My email that I'm distributing to all of the major area news

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Brad

So you can copy and paste am I supposed to be impressed......I also
have a pretty good bet that if officers approached you with guns drawn
they would have had sufficient reason to bring you in. Quit living
vicariously through the internet.....

Brad

Woa, Brad. I ain't Barry or Philip.
Lighten up, some.
I think general opinion of this group would put me in the
catagory of one of the "Good Guys". Maybe a little
obnoxious at times, but certainly NOT to be grouped
with the assholes that appear here from time to time.


Brad ith vewy thenthitive.

Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Diane

Or your interpretation of it. Others' interpretations are quite a bit
different.

No "interpretation" required. The Founding Fathers spelled
things out quite clearly in the Bill Of RIGHTS and other
writings. Keep in mind that it's not the "Bill of Suggestions".
Just look at the way the "Patriot Act" is trampling the
Constitution. We've become a nation of fools being led
by a govermnent run by a group of idiots and liars. And the
sad thing is that most of the public is too scared, or lazy ,
or stupid to speak up. This was never intended to be a
socialist country, but that's what it's become.
Just try to go one day without commiting a crime. I'm
a criminal, you're a criminal, everyone's a criminal. I'm
willing to bet that you live a good, honest, decent, life.
But I'm also willing to bet that you do 1 or 2 things a day
that you could be arrested or fined for. When a
government turns good, decent, honest, people into
criminals through the endless creation of useless and
immoral laws, there's a Big problem.
Let's address the "dangers of good intentions" from
the posted quote from Daniel Webster. Now, lets say
there's a law that REQUIRES that all pets be in a
cage that is secured to a car when traveling.
What are the consequences?
The first one that I can think of is that "Fido" stays chained
in the yard instead of going for a walk in the park
because it's too much of a hassle to load a cage in the
car, secure it, and then get "Fido" into it. And if you're
willing to go through the hassle, you're not going to
fit a cage for "Cujo" in your compact car, so you better
get a gas guzzling SUV. And even if you don't normally
take your dog for a drive, is it worth all that trouble to
take him 5 miles down the road, to the vet, for his annual
physical. And, after all, do we really want to deny
"Fido" the true canine ecstasy of sticking his head out
the window in the breeze.
Nope, a law like that would be a hassle and expense
for the owner, and misery for the poor dog. Dogs
won't get a walk in the park, they'll be miserable
traveling in a cage, and may get less health care.
Or an owner is a criminal for disregarding the law.
And all so the dog can be a little safer in the car?
Safety is not the end all of existence. There's quality
of life at issue here.
Bad idea....bad law.
And this is EXACTLY the thing that Daniel Webster
was talking about with "the dangers of good intentions"
Here's another short example:
About 10 years ago many States decided that it was
safer for kids to wear helmets and knee pads when
riding bicycles. At the time almost every kid had a
bike and yes, a few got hurt. Now there is a law that
requires helmets. And I never see kids on bicycles
anymore. Just by coincidence, childhood obesity
has risen dramatically in the past 10 years to
"epidemic" (a good word to use if you want enact
laws to fight childhood obesity) levels. And let's not
ignore the "wimp factor" that is so pervasive in the
younger generation. When I was a kid, we had other
names for head and knee protection....they were
called bruises and scabs.
Safety, while it sounds like a good idea, is a danger
in and of itself, when applied to the legal system.
And as I tell people who, upon hearing that I own
a plane, say "aren't those things dangerous?".....
"Not if you're reasonably careful, but hell, in 100 years
you and I will both be in the same place. And I'll have
a ****load of fun getting there......... How about you?"



omg, you can HAVE the last word.

You win!

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message
...

And as I tell people who, upon hearing that I own
a plane, say "aren't those things dangerous?".....
"Not if you're reasonably careful, but hell, in 100 years
you and I will both be in the same place. And I'll have
a ****load of fun getting there......... How about you?"

If I have to choose between safe and free, I'll choose free every time!
**** the Patriot act - an act our forefathers definitely would not have
thought to be patriotic!

Hugs,

CatNipped

CatNipped wrote:

If I have to choose between safe and free, I'll choose free every time!
**** the Patriot act - an act our forefathers definitely would not have
thought to be patriotic!

Hugs,

CatNipped

Hear Hear! It's got it's root in fear.

Like "The Boss" said,

"Fears a powerful thing Bob"

Nomen Nescio wrote:
(...)
or stupid to speak up. This was never intended to be a
socialist country, but that's what it's become.

Hm, never heard anyone call the current US administration 'socialist'
before...

(...)
Let's address the "dangers of good intentions" from
the posted quote from Daniel Webster. Now, lets say
there's a law that REQUIRES that all pets be in a
cage that is secured to a car when traveling.
What are the consequences?
The first one that I can think of is that "Fido" stays chained
in the yard instead of going for a walk in the park
because it's too much of a hassle to load a cage in the
car, secure it, and then get "Fido" into it.

In fact, I also am against 'cage' legislation, were it to be proposed.
However, your arguments are pretty wobbly, being based on pandering to
the idiot minority, i.e., because there exist those who wouldn't be
arsed to fit a cage, we should not form the law.

Truly it's a stupid approach to the law, if our main aim is just to
make life easy for - in this case - poor pet owners. Hey! Some people
can't be arsed to keep their vehicles in good repair, so let's remove
any roadworthyness tests! Some people drive at ridiculous speeds in
inappropriate places - so let's remove all speed limits!


And if you're
willing to go through the hassle, you're not going to
fit a cage for "Cujo" in your compact car,

Why not?

so you better get a gas guzzling SUV.

With such a stretch, you'd better watch you don't put your back out.
Plus, it's hardly the case that SUVs are rare as things currently
stand...

And even if you don't normally
take your dog for a drive, is it worth all that trouble to
take him 5 miles down the road, to the vet, for his annual
physical.
Nope, a law like that would be a hassle and expense
for the owner, and misery for the poor dog. Dogs
won't get a walk in the park, they'll be miserable
traveling in a cage, and may get less health care.

If the dog owner is crappy enough to deny his dog walks and healthcare
because he can't be arsed to fit a cage, well, we're back to designing
laws to make things easy for idiots.


Or an owner is a criminal for disregarding the law.
And all so the dog can be a little safer in the car?

And people outside the car.

(...)
About 10 years ago many States decided that it was
safer for kids to wear helmets and knee pads when
riding bicycles. At the time almost every kid had a
bike and yes, a few got hurt. Now there is a law that
requires helmets. And I never see kids on bicycles
anymore. Just by coincidence, childhood obesity
has risen dramatically in the past 10 years to
"epidemic" (a good word to use if you want enact
laws to fight childhood obesity) levels.

Ridiculously simplistic, ignoring any changes in traffic density
altering behaviour, changes in children's desire to ride bikes (rather
than surf the web / have online sex), dietary changes, changes in
definitions of obesity, perhaps an increase in the risk of bike theft,
etc.

S.

"Steve G" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nomen Nescio wrote:
(...)
or stupid to speak up. This was never intended to be a
socialist country, but that's what it's become.

Hm, never heard anyone call the current US administration 'socialist'
before...
snip
S.

Socialism has been creeping in to the US fabric for several generations,
starting I'd say with The New Deal.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:30:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
] wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Brad

So you can copy and paste am I supposed to be impressed......I also
have a pretty good bet that if officers approached you with guns drawn
they would have had sufficient reason to bring you in. Quit living
vicariously through the internet.....

Brad

Woa, Brad. I ain't Barry or Philip.
Lighten up, some.
I think general opinion of this group would put me in the
catagory of one of the "Good Guys". Maybe a little
obnoxious at times, but certainly NOT to be grouped
with the assholes that appear here from time to time.



OK maybe I jumped the gun (pun intended) but still as I read that
initial post and also some things in this post in my eyes have a bit
of an anti American flavor and I am not talking about the usually good
natured ribbing to our friends across the pond. Just things like
spelling America with a K. I will apologize and just let it go by
saying that your humor is not my style as I took it as anti Anti
American by mistake.

As you may know from a couple of my past posts that I am a bit of a
"Mom.....The American Flag and Apple Pie kinda guy" And a poet and I
didn't know it......sigh.....sorry that was weak.

Having said that I am extremely happy that even though there is a
large and growing group of people against the war they are not
attacking the troops this time like they did in Vietnam, that was a
very hard thing to take. This time I am seeing lots and lots of
posters and such saying "We Support our Troops" which can easily be
done even if people are against the war.

Pretty interesting event you went through to say the least.

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:41:38 -0400, "Mary"
wrote:


"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message
.. .
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Brad

So you can copy and paste am I supposed to be impressed......I also
have a pretty good bet that if officers approached you with guns drawn
they would have had sufficient reason to bring you in. Quit living
vicariously through the internet.....

Brad

Woa, Brad. I ain't Barry or Philip.
Lighten up, some.
I think general opinion of this group would put me in the
catagory of one of the "Good Guys". Maybe a little
obnoxious at times, but certainly NOT to be grouped
with the assholes that appear here from time to time.


Brad ith vewy thenthitive.



Smooch

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:31:33 GMT, "Brandy**Alexandre"
wrote:



I know it was a risk. I know how well I drive and that I won't collide
with something, but I have no control over other motorists. As for
her, she's old and doesn't try to wander much. The couple of times she
did try, because of her arthritis she was unsteady and decided on her
own it was best to stay put. When she wanted something she sat up and
meowed and I SAFETY pulled over to the side of the road to see what she
wanted. It was usually a drink of water. Just like kids.


Gotcha....... very few of us have halo's......at least not as nice as
mine is.......

If you don't mind Brandy I will use this opportunity to spout just a
bit about the Patriot Act, its not in response to anything you said.

I don't know what and I usually don't like spouting off to much unless
I have a better idea but we do need something like the Patriot Act if
we are pretty sure that someone is doing something covert we have to
have the ability to to hold this person until he has been checked out,
having said that I know the act is going far beyond that but we need
something.

I know this is not good reasoning or even a good excuse but whenever I
am about to maybe criticize the Patriot Act I envision the pictures of
people jumping from 50 stories to the concrete sidewalk and the Public
Servants running into the melee instead of running out like the rest
of the people.

As I said we need something , if we had caught these guys with maps
with the twin towers and the Pentagon hilited on it we would have not
been able to bring them in beyond possibly minimal questioning but the
event would have still happened in all probablility.

Sorry for bringing up bad memories.

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"

Brad wrote:
Shorten Brads take on it
Sorry for bringing up bad memories.

Brad

In the old days the people in charge just did what they wanted.

For example, Thomas Jefferson shot a man on the whitehouse lawn for
treason.
Not trail no jury, asta lavista

I'm going to stop, I know this ain't the place to go on about it.