Bullying desguised (badly) as precaution

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Because they were. It's a matter of record. Look up the case I cited.

But you said their reasons for disagreeing were beside the point. Do you
know what your point is?

Huh? Are you saying that when speaking of a legal case, one should not
include even a single word (in this case, the word "religious") that
mentions a detail that did not matter to the resolution of the case? That
would be a very peculiar expository restriction.

--Gary

"It means you're forced to do things you wouldn't otherwise do. How
ironic

that most of the things forced on us are the products of left-wing wacko
politicians."

Having now officially severed all (real estate) ties from New Yawk, I can
definitively say that the Right Wing Whackos are infinitely superior to
the Left Wing Whackos.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"With famous irony, New Hampshire used to imprison people who
had religious objections to the motto and taped over it on their own
license plates. The ACLU came to the rescue in Wooley v Maynard.

You have a good memory. The case revolved around the state's contention
that covering up a portion (people were using a strip of electrical tape)
of the license plate was illegal. I'm not sure how it was resolved.

The ACLU won. Freedom prevailed.

--Gary

"Because they were. It's a matter of record. Look up the case I cited.

--Gary"


Many up here have different takes on the state motto. I saw a car that
had a bumper sticker stating: "New Hampshi Live, Freeze, then die."

My own take is Live, Ski or Die.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Huh? Are you saying that when speaking of a legal case, one should not
include even a single word (in this case, the word "religious") that
mentions a detail that did not matter to the resolution of the case? That
would be a very peculiar expository restriction.


It's peculiar that you went out of your way to say they were religious
objections while apparently believing religion was not a factor.

LOL, Lynne has struck again!
Got you guys good this time.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Huh? Are you saying that when speaking of a legal case, one should not
include even a single word (in this case, the word "religious") that
mentions a detail that did not matter to the resolution of the case? That
would be a very peculiar expository restriction.

It's peculiar that you went out of your way to say they were religious
objections while apparently believing religion was not a factor.

You haven't said what you consider peculiar about that, unless you do
subscribe to the expository principle I just mentioned. Do you?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

You haven't said what you consider peculiar about that, unless you do
subscribe to the expository principle I just mentioned. Do you?


It's peculiar that you went out of your way to say they were religious
objections while apparently believing religion was not a factor.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Huh? Are you saying that when speaking of a legal case, one should not
include even a single word (in this case, the word "religious") that
mentions a detail that did not matter to the resolution of the case?
That would be a very peculiar expository restriction.

It's peculiar that you went out of your way to say they were religious
objections while apparently believing religion was not a factor.

You haven't said what you consider peculiar about that, unless you do
subscribe to the expository principle I just mentioned. Do you?

It's peculiar that you went out of your way to say they were religious
objections while apparently believing religion was not a factor.

Oops, you've gotten stuck in a loop, Steven. Instead of answering my
question, you ignored what I said and repeated your prior statement. So if
you want to pursue this absurdist tangent further, I'll leave you to
continue talking to yourself.

--Gary

Gary wrote: "The ACLU won. Freedom prevailed.

--Gary"

Irony II: Freedom to disavow the state motto of "Live free or die."
Freedom provided by the sweat and blood of many young Americans. As the
Anysoldier.com website states, "Freedom isn't free" (shameless
endorsement of a fantastic charity).

I wonder if the ACLU would not protect your "freedom" to fly, or even my
freedom to bear arms, despite the fact that my freedom is enshrined in the
Constitution.