Travis,

Tell me if I have this arguement correct.

One group of citizens/people that claim to hold the constitution "sacred"
are allowed a certain priveledge/right and they do not want another group of
citizens that same priveledge/right.

The group of citizens that is being denied this equality of priveledge/right
is boycotting and or legally harrassing the people and businesses of those
people that donated money to enforce this denial of priveledge/right.

Now the people that favored/supported the denial are trying to call "foul"
because they are being held accountable for their own beliefs/actions by the
group they sought to deny the rights to.

If I've got this correct, then I agree with you.


but could we change it to rock salt ??


On 2/1/09, Travis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Maybe a few of them will get a load of buckshot in their asses.
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Ohio mark <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>> let us sit back and see what happens to these people when their names
>> are disclosed.  the limp wristers are foaming at the mouth to get at
>> them.  or maybe that isn't foam.
>>
>> On Feb 1, 6:28 am, swamp fox <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > fine with me !
>> >
>> > On Feb 1, 6:21 am, Travis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > And while I am at it, all doners to all non-profit and not-for-profit
>> should
>> > > be public.  And that includes all religious donations too.
>> >
>> > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Travis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > Keep it simple.  All doners of any amount to all political causes,
>> pacs,
>> > > > campaigns, etc should be public.
>> >
>> > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:03 AM, swamp fox <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> this thread is about the bigots in Cal trying to stay hidden under
>> > > >> cover not the Americans who donated to obama . do try to keep up
>> > > >> streak !
>> >
>> > > >> On Jan 31, 10:15 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >> > So should Obama be required to publicly disclose all HIS
>> donors???
>> > > >> > Something his refused to do...   Guess Mickey Mouse and Donald
>> Duck
>> > > >> > are haPPY AS THEIR STATUS CAN BE REMAIN HIDDEN...
>> >
>> > > >> > On Jan 31, 7:07 am, swamp fox <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> > > Prop. 8 Campaign Can't Hide Donors' Nameshttp://
>> > > >>www.truthout.org/013009O
>> > > >> > > Bob Egelko, The San Francisco Chronicle: "Proposition 8
>> proponents'
>> > > >> > > complaint that a California campaign-finance disclosure law has
>> led
>> > > >> > > to
>> > > >> > > harassment of same-sex marriage opponents failed today to sway
>> a
>> > > >> > > federal judge, who refused to throw out the law or shield
>> donors'
>> > > >> > > names. Lawyers for Protect Marriage, sponsor of the
>> constitutional
>> > > >> > > amendment that won voter approval Nov. 4, said contributors
>> have
>> > > >> > > already faced consumer boycotts, picketing and even death
>> threats
>> > > >> > > after the state posted their names and other information in
>> mandatory
>> > > >> > > campaign reports."- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > > >> > - Show quoted text -
>> >
>> > > > --
>> > > > *~@):~{>
>> >
>> > > --
>> > > *~@):~{>- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Mark M. Kahle
www.filacoffee.com

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to