Re: University of South Carolina e-Mail Compromises StudentIDs

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 4/20/06, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:
> > We were a religious lot in the beginning.
> That's your problem. It is possible to recover from that problem, if you
> want freedom. Alternatively, you can slide back to the Dark Ages and
> reject evolution, gravity and quantum mechanics.

LOL - now that's funny. The religious lot in the beginning came here
for freedom from your government! I also didn't say that we aren't
still religious - I should have stated that we still are. The way our
government works allows for that, because you have freedom to travel,
live in any state you want, and what ever the community deems
appropriate is all good. Now, the feds have over-stepped their
position, on a lot of things, but we're working on it,
little-by-little. Watch as the number of libertarians infiltrate the
Republican party, and win as libertarians in smaller, more localized
races. If that doesn't work, well, we have our guns - that's still an
option for us over here, if it ever gets that extreme.


> > That's not what I said. We have a representative government - if you
> > don't like a law you work to change it, starting with electing those
> > who agree with you. Further, as it relates to "rights", laws don't
> > have anything to do with it. We consider our rights inalienable and
> > therefore no man, or man-made law, can abridge or otherwise trespass
> > against them.
>
> But you've abridged the right to work as a prostitute, for example. No -
> although you might think that your constitution guarantees freedom, it
> plainly doesn't. The fact that slavery was legal under your constitution
> demonstrates that it was by no means a "freedom and liberty" constitution.

The constitution doesn't provide us our freedoms - never said it did.
Anyone who does say so is either a liar, a politician or a fool.

> So, I think you're saying "We haven't got freedom because we don't want
> it", which I can certainly understand. But we do have freedom, because we
> do want it, which brings me back to my original point - you're jealous of
> our freedom.

You don't have freedom. As stated, you haven't got the right to defend
your own property - your own castle - anymore. That is a BASIC human
right, up there with the pursuit of happiness. You have a limited
right to defend your own being - that is THE right of all human
rights. Given that, how are you possibly more free than us - because
you can pay to have sex if you want?! I don't think so. Prostitution
SHOULD be legal - I don't disagree - but that's not a right I'm going
to go fight for if I can't even defend myself!

> > completely. However, the right to pay for sex, in my mind anyway,
> > pales in comparison with the right to defend one's castle. Our right
> > to shoot trespassers, btw, comes directly from ENGLISH common law
>
> Actually, no. In England, there's no crime of "trespass". English common
> law says that I can "trespass" on your land, and provided I do no damage,
> you have no redress. If I do damage, then you can sue in a court of civil
> law.  If I do criminal damage, then it's criminal law.

Forgive those who trespass against me...sounds familiar doesn't it?
You think it's talking about trespassing on private party? And,
ACTUALLY, YES, our law IS based on English common law - as it stood
back in 1776.

> > (reference to "castles" and all). You've LOST, or, more accurately,
> > GIVEN UP the most BASIC right a man (meaning human) can have - the
> > right to life.
>
> Hmm, you mean, by choosing to disallow widespread gun ownership, we avoid
> the 30,000 firearm deaths per year that you have, and have a couple of
> hundred per year instead? You mean, we've given up those 30,000
> fatalities, right? Well, I think I'm happy to avoid those 30,000 deaths.

I'm sure you are, you'd rather be safe than free. No such thing as a
free lunch friend. At least we've come to the crux of the argument -
you're a rabid anti-gunner. Nothing I do or say will change your mind
or even cause you to rationalize what your saying. Never mind that the
statistics for crime between our two countries PROVES that your gun
ban has done nothing but make you an island of victims - where only
the criminals have guns, and therefore only the criminals are free.
Never mind that crime in the states has DECREASED as more and more
states have passed concealed carry laws. Never mind the facts, the
truth, an honest debate. Therefore, for that reason, I don't see the
point in arguing much more...


> No. They're a family thing that religions try to hijack, and which
> increasingly they're failing to hijack. If they truly were a religious
> institution, then:

A "family thing"? Is that your technical term for it? It's an ignorant
statement either way, so don't bother explaining what a "family thing"
is. I will say that I know MANY happy families where no marriage was
ever entered into... Doesn't that PROVE that its not a "family thing"
either?

> I'm beginning to think that you're under the impression that we have high
> taxation.

Beginning to? Are you not???


> > Say, what do you give the 12 year olds over there with dinner? Bottled
> > water - or is wine acceptable?
>
> That's really up to the parents.

Duh.

> > And in your courts, you're guilty until proven otherwise?
>
> No, that's your invention. We do "innocent until proven guilty"

That's our invention? LOL, we invented the whole phrase - when we
broke from your country you hadn't even thought of making a serf an
"equal".

> In America, if some kid enters your house and prowls around, you think
> it's right to kill him. In England, we don't think that, we think that
> this would be an unreasonable reaction.

If a kid enters my house I have the right to make sure he does no harm
to my or my family. My conscience will decide how I do that. A free
man has the right to make a bad decision.


> > Its the Second Amendment - and if you truly believe this statement
> > you're not worth my time arguing the point. If you look back through
> > history, the only "wars" America has ever lost were waged against
> > people without the armaments you describe. Look at Russia in
> > Afghanistan. France anywhere! Really going to stand behind that
> > statement?
>
> Yes. because if you want to have a revolution against *your* government,
> which is the purpose of that amendment, you're going to need a bit more
> than popguns.

And you can back that up with what knowledge? I mean, I'm telling you
you're wrong, and I live here and I'm a gun owner and I hang around
like-minded folks. What do YOU know that all of us dumb Americans
don't?

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.