See Y'all Later...

Me | 4APR05 | Long Cut

[Smartaleck]

"I think the donate to Jesse Jackson and RP was the final straw with me deciding this place had gone nuts! :) "

Scorn the adulterer and father of out of wedlock children but,
send money to this one doesn't make sense? LOL

[Smartaleck]

"Blah blah blah."

Bout sums it up. ROFLMBO

[xsmommy]

Frequently during the last few weeks of incendiary debate I have gotten the distinct impression that what many posters meant when they spoke of their support for the "Rule of Law" would have been more precisely stated as support for the "Process of Law", i.e. due process. There seemed to be an implicit assumption that "the Law" is an entity separate from philosophical ideas and principles, that its implementation did not really require that the human beings who were charged with operating the levers and pushing the buttons of "the Law" be guided by those ideas and principles.
Of course, everyone was in full agreement that such guidance was desirable, but sometimes there just isn't time, you see. It's unfortunate, but as long as a minimally sufficient amount of ingredients (testimony, affadavits, etc.) were dumped into the hopper, and the attorneys and judges turned the crank the correct number of times (hearings, appeals), and something resembling sausage popped-out, then "the Law" had been upheld. The fact that the end product was a revolting contradiction of the basic principles upon which "the Law" was built, and which it was supposed to serve, was regrettable, but irrelevant

this is the best statement exposing the fallacy of the "rule of law" argument that i have seen yet. bravo.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Ok..They count my birthdays by carbon dating..so there!

My life is so pathetic, the only date I could get was a carbon date! *rimshot*

[kevkrom]

Why should we? Before this issue, we've always been able to argue WITHOUT those kinds of names and out and out lies. We've always been able to disagree and still be civil and come together on other threads. These are new kinds of vitriolic postings.

It comes and goes in cycles. Certain topics bring out the worst in some people, and someof the worst people are drawn to those topics. (Ever seen one of the Linux vs. Microsoft threads? Creationism vs. Evolution?)

Unfortunately, we haven't had a thread in weeks that somebody didn't drag that Terri threads onto.

If it weren't that, it'd be a series of dissertations on how Bush is failing to defend the Mexican border, or how outsourcing will make us a third-world country, etc.

Some people are bound and determined to drag their own agenda into any topic, regardless of applicability. The best course of action is to ignore them, because getting into arguments with them give them exactly what they want. There's plenty of great material on this site, I'd hate to go without it just because of a few [redacted].

[Clara Lou]

This thread wasn't here when I went to bed last night, and now look at it!

I appreciate you and the things you've had to say. Pleeeeezz come back later!! You're needed here.

[sauropod]

Somehow I missed this one. Fun keywords.

[Smartaleck]

"You're a poopy head."

LOL.........Holy poop on a stick!

[BigSkyFreeper]

HeHe! :)

[BibChr]

The keywords are the best part.

("Notbreastfed"? Ouch!)

Dan

[Smartaleck]

"is there anything lamer than a "Im leaving" post on a message board?"

"Responding to it with a post like that?"

Took the words right off my keyboard albeit so much more pithy. LOL

[BigSkyFreeper]

is there anything lamer than a "Im leaving" post on a message board?

Oh I dunno. Registering with the screen name "stuck_in_new_orleans", then clicking the thread headline of allegeed lame thread on the front page, then reading 711 posts and finally eliciting your own response which ended up being post #712. Congrats Einstein.

[ContraryMary]

I hope that someday in the future you will reconsider your decision and come back. You will be missed. There are far too few of us who are willing to look at fact and become informed before making judgements.

All the best to you.

CM

[Joe Brower]

Take it easy, LC. As one can see from some of the keywords added to this thread, much of what you say about the negative aspects of too many FReepers is true, unfortunately.

[Right Wing Professor]

We'l miss you, Long Cut. And I never knew you were in the military, so a heartfelt thanks for your service.

[ContraryMary]

If they lied, they lied. Calling someone a liar when they have lied is not calling names.

Unfortunately, many are called a liar even when what they are saying is true. Some people just don't want to hear the truth. It has happened to me many times.

[Smartaleck]

"Confirming your reasoning??? You mean you are leaving because of a few juvenile gloating nonsensers who might say good riddance? "

Sounds like a job for Dr. Zoo!

[foreverfree]

bump

[Smartaleck]

"Ray Stevens "Ahab The Arab"!"

Now that's a classic.

Anyone have a good midi of Gregorian chants or the Edmund Fitzgerald?

[hobbes1]

Frequently during the last few weeks of incendiary debate I have gotten the distinct impression that what many posters meant when they spoke of their support for the "Rule of Law" would have been more precisely stated as support for the "Process of Law", i.e. due process. There seemed to be an implicit assumption that "the Law" is an entity separate from philosophical ideas and principles, that its implementation did not really require that the human beings who were charged with operating the levers and pushing the buttons of "the Law" be guided by those ideas and principles. Of course, everyone was in full agreement that such guidance was desirable, but sometimes there just isn't time, you see. It's unfortunate, but as long as a minimally sufficient amount of ingredients (testimony, affadavits, etc.) were dumped into the hopper, and the attorneys and judges turned the crank the correct number of times (hearings, appeals), and something resembling sausage popped-out, then "the Law" had been upheld. The fact that the end product was a revolting contradiction of the basic principles upon which "the Law" was built, and which it was supposed to serve, was regrettable, but irrelevant
this is the best statement exposing the fallacy of the "rule of law" argument that i have seen yet. bravo.

Amen. Bravo.