Thrown out of an FBO...

No such thing as a non-radical Muslim.

mike

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"mike regish" wrote:

Well, there's about a billion of 'em. Better get started.

mike

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Er, um, Mike. Radical muslims are everywhere. Many countries in the
middle east, Europe, and yes even in the USA. You are perhaps of the
mindset that you can talk reason with those who want to kill
Americans. Nope. The best thing is to identify and kill them. And
people like that will always be somewhere in the world just like there
will always be criminals. Accept that fact and be prepared to defend
our country (which means killing them first) and we will stay free.

Ron Lee


Geez Mike. Read what I wrote. I said "radical muslims." Not every
muslim.

Ron Lee

You know....;-)

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

I think you 2 were made for each other.

J, she really, I mean really , really likes you.

Hardly, guy.


I think you got a thing for her, too.

Based on ... ?


Better not let your wife find out.

About what?

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she
already
declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo.

Would you care to explain what you're referring to?

A justice is a judge. In 1999, Margaret Marshall was a Keynote speaker
for a
Gay / Lesbian fundraiser.
The Judicial Conduct code for Massachusetts states that judges may not
participate in fundraisers.

Marshall spoke at an annual dinner (for which there was an admission fee) of
the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Barr Association. Does that make it an
impermissible 'fundraiser' in the sense of the state Code of Judicial
Conduct?

Since the organization received income from the $60.00/plate event, yes. If
Dick Cheney speaks at a dinner to raise income, say also for $60.00 per plate,
would that not be a "fundraiser?" even if someone tries claiming otherwise
after the fact?

What is the relevant section of the Code, and what are the
precedents as to its application to giving speeches at bar association
meetings (or other civic gatherings)?

SJC Court Rule 3:09 - Canon 4 (C)


As far as I'm aware, such speeches are
routine and proper.

Then I invite you to make yourself aware of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial
Conduct.



She also exclaimed her beliefs as being pro gay marriage.

Really? What did she supposedly say? In the only quote I find, Marshall
merely stated generally (with no mention of marriage) that gays and lesbians
should enjoy equality before the law in accordance with the "civil liberties
of all people".

In 1999, Ms Marshall had made direct remarks about praising legislation on an
issue and favoring "jurisprudence" on the issue. She later wrote an opinion on
the same issue.



Is *that* a disqualifying point of view for a judge? Is someone eligible to
be a judge only if she *has no opinion* as to whether gays (or blacks or
Jews) should be equal before the law?

It is not proper for judges to hear cases on which they have announced personal
biases in the issue. Massachusetts codifies this in the judicial conduct rules,
but apparently there is no need to bother with such formalities.
Think about it like this, if a case was before a supreme court involving oil
drilling near the coast of California (or Florida, North Carolina, whatever),
would it be proper for a Justice to hear and deliver an opinion on the case
after previously expressing his desire to build more coastal oil drilling?



For similar reasons, it would be
gravely harmful to hold a referendum that would require Jews to wear
yellow
stars, or that would prohibit interracial couples from marrying.
It is
gravely harmful to expose people to the threat of such a repeal of basic
rights, even if the threat can be defeated. Any such referendum should be
opposed at *every procedural step* by lawful political and parliamentary
means; the opposition should not wait for the final vote.

No it would not be harmful. It would get laughed off the stage and life
would go
on.

If you also believe a yellow-star referendum would be harmless (provided it
were defeated), then you are at least being consistent, and our disagreement
is indeed about a procedural question rather than about same-sex marriage pe
se.

Of course it is, it always was.



To me, saying there's no harm caused by such a referendum is like saying
there's no harm caused by someone pointing a gun at a bystander's face and
pulling the trigger, as long as it turns out that the gun wasn't loaded (in
fact, the law recognizes that such an act still constitutes a serious
assault).

A public debate is *NOT* an assault! It is not battery, it is not pointing a
weapon at anyone's face or body. Debates have always been absolutely essential
to the institution of democracy. If we squelch debates by claiming that they
are too harmful to have, then we start killing off democracy.





I'm curious...If it is such a basic right, then how come other states do
not
recognize said "right?"

How come most other states didn't recognize the right of interracial couples
to marry a hundred years ago? How come no country in the world recognized
the right of women to vote until the latter 1800s?

Ancient prejudices can persist for a long time, but previous nonrecognition
of basic rights does not undermine moral entitlement to those rights.

That's fine. If such a right does indeed exist, than there are appropriate
facilities to deal with that.



I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come
it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic,
the
13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful
to
make.

Huh? What I said was harmful is a referendum (even if it doesn't pass) that
singles out a minority group for a repeal of a basic right under the
constitution. If you're "following my logic", how do you conclude that the
13th amendment or the Bill of Rights meets that criterion?

Passing the 13th amendment followed the appropriate documented procedure to do
so. Passing a state constitution amendment would also follow the appropriate
procedure to do so.



Oh, so if there is a newspaper debate, then it is not necessary to have a
debate
in the forums of democracy that the constitution have laid for this
purpose.

As I pointed out, there has also been extensive debate in the state
legislature. Various amendments to abolish same-sex marriage were debated
and defeated. The matter has been settled.

I don't recall anything being 'settled.'



If
there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so
favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to create
this
"right?"

At the time of the court ruling, a majority of the legislature did not favor
gay marriage. It is now years later; several anti-gay-marriage legislators
were ousted in subsequent elections, and others have been persuaded to
change their minds. (Since you youself acknowledge that there's no reason
not to have equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, you shouldn't be
surprised that more voters and legislators have come to be convinced of that
view.)

If that's true, it's fine. But that doesn't justify shutting down a
constitutional process after people did everything necessary to have that
process followed.



And by the way, courts and legislatures *recognize* rights (or not); they
don't "create" rights, at least in the moral sense. Rights are inherent, and
governments and citizens have a moral obligation to craft their laws
accordingly. (Hence, for example, slavery was wrong even when it was legal.)

Then by your definition, there is a "right" to marry same sex in every state in
the country, not just Massachusetts, and indeed any country in the world.



Do you also disagree with the state and federal court rulings supporting
interracial-marriage rights in Perez v. Sharp or Loving v. Virgina? Or
should the courts have permitted states to prohibit interracial marriage
(and sentence interracial couples to jail) until a majority of their
citizens were ready to respect equal rights?

Those laws were written out of prejudice, when blacks were not able to vote,
could not have certain jobs, could not use certain schools, certain facilities,
and indeed even certain restrooms. Those indeed were civil rights. And today
many blacks reject that latching on of their civil rights struggle.

Curiously, at least one high school in the country, in New York City, has
decided to be exclusively for gay students. Should straight high school
students not enjoy the same right to go there? By what measure do they
determine if someone is gay or straight? If a prospective employer does not
hire someone with that school on the résumé, is that a per-se violation of civil
rights?

Equal rights? People who describe themselves as gay have a higher than average
income and have a political power much greater than their their population
numbers, compared to other people.



Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted
AGAINST
the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?"

The dissenting opinions are clearly explained in the decision itself. (How
is a dissenter's sexual orientation relevant?)

When people who do not agree with Goodridge vs. Board-o-Health are ridiculed as
merely "bigots" and -phobes, it certainly is.



Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived her
opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts supreme
court
would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law.

Uh, what "admission" are you referring to? The majority decision in
Goodridge was explicitly grounded in the state constitution, and in an
extensive body of case law in Massachusetts and the US.

This occurred after the opinion was written. There are no mention of it in the
decision, of course.



Opponents of equal marriage
rights in Massachusetts have an unfettered right to express their
opinion,
which has in fact been widely heard, and has been rejected by the
majority
of the public here and by all three branches of state government.

I'm sorry, but could you name a date when it was rejected by the executive
branch? Could you name a date when it was rejected by the legislative
branch?
The legislature did not vote to favor gay marriage, they voted to abort a
process (which as you say would have almost certainly legitimized gay
marriage
in law).

The legislature voted to reject various anti-gay-marriage measures, and
voted to adjourn rather than ratify an anti-gay-marriage amendment
referendum. And the governor-elect has declared his support for gay marriage
rights as well. (If you need me to google it for you I can provide
citations.)

But halting a constitutional process is NOT support for gay marriage! There
would be ample time for each legislator to vote support/no support of gay
marriage if the process was followed.



Getting to hold a binding referendum to amend the state constitution to
repeal a crucial facet of legal equality for a specified minority is not
the
same as "having your voice heard". Your conflation of the two is a wild
and
desperate misrepresentation.

No mis-representation at all, it is a depiction of what actually happened,

So everyone who would like to repeal others' civil rights,

What "civil right" was trying to be being repealed in 2002 ?

but does not get
to hold a binding referendum on the question, has thereby been silenced
(rather than just defeated)?

There is no defeat when there is no process.

mike regish wrote:

Agreed.

Please stop.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
--
Jay Honeck

I was merely responding to your eloquent posts, Mike, like "should be
obvious," "wadda marroon," inter alia.

When you stop, please do it for at least 5 minutes.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


mike regish wrote:

Agreed.

Please stop.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
--
Jay Honeck

I was merely responding to your eloquent posts, Mike, like "should be
obvious," "wadda marroon," inter alia.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
You are the one who could not understand how generalizations are
offensive.

Some can be, some aren't.
This is a generalization: "Oak trees hold on to their leaves than other
trees." How is that offensive, Peter?

Are you really that simple? I really need to qualify my statement to make
it clear that I am talking about a specific type of generalization?

That word "idiotic" is coming to mind again.

That's the underlying concept you don't understand, by your own
admission.

False premise and false claim.

You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
archived it.

Judah wrote:

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

mike regish wrote:

Um...what about the 15 from Saudi Arabia? Now they're freakin'
everywhere?

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

Nice mature thought process you have there, but wrong. There
are/were radical
muslims in numerous countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
United
States, France, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and others that want to kill
Americans.



You mean, the terrorists from September 11th? They are dead, Mike.
There is no point and never has been any point since Sept 11 2001 to
find them, nor has their been any point to only go after terrorists
from one country. If somebody is trying to kill you, why would only
want to find them in one country, to wit Afghanistan? When Pearl Harbor
was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and hunt them down and forget
about anything else? No! We did realize that there were other threats
out there, and we better start to deal with them, hastily. And actually
the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their friends in Italy,
Albania, etc. first.

Yeah, but there are some MAJOR differences between that and Iraq.

For one thing, after Pearl Harbor, the US didn't go attack Taiwan or Hong
Kong, just because the people there looked Japanese. Eventually, Japan took
both of those countries.

Huh? First you say "after Pearl Harbor," then you say "Eventually, Japan took
both of those countries [Taiwan and Hong Kong]."
Actually, Japan took Taiwan around 1895, which was well before Pearl Harbor.
That's a pretty interesting eventually.

"Eventually" with respect to Hong Kong was just a few weeks after Pearl
Harbor's bombing.
History is important to know, or we will repeat it, such as when we overlook
totalitarians ignoring cease-fires.



Iraq was focusing its energies on attacking its neighbors and killing
"dissidents" in its own country. The entire world was watching Iraq and
pressuring them, and might have eventually cooperatively taken action. But
unlike Nazi Germany in WWII, Iraq did was not a real threat at that time.
And unlike Nazi Germany in WWII, the US didn't come to the aid of its
Allies where were under attack. It unilaterally told the rest of the world
to **** off and focused all attention on an attack that really had very
little to do with destroying Al Queada - the aggressors at hand.

The result was that we lost credibility with the rest of the nations as
being hot-headed cowboys run by the Super Cowboy. We lost all credibility
with our own government and allies when it came out that there were no
WMDs. And we lost all credibility with terrorists because we never finished
the job of abolishing Al Queda and making them history.

And now they are back and looking for their next victory.

Terrorists will believe that they can attack the "All Powerful American
Heretic" and run and hide in the mountains, and we can do nothing about it
but stomp our feet and attack other Arab countries, perhaps countries that
they already despise, like Iraq. Or perhaps countries who will become their
Martyrs and help unify the Arab Nations against us.

The war in Iraq was driven by overconfidence on the part of our government,
and regardless of the fact that Saddam Hussein was personally removed and
embarrassed, we lost in a big way.

No doubt about it, Iraq is a very tough situation, for a lot of historical
reasons. But by taking the fight of Al-Quaeda back to their turf away from
North America, a tide was turned. Remember that many of these same countries
that you claim we lost credibility with are also the same nations that did
NOTHING for years and years while their neighbor was spitting on a peace treaty
(...sounds familiar) and building up a military, arms, strategic
infrastructure, etc. That eventually uncontained neighbor than caused
unprecedented catastrophes and human suffering. Today, technology does not
require any such large military or arms to create such catastrophes and human
suffering. If the UN would not enforce the cease-fire with Baghdad, who would
?

We also had intelligence, not only from our own agencies, but from Russia,
France, Germany, United Kingdom etc. that suggested that Iraq was on its way to
building such technology. Since then, we have found evidence of mass
destruction weapon construction in rivers (chemical byproducts detected),
weapons plans, and indeed even sensitive nuclear bomb construction. We even
found a squadron of MiGs buried in the sand. And that was just by a dumb luck
( a single tail was poking out of the sand and forces happened to be crossing
that area). Could there be much more hidden in a country the size of a Japan?

Keep in mind, during the 1990s, we had a New York World Trade Center bombing,
embassies attacked/bombed, ships attacked. etc. Terrorists learned in Somalia
that by attacking US forces (even under UN forces), they will run away.

Do not forget that Baghdad was bombed severely by the USA in 1998 (with more
bombs than the entire 1991 gulf war) and this accomplished nothing but defiance
and more spitting on the 1991 peace treaty (..sounds familiar).

After rejections that Iraqi people were too stupid/uncivilized/whatever for
democracy, they overwhelmingly went to polls to vote. This is an important
step to everyone's future, including ours, as democracies generally do not
fight each other. However perhaps Iraq would be better off if it broke up to
its former components before British rule, similar to Czechoslovakia breaking
up into two countries.

To me the only good terrorist is a good one, I don't care where they may hail
from. Perhaps it would be better to have a murdering dictator back in power.
But I'm glad he's offline.

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
When Pearl Harbor was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and
hunt them down and forget about anything else? No! We did realize that
there
were other threats out there, and we better start to deal with them,
hastily.
And actually the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their friends
in
Italy, Albania, etc. first.

But only after Japan's ally Germany declared war on the US immediately after
Pearl Harbor. Iraq did not declare war on the US after Sept. 11 (and Iraq
had no alliance with al Qaeda; in fact, they were mutual enemies). Being
attacked by one party does not automatically entitle you to wage war on
other parties of your choice.

So you're saying that we only went to war with Germany b/c they declared war on
USA? So if they had NOT formerly declared war on USA we wouldn't have gone to
war with Germany or that we weren't "entitled?" Good luck advancing that story.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Ron,

I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
if it comes down to "me or them."


Well, your president shares your view and started. Look how much he has
achieved...

Much more than Philippe Pétain, for example.
Some people do appreciate the lack of terrorist murders as well.

Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:23:46 GMT, Ron Lee wrote:

I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
if it comes down to "me or them."

but up to now you have accepted a rather high percentage of "collateral
damage" ... including the loss of many rights within your own country.

What rights have we lost? Do tell! Are we prohibited from talking?
Posting on usenet?
Gay marriage?