On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:18:39 GMT, "Scout"
wrote this crap:



Nonsense. My kids don't do drugs, and don't know anyone who does.
I'm 100% sure of this.

because you don't have any kids?


You win a cigar.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:04:55 -0500, "Vito" said:

He also forbid eternal life.

Curious what your textual support for that view is, and how it relates to
"whosoever believeth in Him..."

Genesis 2:17 in the original IIRC (sorry, don't have my Pentateuch at hand)
but redacted out in the Christian version. However Genesis 3:22, 23 and 24
make YHWH's intent clear. Seems to me that, if A&E were forbidden to know
good from evil, and got booted out of Eden to keep them from getting eternal
life then any church that dispenses the forbidden knowledge and offers
eternal life can only be a tool of the devil, ... if you believe in devils.

Horvath wrote in ****
. ..
On 29 Nov 2004 14:19:52 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap:

Tobacco use should be illegal.

yes and all forms of booze, And all the fat people need to have ice
cream and cake illegalized. Salt should be illegal, causes to many
heath problems,


Salt is necessary to all mammals. Your human body needs 2000mg of
salt each day, or you will die. Those little packets of salt in the
fast-food restaurants are usually 2000mg.


I dont give a crap. It causes health problems so we must stamp it
out and make it illegal.

Just like booze... a glass of red wine can be healthy. But a weak
simpleton can not handle the personal responsibilty of not over doing
it. Therefore we should deprive everyone for there own good. You will
get natural salt in foods.

Dammit lets be fair to everyone and censor them alike. No favortisim
to any group that mis-uses anything. Understand? If we are going to
police everyones health or morals then we should go all the way and
not descriminate.

Joe










Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:36:45 -0500, "Vito" said:

Police believe it
perfectly legitimate to violate your rights so long as they don't need
your
"confession" to convict - ie if they can find enough other evidence based
on
your "confession" or their illegal search they're home free.

Wrong on the law again. Ever heard of "fruit of the poisoned tree?"

Oy! (look to heaven) Did I mention the law at all?

I took several college courses in criminal justice. Most of my classmates
were working LEOs. To a man, they believed it was OK for them to violate
your rights. The only deterrent was that evidence obtained thereby would be
tossed out. That belief hurt them on tests but they still believed it ....
kind of like some folks on the NG (c:

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:43 -0500, "Vito" said:


ie if they can find enough other evidence based
on

your "confession" or their illegal search they're home free.

[snip[

The only deterrent was that evidence obtained thereby would be
tossed out.


And you don't recognize the inconsistency between these two statements?



What Vito is leaving out is the reason the police give in court for "finding" the corrabative evidence,
i.e., "a confidential informant told me that the perp had four and half keys of coke in the water tank of
his toilet.", see?

Cheers
Marty

"Dave" wrote
"Vito" said:

Curious what your textual support for that view is, and how it relates
to
"whosoever believeth in Him..."

Genesis 2:17 in the original IIRC (sorry, don't have my Pentateuch at
hand)
but redacted out in the Christian version. However Genesis 3:22, 23 and
24
make YHWH's intent clear. Seems to me that, if A&E were forbidden to know
good from evil, and got booted out of Eden to keep them from getting
eternal
life then any church that dispenses the forbidden knowledge and offers
eternal life can only be a tool of the devil, ... if you believe in
devils.

Ah, IOW you don't bother with trying to deal with it. You simply ignore
the
contrary language I noted.


No David I did not. I provided you the textual support for the view that
YHWH forbid man eternal life (Did you read it?).

How does that relate to "whosoever believeth in Him..."? Well obviously we
are talking about different gods. Remember, the people who believed in
YHWH, including the man we call Jesus, considered the dude who made Jesus a
god (Saul) a heretic.

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:43 -0500, "Vito" said:

ie if they can find enough other evidence based
on
your "confession" or their illegal search they're home free.

[snip[

The only deterrent was that evidence obtained thereby would be
tossed out.

And you don't recognize the inconsistency between these two statements?

Please to understand that *I* recognize it (I got 'A's), it is the police
and other LEOs who do not. They fervently believe they can badger a
confession out of you then based on you're admissions find enough evidence
to convict without ever mentioning your confession in court - and sometimes
(most times?) it works. Shouldn't, but it does. Most Americans would have a
hissy fit if they knew how our system really worked.

"Dave" wrote
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:01:43 -0500, "Vito" said:

Should you read the case, you'll find that neither the Declaration of
Independence nor the common law is cited as precedent for the
decision.

Thanks. I'll read it more carefully and get back.

Having done so I'll quote part of that decision "We deal with a right of
privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties,
older than our school system." The whole is at
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../griswold.html

Yes. I've read it several times. As I said the first time, they said
nothing
about either the Declaration of Independence or common law.

You are right. The decision doesn't mention DoI or common law so you have a
right to assume that neither were considered no matter how unlikely such an
assumption might be. There goes the old VMAT2 gene again.

I suppose it's a matter of semantics but the court "created" nothing.

Not at all a matter of semantics. The Constitution walled off specific
areas
from State interference, and left the protection of other "rights" to the
States. Douglas created out of whole cloth, with no textual or historical
support, an entirely new area that was to be walled of from the States.
Calling this so-called "right" old doesn't mean that its protection was
assigned to the federal government by the Constitution.

The Constitution does not assign protection of our rights to fedgov! Fear of
that erroneous interpretation is why many didn't want any Bill of Rights.
The Constitution itself simply assigns certain powers to the federal
government. ( see
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment09/ for
discussion). If a power is not so granted then it is reserved to the states
and the people. The BoR was only approved after mucho haggling and the
addition of Ammendments 9 & 10:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.

Thus the absents of of any mention of privacy "shall not be construed to
deny or disparage" that right.

Monte Cristo please.
Scout

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:18:39 GMT, "Scout"
wrote this crap:



Nonsense. My kids don't do drugs, and don't know anyone who does.
I'm 100% sure of this.

because you don't have any kids?


You win a cigar.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

In article , Vito
wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On 25 Nov 2004 14:10:03 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap:

BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies ......


And you think that stuff should be legal?

Is was not legal(except the drinking) and it all happened. You think
laws are going to stop it?

Why in the hell should a tax payer pay 35,000.00 a year to house some
stupid fool that got caught with a bag of weed? I rather give the 35K
to an old person that needs it, or some cancer patient that needs it .....

Second that. And that's the half of it. The vast majority of crime is drug
related - addicts robbing and killing to support their habits and dealers
fighting over turf. It was the same with booze during prohibition but now
whoever hears of winos mugging people for a $2 bottle of wine. Legalize
drugs and addicts will still kill themselves but prolly no faster than now
and they wouldn't have to rob or kill innocent people after a $500/day habit
became a $5/day habit.

Cop I know disagreed til the NARCs called them to a hostage situation. The
mob had sent a hit man to kill a local dealer. The negotiator cut a deal and
when the hitter came out a sniper shot him in the heart. Didn't stop him
from blowing one cop's head off with a pump gage, turning and shooting two
others legs out from under them, then turning on my buddy trying to rack
another round ... but not quite making it.

Sniper didn't use enough gun.

Agree WRT legalising drugs, BTW. Let the idiots kill themselves off
cheaply & quietly.

PDW