Vote on arresting Bush, Cheney

[Michael Tee]

<<A "threat" Tee, is person A saying they're gonna hurt person B (or something belonging/important to person B).  >>

So far you're correct.

<<Person A hoping that something bad happens to person B isn't a threat.  >>

So far, you're still right.  (This must be some kind of record for you, sirs, two whole sentences and not an error so far.)

<<It's distinctly not very civil, but it isn't a threat, regardless of your hatred of those evil fascist Amerikkkans. >>

Wow, three whole sentences.  You're on a roll, sirs.

<<If we went by your twisted logic, we'd have to round up thousands upon thousands who would love something not-so-nice, to happen to Bush, or Limbaugh, or Justice Thomas, or Rumsfeld, or a whole host of folks you utterly dispise>>

Awww, shit!  I was really rooting for you, sirs.  Hoping you'd get to the end of one whole post and actually say something that made sense!   That normal, sane people could agree with.  Well, you DID come close, sirs.

You are unfortunately lacking in simple analytical powers, sirs.  Probably because you are so blinded by your ideology that you are unable to follow any argument that leads to a conclusion you don't like.  Now this guy was not simply hoping that the councilmen would get killed.  If it was just a wish that they all die, preferably through some kind of horrific violence, it would certainly be typical of the fascist impulse towards anyone who hates war and loves peace, but it would not be a threat. 

The threat came when this Nazi paladin went beyond just wishing for something bad to happen to them.  He actually stated that the country would be a lot safer with them dead.  So we have a wish for death, COUPLED WITH A PREDICTION OF WONDERFUL BENEFITS (ENHANCED PUBLIC SAFETY) TO THE NATION AS A WHOLE that would put the councilmen in fear of their lives.

It's very simple.  If some Nazi moron tells me he'd like for me to be dead, I'm not worried.

If he publishes a letter saying that my death and the deaths of thousands like me would be a boon to national security, there's a new dimension added to the death-wish:  (a) that it's in HIS interests to kill me (because he'll then be living in a more secure nation;) and (b) that it's in the interest of the general public for someone to kill me (they'll all be more secure;) and (c) that whoever kills me is doing a good thing because it'll be for the good of the killer and the whole country.

By telling me how much benefit would accrue to the nation from my death, he's suggesting to me that he is not the only one who'd like to see me dead, that lots of others would as well.  Naturally that's a much scarier prospect than just one screwball hoping I'm gonna die.  He can only speak for himself, and since he didn't threaten me himself, I can assume he's not gonna do the deed.  But he's pointed out that by expressing my own opinion, I am incurring the wrath of millions of Americans whose lives I have endangered, and of course he can't speak for them.  So logically I don't know if any of those millions wants to kill me himself.

He's made me aware that it's very dangerous to express the thoughts I expressed.  Basically he attempted to shut me up by telling me that I should fear for my life if I make statements like that.

The death threat was admittedly subtle but a death threat nonetheless.

[fatman]

What would prevent a motorcycle club from being also a marrage?

A. They don't live together
B.  They probably don't have sex together
C.  They didn't date
D.  They probably aren't going to try and adopt a child together
E.  They probably don't have or aren't willing to make a lifetime commitment

[Plane]

What would prevent a motorcycle club from being also a marrage?

A. They don't live together
Not in the definition of marrage already.

B.  They probably don't have sex together
Oh?

C.  They didn't date
Tipical of marrage.

D.  They probably aren't going to try and adopt a child together
Why not ? Make them a marrage ad they gain this right.

E.  They probably don't have or aren't willing to make a lifetime commitment


Some motorcycle clubs make better comittment than the advradge marrage.

[The_Professor]

What would prevent a motorcycle club from being also a marrage?

A. They don't live together
B.  They probably don't have sex together
C.  They didn't date
D.  They probably aren't going to try and adopt a child together
E.  They probably don't have or aren't willing to make a lifetime commitment

Look, if you believe the Government should reflect your beliefs and if you are a conservative Christian, then the Government should not in any way condone homosexuality. Why? Both the Old & New Testaments are full of condemnations of homosexuality.

Why should the government condone or in any way promote marriages between homosexuals? see above rationale.

Now, if you do not "buy into" this rationale, then it is more of a free-for-all and the Government is free to do otherwise.

[Michael Tee]

You know it just occurred to me that the whole gay marriage thing is really about letting people define themselves rather than letting the government define them.

I mean this:  doesn't bother my marriage one bit if two gay guys get married.  Fuck do I care what they do, I am married to my wife and that's how I want it to be.

So then I thought, OK, wifey and I are waiting our turn at City Hall and ahead of us are THREE people who want to get married.  There was a moment of just wanting to throw up my hands, turn around and walk out of there because the whole thing - - marriage - - was becoming a joke.

But I thought about it.  I love my wife and I know what I want.  I wanna be married to her for the rest of my life and that's what she wants too.  So we're gonna do it.  And as far as that threesome is concerned, how the fuck would I know if their feelings for one another weren't every bit as deep and as real as my wife's and mine.  Common respect for the humanity and the decency of every single person would dictate that we allow them to have the same depth of feelings as we ourselves, that we respect those feelings as we would like others to respect ours.

So I thought about fascism and liberalism - - the fascist has no basic respect for the dignity and the worth of other human beings but has to control the most personal aspects of their private lives, even who they love, who they can share their lives with and HOW THEY EXPRESS that love and that sharing.  "Sure, Adam, you can get married, JUST FIND A NICE GIRL FIRST.  YOU CAN'T MARRY STEVE."  The liberal respects the love between Adam and Stever, or the threesome, and credits them with enough wisdom to live life as they see fit, which may not be the way we see fit.

[fatman]

Look, if you believe the Government should reflect your beliefs and if you are a conservative Christian, then the Government should not in any way condone homosexuality.

I do believe the government should reflect my beliefs, and I am not a conservative Christian, so the government shouldn't have any say regarding homosexuality.

Old Testament has a couple of obscure passages in Leviticus.  Right up there with the Jewish dietary restrictions and wearing clothing made of more than one type of fabric.  The New Testament has St. Paul's story of Sodom and Gomorra, which is more about insulting hospitality than homosexuality.  Forgive me Professor if I don't let that determine whether or not I live a moral life.  What do the 10 Commandments say about homosexuality?  What did Christ say about it?  To me, these are the true tenets of Christianity, Christ's teachings and the 10 Commandments.  The rest is dogma and theological rhetoric.

Why should the government condone or in any way promote marriages between homosexuals? see above rationale.

Why should the government not condone marriage between homosexuals?

Now, if you do not "buy into" this rationale, then it is more of a free-for-all and the Government is free to do otherwise.

I think you know where I stand Prof  

[Plane]

What would prevent a motorcycle club from being also a marrage?

A. They don't live together
B.  They probably don't have sex together
C.  They didn't date
D.  They probably aren't going to try and adopt a child together
E.  They probably don't have or aren't willing to make a lifetime commitment

Look, if you believe the Government should reflect your beliefs and if you are a conservative Christian, then the Government should not in any way condone homosexuality. Why? Both the Old & New Testaments are full of condemnations of homosexuality.

Why should the government condone or in any way promote marriages between homosexuals? see above rationale.

Now, if you do not "buy into" this rationale, then it is more of a free-for-all and the Government is free to do otherwise.

In support of Marrage the Government has given certain priveledges to the married.
One of these is that a spouce may not be compelled to testify against his spouce in trial.

There is a long list of these priveledges , but Marrage predates our government , might predate government itself , and doesn't need the government's help to exist.

As long as the government doesn't do things harmfull to marrage , it is all good.


Lets allow anyone to designate a power of atturny to a single other person of his choice , and to this coupleing let the tax advantage, the right to speak for , the right to visit in hospital and all other appropriate rights attached to marrage ,give.

Soon every gangster in the county will have "married " hs bookeeper.

Oh well , unintended consequences are oten more important than the intended ones.

[The_Professor]

Look, if you believe the Government should reflect your beliefs and if you are a conservative Christian, then the Government should not in any way condone homosexuality.

I do believe the government should reflect my beliefs, and I am not a conservative Christian, so the government shouldn't have any say regarding homosexuality.

Old Testament has a couple of obscure passages in Leviticus.  Right up there with the Jewish dietary restrictions and wearing clothing made of more than one type of fabric.  The New Testament has St. Paul's story of Sodom and Gomorra, which is more about insulting hospitality than homosexuality.  Forgive me Professor if I don't let that determine whether or not I live a moral life.  What do the 10 Commandments say about homosexuality?  What did Christ say about it?  To me, these are the true tenets of Christianity, Christ's teachings and the 10 Commandments.  The rest is dogma and theological rhetoric.

Why should the government condone or in any way promote marriages between homosexuals? see above rationale.

Why should the government not condone marriage between homosexuals?

Now, if you do not "buy into" this rationale, then it is more of a free-for-all and the Government is free to do otherwise.

I think you know where I stand Prof  

I understood this from the beginning, Fatman. We disagree. I doubt the world will stop revolving because we disagree. No problem...

[sirs]

The death threat was admittedly subtle but a death threat nonetheless.

Actually, there was no threat, death or otherwise, just some severe uncivilness/rudeness, at wishing someone some severe illwill.  Nice to see how the left uses that now as "threats".  Time to push more anti-1st amendment legislation to curb those "threats', isn't it

[Xavier_Onassis]

Pologamy and polyandry change the definition of marrage .

They change YOUR definition of marriage. Polygamy and polyandry have existed for many centuries. When you learned of these, and as a result your ignorance vanish, then you decided that they somehow threatened YOUR definitions.


What would prevent a motorcycle club from being also a marrage?
I imagine that you and Professor and Richie poo would try, but only in the extremely unlikely event that the members of said motorcycle club claimed they WANTED to get married. This is just another of those silly questions you seem to think inspire some sort of useful thought.

[Plane]

Pologamy and polyandry change the definition of marrage .

They change YOUR definition of marriage. Polygamy and polyandry have existed for many centuries. When you learned of these, and as a result your ignorance vanish, then you decided that they somehow threatened YOUR definitions.


What would prevent a motorcycle club from being also a marrage?
I imagine that you and Professor and Richie poo would try, but only in the extremely unlikely event that the members of said motorcycle club claimed they WANTED to get married. This is just another of those silly questions you seem to think inspire some sort of useful thought.

If everyone is qualified and anysort of hook up meets the definition , what will "marrage " mean ?

In our law it gets special recognition , but if the definition changes the special recognition wll have to change also in order to remain meaningfull.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, there was no threat, death or otherwise, just some severe uncivilness/rudeness, at wishing someone some severe illwill.  Nice to see how the left uses that now as "threats".  Time to push more anti-1st amendment legislation to curb those "threats', isn't it>>

No actually there was a very real threat.  The councilmen were invited to think on how many people were not only endangered by their opinons, but would be made much safer were they all dead.

Anytime somebody points out to me that by expressing an opinion, I am endangering millions of people who would be a lot safer if I were dead, is trying to intimidate me, trying to shut me up with threats of death, if not from him directly then from any one of 300 million other people.

Anyone dumb enough to consider a threat like that as mere incivility has my deepest sympathy.

[sirs]

<<Actually, there was no threat, death or otherwise, just some severe uncivilness/rudeness, at wishing someone some severe illwill.  Nice to see how the left uses that now as "threats".  Time to push more anti-1st amendment legislation to curb those "threats', isn't it>>

No actually there was a very real threat. 

No, actually, there wasn't.  Just some testosterone induced inappropriate posturing. 

Anytime somebody points out to me that by expressing an opinion, I am endangering millions of people who would be a lot safer if I were dead, is trying to intimidate me, trying to shut me up with threats of death, if not from him directly then from any one of 300 million other people.

No, someone wishing you were dead is NOT the same as threatening to kill you.  A pretty blatant difference, I'm afraid to tell you.  I realize to the (in)tolerant left, any speech that doesn't agree with them is tantamount to hate speech, and in this case, "threats" when there actually weren't any, but when anyone dares to simply criticize the left, for criticizing Bush and/or the war....boy oh boy, do the shrill cries of "you're trying to suppress my speech!!...you're trying to prevent me from my constitutional right to dissent!!...you're calling me unpatriotic!!

Gotta love that transparent hypocrisy

[Michael Tee]

<<No, someone wishing you were dead is NOT the same as threatening to kill you.>>

Yes we already agreed on that, didn't we?  Unfortunately, this guy went beyond merely wishing, he pointed out to the councilmen that there would be a big benefit to 300,000,000 Americans if they and a few thousand other Vermonters were dead.  So much as you would like to minimize the letter by conveniently "forgetting" the most significant part, I'm afraid that it won't go away just because you are too intellectually dishonest to mention it.

 <<when anyone dares to simply criticize the left, for criticizing Bush and/or the war....boy oh boy, do the shrill cries of "you're trying to suppress my speech!!...you're trying to prevent me from my constitutional right to dissent!!...you're calling me unpatriotic!!>>

REALLY?  And when did this happen?  When did simple criticism, unaccompanied by the kind of death threats that fascists like you are so enamoured of, generate that kind of outrage?  (I mean, of course, when in real time and space, not when in your pathetic right-wing fantasies?)

<<Gotta love that transparent hypocrisy>>

Gotta find it before you can love it.  Find it in the real world, I mean.

[sirs]

<<No, someone wishing you were dead is NOT the same as threatening to kill you.>>

Yes we already agreed on that, didn't we?  Unfortunately, this guy went beyond merely wishing, he pointed out to the councilmen that there would be a big benefit to 300,000,000 Americans if they and a few thousand other Vermonters were dead.

In other words.........WISHING he (& others) were dead.   oy

<<when anyone dares to simply criticize the left, for criticizing Bush and/or the war....boy oh boy, do the shrill cries of "you're trying to suppress my speech!!...you're trying to prevent me from my constitutional right to dissent!!...you're calling me unpatriotic!!>>

REALLY?  And when did this happen? 

Anytime anyone dares criticizes the likes of John Kerry, or any other politician with a military background.  Yep, gotta love that Hypocrisy