| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
31 May 2007 02:22:17 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Controversial Postings |
On May 23, 1:59 am, forex10 <fore...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello Group,
While I may be one of the most controversial & disliked (by some)
poster in this ng, I think most of us can agree that I will never be
the nut that Zee is! His endless ramblings are getting on my nerves
to the point that I am just going to ignore most of his postings.
In the near future I am going to be making postings on the need to
restrict pornography in the US & around the world, & while this can
often make others very angry, at least what I write is coherent.
XyZ
You have an unalienable right to see and/or hear anything you want.
Under the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states;
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," I
believe the government should only be allowed to pass laws for certain
reasons. Two reasons I have identified are 1) to prohibit something
which violates or endangers any person or property, and 2) regulation
of commerce. There may be other reasons such as 3) public drug use.
However the Supreme Court should recognize these reasons, and someone
would have to argue to them to include another, alternatively a
Constitutional Amendment could be passed, by both houses of Congress
and 3/4th's of the State Legislatures, such as the 18th Amendment
which outlawed alcohol entirely in 1919. Any law not passed for one
of the accepted reasons would automatically be considered
unconstitutional. Also the interpretation of these reasons would have
to be reasonable.
Are you really willing to kill and die over pornography? Because I am
willing to kill and die over freedom, and if you pass a law
restricting something, even a war not withstanding; people are going
to kill and die to enforce that law. Criminals and Law Enforcement
Officers lives alike will be destroyed because of your legislation.
Felonies leastways should only be for things we are willing to kill
and die over.
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
03 Jun 2007 05:01:14 PM |
|
|
<gooddad@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1180639337.749138.200830@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 23, 1:59 am, forex10 <fore...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello Group,
While I may be one of the most controversial & disliked (by some)
poster in this ng, I think most of us can agree that I will never be
the nut that Zee is! His endless ramblings are getting on my nerves
to the point that I am just going to ignore most of his postings.
In the near future I am going to be making postings on the need to
restrict pornography in the US & around the world, & while this can
often make others very angry, at least what I write is coherent.
XyZ
You have an unalienable right to see and/or hear anything you want.
The problem is, you also have the same right to NOT see or hear stuff you
don't want to see or hear.
Our kids are getting XXX Rated material in their email inbox, they could not
get the same material delivered in the same manner through the postal
service.
If you wanted to get XXX magazines delivered to your house, the publisher is
required to wrap the material in a wrapper that conceals the contents. You
and your kids can get the same XXX material delivered, without asking for
it, in your e-mail inbox.
Your kids can open their inbox and be greeted by a message that asks, would
you like to ***** my tits? and graphically shows an erect penis between the
breasts of a woman, and maybe even has ***** dripping off of her chin.
I don't mind that you want this crap, but I do mind that my kids are on the
distribution list.
If you want to hear and see it, then bookmark the page. Do not expect it to
be delivered to an unknown audience via spam e-mail.
Under the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states;
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," I
believe the government should only be allowed to pass laws for certain
reasons. Two reasons I have identified are 1) to prohibit something
which violates or endangers any person or property, and 2) regulation
of commerce. There may be other reasons such as 3) public drug use.
However the Supreme Court should recognize these reasons, and someone
would have to argue to them to include another, alternatively a
Constitutional Amendment could be passed, by both houses of Congress
and 3/4th's of the State Legislatures, such as the 18th Amendment
which outlawed alcohol entirely in 1919. Any law not passed for one
of the accepted reasons would automatically be considered
unconstitutional. Also the interpretation of these reasons would have
to be reasonable.
Are you really willing to kill and die over pornography? Because I am
willing to kill and die over freedom, and if you pass a law
restricting something, even a war not withstanding; people are going
to kill and die to enforce that law. Criminals and Law Enforcement
Officers lives alike will be destroyed because of your legislation.
Felonies leastways should only be for things we are willing to kill
and die over.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
04 Jun 2007 01:48:21 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 10:22 pm, wrote:
Are you really willing to kill and die over pornography?
The American people might not fight to the death over their right of
political free speech, but they would for that good old porno.
What a country!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
31 May 2007 05:27:59 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 3:22 pm, wrote:
On May 23, 1:59 am, forex10 <fore...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello Group,
While I may be one of the most controversial & disliked (by some)
poster in this ng, I think most of us can agree that I will never be
the nut that Zee is! His endless ramblings are getting on my nerves
to the point that I am just going to ignore most of his postings.
In the near future I am going to be making postings on the need to
restrict pornography in the US & around the world, & while this can
often make others very angry, at least what I write is coherent.
XyZ
You have an unalienable right to see and/or hear anything you want.
Under the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states;
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," I
believe the government should only be allowed to pass laws for certain
reasons. Two reasons I have identified are 1) to prohibit something
which violates or endangers any person or property, and 2) regulation
of commerce. There may be other reasons such as 3) public drug use.
However the Supreme Court should recognize these reasons, and someone
would have to argue to them to include another, alternatively a
Constitutional Amendment could be passed, by both houses of Congress
and 3/4th's of the State Legislatures, such as the 18th Amendment
which outlawed alcohol entirely in 1919. Any law not passed for one
of the accepted reasons would automatically be considered
unconstitutional. Also the interpretation of these reasons would have
to be reasonable.
Are you really willing to kill and die over pornography? Because I am
willing to kill and die over freedom, and if you pass a law
restricting something, even a war not withstanding; people are going
to kill and die to enforce that law. Criminals and Law Enforcement
Officers lives alike will be destroyed because of your legislation.
Felonies leastways should only be for things we are willing to kill
and die over.
Haven't you heard? The Constitution is so-o-o-o-o-o passe! It hasn't
been really relevent since last century!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
