wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:06:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:31:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

Perhaps, after decades of legal maneuvering and dicking around. Faint
threat, minor deterrent.

The more immediate reality is the matter of picking a firefight with
young, strong, eager gov't forces of superior numbers and armament in
combat-ready condition and state of training. Guerilla warfare isn't
about posturing or political protest, it's about killing stealthily
while accepting and even embracing significant mortal risk.

The "more immediate reality" that you describe is objectively accurate,
but
has no operative significance. Because the juvenile blowhards who are
fantasizing about it don't have the balls to even attempt it. All talk, no
go, they've run out of testicles by the time they hit the "send" key.
Their
fantasy isn't even worth a reasoned and objective response.


There's nothing patriotic about anarchy. There is also nothing
patriotic about acceptance of greed and corruption in our congress and
offensive arrogance exhibited by our elected president.

Your point would be more meaningful if not for the fact that you get
offended, or at least pretend to be offended, by things like missing
uppercase.

Not that his
swaggerwide predecessor was any less offensive.

First off, I doubt if most people agree with you about Obama's
"arrogance."
Most of us (I'm in the plurality here, who favor his performance) think he
took too long to tell the Republican obstructionists to go **** up a
rope --
the Dems are in the majority, and they were elected to lead, not to suck
up
to Republicans who are trying to exploit a political wedge (and let the
country be damned) or to knee-jerk to every poll.

And if you don't like the leaders we have, then you know what to do about
it. Fantasizing about shooting them, like Larry, Gunner, and the rest of
the
knuckleheads are doing, is the most offensive thing going on here.

Is it just me, or did you get pretty much the same feeling reading
Don's post as you did listening to Boehner's recent comments?

I think it's you. g Don is speaking about the practicalities of geriatric
guerilla warfare. I think he's focusing on something that doesn't matter,
because they don't have the balls for it in the first place.

And BTW,
what the heck color is Boehner going for with that ridiculous spray-on
tan? It reminds me of a Halloween pumpkin that's been left out until
it's time to make room for the reindeer.

On my TV, it looks a lot like one of the two-tone colors of my parents' '55
Pontiac Star Chief. It was called "Firegold." It has a little metalflake in
it.

I can't imagine where he got it, unless he has a paint service that can
replicate DUCO 1962-Z.

Laughed my ass off a few
minutes ago reading about Frum getting the boot from the AEI.
Apparently the real victims of the "great cull" will be any repugs who
dare to be even slightly honest. On their next sortie the great
cullers are probably going to TP his house.

Wayne

They're having problems. The ones with brains and some honesty are jumping
ship or being kicked overboard.

Kicking Frum off of the AEI was a big mistake, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress