Fallback Options

"Bob Lee" wrote in message
...

The context was that you changed my post. I never wrote that I
prefer
the WP, or anything close to it.

What's the "WP"?

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:08:53 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

I'm doing the totally unamerican thing.

So, like what's new?

-Astro

He's Austrian isn't he? Who else do we know that was Austrian?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:57 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

AstroPax wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:08:53 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

I'm doing the totally unamerican thing.

So, like what's new?

Define American? So what am I? Nazi? You kill me man. That's really
lame. I'm every bit the American you are. And I actually decided I
wanted to be American. What about me is unamerican? Speaking my mind?
Disagreeing with the president? Not buying in to the consumer driven
holiday? If you ask me, falling in line lock step with the leaders is
unamerican.


For my Thanksgiving dinner I enjoyed 4 brats from my favorite meat
shop grilled over natural gas in twenty degree air in a twenty mile an
hour breeze, 8 slices of enriched (not whole) wheat bread, one can of
Franks Quality Kraut, a can of Bushs baked beens, a can of sardines,
some radishes, and a green pepper cut up whole and eaten with a small
bit of salt.

Not that I am trying to be American, or unAmerican, or Iowan. I just
couldn't make it to the family dinner this year.

nate

pigo wrote:

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:08:53 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

I'm doing the totally unamerican thing.

So, like what's new?

-Astro

He's Austrian isn't he? Who else do we know that was Austrian?


No. I have never been Austrian. What are you implying? Oh soooo
lame. I win two threads by default in one month through the Nazi
rule. I really don't think it's fair for you to diminish Astro's
stance by doing that. He has some good points. Don't cheapen them by
tossing the Nazi thing around so loosely. It just makes you look like
an idiot, and having idiots on your side isn't a plus. Just trying to
help you and Astro out... carry on.

-klaus

uglymoney wrote:

Not that I am trying to be American, or unAmerican, or Iowan. I just
couldn't make it to the family dinner this year.

That would make you totally american. Gas prices suck. I had places
and time but not that kind of money for transport. I'm giving thanks
to Exxon. They made as much in profits as we're putting into
Iraq. Conservation of $. Never created or destroyed, merely
tranferred.

-klaus

AstroPax wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:57 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

Define American? So what am I? Nazi? You kill me man. That's really
lame. I'm every bit the American you are. And I actually decided I
wanted to be American. What about me is unamerican? Speaking my mind?
Disagreeing with the president? Not buying in to the consumer driven
holiday?

I don't think Nazi is a nationality.

Nazi was short for National Socialist. But you didn't say what made me
unamerican.

Furthermore, Thanksgiving is *not* consumer driven,
dumbass.

Really? What's the biggest retail day of the year? The friday we get
off after gorging ourselves? Not consumer driven? Is there a holiday
in the U.S. where we make do without anything? (Besides cigarettes.)
No. Why? It doesn't sell.

Anyway, you are the one that just said you are doing *something*
"un-American", not me! Certainly, I never said that *you*, an
American citizen, are an un-American person. Get it?

Yes. I said not gorging on TDay was unamerican. You implied it was a
pattern, so I assume you are speaking with regard to other things you
know about and was curious what these unamerican things were. So what
other unamerican things are there. Like I said above, is it speaking
my mind? Disagreeing with the president? Not buying in to the consumer
driven holiday? What is the pattern. I wanna be a good american. Help
me out.

You do that all the time! You spin others statements and twist them
into something they are not, and then use it against them.

If you ask me, falling in line lock step with the leaders is unamerican.

Wow, then I guess when I was in the "American Military" and following
my leaders, (and my subordinates following me), then I must have been
un-American, right?

No. Military is different. When you signed up, you signed up for a
whole hell of a lot of ****, one of the most important being following
orders. I'm an army brat, my dad is a decorated Viet Nam vet, so don't
pull that **** on me. But guess what. I'm not in the service, so I'm
free to disagree with my leader, just like Cindy Sheehan.

Certainly, there are times for dissent. However, IMO, undermining our
current war effort (Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, for example) is
un-American.

dOOd, you're even outside the conservative administration's
stance. The administration itself has said that it is *NOT* unamerican
or unpatriotic. You're out there on the extreme edge. You're
disagreeing with your Vice President.

-klaus

AstroPax wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:51:07 +0000 (UTC), klaus

That's not what they did. If the court doesn't find on their behalf,
they didn't have a case.

I think you are missing the point. It's irrelevant if NAMBLA won or
lost the case, but rather, that the ACLU even defended them in the
first place!

So a lawyer defending a murderer supports murder?

Just another example of the ACLU agenda, which appears
to have more to do with an idealized liberal agenda of highly
selective tolerance and civil rights for a carefully chosen few, then
it does with protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's their business as long as they stay within the law. Just
because I disagree with a lot of what they do doesn't mean I don't
support their right to do it. That's the difference between you and
me. Just cause I disagree, doesn't mean they don't have a right to
state their case. That's simply american.

They obviously had a freedom of speech
case. They won. Freedom of Speech means freedom to speak even about
reprehensible things.

Not true.

Absolutely true. Here. Watch. "Felching Bobby Darrin's dead girlfriend
would be cool because some things taste better cold." Reprehensible
and totally protected. Do I need to invoke Cary?

There are limits to Freedom of Speech. Furthermore,
encouraging and/or providing instruction to one participating in an
illegal activity is walking a very fine line.

Right. Which is why it ended up in court. And guess what. They won. So
it was not inciting violence or hate speech or any exception tro the
first amendment according to the courts. For someone so against
criticizing the gov, you sure do it a lot.

Freedom of Speech is certainly *not* absolute!

Nope, it isn't. And again, beating the dead horse, this was protected!
The court said so! Pick a better example, there's ton's of 'em.

Sorry. That's the Constituion. Or are you not in
favor of that, That Constituion thing?

Of course I am. I'm a very strict constitutionalist. Still wondering
why the ACLU won't defend my Second Amendment rights. Maybe it has
something to do with a certain "agenda"?

Ask 'em. I dunno.

Come on, you have a plethora of cases that prove your point about the
ACLU better than this one. Maybe you should pick one they lost? Just a
guess. I don't agree with everything they do, but this case is a bad
example. They won. So if they are supporting it, so is your court
system.

OJ Simpson got off too.

Welcome to America.

NAMBLA might have won it in court, however, they certainly lost it in
the public eye. Anyway, I think that there is still a civil case
pending against the individual NAMBLA members/founders involved, but
not the organization itself.

Yup. See. Now individuals will be held accountable for their actions,
not an association for words. Thank you ACLU. Is this a great country
or what?

-klaus

Bob Lee wrote:
AstroPax wrote:

"It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend
their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking
on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide
what its citizens may say and hear ... The ability of American
society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is
perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of
any Nazi-type regime in this country."

Pretty admirable for such an "idealized liberal" organization to stand
up for the rights of everyone.

That ruling is one of the best things I've seen in a long time. Thanks
Astro. We need that dOOd on the Supreme Court. Beautiful. I'm gonna
frame that.

In article ,
says...
Certainly, there are times for dissent. However, IMO, undermining our
current war effort (Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, for example) is
un-American.

A nation in which it is unpatriotic to express dissent about something
as important as war is one that isn't living up to the ideals of the
USA. People who dissent by dissing the troops who are fighting the war
are both unpatriotic and ungrateful.

Rick

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:51:53 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

The "new republicans" do. They used to be the fiscal conservatives.

I agree. The blame should be placed primarily on the current
Congress, after all, it is Congress that approves the budget.

Approves?

According to my copy of the Consititution, Congress originates the budget,
as with all Bills.