<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft SafeHTML">
<style>
.hmmessage P
{margin:0px;padding:0px;}
body.hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
</style>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{margin:0px;padding:0px;}
body.hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
</style>
Glenn,<br><br>You are describing the law as you wish it to be. That's not the law as it has been decided by people with the authority to make those decisions. Whether you think it wrong or inflexible is your business, but that won't give it any weight. But hey, don't worry, be happy.<br><br>Go ahead and hire someone who will only parrot what you want to hear, should you find yourself in the position of needing a lawyer to argue these points for you. And should I represent you, I'll do my own research, until we part ways.<br><br>Sunil<br><br>> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:18:16 -0800<br>> From: vpschwaller@gmail.com<br>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Intoleristas<br>> <br>> I will submit that your definition of what is applicable or not is<br>> pretty narrow and inflexible (not to mention plain wrong in my humble<br>> opinion). Let's hope I don't get in some kind of legal jam and need<br>> you as an attorney to argue Constitutional law to the judge on my<br>> behalf.<br>> <br>> GS<br>> <br>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Sunil Ramalingam<br>> <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> > No, Glenns, this just means that your 'interpretation' is different from<br>> > that which is applicable.<br>> ><br>> > Sunil<br>> ><br>> >> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:50:49 -0800<br>> >> From: vpschwaller@gmail.com<br>> >> To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Intoleristas<br>> >><br>> >> Tem Moffett refers to "a basic US Constitutional principle, the<br>> >> separation of church and state." Hmmm . . . I wasn't aware this was<br>> >> a basic US Constitutional principle. This idea is nothing more than<br>> >> complete metaphorical misrepresentation of the basic premise of the<br>> >> establishment clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an<br>> >> establishment of religion. . ."<br>> >><br>> >> This has become a major distortion thanks to the "interpretation" of<br>> >> laws (and in many instance the out and out making of laws) by the<br>> >> liberal side of the Supreme Court. The establishment clause was<br>> >> designed to prevent the establishment of a "state religion", not<br>> >> Christian Theism. As a result of the Supreme Court's work, we are<br>> >> witnessing the gradual obliteration of Christian Theism and the<br>> >> establishment of laws promoting humanism as a "state religion".<br>> >><br>> >> Is this not exactly what the establishment clause in our constitution<br>> >> was intended to prevent? The Constitution is now allowing the<br>> >> government to force "nonconformists" to accept and live by "humanism".<br>> >> A definite turnabout of the true nature of our First Amendment<br>> >> rights.<br>> >><br>> >> GS<br>> >><br>> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408@hotmail.com><br>> >> wrote:<br>> >> >> Paul wrote:<br>> >> >> I thought Doug and Dale had<br>> >> >> libertarian tendencies. I would have thought they would be as much<br>> >> >> against gaming the system as I am, because it props up those who are by<br>> >> >> definition unworthy of being at the top.<br>> >> >><br>> >> ><br>> >> > This could spark a long debate and likely one that has been played out<br>> >> > time<br>> >> > and again on the viz as well as both Dale's and Doug's sites especially<br>> >> > on<br>> >> > the topic of 501c3 non-profits and downtown parking where Doug claims<br>> >> > 'religious persecution by Interolistas' if anyone delves into the<br>> >> > validity<br>> >> > of these entities - specifically that they are not operating in manner<br>> >> > that<br>> >> > is 'gaming the system'.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Doug and Dale do have libertarian leanings and want less to no<br>> >> > government<br>> >> > except for the most personal of personal issues (abortion, birth<br>> >> > control,<br>> >> > premarital sex, homosexuality, etc.) where they want a police state to<br>> >> > intervene and prevent whatever they deem as 'sinful'.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > BTW, I consider you a middle of the roader like me who is probably just<br>> >> > as<br>> >> > critical of the extreme left as you are of the extreme right. Your<br>> >> > writings<br>> >> > typically make logical sense to me.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > -Scott<br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> > ________________________________<br>> >> > Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today.<br>> >> > =======================================================<br>> >> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> >> > http://www.fsr.net<br>> >> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> > =======================================================<br>> >> ><br>> >><br>> >> =======================================================<br>> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> >> http://www.fsr.net<br>> >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> =======================================================<br>> ><br>> <br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> http://www.fsr.net <br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> =======================================================<br></body>
</html>