Unfortunately, I could not see the video, but I have studied this religious garbage for so long, I doubt I would see anything new.

I lived through Jones Town, and many other religious cults in the news. I have seen these religious freaks in the courts of USA law, (state and federal, from juvenile to criminal to tax evasions), I have met them on the streets and argued with them on-line and face to face.

These religious cults do not have anything that is new, nothing amazing, no advancement of knowledge nor any wisdom to further humanity. Just a bunch of stupid religious people saying stupid things, being the stupid bipeds that they are,as the last 2,000 years of religious history and beyond that of stupid idiot religious people.

What caught my eye was at the beginning of this thread that said I should be fearful of these mentally retarded religious cult freaks. Yeah right! That will be the day.

State laws, DO NOT say you can have any religion you care to, but only such religions that do Not harm yourself, children, or others,  and is not violent against the State NOR provokes, nor induces unlawful influences. Is NOT insane, as snake handling for show, nor unto any other criminal acts. Hate speech is “forbidden” in the USA, is not covered under the freedom of speech, and inducement to riot is a crime and is punishable.

There is so much stacked up of legal authority against these religious cult dumb heads in civil laws, as torts, and sate/federal statutes, and in criminal law, there is not time enough to send them all to jail where they belong.

In addition, I have not even mentioned the logical arguments against a god, nor the stupidity of the bible, much less the idiocy of the Koran.

So here is the bottom line, if you think your child is being abused by a religious cult—-sue the crap out of that organization in civil court, contact the local DA and demand an investigation and a written report of that investigation. IF you think your neighbor’s religion is abusing child(ren) call the local CPS and file a complaint as a concerned citizen, and demand an investigation. CPS has the power to take their children, on the spot,  and put those adults in pure hell before it is all over.

This religious BS cult crap spreads from time to time because descent people do nothing, and they are fearful act, but not me.

CPS is the USA national label for Child Protection Services, each state has their own enforcement of CPS by many names. All CPS agencies have greater police powers than what you can ever imagine. They are on the look-out for insane religions that hurt kids, even in doctrine.

So screw them religious BS cults and camps, I will see them all rot behind bars before I finished. Yes, we do have religious freedom but the state dictates what kind and the nature of that religion will be, so GET OVER IT.

Don

I suppose it’s futile to even try, but here goes nothing:

Don: Hate speech is “forbidden” in the USA, is not covered under the freedom of speech…

Yes, hate speech is forbidden in this country. That’s why Fred Phelps and his toadies frequent funerals offering their condolences and Christian messages of love and respect for the deceased.

Hi Sexy: (what a lovely name)

I really do not understand your post

“Yes, hate speech is forbidden in this country. That’s why Fred Phelps and his toadies frequent funerals offering their condolences and Christian messages of love and respect for the deceased.”

Are saying religious freaks can go to a funeral and solicit church membership?

They can also be asked to leave “permanently” and if they refuse, or return later (even at some other date), a charge of trespass can be brought against them, and their literature can be counted as littering.

Same thing with JW’s, you can kick them off your property, and if any one comes back you can press charges of trespass, and charge the main organization as such. If they still continue to enter your property, you an charge them with harassment and staking in addition to trespass.

Nowhere in Oregon law is religion, nor god beliefs, justification to break the law nor to stomp on other people’s rights. Most funeral proceedings have a sign up that says, “Private”, this is in respect to invited family and friends, which is the same as NO trespassing.

But perhaps I did not understand your post.

Don

*sigh*

It was sarcasm, Don. You stated that hate speech is not allowed in this country. That is patently false. To have freedom of speech entails certain unavoidable risks, including the risk that you will see and hear religious whackjobs like Fred Phelps or neo-Nazis like David Duke spouting their insane views. At the same time, if we disallow such undeniably heinous opinions to be voiced, the concept of freedom of speech becomes meaningless.

I’m not sure why you misunderstood my post. You do know who Fred Phelps is, don’t you? If not, a quick google who tell you all you need to know (warning: don’t go looking him up on an empty stomach).

I noticed the embedded movie is of no use. Here are plenty of “Jesus Camp” videos. It took a lot of work to post it here. Hope you appreciate the effort. I am a Christian and I would never have children fall before a cutout of Bush. This is just to remind you guys that we’re not all monsters.

Documentary Featurette ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_XPjOf9_mU

Becky Fischer Excerpt ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECP9qzjmF0

Ted Haggard admits his infidelity under the guise of teaching a religious lesson. A clip from the documentary ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA

Official Trailer - designed by Magnolia Pictures to make the public hate the subjects of the film. Wait for this “This means war!“ line ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuUwXncK9Uk

Saving Holly ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHiwiBEeGa0

Bill Maher Discussion about “Jesus Camp” ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGceAojHR6o

Featurette Number 2 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBXLeQHzgcU

Rachel ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PXrBQlN9Rw

Harry Potter sermon from “Jesus Camp” ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOIYsGVyg8M&NR

Good Morning America Part One ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtrug7gUVbM&mode=related&search=

Good Morning America Part 2 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgms0DrpERE

The following are some extra clips from the documentary ...

Clip4 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1YwrW9ZVTI

Clip5 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiqjozMMkyM

Clip6 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0L_dLO358E&NR

Becky Fischer thinks she’s a prophet. (Deut.18:22) Take note of the “what I heard the Lord say” line. People usually means this in terms of an psychological impression being placed on the heart by God rather than an actual voice being heard, but, kids don’t know the difference and are being maniupulated into thinking she’s got a direct connection to God. Take a look ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMWs_J6Bjzs&mode=related&search=

Clip2 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7VHAGSJMLY&mode=related&search=

Some of the above might have been repeats, so sorry if that’s what happened.

Phew! Now you guys can see most of the clips available on YouTube. I’m sure there are more than I’ve been able to collect.

I’m looking forward to seeing this film and being disgusted.

Take care.

I meant to say “don’t go looking him [Phelps] up on a full stomach.“ That ought to make a bit more sense.

Hate speech is “forbidden” in the USA, is not covered under the freedom of speech,

  Don, I don’t know where you come up with this stuff.  Sadie is right. 

I have only three laws as a guide.

3) don’t be stupid

If you intend to adhere to this, stop posting about the law.  Please.

Sexy:

It was sarcasm, Don. You stated that hate speech is not allowed in this country. That is patently false.

Don:

Hate speach is against the law as an example:

“kill all the blacks”

“Burn alive all the Catholics”

Hate speech includes directed violence to a person or groups of people as the judgment of $109 million on anti abortion activist has clearly shown.

Now you can talk, but there are not any constitutional bases for hate speech to be protected, and you can be held liable, if not by criminal codes most certainly by torts.

You most certainly can say, “I hate Christians.” and that is protected speech, on the contrary to say, “I think all Christians should be burned alive.” is NOT protected speech and there is liability.

To say, “I hate bald people with all my heart.” That is protected speech. To say, “When I see a bald person I’m going break their knees.” That is hate speech and is NOT protected and a person has little to no defense in court.

The internet does have some exceptions.

1) it is a matter of “jurisdiction” of the courts or state and federal statutes
2) Because of the untold array of ideas a person runs into on the net, a person should use self-monitoring being “reasonable” and not act on hateful violence or any influences from the net to that end. I have the court ruling on this somewhere around here.

HOWEVER both these exceptions were overcome in the suit brought against the anti abortion activist.

Name-calling is not hate speech in and of itself, but there are some limits on that also. Public persons are subject to name-calling and that is protected speech; whereas you as a private person can take court action against it.

Freedom of speech, the First Amendment, is NOT a blanket to cover anything you want to say, never has been and never will be. Private and public organizations most certainly CAN and DO limit speech of all kinds and this is protect by law.

Don

Consigliere said:

If you intend to adhere to this, stop posting about the law.  Please.

Don:

NO.

Here is one of many references regarding free and NOT free speech, or better said, protected and NOT protected speech.

Fighting words, or hate speech, is NOT protected speech. Read it and learn something.

read and learn:

Annotations p. 18  
Government Restraint of Content of Expression

Fighting Words and Other Threats to the Peace .—In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 95 the Court unanimously sustained a conviction under a statute proscribing ‘'any offensive, derisive, or annoying word’‘ addressed to any person in a public place under the state court’s interpretation of the statute as being limited to ‘'fighting words’‘—i.e., to ‘'words . . . [which] have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.‘’

The statute was sustained as ‘'narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state power, the use in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace.‘’ 96 The case is best known for Justice Murphy’s famous dictum.

‘’[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.‘’ 97

You can find the rest of this document at Findlaw.com

What are you going to do, ban me because I post valid legal reference that you cannot argue with? If you don’t want to read my post then by-pass me.

Don

Consigliere said:

If you intend to adhere to this, stop posting about the law.  Please.

Don:

Consigliere, are you a person of authority that can ban a person on this board?

Personally, I do not care what others have to say as fighting words. I always have the option to “leave”, as the first line of defense.

Nevertheless, for the record, I most certainly can call Pres. Bush and infected scab to society, Haggard is a Stupid Evil Bastard, and that is protected speech because Bush and Haggard are a public figures. They cannot do Jack Shit about it, and not one court in the land could convict me.

But if I physically stand at your front door, you being a private person, and call you the same, I can, most certainly,  be held liable, arrested, and answer to criminal charges in court, AND face your liable suit in civil court.

Knowledge is power my friend, and knowledge of how the laws work, and court proceedings, are even greater power.

However, if I physically threaten Pres. Bush or Haggard with directed violence and harm— for example: “shoot on sight.” you had better believe that is NOT protected speech and I can face charges in criminal court. Just as the anti abortion activist did, and the anti abortion activist received a judgment, as punishment, for 109 million bucks.

Yes, it is a thin line at times between protected and not protected speech,  and wisdom is know what side of the line you are on.

I think being stupid is a sin myself, so I read a lot, to help myself out, but you can be what ever you desire. There is NO law for being stupid in the USA.

Don

U.S. Supreme Court

CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
315 U.S. 568
CHAPLINSKY
v.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
No. 255.

Argued Feb. 5, 1942.
Decided March 9, 1942.
Mr. Hayden C. Covington, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Mr. Frank R. Kenison, of Conway, N.H., for appellee. [315 U.S. 568, 569] 

Mr. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant, a member of the sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, Section 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire:

‘No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.‘

The complaint charged that appellant ‘with force and arms, in a certain public place in said city of Rochester, to wit, on the public sidewalk on the easterly side of Wakefield Street, near unto the entrance of the City Hall, did unlawfully repeat, the words following, addressed to the complainant, that is to say,

‘You are a God damned racketeer’ and ‘a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists’ the same being offensive, derisive and annoying words and names’.

Upon appeal there was a trial de novo of appellant before a jury in the Superior Court.

He was found guilty and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 91 N.H. 310, 18 A.2d 754.

Now to repeat the above reference:

“Upon appeal there was a trial de novo (all judges present..Don) of appellant before a jury in the Superior Court. He was found guilty and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 91 N.H. 310, 18 A.2d 754.”

The finding of the US Supreme court:

AFERMED, the Jehovah Witness, Hayden, was found Guilty

The US Supreme Court’s reasoning:

“Our function is fulfilled by a determination that the challenged statute, on its face and as applied, does not contravene the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In adition,  there were NO facts to apealants statements.

THEREFORE, if you do not like the US Supreme Court ruling,  go burn yourself on the courthouse steps as there are NO appeals in law after the US Supreme Court.

However, what the hell, laws are ever evolving, ever changing, a reflection of human culture, laws are made by man, and man is fallible, and the man made gods are at the bottom of the heap of cow dung, as shown by this ruling.

But I think I made my point. What is LAW NOW stands untill it is changed, and don’t hold your breath on this law changing.

There are LIMITS to freedom of speech!

Don

Am I free to call you a smeghead, Don? Is that protected speech? How about a fuckwit?

Therefore, what do you think Sexy:

Do you think the courts of this land, state and federal, make rulings with their dicks and breast hanging out? That they do not have any authority?

That these court ruling are just an other opinion as any common person?

That State/federal constitutions, the order set out and precepts of further thought are just void of any authority? You can ignore them as being thoughts without physical backing?

Not hardly and claim sanity in the same breath.

It is not that I am interested in law and use laws as my reference but rather why doesn’t every one do the same?  We, common people,  hold in our hands the very tools to make the changes we want as common people that desire to live with the benefits thereof,  and YET, the common person thinks laws and understanding are beyond them! What a shame, what a disgrace to us common humans! NO wonder we have been kicked around and enslaved, fed god bull shit,  in all of human history! I’m NOT surprised. As the common person had NEVER learned the power of reasoning and reason with authority, and that is in LAW, backed up with police powers that are at our disposal.

There may be the entire world of humans that count themselves powerless, BUT NOT I. Laws give power, lifts up the weak, brings down the mighty, makes the foolish smart, and has won more battles for human existence than all the wars fought. Law defines justice, order, love, marriage, the rising of children, social direction and purpose, defines the individual with RIGHTS with the TEETH of authority.

Moreover, the USA populations are just as ignorant as the day they were born. Others dictate immorality, fraud, embezzlement, crimes against property, animal, and persons, and even murder, insane gods, and the destruction of our own kind. Even to calling polluted cancerous air to breath, and filthy water to drink, “good”!

Little do people of this generation know that product liability laws, recourses with power, are only about 70 years old, and women had the right to vote only about 80 years ago. How do you think these changes came about? Because some sperm exhaled god that worships its own dung commanded it? I think NOT. That man/ladies materialized out of thin air? I think NOT!

If you do not know the laws of your State, then learn them. If you do not understand the legal lingo, and shop talk, then get used to it by exposure.  NEVER at any time give away a RIGHT, nor allow a RIGHT to be compromised, and seek greater rights than ever before! Do your own kind PROUD! The next generation will thank you, bet me!

We common people have the power, and we must force the humans that rule over us to be law abiding backed up with the strength of our arms if needed, as that is where any government gets its legitimacy— and that is from us common people.

If you do not know the laws and the power of enforcement, then you have nothing at all as even your own breath will taken and no one will notice. Fact is,  no one even cares as if you never existed, but within the laws you have everything but only if you act.

NEVERTHELESS, with the laws, and the knowledge thereof, the entire universe stands for our taking with all the benefits and glory for posterity and progeny. There is no greater power on earth affecting our own kind than man made laws. I figure all who disagree with me need to be educated. I should have been a teacher, and had I known the laws I would have been so many years ago. I’m learning, and I fight back against ignorance!

Don

Don responded:

KPatrickGlover, on 11/09/06 at 05:59 PM wrote the following…

Am I free to call you a smeghead, Don? Is that protected speech? How about a fuckwit?

Don:

You are a free person you butt fucker dim witted moron.

The only question is what price you are willing to pay for such actions in reality, and NOT on distant blogs, or message boards, what ever. My intent is NOT contentious but rather making a point.

These message boards are GREAT, as we can test our ideas and strengths, refine our thinking, consolidate our perspectives, plan a human future, and at least in one respect, be the “free” creatures that we are where no violence can be had to curtail our thinking ability.

I love this freedom, it is like flying to me looking over the valley.

I will never stand against you KPatrickGlover, and your natural right to speak and PLEASE think and express yourself as that is how I,  and yourself, know you are living, and you are of great value.

My apologies for my opening statement to you. I relent. My insult to you was nothing but to make a point, YES, your speech by my reference IS protected and I cannot do squat crap about it. Therefore, you win, but I have words also, so learn to live with it!

Don

Don, if nothing else you’ve demonstrated quite clearly that it is in fact quite futile to try to have a productive, meaningful, or even coherent discussion with you. Thus, I will not do so anymore. Have a nice day.

By the way, for someone who claims quite adamantly to not be gay, you seem to have some sort of fixation with “butt-fucking.“

Don:

First, libel and liable are different words.  They mean different things.  They are not interchangeable.

Second, Chaplinki is limited by RAV. In RAV, Scalia, writing for the majority states:

We have sometimes said that these categories of expression are “not within the area of constitutionally protected speech,“  Chaplinsky, supra, at 571-572, or that the “protection of the First Amendment does not extend” to them. Such statements must be taken in context, however, and are no more literally true than is the occasionally repeated shorthand characterizing obscenity “as not being speech at all.“  What they mean is that these areas of speech can, consistently with the First Amendment, be regulated because of their constitutionally proscribable content (obscenity, defamation, etc.)—not that they are categories of speech entirely invisible to the Constitution, so that they may be made the vehicles for content discrimination unrelated to their distinctively proscribable content.

Hate speech is not a separate class of speech.  Nor are fighting words.  They are regulated in the same manner as all other speech and are actionable when the underlying content is actionable. 

The Court also states in Cohen:

‘we are often “captives” outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech.‘ ... The ability of government, consistent
with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon the showing that
substantial privacy interest are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a
matter of personal predilections.“

Like Sadie, I’m finished responding to any of your posts.  I am again requesting that you stop posting misinformation and half-truths as proclamations on the law.

Sexy said:

Don, if nothing else you’ve demonstrated quite clearly that it is in fact quite futile to try to have a productive, meaningful, or even coherent discussion with you. Thus, I will not do so anymore. Have a nice day.
By the way, for someone who claims quite adamantly to not be gay, you seem to have some sort of fixation with “butt-fucking.”

Don:

It is only because you do not put out the effort to work at your thoughts, so you condemn me. Yeah right, been there and done that. Try a new approach, and because of your laziness, you hope to win by default.

NO sexy, I do NOT let you off the hook, do your homework and get back to me. You are better than what you have expressed yourself. Now you want to use common gutter slang as a fault, when if I did not use putrid language you would have NO idea what I’m talking about.

That is real good Sexy, some where there has to be hope for the human race, human intelect, are you the one? And WHY NOT! I doubt you ever received a honest praise for a job well done, but a little effort on your part, and I WILL stand behind you. BET ME! I do not relent without figurative guts and blood all over this board.

Don

That is real good Sexy, some where there has to be hope for the human race, human intelect, are you the one? And WHY NOT! I doubt you ever received a honest praise for a job well done, but a little effort on your part, and I WILL stand behind you. BET ME! I do not relent without figurative guts and blood all over this board.

Uh, Don.  I would not be slinging nerf balls if I were you.  At least until you learn how to spell. 

As for “figurative guts and blood all over this board,“ maybe you should consider throwing in the towel.  You are way out of your league here.  And who are you to be saying you will or will not let someone off the hook?  Damn.  Wipe the cheetos off your face and crawl out of the basement.

Consigliere wrote:

First, libel and liable are different words.  They mean different things.  They are not interchangeable.

Don:

Thank you for the correction, I should know the differance and I think I do. I apreseate the reminder. I can claim “scibner error”, but I will not go that rout. I should be better at what I post, no excuse given.

Consigliere wrote in context to her reference:
Hate speech is not a separate class of speech.  Nor are fighting words.  They are regulated in the same manner as all other speech and are actionable when the underlying content is actionable. 

I never said hate speech was a separate context, nor are fighting words but rather you confermed every letter (less my scibner errors) what I endorced.

Fighting words by your referane are rgulatated. They are subject to social peace, allowing freedmon of common “legal” lively hood, as NOT to disrupt every day legal life with unfopunded slanderious distuction of carictar.

But such laws do NOT apply to celebrities. Case quote, and staute on your request

However the Supreme court desided,  to quote:

The Supreme Court was first requested to strike down a law violating the free speech clause in 1919. The case involved Charles Schenck, who had during the war published leaflets challenging the conscription system then in effect. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck’s conviction for violating the Espionage Act when it decided Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, suggested that “the question in every case is whether the words used are in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.“

Synopsis:

Thus showing that when National peace and unity are threatened against a a “clear and present danger” free speech can be, and shall be,  suspended. There shall be NO speech threatening the USA governing powers.

The point being that Speech IS regulated, by the force of police powers and YOU WILL BE shut up, if you go against the established powers of the state.

Now that is my point,  that Free speech IS NOT to say every dam thing that pops into your mind thinking you have a governmental right. YOU do NOT have the powers to injure others without recourse,  NOR to injure the state. Without authority, without protection, From LAW,  you might as well blow in the wind and be subject to an easy death. 

Now this is the point that I made to quote, Sexy said:

“You stated that hate speech is not allowed in this country. That is patently false.”

Don:

I more than proved, and your valid quotes also proved, Consigliere, Sexy is patently WRONG!  Speech is limited, controlled, regulated by USA state and federal governments, and is subject to torts. The same is controlled WITH massive police powers to shut up, fine, sanction, jail, and imprison, according to state and federal laws, NOT to mention civil penalties as speech can be injurious to others.

Now, this concept is a matter of LAW and NOT your personal opinion. So, if you want to show to the contrary, you had better have a real power greater than that the USA government, and the State in what you live. Fucking gods do NOT count,  or call them in person to be examined by a jury. Never happened and I doubt ever will.

Don

Oh give it up Consigliere, if the best you can come up with is my spelling errors, you make a fool out of yourself.

My spelling can be corrected with a few more minutes of MS spell check, but your ignorance, perhaps stupidity, may take years to correct. If genetics are involved you may never have a chance of legal understanding of what really controls your life.

Don

Don I wouldn’t come in here and attack the intelligence of others.  If you want a civil conversation or discussion, attacking the members here is a quick way of throwing that idea out the door.

And as far as Consi goes, people around here trust and respect his opinions (especially on the law) even though we not agree with them all the time.

Secondly learn some fucking brevity for Christ’s sake.  Reading your posts is painful because all you do is type and type and then type some more.  Get your ideas out and be concise.  Then shut the fuck up and let others discuss your ideas.  In the last 5 postings you have 3 posts that are yours.  That is a classic fundi ratio if you ask me!

BTW Cindi, I still think your picture is hilarious.

BTW Cindi, I still think your picture is hilarious.

Thanks, Webs!  One of the attorneys I work with thinks it is a perfect likeness - perpetually stressed!

Don, it’s important that you understand why you are getting negative comments so that you can respond from an informed position.

Some of my impressions of your commenting style:

Your comments always strike me as lecturing.

You should take that extra time to spell check. It will add credibility to your efforts.

You repeat the same points over and over and over again.

Your comments often have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You seem to think that frequency of commenting makes up for the substance of any particular comment.

You represent the owner of this site as being petty enough to ban you.

It requires too much work from the reader to find any gems in your comments.

You tell us so little about yourself that it is difficult to identify with you. For example:
Are you originally from this country?
Do you fear crustaceans?
If a tree fell in the forest would you help it up?

You never back up your assertions with sources.

Preface your statements with “In my opinion…“ instead of representing them as immutable facts. We’ll have more respect for your forthrightness.

You should spend some time watching Teletubbies episodes as they are great at conveying the most ideas with the fewest words. If nothing else, their acid trips might compliment your acid trips.

That’s all I can think of for now. Do take these observations as well meant. Well, maybe not the Teletubbies one.

You mean people are still trying to read Don’s comments as opposed to skimming them briefly lest the bring on a massive migraine?

Color me impressed.

So, in response to Web, (on free speech)

I made my point, repeatedly, Cindi and Sexy, have yet to acknowledge the facts that I made even when their own reference confirmed my point.

Now you jump in and do you argue a point or offer new information?  NO, not so much as one point of fact.

You see the laws do not give a crap if you agree or disagree, and it has been this way for thousands of years, and NOT ONE iota of power has ever changed. 

You endorse, Web, believability by caricature reference; Copi, Russell, Gödel, Robert Green Ingersole, Thomas Jefferson to say the least, would crap their pants over your nonsense.

God help Galileo in about 1609, as if he went by your standard, Web, I can only assume we would still be arguing the world is flat. 

You say you hate my post, you pick fault for so much wrong, hell should lap me up as
the most evil ever recorded, and NOT one word as to the validity of my quotes and reference. Shame on you Web.

You say, Web,  if I shortened my post, use different words, I could have credibility and influence—BULL SHIT, I may be one brick short of full load, but I ain’t that stupid.

Why don’t you stay to the facts and let a few comments on caricature run around as we are both used to. I personally like Sexy (and not by name) and Cindi gave an admirable response, to bad her response verified my point.

Perhaps if you could UP your intellect Web, I would not have to write so much, did you ever think about that? How about, “Yeah Don, you made your point, I will think about it”, and you will see me shut up like a block of ice. Like where am I needed, I should move on.

I have over 25 years of highly successful persuasion in sales and influence, and you know, I’m totally fed up to vomit dealing with idiots. I love my own human kind, I really do, but after YOU Web, you being a veteran poster, cannot do better that what you have—Beam me up Scotty, there is not any intelligent life on earth.

I post reference out my ass of what you do not read, and then you condemn me, as my posts are too long. I give up, YOU WIN. In addition, the Law still stands, regardless of your ignorance. But perhaps you fit ORS, 163.325 (3), being you are just too fucking stupid, or too young,  to know any better so you have a defense, but still guilty.

Don