| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2005 07:53:35 PM |
| Object: |
Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
Now that the autopsy vindicates what Michael Schiavo was saying all
along he should make a long list of people to sue who defamed/libeled
him, starting with Fox News, the Repug National Committee, Randall Terry
and Operation Rescue, Bill First, Tom DeLay, Jeb Bush, George Bush, Bill
O'Reilly, Sean Insanity, Michael "Weiner boy" Savage, the Schindlers and
many more. Specifically, malpractice charges also need to be filed
against First for his incompetent and unethical attempt to diagnose
Terry Schiavo by watching heavily edited home video footage. If Schiavo
and Felos cast a wide enough net and sues enough of them then maybe some
of them will even settle out of court and it will give them millions to
establish some kind of foundation to defend the rights and privacy of
americans from attack by all the christo-fascist zombie assholes out
there. That would be so fucking sweet.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 08:53:57 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in news:5sVse.106865$8S5.75441
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Wait, the slaves were emancipated in 1863 or 1865, depending, because the
DoI said they must be in 1776? And all those references to slavery in
federal law, in the constitution itself, the fugitive slave law, the Dred
Scott decision in the intervening decades meant nothing?
*****.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Humanity without religion is like a serial killer without a chainsaw."
-- unknown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 12:36:01 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679463BA72BD255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in news:5sVse.106865$8S5.75441
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Wait, the slaves were emancipated in 1863 or 1865, depending, because the
DoI said they must be in 1776? And all those references to slavery in
federal law, in the constitution itself, the fugitive slave law, the Dred
Scott decision in the intervening decades meant nothing?
*****.
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 01:03:05 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679463BA72BD255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:5sVse.106865$8S5.75441 @bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Wait, the slaves were emancipated in 1863 or 1865, depending, because
the DoI said they must be in 1776? And all those references to
slavery in federal law, in the constitution itself, the fugitive
slave law, the Dred Scott decision in the intervening decades meant
nothing?
*****.
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps moral outrage from northern abolitionists,
perhaps pressure from economic interests in the industrial North who
favored protectionist policies over agrarian cash crop interests in the
South who favored cheap imported manufactured goods, perhaps all these
and more. But it wasn't the DoI. Hell, The man who wrote it owned
slaves. Many of the men who signed it owned slaves. Many of the men
who signed it also included the three fifths compromise in the
Constitution.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed
conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a
heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true,
not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment when
anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our
situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each other's
eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was
ending forever."
-- Ann Druyan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 09:17:29 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to spell
that out for them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 05:31:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:17:29 GMT, "Newk Indofman"
<nkom@new.kindofman.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ZA4te.21563$h86.20226@tornado.socal.rr.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to spell
that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in a
few years anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 07:53:57 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"Newk Indofman"
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to spell
that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
That's why there is no slavery in the world today.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in a
few years anyway.
There is always some job that a slave can do cheaper than a machine.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
20 Jun 2005 09:28:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:53:57 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <d95434$pu1$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"Newk Indofman"
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to spell
that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
That's why there is no slavery in the world today.
There is, but nowhere is it a major economic factor in the economy.
There will always be illegal activity somewhere. It will never
completely disappear.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in a
few years anyway.
There is always some job that a slave can do cheaper than a machine.
So you hire someone. Slaves are too expensive to maintain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
21 Jun 2005 08:33:02 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"Newk Indofman"
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to spell
that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
That's why there is no slavery in the world today.
There is,
Quelle surprise.
but nowhere is it a major economic factor in the economy.
Not in the US economy. It's certainly a big part of other economies.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in a
few years anyway.
There is always some job that a slave can do cheaper than a machine.
So you hire someone. Slaves are too expensive to maintain.
A sex slave that earns you $500/day costs $20/day to maintain.
A maid that costs $1000/month to hire would costs just a few hundred
a month to feed and clothe and shelter.
And despite the advances of technology, we still have produce that's
picked by hand in the farm fields of the US.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
21 Jun 2005 08:45:15 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d9af4e$jus$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"Newk Indofman"
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they
have overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to
spell that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
That's why there is no slavery in the world today.
There is,
Quelle surprise.
but nowhere is it a major economic factor in the economy.
Not in the US economy. It's certainly a big part of other economies.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in
a few years anyway.
There is always some job that a slave can do cheaper than a machine.
So you hire someone. Slaves are too expensive to maintain.
A sex slave that earns you $500/day costs $20/day to maintain.
A maid that costs $1000/month to hire would costs just a few hundred
a month to feed and clothe and shelter.
And despite the advances of technology, we still have produce that's
picked by hand in the farm fields of the US.
And farmers who get convicted of forced labor. (That's slavery, Skippy,
right here in the USA, Florida even.)
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
21 Jun 2005 10:49:22 PM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d9af4e$jus$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"Newk Indofman"
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they
have overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to
spell that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
That's why there is no slavery in the world today.
There is,
Quelle surprise.
but nowhere is it a major economic factor in the economy.
Not in the US economy. It's certainly a big part of other economies.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in
a few years anyway.
There is always some job that a slave can do cheaper than a machine.
So you hire someone. Slaves are too expensive to maintain.
A sex slave that earns you $500/day costs $20/day to maintain.
A maid that costs $1000/month to hire would costs just a few hundred
a month to feed and clothe and shelter.
And despite the advances of technology, we still have produce that's
picked by hand in the farm fields of the US.
And farmers who get convicted of forced labor. (That's slavery, Skippy,
right here in the USA, Florida even.)
Because slavery is, and should be, illegal. It doesn't go away
because it's not economical because it often is quite lucrative.
It goes away when (if) people will not stand for it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
21 Jun 2005 10:21:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:33:02 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <d9af4e$jus$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"Newk Indofman"
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to spell
that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
That's why there is no slavery in the world today.
There is,
Quelle surprise.
but nowhere is it a major economic factor in the economy.
Not in the US economy. It's certainly a big part of other economies.
Not really, not as basic labor. You have what is called 'slave labor'
but really isn't, and it is an underground operation. Sex slavery is
a different issue.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in a
few years anyway.
There is always some job that a slave can do cheaper than a machine.
So you hire someone. Slaves are too expensive to maintain.
A sex slave that earns you $500/day costs $20/day to maintain.
A maid that costs $1000/month to hire would costs just a few hundred
a month to feed and clothe and shelter.
And despite the advances of technology, we still have produce that's
picked by hand in the farm fields of the US.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Natalie Clifford Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 08:21:23 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:17:29 GMT, "Newk Indofman"
<nkom@new.kindofman.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ZA4te.21563$h86.20226@tornado.socal.rr.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to spell
that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in a
few years anyway.
Slavery was potentially going to end in 1901 in america on the basis of a bill
in congress on the eve of the civil war.
I am sure that they would have kept slavery going til the very last moment in
an industrialized form .
After all it was Biblical, the slaves had the mark of Cain upon them, and if
the slaves were not kept in their place, the next thing you know they would
have been playing professional sports and marrying whites or becomign Chairmen
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then Secretaries of State.....
--
"A woman without a touch of bitchery is like milk without Vitamin D."
Caresse Crosby
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 10:51:52 AM |
|
|
"Natalie Clifford Barney" <SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote in message
news:42B57151.DE332220@20RueJacob.fr...
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:17:29 GMT, "Newk Indofman"
<nkom@new.kindofman.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ZA4te.21563$h86.20226@tornado.socal.rr.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to
spell
that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in a
few years anyway.
Slavery was potentially going to end in 1901 in america on the basis of a
bill
in congress on the eve of the civil war.
I am sure that they would have kept slavery going til the very last moment
in
an industrialized form .
After all it was Biblical, the slaves had the mark of Cain upon them, and
if
the slaves were not kept in their place, the next thing you know they
would
have been playing professional sports and marrying whites or becomign
Chairmen
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then Secretaries of State.....
Priceless, ma'am. Just friggin' priceless. :-)
Those uppity bastards!
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 09:38:47 AM |
|
|
Natalie Clifford Barney <SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote in
news:42B57151.DE332220@20RueJacob.fr:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:17:29 GMT, "Newk Indofman"
<nkom@new.kindofman.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ZA4te.21563$h86.20226@tornado.socal.rr.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they
have overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to
spell that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in
a few years anyway.
Slavery was potentially going to end in 1901 in america on the basis
of a bill in congress on the eve of the civil war.
Unless Congress passed an extention, added exemptions for certain classes
of slaves or slave owners. Naw, that could never have happened, right?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
So Dubya goes to war because god told him to.
There's a woman down in Texas who bashed in her kid's skulls for the same
reason.
-- Ed Krebs
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 12:11:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:21:23 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> in alt.abortion with message-id
<42B57151.DE332220@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:17:29 GMT, "Newk Indofman"
<nkom@new.kindofman.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ZA4te.21563$h86.20226@tornado.socal.rr.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to spell
that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in a
few years anyway.
Slavery was potentially going to end in 1901 in america on the basis of a bill
in congress on the eve of the civil war.
Slavery would have ended for the same reason it disappeared in the
remainder of the world. It was cheaper to use machines to do the work
then it was to use slaves. Pure economics at it's finest.
I am sure that they would have kept slavery going til the very last moment in
an industrialized form .
After all it was Biblical, the slaves had the mark of Cain upon them, and if
the slaves were not kept in their place, the next thing you know they would
have been playing professional sports and marrying whites or becomign Chairmen
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then Secretaries of State.....
It would have ended as soon as it became more expensive to keep slaves
then to replace them with machinery.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 11:52:20 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 06:31:14 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:17:29 GMT, "Newk Indofman"
<nkom@new.kindofman.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ZA4te.21563$h86.20226@tornado.socal.rr.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it's morally wrong. Most human beings don't need someone to spell
that out for them.
Slavery is an economic institution, and it was destroyed by
mechanization providing cheaper labor than slaves ever did.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended in a
few years anyway.
The Civil War was unncessary as a means of liberating the
slaves, but it was vital to forcing the entire country under one set
of rules. It got spun as a moral war (which is one reason so many
Yanks fought) but it was about consolidating power. Lincoln admitted
that he'd have kept all of the slaves in bondage if it had brought
peace to the nation.
-- Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
http://www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 12:42:53 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679463BA72BD255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in news:5sVse.106865$8S5.75441
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Wait, the slaves were emancipated in 1863 or 1865, depending, because the
DoI said they must be in 1776? And all those references to slavery in
federal law, in the constitution itself, the fugitive slave law, the Dred
Scott decision in the intervening decades meant nothing?
*****.
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it was wrong. The British Empire did not have a
Declaration of Independence, but it abolished slavery 30 years
earlier. So it would seem, that if the language in the
Declaration guaranteed anything, it guaranteed an extra
generation of slavery.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
"There's an old...saying in Tennessee...I know it's in Texas, probably
in Tennessee that says Fool me once...Shame on...Shame on you....Fool
me...Can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 01:07:47 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n7h.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679463BA72BD255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in news:5sVse.106865$8S5.75441
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Wait, the slaves were emancipated in 1863 or 1865, depending, because
the
DoI said they must be in 1776? And all those references to slavery in
federal law, in the constitution itself, the fugitive slave law, the
Dred
Scott decision in the intervening decades meant nothing?
*****.
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it was wrong. The British Empire did not have a
Declaration of Independence, but it abolished slavery 30 years
earlier.
Are you always so susceptible to 'apples and oranges' flaws in analysis?
So it would seem, that if the language in the
Declaration guaranteed anything, it guaranteed an extra
generation of slavery.
Doesn;t seem that way to me.
Britain and the USA were separate nations.
You think British rule woulda freed the slaves earlier in the US has the US
not became independent?
That is ludicrous.
You are forgetting so much about the economies of the two nations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 01:16:55 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<ElZse.106974$8S5.19121@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb8n7h.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679463BA72BD255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in news:5sVse.106865$8S5.75441
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Wait, the slaves were emancipated in 1863 or 1865, depending, because
the
DoI said they must be in 1776? And all those references to slavery in
federal law, in the constitution itself, the fugitive slave law, the
Dred
Scott decision in the intervening decades meant nothing?
*****.
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it was wrong. The British Empire did not have a
Declaration of Independence, but it abolished slavery 30 years
earlier.
Are you always so susceptible to 'apples and oranges' flaws in analysis?
So it would seem, that if the language in the
Declaration guaranteed anything, it guaranteed an extra
generation of slavery.
Doesn;t seem that way to me.
Britain and the USA were separate nations.
You think British rule woulda freed the slaves earlier in the US has the US
not became independent?
That is ludicrous.
Why is it ludricrous? Slavery was abolished in the British
Empire in 1833. Why wouldn't it have been abolished then if
America were still part of the British Empire.
You are forgetting so much about the economies of the two nations.
You mean that the US economy was built by slave labor and the
British economy wasn't.
So economics makes slavery okay? That is only more proof that
the author and signers of the Declaration of Independence did
not mean what they wrote and signed.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 08:34:07 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8p7c.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<ElZse.106974$8S5.19121@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n7h.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679463BA72BD255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:5sVse.106865$8S5.75441
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Wait, the slaves were emancipated in 1863 or 1865, depending, because
the
DoI said they must be in 1776? And all those references to slavery in
federal law, in the constitution itself, the fugitive slave law, the
Dred
Scott decision in the intervening decades meant nothing?
*****.
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it was wrong. The British Empire did not have a
Declaration of Independence, but it abolished slavery 30 years
earlier.
Are you always so susceptible to 'apples and oranges' flaws in analysis?
So it would seem, that if the language in the
Declaration guaranteed anything, it guaranteed an extra
generation of slavery.
Doesn;t seem that way to me.
Britain and the USA were separate nations.
You think British rule woulda freed the slaves earlier in the US has the
US
not became independent?
That is ludicrous.
Why is it ludricrous? Slavery was abolished in the British
Empire in 1833.
In Britain, stupid.
Why wouldn't it have been abolished then if
America were still part of the British Empire.
Because America needed it.
What part of reaping crops do you fail to understand?
You are forgetting so much about the economies of the two nations.
You mean that the US economy was built by slave labor and the
British economy wasn't.
Not even a little.
I mean that Britain, an island, and the USA were separate nations at that
time.
So economics makes slavery okay?
So, you want to get into the way the slave trade started?
Why do you ***** so much?
Maybe that is why slavery began.
That is only more proof that
the author and signers of the Declaration of Independence did
not mean what they wrote and signed.
*****.
I take it you are a negro Brit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 11:28:11 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
:"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
:news:slrndb8p7c.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
:> In our last episode,
:> <ElZse.106974$8S5.19121@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
:> the lovely and talented Johnny
:> broadcast on alt.atheism:
[...]
:>> Doesn;t seem that way to me. Britain and the USA were separate nations.
:>> You think British rule woulda freed the slaves earlier in the US has the
:>> US not became independent? That is ludicrous.
:> Why is it ludricrous? Slavery was abolished in the British
:> Empire in 1833.
:In Britain, stupid.
The British Empire, South Carolina Psycho. Whether you understand it or not,
the two are not the same.
:> Why wouldn't it have been abolished then if America were still part of the
:> British Empire.
:Because America needed it. What part of reaping crops do you fail to
:understand?
What part of the British managing to reap their own crops are you too insane
to understand?
:>> You are forgetting so much about the economies of the two nations.
:> You mean that the US economy was built by slave labor and the British
:> economy wasn't.
:Not even a little. I mean that Britain, an island, and the USA were separate
:nations at that time.
Your opinion and a dollar will get you downtown on Metrorail.
:> So economics makes slavery okay?
:So, you want to get into the way the slave trade started? Why do you *****
:so much? Maybe that is why slavery began.
That has nothing to do with your latest obsession.
:> That is only more proof that the author and signers of the Declaration of
:> Independence did not mean what they wrote and signed.
:*****. I take it you are a negro Brit.
Thanks for continuing to prove that you are stupid and insane. (Lars has his
picture on his home page, and you're 180° off, as usual.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 02:42:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:16:55 -0500, Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <slrndb8p7c.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com>
wrote:
In our last episode,
<ElZse.106974$8S5.19121@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n7h.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679463BA72BD255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in news:5sVse.106865$8S5.75441
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Wait, the slaves were emancipated in 1863 or 1865, depending, because
the
DoI said they must be in 1776? And all those references to slavery in
federal law, in the constitution itself, the fugitive slave law, the
Dred
Scott decision in the intervening decades meant nothing?
*****.
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
Because it was wrong. The British Empire did not have a
Declaration of Independence, but it abolished slavery 30 years
earlier.
Are you always so susceptible to 'apples and oranges' flaws in analysis?
So it would seem, that if the language in the
Declaration guaranteed anything, it guaranteed an extra
generation of slavery.
Doesn;t seem that way to me.
Britain and the USA were separate nations.
You think British rule woulda freed the slaves earlier in the US has the US
not became independent?
That is ludicrous.
Why is it ludricrous? Slavery was abolished in the British
Empire in 1833. Why wouldn't it have been abolished then if
America were still part of the British Empire.
You are forgetting so much about the economies of the two nations.
You mean that the US economy was built by slave labor and the
British economy wasn't.
So economics makes slavery okay? That is only more proof that
the author and signers of the Declaration of Independence did
not mean what they wrote and signed.
Slavery is an economic issue. The D of I had nothing to do with
slavery. Nothing at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 02:41:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:36:01 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<STYse.106945$8S5.62726@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679463BA72BD255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in news:5sVse.106865$8S5.75441
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Wait, the slaves were emancipated in 1863 or 1865, depending, because the
DoI said they must be in 1776? And all those references to slavery in
federal law, in the constitution itself, the fugitive slave law, the Dred
Scott decision in the intervening decades meant nothing?
*****.
Without language to guarantee liberty as a right why would they have
overturned slavery?
It certainly had nothing to do with a document signed 90 years before.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 08:48:49 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
"Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting Muswims!"
-- Eunice Fudd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 12:34:54 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable right?
--
Lars Eighner
http://www.larseighner.com/
"Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting Muswims!"
-- Eunice Fudd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 12:39:25 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 01:05:26 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 11:14:38 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
:"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
:news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
:> In our last episode,
:> <PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
:> the lovely and talented Johnny
:> broadcast on alt.atheism:
:>> "Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
:>> news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
:>>> In our last episode,
:>>> <5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
:>>> the lovely and talented Johnny
:>>> broadcast on alt.atheism:
:>>>> "Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
:>>>> news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
:>>>>> In our last episode,
:>>>>> <kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
:>>>>> talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
:>>>>>>> Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
:>>>>>> July 4th, 1776.
:>>>>>> Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
:>>>>> That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
:>>>> *****. Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
:>>> It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
:>>> freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
:>> You have got to be kidding. The three inalienable rights lists liberty as
:>> one of those rights. How do you figure slkavery was abolished without such
:>> an inalienable right?
:> It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
:> abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
:> lasted another generation because America was independent.
:> The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
:What nation are you a citizen of?
He's a Texan, just like me. That means you'll completely miss that clue.
:The DoI is fully legal. To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the
:USA.
So what the bloody ***** are YOU going to do about it, Nutless Wentzky?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 01:26:44 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:sjZse.106971$8S5.90842@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights.
How do you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable
right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
The DoI is not the "law of the land" in the United States. The
Constitution is. Previous to the adoption of the Constitution, there was
another, different country called the "United States of America" governed
by the Articles of Confederation, with a president and a legislature.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
This government was superceded by our current Constitution, and is not
legally binding in any sense. The DoI precedes the Articles, and is no
more legally binding than they are.
While the DoI may have moral force, it is not a legal document in the
sense that the Bill of Rights or current tax law is a legal document.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Anyone who says God is on their side is dangerous as hell.
-- lapel button
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 08:30:58 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679747CE4666255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:sjZse.106971$8S5.90842@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights.
How do you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable
right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
The DoI is not the "law of the land" in the United States. The
Constitution is. Previous to the adoption of the Constitution, there was
another, different country called the "United States of America" governed
by the Articles of Confederation, with a president and a legislature.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
This government was superceded by our current Constitution, and is not
legally binding in any sense. The DoI precedes the Articles, and is no
more legally binding than they are.
While the DoI may have moral force, it is not a legal document in the
sense that the Bill of Rights or current tax law is a legal document.
More whining from someone who does not honor the DoI?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
