EEE

My point isn't that I am worried about the name calling personally, or even in general, per se. My point is that the radical homosexuals real agenda is expressed in their attitude. Further I think this minority, even within the homosexual population(I suspect), carries disproportinate sway in this society. But I don't suppose 'BREEDERS' is hate speech while something like 'queer' would be.

I am not particularly bothered by homosexuals, as I've been bothered by them, as in their excessive advances, since I was 14. They scared me the first few times, putting their hand on my knee, making far fetched promises and suggesting things that while mechanically possible, made my unexperienced 14 year old skin crawl...woew. And yet, 'only one', little twerp that he was(when I was 19 hitchin 5), ever tried to force anything upon me. Other friends who knew him, said he gave Fags a bad name. That was back in the days when homosexuals were proud of being distinctive and proud not to be like 'straights'. In other words, they weren't trying to assimulate, be just like Mike, or the couple next door.

My oldest daughters', so-called god parents, were a homosexual couple. We too thought we were extra hip when I was 'young'.

I am sorry about the Benjamin Smith's, of the world, but I like an enviroment where the Matt Hales are allowed to speak. Further I think it is dishonest of the government(of whom Dubya is chief) doesn't allow real debates involving balloted candidates. (I began to use, qualified candidates, but found that indefensible). I hope that's not an unfair leap. Those pains(Matt Hale) should be heard too, for the safety of the society, in not so obvious ways, I suppose. Which I am certain you understand and support in principle(if not practice).

EEE > As for arresting a scripture reading person - yes, I would not like that at all and hope I never have to. As for arresting a scripture reading person - yes, I would not like that at all and hope I never have to. As for arresting a scripture reading person - yes, I would not like that at all and hope I never have to.

Who's gonna come to your aid when your number comes up? When you are the elected disinfrancised/insurgent/whatever the disaffecting label. Ever thought of that, LOL! with all the biometric GPA advancements you too are on the verge of being as obsolete as all variety of cashiers.

Have you had counter insurgency training? You know what I mean don'tcha?

Is it unfair of me to interpret this to mean you would in fact ignore the Constitution and arrest a peaceable assembly, or individual, doing a little outloud reading? That seems to be the inference.

Although I wouldn't suggest crossing a picket line even as an independent individual agent(which I did as an uniformed young man(19) who needed a job), it is not an entry level Bill of Rights issue, and thus not comparable to arresting one reading a bible(any bible) aloud outdoors in a public place. And frankly, although I do not support national unions but am highly favorable to collective bargaining, I suspect I would have supported the strikers(short of them commiting violence against persons or property(public or otherwise, assuming I were a union member. As a side note, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't punishable by Federal Law if you or other public employees actually strike by walking off the job?

I do appreciate your honesty about the 'pain in the ass factor'. Kinda ironic given where your post began. Don'tcha think!-)

EEE> It's not about race, economic standing, sex, sexual orientation, but the simple ole "pain in the ass" factor.  If one is a pain in the ass, he or she simply is not liked. It's not about race, economic standing, sex, sexual orientation, but the simple ole "pain in the ass" factor.  If one is a pain in the ass, he or she simply is not liked. It's not about race, economic standing, sex, sexual orientation, but the simple ole "pain in the ass" factor.  If one is a pain in the ass, he or she simply is not liked.

Or the law apparently.

I understand this 'sentiment'. But I also have a big problem with it. This republic was suppose to be about rule of law(in theory;). Equality before the Law as I think of it.

And what about disenters? Are they to be treated prejudicially because they 'are by necessity' a pain in the ass? Whistle blowers must be a pain in the ass for somebody too. Just a couple more side thoughts...sorry.

I wonder what you think about the notion of victimless crimes, do we have too many laws that cover this category? In your opinion.

As you might expect, I am certain we have too many laws. We need to get back to a justice system that is straight forward enough that any slightly above average citizen educated in a civics class can defend themself. We need judges who actually have judgement instead of guidelines.

But then that's why our beloved america is headed for the shitter instead of the high road. (I'm not referring to Eugene). To poorly paraphrase Lao Tzu, 'more laws create lead to more corruption'.

EEE > That is all it is.....(though I'm not denying that there are others who just plain dislike for certain reasons).... That is all it is.....(though I'm not denying that there are others who just plain dislike for certain reasons).... That is all it is.....(though I'm not denying that there are others who just plain dislike for certain reasons)....

I don't imagine you would explain those other certain reasons(individual prejudices probably). I understand it's a CYA situation, nor do I blame you, I believe I understand completely, but I just love first person accounts!!!-))) Of the facts.

"You have to be close to see the truth." - Me

I suppose my underlying point 'was' that I like the first Amendment, and believe unflinchingly, that all voices should be heard(especially politically) who are legally in the game. Which would have made California's recall debates unbelieveably entertaining. And apropo! in that psuedo biblical concept commonly called karma.

I remain,

pleased to read your thoughts.