Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements


No announcement yet.

Take Action: Reject Statuatory Rape!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Take Action: Reject Statuatory Rape!

    Bill in Co. wrote:
    JWB wrote:
    Tony Miller wrote:
    On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:31:02 -0400, JWB<[email protected]> wrote:>Doug Anderson wrote:>>>>>>How? I thnk he contests it by saing "Bull****.">>>>I know _I_ always find expletives compelling.>>That's all you'll get from him when he has no answer. He'll be leaving>this conversation soon.Time for you to hit the killfile, JWB. You obviously have nothing ofvalue to add to any of these conversations.-Tony
    No, you just don't like the fact you got bested in a debate we had.Let's be honest - when the conversation goes against you and you have tosomehow explain an indefensible position, you *do* start swearing, andthen leave.
    I thought that was Brian? OK, maybe it's both of them.

    well, Brian stays around and at least tries to explain his position.
    Tony does not. He gets angry, swears at you, and leaves the conversation.

    Something about the heat and the kitchen or somesuchthing


    • #77
      Take Action: Reject Statuatory Rape!

      "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
      news:[email protected]
      On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:11:27 -0400, Joy <[email protected]> wrote:
      "Jennifer in Maryland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
      "Bill in Co." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > Thanks Jess. > It appears blue = rigidly moral (from the 18th century). Strange
      > the word. > If you read that article, one might wonder where our current day
      have > gone. Yes, I sure miss these days: "Blue laws typically specified penalties for moral offenses such as failure
      to attend church on the Sabbath; lying, swearing, and drunkenness; and
      playing of games (such as cards, dice, and shuffleboard) in public.
      also mandated more severe punishments for crimes committed on the
      and regulated the sale and consumption of alcohol. Violators of blue
      might be assessed monetary fines, be whipped, be forced to spend time
      stocks, have body parts burned or cut off, or even receive the death penalty."
      What I don't understand is how Tony can say that a statement that Blue
      (that penalized the population for things like failing to attend church
      Sunday) were a violation of the separation of church and state is "bulls***". I think it widely accepted that these violated that
      principle -
      therefore they have been taken off the books. Well, gee, Joy. We were talking about alcohol sales, and you've completely changed the discussion and attributed my position to it.
      Huh? Alcohol sales? We weren't discussing alcohol sales, we were
      discussing blue laws- which were far, far broader than alcohol sales.


      • #78
        Take Action: Reject Statuatory Rape!

        In Message-ID:<[email protected]>
        posted on Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:00:08 GMT, Tony Miller wrote:
        On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:57:36 -0400, Joy<[email protected]> wrote:
        "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
        On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:49:02 -0400, Joy <joydoesnt[email protected]> wrote: > > "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected] >> Blue laws don't force you to worship any God. > > They are forcing you to observe at least a portion of the religious > practices of the group that passed the laws. That would be the "thou
        > not do business on Sunday" part. I know, it isn't scriptural - but when
        > blue laws were enforced that was the religious practice behind it. They aren't forcing you to worship any particular God. And last I knew, not buying booze on Sunday was not part of my particular religious doctrine.
        I think you missed the point. The dominant religion of the time believed that one should not do business on Sunday. Therefore they passed laws that said you could not do business on Sunday. Therefore it was legally enforcing a religious doctrine.
        So what? The dominant religion at the time thought killing was wrong. Sothey passed laws against killing. Therefore it was legally enforcingreligious doctrine.I get it. It's not enforcing religious doctrine if YOU agree with it.
        OK, Tony, now look it from the other extreme. Suppose that
        the majority of people in your community demand that you
        sacrifice your firstborn to Moloch. Or a bunch of people
        move in who think that stealing and killing are OK. Do you
        agree that their views should set the standards for the

        At the moment, a fairly big issue in this part of the world
        is whether the inhabitants of Pitcairn island should be
        allowed to ignore British law.

        See my earlier post:
        From: [email protected]
        Subject: OT:Feature: The Australian: A secret, horrific
        Pacific secret
        Message-ID: <[email protected]>
        Lines: 31
        Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:20:53 GMT

        If you can be bothered to read this, would you like to get
        back to us and tell us if you approve of "their" community
        Kind of like requiring plain brown wrappers on porn mags in the convenience stores. No, this was NOT like requiring plain brown wrappers on porn mags. This was requiring people of differing religious views to fall into line and not do business on Sunday.
        It's called "community standards". If you don't like them, move to adifferent community.
        > The "f" word will get you sent home from school until you can come back > attired in a fashion that meets the dress code. They CAN say Christ. We
        > have very active Christian groups for the students in our schools. My > daughter goes to a Bible Study in the auditorium before school every > morning. Any kid who wants to go can go. Any kid who doesn't want to
        > doesn't have to. The key is, it has to be voluntary. It can't be
        > On a voluntary basis, though, the kids can be as religious as they want. > (We also have a Bible History class available as an elective.
        > but available). Indeed. Your school seems to be enlightened and knows what's going on.
        Actually, this is in a rural, very conservative, very, very, very unenlightened area.
        Do you seriously believe that Christmas, in American society today, has anything to do with Christ?
        To an awful lot of people, it does.
        That's not what I asked.
        -Tony (Who wears a wristband every year that says "Jesus is the reason for the season" ) My point exactly.
        But that's just me. Ok, I think Abortion is a sacrament of radicalfeminism. So we should not use federal money to support someone'sreligion.So there.
        You are free to think what you wish, but I will point out
        that the cost of an abortion is orders of magnitude cheaper
        than paying for child support for unwanted kids, as well as
        the increased cost for schools, police, prisons, etc.

        If you, or your religion, opposed abortion, then are you or
        they willing to bear the increased costs of these other



        The forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.