Actually I was just joking...thought I'd lighten up the thread against BUSYBODY LOSERS such as Tailgunner Joe who want to rule over everyone's lives.
Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Actually I was just joking...thought I'd lighten up the thread against BUSYBODY LOSERS such as Tailgunner Joe who want to rule over everyone's lives.
Hey! Wait a minute ... what's going on? Who did that? Oh - our wonderfully insightful courts. Nevermind. Just go back to sleep ... maybe it'll be better tommorrow. Arrrgh!
There were some who opposed it, arguing that there would be those of over-authoritarian zeal who would abuse it by arguing that anything not specifically spelled out as a limit on the power of the federal government was an implicit grant of power. They added the Tenth Amendment, believing that it was plain enough to be understood by all, and would eliminate any attemt to misconstrue the other nine. Apparently they were a little over-optimistic.
Yes, a very "short time here."
And still you've managed to grace us with your presence and useless feedback...
Thanks for sharing.
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/porngood.htm
I don't necessarily agree with the article, but some of the points, are interesting to consider.
Whoa.. sorry! Got carried away with the whole moral outrage thing there. :-) Now if you'll excuse me, I have to browse around the 'net and really upset a few folks on this thread, all from the privacy of my own home! Ain't technology grand? heh heh heh
I don't believe in your god, keep him away from me...
Incredible, isn't it?
A man posts to FR, argues his Constitutional point, [and this guy was pretty good, maybe even a lawyer], -- then blows it all at the end by posting an 'Official Notice' to a couple of us that we cease & desist from further communications to him.
Apparently, he then demanded that the mods 'do something' and got himself banned. Bizarro.
It's hard to dignify a topic like this with a serious reply considering common sense tells us the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect us from exactly this kind of draconian law. Years ago the majority didn't want blacks and women to vote...that didn't make it right, did it...
"I don't believe in your god, keep him away from me..."
You can do this all on your own without any help from me.
"Do not contact me again. Further Contact will be considered harrassment under California Penal Code § 646.9 (2001) - Stalking"
How trite. For this charge to stick you'd have to 'stalk' him outside of this forum. So long as you obey the basic rules on FR your accuser is just farting wind out his mouth.
I never did like slippery slope analogies. Either something is right or something is wrong.
That said, obscenity is "freedom of speech", but not on public property.
Only because things like Gay-Marriage are easily defined, can they be judged or deemed objectionable. This argument is akin to beating one's head against a wall; just a painful waste of time.
Two threads in a row I agree with you. I'm getting very worried.
Ok, that's a bit too much information...
They do believe in a right and wrong -- just not your right and wrong.
Do you really need God to tell you that murder is wrong?
Since we are allowed to make prostitution illegal, it is absurd that that judges declare that pornography -- which is far worse -- has to be legal Constitution does not protect pornography, which certainly has extremely harmful consequences for individuals and society. Anyone who is into child porn should face long prison terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.