Some info, for those asking about getting a collection together to help the father: http://tinyurl.com/yds42sr
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh, changed my mind on that. > Hadn't read it enough. If the westboro fags want to appeal they should > cover their own costs. Hell most of them are lawyers, shouldn't cost too > much. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 2:45 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere > d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc > > > one final question though -- how in the name of all that's ridiculous > do you do from there to requiring the dad to pay the appeal costs? > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > quit agreeing with me or I'll have to insult reagan some more. > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Man, how did I miss this. > >> > >> Perfect point. The laws and rights and the constitution in the frame we > are > >> discussing them pertain to gov't intrusion, not that of private parties. > >> > >> </debate> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:jmi...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 2:03 PM > >> To: cf-community > >> Subject: Re: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere > >> d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc > >> > >> > >> All of that privacy talk is prohibition on the GOVERNMENT against > CITIZENS. > >> > >> It has nothing to do with citizens' privacy from other citizens. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:52 AM, LRS Scout wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Also the word privacy is never mentioned in the constitution, it's an > >>> > invention of judicial activism. > >>> > >>> So there's something in there saying the government has the right to > >>> invade our privacy? > >>> > >>> I was pretty sure that the idea was, that "we" didn't have to > >>> enumerate all our rights, similar to this guy's take: > >>> > >>> http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm > >>> > >>> A shorter version by someone else: > >>> > >>> That's what the 10th Amendment is all about - government is strictly > >>> limited to doing those activities which are specifically authorized to > >>> it by the Constitution. > >>> > >>> Everything else is left to "the States, respectively, or to the > People." > >>> > >>> No? > >>> > >>> And how does the 4th fit in there? Perhaps the 5th as well? > >>> > >>> :Den > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:314691 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
