
zepp
Poor Parkie. You see, Milt? He can't respond. All he can do is try
and invent reasons why I might have said it.
I wonder if anyone believes this pathetic obsessed troll is the world
travelling millionaire he makes himself out to be?
-
Steve Canyon
wrote:
I did respond. Zepp responded too. He said "Well, that's the funny
thing about terrorists. If they get what they want, they stop being
terrorists," and he said it when asked about whether or not he
approved of giving in to terrorist's demands. His reply shows that,
obviously, he does approve of it, and taking that position to another
case, he's apparently give in to terrorist demands concerning his
family members as well.
>I wonder if anyone believes this pathetic obsessed troll is the world
>travelling millionaire he makes himself out to be?
I wonder why poor old Zepp is so enthralled with my status that he
insists upon mentioning it in every post he replies to me.
<LOL> perhaps it just his jealousy...
Milt
It really can't, except in theory. It's one of those funny things. The
Constitution calls for the possibility that "the people" could call a
Constitutional Convention, but gives Congress the power to make the
rules. Congress has never made rules.
>
>>IOW, theory is one thing. Practice is another.
>
>
> The issue is not about theory vs. practice. The fact that Congress is
> not the only way through which an amendment can be initiated is not
> theory, it's a fact, as I educated your dumb ass about.
>
If it's a fact, dumbass, then why don't you explain to us, briefly,
exactly how citizens call a Constitutional Convention?
>
>>>>>"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
>>>>>want, they stop being terrorists."
>>>>>
>>>>>--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
>>>>>trying to kill one of his family members
>>>>
>>>>No, he wasn't, and you know that. Which makes you not only stupid, but a
>>>>liar.
>>>>
>>>>It's true. If you give terrorists what they want, they do stop being
>>>>terrorists. That does not mean you should always give them what they
>>>>want, however. Ridding the world of them also stops them from being
>>>>terrorists...
>>>
>>>
>>>Except that Jamieson *was* advocating giving the terrorists what they
>>>wanted.
>>>
>>
>>No, he wasn't. Terrorists aren't born, they're made.
>
>
> Yes he was. The question he was responding to was: "Tell us, Zepp,
> does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy when the terrorists kill
> people then get what they want as a result?"
>
Then his answer is a non-answer, isn't it. He didn't say it made him
warm and fuzzy. It probably makes him sick. But the fact is, there are
only two ways to get rid of terrorists -- kill them or give them what
they want. And you have to do both. Kill current terrorists, sure. but
to prevent future terrorists, at some point you have to give them
something. That's just common sense. Which is why you don't understand
the answer...
>
>>>>>"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
>>>>>sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
>>>>>and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
>>>>>
>>>>>--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
>>>>>had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
>>>>>was elected.
>>>>
>>>>It was superseded by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but it was never declared
>>>>unconstitutional. It didn't become unconstitutional until the 13th
>>>>Amendment was passed. Zepp's point was that the end of slavery was near.
>>>>He may have gotten a few minor details wrong, but so did you. So why do
>>>>you think yourself better? Oh, that's right; that's what you do; ignore
>>>>the main point and nit the details...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the court’s opinion that the
>>>Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional." --The Columbia
>>>Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001
>>>
>>>I got nothing wrong while Zepp's entire statement was wrong.
>>
>>Bullshit. You just confirmed your inability to read. The court's
>>opinion, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, was not an
>>actual legal opinion.
>
>
> HUH? A chief justice delivering the Supreme Court's decision is not
> an "actual legal opinion?"
No, it isn't. Why don't you read up on the history of this before
sounding so fucking stupid? It was a political issue, not a legal one.
How do you declare a law unconstitutional when the law doesn't exist?
The law had already been repeal by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Read up on
Taney; he was an embarrassment; he was always doing that sort of thing.
He should have been impeached...
>
> Once again Milt shows us what a moron he is.
>
Okay, then, idiot; please explain how the USSC can declare a
non-existent law unconstitutional?
The word is "mootness". Go look it up in a legal dictionary and get back
to us...
>
>>For those who'd like to read the entire section to which Stevie refers,
>>go here:
>>
>>http://www.bartleby.com/65/dr/DredScot.html
>>
>>Note the phrase, "which had, in fact, been voided by the Kansas-Nebraska
>>Act of 1854..."
>
>
> <LOL> I also pointed that fact out to Jamieson after he ignorantly
> claimed that Lincoln was going to uphold it.
>
He got the details wrong, and so did you. Get over it.
>
>>For those who know anything about the law, the word "moot" comes to mind...
>
>
> <LOL> So Zepp claimed that Lincoln was going to uphold the Missouri
> Compromise after it had been voided *and* declared unconstitutional.
> What a moron...
>
It wasn't "voided," it was superseded. And it's not possible for a law
that doesn't exist to be declared "unconstitutional."
Zepp's basic premise was ignored in favor of your errant obsession with
one detail. Read up on the history of the era, and you'll see that, as a
political era, it was unprecedented. All sorts of people did things they
couldn't do.
Kinda like Bush v Gore. Imagine declaring the counting of votes illegal
and then slipping in a statement that the declaration is only good for
that case and no other...
>>>>>"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
>>>>
>>>>Yep. Individual people pay personal income taxes. Corporations pay
>>>>corporate taxes.
>>>
>>>
>>>And corporate taxes are always passed on to people.
>>
>>So is the cost of pens and light bulbs. That doesn't mean "the people"
>>buy IBM's light bulbs.
>
>
> Of course. All of the corporations expenses are passed on to people.
>
That's one of those statements that means nothing.
>>At least try to think about the "logic." If IBM doesn't pay its taxes
>>because its money comes from others, you don't pay your taxes, either.
>>
>>>
>>>>>"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
>>>>
>>>>Yep. A corporation is a certificate sitting in a Secretary of State's
>>>>office.
>>>
>>>
>>><LOL> So you think that a certificate pays taxes?
>>
>>A corporation does, yes. You're too narrow-minded to actually figure
>>that out, aren't you.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
>>>>>on the corporation he says he created
>>>>
>>>>The fact that I never said such a thing makes you not only stupid, but a
>>>>liar.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why would you mind?
>>
>>Just another nail in your credibility coffin.
>
>
> <LOL> I note that you didn't answer the question.
>
Just another example of your reading deficiency. I did answer the question.
>
>>>>>"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
>>>>>
>>>>>--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
>>>>
>>>>No gender discrimination is legal. The problem is, you don't know the
>>>>definition of legal discrimination.
>>>
>>>
>>><LOL> There are many forms of legal gender discrimination, you moron,
>>>including discrimination against one gender when selecting someone to
>>>date.
>>>
>>
>>That is not legal discrimination, you idiot.
>
>
> Huh? You think it's not legal to discriminate when selecting someone
> to date?
>
No. I didn't say that. Again with the reading comprehension problem. NO
gender discrimination is legal. You figure it out.
>
>>Like I said, you're too stupid for words.
>
>
> <LOL> You challenged me to provide three examples
> of gender discrimination that the law allowed, Milt,
No. I challenged you to come up with three examples of legal gender
discrimination.
You really should get that reading thing fixed.
> and I produced
> far more than three. I cannot imagine why you would think that
> something that was "allowed" by the law would be anything but "legal."
Your problem is, you don't understand the concept of legal
discrimination. Not surprising. You're the most ignorant idiot on Usenet.
> As usual, Milt said something very stupid and I slapped him down for
> it and now he's backpeddling.
>
I haven't backpedaled. I haven't changed my argument at all. No gender
discrimination is legal. You're trying to change the definition of legal
discrimination to "being discriminating, personally." It's not the same
thing.
>
>>>>>"Attacking the movie? Not me."
>>>>
>>>>>"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
>>>>>"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
>>>>>and suffering"
>>>>>"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
>>>>>
>>>>>--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
>>>>>fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
>>>>
>>>>I don't recall anyone calling for Gibson to burn the prints of the
>>>>movie, or even take it oout of the theaters. Mike is probably as amazed
>>>>as I am by the collective mental illness demonstrated by people who feel
>>>>"blessed" by watching a graphic depiction of the icon of their religion
>>>>being beaten to death.
>>>
>>>
>>>No-one expects you to understand it, just like I don't understand why
>>>all you liberal guys are so willing to emasculate yourselves and act
>>>like a bunch of frightened old women.
>>
>>Why would you think I don't understand it?
>
>
> Obviously you don't understand it or you wouldn't be "amazed" at the
> people who went to see the movie and who consider the torture and
> suffering of Jesus as a very special part of their religion.
>
Being amazed at the extent of mental illness is not the same as not
understanding it.
>>I understand it better than
>>you think. I grew up Catholic, and I've studied religion quite a bit
>>since I gave it up for Lent. I have no problem with God, but most
>>religion seems to be mass psychosis.
>
>
> Speaking from the position of an agnostic, having never been involved
> in organized religion, I have no problem understanding why people went
> to the movie and enjoyed the experience.
>
I never said I didn't understand it. I just find the extent of the mass
mental illness demonstrated to be frightening. We're a sick society, if
we think such a sadistic piece of trash is somehow "enlightening."
>
>>>My criticism of Ross has nothing to do with his amazement, it has to
>>>do with his vehement attack on the movie. What makes someone hate a
>>>movie?
>>>
>>
>>Because it sucks. Passion of the Christ was horrible. It was an exercise
>>in sadism, and anyone who sat through it and felt "blessed" somehow
>>needs a fucking psychiatrist.
>
>
> <LOL> I suppose you're not attacking it either?
>
No. I'm not attacking the movie. I'm not attacking anything. I'm making
an observation. I've watched violent movies before, although not quite
so graphic and detailed. But never before have people come out of a
violent movie claiming that they were changed spiritually. I didn't see
evangelicals coming out of Saving Private Ryan and becoming anti-war
activists in droves. The evangelicals didn't come out of Schindler's
List hugging Jews. But for some reason, these folks sent busloads of the
"faithful" to see a movie where a man pretending to be the icon of their
religion was tortured for well over an hour and felt "blessed" for
having done so.
If only so many felt blessed enough to feed the poor and house the
homeless...
>
>>There was nothing spiritual in it; it was
>>a snuff film. (And yes, I saw it. Thank goodness I didn't pay for it...)
>
>
> IOW, you secularists took a real beating on this issue and you just
> can't stand it. That's the only reason you guys would be squealing
> about it so loudly.
>
(Note that this self-proclaimed "agnostic" is referring to "you
secularists". Of course, Stevie never understood irony...)
How did "we" take a beating? What issue? I had no problem with the
movie, per se. But when people come out of there claiming to be
"changed" it makes me roll my eyes...
And even though something like 40 million tickets have been sold for the
movie, I see no changes in anything from evangelicals. We're still in a
quagmire in Iraq, we're still doing nothing to stop terrorism, the
number of homeless continues to rise, and poor people are still
oppressed. IOW, what issue? It's just a fucking movie, after all.
>>BTW, more than a few friends of mine, some of whom happen to be Jesuits,
>>felt the same way about it.
>
>
> <LOL> Who cares how you or your friends felt about it? Why would you
> even bother to relate that?
>
> Oh, I see, you think that your opinion, and that of your friends who
> you probably invented is a valid rebuttal to the many millions of
> people who thought otherwise.
Jesus, you're an ass. I'm not interested in rebutting you. And why would
you think the number of people makes an opinion more valid? Are you so
in need of validation for your opinions that you need to cite "millions
of people" to feel like you made your point?
BTW, despite the fact that it made so much money, more people have not
seen the movie than have seen it.
>
>
>>>>>"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
>>>>
>>>>>"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
>>>>>long straight skis nowadays"
>>>>>
>>>>>--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
>>>>>he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
>>>>>could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
>>>>>skis.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dumbass. "Straight" skis are traditional skis without the beveled edges.
>>>>I don't know any instructor who would teach a beginner on anything but
>>>>straight skis.
>>>
>>>
>>>First of all, skis have always had a side cut.
>>
>>That has nothing to do with the concept of "straight skis." It's a
>>specific type of ski, you moron.
>
>
> <LOL> Dumb ass Arne didn't know that if you take any ski made in the
> last 150 years and push it up against a "straight" wall you will note
> that there's a gap between the wall and the ski in the center. The
> only difference between the older skis and the new hourglass skis is
> the size of that gap.
>
> http://www.skileb.com/lessons/lessons.asp?DocID=124
>
Know what? I know a lot of gay people with good posture. That doesn't
make them "straight."
You're such a fool...
>
>>> The skis I learned on
>>>back in the fifties were thinner at the waist than at the tips, and
>>>secondly, the modern hourglass skis are much easier to ski on and
>>>therefore are *EXACTLY* what instructors teach beginners on.
>>
>>No they are not. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
>
>
> Once again Milt open his mouth without know what *he's* talking about.
> The new hourglass or "parabolic" skis are much easier to ski on.
> That' why they made them.
>
Instructors still don't teach beginners on them. Generally, they teach
them on whatever they happen to bring. But they prefer to teach them on
straight skis first. The reason is precisely because they're "easier" to
ski on. You don't want a beginner learning speed before they've learned
control.
And the new skis aren't good on all hills. I like to ski moguls, and
they suck on moguls.
>
>
>>>You probably don't know *any* instructors. You don't seem to know much
>>>of anything.
>>>
>>
>>I was an instructor for a year, moron. I'm an excellent skier. Or was,
>>until my knee blew. Now that it's healed though, I'd probably be back on
>>the black runs pretty quickly...
>
>
> You don't actually think that I believe you? <LOL> Any instructor
> wouldn't make the mistake of not realizing that the new hourglass skis
> are simply an extreme example of something that has been around for a
> long time.
No one said they've revolutionized the skiing industry. But there is a
big difference between them and the skis you learned on in the fifties.
> Actually, even the extreme side cuts have themselves been
> around for a while in the form of custom made skis for the racing
> crowd.
Okay, so how does that prove Arne wrong? Straight skis are still called
straight skis.
>
>>Straight skis are a type of ski. It doesn't mean they're perfectly
>>straight. And curved skis confuse beginners, especially adults.
>
>
> <LOL> First, all skis are curved.
Jesus. Are you still on this? No shit. Straight skis have curves. But
they're still called straight skis.
> The new parabolic skis are simply
> an extreme example of the same old shape that has been around almost
> forever.
>
They are a completely different shape, if you hold them side by side.
> Second, beginning skiers, especially adults, are already confused. As
> soon as they get through the "only snowplow"stage, and allow the skis
> to run parallel a little they can utilize the easier turning
> capabilities of the new hourglass skis.
>
Beginning skiers don't need "easier." Easier means faster, and you don't
want beginners going too fast. Control is more important than ease.
Other instructors might disagree. That doesn't make me wrong.
>>Here's a discussion of straight vs shaped skis. Maybe you'll learn
>>something. I'm not holding my breath...
>
>
>>http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic192
>
>
> You might try learning from the discussions as well. Try this one.
>
You know, posting the same URL three times doesn't make it three times
as relevant.
Milt
You have to do both. On the one hand, you have to get rid of current
terrorists as efficiently as possible. But you also have to understand
where it comes from and try to change those circumstances, or you'll end
up with a steady stream of terrorists. If you think picking them off one
by one will somehow make them so scared that they'll give up eventually,
then you know little about history. We see them as terrorists; they see
themselves as freedom fighters.
>
>>How many Americans were killed by Iraqis prior to March of last year?
>>None. If Americans left Iraq, that happy state of affairs would be
>>restored.
>
>
> Zepp thinks that Saddam's regime was a "happy state of affairs."
It was certainly better than what's been created in his wake.
This was a poorly planned and horribly botched operation, which gets
worse every day...
>
>
>>The funny thing is that American fiction has an entire genre devoted
>>to "freedom fighters rising up against oppression" -- what Parkie,
>>this week, is calling "terrorists" "Rambo" "Red Dawn" "Fifth Column"
>>and even those gawdawful "Battlefield Earth" series by Elron all fit
>>the genre.
>
>
> Zepp watches too much TV, I think. Well, that's probably because he's
> too physically unfit to do much of anything but sit on a couch.
>
This from a guy who, when he's not pretending to be out on a boat for a
week or two, spends so much time in front of his computer that most of
his responses come within minutes of the previous post...
>
>>The message was the same, over and over: beat the oppressor, and then
>>we can return to being happy and free and live in peace.
>
>
> Zepp's message is to roll over and give in whenever you are
> threatened.
>
No, but at the same time you're beating heads, you'd better have a plan
for what to do after the beating happens, or the beatings will continue.
>
>>I wonder if Parkie knows the real story behind the Tea Revolt in
>>Boston.
>>
>>Let's ask him, shall we?
>>
>>Parkie, why did the colonists stage the Boston Tea Party?
>
>
> Here's my post from last august which is probably where *you* learned
> that it wasn't about the British putting to high a tax on the tea.
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7hr1kv8gd7bl2c1msp52rc2tqf4mvohrel%404ax.com
It wasn't about the tea. It was ostensibly about being taxed and
receiving nothing in return. But why don't you answer Zepp's question.
WHY was the Boston Tea Party staged, really? I know the real answer, do you?
>
> here's my post last April where I chided Mhirtsie for thinking that
> the "Boston Tea Party" was about the British putting to high a tax on
> the tea.
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=v7u4av8j838n6bhp16f9gl966dbjefsmb5%404ax.com
>
I don't see anything in either one of those posts that demonstrates your
knowledge of anything except ad hominem.
> Face it you moron, I know lots more American History than you will
> ever know, as is obvious by your stupid claim that Lincoln was going
> to uphold the Missouri Compromise.
>
Well, he was going to restore the main concept of the Missouri
Compromise. Why do you think Taney made the political move to declare
the law "unconstitutional," despite the fact that it didn't exist.
You don't know all that much...
Milt
No, we just don't want to. There's no value in it.
Milt
Oh, sure. Like any of us believe a self-made, world traveling
millionaire would so much time on Usenet, and be so ignorant about so
many things.
How could you make millions of dollars and not know what a corporation is?
Steve Canyon
wrote:
<LOL> Bullshit, there is no reference in the Constitution for the
Congress "making any rules" regarding a state initiated Constitutional
convention. It merely states that the Congress shall call the
convention. Beyond making that announcement, the Congress might not
even be a part of the convention.
>>>IOW, theory is one thing. Practice is another.
>>
>>
>> The issue is not about theory vs. practice. The fact that Congress is
>> not the only way through which an amendment can be initiated is not
>> theory, it's a fact, as I educated your dumb ass about.
>>
>
>If it's a fact, dumbass, then why don't you explain to us, briefly,
>exactly how citizens call a Constitutional Convention?
I told you once before that you should actually read Article Five.
perhaps you should go and do that now. Get back to me when you
understand what is meant by "Application of the Legislatures of two
thirds of the several States."
>>>>>>"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
>>>>>>want, they stop being terrorists."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
>>>>>>trying to kill one of his family members
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he wasn't, and you know that. Which makes you not only stupid, but a
>>>>>liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's true. If you give terrorists what they want, they do stop being
>>>>>terrorists. That does not mean you should always give them what they
>>>>>want, however. Ridding the world of them also stops them from being
>>>>>terrorists...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Except that Jamieson *was* advocating giving the terrorists what they
>>>>wanted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, he wasn't. Terrorists aren't born, they're made.
>>
>>
>> Yes he was. The question he was responding to was: "Tell us, Zepp,
>> does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy when the terrorists kill
>> people then get what they want as a result?"
>>
>
>Then his answer is a non-answer, isn't it. He didn't say it made him
>warm and fuzzy. It probably makes him sick.
<LOL> No, he said no such thing at the time, only that it was a way
of making the terrorists "stop being terrorists."
>But the fact is, there are
>only two ways to get rid of terrorists -- kill them or give them what
>they want. And you have to do both.
No, actually, all you have to do is kill them.
>Kill current terrorists, sure. but
>to prevent future terrorists, at some point you have to give them
>something. That's just common sense. Which is why you don't understand
>the answer...
I certainly don't "understand" giving people who threaten me what they
want, but I don;t expect you old women liberals to understand it.
>>>>>>"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
>>>>>>sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
>>>>>>and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
>>>>>>had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
>>>>>>was elected.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was superseded by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but it was never declared
>>>>>unconstitutional. It didn't become unconstitutional until the 13th
>>>>>Amendment was passed. Zepp's point was that the end of slavery was near.
>>>>>He may have gotten a few minor details wrong, but so did you. So why do
>>>>>you think yourself better? Oh, that's right; that's what you do; ignore
>>>>>the main point and nit the details...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the court’s opinion that the
>>>>Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional." --The Columbia
>>>>Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001
>>>>
>>>>I got nothing wrong while Zepp's entire statement was wrong.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. You just confirmed your inability to read. The court's
>>>opinion, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, was not an
>>>actual legal opinion.
>>
>>
>> HUH? A chief justice delivering the Supreme Court's decision is not
>> an "actual legal opinion?"
>
>No, it isn't. Why don't you read up on the history of this before
>sounding so fucking stupid? It was a political issue, not a legal one.
<LOL> It was a chief justice delivering a Supreme Court's decision,
you moron.
>How do you declare a law unconstitutional when the law doesn't exist?
Simple, just as Taney did it.
>The law had already been repeal by the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
So? that only makes Zepp's claim even more ignorant.
>Read up on
>Taney; he was an embarrassment; he was always doing that sort of thing.
<LOL>
>He should have been impeached...
>>
>> Once again Milt shows us what a moron he is.
>>
>
>Okay, then, idiot; please explain how the USSC can declare a
>non-existent law unconstitutional?
>
>The word is "mootness". Go look it up in a legal dictionary and get back
>to us...
>
>>
>>>For those who'd like to read the entire section to which Stevie refers,
>>>go here:
>>>
>>>http://www.bartleby.com/65/dr/DredScot.html
>>>
>>>Note the phrase, "which had, in fact, been voided by the Kansas-Nebraska
>>>Act of 1854..."
>>
>>
>> <LOL> I also pointed that fact out to Jamieson after he ignorantly
>> claimed that Lincoln was going to uphold it.
>>
>
>He got the details wrong, and so did you. Get over it.
I got nothing wrong and Zepp's statement that Lincoln was going to
uphold the Missouri Compromise was totally wrong. <LOL>
Zepp is a moron, much like yourself, Milt.
>>>For those who know anything about the law, the word "moot" comes to mind...
>>
>>
>> <LOL> So Zepp claimed that Lincoln was going to uphold the Missouri
>> Compromise after it had been voided *and* declared unconstitutional.
>> What a moron...
>>
>It wasn't "voided," it was superseded. And it's not possible for a law
>that doesn't exist to be declared "unconstitutional."
<LOL> It was my cite that said it was voided, Milt, you that quoted
it.
>Zepp's basic premise was ignored in favor of your errant obsession with
>one detail. Read up on the history of the era, and you'll see that, as a
>political era, it was unprecedented. All sorts of people did things they
>couldn't do.
Zepp's basic premise was that Lincoln was going to uphold the Missouri
Compromise and was totally wrong.
>Kinda like Bush v Gore. Imagine declaring the counting of votes illegal
>and then slipping in a statement that the declaration is only good for
>that case and no other...
>
>>>>>>"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep. Individual people pay personal income taxes. Corporations pay
>>>>>corporate taxes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And corporate taxes are always passed on to people.
>>>
>>>So is the cost of pens and light bulbs. That doesn't mean "the people"
>>>buy IBM's light bulbs.
>>
>>
>> Of course. All of the corporations expenses are passed on to people.
>>
>That's one of those statements that means nothing.
Except that it's true and makes your claim to the contrary untrue...
>>>At least try to think about the "logic." If IBM doesn't pay its taxes
>>>because its money comes from others, you don't pay your taxes, either.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep. A corporation is a certificate sitting in a Secretary of State's
>>>>>office.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><LOL> So you think that a certificate pays taxes?
>>>
>>>A corporation does, yes. You're too narrow-minded to actually figure
>>>that out, aren't you.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
>>>>>>on the corporation he says he created
>>>>>
>>>>>The fact that I never said such a thing makes you not only stupid, but a
>>>>>liar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why would you mind?
>>>
>>>Just another nail in your credibility coffin.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> I note that you didn't answer the question.
>>
>Just another example of your reading deficiency. I did answer the question.
I skipped the question.
>>>>>>"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
>>>>>
>>>>>No gender discrimination is legal. The problem is, you don't know the
>>>>>definition of legal discrimination.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><LOL> There are many forms of legal gender discrimination, you moron,
>>>>including discrimination against one gender when selecting someone to
>>>>date.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is not legal discrimination, you idiot.
>>
>>
>> Huh? You think it's not legal to discriminate when selecting someone
>> to date?
>>
>
>No. I didn't say that. Again with the reading comprehension problem. NO
>gender discrimination is legal. You figure it out.
If I discriminate on the basis of gender, that is gender
discrimination, and if that gender discrimination is allowed by the
law it is legal gender discrimination.
<LOL> I can only imagine Milt's dismay at seeing my response to his
challenge of showing him gender discrimination allowed by law where I
posted a big long list.
>>>Like I said, you're too stupid for words.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> You challenged me to provide three examples
>> of gender discrimination that the law allowed, Milt,
>
>No. I challenged you to come up with three examples of legal gender
>discrimination.
You challenged me to provide three examples of sexual discrimination
that the law allowed, Milt.
Here's my original claim and your challenge.
*******************************************************************************
Steve:
"Of course the law *DOES* allow for plenty of discrimination in sex,
you moron. Discrimination based on sex is only outlawed in a few
areas such as hiring practice and housing. I'm quite free to practice
sexual discrimination in lots of areas."
Milt:
"Besides separate bathrooms, name three."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=g3cfmvo67gkhipunni4vt95jtc7stbtmq1%404ax.com
*******************************************************************************
>You really should get that reading thing fixed.
Irony anyone?
Once again, Milt is shown to be a moron and a liar.
> > and I produced
>> far more than three. I cannot imagine why you would think that
>> something that was "allowed" by the law would be anything but "legal."
>
>Your problem is, you don't understand the concept of legal
>discrimination. Not surprising. You're the most ignorant idiot on Usenet.
OK, explain how discrimination that is not illegal can be anything
but legal discrimination.
'
Do it right here:
____________________________________________________________
>> As usual, Milt said something very stupid and I slapped him down for
>> it and now he's backpeddling.
>>
>
>I haven't backpedaled. I haven't changed my argument at all. No gender
>discrimination is legal. You're trying to change the definition of legal
>discrimination to "being discriminating, personally." It's not the same
>thing.
here's another chance...
explain how discrimination that is not illegal can be anything but
legal discrimination.
'
Do it right here:
____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>"Attacking the movie? Not me."
>>>>>
>>>>>>"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
>>>>>>"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
>>>>>>and suffering"
>>>>>>"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
>>>>>>fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't recall anyone calling for Gibson to burn the prints of the
>>>>>movie, or even take it oout of the theaters. Mike is probably as amazed
>>>>>as I am by the collective mental illness demonstrated by people who feel
>>>>>"blessed" by watching a graphic depiction of the icon of their religion
>>>>>being beaten to death.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No-one expects you to understand it, just like I don't understand why
>>>>all you liberal guys are so willing to emasculate yourselves and act
>>>>like a bunch of frightened old women.
>>>
>>>Why would you think I don't understand it?
>>
>>
>> Obviously you don't understand it or you wouldn't be "amazed" at the
>> people who went to see the movie and who consider the torture and
>> suffering of Jesus as a very special part of their religion.
>>
>Being amazed at the extent of mental illness is not the same as not
>understanding it.
Thinking that other people's belief systems is a mental illness is a
mental deficiency, meaning that you are a moron.
>>>I understand it better than
>>>you think. I grew up Catholic, and I've studied religion quite a bit
>>>since I gave it up for Lent. I have no problem with God, but most
>>>religion seems to be mass psychosis.
>>
>>
>> Speaking from the position of an agnostic, having never been involved
>> in organized religion, I have no problem understanding why people went
>> to the movie and enjoyed the experience.
>>
>
>I never said I didn't understand it. I just find the extent of the mass
>mental illness demonstrated to be frightening. We're a sick society, if
>we think such a sadistic piece of trash is somehow "enlightening."
<LOL> Enlightening?
>>>>My criticism of Ross has nothing to do with his amazement, it has to
>>>>do with his vehement attack on the movie. What makes someone hate a
>>>>movie?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because it sucks. Passion of the Christ was horrible. It was an exercise
>>>in sadism, and anyone who sat through it and felt "blessed" somehow
>>>needs a fucking psychiatrist.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> I suppose you're not attacking it either?
>>
>
>No. I'm not attacking the movie. I'm not attacking anything. I'm making
>an observation. I've watched violent movies before, although not quite
>so graphic and detailed. But never before have people come out of a
>violent movie claiming that they were changed spiritually.
I really feel sorry for you, Milt, being so intolerant of other
people's belief systems, especially when it doesn't even involve you.
I guess it's just an example of you folks with small minds.
>I didn't see
>evangelicals coming out of Saving Private Ryan and becoming anti-war
>activists in droves. The evangelicals didn't come out of Schindler's
>List hugging Jews. But for some reason, these folks sent busloads of the
>"faithful" to see a movie where a man pretending to be the icon of their
>religion was tortured for well over an hour and felt "blessed" for
>having done so.
They went to see a movie about the single most significant event in
their religion, you moron. That the alleged event involved pain and
suffering is also a significant thing.
I'm sure you know all that so your objections are simply the result of
your displeasure at seeing so many people exhibiting beliefs contrary
to your own.
Tat's a sign of your insecurity and nothing more.
>If only so many felt blessed enough to feed the poor and house the
>homeless...
<LOL> What's that got to do with it?
>>>There was nothing spiritual in it; it was
>>>a snuff film. (And yes, I saw it. Thank goodness I didn't pay for it...)
>>
>>
>> IOW, you secularists took a real beating on this issue and you just
>> can't stand it. That's the only reason you guys would be squealing
>> about it so loudly.
>>
>
>(Note that this self-proclaimed "agnostic" is referring to "you
>secularists". Of course, Stevie never understood irony...)
Note what? I am an agnostic but I'M definitely not a secularist. Is
that so difficult for you to understand? Try this:
I don't profess to know if there is a god or not, but I am not at all
intimidated, as you are, by people who do believe in a God. As such,
I am not opposed to those people expressing their beliefs, much as I'm
not opposed to you atheists expressing your beliefs.
>How did "we" take a beating? What issue? I had no problem with the
>movie, per se. But when people come out of there claiming to be
>"changed" it makes me roll my eyes...
You poor fools had to watch as the Christians showed up in droves to
see th movie, and that in spite of all the secularists writing op eds
attacking it. The fact is that the propaganda campaign against the
movie was a "miserable failure." <LOL>
>And even though something like 40 million tickets have been sold for the
>movie, I see no changes in anything from evangelicals. We're still in a
>quagmire in Iraq, we're still doing nothing to stop terrorism, the
>number of homeless continues to rise, and poor people are still
>oppressed. IOW, what issue? It's just a fucking movie, after all.
>
>>>BTW, more than a few friends of mine, some of whom happen to be Jesuits,
>>>felt the same way about it.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> Who cares how you or your friends felt about it? Why would you
>> even bother to relate that?
>>
>> Oh, I see, you think that your opinion, and that of your friends who
>> you probably invented is a valid rebuttal to the many millions of
>> people who thought otherwise.
>
>Jesus, you're an ass. I'm not interested in rebutting you. And why would
>you think the number of people makes an opinion more valid? Are you so
>in need of validation for your opinions that you need to cite "millions
>of people" to feel like you made your point?
<LOL> The number of people does not make it more valid, it only goes
to show that you secularists are a long way away from your achieving
your agenda.
>BTW, despite the fact that it made so much money, more people have not
>seen the movie than have seen it.
so, I guess that means that you do think that the numbers of people
are significant. Thanks for admitting that.
>>>>>>"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
>>>>>
>>>>>>"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
>>>>>>long straight skis nowadays"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
>>>>>>he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
>>>>>>could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
>>>>>>skis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dumbass. "Straight" skis are traditional skis without the beveled edges.
>>>>>I don't know any instructor who would teach a beginner on anything but
>>>>>straight skis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>First of all, skis have always had a side cut.
>>>
>>>That has nothing to do with the concept of "straight skis." It's a
>>>specific type of ski, you moron.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> Dumb ass Arne didn't know that if you take any ski made in the
>> last 150 years and push it up against a "straight" wall you will note
>> that there's a gap between the wall and the ski in the center. The
>> only difference between the older skis and the new hourglass skis is
>> the size of that gap.
>>
>> http://www.skileb.com/lessons/lessons.asp?DocID=124
>>
>
>Know what? I know a lot of gay people with good posture. That doesn't
>make them "straight."
<LOL> Diversion noted...
>You're such a fool...
>>
>>>> The skis I learned on
>>>>back in the fifties were thinner at the waist than at the tips, and
>>>>secondly, the modern hourglass skis are much easier to ski on and
>>>>therefore are *EXACTLY* what instructors teach beginners on.
>>>
>>>No they are not. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
>>
>>
>> Once again Milt open his mouth without know what *he's* talking about.
>> The new hourglass or "parabolic" skis are much easier to ski on.
>> That' why they made them.
>>
>Instructors still don't teach beginners on them. Generally, they teach
>them on whatever they happen to bring. But they prefer to teach them on
>straight skis first. The reason is precisely because they're "easier" to
>ski on. You don't want a beginner learning speed before they've learned
>control.
<LOL> The whole concept of the hourglass skis are that they offer
better control at slower speeds.
"In order to make shorter turns, and thus control speed better on
conventional skis, the skier must pressure the ski, which causes it to
bend."
http://www.skileb.com/lessons/lessons.asp?DocID=124
Your obviously *NOT* a ski instructor. You probably are as rank a
beginner as Arne.
>And the new skis aren't good on all hills. I like to ski moguls, and
>they suck on moguls.
>>
>>
>>>>You probably don't know *any* instructors. You don't seem to know much
>>>>of anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I was an instructor for a year, moron. I'm an excellent skier. Or was,
>>>until my knee blew. Now that it's healed though, I'd probably be back on
>>>the black runs pretty quickly...
>>
>>
>> You don't actually think that I believe you? <LOL> Any instructor
>> wouldn't make the mistake of not realizing that the new hourglass skis
>> are simply an extreme example of something that has been around for a
>> long time.
>
>No one said they've revolutionized the skiing industry. But there is a
>big difference between them and the skis you learned on in the fifties.
>
>> Actually, even the extreme side cuts have themselves been
>> around for a while in the form of custom made skis for the racing
>> crowd.
>
>Okay, so how does that prove Arne wrong? Straight skis are still called
>straight skis.
Generally only by people who never learned about the concept of using
the ski's shape to make carving turns. It took Arne a long time to
understand that skis have never actually been straight. I suspect
that you didn't realize it either until you read my cites.
>>>Straight skis are a type of ski. It doesn't mean they're perfectly
>>>straight. And curved skis confuse beginners, especially adults.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> First, all skis are curved.
>
>Jesus. Are you still on this? No shit. Straight skis have curves. But
>they're still called straight skis.
Only by people who never learned about the concept of using the ski's
shape to make carving turns.
> > The new parabolic skis are simply
>> an extreme example of the same old shape that has been around almost
>> forever.
>>
>They are a completely different shape, if you hold them side by side.
Same shape, only the amount of "parabolic" shape is different.
>> Second, beginning skiers, especially adults, are already confused. As
>> soon as they get through the "only snowplow"stage, and allow the skis
>> to run parallel a little they can utilize the easier turning
>> capabilities of the new hourglass skis.
>>
>
>Beginning skiers don't need "easier." Easier means faster, and you don't
>want beginners going too fast. Control is more important than ease.
>Other instructors might disagree. That doesn't make me wrong.
<LOL> The hourglass shape actually allows the skier to turn more
easily at slower speed and to make more controlled turns. It's
obvious that you're lying about your being a ski instructor, Milt.
>>>Here's a discussion of straight vs shaped skis. Maybe you'll learn
>>>something. I'm not holding my breath...
>>
>>
>>>http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic192
>>
>>
>> You might try learning from the discussions as well. Try this one.
>>
>
>You know, posting the same URL three times doesn't make it three times
>as relevant.
>
Maybe you should try reading it. If you had you'd know that the
hourglass shape actually allows the skier to turn more easily at
slower speed and to make more controlled turns. That's why any
instructor would prefer to have a beginning skier on them.
Keep on demonstrating your status as a moron, Milt. I'm really
enjoying it
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
zepp
<Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote:
And yet you can't quote my reply, despite your obsessive tracking of
everything I do? How strange! It's not LIKE you to miss something
like that.
Except, of course, for when you know you didn't miss anything and just
invented something.
So Parkie, if I can get you nose out of my crotch for a minute, could
you tell me about how YOU would stop terrorism? You'll note that I
approved of Europes's decision to reject bin Laden's offer last week
(and please don't bore us with fairy tales about trips to Africa or
whatever or how you didn't read it; you read everything I post), or
that I was derisive of Italy's decision to negotiate ransom with the
resistance in Iraq.
Doesn't really square with your latest pathetic little troll attempt,
does it?
So obviously, you have to address my original comment, and that means
that rather than capitulating to demands, you have to give terrorists
what they want. The basic issues.
Can you manage that, Parkie, or are you here just to play your endless
silly games?
-
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
then why are you doing it here?
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Steve Canyon
wrote:
How could you, who claim to have a corporation, not understand that
when the corporation pays it's taxes it comes out of your assets
because the corporation is part of your assets?
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Not if they understand that they will not only *not* get their way but
be killed as well.
> If you think picking them off one
>by one will somehow make them so scared that they'll give up eventually,
>then you know little about history. We see them as terrorists; they see
>themselves as freedom fighters.
I don't care what they call themselves. If they threaten me or mine
they are subject to my defending and protecting myself and mine.
>>>How many Americans were killed by Iraqis prior to March of last year?
>>>None. If Americans left Iraq, that happy state of affairs would be
>>>restored.
>>
>>
>> Zepp thinks that Saddam's regime was a "happy state of affairs."
>
>It was certainly better than what's been created in his wake.
No, it's not.
>This was a poorly planned and horribly botched operation, which gets
>worse every day...
Keep telling yourself that.. I certainly don't care..
>>>The funny thing is that American fiction has an entire genre devoted
>>>to "freedom fighters rising up against oppression" -- what Parkie,
>>>this week, is calling "terrorists" "Rambo" "Red Dawn" "Fifth Column"
>>>and even those gawdawful "Battlefield Earth" series by Elron all fit
>>>the genre.
>>
>>
>> Zepp watches too much TV, I think. Well, that's probably because he's
>> too physically unfit to do much of anything but sit on a couch.
>>
>This from a guy who, when he's not pretending to be out on a boat for a
>week or two, spends so much time in front of his computer that most of
>his responses come within minutes of the previous post...
That comes from not having to work...
You think? <LOL>
>>>The message was the same, over and over: beat the oppressor, and then
>>>we can return to being happy and free and live in peace.
>>
>>
>> Zepp's message is to roll over and give in whenever you are
>> threatened.
>>
>
>No, but at the same time you're beating heads, you'd better have a plan
>for what to do after the beating happens, or the beatings will continue.
I have a plan.
>>>I wonder if Parkie knows the real story behind the Tea Revolt in
>>>Boston.
>>>
>>>Let's ask him, shall we?
>>>
>>>Parkie, why did the colonists stage the Boston Tea Party?
>>
>>
>> Here's my post from last august which is probably where *you* learned
>> that it wasn't about the British putting to high a tax on the tea.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7hr1kv8gd7bl2c1msp52rc2tqf4mvohrel%404ax.com
>
>It wasn't about the tea. It was ostensibly about being taxed and
>receiving nothing in return. But why don't you answer Zepp's question.
>WHY was the Boston Tea Party staged, really? I know the real answer, do you?
It was never about being taxed and receiving nothing in return. It
was actually about the British *not* taxing the tea and undercutting
the price.
Oh, and since I've demonstrated my knowledge about the Boston Tea
Party a long time ago, it's only me that can claim not to have just
looked this up recently.
>> here's my post last April where I chided Mhirtsie for thinking that
>> the "Boston Tea Party" was about the British putting to high a tax on
>> the tea.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=v7u4av8j838n6bhp16f9gl966dbjefsmb5%404ax.com
>>
>
>I don't see anything in either one of those posts that demonstrates your
>knowledge of anything except ad hominem.
Well obviously I never believed that it was about the British putting
too high a tax on tea.
>> Face it you moron, I know lots more American History than you will
>> ever know, as is obvious by your stupid claim that Lincoln was going
>> to uphold the Missouri Compromise.
>>
>
>Well, he was going to restore the main concept of the Missouri
>Compromise. Why do you think Taney made the political move to declare
>the law "unconstitutional," despite the fact that it didn't exist.
>
>You don't know all that much...
<LOL> I obviously know more than you and Zepp. See below:
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
zepp
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
Parkie wants us to take individual stands, but he lies about his
identity, his occupation, and. . .well, pretty much everything he
says.
And yet he wants us to take individual stands.
Parkie wants us to live up to standard he can't set for himself.
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 4/30/2001.
Milt
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification **may be proposed by the Congress**;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate."
Congress can propose amendments, and they have to call a convention when
38 state legislatures get together and petition them to. Of course,
since there are no convention rules specified in Article V, who would
you assume would get to make them? Well, since Congress calls the
convention, why would you assume they don't get to make the rules?
I would also reiterate my skepticism that anyone but Congress may amend
the Constitution in any way other than theory. By the time ten states or
so have made petition for a convention, Congress could then propose the
amendments necessary to forestall that. Or do you envision the state
legislatures from 38 states meeting secretly?
>
>>>>IOW, theory is one thing. Practice is another.
>>>
>>>
>>>The issue is not about theory vs. practice. The fact that Congress is
>>>not the only way through which an amendment can be initiated is not
>>>theory, it's a fact, as I educated your dumb ass about.
>>>
>>
>>If it's a fact, dumbass, then why don't you explain to us, briefly,
>>exactly how citizens call a Constitutional Convention?
>
>
> I told you once before that you should actually read Article Five.
Perhaps you should. If Congress calls the convention, who makes the
rules? If someone else, that rule would have to be made by Congress...
> perhaps you should go and do that now. Get back to me when you
> understand what is meant by "Application of the Legislatures of two
> thirds of the several States."
>
I know what it means. It means 38 state legislatures, not a group of
citizens. Of course, given your idiotic mode of "argument," you'll then
make some irrelevant claim about state legislators being citizens.
>
>>>>>>>"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
>>>>>>>want, they stop being terrorists."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
>>>>>>>trying to kill one of his family members
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, he wasn't, and you know that. Which makes you not only stupid, but a
>>>>>>liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's true. If you give terrorists what they want, they do stop being
>>>>>>terrorists. That does not mean you should always give them what they
>>>>>>want, however. Ridding the world of them also stops them from being
>>>>>>terrorists...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Except that Jamieson *was* advocating giving the terrorists what they
>>>>>wanted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, he wasn't. Terrorists aren't born, they're made.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes he was. The question he was responding to was: "Tell us, Zepp,
>>>does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy when the terrorists kill
>>>people then get what they want as a result?"
>>>
>>
>>Then his answer is a non-answer, isn't it. He didn't say it made him
>>warm and fuzzy. It probably makes him sick.
>
>
> <LOL> No, he said no such thing at the time, only that it was a way
> of making the terrorists "stop being terrorists."
>
Well, yeah. Why doesn't that make sense to you? If we kill terrorists,
but the reasons aren't dealt with, then terrorists keep on being
produced. If you're learning nothing else from the Sharon method of
"diplomacy," you should learn that.
So tell us. If, every time you kill one terrorist, foreign policy
choiced create a new terrorist, what have you gained?
>
>>But the fact is, there are
>>only two ways to get rid of terrorists -- kill them or give them what
>>they want. And you have to do both.
>
>
> No, actually, all you have to do is kill them.
>
But if you don't address the root causes, then new terrorists will be
produced every day.
>
>>Kill current terrorists, sure. but
>>to prevent future terrorists, at some point you have to give them
>>something. That's just common sense. Which is why you don't understand
>>the answer...
>
>
> I certainly don't "understand" giving people who threaten me what they
> want, but I don;t expect you old women liberals to understand it.
>
We understand it, and it's stupid. If you kill terrorists and don't
address the reasons they're terrorists, new terrorists are bred. The
cycle has to be broken at some point.
That's what Sharon doesn't get. He's blowing away terrorist leaders and
creating more terrorists in the process.
On a case that wasn't before it, you moron.
>
>>How do you declare a law unconstitutional when the law doesn't exist?
>
>
> Simple, just as Taney did it.
Taney also "ruled" that no blacks could become citizens, even if they
were born outside the slave system. I'm sure you've heard of Dred Scott.
IOW, Taney is not somoene you should hitch your star to. As a native
Marylander, I'm embarrassed by Taney's very existence.
>
>
>>The law had already been repeal by the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
>
>
> So? that only makes Zepp's claim even more ignorant.
>
He made a mistake. So did you. In fact, you've gotten more facts wrong
than the people you're whining about.
>
>>Read up on
>>Taney; he was an embarrassment; he was always doing that sort of thing.
>
>
> <LOL>
>
>
>>He should have been impeached...
>>
>>>Once again Milt shows us what a moron he is.
>>>
>>
>>Okay, then, idiot; please explain how the USSC can declare a
>>non-existent law unconstitutional?
>>
>>The word is "mootness". Go look it up in a legal dictionary and get back
>>to us...
>>
>>
>>>>For those who'd like to read the entire section to which Stevie refers,
>>>>go here:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.bartleby.com/65/dr/DredScot.html
>>>>
>>>>Note the phrase, "which had, in fact, been voided by the Kansas-Nebraska
>>>>Act of 1854..."
>>>
>>>
>>><LOL> I also pointed that fact out to Jamieson after he ignorantly
>>>claimed that Lincoln was going to uphold it.
>>>
>>
>>He got the details wrong, and so did you. Get over it.
>
>
> I got nothing wrong and Zepp's statement that Lincoln was going to
> uphold the Missouri Compromise was totally wrong. <LOL>
You got nothing wrong? You claimed that a law that didn't exist was
ruled unconstitutional. That's an impossibility. Again; get yourself a
law dictionary and look up "mootness". If a ruling is moot when it's
made, the ruling has no effect.
> Zepp is a moron, much like yourself, Milt.
>
Yeah, whatever. All I know is, you're ignorance is on display in spades
here...
<snip>
>>Zepp's basic premise was ignored in favor of your errant obsession with
>>one detail. Read up on the history of the era, and you'll see that, as a
>>political era, it was unprecedented. All sorts of people did things they
>>couldn't do.
>
>
> Zepp's basic premise was that Lincoln was going to uphold the Missouri
> Compromise and was totally wrong.
>
Not totally. Lincoln was going to uphold the premise of the Missouri
Compromise, if not the actual law. That's what had your hero, the racist
Taney, so scared...
<snip>
>>>>So is the cost of pens and light bulbs. That doesn't mean "the people"
>>>>buy IBM's light bulbs.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course. All of the corporations expenses are passed on to people.
>>>
>>
>>That's one of those statements that means nothing.
>
>
> Except that it's true and makes your claim to the contrary untrue...
No it doesn't. Just because a human creates a corporation and a human
runs the corporation's daily basis, and a human writes the check on the
corporate account, does not mean "people" pay corporate taxes.
And again, though you continue to ignore it, your premise means that you
don't believe you pay your taxes, because someone else gave you the
money to begin with. Your expenses have always been paid by someone
else, according to your very own premise.
<snip>
>>>>>>>"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No gender discrimination is legal. The problem is, you don't know the
>>>>>>definition of legal discrimination.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><LOL> There are many forms of legal gender discrimination, you moron,
>>>>>including discrimination against one gender when selecting someone to
>>>>>date.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is not legal discrimination, you idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? You think it's not legal to discriminate when selecting someone
>>>to date?
>>>
>>
>>No. I didn't say that. Again with the reading comprehension problem. NO
>>gender discrimination is legal. You figure it out.
>
>
> If I discriminate on the basis of gender, that is gender
> discrimination, and if that gender discrimination is allowed by the
> law it is legal gender discrimination.
You're clueless.
1. Note the "allow" in quotes in my original statement.
2. Your "being allowed" to make choices is not legal discrimination.
Legal discrimination has a specific definition.
>
> <LOL> I can only imagine Milt's dismay at seeing my response to his
> challenge of showing him gender discrimination allowed by law where I
> posted a big long list.
>
You'd have to only imagine it, because I've been laughing at you ever
since.
Imagine, a guy who whines about "liberals" wanting to create a "nanny
state" who thinks that everything he does that isn't against a specific
law is "allowed" by the government...
Why wouldn't we laugh?
>
>>>>Like I said, you're too stupid for words.
>>>
>>>
>>><LOL> You challenged me to provide three examples
>>>of gender discrimination that the law allowed, Milt,
>>
>>No. I challenged you to come up with three examples of legal gender
>>discrimination.
>
>
> You challenged me to provide three examples of sexual discrimination
> that the law allowed, Milt.
>
> Here's my original claim and your challenge.
>
> *******************************************************************************
> Steve:
> "Of course the law *DOES* allow for plenty of discrimination in sex,
> you moron. Discrimination based on sex is only outlawed in a few
> areas such as hiring practice and housing. I'm quite free to practice
> sexual discrimination in lots of areas."
>
> Milt:
> "Besides separate bathrooms, name three."
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=g3cfmvo67gkhipunni4vt95jtc7stbtmq1%404ax.com
>
> *******************************************************************************
>
Actually, I was wrong about the bathroom thing. There are only a few
jurisdictions in the country that mandate separate bathrooms...
But you still don't get it. That's okay... someday you'll be a big boy...
>>You really should get that reading thing fixed.
>
>
> Irony anyone?
>
> Once again, Milt is shown to be a moron and a liar.
>
No, once again, you've been shown to be clueless, incapable of reading
comprehension and certainly not capable of understanding nuance.
>>>and I produced
>>>far more than three. I cannot imagine why you would think that
>>>something that was "allowed" by the law would be anything but "legal."
>>
>>Your problem is, you don't understand the concept of legal
>>discrimination. Not surprising. You're the most ignorant idiot on Usenet.
>
>
> OK, explain how discrimination that is not illegal can be anything
> but legal discrimination.
> '
> Do it right here:
>
>
First, what you have to do is learn the term "legal discrimination." I
am not your professor, Stevie. Legal discrimination is not simply
(emphasis on "simple")any choice you make which is not illegal.
<snip>
>>>>>>>"Attacking the movie? Not me."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
>>>>>>>"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
>>>>>>>and suffering"
>>>>>>>"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
>>>>>>>fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't recall anyone calling for Gibson to burn the prints of the
>>>>>>movie, or even take it oout of the theaters. Mike is probably as amazed
>>>>>>as I am by the collective mental illness demonstrated by people who feel
>>>>>>"blessed" by watching a graphic depiction of the icon of their religion
>>>>>>being beaten to death.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No-one expects you to understand it, just like I don't understand why
>>>>>all you liberal guys are so willing to emasculate yourselves and act
>>>>>like a bunch of frightened old women.
>>>>
>>>>Why would you think I don't understand it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously you don't understand it or you wouldn't be "amazed" at the
>>>people who went to see the movie and who consider the torture and
>>>suffering of Jesus as a very special part of their religion.
>>>
>>
>>Being amazed at the extent of mental illness is not the same as not
>>understanding it.
>
>
> Thinking that other people's belief systems is a mental illness is a
> mental deficiency, meaning that you are a moron.
>
I see. So when David Berkowitz told us God was speaking to him through
his dog, that was a belief system and should not be challenged?
At what point DOES a "belief system" become a "mental illness," you moron?
And how come they can believe anything they want unchallenged, but I
can't? Wouldn't that make you mentally deficient, by your own definition?
For the record, I NEVER make fun of religious belief. Seeing a snuff
film featuring a man playing Jesus pretending to be tortured and killed
and thinking you had a spiritual experience is not about religion; it's
about psychosis.
Again; you simply have no concept of nuance...
<snip>
>>>
>>
>>No. I'm not attacking the movie. I'm not attacking anything. I'm making
>>an observation. I've watched violent movies before, although not quite
>>so graphic and detailed. But never before have people come out of a
>>violent movie claiming that they were changed spiritually.
>
>
> I really feel sorry for you, Milt, being so intolerant of other
> people's belief systems, especially when it doesn't even involve you.
> I guess it's just an example of you folks with small minds.
>
I'm not intolerant at all. It's an observation. If they came out of the
movie and stayed killing Jews, I would observe that such a behavior was
wrong, as well. So why are THEY allowed any belief they wish, but I'm
not? Please explain this to us, Stevie the "agnostic." (Talk about a
pussy, is there any greater pussy than an agnostic? He doesn't think
there's a God, but he's too wimpy to say one way or another.)
BTW, fuckwit, I have a very strong belief in God. I just don't happen to
think most religious people practice what they preach. The same people
who saw this movie would be picketing one that was just as violent, but
involved a person named Joe Smith.
>
>>I didn't see
>>evangelicals coming out of Saving Private Ryan and becoming anti-war
>>activists in droves. The evangelicals didn't come out of Schindler's
>>List hugging Jews. But for some reason, these folks sent busloads of the
>>"faithful" to see a movie where a man pretending to be the icon of their
>>religion was tortured for well over an hour and felt "blessed" for
>>having done so.
>
>
> They went to see a movie about the single most significant event in
> their religion, you moron.
If they knew anything about their religion, they would know that what
happened two days later was far more important, and the Pentecost was
more important, as well. Jesus himself said so.
> That the alleged event involved pain and
> suffering is also a significant thing.
That must be why, out of four Gospels, not one went into that much detail.
>
> I'm sure you know all that so your objections are simply the result of
> your displeasure at seeing so many people exhibiting beliefs contrary
> to your own.
>
> Tat's a sign of your insecurity and nothing more.
>
This isn't ironic, coming from a professed "agnostic," is it?
>
>>If only so many felt blessed enough to feed the poor and house the
>>homeless...
>
>
> <LOL> What's that got to do with it?
>
Sigh. Read the Bible, and you'd know...
>
>>>>There was nothing spiritual in it; it was
>>>>a snuff film. (And yes, I saw it. Thank goodness I didn't pay for it...)
>>>
>>>
>>>IOW, you secularists took a real beating on this issue and you just
>>>can't stand it. That's the only reason you guys would be squealing
>>>about it so loudly.
>>>
>>
>>(Note that this self-proclaimed "agnostic" is referring to "you
>>secularists". Of course, Stevie never understood irony...)
>
>
> Note what? I am an agnostic but I'M definitely not a secularist.
That's not denial, is it? You are, by definition, a secularist. You
would have to be, unless you believe that the Christians in the majority
should be able to exclude you from the process because of your professed
agnosticism...
> Is
> that so difficult for you to understand? Try this:
>
> I don't profess to know if there is a god or not, but I am not at all
> intimidated, as you are, by people who do believe in a God.
Why would you think I was intimidated? I have a very strong belief in
God, and I have a strong belief that what Jesus actually said in the
Bible is a great way to live life, and I try to do so wherever possible.
You're mistaking "intimidation" and "disgust." I'm disgusted by people
who claim a belief and don't live by it. Anyone who knows what Jesus was
about knows that the death was only important because it led to his
arising two days later.
> As such,
> I am not opposed to those people expressing their beliefs, much as I'm
> not opposed to you atheists expressing your beliefs.
>
I'm not an atheist. That's the assumption made by a religious pussy, who
is pretty sure there is no God, but is incapable of declaring his faith.
And I have no problem with people expressing their beliefs, but they
don't do that. In fact, most people who express a belief act against it
far too often. George W Bush is a great example of that. I don't care
about Bush's religion, but his professed religious belief and his
actions demonstrate his hypocrisy...
>
>>How did "we" take a beating? What issue? I had no problem with the
>>movie, per se. But when people come out of there claiming to be
>>"changed" it makes me roll my eyes...
>
>
> You poor fools had to watch as the Christians showed up in droves to
> see th movie, and that in spite of all the secularists writing op eds
> attacking it. The fact is that the propaganda campaign against the
> movie was a "miserable failure." <LOL>
>
I never cared about the movie one way or another. I didn't think it was
as anti-semitic as I thought it was just SOOO Catholic. Yuck.
Milt
My turn!! <LOL LOL LOL LOL>
The corporation pays its taxes out of ITS revenue.
I pay my taxes out of my INCOME.
My assets are wholly separate from the corporation's. The law demands
it. That is the reason, you numbnuts, that if someone wants to sue my
corporation, they can't touch my house.
The assets are SEPARATE. Got it?
Not likely. You're far too rock-headed.
Milt
God, it's fascinating to watch a simple mind work.
It's amazing we became a country, based on that sort of thinking. You do
remember how we became a nation, right? We got what we wanted...
>>If you think picking them off one
>>by one will somehow make them so scared that they'll give up eventually,
>>then you know little about history. We see them as terrorists; they see
>>themselves as freedom fighters.
>
>
> I don't care what they call themselves. If they threaten me or mine
> they are subject to my defending and protecting myself and mine.
>
You are so simple. How do you feed yourself? This isn't about the
Russkys coming into the US and taking it. This is about people who have
been oppressed by Westerners for a couple of centuries finally getting
fed up and demanding their sovereignty back. They have the same beef now
that we had 230 years ago. This is their method of trying to get it.
When we're talking about OUR revolution, we refer to them as patriots.
When they're from the Middle East, they're terrorists. Funny how we
don't refer to picking off a guy in a wheelchair with a rocket shot from
a helicopter as "terrorism."
>
>>>>How many Americans were killed by Iraqis prior to March of last year?
>>>>None. If Americans left Iraq, that happy state of affairs would be
>>>>restored.
>>>
>>>
>>>Zepp thinks that Saddam's regime was a "happy state of affairs."
>>
>>It was certainly better than what's been created in his wake.
>
> No, it's not.
>
So you think it's better that Iraq is a hell hole, and that civilians
and US soldiers are getting picked off by the dozen, with no end in
sight? You're weird.
>>This was a poorly planned and horribly botched operation, which gets
>>worse every day...
>
>
> Keep telling yourself that.. I certainly don't care..
>
So what? You think storming Baghdad with too few soldiers, according to
just about every expert, and not doing anything to secure the borders,
and then withdrawing half the troops when you wipe out the only
government the country has had for 25 years, while replacing it with a
group of US-chosen morons, led by an idiot the Iraqis hate, taking over
the presidential palaces instead of turning them over to the Iraqis who
paid for them, and securing the oil fields, but not the locations where
you claimed there were WMDs and allowing the entire country to descend
into chaos demonstrates a great war plan? It's costing us $10 billion a
month, in addition to the $87 billion Bush got previously, and the $200
billion he's hinting at asking for this summer. It's also cost tens of
thousands of lives with no end in sight. This is what you consider a
successful operation?
>>>>The funny thing is that American fiction has an entire genre devoted
>>>>to "freedom fighters rising up against oppression" -- what Parkie,
>>>>this week, is calling "terrorists" "Rambo" "Red Dawn" "Fifth Column"
>>>>and even those gawdawful "Battlefield Earth" series by Elron all fit
>>>>the genre.
>>>
>>>
>>>Zepp watches too much TV, I think. Well, that's probably because he's
>>>too physically unfit to do much of anything but sit on a couch.
>>>
>>
>>This from a guy who, when he's not pretending to be out on a boat for a
>>week or two, spends so much time in front of his computer that most of
>>his responses come within minutes of the previous post...
>
> That comes from not having to work...
The only reason I'm on here is because I DO work. If I wasn't working, I
can think of a thousand other things to do than to monitor Usenet.
Especially if I had millions and all of that free time. <g>
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Got any proof that I'm not exactly what I said I am?
Of course you don't.
Like always, you're full of bluster and bullshit that you can't back
up.
But I do have proof of you lying about your status as an alien.
>And yet he wants us to take individual stands.
<LOL> Why would I want you to do that?
>Parkie wants us to live up to standard he can't set for himself.
<LMAO> I know better than to ask you to live up to my standards. You
couldn't even begin to live up to my standards. To begin with, you
couldn't hope to keep up with me on my morning runs and I only have
one leg. I'm also pretty sure that I do more work in the several
places that I volunteer than you do to make a living.
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Steve Canyon
wrote:
<LOL> I "imagine" that congress can only do what the Constitution
says they can do and that is to call the convention. I also imagine
that after having done so, the convention can decide on their own
rules and that those rules may well involve refusing to allow the
congress any say in the proces.
>I would also reiterate my skepticism that anyone but Congress may amend
>the Constitution in any way other than theory. By the time ten states or
>so have made petition for a convention, Congress could then propose the
>amendments necessary to forestall that. Or do you envision the state
>legislatures from 38 states meeting secretly?
Why on earth would they have to meet secretly. The congress could
propose anything they want but the states could simply ignore the
congress and go on without them.
>>>>>IOW, theory is one thing. Practice is another.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The issue is not about theory vs. practice. The fact that Congress is
>>>>not the only way through which an amendment can be initiated is not
>>>>theory, it's a fact, as I educated your dumb ass about.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If it's a fact, dumbass, then why don't you explain to us, briefly,
>>>exactly how citizens call a Constitutional Convention?
<LOL> Citizens? Why not the state legislatures as specified in the
Constitution. You really ought to go read the thing, Milt. You're
really making an ass of yourself... again.
>> I told you once before that you should actually read Article Five.
>
>Perhaps you should. If Congress calls the convention, who makes the
>rules? If someone else, that rule would have to be made by Congress...
Where is that specified?
It isn't. It's purely conjecture on your part.
>> perhaps you should go and do that now. Get back to me when you
>> understand what is meant by "Application of the Legislatures of two
>> thirds of the several States."
>>
>I know what it means. It means 38 state legislatures, not a group of
>citizens. Of course, given your idiotic mode of "argument," you'll then
>make some irrelevant claim about state legislators being citizens.
Yes, 38 state legislatures can have their convention and can ratify
the thing in one sitting while at the same time refusing to allow the
federal congress through the door. Theoretically, those 38 states can
abolish the entire federal government and the congress cannot legally
stop them.
HUH? so you tell me why that would be the case?
>>>But the fact is, there are
>>>only two ways to get rid of terrorists -- kill them or give them what
>>>they want. And you have to do both.
>>
>>
>> No, actually, all you have to do is kill them.
>>
>But if you don't address the root causes, then new terrorists will be
>produced every day.
Bullshit. If that were always the case us American Indians would
still be scalping you paleface cowards.
>>>Kill current terrorists, sure. but
>>>to prevent future terrorists, at some point you have to give them
>>>something. That's just common sense. Which is why you don't understand
>>>the answer...
>>
>>
>> I certainly don't "understand" giving people who threaten me what they
>> want, but I don;t expect you old women liberals to understand it.
>>
>
>We understand it, and it's stupid. If you kill terrorists and don't
>address the reasons they're terrorists, new terrorists are bred. The
>cycle has to be broken at some point.
That's what you say, but you can't demonstrate that it's always the
truth. At any rate, I'll take my chances killing the MFers as fast as
they are made.
>That's what Sharon doesn't get. He's blowing away terrorist leaders and
>creating more terrorists in the process.
Well, if you were smart enough to be a head of state you wouldn't be
looking for someone to pay your tuition, would you?
<LOL> So you think that it wasn't a "legal decision?"
>>
>>>How do you declare a law unconstitutional when the law doesn't exist?
>>
>>
>> Simple, just as Taney did it.
>
>Taney also "ruled" that no blacks could become citizens, even if they
>were born outside the slave system. I'm sure you've heard of Dred Scott.
>IOW, Taney is not somoene you should hitch your star to. As a native
>Marylander, I'm embarrassed by Taney's very existence.
Hitch my star? <LOL> I just quoted what he said. You need to take a
time out again, Milt. You're getting pretty shrill.
>>>The law had already been repeal by the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
>>
>>
>> So? that only makes Zepp's claim even more ignorant.
>>
>
>He made a mistake. So did you. In fact, you've gotten more facts wrong
>than the people you're whining about.
I'e made no mistake on this issue. If I had you'd have documented it
here and you haven't.
>>>Read up on
>>>Taney; he was an embarrassment; he was always doing that sort of thing.
>>
>>
>> <LOL>
>>
>>
>>>He should have been impeached...
>>>
>>>>Once again Milt shows us what a moron he is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Okay, then, idiot; please explain how the USSC can declare a
>>>non-existent law unconstitutional?
>>>
>>>The word is "mootness". Go look it up in a legal dictionary and get back
>>>to us...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>For those who'd like to read the entire section to which Stevie refers,
>>>>>go here:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.bartleby.com/65/dr/DredScot.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Note the phrase, "which had, in fact, been voided by the Kansas-Nebraska
>>>>>Act of 1854..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><LOL> I also pointed that fact out to Jamieson after he ignorantly
>>>>claimed that Lincoln was going to uphold it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He got the details wrong, and so did you. Get over it.
>>
>>
>> I got nothing wrong and Zepp's statement that Lincoln was going to
>> uphold the Missouri Compromise was totally wrong. <LOL>
>
>You got nothing wrong? You claimed that a law that didn't exist was
>ruled unconstitutional.
Yep, and I showed you proof. Right out of the chief justices
decision.
>That's an impossibility. Again; get yourself a
>law dictionary and look up "mootness". If a ruling is moot when it's
>made, the ruling has no effect.
But yet the ruling was made. Just as I said.
>> Zepp is a moron, much like yourself, Milt.
>>
>Yeah, whatever. All I know is, you're ignorance is on display in spades
>here...
>
><snip>
>
> >>Zepp's basic premise was ignored in favor of your errant obsession with
>>>one detail. Read up on the history of the era, and you'll see that, as a
>>>political era, it was unprecedented. All sorts of people did things they
>>>couldn't do.
>>
>>
>> Zepp's basic premise was that Lincoln was going to uphold the Missouri
>> Compromise and was totally wrong.
>>
>
>Not totally. Lincoln was going to uphold the premise of the Missouri
>Compromise, if not the actual law. That's what had your hero, the racist
>Taney, so scared...
<LOL> Lincoln was going to do no such thing. <LOL> Get an eighth
grade history book you moron.
><snip>
>
>>>>>So is the cost of pens and light bulbs. That doesn't mean "the people"
>>>>>buy IBM's light bulbs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course. All of the corporations expenses are passed on to people.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's one of those statements that means nothing.
>>
>>
>> Except that it's true and makes your claim to the contrary untrue...
>
>No it doesn't. Just because a human creates a corporation and a human
>runs the corporation's daily basis, and a human writes the check on the
>corporate account, does not mean "people" pay corporate taxes.
But they always do.
>And again, though you continue to ignore it, your premise means that you
>don't believe you pay your taxes, because someone else gave you the
>money to begin with. Your expenses have always been paid by someone
>else, according to your very own premise.
><snip>
Bullshit. Things are only passed along to others when it effects them
as such. The fact that someone pays another wages is vastly different
than the fact that a stockholder suffers the effects of a
corporation's taxes. The employer does not so suffer. I'm getting
real tired of you trying to promote that ridiculous premise.
>>>>>>>>"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No gender discrimination is legal. The problem is, you don't know the
>>>>>>>definition of legal discrimination.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><LOL> There are many forms of legal gender discrimination, you moron,
>>>>>>including discrimination against one gender when selecting someone to
>>>>>>date.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That is not legal discrimination, you idiot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Huh? You think it's not legal to discriminate when selecting someone
>>>>to date?
>>>>
>>>
>>>No. I didn't say that. Again with the reading comprehension problem. NO
>>>gender discrimination is legal. You figure it out.
>>
>>
>> If I discriminate on the basis of gender, that is gender
>> discrimination, and if that gender discrimination is allowed by the
>> law it is legal gender discrimination.
>
>You're clueless.
You're incapable of refuting me.
>1. Note the "allow" in quotes in my original statement.
>2. Your "being allowed" to make choices is not legal discrimination.
>Legal discrimination has a specific definition.
Yeah, it means discrimination that is legal. As in choosing a female
or male lawyer.
You totally lost this on again, Milt. there are many, many legal ways
that I can discriminate on the basis of sex, or even race, if I so
choose.
>> <LOL> I can only imagine Milt's dismay at seeing my response to his
>> challenge of showing him gender discrimination allowed by law where I
>> posted a big long list.
>>
>
>You'd have to only imagine it, because I've been laughing at you ever
>since.
>
>Imagine, a guy who whines about "liberals" wanting to create a "nanny
>state" who thinks that everything he does that isn't against a specific
>law is "allowed" by the government...
<LOL> Milt thinks that such is not the case? Try to understand that
to "allow" something simply means that there are no restrictions
against it.
>Why wouldn't we laugh?
I see a guy down on the beach every morning that does nothing but
laugh and laugh. Well, actually, that's not all he does. Sometimes
he picks his nose and offers it to the sand rats.
>>>>>Like I said, you're too stupid for words.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><LOL> You challenged me to provide three examples
>>>>of gender discrimination that the law allowed, Milt,
>>>
>>>No. I challenged you to come up with three examples of legal gender
>>>discrimination.
>>
>>
>> You challenged me to provide three examples of sexual discrimination
>> that the law allowed, Milt.
>>
>> Here's my original claim and your challenge.
>>
>> *******************************************************************************
>> Steve:
>> "Of course the law *DOES* allow for plenty of discrimination in sex,
>> you moron. Discrimination based on sex is only outlawed in a few
>> areas such as hiring practice and housing. I'm quite free to practice
>> sexual discrimination in lots of areas."
>>
>> Milt:
>> "Besides separate bathrooms, name three."
>>
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=g3cfmvo67gkhipunni4vt95jtc7stbtmq1%404ax.com
>>
>> *******************************************************************************
>>
>Actually, I was wrong about the bathroom thing. There are only a few
>jurisdictions in the country that mandate separate bathrooms...
>
>But you still don't get it. That's okay... someday you'll be a big boy...
<LOL> "get" that you screwed up again.... I think everybody else does
too.
>>>You really should get that reading thing fixed.
>>
>>
>> Irony anyone?
>>
>> Once again, Milt is shown to be a moron and a liar.
>>
>
>No, once again, you've been shown to be clueless, incapable of reading
>comprehension and certainly not capable of understanding nuance.
IOW, you got beat once again.
>>>>and I produced
>>>>far more than three. I cannot imagine why you would think that
>>>>something that was "allowed" by the law would be anything but "legal."
>>>
>>>Your problem is, you don't understand the concept of legal
>>>discrimination. Not surprising. You're the most ignorant idiot on Usenet.
>>
>>
>> OK, explain how discrimination that is not illegal can be anything
>> but legal discrimination.
>> '
>> Do it right here:
>>
>>
>First, what you have to do is learn the term "legal discrimination." I
>am not your professor, Stevie. Legal discrimination is not simply
>(emphasis on "simple")any choice you make which is not illegal.
IOW, you cannot explain how discrimination that is not illegal can be
anything but legal discrimination.
><snip>
I see no reason to challenge his belief system. We should, OTOH,
challenge what he did.
>At what point DOES a "belief system" become a "mental illness," you moron?
When it's not in the norm...
You think?
>And how come they can believe anything they want unchallenged, but I
>can't? Wouldn't that make you mentally deficient, by your own definition?
Where did I ever say you couldn't believe whatever you want, Milt?
Gee, if you couldn't believe all the drivel that you believe I
wouldn't have nearly as much fun poking fun at you.
>For the record, I NEVER make fun of religious belief. Seeing a snuff
>film featuring a man playing Jesus pretending to be tortured and killed
>and thinking you had a spiritual experience is not about religion; it's
>about psychosis.
For the record, that's exactly what Ross was doing and I'm pretty sure
that was what you were doing too.
>Again; you simply have no concept of nuance...
><snip>
Saying that people who have a religious belief that their sins are
washed away by the suffering of Christ is mental illness is not
nuance, you moron. You need to look up the word.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No. I'm not attacking the movie. I'm not attacking anything. I'm making
>>>an observation. I've watched violent movies before, although not quite
>>>so graphic and detailed. But never before have people come out of a
>>>violent movie claiming that they were changed spiritually.
>>
>>
>> I really feel sorry for you, Milt, being so intolerant of other
>> people's belief systems, especially when it doesn't even involve you.
>> I guess it's just an example of you folks with small minds.
>>
>
>I'm not intolerant at all.
<ROTFLMAO> That's a keeper...
>It's an observation. If they came out of the
>movie and stayed killing Jews, I would observe that such a behavior was
>wrong, as well. So why are THEY allowed any belief they wish, but I'm
>not?
Again, where have I challenged your right to believe whatever you
like?
>Please explain this to us, Stevie the "agnostic." (Talk about a
>pussy, is there any greater pussy than an agnostic? He doesn't think
>there's a God, but he's too wimpy to say one way or another.)
<LOL> An agnostic is simply somebody that doesn't necessarily need to
have an answer to that question. It's probably because I am just more
secure with myself than you.
>BTW, fuckwit, I have a very strong belief in God. I just don't happen to
>think most religious people practice what they preach. The same people
>who saw this movie would be picketing one that was just as violent, but
>involved a person named Joe Smith.
Pure conjecture on your part. You do that to try to justify what you
can not otherwise justify. That's pretty pathetic.
>>>I didn't see
>>>evangelicals coming out of Saving Private Ryan and becoming anti-war
>>>activists in droves. The evangelicals didn't come out of Schindler's
>>>List hugging Jews. But for some reason, these folks sent busloads of the
>>>"faithful" to see a movie where a man pretending to be the icon of their
>>>religion was tortured for well over an hour and felt "blessed" for
>>>having done so.
>>
>>
>> They went to see a movie about the single most significant event in
>> their religion, you moron.
>
>If they knew anything about their religion, they would know that what
>happened two days later was far more important, and the Pentecost was
>more important, as well. Jesus himself said so.
<LOL> So now you think you get to determine what is important to
other people?
>> That the alleged event involved pain and
>> suffering is also a significant thing.
>
>That must be why, out of four Gospels, not one went into that much detail.
Actually, there's significant detail. It's only that a movie picture
can actually make the images graphic.
>> I'm sure you know all that so your objections are simply the result of
>> your displeasure at seeing so many people exhibiting beliefs contrary
>> to your own.
>>
>> Tat's a sign of your insecurity and nothing more.
>>
>
>This isn't ironic, coming from a professed "agnostic," is it?
Not at all. Some people, you, for instance, simply aren't secure
enough to accept that there are some things that simply cannot be
known.
>>>If only so many felt blessed enough to feed the poor and house the
>>>homeless...
>>
>>
>> <LOL> What's that got to do with it?
>>
>
>Sigh. Read the Bible, and you'd know...
Feeding the poor and housing the homeless have nothing to do with
Christ's crucifixion, which is what the movie was about, you moron.
>>>>>There was nothing spiritual in it; it was
>>>>>a snuff film. (And yes, I saw it. Thank goodness I didn't pay for it...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>IOW, you secularists took a real beating on this issue and you just
>>>>can't stand it. That's the only reason you guys would be squealing
>>>>about it so loudly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>(Note that this self-proclaimed "agnostic" is referring to "you
>>>secularists". Of course, Stevie never understood irony...)
>>
>>
>> Note what? I am an agnostic but I'M definitely not a secularist.
>
>That's not denial, is it? You are, by definition, a secularist.
Nope, sorry, I'm not.
>You
>would have to be, unless you believe that the Christians in the majority
>should be able to exclude you from the process because of your professed
>agnosticism...
Or that I was simply not concerned about it.
> > Is
>> that so difficult for you to understand? Try this:
>>
>> I don't profess to know if there is a god or not, but I am not at all
>> intimidated, as you are, by people who do believe in a God.
>
>Why would you think I was intimidated? I have a very strong belief in
>God, and I have a strong belief that what Jesus actually said in the
>Bible is a great way to live life, and I try to do so wherever possible.
> You're mistaking "intimidation" and "disgust." I'm disgusted by people
>who claim a belief and don't live by it. Anyone who knows what Jesus was
>about knows that the death was only important because it led to his
>arising two days later.
<LOL> You actually have no idea what is in the minds and hearts of
people who went to the movie. What bothers you and Ross about it is
that there was a lot of people who did go to see it.
>> As such,
>> I am not opposed to those people expressing their beliefs, much as I'm
>> not opposed to you atheists expressing your beliefs.
>>
>
>I'm not an atheist. That's the assumption made by a religious pussy, who
>is pretty sure there is no God, but is incapable of declaring his faith.
<LOL> Pretty sure there is no god am I?
>And I have no problem with people expressing their beliefs, but they
>don't do that.
Who doesn't? The people who went to see the movie? How would you
know that?
> In fact, most people who express a belief act against it
>far too often. George W Bush is a great example of that. I don't care
>about Bush's religion, but his professed religious belief and his
>actions demonstrate his hypocrisy...
More of Milt's opinions...
>>>How did "we" take a beating? What issue? I had no problem with the
>>>movie, per se. But when people come out of there claiming to be
>>>"changed" it makes me roll my eyes...
>>
>>
>> You poor fools had to watch as the Christians showed up in droves to
>> see th movie, and that in spite of all the secularists writing op eds
>> attacking it. The fact is that the propaganda campaign against the
>> movie was a "miserable failure." <LOL>
>>
>
>I never cared about the movie one way or another. I didn't think it was
>as anti-semitic as I thought it was just SOOO Catholic. Yuck.
<LOL> More of Milt's opinions... <sigh>
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
Steve Canyon
wrote:
But since the corporation is indeed one of my assets......
Just as a stockholder's assets include his stock assets. When the
value of the corporation's assets are reduced, the value of the
stockholder's stock goes down.
You cannot get around this fact with your word games, Milt.
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
Steve Canyon
wrote:
That *WAS* your reply, you moron.
>Except, of course, for when you know you didn't miss anything and just
>invented something.
>
>So Parkie, if I can get you nose out of my crotch for a minute, could
>you tell me about how YOU would stop terrorism?
Simple, kill the terrorists. All of them, if need be. Bang, bang. No
mercy.
>You'll note that I
>approved of Europes's decision to reject bin Laden's offer last week
>(and please don't bore us with fairy tales about trips to Africa or
>whatever or how you didn't read it; you read everything I post), or
>that I was derisive of Italy's decision to negotiate ransom with the
>resistance in Iraq.
>
>Doesn't really square with your latest pathetic little troll attempt,
>does it?
>
>So obviously, you have to address my original comment, and that means
>that rather than capitulating to demands, you have to give terrorists
>what they want. The basic issues.
No you don't. you simply kill them off until they decide not to be
terrorists any more.
>Can you manage that, Parkie, or are you here just to play your endless
>silly games?
I can't imagine giving terrorists anything but a short quick burst.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
You probably though you had a point there. Why not share it with us?
>>>If you think picking them off one
>>>by one will somehow make them so scared that they'll give up eventually,
>>>then you know little about history. We see them as terrorists; they see
>>>themselves as freedom fighters.
>>
>>
>> I don't care what they call themselves. If they threaten me or mine
>> they are subject to my defending and protecting myself and mine.
>>
>
>You are so simple. How do you feed yourself? This isn't about the
>Russkys coming into the US and taking it. This is about people who have
>been oppressed by Westerners for a couple of centuries
Oh bullshit! Nobody has been repressing them but their own corrupt
leaders.
> finally getting
>fed up and demanding their sovereignty back. They have the same beef now
>that we had 230 years ago. This is their method of trying to get it.
>When we're talking about OUR revolution, we refer to them as patriots.
>When they're from the Middle East, they're terrorists. Funny how we
>don't refer to picking off a guy in a wheelchair with a rocket shot from
> a helicopter as "terrorism."
He was a terrorist himself. Picking him off was the right thing to
do.
>>>>>How many Americans were killed by Iraqis prior to March of last year?
>>>>>None. If Americans left Iraq, that happy state of affairs would be
>>>>>restored.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Zepp thinks that Saddam's regime was a "happy state of affairs."
>>>
>>>It was certainly better than what's been created in his wake.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>>
>So you think it's better that Iraq is a hell hole, and that civilians
>and US soldiers are getting picked off by the dozen, with no end in
>sight? You're weird.
<LOL> You act as though you think you know what's going on there. I
assure that you don't. Most Iraqis believe that they are better off
and many more believe that they will be even better of soon.
>>>This was a poorly planned and horribly botched operation, which gets
>>>worse every day...
>>
>>
>> Keep telling yourself that.. I certainly don't care..
>>
>
>So what? You think storming Baghdad with too few soldiers, according to
>just about every expert, and not doing anything to secure the borders,
>and then withdrawing half the troops when you wipe out the only
>government the country has had for 25 years, while replacing it with a
>group of US-chosen morons, led by an idiot the Iraqis hate, taking over
>the presidential palaces instead of turning them over to the Iraqis who
>paid for them, and securing the oil fields, but not the locations where
>you claimed there were WMDs and allowing the entire country to descend
>into chaos demonstrates a great war plan? It's costing us $10 billion a
>month, in addition to the $87 billion Bush got previously, and the $200
>billion he's hinting at asking for this summer. It's also cost tens of
>thousands of lives with no end in sight. This is what you consider a
>successful operation?
I simply don;t consider a moron like you to be a proper judge of such
things.
>>>>>The funny thing is that American fiction has an entire genre devoted
>>>>>to "freedom fighters rising up against oppression" -- what Parkie,
>>>>>this week, is calling "terrorists" "Rambo" "Red Dawn" "Fifth Column"
>>>>>and even those gawdawful "Battlefield Earth" series by Elron all fit
>>>>>the genre.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Zepp watches too much TV, I think. Well, that's probably because he's
>>>>too physically unfit to do much of anything but sit on a couch.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This from a guy who, when he's not pretending to be out on a boat for a
>>>week or two, spends so much time in front of his computer that most of
>>>his responses come within minutes of the previous post...
>>
>> That comes from not having to work...
>
>The only reason I'm on here is because I DO work.
You work on Sunday too?
>If I wasn't working, I
>can think of a thousand other things to do than to monitor Usenet.
Monitor? I suppose that I spend about an hour a day on usenet all
told. I call it my entertainment.
>Especially if I had millions and all of that free time. <g>
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
Milt
There's no "up" to your standards.
> You
> couldn't even begin to live up to my standards.
Yeah, Zepp. You actually HAVE a conscience and a brain.
> To begin with, you
> couldn't hope to keep up with me on my morning runs and I only have
> one leg. I'm also pretty sure that I do more work in the several
> places that I volunteer than you do to make a living.
>
Gosh, what a saint he is.
Given his demonstrated hatred for the poor and downtrodden, one must
wonder which homeless-kicking group he volunteers for...
Milt
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:45:16 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>
<snip>
Okay, then, define the form of the convention. Who represents what? How
many votes does it take to pass an amendment? How is the amendment
formed? Who decides on the wording? Where is the convention? How long is
the convention? How many votes are taken before the convention is
disbanded?
No details in the Constitution. That means Congress makes the rules. How
do I know? Article I, Section 8.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof."
Got it?
You're too stupid to be believed, and yet you're so cocksure in your
stupidity.
> I also imagine
> that after having done so, the convention can decide on their own
> rules and that those rules may well involve refusing to allow the
> congress any say in the proces.
Instead of imagining what the Constitution says, how about reading the
fucking thing?
>
>
>>I would also reiterate my skepticism that anyone but Congress may amend
>>the Constitution in any way other than theory. By the time ten states or
>>so have made petition for a convention, Congress could then propose the
>>amendments necessary to forestall that. Or do you envision the state
>>legislatures from 38 states meeting secretly?
>
>
> Why on earth would they have to meet secretly. The congress could
> propose anything they want but the states could simply ignore the
> congress and go on without them.
>
If Congress already proposes a similar or even identical amendment to
the one they were meeting to propose, (assuming you could get 38 states
-- most of which have differing rules for such things -- to propose
something), then there would be no reason to petition for a convention,
would there?
>>>>>>IOW, theory is one thing. Practice is another.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The issue is not about theory vs. practice. The fact that Congress is
>>>>>not the only way through which an amendment can be initiated is not
>>>>>theory, it's a fact, as I educated your dumb ass about.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If it's a fact, dumbass, then why don't you explain to us, briefly,
>>>>exactly how citizens call a Constitutional Convention?
>
>
> <LOL> Citizens? Why not the state legislatures as specified in the
> Constitution. You really ought to go read the thing, Milt. You're
> really making an ass of yourself... again.
>
This from someone who just suggested that Congress wouldn't make the
rules for the Constitutional Convention...
>
>>>I told you once before that you should actually read Article Five.
>>
>>Perhaps you should. If Congress calls the convention, who makes the
>>rules? If someone else, that rule would have to be made by Congress...
>
> Where is that specified?
>
> It isn't. It's purely conjecture on your part.
>
No it isn't. It's the infamous Article I, Section 8;
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof."
>>>perhaps you should go and do that now. Get back to me when you
>>>understand what is meant by "Application of the Legislatures of two
>>>thirds of the several States."
>>>
>>
>>I know what it means. It means 38 state legislatures, not a group of
>>citizens. Of course, given your idiotic mode of "argument," you'll then
>>make some irrelevant claim about state legislators being citizens.
>
>
> Yes, 38 state legislatures can have their convention and can ratify
> the thing in one sitting while at the same time refusing to allow the
> federal congress through the door.
No, moron. Jesus; why don't you think before you post? Thirty eight
states would petition, but all 50 states would have to be represented at
the convention. Of course, Congress would make the rules, meaning that
they couldn't "forbid" Congress from doing diddly. In fact, Congress
could propose an amendment identical to the one the 38 states suggested,
and make the convention moot. (Not that you understand the concept of
mootness...) Congress holds most of the cards.
> Theoretically, those 38 states can
> abolish the entire federal government and the congress cannot legally
> stop them.
>
Yes, theoretically, they could. Of course, in theory, a comet could hit
us in three seconds and wipe us all out.
Nope. That didn't happen either...
(Note that previously, little Stevie was bitching because I said that it
was only in theory, but pretty much impossible in practice.)
<snip>
>>><LOL> No, he said no such thing at the time, only that it was a way
>>>of making the terrorists "stop being terrorists."
>>>
>>
>>Well, yeah. Why doesn't that make sense to you? If we kill terrorists,
>>but the reasons aren't dealt with, then terrorists keep on being
>>produced. If you're learning nothing else from the Sharon method of
>>"diplomacy," you should learn that.
>>
>>So tell us. If, every time you kill one terrorist, foreign policy
>>choiced create a new terrorist, what have you gained?
>
>
> HUH? so you tell me why that would be the case?
>
What planet are you living on, exactly? Didn't you notice that, while
the Israelis and Palestinians were speaking seriously, there were no
terrorist attacks? Why do you think that was?
Why has the number of terrorist act spiked in the last three years, if
Bush's and Sharon's policies are so foolproof? We're capturing and
killing more terrorists now than ever, according to Bush and Blair. So,
why has activity increased?
>>>>But the fact is, there are
>>>>only two ways to get rid of terrorists -- kill them or give them what
>>>>they want. And you have to do both.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, actually, all you have to do is kill them.
>>>
>>
>>But if you don't address the root causes, then new terrorists will be
>>produced every day.
>
>
> Bullshit. If that were always the case us American Indians would
> still be scalping you paleface cowards.
>
No, because you got what you wanted. WTF do you think a treaty is, exactly?
(Not that the US government hasn't broken any...)
>>>>Kill current terrorists, sure. but
>>>>to prevent future terrorists, at some point you have to give them
>>>>something. That's just common sense. Which is why you don't understand
>>>>the answer...
>>>
>>>
>>>I certainly don't "understand" giving people who threaten me what they
>>>want, but I don;t expect you old women liberals to understand it.
>>>
>>
>>We understand it, and it's stupid. If you kill terrorists and don't
>>address the reasons they're terrorists, new terrorists are bred. The
>>cycle has to be broken at some point.
>
>
> That's what you say, but you can't demonstrate that it's always the
> truth. At any rate, I'll take my chances killing the MFers as fast as
> they are made.
>
Then you better have plenty of ammo and a hell of a lot of patience,
because without dealing with the root causes, you can never fix the
problem. And the problem can be solved. There were many who considered
Ben-Gurion, Begin, et. al. terrorists. They got what they wanted, and
now they -- well, they're not exactly terrorists, although Sharon is close.
>
>>That's what Sharon doesn't get. He's blowing away terrorist leaders and
>>creating more terrorists in the process.
>
>
> Well, if you were smart enough to be a head of state you wouldn't be
> looking for someone to pay your tuition, would you?
>
A Bush supporter who's talking about someone being "smart enough" to be
a head of state... that's quite funny...
<snip>
>>><LOL> It was a chief justice delivering a Supreme Court's decision,
>>>you moron.
>>>
>>
>>On a case that wasn't before it, you moron.
>
>
> <LOL> So you think that it wasn't a "legal decision?"
>
No more so than Bush v Gore was. It was a political statement. It happens.
>>>>How do you declare a law unconstitutional when the law doesn't exist?
>>>
>>>
>>>Simple, just as Taney did it.
>>
>>Taney also "ruled" that no blacks could become citizens, even if they
>>were born outside the slave system. I'm sure you've heard of Dred Scott.
>>IOW, Taney is not somoene you should hitch your star to. As a native
>>Marylander, I'm embarrassed by Taney's very existence.
>
>
> Hitch my star? <LOL> I just quoted what he said. You need to take a
> time out again, Milt. You're getting pretty shrill.
>
Well, you're the one claiming that a CJ's "opinion" about a law that no
longer existed was some sort of legal dictum. Why are you whining so
much about Zepp's slight misstatement, when you can't get it right, either.
>>>>The law had already been repeal by the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
>>>
>>>
>>>So? that only makes Zepp's claim even more ignorant.
>>>
>>
>>He made a mistake. So did you. In fact, you've gotten more facts wrong
>>than the people you're whining about.
>
>
> I'e made no mistake on this issue. If I had you'd have documented it
> here and you haven't.
>
You said Taney declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, at a
time when the law didn't even exist. That's an impossibility. That's a
mistake.
Glad you said "this issue," though. The number of mistakes you've made
in the last couple of days could fill an encyclopedia.
<snip>
>>
>>You got nothing wrong? You claimed that a law that didn't exist was
>>ruled unconstitutional.
>
>
> Yep, and I showed you proof. Right out of the chief justices
> decision.
>
It's impossible for a non-existent law to be declared unconstitutional.
It's called "mootness."
>
>>That's an impossibility. Again; get yourself a
>>law dictionary and look up "mootness". If a ruling is moot when it's
>>made, the ruling has no effect.
>
>
> But yet the ruling was made. Just as I said.
>
It wasn't a "ruling." It was part of an opinion that had no effect on
the law, dumbass. If Antonin Scalia inserted a line into one of his
opinions that The Swan is an excellent program, that wouldn't make it a
legally excellent program. IOW, idiot, not every word of a USSC opinion
constitutes a ruling or makes a law.
<snip>
>>>
>>>Zepp's basic premise was that Lincoln was going to uphold the Missouri
>>>Compromise and was totally wrong.
>>>
>>
>>Not totally. Lincoln was going to uphold the premise of the Missouri
>>Compromise, if not the actual law. That's what had your hero, the racist
>>Taney, so scared...
>
>
> <LOL> Lincoln was going to do no such thing. <LOL> Get an eighth
> grade history book you moron.
>
Do you even know what the Missouri Compromise was? It was an overt
attempt to limit slavery to the places in which it was already a fact,
and to prevent its spread as the country grew. Of COURSE Lincoln wanted
to expand on that idea. Are you crazy? Why do you think the racist Taney
inserted his unnecessary and extralegal opinion about a law that no
longer existed into a case opinion? He was afraid of just that...
<snip>
>>And again, though you continue to ignore it, your premise means that you
>>don't believe you pay your taxes, because someone else gave you the
>>money to begin with. Your expenses have always been paid by someone
>>else, according to your very own premise.
>><snip>
>
>
> Bullshit. Things are only passed along to others when it effects them
> as such. The fact that someone pays another wages is vastly different
> than the fact that a stockholder suffers the effects of a
> corporation's taxes.
Oh, this is rich... It's my turn again... <LOL!!!>
> The employer does not so suffer. I'm getting
> real tired of you trying to promote that ridiculous premise.
That premise is the one YOU keep promoting; that corporate taxes are
passed on to others, (which isn't necessarily true) so corporations
don't pay them. Well, you're money is given to you by someone else. In
fact, if you take a salary, most of your taxes are paid by your employer
before you even see them. A lot of the taxes not withheld are definitely
paid by your employer, like Workers Comp and Social Security.
You simply refuse to accept your very own logical premise. Because it
doesn't make sense. If corporations don't pay taxes because they have
customers/clients, then you don't pay them, either...
<snip>
>>>>>Huh? You think it's not legal to discriminate when selecting someone
>>>>>to date?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No. I didn't say that. Again with the reading comprehension problem. NO
>>>>gender discrimination is legal. You figure it out.
>>>
>>>
>>>If I discriminate on the basis of gender, that is gender
>>>discrimination, and if that gender discrimination is allowed by the
>>>law it is legal gender discrimination.
>>
>>You're clueless.
>
>
> You're incapable of refuting me.
I have refuted you. You're just too stupid to comprehend. Not my problem.
>
>
>>1. Note the "allow" in quotes in my original statement.
>>2. Your "being allowed" to make choices is not legal discrimination.
>>Legal discrimination has a specific definition.
>
> Yeah, it means discrimination that is legal. As in choosing a female
> or male lawyer.
That is not discrimination. That is choice. That's what you don't get.
There IS a difference, and you don't seem to understand that.
> You totally lost this on again, Milt. there are many, many legal ways
> that I can discriminate on the basis of sex, or even race, if I so
> choose.
>
You don't understand the meaning of the phrase "legal discrimination."
Being able to choose you doctor is not "discrimination," no matter what
you base your choice on.
>
>>><LOL> I can only imagine Milt's dismay at seeing my response to his
>>>challenge of showing him gender discrimination allowed by law where I
>>>posted a big long list.
>>>
>>
>>You'd have to only imagine it, because I've been laughing at you ever
>>since.
>>
>>Imagine, a guy who whines about "liberals" wanting to create a "nanny
>>state" who thinks that everything he does that isn't against a specific
>>law is "allowed" by the government...
>
>
> <LOL> Milt thinks that such is not the case? Try to understand that
> to "allow" something simply means that there are no restrictions
> against it.
>
No, it doesn't. It presumes restrictions, and that you've been given
permission.
>
>>Why wouldn't we laugh?
>
>
> I see a guy down on the beach every morning that does nothing but
> laugh and laugh. Well, actually, that's not all he does. Sometimes
> he picks his nose and offers it to the sand rats.
>
That would probably be you, when you're not sitting on Usenet telling
everyone how wonderful you are...
>
>>>>>>Like I said, you're too stupid for words.
>>>>>
<snip>
>>Actually, I was wrong about the bathroom thing. There are only a few
>>jurisdictions in the country that mandate separate bathrooms...
>>
>>But you still don't get it. That's okay... someday you'll be a big boy...
>
>
> <LOL> "get" that you screwed up again.... I think everybody else does
> too.
>
I screwed up? YOU are the moron who thinks that everything that isn't
against the law is "allowed" by the "nanny state."
>
>>>>You really should get that reading thing fixed.
>>>
>>>
>>>Irony anyone?
>>>
>>>Once again, Milt is shown to be a moron and a liar.
>>>
>>
>>No, once again, you've been shown to be clueless, incapable of reading
>>comprehension and certainly not capable of understanding nuance.
>
>
> IOW, you got beat once again.
>
Not hardly. You may think of your government as a "nanny" that "allows"
you to choose a man lawyer. I don't.
>
>>>>>and I produced
>>>>>far more than three. I cannot imagine why you would think that
>>>>>something that was "allowed" by the law would be anything but "legal."
>>>>
>>>>Your problem is, you don't understand the concept of legal
>>>>discrimination. Not surprising. You're the most ignorant idiot on Usenet.
>>>
>>>
>>>OK, explain how discrimination that is not illegal can be anything
>>>but legal discrimination.
>>>'
>>>Do it right here:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>First, what you have to do is learn the term "legal discrimination." I
>>am not your professor, Stevie. Legal discrimination is not simply
>>(emphasis on "simple")any choice you make which is not illegal.
>
>
> IOW, you cannot explain how discrimination that is not illegal can be
> anything but legal discrimination.
>
Only when you explain how the government "allowing" you to choose a
white male lawyer hasd anything to do with legal discrimination. But you
can't, because it doesn't...
<snip>
>>>
>>>Thinking that other people's belief systems is a mental illness is a
>>>mental deficiency, meaning that you are a moron.
>>>
>>
>>I see. So when David Berkowitz told us God was speaking to him through
>>his dog, that was a belief system and should not be challenged?
>
>
> I see no reason to challenge his belief system. We should, OTOH,
> challenge what he did.
>
Oh, so you're not into preventing crime, just picking up the pieces
afterward. Guess we should have left the Branch Davidians alone, too,
since it was their "belief system" that made them stockpile weapons and
molest kids...
>>At what point DOES a "belief system" become a "mental illness," you moron?
>
>
> When it's not in the norm...
>
> You think?
You have to be kidding. if that was the standard, we should be hauling
off most televangelists and presidents who thing God tells him to kill
Iraqis...
>
>
>>And how come they can believe anything they want unchallenged, but I
>>can't? Wouldn't that make you mentally deficient, by your own definition?
>
> Where did I ever say you couldn't believe whatever you want, Milt?
When did I say others couldn't believe anything? I never said that. I
gave my opinion and you gave your opinion of my opinion. There is no
difference, meaning that you are doing the same thing you're complaining
about...
> Gee, if you couldn't believe all the drivel that you believe I
> wouldn't have nearly as much fun poking fun at you.
>
You don't poke as much as you think you do. I'm sure more folks shake
their heads at your posts. And not because they're rife with mistakes,
but because you are so sure you're absolutely correct about things of
which you have no clue...
>
>>For the record, I NEVER make fun of religious belief. Seeing a snuff
>>film featuring a man playing Jesus pretending to be tortured and killed
>>and thinking you had a spiritual experience is not about religion; it's
>>about psychosis.
>
> For the record, that's exactly what Ross was doing and I'm pretty sure
> that was what you were doing too.
>
Nope. I've had deep all-night discussions about this with people who are
much more educated about religion -- especially Catholicism, since that
is the doctrine in which this film is rooted in -- than I am, and was
actually fretting over it for a while. But then I thought about it. No
matter what, it's not JESUS up there on the cross. In fact, in the final
scenes, it's an animatronic puppet. It's not Jesus who is being tortured
on the screen, and the broken skin and the blood is not real. IOW, it's
a fictional depiction of the torture and murder of a man. None of it was
necessary to tell the story, and the death is not as important to
Christianity as the fact that he rose from the dead, according to Jesus
himself. Therefore, anyone feeling anything resembling a "spiritual"
anything needs to reassess their faith and probably see a therapist.
And anyone who sees that film, claims to be "spiritually changed" by it
and does nothing to change anything about his or her life is just a
hypocrite.
>
>>Again; you simply have no concept of nuance...
>><snip>
>
>
> Saying that people who have a religious belief that their sins are
> washed away by the suffering of Christ is mental illness is not
> nuance, you moron. You need to look up the word.
Their what?
Their sins were washed away by watching a fictional depiction of the
brutal torture of an actor and the crucifixion of a pupper on a large
screen in a movie house, but they're not mentally ill?
For some reason, I'm thinking of the story of doubting Thomas about
now... <g>
>
>
>>>>No. I'm not attacking the movie. I'm not attacking anything. I'm making
>>>>an observation. I've watched violent movies before, although not quite
>>>>so graphic and detailed. But never before have people come out of a
>>>>violent movie claiming that they were changed spiritually.
>>>
>>>
>>>I really feel sorry for you, Milt, being so intolerant of other
>>>people's belief systems, especially when it doesn't even involve you.
>>>I guess it's just an example of you folks with small minds.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not intolerant at all.
>
>
> <ROTFLMAO> That's a keeper...
Good. No one who actually knows me would ever accuse me of that.
>>It's an observation. If they came out of the
>>movie and stayed killing Jews, I would observe that such a behavior was
>>wrong, as well. So why are THEY allowed any belief they wish, but I'm
>>not?
>
>
> Again, where have I challenged your right to believe whatever you
> like?
>
My belief that people coming out of the snuff film thinking they've just
had a "spiritual experience" are nuts is being challenged by you.
>
>>Please explain this to us, Stevie the "agnostic." (Talk about a
>>pussy, is there any greater pussy than an agnostic? He doesn't think
>>there's a God, but he's too wimpy to say one way or another.)
>
>
> <LOL> An agnostic is simply somebody that doesn't necessarily need to
> have an answer to that question.
No. An agnostic is a commitment to NOT answering that question. There's
a difference.
> It's probably because I am just more
> secure with myself than you.
>
Yeah, well, nothing about any of your posts suggests anything but
serious insecurity. The fact that you make that statement in the first
place speaks volumes.
>>BTW, fuckwit, I have a very strong belief in God. I just don't happen to
>>think most religious people practice what they preach. The same people
>>who saw this movie would be picketing one that was just as violent, but
>>involved a person named Joe Smith.
>
>
> Pure conjecture on your part. You do that to try to justify what you
> can not otherwise justify. That's pretty pathetic.
>
It's not conjecture at all. I seem to remember "The Last Temptation of
Christ" being picketed by the same people, because it didn't conform to
their belief system. I've been to many a film that has been picketed for
excessive violence, and none of them came close to the violence in this
movie. One such movie in which protesters picketed was "Braveheart,"
ironically...
>
>>>>I didn't see
>>>>evangelicals coming out of Saving Private Ryan and becoming anti-war
>>>>activists in droves. The evangelicals didn't come out of Schindler's
>>>>List hugging Jews. But for some reason, these folks sent busloads of the
>>>>"faithful" to see a movie where a man pretending to be the icon of their
>>>>religion was tortured for well over an hour and felt "blessed" for
>>>>having done so.
>>>
>>>
>>>They went to see a movie about the single most significant event in
>>>their religion, you moron.
>>
>>If they knew anything about their religion, they would know that what
>>happened two days later was far more important, and the Pentecost was
>>more important, as well. Jesus himself said so.
>
> <LOL> So now you think you get to determine what is important to
> other people?
>
No. Jesus did that.
Dumbass...
>
>>> That the alleged event involved pain and
>>>suffering is also a significant thing.
>>
>>That must be why, out of four Gospels, not one went into that much detail.
>
>
> Actually, there's significant detail. It's only that a movie picture
> can actually make the images graphic.
>
None of the scriptures were nearly that graphic. It took a lot of
imagination to show a slow motion close-up of the lashes from a whip
tearing away skin from the back.
>>>I'm sure you know all that so your objections are simply the result of
>>>your displeasure at seeing so many people exhibiting beliefs contrary
>>>to your own.
>>>
>>>Tat's a sign of your insecurity and nothing more.
>>>
>>
>>This isn't ironic, coming from a professed "agnostic," is it?
>
> Not at all. Some people, you, for instance, simply aren't secure
> enough to accept that there are some things that simply cannot be
> known.
>
And some are so insecure, they have to assure everyone else how secure
they are.
>
>>>>If only so many felt blessed enough to feed the poor and house the
>>>>homeless...
>>>
>>>
>>><LOL> What's that got to do with it?
>>>
>>
>>Sigh. Read the Bible, and you'd know...
>
>
> Feeding the poor and housing the homeless have nothing to do with
> Christ's crucifixion, which is what the movie was about, you moron.
>
Like I said; read the Bible and you'd know...
Milt
Jesus, idiot...
The stock of the corporation is one of your assets. The corporation's
assets are wholly separate.
> Just as a stockholder's assets include his stock assets. When the
> value of the corporation's assets are reduced, the value of the
> stockholder's stock goes down.
Which has nothing to do with the corporation's costs of doing business.
I'll ask again; when all of the dot-coms were way overvalued, with P/E
ratios in the hundreds, what was the relation of their stock and/or
corporate value to the value of their assets? What did Netscape own,
exactly, that made them worth tens of billions of dollars?
>
> You cannot get around this fact with your word games, Milt.
>
More irony from the master.
Milt
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:06:38 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>
>>
<snip>
>>>>><LOL> Zepp made the stupid comment after being accused of liking it
>>>>>when the Terrorists got their way. He obviously approves of that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You have to do both. On the one hand, you have to get rid of current
>>>>terrorists as efficiently as possible. But you also have to understand
>>>>where it comes from and try to change those circumstances, or you'll end
>>>>up with a steady stream of terrorists.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not if they understand that they will not only *not* get their way but
>>>be killed as well.
>>>
>>
>>God, it's fascinating to watch a simple mind work.
>>
>>It's amazing we became a country, based on that sort of thinking. You do
>>remember how we became a nation, right? We got what we wanted...
>
> You probably though you had a point there. Why not share it with us?
>
It's obvious to people who have actually studied American history...
>>>>If you think picking them off one
>>>>by one will somehow make them so scared that they'll give up eventually,
>>>>then you know little about history. We see them as terrorists; they see
>>>>themselves as freedom fighters.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't care what they call themselves. If they threaten me or mine
>>>they are subject to my defending and protecting myself and mine.
>>>
>>
>>You are so simple. How do you feed yourself? This isn't about the
>>Russkys coming into the US and taking it. This is about people who have
>>been oppressed by Westerners for a couple of centuries
>
>
> Oh bullshit! Nobody has been repressing them but their own corrupt
> leaders.
>
Who were chosen by...
Know how the countries of the Middle East came to exist? Do you know how
most of their leaders were chosen? Read up on history; learn a little.
Britain and France controlled almost the entire region after WWI. Guess
how the lines were drawn. Now, when they divested themselves of their
colonies, how would you suggest they chose the people who would lead
after they left? Who actually ruled Palestine when Ben Gurion and the
rest came in and colonized what is now Israel. I'll give you a hint; it
wasn't the Palestinians...
You're so naive and stupid if you believe what you say above.
>>finally getting
>>fed up and demanding their sovereignty back. They have the same beef now
>>that we had 230 years ago. This is their method of trying to get it.
>>When we're talking about OUR revolution, we refer to them as patriots.
>>When they're from the Middle East, they're terrorists. Funny how we
>>don't refer to picking off a guy in a wheelchair with a rocket shot from
>> a helicopter as "terrorism.
>
> He was a terrorist himself. Picking him off was the right thing to
> do.
>
He was a terrorist leader. He wasn't actually terrorizing. And his
killing probably created a few hundred or more terrorists. It was
stupid. Almost as stupid as thinking that killing bin Laden will
eliminate al Qaeda...
>
>>>>>>How many Americans were killed by Iraqis prior to March of last year?
>>>>>>None. If Americans left Iraq, that happy state of affairs would be
>>>>>>restored.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Zepp thinks that Saddam's regime was a "happy state of affairs."
>>>>
>>>>It was certainly better than what's been created in his wake.
>>>
>>>No, it's not.
>>>
>>
>>So you think it's better that Iraq is a hell hole, and that civilians
>>and US soldiers are getting picked off by the dozen, with no end in
>>sight? You're weird.
>
> <LOL> You act as though you think you know what's going on there. I
> assure that you don't. Most Iraqis believe that they are better off
> and many more believe that they will be even better of soon.
>
Most Iraqis do? You act as though you think you know what's going on there.
Believe me; as a professional skeptic (unlike the gullible moron you
are), I would tend to believe that, if there were tons of demonstrations
in support of the US, the Bushies would be parading the film everywhere...
>
>>>>This was a poorly planned and horribly botched operation, which gets
>>>>worse every day...
>>>
>>>
>>>Keep telling yourself that.. I certainly don't care..
>>>
>>
>>So what? You think storming Baghdad with too few soldiers, according to
>>just about every expert, and not doing anything to secure the borders,
>>and then withdrawing half the troops when you wipe out the only
>>government the country has had for 25 years, while replacing it with a
>>group of US-chosen morons, led by an idiot the Iraqis hate, taking over
>>the presidential palaces instead of turning them over to the Iraqis who
>>paid for them, and securing the oil fields, but not the locations where
>>you claimed there were WMDs and allowing the entire country to descend
>>into chaos demonstrates a great war plan? It's costing us $10 billion a
>>month, in addition to the $87 billion Bush got previously, and the $200
>>billion he's hinting at asking for this summer. It's also cost tens of
>>thousands of lives with no end in sight. This is what you consider a
>>successful operation?
>
>
> I simply don;t consider a moron like you to be a proper judge of such
> things.
>
I didn't ask you to judge.
But the fact that you don't answer the question works for me...
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Zepp has a conscience and a brain, huh? His conscience doesn't seem
to be up to where he can apologize for his lies about his being able
to vote and his brain seems to need some help in regards to Lincoln
and the Missouri Compromise.
>> To begin with, you
>> couldn't hope to keep up with me on my morning runs and I only have
>> one leg. I'm also pretty sure that I do more work in the several
>> places that I volunteer than you do to make a living.
>>
>Gosh, what a saint he is.
No, just better than you.. and Zepp... and most of the rest of you
liberal morons.
>Given his demonstrated hatred for the poor and downtrodden, one must
>wonder which homeless-kicking group he volunteers for...
why wonder? That information is readily available.
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Steve Canyon
wrote:
<ROTFL> Why should I define it and whatever makes you think that the
congress should be the ones to do any of that?
>No details in the Constitution. That means Congress makes the rules. How
>do I know? Article I, Section 8.
Shaking my head and smiling> That's ridiculous. There's nothing in
there that says that the Congress should make the rules for a
Constitutional convention.
>"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
>Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
>Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
>Department or Officer thereof."
You think rules for a Constitutional convention are laws? <ROTFLMAO>
You are truly a pathetic moron, milt.
>Got it?
I got it that you confuse "making laws" with "making rules."
Aren't you also claiming to have some legal knowledge? MY gawd, you
are so stupid that it must ache.. lol
>You're too stupid to be believed, and yet you're so cocksure in your
>stupidity.
<LOL> The irony is running down Milt's sides and puddling at his
feet.
> > I also imagine
>> that after having done so, the convention can decide on their own
>> rules and that those rules may well involve refusing to allow the
>> congress any say in the proces.
>
>Instead of imagining what the Constitution says, how about reading the
>fucking thing?
Rules for a convention are not laws, Milt. There's nothing in the
Constitution that defines who makes rules for a Constitutional
convention, you moron, and as such, the people at the convention would
probably make their own rules.
>>>I would also reiterate my skepticism that anyone but Congress may amend
>>>the Constitution in any way other than theory. By the time ten states or
>>>so have made petition for a convention, Congress could then propose the
>>>amendments necessary to forestall that. Or do you envision the state
>>>legislatures from 38 states meeting secretly?
>>
>>
>> Why on earth would they have to meet secretly. The congress could
>> propose anything they want but the states could simply ignore the
>> congress and go on without them.
>>
>If Congress already proposes a similar or even identical amendment to
>the one they were meeting to propose, (assuming you could get 38 states
>-- most of which have differing rules for such things -- to propose
>something), then there would be no reason to petition for a convention,
>would there?
<more shaking of my head and smiling> I see, you're still suffering
from having me "teach" you that Congress is not the only way that an
amendment can be proposed and you think that by writing the
diversionary nonsense above will alleviate your suffering....
>>>>>>>IOW, theory is one thing. Practice is another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The issue is not about theory vs. practice. The fact that Congress is
>>>>>>not the only way through which an amendment can be initiated is not
>>>>>>theory, it's a fact, as I educated your dumb ass about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If it's a fact, dumbass, then why don't you explain to us, briefly,
>>>>>exactly how citizens call a Constitutional Convention?
>>
>>
>> <LOL> Citizens? Why not the state legislatures as specified in the
>> Constitution. You really ought to go read the thing, Milt. You're
>> really making an ass of yourself... again.
>>
>This from someone who just suggested that Congress wouldn't make the
>rules for the Constitutional Convention...
Here's a little clue, Milt. State legislatures are not the same thing
as the federal Congress. You did realize that, didn't you?
>>>>I told you once before that you should actually read Article Five.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should. If Congress calls the convention, who makes the
>>>rules? If someone else, that rule would have to be made by Congress...
>>
>> Where is that specified?
>>
>> It isn't. It's purely conjecture on your part.
>>
>No it isn't. It's the infamous Article I, Section 8;
>
>"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
>Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
>Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
>Department or Officer thereof."
<LOL> Laws >< convention rules. But keep at this Milt. I'm having
lots of fun.
>>>>perhaps you should go and do that now. Get back to me when you
>>>>understand what is meant by "Application of the Legislatures of two
>>>>thirds of the several States."
>>>>
>>>
>>>I know what it means. It means 38 state legislatures, not a group of
>>>citizens. Of course, given your idiotic mode of "argument," you'll then
>>>make some irrelevant claim about state legislators being citizens.
>>
>>
>> Yes, 38 state legislatures can have their convention and can ratify
>> the thing in one sitting while at the same time refusing to allow the
>> federal congress through the door.
>
>No, moron. Jesus; why don't you think before you post? Thirty eight
>states would petition, but all 50 states would have to be represented at
>the convention.
Why? show me where that is specified...
>Of course, Congress would make the rules, meaning that
>they couldn't "forbid" Congress from doing diddly.
The 38 states can ignore Congress's "rules."
Laws >< convention rules
>In fact, Congress
>could propose an amendment identical to the one the 38 states suggested,
>and make the convention moot. (Not that you understand the concept of
>mootness...) Congress holds most of the cards.
<chuckle> So you're claiming that because Congress can propose an
amendment, the state legislature cannot? You're leaning dangerously
close to mental illness today, Milt.
How about this... The Congress may *not* propose an amendment
identical to the one the 38 states suggested... What about that
scenario? <LOL>
>> Theoretically, those 38 states can
>> abolish the entire federal government and the congress cannot legally
>> stop them.
>>
>
>Yes, theoretically, they could. Of course, in theory, a comet could hit
>us in three seconds and wipe us all out.
So I guess you understand now?
>Nope. That didn't happen either...
>
>(Note that previously, little Stevie was bitching because I said that it
>was only in theory, but pretty much impossible in practice.)
I'd never bitch at you Milt. It might make you stop posting and ruin
all my fun.
BTW, the issue here was *ALWAYS* about what was theoretically
possible.
Another bad attempt at diversion, Milt.
><snip>
>
>>>><LOL> No, he said no such thing at the time, only that it was a way
>>>>of making the terrorists "stop being terrorists."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, yeah. Why doesn't that make sense to you? If we kill terrorists,
>>>but the reasons aren't dealt with, then terrorists keep on being
>>>produced. If you're learning nothing else from the Sharon method of
>>>"diplomacy," you should learn that.
>>>
>>>So tell us. If, every time you kill one terrorist, foreign policy
>>>choiced create a new terrorist, what have you gained?
>>
>>
>> HUH? so you tell me why that would be the case?
>>
>
>What planet are you living on, exactly? Didn't you notice that, while
>the Israelis and Palestinians were speaking seriously, there were no
>terrorist attacks? Why do you think that was?
Because they didn't kill enough of them.
>Why has the number of terrorist act spiked in the last three years, if
>Bush's and Sharon's policies are so foolproof? We're capturing and
>killing more terrorists now than ever, according to Bush and Blair. So,
>why has activity increased?
They haven't increased, they're just more active. Prove otherwise...
>>>>>But the fact is, there are
>>>>>only two ways to get rid of terrorists -- kill them or give them what
>>>>>they want. And you have to do both.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, actually, all you have to do is kill them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But if you don't address the root causes, then new terrorists will be
>>>produced every day.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. If that were always the case us American Indians would
>> still be scalping you paleface cowards.
>>
>No, because you got what you wanted. WTF do you think a treaty is, exactly?
<LOL> The indians got what they wanted? You really ought to read
some history, Milt. The indians got wacked into submission and forced
to sign treaties.
Ever heard of Sheridan?
Ever heard of what happened to Chief Joseph?
or Sitting Bull, or Geronimo, or Big Foot?
Ever heard of Wounded Knee?
You think they got what they wanted?
You're a moron, Milt.
>(Not that the US government hasn't broken any...)
>
>>>>>Kill current terrorists, sure. but
>>>>>to prevent future terrorists, at some point you have to give them
>>>>>something. That's just common sense. Which is why you don't understand
>>>>>the answer...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I certainly don't "understand" giving people who threaten me what they
>>>>want, but I don;t expect you old women liberals to understand it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>We understand it, and it's stupid. If you kill terrorists and don't
>>>address the reasons they're terrorists, new terrorists are bred. The
>>>cycle has to be broken at some point.
>>
>>
>> That's what you say, but you can't demonstrate that it's always the
>> truth. At any rate, I'll take my chances killing the MFers as fast as
>> they are made.
>>
>
>Then you better have plenty of ammo and a hell of a lot of patience,
>because without dealing with the root causes, you can never fix the
>problem.
Says you. But you're a moron.
>And the problem can be solved. There were many who considered
>Ben-Gurion, Begin, et. al. terrorists. They got what they wanted, and
>now they -- well, they're not exactly terrorists, although Sharon is close.
Giving in is always the way for girley-boys like you, isn't it?
>>>That's what Sharon doesn't get. He's blowing away terrorist leaders and
>>>creating more terrorists in the process.
>>
>>
>> Well, if you were smart enough to be a head of state you wouldn't be
>> looking for someone to pay your tuition, would you?
>>
>
>A Bush supporter who's talking about someone being "smart enough" to be
>a head of state... that's quite funny...
You're still suffering from having your liberal butts kicked in the
last election, aren't you?
Sorry about that. <LOL>
><snip>
>
>>>><LOL> It was a chief justice delivering a Supreme Court's decision,
>>>>you moron.
>>>>
>>>
>>>On a case that wasn't before it, you moron.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> So you think that it wasn't a "legal decision?"
>>
>No more so than Bush v Gore was. It was a political statement. It happens.
<ROTFLMAO> I've got to admit that Milt is persistent in his attempt
to let everyone know what a moron he is.
>>>>>How do you declare a law unconstitutional when the law doesn't exist?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Simple, just as Taney did it.
>>>
>>>Taney also "ruled" that no blacks could become citizens, even if they
>>>were born outside the slave system. I'm sure you've heard of Dred Scott.
>>>IOW, Taney is not somoene you should hitch your star to. As a native
>>>Marylander, I'm embarrassed by Taney's very existence.
>>
>>
>> Hitch my star? <LOL> I just quoted what he said. You need to take a
>> time out again, Milt. You're getting pretty shrill.
>>
>Well, you're the one claiming that a CJ's "opinion" about a law that no
>longer existed was some sort of legal dictum.
The Missouri Compromise was declared Unconstitutional by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court in the reading of the Court's decision.
that's a fact, just as I said.
>Why are you whining so
>much about Zepp's slight misstatement, when you can't get it right, either.
I had it totally right and Zepp was totally wrong when he said that
Lincoln was going to uphold the Missouri Compromise.
>>>>>The law had already been repeal by the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So? that only makes Zepp's claim even more ignorant.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He made a mistake. So did you. In fact, you've gotten more facts wrong
>>>than the people you're whining about.
>>
>>
>> I'e made no mistake on this issue. If I had you'd have documented it
>> here and you haven't.
>>
>You said Taney declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, at a
>time when the law didn't even exist. That's an impossibility. That's a
>mistake.
and yet he did exactly what I said he did.
>Glad you said "this issue," though. The number of mistakes you've made
>in the last couple of days could fill an encyclopedia.
<LOL> irony anyone.
><snip>
>>>
>>>You got nothing wrong? You claimed that a law that didn't exist was
>>>ruled unconstitutional.
>>
>>
>> Yep, and I showed you proof. Right out of the chief justices
>> decision.
>>
>
>It's impossible for a non-existent law to be declared unconstitutional.
>It's called "mootness."
and yet he did exactly what I said he did.
>>>That's an impossibility. Again; get yourself a
>>>law dictionary and look up "mootness". If a ruling is moot when it's
>>>made, the ruling has no effect.
>>
>>
>> But yet the ruling was made. Just as I said.
>>
>It wasn't a "ruling." It was part of an opinion that had no effect on
>the law, dumbass. If Antonin Scalia inserted a line into one of his
>opinions that The Swan is an excellent program, that wouldn't make it a
>legally excellent program. IOW, idiot, not every word of a USSC opinion
>constitutes a ruling or makes a law.
law? and yet he did exactly what I said he did.
><snip>
>>>>
>>>>Zepp's basic premise was that Lincoln was going to uphold the Missouri
>>>>Compromise and was totally wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not totally. Lincoln was going to uphold the premise of the Missouri
>>>Compromise, if not the actual law. That's what had your hero, the racist
>>>Taney, so scared...
>>
>>
>> <LOL> Lincoln was going to do no such thing. <LOL> Get an eighth
>> grade history book you moron.
>>
>Do you even know what the Missouri Compromise was? It was an overt
>attempt to limit slavery to the places in which it was already a fact,
>and to prevent its spread as the country grew. Of COURSE Lincoln wanted
>to expand on that idea. Are you crazy? Why do you think the racist Taney
>inserted his unnecessary and extralegal opinion about a law that no
>longer existed into a case opinion? He was afraid of just that...
Why are you attempting to divert again? Oh, it's because you know you
lost the argument....
A compromise, in case you didn't know, is when the decision is
satisfactory to both sides
.
The Missouri Compromise was a compromise and only banned slavery in
the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of latitude 6 degrees 30
minutes. Lincoln had no intention of expanding that idea. His
intentions went beyond that to the point of limiting the expansion of
slavery everywhere.
Like I said, you should get an eighth grade history book and read a
little before you talk.
Read a little about the Lincoln Douglas debates for a start.
Get back when you've been properly educated.
><snip>
>
>>>And again, though you continue to ignore it, your premise means that you
>>>don't believe you pay your taxes, because someone else gave you the
>>>money to begin with. Your expenses have always been paid by someone
>>>else, according to your very own premise.
>>><snip>
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. Things are only passed along to others when it effects them
>> as such. The fact that someone pays another wages is vastly different
>> than the fact that a stockholder suffers the effects of a
>> corporation's taxes.
>
>Oh, this is rich... It's my turn again... <LOL!!!>
>
>> The employer does not so suffer. I'm getting
>> real tired of you trying to promote that ridiculous premise.
>
>That premise is the one YOU keep promoting; that corporate taxes are
>passed on to others, (which isn't necessarily true) so corporations
>don't pay them. Well, you're money is given to you by someone else. In
>fact, if you take a salary, most of your taxes are paid by your employer
>before you even see them. A lot of the taxes not withheld are definitely
>paid by your employer, like Workers Comp and Social Security.
<chuckle> Diversion noted... is that really all you can do?
Indeed, an employer pays half of the social security "contributions,"
but that isn't what we're talking about here, is it?
>You simply refuse to accept your very own logical premise. Because it
>doesn't make sense. If corporations don't pay taxes because they have
>customers/clients, then you don't pay them, either...
Corporations don't pay taxes because they're passed on to
stockholders...
In the form of reduced dividends or lowered stock value.
><snip>
>
>>>>>>Huh? You think it's not legal to discriminate when selecting someone
>>>>>>to date?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No. I didn't say that. Again with the reading comprehension problem. NO
>>>>>gender discrimination is legal. You figure it out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If I discriminate on the basis of gender, that is gender
>>>>discrimination, and if that gender discrimination is allowed by the
>>>>law it is legal gender discrimination.
>>>
>>>You're clueless.
>>
>>
>> You're incapable of refuting me.
>
>I have refuted you. You're just too stupid to comprehend. Not my problem.
<LOL> Your "rebuttal is that gender discrimination that is allowed by
the law it isn't legal gender discrimination.
You're so much fun, Milt....
>>>1. Note the "allow" in quotes in my original statement.
>>>2. Your "being allowed" to make choices is not legal discrimination.
>>>Legal discrimination has a specific definition.
>>
>> Yeah, it means discrimination that is legal. As in choosing a female
>> or male lawyer.
>
>That is not discrimination. That is choice. That's what you don't get.
>There IS a difference, and you don't seem to understand that.
It's discrimination and it's legal, you moron.
>> You totally lost this on again, Milt. there are many, many legal ways
>> that I can discriminate on the basis of sex, or even race, if I so
>> choose.
>>
>You don't understand the meaning of the phrase "legal discrimination."
>Being able to choose you doctor is not "discrimination," no matter what
>you base your choice on.
It's discrimination and it's legal, you moron.
>>
>>>><LOL> I can only imagine Milt's dismay at seeing my response to his
>>>>challenge of showing him gender discrimination allowed by law where I
>>>>posted a big long list.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You'd have to only imagine it, because I've been laughing at you ever
>>>since.
>>>
>>>Imagine, a guy who whines about "liberals" wanting to create a "nanny
>>>state" who thinks that everything he does that isn't against a specific
>>>law is "allowed" by the government...
>>
>>
>> <LOL> Milt thinks that such is not the case? Try to understand that
>> to "allow" something simply means that there are no restrictions
>> against it.
>>
>
>No, it doesn't. It presumes restrictions, and that you've been given
>permission.
Permission? Allowing does *not* necessarily presume that you've been
given permission, you moron. It only presumes that you haven't been
dis-allowed.
But your diversion was a lot of fun. Now how about explaining how
discrimination that is legal, such as when I rejected the two queers
who applied to perform maid service at my condo, is not legal
discrimination.
>>>Why wouldn't we laugh?
>>
>>
>> I see a guy down on the beach every morning that does nothing but
>> laugh and laugh. Well, actually, that's not all he does. Sometimes
>> he picks his nose and offers it to the sand rats.
>>
>
>That would probably be you, when you're not sitting on Usenet telling
>everyone how wonderful you are...
I never said that I was wonderful. Maybe you just realized that all
by yourself.
>>>>>>>Like I said, you're too stupid for words.
>>>>>>
><snip>
>
>>>Actually, I was wrong about the bathroom thing. There are only a few
>>>jurisdictions in the country that mandate separate bathrooms...
>>>
>>>But you still don't get it. That's okay... someday you'll be a big boy...
>>
>>
>> <LOL> "get" that you screwed up again.... I think everybody else does
>> too.
>>
>I screwed up? YOU are the moron who thinks that everything that isn't
>against the law is "allowed" by the "nanny state."
...You think that things that are allowed are not legal?
I repeat:
There are many examples of discrimination that is allowed by the
government.
>>>>>You really should get that reading thing fixed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Irony anyone?
>>>>
>>>>Once again, Milt is shown to be a moron and a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, once again, you've been shown to be clueless, incapable of reading
>>>comprehension and certainly not capable of understanding nuance.
>>
>>
>> IOW, you got beat once again.
>>
>Not hardly. You may think of your government as a "nanny" that "allows"
>you to choose a man lawyer. I don't.
Your diverting again. I guess you realize that you've been beat
again.
>>>>>>and I produced
>>>>>>far more than three. I cannot imagine why you would think that
>>>>>>something that was "allowed" by the law would be anything but "legal."
>>>>>
>>>>>Your problem is, you don't understand the concept of legal
>>>>>discrimination. Not surprising. You're the most ignorant idiot on Usenet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK, explain how discrimination that is not illegal can be anything
>>>>but legal discrimination.
>>>>'
>>>>Do it right here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>First, what you have to do is learn the term "legal discrimination." I
>>>am not your professor, Stevie. Legal discrimination is not simply
>>>(emphasis on "simple")any choice you make which is not illegal.
>>
>>
>> IOW, you cannot explain how discrimination that is not illegal can be
>> anything but legal discrimination.
>>
>Only when you explain how the government "allowing" you to choose a
>white male lawyer hasd anything to do with legal discrimination. But you
>can't, because it doesn't...
<LOL> It's simple. Discrimination that is legal = legal
discrimination, you moron.
>
><snip>
>>>>
>>>>Thinking that other people's belief systems is a mental illness is a
>>>>mental deficiency, meaning that you are a moron.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I see. So when David Berkowitz told us God was speaking to him through
>>>his dog, that was a belief system and should not be challenged?
>>
>>
>> I see no reason to challenge his belief system. We should, OTOH,
>> challenge what he did.
>>
>Oh, so you're not into preventing crime, just picking up the pieces
>afterward. Guess we should have left the Branch Davidians alone, too,
>since it was their "belief system" that made them stockpile weapons and
>molest kids...
<chuckle> Well that is pretty much all we can do, isn't it? Or do
you think you have a right to perform some sort of mind control on
people?
Keep on showing what a moron you are,milt.
>>>At what point DOES a "belief system" become a "mental illness," you moron?
>>
>>
>> When it's not in the norm...
>>
>> You think?
>
>You have to be kidding. if that was the standard, we should be hauling
>off most televangelists and presidents who thing God tells him to kill
>Iraqis...
Hauling off? My, my, you are certainly a little paper tiger, aren't
you? Meeeoooow.
You're not going to haul anyone off, Milt.
>>>And how come they can believe anything they want unchallenged, but I
>>>can't? Wouldn't that make you mentally deficient, by your own definition?
>>
>> Where did I ever say you couldn't believe whatever you want, Milt?
>
>When did I say others couldn't believe anything? I never said that.
No, but you did imply that I was trying to do that to you. I guess
you're trying to divert again, huh?
>I
>gave my opinion and you gave your opinion of my opinion. There is no
>difference, meaning that you are doing the same thing you're complaining
>about...
Me complain? You misunderstand, Milt. You could never do anything
that would make me complain.
But give it your best shot.
I'd enjoy that.
>> Gee, if you couldn't believe all the drivel that you believe I
>> wouldn't have nearly as much fun poking fun at you.
>>
>You don't poke as much as you think you do. I'm sure more folks shake
>their heads at your posts.
<LOL> After reading your blog, I'm pretty secure that you don't have
any idea what "most folks" think.
You're a loon, Milt. <LOL>
>And not because they're rife with mistakes,
>but because you are so sure you're absolutely correct about things of
>which you have no clue...
>>
>>>For the record, I NEVER make fun of religious belief. Seeing a snuff
>>>film featuring a man playing Jesus pretending to be tortured and killed
>>>and thinking you had a spiritual experience is not about religion; it's
>>>about psychosis.
>>
>> For the record, that's exactly what Ross was doing and I'm pretty sure
>> that was what you were doing too.
>>
>
>Nope. I've had deep all-night discussions about this with people who are
>much more educated about religion -- especially Catholicism, since that
>is the doctrine in which this film is rooted in -- than I am, and was
>actually fretting over it for a while.
That's a fallacy, Milt. It's called appeal to authority. Nobody
cares what your imaginary friends tell you.
>But then I thought about it. No
>matter what, it's not JESUS up there on the cross. In fact, in the final
>scenes, it's an animatronic puppet. It's not Jesus who is being tortured
>on the screen, and the broken skin and the blood is not real. IOW, it's
>a fictional depiction of the torture and murder of a man. None of it was
>necessary to tell the story, and the death is not as important to
>Christianity as the fact that he rose from the dead, according to Jesus
>himself. Therefore, anyone feeling anything resembling a "spiritual"
>anything needs to reassess their faith and probably see a therapist.
You have no basis for making such a claim... but that doesn't stop
you because the movie threatens you so very much.
>And anyone who sees that film, claims to be "spiritually changed" by it
>and does nothing to change anything about his or her life is just a
>hypocrite.
Nor that one, either.
But like all loony leftists, you just can't help but try to impose
your ideas and beliefs on everyone else. I suppose it's disturbing to
you freaks with low self image to openly accept that you are so far
out of the mainstream.
I think that's why you and Ross are so vehement in your attacks on the
movie.
It must really scare you.
>>>Again; you simply have no concept of nuance...
>>><snip>
>>
>>
>> Saying that people who have a religious belief that their sins are
>> washed away by the suffering of Christ is mental illness is not
>> nuance, you moron. You need to look up the word.
>
>Their what?
>
>Their sins were washed away by watching a fictional depiction of the
>brutal torture of an actor and the crucifixion of a pupper on a large
>screen in a movie house, but they're not mentally ill?
Do you really believe that I said what you paraphrased above or were
you just doing that strawman thing again?
Either way you are pathetic and getting more so all the time.
>For some reason, I'm thinking of the story of doubting Thomas about
>now... <g>
>>
>>
>>>>>No. I'm not attacking the movie. I'm not attacking anything. I'm making
>>>>>an observation. I've watched violent movies before, although not quite
>>>>>so graphic and detailed. But never before have people come out of a
>>>>>violent movie claiming that they were changed spiritually.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I really feel sorry for you, Milt, being so intolerant of other
>>>>people's belief systems, especially when it doesn't even involve you.
>>>>I guess it's just an example of you folks with small minds.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not intolerant at all.
>>
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> That's a keeper...
>
>Good. No one who actually knows me would ever accuse me of that.
Another fallacious argument, Milt. I'm sure all your friends tell you
what you want to hear. That's what friends of liberals are for. To
make each other feel good in spite of all their insecurities and
fears.
>>>It's an observation. If they came out of the
>>>movie and stayed killing Jews, I would observe that such a behavior was
>>>wrong, as well. So why are THEY allowed any belief they wish, but I'm
>>>not?
>>
>>
>> Again, where have I challenged your right to believe whatever you
>> like?
>>
>
>My belief that people coming out of the snuff film thinking they've just
>had a "spiritual experience" are nuts is being challenged by you.
No, actually, I didn't challenge your right to believe that, I just
challenged the accuracy of your belief.
Is this getting too difficult for you, Milt?
Do you want me to take it easy on you for a while?
>>>Please explain this to us, Stevie the "agnostic." (Talk about a
>>>pussy, is there any greater pussy than an agnostic? He doesn't think
>>>there's a God, but he's too wimpy to say one way or another.)
>>
>>
>> <LOL> An agnostic is simply somebody that doesn't necessarily need to
>> have an answer to that question.
>
>No. An agnostic is a commitment to NOT answering that question. There's
>a difference.
<shaking my head and smiling> You can believe that if you want, Milt.
It really doesn't matter to me what you believe.
>> It's probably because I am just more
>> secure with myself than you.
>>
>
>Yeah, well, nothing about any of your posts suggests anything but
>serious insecurity. The fact that you make that statement in the first
>place speaks volumes.
I was just explaining why you are so desperate to have a definitive
answer as to your god(s) and I don't need one. Thought you'd like to
know.
>>>BTW, fuckwit, I have a very strong belief in God. I just don't happen to
>>>think most religious people practice what they preach. The same people
>>>who saw this movie would be picketing one that was just as violent, but
>>>involved a person named Joe Smith.
>>
>>
>> Pure conjecture on your part. You do that to try to justify what you
>> can not otherwise justify. That's pretty pathetic.
>>
>It's not conjecture at all. I seem to remember "The Last Temptation of
>Christ" being picketed by the same people, because it didn't conform to
>their belief system. I've been to many a film that has been picketed for
>excessive violence, and none of them came close to the violence in this
>movie. One such movie in which protesters picketed was "Braveheart,"
>ironically...
...and you really believe that these were the same identical people?
Naw, even someone as ignorant as you wouldn't try to make that
argument....
Would you?
>>>>>I didn't see
>>>>>evangelicals coming out of Saving Private Ryan and becoming anti-war
>>>>>activists in droves. The evangelicals didn't come out of Schindler's
>>>>>List hugging Jews. But for some reason, these folks sent busloads of the
>>>>>"faithful" to see a movie where a man pretending to be the icon of their
>>>>>religion was tortured for well over an hour and felt "blessed" for
>>>>>having done so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They went to see a movie about the single most significant event in
>>>>their religion, you moron.
>>>
>>>If they knew anything about their religion, they would know that what
>>>happened two days later was far more important, and the Pentecost was
>>>more important, as well. Jesus himself said so.
>>
>> <LOL> So now you think you get to determine what is important to
>> other people?
>>
>
>No. Jesus did that.
>
>Dumbass...
Cite?
>>>> That the alleged event involved pain and
>>>>suffering is also a significant thing.
>>>
>>>That must be why, out of four Gospels, not one went into that much detail.
>>
>>
>> Actually, there's significant detail. It's only that a movie picture
>> can actually make the images graphic.
>>
>None of the scriptures were nearly that graphic. It took a lot of
>imagination to show a slow motion close-up of the lashes from a whip
>tearing away skin from the back.
<shrug> I imagine so....
>>>>I'm sure you know all that so your objections are simply the result of
>>>>your displeasure at seeing so many people exhibiting beliefs contrary
>>>>to your own.
>>>>
>>>>Tat's a sign of your insecurity and nothing more.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This isn't ironic, coming from a professed "agnostic," is it?
>>
>> Not at all. Some people, you, for instance, simply aren't secure
>> enough to accept that there are some things that simply cannot be
>> known.
>>
>
>And some are so insecure, they have to assure everyone else how secure
>they are.
Do my replies really make you that uncomfortable?
>>>>>If only so many felt blessed enough to feed the poor and house the
>>>>>homeless...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><LOL> What's that got to do with it?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sigh. Read the Bible, and you'd know...
>>
>>
>> Feeding the poor and housing the homeless have nothing to do with
>> Christ's crucifixion, which is what the movie was about, you moron.
>>
>Like I said; read the Bible and you'd know...
>
IOW, you can't argue that point.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
<LOL> The assets of the corporation are mine. I control them, I use
them, and if I sell them, I ultimately reap the benefits.
...and if I use them to pay the taxes, as I must do, ultimately, it's
my pocketbook that suffers.
The corporation's assets *are* mine.
>> Just as a stockholder's assets include his stock assets. When the
>> value of the corporation's assets are reduced, the value of the
>> stockholder's stock goes down.
>
>Which has nothing to do with the corporation's costs of doing business.
Huh? paying taxes is one of the "costs of doing business," you moron.
>I'll ask again; when all of the dot-coms were way overvalued, with P/E
>ratios in the hundreds, what was the relation of their stock and/or
>corporate value to the value of their assets? What did Netscape own,
>exactly, that made them worth tens of billions of dollars?
The stock's value is not totally dependant on the value of the assets,
but it is reflective of it. I never claimed otherwise.
Some corporations have little in the way of assets and some have much.
In any case, the value of the assets is part of what the analysts rate
the company on.
Have you ever read an actual analyst's rating of a stock?
>> You cannot get around this fact with your word games, Milt.
>>
>More irony from the master.
IOW, you can't argue this point either?
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:06:38 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>>
>>>
><snip>
>
>>>>>><LOL> Zepp made the stupid comment after being accused of liking it
>>>>>>when the Terrorists got their way. He obviously approves of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You have to do both. On the one hand, you have to get rid of current
>>>>>terrorists as efficiently as possible. But you also have to understand
>>>>>where it comes from and try to change those circumstances, or you'll end
>>>>>up with a steady stream of terrorists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not if they understand that they will not only *not* get their way but
>>>>be killed as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>>God, it's fascinating to watch a simple mind work.
>>>
>>>It's amazing we became a country, based on that sort of thinking. You do
>>>remember how we became a nation, right? We got what we wanted...
>>
>> You probably though you had a point there. Why not share it with us?
>>
>It's obvious to people who have actually studied American history...
IOW, you didn't really have a point.
>>>>>If you think picking them off one
>>>>>by one will somehow make them so scared that they'll give up eventually,
>>>>>then you know little about history. We see them as terrorists; they see
>>>>>themselves as freedom fighters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't care what they call themselves. If they threaten me or mine
>>>>they are subject to my defending and protecting myself and mine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are so simple. How do you feed yourself? This isn't about the
>>>Russkys coming into the US and taking it. This is about people who have
>>>been oppressed by Westerners for a couple of centuries
>>
>>
>> Oh bullshit! Nobody has been repressing them but their own corrupt
>> leaders.
>>
>
>Who were chosen by...
Huh? you think they were chosen? <LOL>
Get that eighth grade history book we talked about before, Milt.
>Know how the countries of the Middle East came to exist? Do you know how
>most of their leaders were chosen? Read up on history; learn a little.
>Britain and France controlled almost the entire region after WWI. Guess
>how the lines were drawn. Now, when they divested themselves of their
>colonies, how would you suggest they chose the people who would lead
>after they left? Who actually ruled Palestine when Ben Gurion and the
>rest came in and colonized what is now Israel. I'll give you a hint; it
>wasn't the Palestinians...
The "leaders" in the Arab countries were never chosen, they came to
power by force, you moron.
>You're so naive and stupid if you believe what you say above.
>
>>>finally getting
>>>fed up and demanding their sovereignty back. They have the same beef now
>>>that we had 230 years ago. This is their method of trying to get it.
>>>When we're talking about OUR revolution, we refer to them as patriots.
>>>When they're from the Middle East, they're terrorists. Funny how we
>>>don't refer to picking off a guy in a wheelchair with a rocket shot from
>>> a helicopter as "terrorism.
>>
>> He was a terrorist himself. Picking him off was the right thing to
>> do.
>>
>He was a terrorist leader. He wasn't actually terrorizing.
Of course he was...
>And his
>killing probably created a few hundred or more terrorists.
probably?
>It was
>stupid. Almost as stupid as thinking that killing bin Laden will
>eliminate al Qaeda...
You're stupid. <shrug>
>>
>>>>>>>How many Americans were killed by Iraqis prior to March of last year?
>>>>>>>None. If Americans left Iraq, that happy state of affairs would be
>>>>>>>restored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Zepp thinks that Saddam's regime was a "happy state of affairs."
>>>>>
>>>>>It was certainly better than what's been created in his wake.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's not.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So you think it's better that Iraq is a hell hole, and that civilians
>>>and US soldiers are getting picked off by the dozen, with no end in
>>>sight? You're weird.
>>
>> <LOL> You act as though you think you know what's going on there. I
>> assure that you don't. Most Iraqis believe that they are better off
>> and many more believe that they will be even better of soon.
>>
>Most Iraqis do? You act as though you think you know what's going on there.
I do, but actually, my statement was based on a recent poll conducted
there by ABC news on March 15th.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
>Believe me; as a professional skeptic (unlike the gullible moron you
>are), I would tend to believe that, if there were tons of demonstrations
>in support of the US, the Bushies would be parading the film everywhere...
Read the poll. Most Iraqis reject the violence.
>>>>>This was a poorly planned and horribly botched operation, which gets
>>>>>worse every day...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Keep telling yourself that.. I certainly don't care..
>>>>
>>>
>>>So what? You think storming Baghdad with too few soldiers, according to
>>>just about every expert, and not doing anything to secure the borders,
>>>and then withdrawing half the troops when you wipe out the only
>>>government the country has had for 25 years, while replacing it with a
>>>group of US-chosen morons, led by an idiot the Iraqis hate, taking over
>>>the presidential palaces instead of turning them over to the Iraqis who
>>>paid for them, and securing the oil fields, but not the locations where
>>>you claimed there were WMDs and allowing the entire country to descend
>>>into chaos demonstrates a great war plan? It's costing us $10 billion a
>>>month, in addition to the $87 billion Bush got previously, and the $200
>>>billion he's hinting at asking for this summer. It's also cost tens of
>>>thousands of lives with no end in sight. This is what you consider a
>>>successful operation?
>>
>>
>> I simply don;t consider a moron like you to be a proper judge of such
>> things.
>>
>I didn't ask you to judge.
But I did anyway.
>But the fact that you don't answer the question works for me...
I don't answer leading questions that inaccurately portray events and
circumstances. I understand that such dishonest tactics is the only
way people like you can argue things but that doesn't mean that I have
to indulge your mindlessness.
Bu...@awol.com
<Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote:
>
>Zepp has a conscience and a brain, huh?
One thing fer sure, Stevieloon
You couldn't make that judgment on your own.
You'd have to have someone explain it to you.
========================================================================================================
>From: danaraf...@worldnet.att.net (danaraf...@worldnet.att.net)Subject: golden/brown showers
>View this article only
>Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30
>swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
>no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
>satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
>showers. will worship feet and ass. trampling and smothering ok
>also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Milt
Who the fuck would ever apologize to you for anything?
And you made as many mistakes as he did, so I assume your brain isn't
working too well.
Hell; you think corporations don't pay their own taxes. AND you think
corporations sell their assets to pay their corporate tax bill. You also
seem to think that assets are reduced when taxes are paid, which is
ridiculous.
IOW, I wouldn't be referring to anyone else's brain if I was you...
>
>
>>> To begin with, you
>>>couldn't hope to keep up with me on my morning runs and I only have
>>>one leg. I'm also pretty sure that I do more work in the several
>>>places that I volunteer than you do to make a living.
>>>
>>
>>Gosh, what a saint he is.
>
>
> No, just better than you.. and Zepp... and most of the rest of you
> liberal morons.
You're not better than anyone. In fact, given the frequency with which
you brag about yourself, I'd say you don't think you're better yourself...
>
>
>>Given his demonstrated hatred for the poor and downtrodden, one must
>>wonder which homeless-kicking group he volunteers for...
>
>
> why wonder? That information is readily available.
Don't care.
>
Milt
I didn't ask you to define it, you fuckwit. The questions above are
rhetorical, and would have to be answered before a convention.
>>No details in the Constitution. That means Congress makes the rules. How
>>do I know? Article I, Section 8.
>
>
> Shaking my head and smiling> That's ridiculous. There's nothing in
> there that says that the Congress should make the rules for a
> Constitutional convention.
Read it again.
>
>
>>"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
>>Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
>>Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
>>Department or Officer thereof."
>
>
> You think rules for a Constitutional convention are laws? <ROTFLMAO>
Well, yeah, Jackass.
>
>
> You are truly a pathetic moron, milt.
Yet you are the one arguing the above. You're beyond pathetic...
>
>
>>Got it?
>
>
> I got it that you confuse "making laws" with "making rules."
Oh, Christ! You're kidding about this, right? Congress doesn't make
rules; it makes laws.
>
> Aren't you also claiming to have some legal knowledge? MY gawd, you
> are so stupid that it must ache.. lol
>
You're making such an ass of yourself, Stevie. If anyone read your
bullshit, you'd probably have to leave...
>>You're too stupid to be believed, and yet you're so cocksure in your
>>stupidity.
>
>
> <LOL> The irony is running down Milt's sides and puddling at his
> feet.
>
The Constitution is crystal clear, in a sense. If 38 states petition
Congress, Congress has to call the convention. Article I, Section 8
mandates that Congress implement the Constitution, and you're basically
hanging this insane argument on your perceprtion of the words "rule" and
"law"? Even Jeffrey Linder wouldn't touch this one, and he's almost as
dumb as they get.
Hint: Ever hear of "the rule of law"??
>>>I also imagine
>>>that after having done so, the convention can decide on their own
>>>rules and that those rules may well involve refusing to allow the
>>>congress any say in the proces.
>>
>>Instead of imagining what the Constitution says, how about reading the
>>fucking thing?
>
>
> Rules for a convention are not laws, Milt.
If Congress passes them, they are...
> There's nothing in the
> Constitution that defines who makes rules for a Constitutional
> convention,
Yes there is. Article 1, Section 8. I even cut and pasted it for you.
> you moron, and as such, the people at the convention would
> probably make their own rules.
That's possible, but only if Congress passed a law that said they could,
because Congress makes the laws that implement the Constitution.
I used to give you at least a little credit for brains. I apologize for
that; I was wrong.
>>>>I would also reiterate my skepticism that anyone but Congress may amend
>>>>the Constitution in any way other than theory. By the time ten states or
>>>>so have made petition for a convention, Congress could then propose the
>>>>amendments necessary to forestall that. Or do you envision the state
>>>>legislatures from 38 states meeting secretly?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why on earth would they have to meet secretly. The congress could
>>>propose anything they want but the states could simply ignore the
>>>congress and go on without them.
>>>
>>
>>If Congress already proposes a similar or even identical amendment to
>>the one they were meeting to propose, (assuming you could get 38 states
>>-- most of which have differing rules for such things -- to propose
>>something), then there would be no reason to petition for a convention,
>>would there?
>
> <more shaking of my head and smiling> I see, you're still suffering
> from having me "teach" you that Congress is not the only way that an
> amendment can be proposed and you think that by writing the
> diversionary nonsense above will alleviate your suffering....
Well, an amendment beginning in Congress is not the only way, but all
ways have to go through them.
>>>>>>>>IOW, theory is one thing. Practice is another.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The issue is not about theory vs. practice. The fact that Congress is
>>>>>>>not the only way through which an amendment can be initiated is not
>>>>>>>theory, it's a fact, as I educated your dumb ass about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If it's a fact, dumbass, then why don't you explain to us, briefly,
>>>>>>exactly how citizens call a Constitutional Convention?
>>>
>>>
>>><LOL> Citizens? Why not the state legislatures as specified in the
>>>Constitution. You really ought to go read the thing, Milt. You're
>>>really making an ass of yourself... again.
>>>
>>
>>This from someone who just suggested that Congress wouldn't make the
>>rules for the Constitutional Convention...
>
> Here's a little clue, Milt. State legislatures are not the same thing
> as the federal Congress. You did realize that, didn't you?
>
The Constitional Convention is mandated in the FEDERAL Constitution. All
it says is that Congress must order up a convention if 38 states
petition for it.
Oh-- and it also mandates that Congress make "all Laws necessary" to
implement the Constitutional Convention. That COULD be a law that says
the conventioneers make the rules, but I wouldn't make book on it.
>>>>>I told you once before that you should actually read Article Five.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you should. If Congress calls the convention, who makes the
>>>>rules? If someone else, that rule would have to be made by Congress...
>>>
>>>Where is that specified?
>>>
>>>It isn't. It's purely conjecture on your part.
>>>
>>
>>No it isn't. It's the infamous Article I, Section 8;
>>
>>"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
>>Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
>>Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
>>Department or Officer thereof."
>
>
> <LOL> Laws >< convention rules. But keep at this Milt. I'm having
> lots of fun.
>
Well, I'm bored with it. You're too stupid to bother with.
I'll end with the annotations for Article V:
"The Convention Alternative .--Because it has never successfully been
invoked, the convention method of amendment is sur rounded by a lengthy
list of questions. When and how is a convention to be convened? Must the
applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for
substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject
matter? Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with
each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several
years? Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment
or the subject matter which it is called to consider? These are only a
few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper
consideration. This method has been close to utilization several times.
Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of
an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. Two States
were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on
income tax rates. The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme
Court's legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the
required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been
but two States short of the requisite number for some time. Arguments
existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the
political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national
movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States there will
be a response by Congress.
(Gee, Kinda like what I said, huh?)
And the Annotations for Article I Section 8;
Clause 18. Necessary and Proper Clause
COEFFICIENT OR ELASTIC CLAUSE
Scope of Incidental Powers
That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers
expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select
any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those powers, was established
by Marshall's classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland. ''Let the end be
legitimate,'' he wrote, ''let it be within the scope of the
Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly
adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the
letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.'' Moreover,
the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in
other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary
to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government.
Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own
powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other
departments.
(Hmm... EXACTLY what I said...)
Bye, Stevie... it's just plain stupid to argue with someone who pretends
he knows everything, when in fact he knows nothing.
Now I know why you derive such glee when someone else makes a mistake.
You're ecstatic to know you're not the only one. The only problem is,
when most of the people you bitch at make a mistake, it's a glaring
error, because most of what they say is correct. EVERYTHING you say is
based on some common conception you have, and you're very rarely correct
about anything.
That explains why you and others like you are always bringing up shit
that someone said a few years ago. It's all you have...
And drop the sig. It's been refuted. You just look desperate.
David Moffitt
%%%% LMAO!! What has zippy promised you for defending him so hard Milt??
:o)
David Moffitt
%%%% Why are you so upset over someone saying things about zippy? Is he your
homo lover Milt?? :o)
Milt
No. The corporate assets are the corporation's. And anyone who has a
corporation knows this. When you disband the corporation, the
corporation liquidates its assets, and you get whatever's left after all
of the corporation's liabilities have been paid. You transfer ownership
of the assets.
Of course, anyone who's ever incorporated knows this...
>
> ...and if I use them to pay the taxes, as I must do, ultimately, it's
> my pocketbook that suffers.
Corporations don't use assets to pay taxes, fuckwit. And anyone whose
ever paid corporate taxes know that.
>
> The corporation's assets *are* mine.
>
No, the salary the corporation pays you is yours. The revenue and the
assets are the corporations. That's why, when someone sues the
corporation, they can't take your house or your personal assets...
>
>>>Just as a stockholder's assets include his stock assets. When the
>>>value of the corporation's assets are reduced, the value of the
>>>stockholder's stock goes down.
>>
>>Which has nothing to do with the corporation's costs of doing business.
>
>
> Huh? paying taxes is one of the "costs of doing business," you moron.
No it isn't. It's the cost of making a profit. You don't pay taxes on
"doing business." You only pay them when you have money left over.
>
>
>>I'll ask again; when all of the dot-coms were way overvalued, with P/E
>>ratios in the hundreds, what was the relation of their stock and/or
>>corporate value to the value of their assets? What did Netscape own,
>>exactly, that made them worth tens of billions of dollars?
>
>
> The stock's value is not totally dependant on the value of the assets,
> but it is reflective of it. I never claimed otherwise.
Uh huh. You've been claiming just that the entire thread. Again, I ask;
what was the value of Netscape Corp's assets when their stock reached $100?
If I wanted to issue stock in my corporation, I can set the value
anywhere I want. The price at which it sells has little to nothing to do
with the corporation's assets. It's based on their perception of my
future revenues. REVENUES, not ASSETS.
This is Business 101, Stevie, and you ain't getting it. Why am I
suddenly doubting you're a millionaire business whiz.
> Some corporations have little in the way of assets and some have much.
> In any case, the value of the assets is part of what the analysts rate
> the company on.
Ah. So it's gone from " a reduction in assets always affects the..." to
being "part of what analysts base the company on..." Jesus, you're stupid.
> Have you ever read an actual analyst's rating of a stock?
>
Um, yeah.
At MOST, a company's assets are a MINOR consideration. And the company's
assets have nothing to do with how much corporate taxes they pay.
>
>>>You cannot get around this fact with your word games, Milt.
>>>
>>
>>More irony from the master.
>
>
> IOW, you can't argue this point either?
>
It's not a point. You're calling concepts such as "revenues" and
"liabilities" word games. Hate to break it to you, but if your broker is
advising you on buys based on company assets, you need a new broker. If
sales at Wal-Mart dropped 80% next year, the fact that they have
billions of dollars in assets would not keep me from selling their stock...
Milt
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 23:00:15 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:06:38 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>><LOL> Zepp made the stupid comment after being accused of liking it
>>>>>>>when the Terrorists got their way. He obviously approves of that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have to do both. On the one hand, you have to get rid of current
>>>>>>terrorists as efficiently as possible. But you also have to understand
>>>>>>where it comes from and try to change those circumstances, or you'll end
>>>>>>up with a steady stream of terrorists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not if they understand that they will not only *not* get their way but
>>>>>be killed as well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>God, it's fascinating to watch a simple mind work.
>>>>
>>>>It's amazing we became a country, based on that sort of thinking. You do
>>>>remember how we became a nation, right? We got what we wanted...
>>>
>>>You probably though you had a point there. Why not share it with us?
>>>
>>
>>It's obvious to people who have actually studied American history...
>
>
> IOW, you didn't really have a point.
Not that a moron like you would understand...
>
>
>>>>>>If you think picking them off one
>>>>>>by one will somehow make them so scared that they'll give up eventually,
>>>>>>then you know little about history. We see them as terrorists; they see
>>>>>>themselves as freedom fighters.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't care what they call themselves. If they threaten me or mine
>>>>>they are subject to my defending and protecting myself and mine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are so simple. How do you feed yourself? This isn't about the
>>>>Russkys coming into the US and taking it. This is about people who have
>>>>been oppressed by Westerners for a couple of centuries
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh bullshit! Nobody has been repressing them but their own corrupt
>>>leaders.
>>>
>>
>>Who were chosen by...
>
>
> Huh? you think they were chosen? <LOL>
Um, yeah.
> Get that eighth grade history book we talked about before, Milt.
For you, I guess. You're the idiot who thinks that Middle East leaders
simply appeared out of thin air, in former European colonies. Jesus...
>
>
>>Know how the countries of the Middle East came to exist? Do you know how
>>most of their leaders were chosen? Read up on history; learn a little.
>>Britain and France controlled almost the entire region after WWI. Guess
>>how the lines were drawn. Now, when they divested themselves of their
>>colonies, how would you suggest they chose the people who would lead
>>after they left? Who actually ruled Palestine when Ben Gurion and the
>>rest came in and colonized what is now Israel. I'll give you a hint; it
>>wasn't the Palestinians...
>
>
> The "leaders" in the Arab countries were never chosen, they came to
> power by force, you moron.
>
No, actually. Most of them did not. Some did, and they were supported by
a much more powerful nation. For example, the Shah of Iran was
installed by our CIA because he didn't support the USSR. Saddam was not
supported by our CIA (at first) because he DID support the USSR.
See how that works?
Morons...
Milt
Just because Stevie promised you a blow job doesn't mean the rest of us
makes such deals...
Milt
I'm not gay, David.
But if you are, that's okay. I hope you and Canyon will be very happy
when they legalise your marriage.
David Moffitt
%%%% You didn't answer the question Milt? Your homo orientation is showing
Milt. Homo ad-hominem attack is not an answer.
>
David Moffitt
> David Moffitt wrote:
>
> > "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
> > news:D4SdnZ9HWog...@comcast.com...
> >
> > %%%% Why are you so upset over someone saying things about zippy? Is he
your
> > homo lover Milt?? :o)
> >
> >
>
> I'm not gay, David.
%%%% Suuuuure your not! You just always respond with homo fantasies!!
>
> But if you are, that's okay. I hope you and Canyon will be very happy
> when they legalise your marriage.
%%%% See! Thanks for the confirmation of your "orientation" Milt. LMAO :o)
>
zepp
<MOFF...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>
>"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>news:f--dnQ8Focj...@comcast.com...
>> David Moffitt wrote:
>>
>> > "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>> > news:D4SdnZ9HWog...@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > %%%% Why are you so upset over someone saying things about zippy? Is he
>your
>> > homo lover Milt?? :o)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I'm not gay, David.
>
>%%%% Suuuuure your not! You just always respond with homo fantasies!!
Little Miss Muppet, to you EVERYTHING is a homosexual fantasy. Why, I
bet you've got nude pictures of Arnie Schwarzenegger taped to the
ceiling over your bed!
>
>>
>> But if you are, that's okay. I hope you and Canyon will be very happy
>> when they legalise your marriage.
>
>%%%% See! Thanks for the confirmation of your "orientation" Milt. LMAO :o)
>
>>
>
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 4/30/2001.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
zepp
<MOFF...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>
>"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>news:f--dnQwFoch...@comcast.com...
>> David Moffitt wrote:
>>
>> > "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>> > news:GcmdnWrn26x...@comcast.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > %%%% LMAO!! What has zippy promised you for defending him so hard Milt??
>> > :o)
>> >
>> >
>> Just because Stevie promised you a blow job doesn't mean the rest of us
>> makes such deals...
>
>%%%% You didn't answer the question Milt? Your homo orientation is showing
>Milt. Homo ad-hominem attack is not an answer.
Say, Dave, is it true your autobiography of your war years is going to
be titled, "Manning the Glory Holes of Saigon"?
David Moffitt
"zepp" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:nmqr809s2uu956018...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 03:28:37 GMT, "David Moffitt"
> <MOFF...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
> >news:f--dnQ8Focj...@comcast.com...
> >> David Moffitt wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:D4SdnZ9HWog...@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > %%%% Why are you so upset over someone saying things about zippy? Is
he
> >your
> >> > homo lover Milt?? :o)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'm not gay, David.
> >
> >%%%% Suuuuure your not! You just always respond with homo fantasies!!
>
> Little Miss Muppet, to you EVERYTHING is a homosexual fantasy. Why, I
> bet you've got nude pictures of Arnie Schwarzenegger taped to the
> ceiling over your bed!
%%%% I was wondering when you were going to jump in and defend your lover
D-cup. I'll wager you are the fem in the "relationship" with those fat
tits!! :o)
David Moffitt
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 03:26:38 GMT, "David Moffitt"
> <MOFF...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
> >news:f--dnQwFoch...@comcast.com...
> >> David Moffitt wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:GcmdnWrn26x...@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > %%%% LMAO!! What has zippy promised you for defending him so hard
Milt??
> >> > :o)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Just because Stevie promised you a blow job doesn't mean the rest of us
> >> makes such deals...
> >
> >%%%% You didn't answer the question Milt? Your homo orientation is
showing
> >Milt. Homo ad-hominem attack is not an answer.
>
> Say, Dave, is it true your autobiography of your war years is going to
> be titled, "Manning the Glory Holes of Saigon"?
%%%%% AHHH! Look D-cup has come to the defence of his lover with more homo
ad-hominem. How cute!! LMAO :o)
zepp
<MOFF...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>
>"zepp" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>news:nmqr809s2uu956018...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 03:28:37 GMT, "David Moffitt"
>> <MOFF...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>> >news:f--dnQ8Focj...@comcast.com...
>> >> David Moffitt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:D4SdnZ9HWog...@comcast.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > %%%% Why are you so upset over someone saying things about zippy? Is
>he
>> >your
>> >> > homo lover Milt?? :o)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I'm not gay, David.
>> >
>> >%%%% Suuuuure your not! You just always respond with homo fantasies!!
>>
>> Little Miss Muppet, to you EVERYTHING is a homosexual fantasy. Why, I
>> bet you've got nude pictures of Arnie Schwarzenegger taped to the
>> ceiling over your bed!
>
>%%%% I was wondering when you were going to jump in and defend your lover
>D-cup. I'll wager you are the fem in the "relationship" with those fat
>tits!! :o)
Still fantasizing about my tits, Muppet? You should get together with
Zarlenga. He's had a homosexual obsession with me for years.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
For lying...
>And you made as many mistakes as he did, so I assume your brain isn't
>working too well.
Nope, I made no mistakes
>Hell; you think corporations don't pay their own taxes. AND you think
>corporations sell their assets to pay their corporate tax bill. You also
>seem to think that assets are reduced when taxes are paid, which is
>ridiculous.
<LOL> And you think that all is not true...
>IOW, I wouldn't be referring to anyone else's brain if I was you...
>>
>>
>>>> To begin with, you
>>>>couldn't hope to keep up with me on my morning runs and I only have
>>>>one leg. I'm also pretty sure that I do more work in the several
>>>>places that I volunteer than you do to make a living.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Gosh, what a saint he is.
>>
>>
>> No, just better than you.. and Zepp... and most of the rest of you
>> liberal morons.
>
>You're not better than anyone. In fact, given the frequency with which
>you brag about yourself, I'd say you don't think you're better yourself...
Oh, I;m much better than you.
>>>Given his demonstrated hatred for the poor and downtrodden, one must
>>>wonder which homeless-kicking group he volunteers for...
>>
>>
>> why wonder? That information is readily available.
>
>Don't care.
>>
<LOL> You just said that you wondered...
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Liberals must dream about blow jobs and other sexual relations with
their usenet friends. That's why they mention it all the time.
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 03:26:38 GMT, "David Moffitt"
><MOFF...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>news:f--dnQwFoch...@comcast.com...
>>> David Moffitt wrote:
>>>
>>> > "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:GcmdnWrn26x...@comcast.com...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > %%%% LMAO!! What has zippy promised you for defending him so hard Milt??
>>> > :o)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Just because Stevie promised you a blow job doesn't mean the rest of us
>>> makes such deals...
>>
>>%%%% You didn't answer the question Milt? Your homo orientation is showing
>>Milt. Homo ad-hominem attack is not an answer.
>
>Say, Dave, is it true your autobiography of your war years is going to
>be titled, "Manning the Glory Holes of Saigon"?
Zepp seems to have glory holes on *his* mind today.
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson showing that he didn't know that the Missouri compromise
had been both repealed and declared uncosntitutional long before Lincoln
was elected.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."
"the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper."
--Milt Shook explaining why he wouldn't mind if the taxes were quadrupled
on the corporation he says he created
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook presumably explaining the "diversity" in his dating habits
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Attacking the movie? Not me."
"The only criticism I have of it is that it sounds like a slasher movie"
"But it sounds like the movie is just one pornographic exercise in pain
and suffering"
"....allowing in slo-mo blood spatters like Gibson does."
--Mike Ross protesting too much while venting his displeasure over the
fact that Mel Gibson's movie is a big hit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m0c150195ov0ucjrq3qooifk5776h33hnm%404ax.com
******************************************
******************************************
"Those are 187 Salomons and I know how to use them."
"There's a good reason that pretty much _everyone_ has abandoned the
long straight skis nowadays"
--Arne Langsetno bragging about his skiing ability, then, showing that
he doesn't even know that skis have never been "straight" and that you
could never perform the carving turns that advanced skiers do on straight
skis.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fF08c.53759%24aT1.41227%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Steve Canyon
wrote:
But not necessarily by the congress.
>>>
>>>Okay, then, define the form of the convention. Who represents what? How
>>>many votes does it take to pass an amendment? How is the amendment
>>>formed? Who decides on the wording? Where is the convention? How long is
>>>the convention? How many votes are taken before the convention is
>>>disbanded?
>>
>>
>> <ROTFL> Why should I define it and whatever makes you think that the
>> congress should be the ones to do any of that?
>>
>I didn't ask you to define it, you fuckwit. The questions above are
>rhetorical, and would have to be answered before a convention.
>
>>>No details in the Constitution. That means Congress makes the rules. How
>>>do I know? Article I, Section 8.
>>
>>
>> Shaking my head and smiling> That's ridiculous. There's nothing in
>> there that says that the Congress should make the rules for a
>> Constitutional convention.
>
>Read it again.
>>
>>
>>>"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
>>>Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
>>>Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
>>>Department or Officer thereof."
>>
>>
>> You think rules for a Constitutional convention are laws? <ROTFLMAO>
>
>Well, yeah, Jackass.
Well, yeah, I guess a moron like you *might* think that.
>> You are truly a pathetic moron, milt.
>
>Yet you are the one arguing the above. You're beyond pathetic...
>>
>>
>>>Got it?
>>
>>
>> I got it that you confuse "making laws" with "making rules."
>
>Oh, Christ! You're kidding about this, right? Congress doesn't make
>rules; it makes laws.
Errrr, you really do believe that, don't you? <LOL>
>> Aren't you also claiming to have some legal knowledge? MY gawd, you
>> are so stupid that it must ache.. lol
>>
>You're making such an ass of yourself, Stevie. If anyone read your
>bullshit, you'd probably have to leave...
>
>>>You're too stupid to be believed, and yet you're so cocksure in your
>>>stupidity.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> The irony is running down Milt's sides and puddling at his
>> feet.
>>
> The Constitution is crystal clear, in a sense. If 38 states petition
>Congress, Congress has to call the convention. Article I, Section 8
>mandates that Congress implement the Constitution, and you're basically
>hanging this insane argument on your perceprtion of the words "rule" and
>"law"? Even Jeffrey Linder wouldn't touch this one, and he's almost as
>dumb as they get.
There's absolutely nothing about the Congress implementing the
convention, you horses ass. You made that up. All they do is call
the convention, IOW decree that it shall happen. The folks at the
convention can make their own rules and the fact that the Constitution
is supposed to make laws does no more give them the right to make
rules for the convention than it gives them the right to make rules
for running the Supreme Court. OH, BTW, Congress does have some
powers to limit the scope of the Court's jurisdiction, but they do
*NOT* get to make the rules for the proceedings as your interpretation
of Article 1, Section 8 would indicate.
>Hint: Ever hear of "the rule of law"??
<ROTFLAMO> Rules for running a convention are not laws, you moron.
>>>>I also imagine
>>>>that after having done so, the convention can decide on their own
>>>>rules and that those rules may well involve refusing to allow the
>>>>congress any say in the proces.
>>>
>>>Instead of imagining what the Constitution says, how about reading the
>>>fucking thing?
>>
>>
>> Rules for a convention are not laws, Milt.
>
>If Congress passes them, they are...
<LOL> But they have no Constitutional right to do so.
> > There's nothing in the
>> Constitution that defines who makes rules for a Constitutional
>> convention,
>
>Yes there is. Article 1, Section 8. I even cut and pasted it for you.
That has to do with making laws, not convention rules, you moron. By
your definition, the Congress can make rules to run the Supreme Court.
> > you moron, and as such, the people at the convention would
>> probably make their own rules.
>
>That's possible, but only if Congress passed a law that said they could,
>because Congress makes the laws that implement the Constitution.
Congress only calls the convention, it doesn't necessarily get to make
the rules, unless, of course the folks at the convention ask them too.
They have no power to do it, just as they have no power to make rules
for the Supreme Court Proceedings.
>I used to give you at least a little credit for brains. I apologize for
>that; I was wrong.
>
>>>>>I would also reiterate my skepticism that anyone but Congress may amend
>>>>>the Constitution in any way other than theory. By the time ten states or
>>>>>so have made petition for a convention, Congress could then propose the
>>>>>amendments necessary to forestall that. Or do you envision the state
>>>>>legislatures from 38 states meeting secretly?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why on earth would they have to meet secretly. The congress could
>>>>propose anything they want but the states could simply ignore the
>>>>congress and go on without them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If Congress already proposes a similar or even identical amendment to
>>>the one they were meeting to propose, (assuming you could get 38 states
>>>-- most of which have differing rules for such things -- to propose
>>>something), then there would be no reason to petition for a convention,
>>>would there?
>>
>> <more shaking of my head and smiling> I see, you're still suffering
>> from having me "teach" you that Congress is not the only way that an
>> amendment can be proposed and you think that by writing the
>> diversionary nonsense above will alleviate your suffering....
>
>Well, an amendment beginning in Congress is not the only way, but all
>ways have to go through them.
Nope, sorry, you're still losing this one.
>>>>>>>>>IOW, theory is one thing. Practice is another.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The issue is not about theory vs. practice. The fact that Congress is
>>>>>>>>not the only way through which an amendment can be initiated is not
>>>>>>>>theory, it's a fact, as I educated your dumb ass about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If it's a fact, dumbass, then why don't you explain to us, briefly,
>>>>>>>exactly how citizens call a Constitutional Convention?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><LOL> Citizens? Why not the state legislatures as specified in the
>>>>Constitution. You really ought to go read the thing, Milt. You're
>>>>really making an ass of yourself... again.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This from someone who just suggested that Congress wouldn't make the
>>>rules for the Constitutional Convention...
>>
>> Here's a little clue, Milt. State legislatures are not the same thing
>> as the federal Congress. You did realize that, didn't you?
>>
>The Constitional Convention is mandated in the FEDERAL Constitution. All
>it says is that Congress must order up a convention if 38 states
>petition for it.
So now it goes from "call a convention" to "order up a convention" in
your pitiful attempt to try to magnify the Congress's part in the
process.
>Oh-- and it also mandates that Congress make "all Laws necessary" to
>implement the Constitutional Convention.
<LOL> Nope, it says no such thing. It gives the Congress power to
make laws to execute the powers of the government, not rules a
convention.
>That COULD be a law that says
>the conventioneers make the rules, but I wouldn't make book on it.
The convention could make it's own rules and give the Congress no say
at all
>>>>>>I told you once before that you should actually read Article Five.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps you should. If Congress calls the convention, who makes the
>>>>>rules? If someone else, that rule would have to be made by Congress...
>>>>
>>>>Where is that specified?
>>>>
>>>>It isn't. It's purely conjecture on your part.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No it isn't. It's the infamous Article I, Section 8;
>>>
>>>"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
>>>Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
>>>Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
>>>Department or Officer thereof."
>>
>>
>> <LOL> Laws >< convention rules. But keep at this Milt. I'm having
>> lots of fun.
>>
>
>Well, I'm bored with it. You're too stupid to bother with.
<LOL> IOW, you finally recognize that you're not going to win this.
>I'll end with the annotations for Article V:
>
>"The Convention Alternative .--Because it has never successfully been
>invoked, the convention method of amendment is sur rounded by a lengthy
>list of questions. When and how is a convention to be convened? Must the
>applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for
>substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject
>matter? Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with
>each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several
>years? Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment
>or the subject matter which it is called to consider? These are only a
>few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper
>consideration. This method has been close to utilization several times.
>Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of
>an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. Two States
>were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on
>income tax rates. The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme
>Court's legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the
>required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been
>but two States short of the requisite number for some time. Arguments
>existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the
>political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national
>movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States there will
>be a response by Congress.
>
>(Gee, Kinda like what I said, huh?)
Errrrr, Nothing in that to support you claim that the Congress makes
rules for the convention, Milt. Did you even read it?
>And the Annotations for Article I Section 8;
>
>Clause 18. Necessary and Proper Clause
>
> COEFFICIENT OR ELASTIC CLAUSE
>
> Scope of Incidental Powers
>
>That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers
>expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select
>any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those powers, was established
>by Marshall's classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland. ''Let the end be
>legitimate,'' he wrote, ''let it be within the scope of the
>Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly
>adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the
>letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.'' Moreover,
>the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in
>other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary
>to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government.
>Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own
>powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other
>departments.
>
>(Hmm... EXACTLY what I said...)
NOT a single thing there that say that Congress should make rules for
the convention. Convention rules are not laws, Milt and your foray
into your fantasyland of yours is not going to save your ridiculous
claim that "only congress can amend the Constitution."
>Bye, Stevie... it's just plain stupid to argue with someone who pretends
>he knows everything, when in fact he knows nothing.
>
>Now I know why you derive such glee when someone else makes a mistake.
> You're ecstatic to know you're not the only one. The only problem is,
>when most of the people you bitch at make a mistake, it's a glaring
>error, because most of what they say is correct. EVERYTHING you say is
>based on some common conception you have, and you're very rarely correct
>about anything.
Says the guy who thinks a piece of paper pays corporate taxes and that
a nobody owns a corporation.
>That explains why you and others like you are always bringing up shit
>that someone said a few years ago. It's all you have...
Actually, I bring it up because I have so much fun watching you morons
try to save face.
>And drop the sig. It's been refuted. You just look desperate.
Nothing in my sig has been refuted, Milt. Not a single thing. How
can you refute direct quotes?
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>David Moffitt wrote:
>
>> "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>> news:D4SdnZ9HWog...@comcast.com...
>>
>> %%%% Why are you so upset over someone saying things about zippy? Is he your
>> homo lover Milt?? :o)
>>
>>
>
>I'm not gay, David.
Milt is probably not gay, since he claims to have a kid, he just
appears to be sort of effeminate.
>But if you are, that's okay. I hope you and Canyon will be very happy
>when they legalise your marriage.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Of course, I get all the assets. Like I said, it's all mine.
>Of course, anyone who's ever incorporated knows this...
>>
>> ...and if I use them to pay the taxes, as I must do, ultimately, it's
>> my pocketbook that suffers.
>
>Corporations don't use assets to pay taxes, fuckwit. And anyone whose
>ever paid corporate taxes know that.
<LOL> I thought you've been blustering that nobody pays corporate
taxes, Milt
>> The corporation's assets *are* mine.
>>
>No, the salary the corporation pays you is yours. The revenue and the
>assets are the corporations.
<LOL> ...and since the corporation is mine, all it's assets are
mine, too.
>That's why, when someone sues the
>corporation, they can't take your house or your personal assets...
>
>>>>Just as a stockholder's assets include his stock assets. When the
>>>>value of the corporation's assets are reduced, the value of the
>>>>stockholder's stock goes down.
>>>
>>>Which has nothing to do with the corporation's costs of doing business.
>>
>>
>> Huh? paying taxes is one of the "costs of doing business," you moron.
>
>No it isn't. It's the cost of making a profit. You don't pay taxes on
>"doing business." You only pay them when you have money left over.
<LOL> Sorry. Like I said, taxes are a cost of doing business, and
you don't "only pay them when you have money left over." In case you
didn't realize it, making a profit is generally considered an
essential ingredient in "doing business," especially in the case of a
corporation's business.
<LOL> Now I suppose that Milt will pathetically present an example of
a non-profit corporation to attempt to "disprove" what I just said.
>>>I'll ask again; when all of the dot-coms were way overvalued, with P/E
>>>ratios in the hundreds, what was the relation of their stock and/or
>>>corporate value to the value of their assets? What did Netscape own,
>>>exactly, that made them worth tens of billions of dollars?
>>
>>
>> The stock's value is not totally dependant on the value of the assets,
>> but it is reflective of it. I never claimed otherwise.
>
>Uh huh. You've been claiming just that the entire thread.
Nope, sorry, I never said that and now you're trying to put words in
my mouth because you see how badly you're losing and you don't have
any reservations about being dishonest.
>Again, I ask;
>what was the value of Netscape Corp's assets when their stock reached $100?
>
>If I wanted to issue stock in my corporation, I can set the value
>anywhere I want.
errrrr, no you can't set the value anywhere you want, you moron. You
can't set the value at all. You might set the price that you're
willing to sell or buy but not the value.
>The price at which it sells has little to nothing to do
>with the corporation's assets. It's based on their perception of my
>future revenues. REVENUES, not ASSETS.
The stock's value is not necessarily the price you set, you moron.
Get a clue, and furthermore, if you think you should base your stock
investments purely on the basis of perceived revenues it becomes very
clear that you aren't even in the same room with any clues.
>This is Business 101, Stevie, and you ain't getting it. Why am I
>suddenly doubting you're a millionaire business whiz.
<LOL> says the guy that doesn't know the difference between a price
and a value and thinks a stocks price is based purely on revenue.
<LOL>
>> Some corporations have little in the way of assets and some have much.
>> In any case, the value of the assets is part of what the analysts rate
>> the company on.
>
>Ah. So it's gone from " a reduction in assets always affects the..." to
>being "part of what analysts base the company on..." Jesus, you're stupid.
Same thing, you moron. An analyst looks at the assets as part of his
analysis, and if the assets have been reduced, barring any other
factors, he *will* devalue it.
You always try to introduce other factors into the equation in your
pathetic attempt to make you points so I suppose now you will say that
the analyst would not devalue it if he see's some positive changes
elsewhere as you've fallaciously done before.
>> Have you ever read an actual analyst's rating of a stock?
>>
>Um, yeah.
I doubt it since you try to claim that a price that you set is the
value of the stock.
You're a moron, Milt.
>At MOST, a company's assets are a MINOR consideration. And the company's
>assets have nothing to do with how much corporate taxes they pay.
Like I said, you probably never read an actual analyst's rating of a
stock.
BTW, your statement above about assets having to do with taxes paid is
just another dishonest strawmen since I've never suggested that it
did.
You really have no inhibitions against being dishonest, do you, Milt?
>>>>You cannot get around this fact with your word games, Milt.
>>>>
>>>
>>>More irony from the master.
>>
>>
>> IOW, you can't argue this point either?
>>
>It's not a point. You're calling concepts such as "revenues" and
>"liabilities" word games.
yep, you're using the very limited definitions based entirely on
accounting procedures just as you use the notion that corporations
don't have owners because the stockholders only own the stock and just
like you use the fact that a corporations business cannot legally be
commingled with the owner's business to attempt to claim that the
owners' business is somehow not directly effected by the corporation's
business, which, of course is the case, and the corporation would not
exist if it didn't.
<sigh> It's time to sum this all up.
Milt made the lame and stupid claim that person's don't ultimately pay
all corporate taxes. He's now realized how stupid that was and is
desperately skampering around trying to keep from having to once more
admit to a mistake like I made him do regarding his stupid claim that
"only congress can amend the Constitution."
Milt is attempting to use the fact that corporations have certain
legal barriers between them and their owners to pretend that the
corporations are something other than extensions of those owners that
even he knows them to be. He tries to say that corporations have no
owners because people own the stock instead of the corporation. He
admits that sometimes people form corporations to gain the tax
benefits and thus the tax benefits are passed along to people but then
he tries to claim that the actual paying of the taxes is not passed to
those people as well..
He also uses fallacious arguments, like the one where he claims that
employers pay an employee's taxes in the same way as corporate taxes
are always passed on to people, usually the corporate owners. That
argument is totally false since the employer's do not feel the effects
of the employee's taxes as a stockholder feels the effects of the
corporate tax. He fallaciously attacks that with a strawman about how
an employer does actually pay half of the employee's social security
payment which has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
He tries to clam that the money from which you pay taxes isn't an
"asset" using limited accounting terminology to define the word
instead of the simple definition of "asset."
He tries to imply that when I say that taxes are always ultimately
passed on to people I am saying that people pay the taxes directly
with a "personal check." He knows this is wrong but he's so desperate
to save face that he's perfectly willing to be dishonest about it.
He tries to imply that when I say that an analyst looks at a company's
assets when they evaluate a stock I'm saying that is all they look at.
Again, he knows this is false but that doesn't matter to him.
He argues that a company might not suffer economically as a result of
taxation and that the company would never be motivated to downsize or
increase their prices as a result of it. He fallaciously presents a
case where this might not happen as "evidence" that, indeed, it would
never happen.
In his desperation he displays even more of his ignorance. He claims
that a stock's value is whatever he might set the price at. He claims
that a stock's value is based entirely on the company's revenues which
is totally ridiculous.
>Hate to break it to you, but if your broker is
>advising you on buys based on company assets, you need a new broker.
<LOL> Now Milt pretends that he's qualified as an analyst... Like I
said, stock value is based on many factors and one of those is assets
as anyone who ever read an analysis would know.
Obviously Milt has not ever done that.
> If
>sales at Wal-Mart dropped 80% next year, the fact that they have
>billions of dollars in assets would not keep me from selling their stock...
>
I doubt that you've ever even owned any stock, Milt, except maybe in
your little 401. Whether or not I buy or sell a stock is based on
many factors. One of those is whether a stock is overvalued or
undervalued. One reason a stock might be undervalued is that dumb
knee jerk morons like you follow the lead of other dumb knee jerk
morons and bail out without regard to anything but the falling price
as you indicated that you would do.
Indeed, an 80% drop in stock price might be reason to sell a stock but
it might also be a reason to buy it, as anybody who knows anything
about it would tell you.
Face it, Milt, you're a moron and everybody who reads this thread
knows it now, as well.
----
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson explaining how he'd deal with terrorists if they were
trying to kill one of his family members
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 23:00:15 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:06:38 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>>>><LOL> Zepp made the stupid comment after being accused of liking it
>>>>>>>>when the Terrorists got their way. He obviously approves of that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You have to do both. On the one hand, you have to get rid of current
>>>>>>>terrorists as efficiently as possible. But you also have to understand
>>>>>>>where it comes from and try to change those circumstances, or you'll end
>>>>>>>up with a steady stream of terrorists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not if they understand that they will not only *not* get their way but
>>>>>>be killed as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>God, it's fascinating to watch a simple mind work.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's amazing we became a country, based on that sort of thinking. You do
>>>>>remember how we became a nation, right? We got what we wanted...
>>>>
>>>>You probably though you had a point there. Why not share it with us?
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's obvious to people who have actually studied American history...
>>
>>
>> IOW, you didn't really have a point.
>
>Not that a moron like you would understand...
You still haven't said what your point is, Milt? Are you actually
trying to equate today's terrorists with our revolution?
Please tell me that is your "point," Milt.....
I can't wait to tear into you on this issue.
Jim
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:31:16 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( Not the man who
> knows everything, just the man who knows the important things )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >zepp wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:22:23 GMT, Old Samurai <rar...@home.ja> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:20:58 -0800, zepp <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Journalism
> >> >>Bias is one thing; lying another
> >> >>
> >> >>by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
> >> >>03/29/04
> >> >>http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/journalism.htm
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>releasing it. It didn't seem the time to remind people of why Putsch
> >> >>and not Gore was president.
> >> >
> >> >Putsch?
> >> >
> >> >You really need to lose that childish habit.
> >> >It ruins your credibility.
> >>
> >> I just like to remind people of how he came to office. He is not a
> >> legitimately elected president.
> >>
> >You are utterly dishonest. Either Bush or Gore had to become president,
> >they both couldn't be. Bush won the election in Florida on every recount
> >therefore he got the job. If Gore had been given it, he'd be even less
> >legitimate by your own statements. Would you prefer that, Al Gore, the
> >putschy putsch?
>
> There were no recounts.
Sure there were.
> Antonin Scalia stopped them.
Gee, all by himself?
> But the NORC survey shows Gore would have won.
That would be the one where they count a non-vote as a Gore-vote
because they figure democrats are stupid.
> Gore would have continued the eight years of peace and prosperity...
Peace: Not going after the terrorists - who were here planning their
attack long before the electoin - after they knocked down the WTC.
Prosperity: A continuation of the corporate fraud.
Jim
Milt
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:09:41 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>
>>
<snip>
Note the inability to read the question.
>
>
>>And you made as many mistakes as he did, so I assume your brain isn't
>>working too well.
>
> Nope, I made no mistakes
>
Afraid that's all you do. You're rarely correct about anything...
>>Hell; you think corporations don't pay their own taxes. AND you think
>>corporations sell their assets to pay their corporate tax bill. You also
>>seem to think that assets are reduced when taxes are paid, which is
>>ridiculous.
>
>
> <LOL> And you think that all is not true...
No. As I have demonstrated continually, I KNOW it's all not true.
>>IOW, I wouldn't be referring to anyone else's brain if I was you...
>>
>>>
>>>>>To begin with, you
>>>>>couldn't hope to keep up with me on my morning runs and I only have
>>>>>one leg. I'm also pretty sure that I do more work in the several
>>>>>places that I volunteer than you do to make a living.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gosh, what a saint he is.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, just better than you.. and Zepp... and most of the rest of you
>>>liberal morons.
>>
>>You're not better than anyone. In fact, given the frequency with which
>>you brag about yourself, I'd say you don't think you're better yourself..
>
> Oh, I;m much better than you.
>
In your mind, that may be true. But given the fact that your mind also
thinks people are dishonest when they apply accounting terms to
accounting principles, well...
Milt
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:02:36 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>David Moffitt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>>news:D4SdnZ9HWog...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>%%%% Why are you so upset over someone saying things about zippy? Is he your
>>>homo lover Milt?? :o)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm not gay, David.
>
>
> Milt is probably not gay, since he claims to have a kid, he just
> appears to be sort of effeminate.
>
This from a guy who spends several paragraphs telling us that, because
he feels like his corporation's assets are his, they may as well be his...
Milt
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:42:55 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>
>>
<snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Congress can propose amendments, and they have to call a convention when
>>>>>>38 state legislatures get together and petition them to. Of course,
>>>>>>since there are no convention rules specified in Article V, who would
>>>>>>you assume would get to make them? Well, since Congress calls the
>>>>>>convention, why would you assume they don't get to make the rules?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><LOL> I "imagine" that congress can only do what the Constitution
>>>>>says they can do and that is to call the convention.
>
>
> But not necessarily by the congress.
ONLY by the Congress. Read it again...
David Moffitt
%%%% LMAO!! If anyone says anything negative about the illegal Canadian
alien D-cup you are the first (and only) person acting like his lover to
jump to ole lard asses defense!! :o)
>
>
zepp
<MOFF...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>
>"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>news:f-CdnZfp_vY...@comcast.com...
>> Steve Canyon wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:02:36 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>David Moffitt wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>> >>>news:D4SdnZ9HWog...@comcast.com...
>> >>>
>> >>>%%%% Why are you so upset over someone saying things about zippy? Is he
>your
>> >>>homo lover Milt?? :o)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>I'm not gay, David.
>> >
>> >
>> > Milt is probably not gay, since he claims to have a kid, he just
>> > appears to be sort of effeminate.
>> >
>> This from a guy who spends several paragraphs telling us that, because
>> he feels like his corporation's assets are his, they may as well be his...
>
>%%%% LMAO!! If anyone says anything negative about the illegal Canadian
>alien D-cup you are the first (and only) person acting like his lover to
>jump to ole lard asses defense!! :o)
And here you are, being Parkie's protective cup.
Might want to think about planting your rosy reds around some other
part of Parkie's anatomy there, little miss muppet. Seems your boy
has a glass jaw.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
<LOL> The only mistake made in that exchange was Zepp's stupid claim
that Lincoln was going to uphold the Missouri Compromise and therefore
he was unaware that it had been both repealed and declared
unconstitutional long before Lincoln was elected.
>>>Hell; you think corporations don't pay their own taxes. AND you think
>>>corporations sell their assets to pay their corporate tax bill. You also
>>>seem to think that assets are reduced when taxes are paid, which is
>>>ridiculous.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> And you think that all is not true...
>
>No. As I have demonstrated continually, I KNOW it's all not true.
Milt must live in Zepp's World of tired old fantasies too.
>>>IOW, I wouldn't be referring to anyone else's brain if I was you...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>To begin with, you
>>>>>>couldn't hope to keep up with me on my morning runs and I only have
>>>>>>one leg. I'm also pretty sure that I do more work in the several
>>>>>>places that I volunteer than you do to make a living.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Gosh, what a saint he is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, just better than you.. and Zepp... and most of the rest of you
>>>>liberal morons.
>>>
>>>You're not better than anyone. In fact, given the frequency with which
>>>you brag about yourself, I'd say you don't think you're better yourself..
>>
>> Oh, I;m much better than you.
>>
>In your mind, that may be true. But given the fact that your mind also
>thinks people are dishonest when they apply accounting terms to
>accounting principles, well...
>
They are when they do it to divert attention, Milt. You know that's
dishonest and yet you didn't care.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
You're quite mistaken, Milt, I'm actually a guy that controls my
corporation, I possess my corporation, I use my corporation, I
receive all the benefits of possessing my corporation, and when I sell
my corporation I get the proceeds of the sale just as I've done
before. That's why I say that I own it.
OTOH, Milt says that I don't actually own it because I have to keep
it's business separate from some of the other things I own.