You should watch or read something besides the liberal press. Or better yet
read the bill itself. There's a good analysis of it in the current National
Review. Most of the hysteria over loss of freedoms has been made up out of
whole cloth by the liberal media and the traveling Democratic presidential
hopeful circus.

--
Larry Bailey
Illegitimi non carborundum


"Mr. Fix-It" wrote in message
...
No library searches, Ashcroft says
http://www.msnbc.com/news/968169.asp?pne=msntv&cp1=1
=========
Hi guys,
-
Since 3 Mile Island I do not trust the USA government from telling us
the truth. And what I saw the US Navy do to our own guys in 1974 in
Delta Company in the Navy brig there as to guys that didn't want to play
the game in basic training, I've seen 1st hand what our own guys do to
our own.
-
I know of three separate unrelated incidents (except qualified under
Patriot Act provisions) where info was sought against library patrons
and this in the Hudson Valley region of NY State. So, so much for
Ashcroft telling the truth in stated article above. And he, under the
guise of being a goody two-shoes Christian. I've always felt the
people going to church are those that feel guilt for being pricks the
other 6 days and 23 hours of the week!
-
Sounds like Communist Russia and Stalin tactics to me and the McCarthy
era is going to be revisited again, except this time they throw you out
of the country and take away your citizenship in the process even for
the born here in the good 'ol USA citizens. GITMO is one hot SOB in
summertime!
-
Who dreams this stuff up?
-
I guess Rhoades book on building the A-Bomb will be banned in Boston,
now!
-
Alan

LBailey wrote in message Or better yet
read the bill itself. Most of the hysteria over loss of freedoms has been
made up out of whole cloth by the liberal media and the traveling
Democratic presidential
hopeful circus.

Most of the hysteria? Does that include the part where my professional
licenses can be revoked at will? Does it include the part where my only
recourse is to appeal to the very same entity which revoked it in the first
place? Does it include the part where my appeal can be denied on the grounds
that the information used to revoke my licenses is restricted in the
interest of national security?

Yeah! I've read the act. Most of it is acceptable. However, some of it is
highly unacceptable. I've read the act. It provides that my employment can
irrevocably terminated with no recourse just because some burrocrat (NOT a
misspelling) decides he wants to screw with me.

Patriot Act II is wending it's way through Washington DC for a reason.

D. (hysterical me)

On 18 Sep 2003 09:23:58 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , LBailey says...

read the bill itself. There's a good analysis of it in the current National
Review.

Unbiased, of course, which can be determined from the title of that
publication.

Jim

So Jim, would it have been more accurate if it had been presented in a
DNC fax?

Gunner

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

In article , Gunner says...

Unbiased, of course, which can be determined from the title of that
publication.

So Jim, would it have been more accurate if it had been ...

No. My point is, one can determine from *that* publication
what the conclusion is going to be.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 19 Sep 2003 08:15:38 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Unbiased, of course, which can be determined from the title of that
publication.

So Jim, would it have been more accurate if it had been ...

No. My point is, one can determine from *that* publication
what the conclusion is going to be.

Jim

Gosh Jim...I understand where you are coming from. Afterall, if it didnt
come from such a fair and balanced publisher such as those running the
LA Times or The Nation, it has to be in error.

Correct?

Gunner


================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

In article , Gunner says...

Gosh Jim...I understand where you are coming from.

Err. No. I guess the litmus test is,
do you believe everything single thing you read?

Didn't think so.

Then we're the same.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

Gosh Jim...I understand where you are coming from.

Err. No. I guess the litmus test is,
do you believe everything single thing you read?

Didn't think so.

Then we're the same.

I asked earlier in this thread for the issue and article from NR that was
being referred to. Did I miss it, or has it become irrelevant? g

FWIW, NR does not run opposing editorials, except as an occassional object
set up to ridicule. They publish some interesting stories but, as you say,
you always know how it's going to come out, once you've read enough to know
what the issue is that's being written about.

In that sense, all they really publish is editorials. Every story has a
moral, like a children's bible book.

Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

In that sense, all they really publish is editorials. Every story has a
moral, like a children's bible book.

Well to be fair, this is a common failing. It does
make it easy to build a 'ballanced diet' of reading
material though.

For example, ms Mulligan just subscribed to "Mother
Jones" because we felt that our diet was getting a
bit rich in, well, fill in the blanks.....

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Capt. Doug" wrote in message ...

Yeah! I've read the act. Most of it is acceptable. However, some of it is
highly unacceptable. I've read the act. It provides that my employment can
irrevocably terminated with no recourse just because some burrocrat (NOT a
misspelling) decides he wants to screw with me.

Patriot Act II is wending it's way through Washington DC for a reason.

Well, you don't have to wait. Remember the kid sitting on the fence
at the local airport whittling a model while watching the planes take
off? He's now a terrorist suspect, has a knife near an airport, and
no JUSTIFIABLE reason for being there. Public freedoms according to
george "the stupid" bush. Doesn't even have to be a kid, if you're
not a pilot, student pilot, aircraft owner, or paying customer, you
have no justifiable reason to be at an airport, even if it is your tax
dollars that are supporting these rich men's playgrounds. Public
property isn't public, private property isn't private, all thanks to
the bush*******. He's cost us more personal freedom in the short time
of his reign of stupidity than we've lost in the last 200 years.
So much for "Conservatives want to preserve personal freedom". Maybe
for themselves, but not for the rest of us. Motto of the republican
party, "Hurray for me and **** you." They're trying their best to
live up to it. Clinton may have gotten a blow job, bush gives them.

Lennie the Lurker wrote:

"Capt. Doug" wrote in message ...

Yeah! I've read the act. Most of it is acceptable. However, some of it is
highly unacceptable. I've read the act. It provides that my employment can
irrevocably terminated with no recourse just because some burrocrat (NOT a
misspelling) decides he wants to screw with me.

Patriot Act II is wending it's way through Washington DC for a reason.

Well, you don't have to wait. Remember the kid sitting on the fence
at the local airport whittling a model while watching the planes take
off? He's now a terrorist suspect, has a knife near an airport, and
no JUSTIFIABLE reason for being there. Public freedoms according to
george "the stupid" bush. Doesn't even have to be a kid, if you're
not a pilot, student pilot, aircraft owner, or paying customer, you
have no justifiable reason to be at an airport, even if it is your tax
dollars that are supporting these rich men's playgrounds. Public
property isn't public, private property isn't private, all thanks to
the bush*******. He's cost us more personal freedom in the short time
of his reign of stupidity than we've lost in the last 200 years.
So much for "Conservatives want to preserve personal freedom". Maybe
for themselves, but not for the rest of us. Motto of the republican
party, "Hurray for me and **** you." They're trying their best to
live up to it. Clinton may have gotten a blow job, bush gives them.

It ain't just the republicans, conservatives, whatever label you want. It's virtually all of them, reps, dems, and any subspecies that
you pick. They are the self-annointed elite, we're just here for their convenience and use. It's like watching a tennis match (if you
could tolerate it) back and forth, back and forth. Do you really think it matters which way the ball is hit? Better analogy, a magician,
it's all misdirection and bull****, smoke and mirrors. They put on the show, and we are the laughing, moaning, cheering, groaning
spectators. If you want to be ****ed, spread it around.

michael

On 19 Sep 2003 12:19:21 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Gosh Jim...I understand where you are coming from.

Err. No. I guess the litmus test is,
do you believe everything single thing you read?

Didn't think so.

Then we're the same.

Jim

And we both apply our biases to what we read. Very true. I am just as
guilty of it as you are. However...I tend to use reason, and rational,
and common sense as criteria of measurement, and if there is any
question..I go digging for the answers. Most Libs (and you are
occasionally guilty of this, though kudos for it only being
occasionally) dont want the facts to interfer with their emotional
stances on things. Shrug.

That to me, is like turning a part based on how you feel about the
size of the OD.

Gunner

" ......The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my
age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- "

Chas , rec.knives

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress
says...

In that sense, all they really publish is editorials. Every story has a
moral, like a children's bible book.

Well to be fair, this is a common failing. It does
make it easy to build a 'ballanced diet' of reading
material though.

For example, ms Mulligan just subscribed to "Mother
Jones" because we felt that our diet was getting a
bit rich in, well, fill in the blanks.....

Jeez, you're using Mother Jones to balance your reading? What are you
reading on the other side of the equation, The Union Leader? g

Balancing your news with doses of MJ and National Review, to use an example,
is like salting your food by sprinkling it with a combination of lye and
hydrochloric acid. You get salt in the end, but hold your nose, and make
sure you test the food with litmus paper before eating it.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Balancing your news with doses of MJ and National Review, to use an example,
is like salting your food by sprinkling it with a combination of lye and
hydrochloric acid. You get salt in the end, but hold your nose, and make
sure you test the food with litmus paper before eating it.

Ha ha. With such an extreme diet, you know the truth
has to be *somewhere* in between! It's actually fun
to read about the same events in both kinds of pulications,
and try to realize that they *are* the same events!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

And we both apply our biases to what we read. Very true. I am just as
guilty of it as you are. However...I tend to use reason, and rational,
and common sense as criteria of measurement, and if there is any
question..I go digging for the answers. Most Libs (and you are
occasionally guilty of this, though kudos for it only being
occasionally) dont want the facts to interfer with their emotional
stances on things. Shrug.

And I would maintaint that I'm more rational by admitting
the biases. Those never go away, as mentioned in another
thread, individuals *always* see the world's events through
a filter of sorts. I at least admit mine.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 20 Sep 2003 07:57:47 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

And we both apply our biases to what we read. Very true. I am just as
guilty of it as you are. However...I tend to use reason, and rational,
and common sense as criteria of measurement, and if there is any
question..I go digging for the answers. Most Libs (and you are
occasionally guilty of this, though kudos for it only being
occasionally) dont want the facts to interfer with their emotional
stances on things. Shrug.

And I would maintaint that I'm more rational by admitting
the biases. Those never go away, as mentioned in another
thread, individuals *always* see the world's events through
a filter of sorts. I at least admit mine.

When was that?

As to being more rational about admitting that you use emotion rather
than reason and logic...thats not rational..thats self incrimination
:P


Jim


Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

In article , Gunner says...

When was that?

By engaging in a poltical discussion with you.

As to being more rational about admitting that you use emotion rather
than reason and logic...thats not rational..thats self incrimination

No, not rational by admitting I use emotion. Rational
by evalutating my response, and characterizing it
accurately. You might *claim* have have no biases.
But let's take a poll here....

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 20 Sep 2003 14:51:07 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

When was that?

By engaging in a poltical discussion with you.

Hell..even Lenin engages in a political discussion with me..and we
know about HIM.....that does not bode well for your case.....

As to being more rational about admitting that you use emotion rather
than reason and logic...thats not rational..thats self incrimination

No, not rational by admitting I use emotion. Rational
by evalutating my response, and characterizing it
accurately. You might *claim* have have no biases.
But let's take a poll here....

Jim

serious mode/on

Jim..Ive NEVER stated I was without bias. Far from it! To do so would
stop the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. But old son..my biases
are based on facts and reason and NOT emotion. I can indeed get
emotional about the Subject..but not the basis for the conclusions and
preferences that Ive already reached...ie my biases.

To prefer machining 303 over 304, is a bias. To prefer a 45 over a 9mm
handgun is a bias. To prefer a 6' bisexual redheaded woman with no gag
reflex, over a short dumpy dishwater blond frigid bible thumper is a
bias. But the above biases are based on reason, rational and common
sense and not emotionally driven.

That my friend, is one of the glaring difference between us, and one
you seem to have a hard time getting past, or understanding.

Because of my onscreen persona..as you think it to be..you (and
others) fail often to take in account that perhaps Im not the
stereotypical gun owning trailer trash that you Feel I SHOULD be. And
it blinds you I think, at times. Often times what I post, or say,
doesnt FEEL right to you, or it Angers you that it runs counter to
your world view and makes you Uncomfortable.

Sorry pal..but thats the way things work in dis bad ol world. I change
my views occasionally on things, when the information warrants it. And
sometimes it is indeed hard to overcome my emotional attachment to
some concept or world view, but I do make the effort to change if its
warranted. Or reach an accomodation with it. Because to deny reality
is the first steps to madness, and to refuse to look at the data,
simply because your mind is made up and you dont want to be confused
by the facts..they make you uncomfortable...is also madness.

So is emotionally interpeting data to fit YOUR world view, rather
than the proper, rational, logical way. This is unfortunately the
method most Libs use to promote their agendas..no matter how wacked
out, impossible or ill advised they may be.

Which is why I hold so many Libs and their proponents in such
contempt. The Ends always justify the means in their book, no matter
how stupid the ends are, or how many people they have to hurt in the
process of imposing their will and agendas, on the rest of the
people. And when they simply Lie about it, both in execution and in
their ultimate goals...that deserves nothing less than utter contempt.

And the sheeple that mindlessly go along with it, because it makes
them feel all warm and fuzzy and they dont have to think, ...are like
retarded children. Not much good to have around, but you simply cannot
shoot them. All you can do is hold a bit of pity, try to teach them,
and make sure they do as little damage as possible.

Gunner



"The Democratic Party is the party of popular corruption. The heart
of the Democratic Party and its activist core is made up of government
unions, government dependent professions (teachers, social workers,
civil servants); special interest and special benefits groups
(abortion rights, is a good example) that feed off the government
trough; and ethnic constituencies, African Americans being the most
prominent, who are disproportionately invested in government jobs and
in programs that government provides.

The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as
politically feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the
people's votes as possible'. Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic
agenda. Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them."
-Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz


serious mode/off

Gunner

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

In article , Gunner says...

Because of my onscreen persona..as you think it to be..you (and
others) fail often to take in account that perhaps Im not the
stereotypical gun owning trailer trash that you Feel I SHOULD be. And
it blinds you I think, at times. Often times what I post, or say,
doesnt FEEL right to you, or it Angers you that it runs counter to
your world view and makes you uncomfortable.

This is not the case here.

... I change
my views occasionally on things, when the information warrants it. And
sometimes it is indeed hard to overcome my emotional attachment to
some concept or world view, but I do make the effort to change if its
warranted.

Although, honestly, I have not seen this ever happen
the the few years we have been trading posts on rcm.
You could say that I've simply missed those events,
or that you have never had occasion where the information
did so warrant it. This is as may be. Just food for
thought.

Or reach an accomodation with it. Because to deny reality
is the first steps to madness, and to refuse to look at the data,
simply because your mind is made up and you dont want to be confused
by the facts..they make you uncomfortable...is also madness.

I can indeed ascribe to such a rational viewpoint.
I insist on it in fact. So we are not so far apart at
all. The sugar coating on the surface may be a different
color but you don't need to scratch very deep.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

michael wrote in message Do you really think it matters which way the
ball is hit?

The best situation is for one party to win the executive branch and for the
other party to win the legislative branch. That induces gridlock. Then the
SOBs can't screw up too much.

D.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 07:39:25 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Balancing your news with doses of MJ and National Review, to use an example,
is like salting your food by sprinkling it with a combination of lye and
hydrochloric acid. You get salt in the end, but hold your nose, and make
sure you test the food with litmus paper before eating it.

You're a funny man Ed, good analogy :^).

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On 20 Sep 2003 07:53:18 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Balancing your news with doses of MJ and National Review, to use an example,
is like salting your food by sprinkling it with a combination of lye and
hydrochloric acid. You get salt in the end, but hold your nose, and make
sure you test the food with litmus paper before eating it.

Ha ha. With such an extreme diet, you know the truth
has to be *somewhere* in between! It's actually fun
to read about the same events in both kinds of pulications,
and try to realize that they *are* the same events!

That's a good point, set the boundries of the extremes and it's safe
to assume the truth is somewhere inbetween :^). To me "the fun" is in
catching the inconsistencies, piecing the "truth" together and
formulating the motives of the speakers (Like if Hillary wants to run
in 2008 why is she supporting Clark in 2004?). As a true truth
seeker g I really don't care who I catch as long as I catch them.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.