[PhilipFreneau]

>> Well, a number of us had some pretty good discussions on the subject, dispite nitpicking loonies like you butting in with obsessive inanities about imaginary left wingers.

Nothing imaginary about left-wingers, sonny. I assume you are a left-winger since you use their wacky ideology to justify your revisionist history on the 1st Amendment. Further, sonny, if you can't handle criticism of your posts, don't post.

[Sir Gawain]

I disagree with tpaine on this issue, but he's no left winger.

[tpaine]

Well, a number of us had some pretty good discussions on the subject, dispite nitpicking loonies like you butting in with obsessive inanities about imaginary left wingers.
-tpaine-

Nothing imaginary about left-wingers, sonny. I assume you are a left-winger since you use their wacky ideology to justify your revisionist history on the 1st Amendment. Further, sonny, if you can't handle criticism of your posts, don't post.
-Phil Freneau-

Phil, you've been following me for a couple of days now, unhappy about our exchange on another thread, where I called ~you~ the socialist. I said:

All of our rights are encompassed by life, liberty & property. You are becoming overwought in your zeal.
What is hard to understand is why you WANT state governments to have the power to censor, and to dictate religious doctrine into laws. This can only be a form of political madness.

I believe certain types of censorship are necessary to prevent the perverts of society from influencing our children. The same for general religious doctrines.

Case closed. You believe in a form of socialist statism. As I said, it's; outrageous hype, from a constitution hating 'states rights' zealot.

Typical leftist babble. You cannot win this argument so you resort to name calling and labeling.

You labeled yourself as a statist zealot with:
"I believe certain types of censorship are necessary" ---

Its all over but the shouting. Rave on.
137 posted on 08/25/2003 12:48 PM PDT by tpaine