DMN piece on Michael Vick alias Ron Mexico

[peplaw06]

You misunderstood my point... yes, morality is the leading reason behind the passage of most laws... but in this situation, the issue of morality, i.e., whether or not it OUGHT to be illegal is moot, because it IS illegal...

IOW, the people have, in their infinite wisdom, decided the issue of morality when they chose to make dogfighting illegal... you might not like their decision, but you are bound by the law they chose to pass...

I gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[iceberg]

Also as an aside, the scene in the movie you are talking about is a guy that is using his education to make ben affleck's character look stupid. if anything you are the one that ahs thrown the fact that you have a law degree and specialize in criminal and family law in my face.

the guy also quoted things from a book and didnt give credit. i dont quote platos book as my own. so while that is a great scene you didnt apply it well at all.

i have an idea though lets just pick scenes from our favorite movies and say tht im the villain cause people like summer will actually think it makes a modicum of sense.

instead of red herrings, argue the point or go away.

no one said you're the "villain" - drama queen - sure. you did it again.

and whether you agree or not or like it or not makes no difference. i see what peplaw is saying 100%. you can be who you are but in the real world you're also like what people see.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

no one said you're the "villain" - drama queen - sure. you did it again.

and whether you agree or not or like it or not makes no difference. i see what peplaw is saying 100%. you can be who you are but in the real world you're also like what people see.

i could really care less what you can see. your saw 'moral majority' too. you are also the one that was trying to tell me how rights were granted in the US constitution when it was clear you had no idea how those rights came to be.

and i never said that i was the villian. nice try though. for someone who loves using the term drama queen you sure seem to eat it right up.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah I'm mad.... :laugh2:

That ego of yours would lead you to believe that you could have that effect over an internet message board.

So, once again in your failure to budge an inch, you accuse me of hypocrisy, yet again refuse to budge. Fine, I'm a hypocrite in this instance. BUT I THINK FOR MYSELF ******!!:laugh2:

So you still didn't address my point about your superficial analysis of these "economically" influenced laws, but that's cool. I didn't expect a good answer anyway.



Did you even watch that movie? Wait, what am I thinking?? You probably read the book. Ben Affleck's character had zero education, and for that matter neither did Matt Damon's character. The only education Damon's character got was through reading.

I never threw anything in your face about my education. I can't help it if you're insecure about that fact. I've only indicated that I speak from some experience. Not a lot mind you, but some, which I would venture is more than you have. There... how's that for throwing it in your face?

And I argued the point to some extent, you ignored it. It's cool. It's not even worth arguing anymore because you've convoluted the argument to the point of namecalling and insults. It's cool. I don't expect much from ya anymore, except some choice "cutes," "kids," "pies in the skies," and the like. Very drama queenish.

well your behavior especially after my use of the word prop certainly has led me to believe that you were upset in the past. if you were not then more power to you.

as for the goodwill hunting quote you were referencing the scene in the bar where damnons character meets farrows character. afflecks character hits on farrows when the blonde guy cuts in. the quote you are trying to use is from the dialogue where damnons character ws talking to the blonde guy. the blonde guy is who youa re trying to have me symbolized as thus the comments i made. what you quoted was what damon character said to the blonde guy. blonde guy was flaunting his education and taking credit as his own from books something about the economic structure of southern states.

i said that i never quoted without giving credit which certainly applies considering what happened in the scene i pointed out. you also did talk about how you specialized in criminal family law as an example of morality in law as if that would mean a damn thing when it came to the actual synthesis of law. do you even know what my degree is in? i also think it quite ironic that a kid that just passed the bar would use that scene as an example as if you are some bastion of worldly knowledge.

I would also like to add that calling me a drama queen when youre quoting dramatic scenes from movies to try and undermine my character is high comedy. its pathetic enough that youre riding ice's coattails on it. asi if i care if you think im dramatic. the both of you apparently eat it up.

now i didnt start off with ad hominem like pie in the sky although the shoe surely fits. i started with showing actual laws that have been passed in legislative sessions. i started of with showing one legislative assembly and you said that wasnt good enough with only 27 laws so i linked every legislative session of the US friggin cngress for the last 17 years. Whats funny about it is that almost none of the laws were morally based. i notice youre not even trying to argue that point. That is a good thing because it pretty much displayed the sham that this conception of your of the 'moral' legal system.

i just see you sitting there envisioning this perfect world where laws are made for noble, moral reasons and lawyers mete out this morality to the people. it makes me sick.

fact of the matter is that the majority of the bills passed had to do with money and power. for every bill to assist the homeless or to increae the nutrition for impoverished children there are 30 laws that deal with highways, energy, military defense, insurance regulations, national security, land cedings to special interests and 20 people that want their bloody names to live forever on some federal building or park.

Why on earth would i want to budge an inch when what you are trying to say is so completely and unfathomably wrong?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and another thing i guess i didnt adress the 'econnomics are superficial' argument.

I guess what you are trying to say that while on face value the laws are economic in basis but if i were to look at the grand scheme of things in their totality i could see a larger vision of moral truth from the culmination of laws?

So exactly what is this guiding force in a world of adverserial political parties and special interests that is guiding towards this moral perfection?

Excuse me if i think that is just hokey nonsense.

 

[iceberg]

Also as an aside, the scene in the movie you are talking about is a guy that is using his education to make ben affleck's character look stupid. if anything you are the one that ahs thrown the fact that you have a law degree and specialize in criminal and family law in my face.

the guy also quoted things from a book and didnt give credit. i dont quote platos book as my own. so while that is a great scene you didnt apply it well at all.

i have an idea though lets just pick scenes from our favorite movies and say tht im the villain cause people like summer will actually think it makes a modicum of sense.

instead of red herrings, argue the point or go away.

i could really care less what you can see. your saw 'moral majority' too. you are also the one that was trying to tell me how rights were granted in the US constitution when it was clear you had no idea how those rights came to be.

and i never said that i was the villian. nice try though. for someone who loves using the term drama queen you sure seem to eat it right up.

we damn sure never said it either, so if we didn't say it, how can you "imply" it up there? then run and hide to "but i never DIRECTLY said it! you sure you're not vick with all this twisting of facts/truth around to suit your own needs?

and i never said the constitution gave us those rights - i have said society has and we built a government to protect them.

then again at this point it's like reading shakespere to a dog - you don't get it and i'm just tired of the barking.

 

[iceberg]

well your behavior especially after my use of the word prop certainly has led me to believe that you were upset in the past. if you were not then more power to you.

as for the goodwill hunting quote you were referencing the scene in the bar where damnons character meets farrows character. afflecks character hits on farrows when the blonde guy cuts in. the quote you are trying to use is from the dialogue where damnons character ws talking to the blonde guy. the blonde guy is who youa re trying to have me symbolized as thus the comments i made. what you quoted was what damon character said to the blonde guy. blonde guy was flaunting his education and taking credit as his own from books something about the economic structure of southern states.

i said that i never quoted without giving credit which certainly applies considering what happened in the scene i pointed out. you also did talk about how you specialized in criminal family law as an example of morality in law as if that would mean a damn thing when it came to the actual synthesis of law. do you even know what my degree is in? i also think it quite ironic that a kid that just passed the bar would use that scene as an example as if you are some bastion of worldly knowledge.

I would also like to add that calling me a drama queen when youre quoting dramatic scenes from movies to try and undermine my character is high comedy. its pathetic enough that youre riding ice's coattails on it. asi if i care if you think im dramatic. the both of you apparently eat it up.

now i didnt start off with ad hominem like pie in the sky although the shoe surely fits. i started with showing actual laws that have been passed in legislative sessions. i started of with showing one legislative assembly and you said that wasnt good enough with only 27 laws so i linked every legislative session of the US friggin cngress for the last 17 years. Whats funny about it is that almost none of the laws were morally based. i notice youre not even trying to argue that point. That is a good thing because it pretty much displayed the sham that this conception of your of the 'moral' legal system.

i just see you sitting there envisioning this perfect world where laws are made for noble, moral reasons and lawyers mete out this morality to the people. it makes me sick.

fact of the matter is that the majority of the bills passed had to do with money and power. for every bill to assist the homeless or to increae the nutrition for impoverished children there are 30 laws that deal with highways, energy, military defense, insurance regulations, national security, land cedings to special interests and 20 people that want their bloody names to live forever on some federal building or park.

Why on earth would i want to budge an inch when what you are trying to say is so completely and unfathomably wrong?

you sure do talk pretty.

now if only you'd say something intelligent.

 

[iceberg]

and another thing i guess i didnt adress the 'econnomics are superficial' argument.

I guess what you are trying to say that while on face value the laws are economic in basis but if i were to look at the grand scheme of things in their totality i could see a larger vision of moral truth from the culmination of laws?

So exactly what is this guiding force in a world of adverserial political parties and special interests that is guiding towards this moral perfection?

Excuse me if i think that is just hokey nonsense.

feel free. it'll make us even on each others views.

 

[peplaw06]

as for the goodwill hunting quote you were referencing the scene in the bar where damnons character meets farrows character. afflecks character hits on farrows when the blonde guy cuts in. the quote you are trying to use is from the dialogue where damnons character ws talking to the blonde guy. the blonde guy is who youa re trying to have me symbolized as thus the comments i made. what you quoted was what damon character said to the blonde guy. blonde guy was flaunting his education and taking credit as his own from books something about the economic structure of southern states.

Nope, Robin Williams told that to Matt Damon's character on the park bench. Make sense now?

 

[iceberg]

Nope, Robin Williams told that to Matt Damon's character on the park bench. Make sense now?

he lost me too. he was back in the bar shutting down the "intellictual" in front of minnie driver and it's where he got her phone number. he then on the way out outside the glass looked back at the intellictual and said "you like apples"? and he said he did so matt slapped the number on the glass and said "how about them apples".

the REALLY ironic side of this is mr fuzz-drama has to go off and say we're calling him a villian (then he says he never said that, keep up here!) due to all this and in truth, there simply is *no villain* in this movie.

matt is a very smart kid - almost too smart for his own good and robin williams has to help him see that.

so while he's telling his his own irony he's missing the best irony of all. : )

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nope, Robin Williams told that to Matt Damon's character on the park bench. Make sense now?

ahh yes okay i see where i made a mistake. it was the scene where he ws upset because of the joke about the picture of the wife.

sorry.

youre idea that this countries laws is a moral framework is still a joke.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

we damn sure never said it either, so if we didn't say it, how can you "imply" it up there? then run and hide to "but i never DIRECTLY said it! you sure you're not vick with all this twisting of facts/truth around to suit your own needs?

and i never said the constitution gave us those rights - i have said society has and we built a government to protect them.

then again at this point it's like reading shakespere to a dog - you don't get it and i'm just tired of the barking.

so exactly what gives us thisse rights? some intangible nonsense? Im sure while that might work in your house as you talk to your dogs but in any court of law if you were to talk about rights granted by the moral majority would get you about as far as your dopg onverstaions.

and again you need to get it out of your head that 'we' made this government. the founding fathers in the constitutional convention did. they were landowning, intellectual elite. the richest of the nonroyalist around the turn of the 19th century is not 'we' and it wasnt back then.

now i could go on about how nonrepresentative this government based on voter turnout and special interest dollars more which shows that this ideal of 'we' is nt even true today.

you talk about talking to a dog as if i dont get it but you are completely clueless as to the formation of the US government. sorry but 'we' didnt read john locke and john stuart mill today or back then. pep had to read two tretsises at the very least for law school but i doubt you have read any of them.

 

[iceberg]

so exactly what gives us thisse rights? some intangible nonsense? Im sure while that might work in your house as you talk to your dogs but in any court of law if you were to talk about rights granted by the moral majority would get you about as far as your dopg onverstaions.

and again you need to get it out of your head that 'we' made this government. the founding fathers in the constitutional convention did. they were landowning, intellectual elite. the richest of the nonroyalist around the turn of the 19th century is not 'we' and it wasnt back then.

now i could go on about how nonrepresentative this government based on voter turnout and special interest dollars more which shows that this ideal of 'we' is nt even true today.

you talk about talking to a dog as if i dont get it but you are completely clueless as to the formation of the US government. sorry but 'we' didnt read john locke and john stuart mill today or back then. pep had to read two tretsises at the very least for law school but i doubt you have read any of them.

let the medication wear off and try again. we all typo and stuff - me as much as anyone - but geez dude.

1. i don't own a dog.
2. we have rights because you, i, and all others say we do and our government is more or less there to protect them. now go confuse that with selective history.
3. if china takes us over, we have what rights they say we do or you have the right to sneak away and live on an island and abuse dogs that may come by.
4. if our government should collapse you have what rights the biggest collection of people say you do or you have the right to be their boy-toy til they get bored.

you speak of rights like they're yours cause you're alive. don't work that way fuzzman.

as for the good will hunting - it wasn't a picture of his wife, it was a picture his wife, so you're still lost.

here's where he got upset with will:


WILL
Maybe you married the wrong woman.

SEAN
Watch your mouth.

WILL
That's it isn't it? You married the wrong woman. She leave you? Was she bangin' someone else?

Sean is walking slowly towards Will.

WILL (cont'd)
How are the seas now, D--

In a flash, Sean has Will by the throat. Will is helpless.

SEAN
If you ever disrespect my wife again...I will end you.

WILL
Time's up.

the picture in question was a part of it, but it was a picture sean (robin) drew/painted that will was making fun of when it went off into this tirade.

here's the scene he refers to since you STILL get it wrong:

WILL
You again. How the paintin' coming?

Sean stands up.

SEAN
Come with me.

CUT TO:
EXT. BOSTON COMMON -- MINUTES LATER

Sean and Will sit in the bleachers at the mostly empty park. They look out over a small pond, in which a group of schoolchildren on a field trip ride the famous Swan Boats.

WILL
So what's with this place? You have a swan fetish? Is this something you'd like to talk about?

SEAN
I was thinking about what you said to me the other day, about my painting.
I stayed up half the night thinking about it and then something occured to me and I fell into a deep peaceful sleep and haven't thought about you since. You know what occurred to me?

WILL
No.

SEAN
You're just a boy. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

WILL
Why thank you.

SEAN
You've never been out of Boston.

WILL
No.

SEAN
So if I asked you about art you could give me the skinny on every art book ever written...Michelangelo? You know a lot about him I bet. Life's work, criticisms, political aspirations. But you couldn't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling. And if I asked you about women I'm sure you could give me a syllabus of your personal favorites, and maybe you've been laid a few times too. But you couldn't tell me how it feels to wake up next to a woman and be truly happy. If I asked you about war you could refer me to a bevy of fictional and non-fictional material, but you've never been in one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap and watched him draw his last breath, looking to you for help. And if I asked you about love I'd get a sonnet, but you've never looked at a woman and been truly vulnerable. Known that someone could kill you with a look. That someone could rescue you from grief. That God had put an angel on Earth just for you. And you wouldn't know how it felt to be her angel. To have the love be there for her forever. Through anything, through cancer. You wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in a hospital room for two months holding her hand and not leaving because the doctors could see in your eyes that the term "visiting hours" didn't apply to you. And you wouldn't know about real loss, because that only occurs when you lose something you love more than yourself, and you've never dared to love anything that much. I look at you and I don't see an intelligent confident man, I don't see a peer, and I don't see my equal. I see a boy. Nobody could possibly understand you, right Will? Yet you presume to know so much about me because of a painting you saw. You must know everything about me. You're an orphan, right?

Will nods quietly.

SEAN (cont'd)
Do you think I would presume to know the first thing about who you are because I read "Oliver Twist?" And I don't buy the argument that you don't want to be here, because I think you like all the attention you're getting. Personally, I don't care. There's nothing you can tell me that I can't read somewhere else. Unless we talk about your life. But you won't do that. Maybe you're afraid of what you might say.

Sean stands,

SEAN (cont'd)
It's up to you.

-----

wow - robin williams seems to have ad-libbed on that last line. : )

now if you're going to rag on people for the references they use to rag on you then at least you could understand the reference to begin with. but then again, understanding someone elses point of view doesn't seem to be your strong point.

And walks away.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

let the medication wear off and try again. we all typo and stuff - me as much as anyone - but geez dude.

1. i don't own a dog.
2. we have rights because you, i, and all others say we do and our government is more or less there to protect them. now go confuse that with selective history.
3. if china takes us over, we have what rights they say we do or you have the right to sneak away and live on an island and abuse dogs that may come by.
4. if our government should collapse you have what rights the biggest collection of people say you do or you have the right to be their boy-toy til they get bored.

you speak of rights like they're yours cause you're alive. don't work that way fuzzman.

as for the good will hunting - it wasn't a picture of his wife, it was a picture his wife, so you're still lost.

here's where he got upset with will:


WILL
Maybe you married the wrong woman.

SEAN
Watch your mouth.

WILL
That's it isn't it? You married the wrong woman. She leave you? Was she bangin' someone else?

Sean is walking slowly towards Will.

WILL (cont'd)
How are the seas now, D--

In a flash, Sean has Will by the throat. Will is helpless.

SEAN
If you ever disrespect my wife again...I will end you.

WILL
Time's up.

the picture in question was a part of it, but it was a picture sean (robin) drew/painted that will was making fun of when it went off into this tirade.

here's the scene he refers to since you STILL get it wrong:

WILL
You again. How the paintin' coming?

Sean stands up.

SEAN
Come with me.

CUT TO:
EXT. BOSTON COMMON -- MINUTES LATER

Sean and Will sit in the bleachers at the mostly empty park. They look out over a small pond, in which a group of schoolchildren on a field trip ride the famous Swan Boats.

WILL
So what's with this place? You have a swan fetish? Is this something you'd like to talk about?

SEAN
I was thinking about what you said to me the other day, about my painting.
I stayed up half the night thinking about it and then something occured to me and I fell into a deep peaceful sleep and haven't thought about you since. You know what occurred to me?

WILL
No.

SEAN
You're just a boy. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

WILL
Why thank you.

SEAN
You've never been out of Boston.

WILL
No.

SEAN
So if I asked you about art you could give me the skinny on every art book ever written...Michelangelo? You know a lot about him I bet. Life's work, criticisms, political aspirations. But you couldn't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling. And if I asked you about women I'm sure you could give me a syllabus of your personal favorites, and maybe you've been laid a few times too. But you couldn't tell me how it feels to wake up next to a woman and be truly happy. If I asked you about war you could refer me to a bevy of fictional and non-fictional material, but you've never been in one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap and watched him draw his last breath, looking to you for help. And if I asked you about love I'd get a sonnet, but you've never looked at a woman and been truly vulnerable. Known that someone could kill you with a look. That someone could rescue you from grief. That God had put an angel on Earth just for you. And you wouldn't know how it felt to be her angel. To have the love be there for her forever. Through anything, through cancer. You wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in a hospital room for two months holding her hand and not leaving because the doctors could see in your eyes that the term "visiting hours" didn't apply to you. And you wouldn't know about real loss, because that only occurs when you lose something you love more than yourself, and you've never dared to love anything that much. I look at you and I don't see an intelligent confident man, I don't see a peer, and I don't see my equal. I see a boy. Nobody could possibly understand you, right Will? Yet you presume to know so much about me because of a painting you saw. You must know everything about me. You're an orphan, right?

Will nods quietly.

SEAN (cont'd)
Do you think I would presume to know the first thing about who you are because I read "Oliver Twist?" And I don't buy the argument that you don't want to be here, because I think you like all the attention you're getting. Personally, I don't care. There's nothing you can tell me that I can't read somewhere else. Unless we talk about your life. But you won't do that. Maybe you're afraid of what you might say.

Sean stands,

SEAN (cont'd)
It's up to you.

-----

wow - robin williams seems to have ad-libbed on that last line. : )

now if you're going to rag on people for the references they use to rag on you then at least you could understand the reference to begin with. but then again, understanding someone elses point of view doesn't seem to be your strong point.

And walks away.

and you completely ignore the fact that it was a group of rich landowners that gave us the rights that we have now and not 'we.'

Even if china were to take away those rights it still wouldnt mean that those few hundred men granted us those rights. the legal framework that protect those rights are also a testament to those men. in short it wasnt 'us' that established the rights nor the safeguard to said rights. if anything, 'we' would take rights like due process and equal protection and flush it down the toilet given the sentiments loudly expressed on this board.

as for the GWH scene the entire point is that while Damons character may have a bevy of knowledge. Williams character had lived the knowledge and thus he didnt know what he was talking about.

but what is it that you are trying to say? you know nothing about my life experiences. what if i were to tell you that i had a close friend who was an aide for the better part of a decade for a member of the house of representatives? what if i were tot ell you that i have an intimate knowledge of how special interests operate on the municipal level? But moreso in all of that, where is your visit to the sistine chapel? what life knowledge do you bring to the table to be able to comment on this in any way shape or form.

that is exactly why i said what i said about just blindly picking movie quotes. you know nothing about me but you can comment on my source of knowledge?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

another thread Fuzzy jumps into gets moved again?

 

[peplaw06]

ahh yes okay i see where i made a mistake. it was the scene where he ws upset because of the joke about the picture of the wife.

sorry.

---> I was certain we would have it out over this one. Color me shocked.

youre idea that this countries laws is a moral framework is still a joke.

It's "your." And do me a favor. Go look at the Ten Commandments and see if you notice a trend. I know it's definitely a moral framework for me, and while I can't speak for everyone's "morals," the fact that most people don't live in prison or have a criminal record, would lend some credence to my point. Or maybe they just don't want to get in trouble so they can make money. But then again, if they were in prison it would be cheaper on them.

But what do I know...? this countries laws could all go to money. I mean, murder is bad because those people stop earning money when they die. And prostitution is generally outlawed because the government doesn't want anyone infringing on its pimping.

so exactly what gives us thisse rights? some intangible nonsense? Im sure while that might work in your house as you talk to your dogs but in any court of law if you were to talk about rights granted by the moral majority would get you about as far as your dopg onverstaions.

and again you need to get it out of your head that 'we' made this government. the founding fathers in the constitutional convention did. they were landowning, intellectual elite. the richest of the nonroyalist around the turn of the 19th century is not 'we' and it wasnt back then.

now i could go on about how nonrepresentative this government based on voter turnout and special interest dollars more which shows that this ideal of 'we' is nt even true today.

you talk about talking to a dog as if i dont get it but you are completely clueless as to the formation of the US government. sorry but 'we' didnt read john locke and john stuart mill today or back then. pep had to read two tretsises at the very least for law school but i doubt you have read any of them.

Such contempt for the country... and again with the "what have you read lately?"

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I just find it funny how the Government is messed up because people break their "unconstitutional" laws

 

[iceberg]

and you completely ignore the fact that it was a group of rich landowners that gave us the rights that we have now and not 'we.'

Even if china were to take away those rights it still wouldnt mean that those few hundred men granted us those rights. the legal framework that protect those rights are also a testament to those men. in short it wasnt 'us' that established the rights nor the safeguard to said rights. if anything, 'we' would take rights like due process and equal protection and flush it down the toilet given the sentiments loudly expressed on this board.

as for the GWH scene the entire point is that while Damons character may have a bevy of knowledge. Williams character had lived the knowledge and thus he didnt know what he was talking about.

but what is it that you are trying to say? you know nothing about my life experiences. what if i were to tell you that i had a close friend who was an aide for the better part of a decade for a member of the house of representatives? what if i were tot ell you that i have an intimate knowledge of how special interests operate on the municipal level? But moreso in all of that, where is your visit to the sistine chapel? what life knowledge do you bring to the table to be able to comment on this in any way shape or form.

that is exactly why i said what i said about just blindly picking movie quotes. you know nothing about me but you can comment on my source of knowledge?

no, that just had 0 to do with the current argument. pull it in at your own defense but don't wonder why we ignore your sidetracking.

after that, i've come to realize - you, and people like you, will never get what i'm trying to say.

time i quit blaming me.

'night fuzz.

 

[iceberg]

fyi - fuzz, i'm smart enough to know -

200+ years ago a group of rich landowers is what we needed. what they built, we use today. to compare yesterday to today as if it has the same meaning is stupid.

i'd explain it further, but you'd just understand it less.

i've had enough of that.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

no, that just had 0 to do with the current argument. pull it in at your own defense but don't wonder why we ignore your sidetracking.

after that, i've come to realize - you, and people like you, will never get what i'm trying to say.

time i quit blaming me.

'night fuzz.

youre the one that said that we have the rights that we enjoy are because of some sort of moral majority. i was simply pointing out where those rights actually came from.

the basis of the argument was whether or not something was illegal made it immoral. i could try and explain how the above applied if you would like.

dont confuse with me disagreeing with what youre saying as me not understanding it. you have this idea that whatever the democratic whim of the moment is determines what our rights and priviliges are and i simply think youre completely wrong.