OT Bush wins ... Dims lose ...America wins...

Ray Fischer wrote:

Neil Harrington wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

Neil Harrington wrote:


Have you even read the Constitution?

I have, and there is no general right of privacy to be found anywhere in
the
Constitution.

In fact that are almost no rights at all described in the
Constitution,

All *constitutional* rights are described in the Constitution. (duh.)


The right to free speech, for example? Whoops, there isn't any
mentioned in the Constitution. Freedom of religion? No such right.

I guess the phrase "shall not be abridged" is meaningless?

"No One" wrote in message ...
David Ruether wrote:
"No One" wrote in message ...

Just look at their [regarding Clinton and the "left", presumably...] other tenants of faith: socialism, global warming,
evolutionism. It doesn't matter that both history and science prove these postulates wrong for it is a question of faith to
them. They have the faith in these ideals and now they wish to force their religion on the rest of the non-believers.

If this were not such a bad joke (or if it was truly intended to be
sarcasm...), it could be funny instead of stupid. I can't name a
single Democrat who truly believes in Socialism, can you (really?!)?
If you (and enough others) don't believe we should take global
warming seriously and that we should do something about it soon,
I hope you (and and the rest of us) don't get caught up in the rapid
and destructive climate changes that are highly predictable and
likely. As for evolution, not believing the incredible amount of
evidence supporting it is nuts - and I think the three 'Bublican
presidential candidates who said in the CNN debates that they
didn't believe that evolution was true are just that (nuts). Golly
gee whiz - this ***IS*** the 21st century - it's time to get past
believing in unsupported mythologies and into the era of science!!!
As in, the sun *never* revolved around the earth, regardless of
how strongly religion pushed that idiotic belief! Science is not
religion - and if you don't know what the difference is, well,
gosh, what *can* one say that is meaningful......?!
--DR

No, I was not being sarcastic. Study science and you will see that these are tenants of faith, not science. CO2 as a warming gas
was dismissed in the 1950's. Evolution as a theory of origins has been disproved by physics, chemistry, genetics and mathematics.
By definition, science must hold to the scientific method, yet none of these tenants are. It is all a matter of belief. As for
evolutionism, the same could be said for creationism. The science will only get you so far. To believe in either theory takes
faith, not science. Science existed long before Charles' plagiarized theory. It will exist long after it is finally abandoned.

I reiterate my comments, above. And, does the term "crackpot"
sound familiar to you...? ;-) While I admire the courage of those
who hold beliefs counter to those that are generally held and that
are well supported by evidence (those unusual ideas *can*, though
*rarely*, be eventually proven correct), asking for 3 out of 3 of
your wacky, not well supported beliefs to be correct is asking for
too much, even by the simple rules of chance. And, most of your
statements are simply incorrect, even though you may have found
some obscure sources that support them..

As an aside, we had a rather well known scientist and theoretician
here who came up with some "unusual" ideas that most rejected,
but some eventually became accepted with testing. The difference
is, though, that he was originating ideas that could be tested, not
rejecting concepts that *had* been tested (whether or not you
believe the results, or read only narrow nonsense that supports
your odd views...).

It is a long term process, trying to shift people from holding firm
beliefs regardless of the presence of real evidence (or of even
contrary evidence) or not, to something like having people seek
the best possible information regarding concepts *before* they
commit themselves to supporting or opposing them. Or, I do
hope we *eventually* get most people to think, and to get them
out of the medieval mind-set of accepting as truth whatever
happens to come along that is written, no matter how fanciful.
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

No One wrote:
No, I was not being sarcastic. Study science and you will see that
these are tenants of faith, not science. CO2 as a warming gas was
dismissed in the 1950's. Evolution as a theory of origins has been
disproved by physics, chemistry, genetics and mathematics.

You're a lying troll and a moron.

--
Ray Fischer

No One wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No One wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

Bulll****. We know that Clinton passed up at least three opportunities to
get bin Laden himself.

That's a right-wing lie.

No, it is true.

No, it's a lie.

But Clinton's policy was to fight terrorism as a law

No, you are a liar.

Clinton was useless as far as dealing with the
terrorist threat was concerned.

Except that he actually did something about terrorism. The people who
bombed the WTC ar ein prison.

In that case, yes.

Q.E.D. By your admission you're a liar.

Just look at their other tenants of faith: socialism, global warming,
evolutionism. It doesn't matter that both history and science prove
these postulates wrong

Flat-out lie. Evolution is proven. Global warming is widely
accepted. Socialism is a right-wing bogeyman.

If you think evolution is proven, you have been duped.

Never mind that it's been proven by using a wide variety of sciences,
you're a religious idiot who prefers to keep your head up your ass.

It is nowhere
near proven.

But you're a liar.

--
Ray Fischer

No One wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:57:20 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:


In article ,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:


Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

Bill Funk wrote:

"Matt Clara"

Wire tapping without a warrant is illegal. If the Attorney General won't
bring charges, what recourse do Americans have to force the President of
the
United States to obey the law?

It used to be illegal for Blacks to sit in the front of a bus, or
drink out of a drinking fountain labeled for use by Whites only, or to
use a bathroom not specifically set aside for use by Blacks.
That something is illegal doersn't mean much, really, except that some
people think it should be illegal.
Privacy is not guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Have you even read the Constitution?

Please quote the article that mentions "Privacy".

I don't play that kind of childish game with stupid assholes.
The Constitution doesn't mention TV or radio either, and yet it's only
a few morons who think that freedom of the press applies only to
newspapers.

The word "privacy" doesn't need to appear in the Constitution in order
for there to be a right of privacy.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The right to privacy is considered to be derived from the Bill of
Rights, most specifically from Amendment IV quoted above.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm

Not even the Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, could find a right to
privacy there;

Unless you're a stupid liar. Notice that the government is banned
from "unreasonable searches". Apparently you're not smart enought o
realize that that means "privacy".

And now we are left with trying to define "unreasonable".

Done that.

For instance,
I find the searches at a typical American airport unreasonable, but if I
state so, I'll be invited not to fly anyway.

You have no right to fly anywhere at all.

If I'm pulled over for
speeding, I do not see why that gives cops the right to search my
vehicle, yet they can.

Not without permission, they can't.

See, you're problem is that you're a moron but you think that your
ignorance is justification to believe anything you want. The real
world doesn't work that way.

--
Ray Fischer

No One wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:

Have you even read the Constitution?

I have, and there is no general right of privacy to be found anywhere in
the
Constitution.

In fact that are almost no rights at all described in the
Constitution,

All *constitutional* rights are described in the Constitution. (duh.)

The right to free speech, for example? Whoops, there isn't any
mentioned in the Constitution. Freedom of religion? No such right.

I guess the phrase "shall not be abridged" is meaningless?

Oh, so _now_ you're wanting to interpret it to mean what _you_ want.
Even thought free speech is not described as a right YOU want to make
it a right through your interpretation.

--
Ray Fischer

Neil Harrington wrote:
Unlike the "constitutional rights" invented by leftist-liberal SCOTUS
justices (like the right to abortion, which is not even hinted at anywhere
in the Constitution), the Second Amendment states the right to keep and bear

Have you actually ever read _Roe vs Wade_?

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. ICQ: 1318344

In article ,
Stuffed Crust wrote:

Neil Harrington wrote:
Unlike the "constitutional rights" invented by leftist-liberal SCOTUS
justices (like the right to abortion, which is not even hinted at anywhere
in the Constitution), the Second Amendment states the right to keep and
bear

Have you actually ever read _Roe vs Wade_?

- Solomon

Has he even read the decision in Morse v. Frederick? Students in public
schools do not have a right to free speech according to the current
Supreme Court (in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case).