Anything that denies you the ability to travel or conduct commerce
without verifing your identity could be consider an illegal search.
You mean like a passport or a drivers licence?
Can't drive to the corner to get milk without a license. And if you
want to charge that milk you'll need ID.
Don't you mean Microsoft will buy Adobe now? :)
I think they're dirty enough without investing in dried mud.
--Ben
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
Remember, tinfoil hats do not prevent pregnancy or the spread of STDs.
--Ben
Kevin Graeme wrote:
Hey now, the gay thing is another discussion. :-)
On 5/12/05, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I love you too.
~|
So what do you think is so bad:
Cost?
Well, it's not like another billion or two will be noticable in our
current deficit, but still
Risk of Identity theft?
I don't think this will have much impact on identity theft. I mean,
I've got see id written on the back of my credit card, and
Um, Ben...yeah they do.
Remember, abstinence is the best prevention, and wearing a tinfoil hat
will NOT get you laid.
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
On 5/13/05, Ben Doom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember, tinfoil hats do not prevent pregnancy or the spread of STDs.
Ben wrote:
Remember, tinfoil hats do not prevent pregnancy or the spread of STDs.
DOH!
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
The specific fears are massive invasion of privacy and identity theft.
All databases are going to be linked, and Federal agencies will have
the power to collate data from several sources, and all without your
knowledge. Yes, they can do that now, but it takes a lot more effort
and time, and
And yee ha - it's one of our (Wisconsin's) reps pushing it. *sigh*
On 5/11/05, Kevin Graeme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's honestly mind boggling.
~|
Purchase Homesite Plus with Dreamweaver from House of Fusion, a Macromedia
Sam wrote:
You mean like a passport or a drivers licence?
No I don't mean anything like that.
A passport is used to leave the country and therefore has federal
jurisdiction and a driver's license is local to the state, i.e., it's
not a federal ID nor does it confer any federal privileges.
yeah but if you are paying cash it's currently legal to walk around
anywhere with no id whatsoever. And having lived places where this is
not true, I enjoy that privilege.
Dana
On 5/11/05, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
Well for one it would be a sign that Mr. Bush
well, actually, since the patriot act you do need ID to open a bank
account. But not necessarily a given ID. I believe I used my alien
registration card not my driver's license, for instance.
Dana
On 5/12/05, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam wrote:
You mean like a passport or a
Dana wrote:
yeah but if you are paying cash it's currently legal to walk around
anywhere with no id whatsoever. And having lived places where this is
not true, I enjoy that privilege.
You're exactly right and what this legislation does is require the
Federal Government to essentially
On 5/11/05, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never claimed it was good, I just see all the moaning that it's so
bad but no details. I want to here the specific fears before I choose
a position.
Well Angel and I have both posted links to aspects of it. But I'll put
my own take on it here.
In the
Kevin wrote:
On top of all this, there's little evidence other than supposition to
show that the proposed changes will do that much to actually prevent
Which brings us back to the ACLU who I hope will fight this on the
very grounds you've written.
In many ways this reminds me of the Patriot
Apparently they have, since the ACLU witness on the Patriot act said
that people had asked them for help with this provision. I think they
said they had never requested a library record via the Patriot Act,
though no information was provided on requests of *other* records or
on requests of library
You make some good points that are worthy of a quality debate,
unfortunately you ended it with an asinine comment ridiculing my
response without even know my position.
You could have done the mature thing and just said your afraid of open debate ;)
On 5/12/05, Kevin Graeme wrote:
Ah well,
It's just tiring having you seem to always take the opposite view and
do so in a pit bull way. Plus I do recognize that there is a
chicken-little aspect to much of it and that it would be easily
dismissed that way.
And honestly, I'm not interested in debate with you about it. You
asked what my
Sam wrote:
You could have done the mature thing and just said your afraid of open debate
;)
Ppppttt! The high road. Some on this list travel it less than others.
In any event if YOU took the high road it would be to ignore that
comment and provide your comments. We're all human
Yeah, I love you too.
On 5/12/05, Kevin Graeme wrote:
It's just tiring having you seem to always take the opposite view and
do so in a pit bull way. Plus I do recognize that there is a
chicken-little aspect to much of it and that it would be easily
dismissed that way.
And honestly, I'm
Hey now, the gay thing is another discussion. :-)
On 5/12/05, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I love you too.
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
Sorry, the mood has soured.
Moving on.
On 5/12/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
Ppppttt! The high road. Some on this list travel it less than others.
In any event if YOU took the high road it would be to ignore that
comment and provide your comments. We're all human after all and
sometimes
Sam wrote:
Sorry, the mood has soured.
Moving on.
Mmmhmmm...
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48
Message:
We landed 3/5 of a person on the moon!
--Ben
Kevin Graeme wrote:
LOL, you're right that whole slavery thing was a farce. Just like the
moon landing.
~|
Purchase RoboHelp from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized
I thought they only sent the monkey up and back, minus the landing. :)
We landed 3/5 of a person on the moon!
--Ben
Kevin Graeme wrote:
LOL, you're right that whole slavery thing was a farce.
Just like the
moon landing.
s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080
new epoch : isn't it time for a
No, the monkey was a hoax filmed in Arizona by survivors of the Roswell
crash.
--Ben
S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
I thought they only sent the monkey up and back, minus the landing. :)
We landed 3/5 of a person on the moon!
--Ben
Kevin Graeme wrote:
LOL, you're right that whole slavery
Ben wrote:
No, the monkey was a hoax filmed in Arizona by survivors of the Roswell
crash.
Much like the Bush Presidency. I mean, come on, no President is this anemic.
During the first 2004 debate you could seen the monkey hatch under his
suit. Filthy apes.
Soylent Green is MONKEEEYS!
--Ben
Gruss Gott wrote:
Ben wrote:
No, the monkey was a hoax filmed in Arizona by survivors of the Roswell
crash.
Much like the Bush Presidency. I mean, come on, no President is this anemic.
During the first 2004 debate you could seen the monkey hatch
I had no idea about this organization until I saw the NAMBLA South
Park episode. And people say you don't learn anything watching TV.
On 5/10/05, Jerry Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. Pretty much accurate. The North American Man-Boy Love
Association. They advocate, educate, and defend
The North American Marlon Brando Look Alike organization has been around for
years.
I had no idea about this organization until I saw the NAMBLA South
Park episode. And people say you don't learn anything watching TV.
[[notice the slick use of the Schiavo controversy in a
clever attept
to get all controversial topics into this one thread]]
That's gay! You might as well be using ASP, since
Microsoft is going to
buy Macromedia!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
--Ben
Don't you mean Microsoft will buy Adobe
That's rather what I gathered from the last post... I actually rather
liked the example of the problem being FEMA having their thumbs up
their asses, as its a very clear example of a problem which is
absolutely _not_ a question of your church attendance. Attend church
and your home will be spared
I must have missed a previous thread... How does Sam saying Ken
reminds him of Hitler lead to a paypal reference?
hmm. I have paypal.
Dana
On 5/10/05, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just trying to get Dana to take my side :)
On 5/10/05, Ken Ketsdever wrote:
[[notice the slick
-Community
Subject: Re: Amerikanski, show me your papers!
I must have missed a previous thread... How does Sam saying Ken
reminds him of Hitler lead to a paypal reference?
hmm. I have paypal.
Dana
On 5/10/05, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just trying to get Dana to take my side
The brainwashing is working ;)
But which of us is the cleaner?
On 5/11/05, Ken Ketsdever wrote:
I was wondering that myself. Then I figured oh hell its just Sam. I was
taken aback the other day when I agreed with something Sam wrote. But I
didn't dare admit it.
Taking this thread back a bit:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html
The Real ID legislation passed because it's attached to the funding of US
troops in Iraq.
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,101657,00.html
Ugh...
It's honestly mind boggling.
On 5/11/05, Howie Hamlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taking this thread back a bit:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html
The Real ID legislation passed because it's attached to the funding of US
troops in Iraq.
All right, I'll play devils advocate. What's so wrong with this? It
was a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Isn't that good?
So what do you think is so bad:
Cost?
Risk of Identity theft?
Having to have to show more ID to get a license?
Big brother watching over your shoulder?
Illegal
didn't dare admit it.
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:20 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Amerikanski, show me your papers!
I must have missed a previous thread... How does Sam saying Ken
reminds him of Hitler
Though I think you meant deep into the land of religion?
yeah probably so
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48
Sam wrote:
All right, I'll play devils advocate. What's so wrong with this? It
was a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Isn't that good?
Well for one it would be a sign that Mr. Bush is the anti-Christ
according to The Revelation of John, or at least an interpretation of
it.
It may
On 5/11/05, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All right, I'll play devils advocate. What's so wrong with this? It
was a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Isn't that good?
I'm fairly convinced that the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
aren't actually good for the country. They may be
On 5/11/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
Well for one it would be a sign that Mr. Bush is the anti-Christ
according to The Revelation of John, or at least an interpretation of
it.
Sorry never read it :)
It may also be unconstitutional. At a minimum it seems like a massive
invasion of privacy,
On 5/11/05, Kevin Graeme wrote:
I'm fairly convinced that the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
aren't actually good for the country. They may be good for security,
but security and freedom rarely speak.
There was an argument when the report came out that Bush wouldn't
follow it. New
Huh??!? The constitution gives no protection to groups who openly advocate
breaking the law. In fact, when these groups break the lawjust exactly
what laws do you think they are breaking?
Yep, the Constitution.
Free speech means you have the right to say anything you wantbut not the
ok so, all those lunch counter sit-ins and public transportation
boycotts in the south in the sixties... those were against the
constitution? Those people should have been locked up without the
benefit of their constitutional rights?? I am not equating NAMBLA
with Martin Luther King mind you,
Different jurisdictions. General rights vs. specific legalities.
The Constitution supports the abstract principle of free speech. In
specific cases, these groups have been prevented that generic right.
As an organization, they absolutely have a right to speak. Granted,
the specifics of their
Since we're using NAMBLA as an example, where does the Constitution
specifically mention sexual assault, sodomy, harrassment, etc?
Illegal doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Constitution.
--Ben
G wrote:
Huh??!? The constitution gives no protection to groups who openly advocate
I think it was this line: Join the ACLU:
On 5/9/05, Vivec wrote:
Yeah but...yeah but..how did we reach arguing about NAMBLA and the KKK
and Boy Scouts...from a National RFID ID card..
It..it just seems so wrong for those three things to be in the same
line...and..
and it started like such
ACLU Joins With Schiavo Legal Team to Ask a Pinellas Judge to Strike
Special Law That Reverses Court Order, Violates Patient's Privacy
Rights
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14246c=27
:P
I am not equating NAMBLA with Martin Luther King mind you
Sounds like you are
On 5/10/05, Dana
Does the Real ID act contain a Constitution-busting Trojan horse?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html
You can read more on the tinfoil hat implications of this here if
you're interested, but I'll sum it up for you: Congress has crafted a
completely unprecedented provision that
He said the history of charity only goes back 200 years. I was just
giving a history lesson not advocating for or against.
On 5/9/05, Kevin Graeme wrote:
If that is Jewish law, and if you are a proponent of it, then I don't
understand why you have in the past argued against government programs
Nope. Pretty much accurate. The North American Man-Boy Love
Association. They advocate, educate, and defend the rights of men to
have sex with young boys.
Honest.
(F*c3rs! I think we should open a hunting season for them, rather
than kitty cats. Everyone should be allowed to go MT on them!)
They weren't defending their right to assemble or speak I would
support that also.
They wanted the KKK to have the right to burn a cross on someone's
lawn as free speech and NAMBA to publish an instruction manual to rape
and murder little boys.
On 5/10/05, Kevin Graeme wrote:
Different
Not to be obnoxious about it, but do you have a reference for the KKK
case? I know that the ACLU has defended the rights of Klan members to
burn crosses, but I vaguely remember it being only on their own
property. Burning on someone else's property would constitute
tresspassing and vandalism,
On 5/10/05, Dana wrote:
ok so, all those lunch counter sit-ins and public
transportation
boycotts in the south in the sixties... those were
against the
constitution? Those people should have been locked up
without the
benefit of their constitutional rights?? I am not
equating NAMBLA
Not to be obnoxious about it, but do you have a reference
for the KKK
case? I know that the ACLU has defended the rights of
Klan members to
burn crosses, but I vaguely remember it being only on
their own
property. Burning on someone else's property would
constitute
tresspassing and
Although that brings up the completely separate issue of the fact that
castration doesn't prevent sexual abuse... Generally speaking because
I know. It's just high on my list of things I don't ever want to happen
to me. I figure it's probably high on theirs.
--Ben
Ben wrote:
case? I know that the ACLU has defended the rights of Klan members to
burn crosses, but I vaguely remember it being only on their own
property.
Yup.
they should be protected. Anyone who carries them out, however, should
be castrated (for a start). May the punishment fit the
That's actually not what I said. You misinterpreted and have either
conveniently forgotten my clarification or not read it -- but as I
think I remember you responding, I'm apt to believe you've
conveniently forgotten.
He said the history of charity only goes back 200 years.
I was just giving a
Maybe in your circle but not the dictionary.
On 5/9/05, Kevin Graeme wrote:
The definition of human used to be white.
~|
Stay Ahead of Hackers - Download ZoneAlarm Pro
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=65
I said:
Religious charities have been helping the needy for close
to 2k years.
You said:
This just shows an ignorance of history... 200 yrs -- maybe... in the
last 2K years, christians have risen from being a small unloved cult
to dominating much of the earth, and have done so on many occasions
On 5/10/05, Ben Doom wrote:
property. Burning on someone else's property would constitute
tresspassing and vandalism, after all. :-\
A minor crime while a hate crime has a harsher punishment.
A cross burning across the street can have the same affect as one
burning on your lawn.
The NAMBLA
Sam wrote:
What if someone stalked your family and published info on when, where
That's illegal because it specifies a specific person. For example, I
can say, A husband who pulls the plug on his wife is an abuser! But
if I said, Mr Shiavo is an abuser! then that starts getting into
property. Burning on someone else's property would constitute
tresspassing and vandalism, after all. :-\
A minor crime while a hate crime has a harsher punishment.
A cross burning across the street can have the same affect as one
burning on your lawn.
I'm not arguing that burning crosses
How about the unamended US Constitution, which only recognized a slave
as 2/3 of a person?
--Ben
Sam wrote:
Maybe in your circle but not the dictionary.
On 5/9/05, Kevin Graeme wrote:
The definition of human used to be white.
[[notice the slick use of the Schiavo controversy in a clever attept
to get all controversial topics into this one thread]]
That's gay! You might as well be using ASP, since Microsoft is going to
buy Macromedia!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
--Ben
Not since Terri Schaivo found WMD's in that Excursion bought by that gay
marriage lobbyist for Tom DeLay, they won't.
- Jim
Ben Doom wrote:
[[notice the slick use of the Schiavo controversy in a clever attept
to get all controversial topics into this one thread]]
That's gay! You might
I said:
Religious charities have been helping the needy for close
to 2k years.
You've conveniently truncated this as well:
Religious charities have been helping the needy for close to 2k years.
Why not give the money to originations that do that the best?
My objection was to your apparent
Ben wrote:
How about the unamended US Constitution, which only recognized a slave
as 2/3 of a person?
The Constitution was that way for years! And now you want to change
it. Let's just leave human rights violations as they've been.
Ok, ok. I'll tell you what: let's give them similar
Ok, ok. I'll tell you what: let's give them similar rights to a
person, but not call them people. I mean, hey, they mostly have the
same rights so why should they care if call them slavos instead of
people?
Heh. I think there's already a word like that, but it begins with an n.
--Ben
The NAMBLA example, I'll quickly believe. It seems to me
that as long
as you don't lie, any printed material should be covered
by the First
Amendment. Otherwise, you run the risk of redefining
journalism
(something we're seeing right now with blogging) and
preventing the
encouragement of
On 5/10/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
Exactly. The ACLU has also defended Rush Limbaugh and it specifically
takes on these types of cases to focus people's attention on what
Freedom of Speech is and how it should be applied legally.
???
Rush's case has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
It's
Where in the Constitution does it say you should be allowed to burn a
cross on a minority's lawn or publish an instruction manual of how to
rape a murder little boys?
On 5/9/05, Kevin Graeme wrote:
Supporting NAMBLA and the KKK is an unfortunate side effect of
supporting the Constitution.
[[notice the slick use of the Schiavo controversy in a clever attept
to get all controversial topics into this one thread]]
Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!
Confidentiality Notice: This message including any
attachments is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
You know it seems like any time I've seen people arguing about
free-speech the people who oppose it never seem to be able to produce
an example that is both an example of free-speech and not obviated by
some other law (like privacy or property laws).
s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080
new
The Constitution does not address vandalism or tresspassing. However,
for the rest, I think that Amendments I and IX of the Bill of Rights
apply. Just to review:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
My objection was to your apparent claim that Christians have been the
_best_ source of charity for 2000 years.
Read it again, I never claimed Christian charities have been around 2k
years. I said religious charities. Right now in the US Christianity is
the
I was just trying to get Dana to take my side :)
On 5/10/05, Ken Ketsdever wrote:
[[notice the slick use of the Schiavo controversy in a clever attept
to get all controversial topics into this one thread]]
Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!
That doesn't work, you have to call someone a Hitler.
You know it seems like any time I've seen people arguing
about
free-speech the people who oppose it never seem to be
able to produce
an example that is both an example of free-speech and not
obviated by
some other law (like privacy or property laws).
s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080
new
Good point. Oh wait, slavery is illegal in the US.
What was the point again?
On 5/10/05, Ben Doom wrote:
How about the unamended US Constitution, which only recognized a slave
as 2/3 of a person?
~|
Find out how CFTicket can
On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
My objection was to your apparent claim that Christians
have been the
_best_ source of charity for 2000 years.
Read it again, I never claimed Christian charities have
been around 2k
years. I said religious charities. Right now in the US
Christianity is
When does it switch from federal law to local laws?
What if instead of a family by name it was a school? How about an
abortion clinic?
On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
Well I didn't mean it quite that literally but I guess you're right. I
just meant that when I see people arguing _about_ free
You said:
Maybe in your circle but not the dictionary.
to the idea that the definition of human used to be white. I'm pointing
out that, as recently as the mid-1800s, the definition of human did in
fact vary based on race/social status here in the US. Yes, it's illegal
now, but we were (I
I'd prefer to discriminate against him. There is a significant
difference between justifiable discrimination (making an assessment
based on an individual's known history) and indiscriminate prejudice
against a group of people. You could say this would be discrimination
of the group of
The definition of a person changed and slavery was abolished. So too
will the definition of marriage change.
-Kevin
On 5/10/05, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good point. Oh wait, slavery is illegal in the US.
What was the point again?
On 5/10/05, Ben Doom wrote:
How about the unamended US
Which is exactly where we started when talking about National ID.
On 5/10/05, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rush's case has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
It's about invasion of privacy.
~|
Find out how CFTicket can
I'm more socialist than fascist.
I have to go to the standard GW. Hitler comparison
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:26 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Amerikanski, show me your papers!
I was just trying to get Dana to take my side
On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
And my point was and still is that while longer is proven better
is debatable, and I would argue that it's not better -- I would argue
that religious charity is worse. I don't think government charity is
much better, but
Is that true? Do you have a source?
On 5/10/05, Ben Doom wrote:
to the idea that the definition of human used to be white. I'm pointing
out that, as recently as the mid-1800s, the definition of human did in
fact vary based on race/social status here in the US. Yes, it's illegal
now, but we
That's it!
You went over the line.
This thread is over!
On 5/10/05, Ken Ketsdever wrote:
I'm more socialist than fascist.
I have to go to the standard GW. Hitler comparison
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your
No, it isn't
Sam wrote:
That's it!
You went over the line.
This thread is over!
On 5/10/05, Ken Ketsdever wrote:
I'm more socialist than fascist.
I have to go to the standard GW. Hitler comparison
~|
Find out
Sure it is Fuhr Sam said so.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:23 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Amerikanski, show me your papers!
No, it isn't
Sam wrote:
That's it!
You went over the line.
This thread is over!
On 5/10
I goofed. It's 3/5ths of a person. See Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
of the US Constitution, specifically the bit that says:
whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a
Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
other Persons
This was used to
On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
And my point was and still is that while longer is
proven better
is debatable, and I would argue that it's not better -- I
would argue
that religious charity is worse. I don't think government
charity is
much better,
Now I'm confused -- are you pulling this from some other branch of the
thread?
When does it switch from federal law to local laws?
What if instead of a family by name it was a school? How
about an
abortion clinic?
On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
Well I didn't mean it quite that
If I can chime back in here for a moment now that I am less frantic,
I think there is an important distinction to be made between rational
and utilitarian economic decisions -- for instance, here in this town
where half the roads and houses have washed away, the sooner everybody
gets back to work
LOL, you're right that whole slavery thing was a farce. Just like the
moon landing.
On 5/10/05, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that true? Do you have a source?
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and
yes, the minutemen are all up in arms about this; I am rather amused
that it is being opposed from the right. But they have a point, you
know. If you want to increase boder security, hire some more bodies
down here.
I dislike the idea of a national ID -- France has one, and the police
are allowed
NABLA and Martin Luther King are both entitled to free speech. It's
possibly their only point of similarity.
And yes, the ACLU was on the other side from me in the Schiavo thing,
I did see that. I felt they were wrong in that instance, but in
general they stand up for things that need to be stood
OK, and did they really publish such a book, and how was it
distributed? Just saying you can't accept the position of a lawyer
representing the other side as necessarily accurate. I am however
willing to believe that I would not want to live next door to a
member.
Daba
On 5/10/05, Jerry Johnson
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
