"No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee

Religions > Atheism > "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 8

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"human"
Date:	08 Dec 2005 01:23:05 PM
Object:	"No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee

This "community columnist" column is in today's Milwaukee paper. I hope
that George Ott and the Journal Sentinel are swamped with replies.
His eddress, clearly visible on the column clipping is <gott @ wi.rr.com>
[remove spaces]
There is a delay with community columns appearing on-line at
www.jsonline.com . It will be there in about a week.
Here is an excerpt [keyed in, so any typos are my responsibility]:
"The phrase 'constitutionally mandated separation of church and state'
doesn't exist. It never has."
and
[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's founding
documents.
How ironic that over the past few decades there has been a move by a
minority of Americans to remove any reference to religion from public
view and discourse. Not all religion, just Christianity.
The meaning of the First Amendment has been twisted and perverted beyond
recognition. It clearly states that Congress shall make no law
establishing a religion. The government may not declare an 'official
religion.' It also states that the government may not prohibit the free
exercise of religion."
"The 'no religion anywhere, anytime, for any reason' crowd has singled out
Christian religious symbols and references.
No Ten Commandments, no nativity scenes, no crucifixes, no Pledge of
Allegiance. I cannot believe that running away from the very symbols of
the faith that was central in the formation of this country can possibly
be good for this nation. How does turning our back on our religious roots
make us a better people?
You will notice that any time people have a problem with a religious
display on public property they run to the courts. Look at what that guy
in California did trying to get the words 'under God' in the Pledge of
Allegiance declared unconstitutional. He went to the most liberal court in
America, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
These people don't dare try pulling this via the referendum because they
know they will lose. They seek out like-minded judges and have displays of
the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses by judicial fiat.
As a nation, it is time we took a long look at the moral direction these
people want the country to move in. A nativity scene in front of a
courthouse does not consitute the government establishing a religion.
For those who seem bent on removing every single piece of evidence of
religion in our society from view, I encourage you to read and reread the
First Amendment."
----------
Please, please, please do not take George Ott's sentiments or words as my
own!
----------
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is not a
reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.

User: "Steven Blackwood"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	09 Dec 2005 07:15:41 PM

It is absurd to argue, as Ott does, that Freedom 'of' religion does not mean
freedom 'from' religion. Freedom from religion is a subset to freedom of
religion; that is to say if you have no freedom from religion, then
therefore you MUST have a religion, whether you like it or not. Then we are
back to the notion of church establishment and now we are back to the 1700s.
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051208130945.23724A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

This "community columnist" column is in today's Milwaukee paper. I hope
that George Ott and the Journal Sentinel are swamped with replies.

His eddress, clearly visible on the column clipping is <gott @ wi.rr.com>
[remove spaces]

There is a delay with community columns appearing on-line at
www.jsonline.com . It will be there in about a week.

Here is an excerpt [keyed in, so any typos are my responsibility]:

"The phrase 'constitutionally mandated separation of church and state'
doesn't exist. It never has."

and

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's founding
documents.
How ironic that over the past few decades there has been a move by a
minority of Americans to remove any reference to religion from public
view and discourse. Not all religion, just Christianity.
The meaning of the First Amendment has been twisted and perverted beyond
recognition. It clearly states that Congress shall make no law
establishing a religion. The government may not declare an 'official
religion.' It also states that the government may not prohibit the free
exercise of religion."

"The 'no religion anywhere, anytime, for any reason' crowd has singled out
Christian religious symbols and references.
No Ten Commandments, no nativity scenes, no crucifixes, no Pledge of
Allegiance. I cannot believe that running away from the very symbols of
the faith that was central in the formation of this country can possibly
be good for this nation. How does turning our back on our religious roots
make us a better people?
You will notice that any time people have a problem with a religious
display on public property they run to the courts. Look at what that guy
in California did trying to get the words 'under God' in the Pledge of
Allegiance declared unconstitutional. He went to the most liberal court in
America, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
These people don't dare try pulling this via the referendum because they
know they will lose. They seek out like-minded judges and have displays of
the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses by judicial fiat.
As a nation, it is time we took a long look at the moral direction these
people want the country to move in. A nativity scene in front of a
courthouse does not consitute the government establishing a religion.
For those who seem bent on removing every single piece of evidence of
religion in our society from view, I encourage you to read and reread the
First Amendment."
----------

Please, please, please do not take George Ott's sentiments or words as my
own!

----------
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is not a
reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	10 Dec 2005 11:10:02 AM

"Steven Blackwood" <swblackwood@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1%pmf.255272$zb5.154929@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

It is absurd to argue, as Ott does, that Freedom 'of' religion does not
mean freedom 'from' religion. Freedom from religion is a subset to freedom
of religion; that is to say if you have no freedom from religion, then
therefore you MUST have a religion, whether you like it or not. Then we
are back to the notion of church establishment and now we are back to the
1700s.

Freedom FROM Religion - of necessity mandate that you cannot have ANY
freedom OF religion. In order to have freedom FROM religion you MUST deny
others the freedom to have their religion!
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	09 Dec 2005 09:18:21 PM

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:15:41 GMT, "Steven Blackwood"
<swblackwood@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

A lot of people who should know better have said it. Like Joseph
Lieberman when he was Al Gore's running mate. He didn't seem to
realise that he would have no freedom from right wing Christianity
himself.
.

User: "human"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	11 Dec 2005 12:20:23 AM

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Steven Blackwood wrote:

Bingo.
thank you very much, Steven.
I hope you will write to the J.S. and to Mr. Ott!!
Oh. And the link for the whole community column is:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/jul05/339723.asp

"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051208130945.23724A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

This "community columnist" column is in today's Milwaukee paper. I hope
that George Ott and the Journal Sentinel are swamped with replies.
His eddress, clearly visible on the column clipping is <gott @ wi.rr.com>
[remove spaces]
There is a delay with community columns appearing on-line at
www.jsonline.com . It will be there in about a week.
Here is an excerpt [keyed in, so any typos are my responsibility]:
"The phrase 'constitutionally mandated separation of church and
state' doesn't exist. It never has."
and
[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's founding
documents.
How ironic that over the past few decades there has been a move by a
minority of Americans to remove any reference to religion from public
view and discourse. Not all religion, just Christianity.
The meaning of the First Amendment has been twisted and perverted beyond
recognition. It clearly states that Congress shall make no law
establishing a religion. The government may not declare an 'official
religion.' It also states that the government may not prohibit the free
exercise of religion."
"The 'no religion anywhere, anytime, for any reason' crowd has singled out
Christian religious symbols and references.
No Ten Commandments, no nativity scenes, no crucifixes, no Pledge of
Allegiance. I cannot believe that running away from the very symbols of
the faith that was central in the formation of this country can possibly
be good for this nation. How does turning our back on our religious roots
make us a better people?
You will notice that any time people have a problem with a religious
display on public property they run to the courts. Look at what that guy
in California did trying to get the words 'under God' in the Pledge of
Allegiance declared unconstitutional. He went to the most liberal court in
America, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
These people don't dare try pulling this via the referendum because they
know they will lose. They seek out like-minded judges and have displays of
the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses by judicial fiat.
As a nation, it is time we took a long look at the moral direction these
people want the country to move in. A nativity scene in front of a
courthouse does not consitute the government establishing a religion.
For those who seem bent on removing every single piece of evidence of
religion in our society from view, I encourage you to read and reread the
First Amendment."
Please, please, please do not take George Ott's
sentiments or words as my own!

"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.

User: "Mickey"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	10 Dec 2005 12:37:19 AM

Steven Blackwood wrote:

Can everybody say "specious?"

"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051208130945.23724A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

This "community columnist" column is in today's Milwaukee paper. I hope
that George Ott and the Journal Sentinel are swamped with replies.

His eddress, clearly visible on the column clipping is <gott @ wi.rr.com>
[remove spaces]

There is a delay with community columns appearing on-line at
www.jsonline.com . It will be there in about a week.

Here is an excerpt [keyed in, so any typos are my responsibility]:

"The phrase 'constitutionally mandated separation of church and state'
doesn't exist. It never has."

and

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's founding
documents.
How ironic that over the past few decades there has been a move by a
minority of Americans to remove any reference to religion from public
view and discourse. Not all religion, just Christianity.
The meaning of the First Amendment has been twisted and perverted beyond
recognition. It clearly states that Congress shall make no law
establishing a religion. The government may not declare an 'official
religion.' It also states that the government may not prohibit the free
exercise of religion."

"The 'no religion anywhere, anytime, for any reason' crowd has singled out
Christian religious symbols and references.
No Ten Commandments, no nativity scenes, no crucifixes, no Pledge of
Allegiance. I cannot believe that running away from the very symbols of
the faith that was central in the formation of this country can possibly
be good for this nation. How does turning our back on our religious roots
make us a better people?
You will notice that any time people have a problem with a religious
display on public property they run to the courts. Look at what that guy
in California did trying to get the words 'under God' in the Pledge of
Allegiance declared unconstitutional. He went to the most liberal court in
America, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
These people don't dare try pulling this via the referendum because they
know they will lose. They seek out like-minded judges and have displays of
the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses by judicial fiat.
As a nation, it is time we took a long look at the moral direction these
people want the country to move in. A nativity scene in front of a
courthouse does not consitute the government establishing a religion.
For those who seem bent on removing every single piece of evidence of
religion in our society from view, I encourage you to read and reread the
First Amendment."
----------

Please, please, please do not take George Ott's sentiments or words as my
own!

----------
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is not a
reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	08 Dec 2005 09:14:58 PM

human wrote:

gott@wi.rr.com ?
Hehehehe....

There is a delay with community columns appearing on-line at
www.jsonline.com . It will be there in about a week.

Here is an excerpt [keyed in, so any typos are my responsibility]:

"The phrase 'constitutionally mandated separation of church and state'
doesn't exist. It never has."

It does now.

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version of
religious persecution.

How ironic that over the past few decades there has been a move by a
minority of Americans to remove any reference to religion from public
view and discourse. Not all religion, just Christianity.

Is Strawmanitarianism now a religion? If so, it definitely needs to be
removed.

The meaning of the First Amendment has been twisted and perverted beyond
recognition. It clearly states that Congress shall make no law
establishing a religion. The government may not declare an 'official
religion.' It also states that the government may not prohibit the free
exercise of religion."

"The 'no religion anywhere, anytime, for any reason' crowd has singled
out Christian religious symbols and references.

If this is true, only because Xians are the majority and the most visible.
Pagans and Buddhists tend to not force their religion upon anybody.

No Ten Commandments, no nativity scenes, no crucifixes, no Pledge of
Allegiance. I cannot believe that running away from the very symbols of
the faith that was central in the formation of this country can possibly
be good for this nation. How does turning our back on our religious roots
make us a better people?

Yea, the Pledge, written in its current form in the early 1950s was what the
US was based on. What a fucking git.

Please, please, please do not take George Ott's sentiments or words as my
own!

Please, please. please do not take his sentiments or words seriously!
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "human"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	09 Dec 2005 12:11:09 AM

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, towelie wrote:

human wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, towelie wrote:

gott@wi.rr.com ?

Yep.

Hehehehe....

Is that funny?

There is a delay with community columns appearing on-line at
www.jsonline.com . It will be there in about a week.
Here is an excerpt [keyed in, so any typos are my responsibility]:
"The phrase 'constitutionally mandated separation of church and state'
doesn't exist. It never has."

It does now.

That's a comfort.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version of
religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

How ironic that over the past few decades there has been a move by a
minority of Americans to remove any reference to religion from public
view and discourse. Not all religion, just Christianity.

Is Strawmanitarianism now a religion?
If so, it definitely needs to be removed.

It has a nice ring to it. Perhaps you should dig up the golden tablets
buried by Strawmani, PBUH, and make a fortune!

The meaning of the First Amendment has been twisted and perverted beyond
recognition. It clearly states that Congress shall make no law
establishing a religion. The government may not declare an 'official
religion.' It also states that the government may not prohibit the free
exercise of religion."
"The 'no religion anywhere, anytime, for any reason' crowd has singled
out Christian religious symbols and references.

If this is true, only because Xians are the majority and the most visible.
Pagans and Buddhists tend to not force their religion upon anybody.

Yea, the Pledge, written in its current form in the early
1950s was what the US was based on. What a fucking git.

Please, please, please do not take George Ott's sentiments or words as my
own!

Please, please. please do not take his sentiments or words seriously!

Thanks. I feel so much better!
--------
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	09 Dec 2005 06:35:57 AM

"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051209000625.2895E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new
world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine
providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's
founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version of
religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow? Placing
crosses where people have died is somehow "DEPRIVING" you of some rights you
think you have? Or that singing Christmas carols in school is a death
penalty crime? Seems like we know who the ones into religious persecution
are, or at least the wannabe persecutors are.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	16 Dec 2005 11:30:50 AM

KRP wrote:

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow?
So you think exposing your lies is "PERSECUTING" you somehow? Why
didn't your own daughter include you in her wedding Kakes? Her step dad
was invited.
.

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	09 Dec 2005 08:08:44 AM

KRP wrote:

"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051209000625.2895E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new
world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine
providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's
founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version of
religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow? Placing
crosses where people have died is somehow "DEPRIVING" you of some rights
you think you have? Or that singing Christmas carols in school is a
death penalty crime? Seems like we know who the ones into religious
persecution are, or at least the wannabe persecutors are.

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities committed by
the Pilgrims and their offspring.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	10 Dec 2005 11:08:08 AM

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E6CdnfWjvY5rEgTeRVn-uA@centurytel.net...

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new
world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine
providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's
founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version of
religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow? Placing
crosses where people have died is somehow "DEPRIVING" you of some rights
you think you have? Or that singing Christmas carols in school is a
death penalty crime? Seems like we know who the ones into religious
persecution are, or at least the wannabe persecutors are.

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities committed
by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!
.

User: "Turin"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	10 Dec 2005 01:32:49 PM

KR-fag-born wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E6CdnfWjvY5rEgTeRVn-uA@centurytel.net...

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new
world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine
providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's
founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version of
religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow? Placing
crosses where people have died is somehow "DEPRIVING" you of some rights
you think you have? Or that singing Christmas carols in school is a
death penalty crime? Seems like we know who the ones into religious
persecution are, or at least the wannabe persecutors are.

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities committed
by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

Hey _Fuck You_ Pangborn. Plenty of people on this continent have felt
the persecution of you pretended "people of faith" - both, during and
since the Salem Witch Trials. What the ***** have you bastards ever
suffered from your victims? Tell me - so I can mark the date and
celebrate a new holiday.
Take your ***** whiny soundbites, about "ACLU" filings, and file
them up your dead mother's fat *****.
- - -
This has been another red faced Pangborn, with:
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
.

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	11 Dec 2005 09:43:38 AM

TURDBRAIN TURAM
"Turin" <TurinTurambar.1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134243169.703564.200550@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Massive crosposting NOTED.

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here
fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new
world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine
providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's
founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version
of
religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow?
Placing
crosses where people have died is somehow "DEPRIVING" you of some
rights
you think you have? Or that singing Christmas carols in school is a
death penalty crime? Seems like we know who the ones into religious
persecution are, or at least the wannabe persecutors are.

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities
committed
by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

My goodness Turbrain what a rant from an apprentice stalker.
.

User: "Turin"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	11 Dec 2005 02:23:08 PM

KR-fag-born wrote:

Turin wrote:

KR-fag-born wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E6CdnfWjvY5rEgTeRVn-uA@centurytel.net...

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new
world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine
providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's
founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version of
religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow? Placing
crosses where people have died is somehow "DEPRIVING" you of some rights
you think you have? Or that singing Christmas carols in school is a
death penalty crime? Seems like we know who the ones into religious
persecution are, or at least the wannabe persecutors are.

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities committed
by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

My goodness Turbrain what a rant from an apprentice stalker.

Ohhh... "My goodness" is right, Fat *****. You really ARE a little
pushover. Hey. Playing the victim, fat boy? I'll give you a reason
to play victim:
Now that I've seen, more than once, that on certain groups you have a
tendency to behave yourself, I'll be sure to get in your *****-*****
middle-class lout's face more often on these ones, where you HAVE to be
the hypocritical good little boy.
I'm going to TAKE AWAY that little "venting" pasttime, of yours, that
you've mentioned. :D
Hahaha ....yeah, show us some "goodness" now, Pang-*****-boy. Let's see
just how many times you can brush it off while I punk off a 60 year old
suburban fat-***** loud-mouth, with no fight left in him when he's up
against a street-fighter. You've already RUN from THIS issue, Meat
Mouth. So, that's one. Thanks. How's the daughter, Megan..?
Make nice now, Lowlife. Give us some of that stereotyping, but do it
with a smile ...or, I'll really throw your ***** around this board.

- - -

This has been another black and blue faced Pangborn, with:

Turin

I have such sites to show you...
------------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First

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

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	12 Dec 2005 08:16:53 AM

TURDBRAIN TURAM
"Turin" <TurinTurambar.1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134332588.303977.317470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
TOPIC:

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here
fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the
new
world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine
providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this
nation's
founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own
version of
religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow?
Placing
crosses where people have died is somehow "DEPRIVING" you of some
rights
you think you have? Or that singing Christmas carols in school is
a
death penalty crime? Seems like we know who the ones into
religious
persecution are, or at least the wannabe persecutors are.

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities
committed
by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

TURDBRAIN'S REPLY:

Take your ***** whiny soundbites, about "ACLU" filings, and file
them up your dead mother's fat *****.

My goodness Turbrain what a rant from an apprentice stalker.

My goodness Turdbrain you're gonna play BADASS?

I'm going to TAKE AWAY that little "venting" pasttime, of yours, that
you've mentioned. :D

Oh the pretend SILVERBACK come sout..

Hahaha ....yeah, show us some "goodness" now, Pang-*****-boy. Let's see
just how many times you can brush it off while I punk off a 60 year old
suburban fat-***** loud-mouth, with no fight left in him when he's up
against a street-fighter. You've already RUN from THIS issue, Meat
Mouth. So, that's one. Thanks. How's the daughter, Megan..?

Make nice now, Lowlife. Give us some of that stereotyping, but do it
with a smile ...or, I'll really throw your ***** around this board.

Oh you WILL? My daughter is fine. But that's it, isn;'t it Turdbrain?
Your jealousy because you can't find a woman and reproduce. POOR baby!
Now what do you have to say on the topic? Or do you want to PRETEND here to
be the PRIEMER men's rights activist in the world here too and spout your
mindless marxist *****?
Please go ahead Turdbrain show us what a BADASS you are. Pardon me if I just
sit back and laugh at you.
.

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	10 Dec 2005 03:58:19 PM

KRP wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E6CdnfWjvY5rEgTeRVn-uA@centurytel.net...

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here
fleeing religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in
the new world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine
providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's
founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version
of religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow?
Placing crosses where people have died is somehow "DEPRIVING" you of
some rights you think you have? Or that singing Christmas carols in
school is a death penalty crime? Seems like we know who the ones
into religious persecution are, or at least the wannabe persecutors
are.

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities committed
by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

The ACLU is drowning witches?
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	11 Dec 2005 09:44:27 AM

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NJmdnYcuZ6Tn0gbeRVn-jA@centurytel.net...

KRP wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E6CdnfWjvY5rEgTeRVn-uA@centurytel.net...

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here
fleeing religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in
the new world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine
providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's
founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version
of religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow?
Placing crosses where people have died is somehow "DEPRIVING" you of
some rights you think you have? Or that singing Christmas carols in
school is a death penalty crime? Seems like we know who the ones
into religious persecution are, or at least the wannabe persecutors
are.

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities committed
by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

The ACLU is drowning witches?

Just trying to drown Christians. (In lawsuits)
.

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	12 Dec 2005 01:02:33 AM

KRP wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NJmdnYcuZ6Tn0gbeRVn-jA@centurytel.net...

KRP wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E6CdnfWjvY5rEgTeRVn-uA@centurytel.net...

[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here
fleeing religious persecution and looking for religious freedom
in the new world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine
providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's
founding
documents.

No, they sought a place where they could practice their own version
of religious persecution.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.

So you think celebrating Christmas is "PERSECUTING" you somehow?
Placing crosses where people have died is somehow "DEPRIVING" you of
some rights you think you have? Or that singing Christmas carols in
school is a death penalty crime? Seems like we know who the ones
into religious persecution are, or at least the wannabe persecutors
are.

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities
committed by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

The ACLU is drowning witches?

Just trying to drown Christians. (In lawsuits)

In a way, I hope the government does start actually persecuting xians, so
you whiners will actually have something to ***** about.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	12 Dec 2005 09:09:22 AM

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OaednVQ7zLkfvQDenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@centurytel.net...

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities
committed by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

The ACLU is drowning witches?

Just trying to drown Christians. (In lawsuits)

In a way, I hope the government does start actually persecuting xians, so
you whiners will actually have something to ***** about.

The lawsuits are doing that, so I suppose you are happy.
.

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	12 Dec 2005 10:08:05 AM

KRP wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OaednVQ7zLkfvQDenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@centurytel.net...

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities
committed by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

The ACLU is drowning witches?

Just trying to drown Christians. (In lawsuits)

In a way, I hope the government does start actually persecuting xians,
so you whiners will actually have something to ***** about.

The lawsuits are doing that, so I suppose you are happy.

The judges are ruling that xians must be burned at the stake, drowned,
crucified, and beaten to death?
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	12 Dec 2005 02:56:26 PM

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PaqdnZsRrcPHPQDenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@centurytel.net...

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities
committed by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

The ACLU is drowning witches?

Just trying to drown Christians. (In lawsuits)

In a way, I hope the government does start actually persecuting xians,
so you whiners will actually have something to ***** about.

The lawsuits are doing that, so I suppose you are happy.

The judges are ruling that xians must be burned at the stake, drowned,
crucified, and beaten to death?

They would IF they could.
.

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	12 Dec 2005 06:22:21 PM

KRP wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PaqdnZsRrcPHPQDenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@centurytel.net...

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities
committed by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

The ACLU is drowning witches?

Just trying to drown Christians. (In lawsuits)

In a way, I hope the government does start actually persecuting xians,
so you whiners will actually have something to ***** about.

The lawsuits are doing that, so I suppose you are happy.

The judges are ruling that xians must be burned at the stake, drowned,
crucified, and beaten to death?

They would IF they could.

Nope, wrong. The ACLU would be the first to defend xians if they were being
persecuted.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	13 Dec 2005 09:46:02 AM

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:or-dnWY23oKsiQPeRVn-oA@centurytel.net...

KRP wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PaqdnZsRrcPHPQDenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@centurytel.net...

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities
committed by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

The ACLU is drowning witches?

Just trying to drown Christians. (In lawsuits)

In a way, I hope the government does start actually persecuting xians,
so you whiners will actually have something to ***** about.

The lawsuits are doing that, so I suppose you are happy.

The judges are ruling that xians must be burned at the stake, drowned,
crucified, and beaten to death?

They would IF they could.

Nope, wrong. The ACLU would be the first to defend xians if they were
being persecuted.

\
*****
.

User: "Mickey"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	13 Dec 2005 11:00:14 AM

KRP wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:or-dnWY23oKsiQPeRVn-oA@centurytel.net...

KRP wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PaqdnZsRrcPHPQDenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@centurytel.net...

I was referring to the Salem Witch Trials and other atrocities
committed by the Pilgrims and their offspring.

And *I* was speaking of TODAY'S witch trials filed by the ACLU!

The ACLU is drowning witches?

Just trying to drown Christians. (In lawsuits)

In a way, I hope the government does start actually persecuting xians,
so you whiners will actually have something to ***** about.

The lawsuits are doing that, so I suppose you are happy.

The judges are ruling that xians must be burned at the stake, drowned,
crucified, and beaten to death?

They would IF they could.

Nope, wrong. The ACLU would be the first to defend xians if they were
being persecuted.

\

*****

Not *****, but, in addition to being xian, you would also have to be
a member of an utterly reprehensible political group like the NAZIs or
NAMBLA for the ACLU to represent you. If you were just a garden variety
xian, you wouldn't generate enough press to prove how even handed the
ACLU is.
mickey
.

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	14 Dec 2005 06:07:28 AM

"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:y6Dnf.39810$D13.22822@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

The ACLU is drowning witches?

Just trying to drown Christians. (In lawsuits)

In a way, I hope the government does start actually persecuting
xians,
so you whiners will actually have something to ***** about.

The lawsuits are doing that, so I suppose you are happy.

The judges are ruling that xians must be burned at the stake, drowned,
crucified, and beaten to death?

They would IF they could.

Nope, wrong. The ACLU would be the first to defend xians if they were
being persecuted.

*****

Not *****, but, in addition to being xian, you would also have to be a
member of an utterly reprehensible political group like the NAZIs or
NAMBLA for the ACLU to represent you. If you were just a garden variety
xian, you wouldn't generate enough press to prove how even handed the ACLU
is.

The ANTI-CHRISTIAN Lawyers Union.
.

User: "cpt banjo"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	13 Dec 2005 12:11:57 PM

Think again.
-- In 2004, under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, a Stafford
County, Virginia park manager agreed not to prohibit baptisms in a
public park in the county. Said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director
Kent Willis:
"Government officials often seem not to understand that private
religious expression is protected in public forums. Afraid of violating
separation of church and state by permitting religious activities, they
end up obstructing freedom of religion."
-- A federal judge struck down a provision of the Virginia Constitution
that bans religious organizations from incorporating, in a challenge
filed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and joined by the ACLU of Virginia.
-- The ACLU of Michigan represented a student whose yearbook entry had
been deleted because it contained a passage from the Bible. In 2001,
an out-of-court settlement was obtained between the Utica Community
School District and the student.
"While it is true that the Constitution forbids public schools to
promote religion, schools must be careful not to suppress the private
religious expression of students," said ACLU of Michigan Legal
Director Michael J. Steinberg, who represented the student. "In this
case, a high school purported to create an open forum for student
expression, yet censored a student's speech because it was religious
in nature."
-- The ACLU of Nebraska is defending a Presbyterian church, the Church
of the Awesome God, against the city of Lincoln. The city is trying to
force the church to put in expensive industrial safety equipment
because it's on the edge of an industrial area, a requirement that
would result in the church having to shut down entirely. The ACLU
office notes that the city is not requiring the same thing of
businesses in the same area, only of the church, saying, "If there were
a true danger requiring these changes, should it not apply to day care
centers and health clinics also?" Indeed there would be. Says Tim Butz,
the executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska:
"In addition to being the worship center for their members, this church
also gives back to Lincoln in every way they can," Butz said. "They are
a food bank collection point, they provide low-income families with
holiday cheer and offer their church space for meetings of UNL
Christian youth, they do outreach at the City Mission and hold rummage
sales for charity. The Church of the Awesome God should be given a
'thank you' by the city, not letters threatening them with
eviction."
-- The ACLU of Nevada has been defending the right of street preachers
to preach to people on the sidewalks of Las Vegas. The preachers
themselves, as the article notes, hate the ACLU and think they're
anti-Christian, but the ACLU defends them anyway because their client
is really the Constitutional principle of free speech, not the
preachers themselves.
-- The ACLU of Indiana has filed suit against the city of Scottsburg on
behalf of Pastor John Lewis of the Old Paths Baptist Church to get the
police to stop harrassing him when he preaches on the street against
abortion and homosexuality, among other things.
-- The ACLU of Washington represented a minister named Donald Ausderau
and reached a settlement with the Spokane Transit Authority that allows
him and others to continue to speak, perform and hand out literature at
a central gathering place called the Plaza in downtown Spokane.
-- The Iowa Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU affiliate in that state, in
2002 filed briefs with the court defending the right of students in the
Davenport public schools to hand out religious literature to their
schoolmates:
"The school's policy against the distribution of religious literature
outside of class is clearly wrong," said Ben Stone, Executive
Director of the ICLU. "Not only does the policy violate the students'
right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, but it also infringes
on their free speech rights," he said...
According to the ICLU, the literature ban could be an example of poorly
informed school officials acting out of ignorance. "Once in a while, we
hear of schools taking away a kid's Bible at school or not letting
students say grace before lunch," Stone said. "Such restrictions
are dead wrong, and are usually stopped rather quickly once the school
receives some instruction on constitutional law. Let's hope the
Davenport schools change their policy without further litigation,"
said Stone.
-- The ACLU of Massachusetts, went to bat in Federal district court on
behalf of high school students who were disciplined by the school for
handing out candy canes with religious messages attached to them:
"Students have a right to communicate ideas, religious or otherwise, to
other students during their free time, before or after class, in the
cafeteria, or elsewhere," said ACLU cooperating attorney Jeffrey Pyle,
the main author of a friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case.
The students each received a one-day suspension, which school officials
agreed not to enforce after they were contacted by the ACLU of
Massachusetts. The students subsequently filed a lawsuit asking the
court to order to school not to interfere further with their right to
hand out religious information.
The ACLU of Massachusetts argued that the school rule interferes with
the free speech rights of public high school students in Massachusetts
under both state law and the First Amendment, which protects their
speech as long as it does not disrupt the educational process.
-- In 2002, the ACLU of Massachusetts and a local attorney filed a
lawsuit against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority for
removing subway advertisements promoting the views of a local church
and refusing to sell additional advertising space to the church.
One of the controversial ads, paid for by The Church of the Good News,
said that early Christians did not celebrate Christmas or "believe in
lies about Santa Claus, flying reindeer, elves and drunken parties."
A second ad, which was rejected by the transit authority and never
posted, said, "There is only one true religion. All the rest are
false."
.

User: "KRP"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	14 Dec 2005 06:09:29 AM

"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134497517.756458.86260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That would be fine IF the ACLU were monolithic. It isn't. IN another
jurisdiction the ACLU is likely to have been on the other sside of that
question.
.

User: "human"
Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee	13 Dec 2005 12:53:53 PM

On 13 Dec 2005, cpt banjo wrote:

Think again.

<<-- In 2002, the ACLU of Massachusetts and a local attorney filed a
lawsuit against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority for
removing subway advertisements promoting the views of a local church
and refusing to sell additional advertising space to the church.
<<One of the controversial ads, paid for by The Church of the Good News,
said that early Christians did not celebrate Christmas or "believe in
lies about Santa Claus, flying reindeer, elves and drunken parties."
Early Christians may have been on to something.
<<A second ad, which was rejected by the transit authority and never
posted, said, "There is only one true religion. All the rest are
false." >>
A pretty standard religious opinion.
.

User: "human"
Title: Reported to the FBI	13 Dec 2005 01:04:38 PM

I received the following which is purported to be an official FBI warning.
[".au" indicates the sender is using a service in Australia]
It has been sent to the appropriate FBI authorities, with complete
headers.
-----------
Return-Path: <thrasher@reece.net.au>
Received: from mail05.imt.uwm.edu ([unix socket])
by mail05.imt.uwm.edu (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:28:34 -0600
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Received: from batch3.csd.uwm.edu (batch3.csd.uwm.edu [129.89.7.226])
by mail05.imt.uwm.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBDHSVjY001857
for <human@mail05.imt.uwm.edu>; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:28:32 -0600
Received: from omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com (omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com
[144.140.92.153])
by batch3.csd.uwm.edu (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id
jBDHSTu7008388
for <

>; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:28:31 -0600 (CST)
Received: from workshop ([61.9.247.77]) by omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com
with ESMTP
id <20051213172822.GCF16720.omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com@workshop>;
Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:28:22 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by workshop (602LAN SUITE 2004) id
3320f5b8; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 1:27:44 +0800
To:

Date: 13 Dec 2005 17:27:44 -0000
Message-ID: <L9A4DMIL38700.0609259259@reece.net.au>
From: "Special Agent McGee" <mcgee@fbi.gov>
Subject: Your slanderous posts
CC:

Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
remailer administrator... <

>
X-Remailer-Contact:

X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 required=5 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=no
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 129.89.7.47
Sir:
I am agent McGee of the FBI Computer Crimes Division. I have observed
your slanderous postings about Mr. Pangborn and am demanding that you
cease and desist immediately.
The FBI is tracking all of the activity in this matter. You should be
made aware that Pangborn is NOT the forger. It is a man named David
Dennis Moore, who HAS been under investigation for 5 years. This official
e-mail shal serve as a legal notice of this, and you could be held civilly
and criminally liable for any further harassment of Pangborn.
If you do not cease posting in these threads, I have been authorized to
seize your computer equipment and arrest you. This is your first and last
warning.
Special Agent Magee
FBI
.