Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obscene response from AZ State Representative (Response to article All You Democrats, posted below)
Keep and Bear Arms ^ | 11-28-02 | Don Cline/L. Neil Smith

Posted on 11/30/2002 5:44:55 AM PST by SJackson

Obscene response from AZ State Representative

from Don Cline

November 28, 2002

I thought you all might like to see the response from Mark Maiorana, member of the Arizona State Legislature, to the L. Neil Smith article "ALL YOU DEMOCRATS" posted to my list earlier today. When this is the kind of clown holding public office, is it any wonder we are in the mess we are in? I am archiving the e-mail, so feel free to pass it on. Full headers are contained below, to help you verify authenticity.

His website is at: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/members/45leg/mmaioran.htm [E mail: mmaioran@azleg.state.az.us]

...in case you want to know more, or let him know how you feel about his communication style.

ALL YOU DEMOCRATS by L. Neil Smith is found here: http://www.lneilsmith.com/democrats.html [I posted it below ]

The only thing sent to AZ Rep. Maiorana was the text of that article. Here is the public servant's response...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: 112702 Fwd: ALL YOU DEMOCRATSStatus: U
Return-Path:
Received: from exchange2.azleg.state.az.us ([216.160.197.66])
by runyon.mail.mindspring.net (Earthlink Mail Service) with ESMTP id
18hdTU36x3Nl3sj0 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002
20:55:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: by EXCHANGE2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
id <4XN6FRRD>; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:51:31 -0700
Message-ID: <3739281B41F6D21195DD0000F6CBBF300472D7C0@EXCHANGE2>
From: Mark Maiorana
To: 'Don Cline '
Subject: RE: 112702 Fwd: ALL YOU DEMOCRATS
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:51:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C29680.A72F7240"

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Maiorana
To: 'Don Cline '
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:51 PM

Subject: RE: 112702 Fwd: ALL YOU DEMOCRATS

Dear *SSHOLE,
The House and the Senate were controlled by Republicans during the Clinton
Administration. Why don't you do something good for your community, and if not,
GO *UCK YOURSELF. Have a nice day :) PS You are a FLAMING *SSHOLE. I
was born in 1956 and had nothing to do with Wilson or Johnson.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KABA NOTE:

In response to AZ Rep. Maiorana's suggesting that Mr. Cline "do something good for your community", let it be known that Mr. Cline, at his own expense, has been doing just that -- via a Legal Tender lawsuit designed to force the truth about the privacy-invasive nature of modern banking systems out into the open. Mr. Cline has this to say about his ongoing lawsuit:

"My Legal Tender lawsuit is designed to require employers to obey Arizona law in the payment of wages. I.e., by law, employers must pay in lawful money of the United States or in "negotiable" bank checks. If the employers' bank refuses to cash the check because the employee refuses to waive his right to his fingerprint, or his right to not join specified institutions required by the bank, or his right to receive his wages without having to purchase them by payment of a fee, then the bank has imposed conditions upon the check making it not payable on demand, and it is therefore not negotiable according to Arizona law.

"In this case, the employer is required by Arizona law to cash the check himself. If he refuses, thus requiring the employee to meet these conditions -- including payment of a fee -- to receive his own wages, then the employer is committing at least one class 2 misdemeanor and quite possibly several by demanding payment of a fee, commission, or gratuity as a condition of continued employment. Payment of wages is a required element of continued employment, after all.

"If banks are allowed to determine whether an employee receives his wages or not, and the employer is allowed to require the employee to jump through the arbitrary hoops of an outside third party to receive his own wages, then Americans have lost their right to work for a living without meeting the political agenda of the banking industry. My lawsuit is designed to stop that trend."

For more information on Mr. Cline's lawsuit, you can visit him on the web at http://www.mindspring.com/~frdmftr/. The direct link to information about his Legal Tender lawsuit -- not what it sounds like -- is available here: http://www.mindspring.com/~frdmftr/bankshrt.htm.

What you will see is that Mr. Cline cares very much about doing "good for your community."

Consider that as you express yourself to this wayward public servant -- and be sure to avoid the sewer talk to which he stoops. Instead, take the high road and let him wallow in his own mess.

Then pass this link on to other people who might find it as enlightening as we did.

===========================================================

All You Democrats
By L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.com

For anyone who cares about the now regrettably improbable survival of the United States of America as a free country, the internet news headlines this morning -- as they have almost every day for more than a year -- contained horrors enough to trouble the spirit of George Orwell:

"Secret Court Okays Broad Wiretap Power";

"Government Ready To Initiate Military Tribunals";

"Federal Appeals Court Blocks Legal Challenge To Detention Of Afghan War Prisoners":

"Surgical Tags Planned For Sex Offenders ... Silicon Chip To Be Inserted Under Skin".

There was also a whole rash of ugly stories about a secret list the government and the airlines use in a conspiracy to keep people they don't approve of from enjoying the invention, in 1903, of the airplane. If you think any of this is acceptable, stop reading. You are either evil, stupid, or insane and I have nothing more to say to you.

Ironically, the same headlines contained the following: "[Hillary] Clinton In Line For Key Spot", which speaks volumes about the trouble Americans find themselves in, how they continue to make the same old stupid mistakes over and over, and how unlikely they are to find a way out.

This column is addressed to people who identify themselves with and vote for the candidates of the Democratic Party. More than anybody else, you made the world we live in today, and you are right to detest it. You should know that a great many people detest you for making it detestable.

I can't remember ever writing an essay like this, directed to Democrats, whom I've always pretty much regarded as a lost cause, at least as far as the values that I treasure are concerned. I've written rather a lot for the benefit of Republicans, because I used to believe that there was something there that might be salvaged. However in the time that's passed since September 11, 2001, I've learned that I was wrong.

But despite the authoritarian excesses of the Bush Administration, they don't bear the primary responsibility for what's happening today. No, for decades, it was perfectly all right if Democratic leaders, and the bureaucrats and policemen who worked for them, had dictatorial powers of life and death over the American people they claimed to be serving. You trusted your leaders with those powers, even if nobody else did, and anybody who didn't, you muzzled -- the gatekeepers at the networks and newspapers worked for you -- and dismissed as "mean spirited".

Now those same powers, powers that you created and bestowed upon your own -- powers that nobody was ever meant to have under the rule of law we quaintly call the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- are in somebody else's hands, hands that you're inclined, like me, to see as basically malevolent. But now, if you complain, you get the same cold shoulder and ominously threatening glare that you once gave to others.

You aren't patriotic.

You may be a terrorist.

The United States hasn't recently changed course, not at all. You allowed Woodrow Wilson to hand control of the nation's economy over to a cartel consisting mostly of foreign banks, and to tax individual incomes -- forever destroying privacy in the United States. You'll have nobody but your own party to blame when the government reads every word you write, follows every move you make, and monitors every transaction.

They've been telling you what you can and can't sell for far too long.

You allowed Franklin Roosevelt to outlaw the only real money there is, beyond the grasping fingers of government, and the only weapons adequate to keep such a government in line. Gold may be legal again, but when the Thought Police come for that biography of Emma Goldmann you treasured in college, those antique Margaret Sanger pamphlets, or your mint Grove edition of Story of O, you may wish that you had a machinegun.

You allowed Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson to wage war without a formal declaration by Congress -- and the open public debate that would have accompanied it -- and there hasn't been a year since (there hasn't been a day) when American's weren't in somebody else's country, shooting at people who never threatened you and getting shot at in return.

You also allowed Lyndon to read people's mail, infiltrate antiwar groups, and hound his political enemies to death using the IRS. When your e-mail isn't secure, the very personal choices you make on the World Wide Web become standup material for jackbooted thugs, and the FBI asks about the posters on your wall, you have only your party to blame.

Complain that Bush and his vile minions are violating the law, and they'll point to the way you let a criminal like Bill Clinton get away -- literally -- with landgrabbing, rape, and murder, both here and overseas.

So the question before us is, can you see now that those powers are a bad thing regardless of the hands they're in? Can you see now that there were good reasons, when this nation came into being, to restrict those powers, no matter who might feel inconvenienced by it? Do you understand now that the potential power to do great good -- whatever you think "good" may be -- is the actual power to do terrible harm?

It's time for what was once fashionably termed a "paradigm shift", and the paradigm that needs to shift is yours. You made this mess we live in today, and justice demands that you do something now to unmake it. The alternative is a future too terrible to contemplate, a future of "Homeland Security" (an open confession of pure facist intent if I've ever heard one), a future of slavery and terror and torture and death.

Now you get to see if you'd have had the courage to stand up to the Nazis. There are American men today, and women, willing to do dark and barbaric things to their fellow human beings -- who enjoy doing dark and barbaric things -- and who relish the prospect, very soon, of doing dark and barbaric things to their fellow Americans. Today dark and barbaric things are being done outside our borders by these men, by these women, in your name. Tomorrow dark and barbaric things will be done inside our borders, in your name, until they are done to you.

And by tomorrow, I mean within the next four years.

Now don't say anything. Just sit there and be quiet and listen for once. Before you can be of any help, you must purge yourself of many of the beliefs you cherish most dearly. Democrats always claim to care more about the people than others do. And it is possible the American people need many things. But what the American people do not need is more government. What the American people do not need is higher taxes. What the American people do not need is a Homeland Security Department, a USA Patriot Act, a War on Terrorism, or an invasion of Iraq.

What the American people do need is to be left alone to do with the fruits of their uncommonly valiant labor exactly what they wish to do. Anyone in political life or the mass media who claims otherwise, who claims that the American people want to be spied on, want to be taxed, and want their lives to be controlled, or the futures of their children destroyed in another war is either ... what was the phrase again?

Evil, stupid, or insane.

Do not be taken in by the lies your side has told for so long in a vain attempt to convince them otherwise. The people know better, and the only reason you don't know that they know is because you refuse to listen.

They know -- just as an example we're all familiar with -- that millions of lives are saved every year by privately owned deadly weapons. They know that whenever the private ownership of deadly weapons increases in a given area, civilization triumphs over barbarism. They also know that whenever the private ownership of deadly weapons is suppressed -- England and Australia are the latest examples -- it is barbarism that triumphs. Your side has lied about this for so long and so often, to yourselves and everybody else, that you now believe your own lies. But they are lies nevertheless, and will continue to damage civilization as long as they continue to be propagated.

The truth is, advocates of gun control -- properly termed "victim disarmament" -- are people who would rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand.

The other side isn't a bit better. It's intriguingly symmetrical that those whom columnist Sam Francis has accurately characterized as the Stupid Party (Francis has hit some kind of a chord here -- type the phrase into your browser and you'll get thousands of hits) think that everyone is evil, and that the Evil Party thinks that everyone is stupid.

Let me repeat that: it's intriguingly symmetrical that the Stupid Party thinks everyone is evil, and the Evil Party thinks everyone is stupid. We need a party that believes that we are neither stupid nor evil.

If your party really is the party of the people, it's time to show it. I can help, but it's gonna cost you. We must move swiftly. We don't have that much time left before the "midnight knock on the door" becomes as common as it once was in Bulgaria -- or during the Lincoln Administration.

Let's begin by writing and introducing an "Emergency Restoration Act" in Congress, designed to do two things. First, it would return the relative size and scope of government in America to what it was, say, in 1912, before the Federal Reserve Act and the Income Tax allowed it to begin a surge of growth that can only be referred to as cancerous.

Any law passed after 1912 would be reexamined. Unless it won the support of 99% of both houses of Congress, that would be the end of it.

All laws would be subjected to a Constitutional test, as well, with special emphasis on the first ten amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. That test would be conducted, not by politicians, judges, or lawyers, but by legal and historical scholars known to be friendly to the idea of very strict limits on what the government can do. States, counties, and cities would perform similar acts of legal contrition.

Finally, there would be a 100-year-long Moratorium on the passage of any laws at any level of goverment, during which the human race would blossom as never before in its history, and reach out to the stars.

Of course many politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen would bitterly oppose the Emergency Restoration Act, as it would eradicate a lifetime of negative achievement and force them to do something honest and productive for a living. Each year when the Emergency Restoration Act was introduced again, it would be like a harsh light, exposing more of these parasites and predators, and sending them scuttling for the baseboards like the cockroaches they are. Eventually the act would pass.

So how about it, Democrats?

The glorious sky above or the mud of Afghanistan, Iraq, and eventually Iowa, on the jackboots of 21st Century American Nazis, below?

Your call.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 11/30/2002 5:44:55 AM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson
I would have to agree with your state rep on this one...
2 posted on 11/30/2002 5:48:27 AM PST by chadwimc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
To State of Arizona Web Site House Member Seating Chart Arizona House of Representatives - 45th Legislature (2001-2002)
Bills House Leadership Main Page
Members Press Releases Proceedings
Members
Representative Maiorana

State Representative
Mark Maiorana

Democrat -- District 8

Office number: 316

Phone: 602-542-5058

E-mail:mmaioran@azleg.state.az.us

Committee Assignments| Bills Sponsored

Personal Information
 
Home City: Patagonia
Occupation:
Member Since: 1999
 

Sponsor Listing
(
Lists all of the bills that have been sponsored by this Legislator.)

45th Legislature (2001-2002)

Limit search to:

44th Legislature (1999-2000)

Limit search to:

 


What's New!|Press Release| Capitol Tour| FAQ| Other Legislatures
Bills| About ALIS Online| ARS
Floor Calendars| Committees
Members| Legislative Process|AZ Online Resources|Posting Sheets
Session Laws| Arizona Constitution
JLBC|OMBUDSMAN|District Maps

Please report web site problems to webmaster@azleg.state.az.us


3 posted on 11/30/2002 5:48:28 AM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Sounds like this Representative needs to lay off the caffiene.
4 posted on 11/30/2002 5:56:08 AM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Sounds like he got his vocabulary and writing style from DU.
5 posted on 11/30/2002 6:16:16 AM PST by Balding_Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Yeah, yeah, what do you expect from a Democrat? I'm more interested in addressing something this schmuck Smith said in the original article:

If you think any of this is acceptable, stop reading. You are either evil, stupid, or insane and I have nothing more to say to you.

Note that "any of this" includes the following:

1. The courts have said it is okay for the government to wiretap suspected terrorists as long as there is credible reason to believe they are aiding and abetting terrorist organizations. As Rush Limbaugh has been at great pains to point out in the last couple of weeks, NO that doesn't mean Joe and Jane Sixpack are now under threat of having their phones monitored.

2. "Military tribunals" are for TERRORISTS. Is that REALLY so hard to understand?

3. "Afghan detainees" mean "people who were caught IN AFGHANISTAN, in a theater of war, making war upon Americans and aiding and abetting those who slaughtered Americans on 9/11."

4. We as a society are being overrun by a handful of people who look at the rest of us as a "herd" that they can "cull" for their sadistic and perverted pleasure. We're trying to figure out how to handle the fact that, since we know longer just shoot the b*st*rds or hang 'em high when they rape and torture children for their sexual gratification--as earlier generations wisely did--we have to try to prevent them from doing more raping and killing when they are released back into their natural habitat. Sorry if it offends you that these people should be monitored the rest of their lives, but the evidence is overwhelming that they can't be cured, and I consider the well-being of my family, and the families of other Americans, far more precious than the "freedom" of these monsters to destroy more lives.

In short, as much as I hate to admit it (and likely for different reasons), Mr. Smith, this Democrat is right.

You ARE an *sshole.

6 posted on 11/30/2002 6:34:48 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Don't post while you are looking in the mirror.
7 posted on 11/30/2002 6:51:04 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Don't post until you are at least 18 years of age.
8 posted on 11/30/2002 6:51:54 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com; Illbay
Even if, as you suggest, Illbay is an *sshole, that doesn't make him wrong.
9 posted on 11/30/2002 7:02:09 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Why didn't we need all this Homeland Security stuff in WW2? Why is it so necessary to overrun the Bill of Rights now? Im not saying that's happening,...yet. But the potential is there in the Patriot Act and the HS bill. Now, Im pretty far right wing, but this gives me chills.

The logical solution seems to be border control. But we can't have that and PC thought at the same time. Our PC tendencies make the HS Department and the Patriot Act necessary. If we protected ourselves with common sense, all this extra government authority wouldn't be necesary.

The author's point stands; that the Dems complaints about government invasiveness is largely their own fault.
10 posted on 11/30/2002 7:04:08 AM PST by ovrtaxt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Forget about bay-between-the-ears, he's a fed and their biggest apologist.
11 posted on 11/30/2002 7:04:27 AM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
If he's a fed, then he works for us and should be more polite.

But they don't teach them that at Jackboot school anymore.
12 posted on 11/30/2002 7:14:19 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Why didn't we need all this Homeland Security stuff in WW2? Why is it so necessary to overrun the Bill of Rights now?

A whole lot of Japanese Americans living in the 1940s might be very surprised to learn that we didn't have all this Homeland Security stuff in WWII.

13 posted on 11/30/2002 7:28:32 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
This email needs to be forwarded to every newspaper, tv station, and radio station in his district. Whatever else this jerk has done, to interact with a constituent at this level is inexcusable. This man was elected to be a representative of the people, not the bouncer at a biker bar.
14 posted on 11/30/2002 7:31:12 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Why didn't we need all this Homeland Security stuff in WW2?

Surely you jest. We DID have "this Homeland security stuff" during WWII.

Why is it so necessary to overrun the Bill of Rights now?

Please point out ways in which the Bill of Rights is being "overrun."

Im not saying that's happening,...yet.

But that's the problem: Everyone talks about the "threats to freedom" from the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, but no one gives anything approaching details about it. Historically, during time of war for this nation, these same sorts of laws were implemented. It's just that at that time people still considered "the government" to be a manifestation of the people's will. The 1960s hadn't happened yet, and this cult of hyper-individualism hadn't yet found its way into the cultural consciousness.

Back then, people thought we were all pulling together for a common cause: Defeating the enemy. Now, too many simply see the government as the biggest "threat."

But the potential is there in the Patriot Act and the HS bill.

The potential is there for abuse every time a government is instituted. But silly diatribes that make these sound like dictatorial decrees are just stupid, far more "evil, stupid, or insane" than anything that Pres. Bush has pushed.

The threat is NOT from our government. Imperfect as it is, it DOES belong to us, and as the events of Nov. 5 demonstrated, it is quite amenable to the will of the governed.

Meanwhile, fruitcakes like this "L. Neil Smith" character would seem to favor unfettered ability of terrorists, rapists and child molestors to ply their favorite hobbies. Just so long as we don't have "the government" involved.

You talk about the Bill of Rights, but you can't really say which of those Rights is being infringed. Well, I can refer to the REST of the Constitution as well, and I can tell you that in several places, the Federal government is charged to "provide for the common defense." To me, the Patriot Act, Homestead Security Act, etc., are absolutely in line with that obligation.

These things have been conceived and passed by the Legislative branch, after due deliberation--and there was a LOT of it. They have been signed into law by the Executive. And some of it has already passed Judicial muster.

Sounds like everything is open and aboveboard, and absolutely constitutional.

Still you have nitwits like this "Smith" cretin complaining and even threatening outright revolt.

I tell you this: If it were 60 years ago, this guy would've been under house arrest as a threat to national security. He has no IDEA how bad things can REALLY be, even in a free society, when we're at war.

15 posted on 11/30/2002 8:01:55 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
No, really, if ANYONE knows a$$holes, it's Illbay. Check his antics on other threads if you don't believe. He's magna cum laude, with a PhD in a$$holery.
16 posted on 11/30/2002 8:20:58 AM PST by Treebeard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
BTTT
17 posted on 11/30/2002 8:44:12 AM PST by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Illbay
If you like PATRIOT and Homeland Security under Bush, you'll love it under President Hillary....

L

19 posted on 11/30/2002 9:07:25 AM PST by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: A tall man in a cowboy hat
And you say this based on...what?

Your own imagination, nothing more. You haven't paid any attention to what's ACTUALLY been going on; you have no idea that the wiretapping has to be cleared by a judge--it just streamlines the effort.

You don't have the slightest clue, in other words, what you're talking about. You're speaking ONLY through the nonsense of your own preconceived notion that anything the government does is "bad."

To h*ll with the Constitution unless it is your OWN, PERSONAL conception of the Constitution.

Speaking with people like you makes me VERY happy that REAL adults are in charge now.

21 posted on 11/30/2002 9:42:42 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: A tall man in a cowboy hat
Okay, so you quote (again) some of the articles from the Constitution. So what? What's your point? Which of these are "infringed"?

This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone sees life through the paranoid delusions that you hold.

22 posted on 11/30/2002 9:44:01 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Call me cynical, but I have a problem with open-ended laws being passed as permanent installations to our legal code.

I tell you this: If it were 60 years ago, this guy would've been under house arrest as a threat to national security. He has no IDEA how bad things can REALLY be, even in a free society, when we're at war.

We're not at war. We have no declaration of war. If we did, we could declare martial law, which I don't have a problem with. We can get out from under martial law when the war has been won. The current approach is a power grab. I don't care how you want to justify it, it's more power to Washington at our expense, at our loss.

The frustrating thing is that it doesn't have to be this way if we had some leaders with a decent pair between their legs. Everyone is so afraid to offend somebody. Sorry about the Japanese thing, but it was arguably necessary at the time. We fought to win. Here, we are fighting not to lose.

23 posted on 11/30/2002 10:18:26 AM PST by ovrtaxt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
He has no IDEA how bad things can REALLY be, even in a free society, when we're at war.

Do you have to clean the drool off the keyboard as you go? Or do you just wear a bib to contain the deposits of your salivating glee?

24 posted on 11/30/2002 10:29:39 AM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
We're not at war. We have no declaration of war.

Don't be naive.

Sorry about the Japanese thing, but it was arguably necessary at the time.

Ah, but this time it's about WHITE guys, eh?

25 posted on 11/30/2002 10:30:09 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
I promise ONLY to salivate when we get word that YOU'VE been detained.
26 posted on 11/30/2002 10:30:52 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
4. We as a society are being overrun by a handful of people who look at the rest of us as a "herd" that they can "cull" for their sadistic and perverted pleasure. We're trying to figure out how to handle the fact that, since we know longer just shoot the b*st*rds or hang 'em high when they rape and torture children for their sexual gratification--as earlier generations wisely did--we have to try to prevent them from doing more raping and killing when they are released back into their natural habitat. Sorry if it offends you that these people should be monitored the rest of their lives, but the evidence is overwhelming that they can't be cured, and I consider the well-being of my family, and the families of other Americans, far more precious than the "freedom" of these monsters to destroy more lives.

You are right. I much prefer shooting and hanging sexual predators. I believe only Louisiana still has the death penality as an option for Child rape.

Rape, Crimes Against Nature, Sodomy, and Child Molestation should all be returned to Capital Crimes Status.

I am willing to bet that Mr. Smith is a libertarian.

Libertarians are probably further left than most democrats on Social Issues. Especially on Sexual Perversions. The Libertarian party platform is Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual, Pro-Adultery, Pro-Fornication, Pro-Pornography, Pro-Prostitution, Pro-Sexual Perversion.

Most Libertarians want to be free to have sex with anyone they want. Libertarian members of this very forum have posted that they favor lowering the age of consent, because it is not the government's business who has sex with who or how old they are, They have posted in favor of adultery, fornication, and even bigamy and beastality.

Libertarians are as much a threat to this nation as the democrats and greens.

27 posted on 11/30/2002 10:33:08 AM PST by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
If you like PATRIOT and Homeland Security under Bush, you'll love it under President Hillary....

Hillary? You mean the New York Senator linked to the Puerto Rican terrorists and Clinton *pardons for bribes* scandals?

Her name's on the list for detention and a new residence in the kennel at Guantanamo.

-archy-/-

28 posted on 11/30/2002 12:08:09 PM PST by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FF578
Most Libertarians want to be free to have sex with anyone they want.

Note to FF: You are free to have sex with anyone you want.

(So long as they are of legal age, and consent)
Ah... now we see the roots of your neurosis.

29 posted on 11/30/2002 12:38:08 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Why do you care what a representative in AZ thinks when you are in Illionois (if your profile is correct).

Yes, the guy's a major jerk, but he's our jerk, not yours.

30 posted on 11/30/2002 1:01:15 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FF578
That's why I never call them by that euphemistic label "Libertarian" that they try to claim. They aren't for "liberty," their for license.

So I call 'em "Libertines." That's FAR more accurate.

31 posted on 11/30/2002 2:00:41 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
hunh? What are you talking about? Im naive? Whan was the declaration passed? ANd what is the insinuation behind the white guys comment? please don't retreat into the racism mode... this war is about a death cult religion, not race.
32 posted on 11/30/2002 2:23:58 PM PST by ovrtaxt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
"That's FAR more accurate."

Works for me. They're pretty bitchy if you don't agree with them 100%, too.

33 posted on 11/30/2002 5:14:40 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
We have declared war, in an unconventional manner, because it is an unconventional war. Or have you not been listening?

Pres. Bush made it very clear from day one of this struggle, that it was NOT going to be war as we have ever understood it. Often, he said, there would seemingly be nothing going on--then we hear, within a week's time, of the killing of one top al-Qaeda operative and the capture of another.

Yes, war is "declared" because the President went to CONGRESS, and asked their consent, and they gave it.

There are no battle lines on the map, but it is war nonetheless. It is naive to think of it in any other way.

34 posted on 11/30/2002 6:36:00 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
It's unconventional in it's tactics, not it's legality as it applies to the Constitution. We are ignoring the immigration laws, and enacting new laws which restrict the freedom of Citizens. That's my point, and the point of this article is similar. I understand the unconventionality facet of this conflict, don't assume that Im stupid. I also understand the Bill of Rights. We don't need to sacrifice it at the altar of safety or victory, yet the big government types (like you) are telling us it's necessary. Im not buying it.
35 posted on 12/01/2002 5:40:44 AM PST by ovrtaxt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
We are ignoring the immigration laws, and enacting new laws which restrict the freedom of Citizens.

While I'd agree with you that we do ignore immigration laws--at our peril--I still can't get a firm answer out of anyone as to how these "new laws" (which are really amendments to existing laws, fwiw) are "restricting the freedom of citizens."

If I could only get a logical, thoughtful answer to the question: How are you any less free than you were before? I'd perhaps be more amenable to considering it.

As it is, listening to Rush Limbaugh's analysis the last two weeks has convinced me that we're going after CRIMINALS, not citizens.

36 posted on 12/01/2002 7:12:52 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson