Hey CP you wanna force the issue?



On 10/19/2004 07:12 PM, in article [email protected],
"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote:

> TritonRider wrote:
>
>>> From: MagillaGorilla [email protected]
>>
>>
>>> Let me get this straight. According to you, because I post anonymously
>>> on a newgroup full of stalkers who threaten people with violence, I have
>>> no respect for "society and the rights of others."
>>
>>
>> Nope. I was saying that you talk about how you can do and say any damned
>> thing
>> you want because noone is going to tell you what to do.
>>
>
>
> Ahhh...guess what, Rhode Scholar? That's called the First Amendment.


Uh, no ...

The First Amendment is the one that says that you can say or print anything
you want because Congress won't stop you.

The "Equal Protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the one that
says that the states can't stop you either.

But there's no Amendment that says that your ISP can't stop you, that your
employer can't stop you, or that anyone else can't stop you ...

There's just little things like local, state, and federal laws that dictate
HOW they can and cannot stop you.


> You still don't make any sense. You keep accusing me of 'doing things'
> to other people and all I do is post words.
>
> You seem to have a problem with the freedom of speach, not me. You Ken
> Papai, Junior, and Danny "Partridge" Callen all have this same problem.


Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute, and cannot
be used to justify violence, slander, libel, subversion, or obscenity.


> Go get an education and then come back and post.





> Thanks,
>
> Magilla

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash
 
>From: "Kurgan Gringioni" [email protected]

>Dumbass -
>
>You're getting things a little mixed up here.
>
>
>That doesn't necessarily apply to the military, schools, or jobs. For
>instance, a grocery clerk can't invoke the First Amendment if they get
>fired for telling customers to "**** off".

So the ACLU can defend t-shirts that you don't have a problem with in schools
and win, but not firearms t-shirts because you have a problem with them?
>As for the firearms thing: ****, with Columbine and school shootings
>and the like, what the **** do you expect? Schools are allowed to make
>rules regarding dress code and with the the not uncommon event of angry
>young white males trying to make their mark on society by shooting
>their classmates, ****. I'm not even sure it would be smart for the NRA
>to take up that cause.

So you're saying that they it's more proper for them to defend Nazis, the
Klan, etc... than the 2nd amendment, or the 1st when it applies to the 2nd.
Looks like we have a subject where you go Kunich.
>

They already have because one of these incidents involved a kid wearing his
t-shirt from the US Olympic training camp.

>It'd be like a student wearing pro-Bin Laden t-shirts right after 9/11.
>It may be free speech, but no one's going to be dumb enough to defend
>it. Not even me and I support free speech.

Aren't we over reacting a little bit, got your panties in a big bunch today?

Now you beat on that issue. How about leaving gay people with almost no way to
address the problem since both the military and DOD investigate themselves and
have a habit of handing congress critters all the usual excuses and, I wont say
faked, but investigation reports that say exactly what they want it to.
Your argument on the t-shirts by the way does not match your "Who the hell
won't they defend?" bit.
Your slipping
Bill C
 
Keith Alexander® wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:35:04 -0400, "Danny Callen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>you don't know me
>
>
> *** Didn't I see you on Jerry Springer a while back?


Whateva, I do what I want.
 
Keith Alexander® wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:35:04 -0400, "Danny Callen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>you don't know me
>
>
> *** Didn't I see you on Jerry Springer a while back?


Whateva, I do what I want.
 
"crit pro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You wouldn't and you won't. Do I need to post daily for the rest of your
> > life "Magilla" still hasn't said anything to my face?? I hate to lower
> > myself to explain this to you but you don't know me, won't come find me,
and
> > will NEVER say anything to my face. This is the internet world where you
can
> > say anything you like but you will NEVER say anything to my face...wake
me
> > up when you get the point.
> >
> > Danny Callen
>
> Intelligence is inversly proportional to how worked up you get about
> obvious trolls...HELLO DANNY (and Bill C for that matter).
>
> "L" is for Loser. Now go crawl back in your hole...Danny.
>
> CP

Henry is right you all are really dumbasses...
Reading is fundamental. My post is a simple quiz that you still do not
understand. Again, wake me up when you get it. The words I used are not that
big. Go back and read it over and over until you understand it. I really
don't want to have to explain it as it is just too simple. By the way, my
point is still proven, you have not said anything to my face. Thank you for
your entertainment and continued proliferation of my point.

Danny Callen
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:


>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> You're getting things a little mixed up here.
>
> First Amendment rights apply to being able to express one's opinion in
> public.
>
> That doesn't necessarily apply to the military, schools, or jobs. For
> instance, a grocery clerk can't invoke the First Amendment if they get
> fired for telling customers to "**** off". That job isn't a right, it's
> a privilege. Same goes for being a member of the military or going to
> school.
>
> As for the firearms thing: ****, with Columbine and school shootings
> and the like, what the **** do you expect? Schools are allowed to make
> rules regarding dress code and with the the not uncommon event of angry
> young white males trying to make their mark on society by shooting
> their classmates, ****. I'm not even sure it would be smart for the NRA
> to take up that cause.
>
> It'd be like a student wearing pro-Bin Laden t-shirts right after 9/11.
> It may be free speech, but no one's going to be dumb enough to defend
> it. Not even me and I support free speech.
>
> K. Gringioni.
>

Kurgan,

Going to school (i.e. public education) is in fact a right in all 50
states. The legal reason why you have to adhere to certain dress codes
is because federal courts have allowed schools LIMITED regulation of the
First Amendment. Many of the dress code rules are in fact
unconstitutional and it has been pointed out many a times that sitting
federal court judges violate some of those dress codes while presiding
over cases! The ACLU generally only undertakes such cases if they
infringe on religious freedoms (i.e. Muslim women wearing burkas).

As for wearing a "gun shirt," I don't see what the problem is legally
because it's a Second amendment right to bear arms. I doubt a federal
court would say that's inappropriate. I see no relationship (legally
speaking, that is) between a gun T-shirt and violence.

I would support anyone wearing a bin Laden T-shirt, as would most
federal courts, because the most shocking forms of free speech are the
type that should be afforded the most protection. The First Amendment
isn't a popularity contest and other people's opinion of it is really
quite irrelevant.

Federal courts are not as melodramatic as the people on RBR about making
speech illegal just because it might happen to offend them in some way.


Magilla
 
TritonRider wrote:

>>From: "Kurgan Gringioni" [email protected]
>
>
>>Dumbass -
>>
>>You're getting things a little mixed up here.
>>
>>
>>That doesn't necessarily apply to the military, schools, or jobs. For
>>instance, a grocery clerk can't invoke the First Amendment if they get
>>fired for telling customers to "**** off".
>
>
> So the ACLU can defend t-shirts that you don't have a problem with in schools
> and win, but not firearms t-shirts because you have a problem with them?
>
>>As for the firearms thing: ****, with Columbine and school shootings
>>and the like, what the **** do you expect? Schools are allowed to make
>>rules regarding dress code and with the the not uncommon event of angry
>>young white males trying to make their mark on society by shooting
>>their classmates, ****. I'm not even sure it would be smart for the NRA
>>to take up that cause.
>
>
> So you're saying that they it's more proper for them to defend Nazis, the
> Klan, etc... than the 2nd amendment, or the 1st when it applies to the 2nd.
> Looks like we have a subject where you go Kunich.
>
<snip>

> Your slipping
> Bill C

Bill,

The ACLU doesn't equate wearing a T-shirt depicting a picture of a gun
to upholding the Second Amendment right. Wearing that T-**** is a First
Amendment right.

Defending the right of Nazis and KKK to march on public streets are much
more important than defending a First Amendment T-shirt issue. The ACLU
could probably take on the T-shirt issue because it appears to be based
on an anti-Second Amendment bias, but they probablyy don't think it's as
if the Second Amendmennt were actually being infringed upon. It's not.

Your analogy is incorrect.

Magilla
 
On 19 Oct 2004 20:23:10 -0700, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That dude is the worst actor ever.

We counting Godzilla or Mothra? Mothra was lamer than giant locusts or
rats. Even lamer than Shatner. Except Shatner in the real early
Startreks. Then he and Mothra would be pretty close to dead even.

I liked the monsters in Tremors, but I couldn't tell if they were
method or what. Cool death scenes.

I also liked the Monster from the Black Lagoon until he started to
post on rbr. Especially since he won't use his real name.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Kurgan,

You're right except for the reasons behind the military silence. That, sir,
is because you cannot have a military whose allegiance is sworn to the
commander in chief blabbering about its soldiers' first amendment rights to
criticize the commander in chief.

By way of further comment, it is not a privilege to serve in the U.S. Armed
Forces, it is an honor - one, unfortunately, that is being treated with
disrespect by Dubbya.
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> TritonRider wrote:
> > >From: "Kurgan Gringioni" [email protected]
> >
> > >Dumbass -
> > >Like what? Flag burners or white supremecists? They defend 'em all.
> >
> > One issue that they have very carefully avoided getting into is the
> > discrimination and sometimes outright abuse of non-military
> homosexuals on
> > military installations, and in DOD schools.
> > I'm not sure how bad the situation is currently, but we had
> experiences with
> > the ACLU and several Gay rights organisations not wanting anything to
> do with
> > the situation even when people had been pretty badly injured.
> > Several of our friends had some problems and we ended up in the
> middle of it
> > trying to help.
> > They have also failed in quite a few cases to help kids thrown out
> of schools
> > for wearing firearms related T-shirts to school when this should
> clearly be
> > something that they would tackle on 1st amendment grounds, and have
> for other
> > forms of clothing.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> You're getting things a little mixed up here.
>
> First Amendment rights apply to being able to express one's opinion in
> public.
>
> That doesn't necessarily apply to the military, schools, or jobs. For
> instance, a grocery clerk can't invoke the First Amendment if they get
> fired for telling customers to "**** off". That job isn't a right, it's
> a privilege. Same goes for being a member of the military or going to
> school.
>
> As for the firearms thing: ****, with Columbine and school shootings
> and the like, what the **** do you expect? Schools are allowed to make
> rules regarding dress code and with the the not uncommon event of angry
> young white males trying to make their mark on society by shooting
> their classmates, ****. I'm not even sure it would be smart for the NRA
> to take up that cause.
>
> It'd be like a student wearing pro-Bin Laden t-shirts right after 9/11.
> It may be free speech, but no one's going to be dumb enough to defend
> it. Not even me and I support free speech.
>
> K. Gringioni.
>
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Dear Danny Partridge,
>
> I would say anything I please to your face, and I would do it with ease.
>
> Magilla

You would say what you please and do it with ease?

I think I've got a positive ID on this guy. We've found Dr. Seuss.
--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply
 
>From: MagillaGorilla [email protected]

>Bill,
>
>The ACLU doesn't equate wearing a T-shirt depicting a picture of a gun
>to upholding the Second Amendment right. Wearing that T-**** is a First
>Amendment right.

I wrote that way to early this morning.
I realize that it is a first amendment thing. My propblem with the ACLU on
that subject is that they've gone to court over "Stars & Bars" shirts and
others like this but refused to help the kid with the Olympic Shooting Camp
shirt. I wouldn't like it but could live with, and understand it if they banned
some of the **** like "Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" stuff and the
ACLU didn't take action. They have to pick their fights too, it's not an
unlimited budget.
I just think that they have been MIA on the second amendment which annoys me
Though I do know where you are coming from on the religious ones, they have
done that a couple of times.

>Defending the right of Nazis and KKK to march on public streets are much
>more important than defending a First Amendment T-shirt issue.

We are in complete agreement on this. I am completely in favor of letting the
nutcases speak. That way people get to see what they really are, and can keep
an eye on them.

>Your analogy is incorrect.
>
>Magilla
As I stated it, you are correct.
Bill C
 
Triton,

It takes all kinds. The ACLU foots the bill for amendments 1 and 3-10,
whereas the NRA is all about No. 2. I mean, why should the NAACP step into
MALDEF's and LULAC's territory, even though they are all concerned about
equal protection under the 5th and 14th Amendments?

We all have our favorite parts of the Constitution, and not all of us have
gun racks on the back window of our pick-ups down here in Texas (joke, haha,
hehe).


"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >From: MagillaGorilla [email protected]
>
> >Bill,
> >
> >The ACLU doesn't equate wearing a T-shirt depicting a picture of a gun
> >to upholding the Second Amendment right. Wearing that T-**** is a First
> >Amendment right.
>
> I wrote that way to early this morning.
> I realize that it is a first amendment thing. My propblem with the ACLU
on
> that subject is that they've gone to court over "Stars & Bars" shirts and
> others like this but refused to help the kid with the Olympic Shooting
Camp
> shirt. I wouldn't like it but could live with, and understand it if they
banned
> some of the **** like "Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" stuff and
the
> ACLU didn't take action. They have to pick their fights too, it's not an
> unlimited budget.
> I just think that they have been MIA on the second amendment which annoys
me
> Though I do know where you are coming from on the religious ones, they
have
> done that a couple of times.
>
> >Defending the right of Nazis and KKK to march on public streets are much
> >more important than defending a First Amendment T-shirt issue.
>
> We are in complete agreement on this. I am completely in favor of letting
the
> nutcases speak. That way people get to see what they really are, and can
keep
> an eye on them.
>
> >Your analogy is incorrect.
> >
> >Magilla
> As I stated it, you are correct.
> Bill C
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:

> TritonRider wrote:
> > do have major problems with the ACLUs selective choices of things to
> > defend.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
> Like what? Flag burners or white supremecists? They defend 'em all.
>

Even guys who continually bad-mouth 'em - like Limbaugh.

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Magilla,

You miss the point that Triton Rider is trying to make. Billy Bob Shakespeare said it best in Act III of "Othello":

"Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; 't is something, nothing;
'T was mine, 't is his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."

Do ya get it now? People get sued for disparaging peoples' names with false and malicious utterances all the time. It's called libel (written as in this group) and slander (oral). This is part and parcel of why your anonymity is so troubling to a few people: you can say whatever you want and avoid the consequences of your actions, despite the effect they have on other people and their lives.

But there's no changing you, Messuer Magilla. Just don't expect hugs, kisses and handshakes when you spew your diatribe all over this newsgroup.

-Philip

"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> TritonRider wrote:
>
> >>From: MagillaGorilla [email protected]
> >
> >
> >>Let me get this straight. According to you, because I post anonymously
> >>on a newgroup full of stalkers who threaten people with violence, I have
> >>no respect for "society and the rights of others."
> >
> >
> > Nope. I was saying that you talk about how you can do and say any damned thing
> > you want because noone is going to tell you what to do.
> >
>
>
> Ahhh...guess what, Rhode Scholar? That's called the First Amendment.
>
> You still don't make any sense. You keep accusing me of 'doing things'
> to other people and all I do is post words.
>
> You seem to have a problem with the freedom of speach, not me. You Ken
> Papai, Junior, and Danny "Partridge" Callen all have this same problem.
>
> Go get an education and then come back and post.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla
 
CowPunk speaks like a person that realizes the problems of using your real
name on newsgroups when you **** talk a lot. A better anology would have
been "like turning up a beer in front of a cop at a red light."
"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CowPunk wrote:
>
> > Top Sirloin <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>Mark Fennell wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Before you do that, you might want to be sure all the posts you're
seeing
> >>>are, in fact, from the *real* crit pro. Just a thought.
> >>
> >>Here's a crazy idea: why don't people on rbr stop
> >>being anonymous ****tards and use their real name?
> >
> >
> > Honestly, I've been around this group for about 12 years.
> > This isn't my first "psuedoname".
> >
> > Maybe some of us are managers or business owners, and
> > we can't afford to have our real name out in public,
> > for every little twit, former, disgruntled employee to "google",
> > and use against us by sending our posts to our bosses, or
> > worse yet, our prospective employers.
> >
> > Or here's one for you. Personally, in my field, we job
> > hop about every two years. You don't think an HR manager
> > knows enough to Google when he/she is checking you
> > out? I do it to my bosses, an I expect that they do it
> > to me.
> >
> > Hey, if you want to know who I really am, email me, I'll
> > even send you a pic. I'm not afraid to tell you. But,
> > I'm a nobody. So why should it matter to you who I "really" am?
> > So you can screw me over?
> >
> > Face it. If you post on the Internet with your real name, then
> > YOU are the one jeopardizing your own reputation/career.
> > It's like leaving the keys in your car when you run into 7-11.
>
> Cowpunk speaks the truth. He basically called Ken "digital" Pap Smear,
> Philip Moore, Jr. (Junior) and Danny Callen a bunch of idiots.
>
> I agree with him. And I might even milk Cowpunk because of it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla
 
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > TritonRider wrote:
> > > do have major problems with the ACLUs selective choices of things to
> > > defend.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> > Like what? Flag burners or white supremecists? They defend 'em all.
> >
>
> Even guys who continually bad-mouth 'em - like Limbaugh.

Are you suggesting that they have "defended" a state's rights to make
laws pertaining to religion?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Kunich) wrote:

> Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > TritonRider wrote:
> > > > do have major problems with the ACLUs selective choices of things to
> > > > defend.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dumbass -
> > > Like what? Flag burners or white supremecists? They defend 'em all.
> > >
> >
> > Even guys who continually bad-mouth 'em - like Limbaugh.
>
> Are you suggesting that they have "defended" a state's rights to make
> laws pertaining to religion?

I have no idea where you came up with that, Tom. But you do remember
Rush Limbaugh? The guy who got caught with a shitpot full of Oxycontin, way
more than any ordinary person could use for legit medical reaasons? The
ACLU went to bat for the Hillbilly Hophead in his efforts to keep his
medical records sealed.

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I have no idea where you came up with that, Tom. But you do remember
> Rush Limbaugh? The guy who got caught with a shitpot full of Oxycontin,
> way
> more than any ordinary person could use for legit medical reaasons? The
> ACLU went to bat for the Hillbilly Hophead in his efforts to keep his
> medical records sealed.

Look Howard, because they take one case in 1000 for a Conservative cause
doesn't mean that they're unbiased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Hey, wanna see my website?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Bike Cafe
Guest
G
CAMPYBOB
Hey zipp...i found your next bike w/matching shoes & helmet!
Replies
0
Views
2K
Road Cycling
CAMPYBOB
CAMPYBOB
J
Hey, I'm Pretty Good I Ask Sb For Help
Replies
0
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Jillia2nWem
J
I
Hey Peeps! Check Out This Cycling Shirt!
Replies
5
Views
982
Bike Cafe
E.Mil77
E
F
Hey I Need Your Opinion
Replies
5
Views
1K
Bike buying advice
egrocket
egrocket
MotownBikeBoy
Hey Admins - Thanks For The Fast Cleanup Job On The Spam
Replies
6
Views
1K
Bike Cafe
limerickman
limerickman
rusess
Hey!
Replies
0
Views
519
Bike Cafe
rusess
rusess
MotownBikeBoy
Hey, guys, tell me about buying a road bike, what do I need to know.
Replies
17
Views
2K
Bike Cafe
JTE83
JTE83
Camren2
Hey peeps.
Replies
0
Views
628
Bike Cafe
Camren2
Camren2
MELDO
Hey, I'm MeLdO
Replies
1
Views
490
Bike Cafe
alienator
alienator
Top Bottom Back