RE: [puma-news] We don't need no steekin' First Amendment

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Bentz [mailto:abentz@ACSD14.K12.CO.US]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:03 AM
To: puma-news@puma-net.org; jcarder@topline-charts.com
Subject: Re: [puma-news] We don't need no steekin' First Amendment

John

I split 50/50 on this.

 

The Onion:

The Onion isn't trying to scam you or fool you so, "yes, I agree" let it have its fun.

 

Mail:

I get too much junk mail that tries to "Look Official".  They try to misrepresent to the point where I would say its an attempted scam.  It annoys me greatly.  So I differ with you on this one.

 

Just one opinion

Allen

 

I agree that mailers that try to misrepresent themselves should be prosecuted. There are TONs of laws on the books (e.g., mail fraud) that would allow a prosecutor to do that right now. What the government has done is to specify that certain words (Social Security) are not to be used, at all.

 

To quote H.L. Mencken:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

 

When the Federal Register is over 70,000 pages, and all of it has the force of law, you have to wonder whether we might have enough laws on the books already.

 

Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice.
~ Arcesilaus

 

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
  ~ Thomas Jefferson

I'm sure I'm over-reacting.

 

John