On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:28:34 -0800, "lane"
lane_nospam@copperaccents_dot_com wrote:


2004 will be an interesting election. I suspect that all
those folks out of work don't *really* give a **** about
whom gets captured.

Jim


and why would you assume that?

Because of the outcome of Bush Sr's relecetion attempt?

"It's the economy, stupid."

Rising stock prices and increasing dividends are fine for people like
me, who derive about as much income from investments as from salary.
But for the average American, jobs and cost of living are more
important than just about anything else. Here in the states, most
poeple vote their pocketbooks. Come next November, a lot of people are
going to be asking themselves Reagon's question: "Are you better off
now than you were four years ago?"

Al Moore

"Koz" wrote in message ...
Thanks for the reply. I didn't specifically think you were against the right to believe in communism so it hit me a little wrong when you appeared to come down that way. I understand a little better now, how you come down in the issue.

With regards to beliefs and the rational vs emotional department, there is such a thing as emotional justification. Using the "christian" side (as Bush often does), there is no proof of any diety yet "god" is often used as justification for actions. One could never sway those who believe because "god" can't be wrong.

On the other side, I have beliefs that are just as strong and clear. One such belief is that violence is never the best solution nor even an option; Volient response should be reserved as an immediate defense to an impending unquestional IMMEDIATE threat. You don't shoot the bull because he may charge, has charged before, is likely to charge, has the ability to charge, etc.; you shoot him because the horn is about to enter your gut, AFTER having tried to get away, distract the bull, elecit help, and a host of other actions.

The world can be just a little more complicated than that, and this from a man with a rather simplistic view g . If the bull has a determined purpose, openly and widely stated, to kill, harm or destroy me or mine, then I shoot the bull on sight, or soon after.
JTMcC.




Others come down in different places as to when to shoot. However, it is my belief, as storng as anyone elses belief in God, that to shoot sooner is wrong. Does that mean my argument is always wrong because factually I can never prove that shooting as a last measure is the best thing to do? Does that mean someone else is wrong for not being able to prove that shooting earlier is the correct action? Yes, based onour beliefs, the other person is "wrong". Unprovable, but still wrong from our perspective (and ours alone).

The problem occurs when we forget that such beliefs are ONLY from our own perspective and therefore neglect to reflect upon the other person's perspective. Yes, facts can lend weight and often prove/disprove simple points. However, they can never prove such complex issues as are had in opinions or viewpoints.

People need to stop trying to squash the other guys opinion like a bug and move on to discussing the facts behind the issues that helped form their opinions and the emotional ties to those opinions. We each may be "right", but so is the other guy.

Koz (who is probably going to be accused by some as being "touchy-feely liberal commie *******")

Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:34:39 -0800, Koz
wrote:


I had to ask Mr Gunner...sorry to those who are sick of off topic stuff.

What does it matter if he was or was not a communist? Is it not a part
of the US culture that one has the right to have an opinion that the
government should run differently as long as one does not advocate the
violent overthrow of the government?


Good question! It is indeed right and proper that any may hold any
bleeve they may choose.

Just curious....it may just be the way the wind is blowing but the
implication is that had Moore's father believed in communist style
governments (as you appear believe in a more liberaterian government),
he would somehow have been deserving of the blacklisting and/or worse
scorn.


Recent releases of Soviet documents have shown that there were indeed
a great number of clandistine Communist activists among those
blacklisted. Jumping Joe McCarthy was an oportunistic clod..but as it
turns out, he was indeed correct in far more cases than previously
accepted. People who did provide aid, information etc to the
Soviets. Do the websearches on this fascinating topic. Its rather
moot now, as the USSR is kaput..but those individuals in many cases
are still alive.

Holding a viewpoint that is contrary or imical (sp?) to that of ones
nation, is fine, and is protected. But when it becomes actual
treason..thats another story. Or do you think that treason is ok?


Again, just curious. Hard for me to understand the more conservative
viewpoint sometimes because (like the liberal end too) it often seems to
contradict itself.


Quite true. If you look at a problem and judge it/filter it through
your own mindset and prejudices, it may indeed appear contridictory.

Its very hard for anyone, to not use their own prejudices and mindset
in such matters. Particularly for those whom have not devoted any
appreciable amount of time to listening to both sides of an issue,
before forming a judgment. Once an individual has heard and understood
both sides of an issue, he can then form a rock hard Stand on
something, but that must include data, and fact, rather than solely
emotional content.

As you may have guessed..Im a bit opinionated G..but my opinions and
Stand on an issue are based on data, reason, logic and very little
emotion. Ive weighed both sides of most basic issues, then formed my
Opinion. I NEVER use "Feel" as a criteria for that opinon or stand.
Once that Stand has been formulated, I do indeed enjoy defending it
with great emotion, but as I reiterate..emotion was not used to
formulate that stand.
Which is where my debating opponents often differ. They tend to use
Emotion..how they feel about something..then try to find data bits to
fit their emotions, rather than formulating an opinion based on those
data bits in the first place.

I wish I had a nickle for every time someone responds to a statement
or question with "Well, I feel..."

I could care less about how they feel. I only care about what is, or
is not actual fact. Put your feelings in one hand, and a block of 440c
in the other, and tell me which is more substancial.

Im fascinated by those whom hold such opinions, who simply have this
huge blindspot or mental block about actually looking at WHY they
believe such and such. I suspect its because when they do, they find
they have been badly wrong for a very long time..and no one likes to
discover that about themselves. In debate, you can see them
approaching this blindspot, by the increasingly shrill tone of their
responses, generally culminating with invective for its hurt value, as
they have run out of reasons, or would have to face their own
Wrongness to continue any further.

Most Liberals for example..go through life with a huge amount of their
opinions formed on their feelings. Which is not to say they may not be
nice people, kind, compassionate, careing. But those opinions may have
no relationship to the harsh realities of life..in fact..they may have
formed them on how Life should really be. But blindly ignoring what
IS, and baseing their view of reality to what SHOULD be, is both sad,
and self defeating.

Because of this, I tend to be something of a pragmatist. I know what
IS, and what things Should be, and tend to try to work a compromise
with both, but never letting Should be overload what Is.

And my opinons of what Should be..have been developed on data, logic
and reason. Not emotionalism.

On the flip side..many conservatives are just as guilty. However in
the grand scheme of things, their numbers are small, and their
emotionalism is generally based on some religious value system, which
is just as emotionally loaded as anything a Lib believes in.

Probably the most reality oriented political group in the US, is the
libertarians. Cold hard facts are the basis of their platform, no
matter how emotionaly they argue it G. And because they neither use
religion or emotion as a basis..they get flack from both the Right and
the Left.
The Left considers the basic contract of the United States as an
impediment to providing things that make them Feel good. The Right
considers the Constitution as an iron bound countract, to neither be
cast aside or worked around. They do at times, tend to trod the edges
pretty hard in some special cases such as the Patriot Act, but seldom
step over the line.

The Left considers making endruns around it business as usual,
bypassing it when practical, getting some liberal judge to once again
reinterpreting it to fit their cause of the moment.

Lets be practical here for a moment..if you did business with a
company that did the same thing with a business contract..you would
have them in court in a heart beat. And justifyably so.

Shrug..but I digress, its a slow rainy cold day with no work till
tommorow.

Gunner


Koz



Gunner wrote:


On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:24:55 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

snip

As a child I went hungry because of the criminal character of another
american institution -- the House Committee on Un-American Activities
-- whose investigation caused my father to be blacklisted and unable
to find employment, although they failed to turn up any wrongdoing of
any kind.



Bummer. Was he a Communist? Its ok to speak freely now.



snip again



" ..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

Koz wrote...
Is it not a part
of the US culture that one has the right to have an opinion that the
government should run differently as long as one does not advocate the
violent overthrow of the government?

Wait a minute. What was the purpose of the right to bear arms?

Jim

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Recent releases of Soviet documents have shown that there were indeed
a great number of clandistine Communist activists among those
blacklisted. Jumping Joe McCarthy was an oportunistic clod..but as it
turns out, he was indeed correct in far more cases than previously
accepted. People who did provide aid, information etc to the
Soviets. Do the websearches on this fascinating topic. Its rather
moot now, as the USSR is kaput..but those individuals in many cases
are still alive.

He was right that there were a lot of communists, the treasonous kind, in
the US government. However, he got almost all of the names wrong. So he was
on the right scent but he made up the list of names for the most part.


Its very hard for anyone, to not use their own prejudices and mindset
in such matters. Particularly for those whom have not devoted any
appreciable amount of time to listening to both sides of an issue,
before forming a judgment. Once an individual has heard and understood
both sides of an issue, he can then form a rock hard Stand on
something, but that must include data, and fact, rather than solely
emotional content.

cough, cough...


As you may have guessed..Im a bit opinionated G..

gak! cough, wheeze...

but my opinions and
Stand on an issue are based on data, reason, logic and very little
emotion.

CHOKE! gasp, hack, cough...


...Because of this, I tend to be something of a pragmatist. I know what
IS, and what things Should be, and tend to try to work a compromise
with both, but never letting Should be overload what Is.

Wait a minute. You live in California. How the hell do you expect anyone to
believe you know what IS? The whole state is just a stage set, and your
government is run by actors and out-of-work entertainers.


Probably the most reality oriented political group in the US, is the
libertarians.

AAaaaaah, thud....

Cold hard facts are the basis of their platform, no
matter how emotionaly they argue it G. And because they neither use
religion or emotion as a basis..they get flack from both the Right and
the Left.

Not to mention the people who have to put up with their made-up version of
history and their utopian idea of free-range social Darwinism and
no-holds-barred business wheeling and dealing.

Lets be practical here for a moment..

I thought you were a libertarian.

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

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Actually, violent overthrow is OK, if you live in the mid 1700s.


Does that mean we would have to wear those funny lookin hats too?

Koz

COOL! Cod Pieces! Now I can fool all the girls!

Be careful of what you wish for. They used real cod.

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:22:07 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Wait a minute. You live in California. How the hell do you expect anyone to
believe you know what IS? The whole state is just a stage set, and your
government is run by actors and out-of-work entertainers.

As you may or may not not be aware, we have some pretty heavy problems
in this state these days. So a weight lifter for governor may not be
quite as nonsensical as it sounds at first hearing.

Probably the most reality oriented political group in the US, is the
libertarians.

AAaaaaah, thud....

I found some of them out in New Idria not long ago. They seemed to be
raising some of their own food on a pile of tailings from the mercury
mines there. This may explain something to you.

snip

Al Moore
DoD 734

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:05:18 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:

Koz wrote...
Is it not a part
of the US culture that one has the right to have an opinion that the
government should run differently as long as one does not advocate the
violent overthrow of the government?

Wait a minute. What was the purpose of the right to bear arms?

To insure that congress should make no law abridging that right. Next
question?

Al Moore
DoD 734

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:03:10 -0800, Koz
wrote:


People need to stop trying to squash the other guys opinion like a bug
and move on to discussing the facts behind the issues that helped form
their opinions and the emotional ties to those opinions. We each may be
"right", but so is the other guy.

Sorry Koz..but while there are shades of gray..there is generally a
right and a wrong. Binary..off or on, it just depends on if its a 7
bit word or a 128 bit word.

The dichotomy between Left and Right politically, is light years in
difference. While there are indeed commonalities may occur, there are
few true grays..and the few there are..are due to compromise. Is the
Constitution a "living document?" Yes? No? Is your mortgage contract
a living document? Yes?/No?
The examples are endless in this political thingy. Now..on the third
hand..we do need the differences to keep a good check and balance
going. However..tis been 40 yrs since we have had a good check and
balance going visa vis left/right and now that liberalism has been
found terribly wanting..the political pendulum is swinging hard to the
right. Not only through normal cyclic behavior..but in disgust as the
apathetic citizen finally wakes up. No one to blame but the Left..

Koz (who is probably going to be accused by some as being "touchy-feely
liberal commie *******")

Not by me. I think you are a nice guy, well meaning, intelligent and
articulate, and enjoyable to discuss things with. You even at times
may make valid points. You are very wrong about a lot of things
politically, not because you are mean or evil or stupid, but because
you put emotion and what Should be to the forefront, where it has no
place being. This simply points out that in some matters, you use
emotion rather than reason. Shrug..tis only natural for some people to
do this. I happen to be one whom can overcome basic emotion and look
at the facts, not run them though my emotional filters first.
If you know me..and many here have visited my home, know that Im a
very compassionate individual. Perhaps to a fault. In my personal and
business life, I compromise every day. But at no time do I compromise
what's right and wrong, or compromise my honor for the sake of my
emotions/comfort/self esteem. Shrug

Respects

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

On 15 Dec 2003 17:07:37 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Most Liberals for example..go through life with a huge amount of their
opinions formed on their feelings.

Cites?

g

G'wan, you can't put such a comment up here without
us snorting our coffee out our noses. I propose that
conservatives suffer from the same illness.

I believe I covered that in the original post to Koz.

I *feel* like I should pay less taxes.

But why?

I *feel* like I should get a government subsidy for
my oil business/tobbacco farm/consultancy.

But why?

I *feel* like my wife should be on the board of
directors for a big company that gets lots of gummint
contracts.

But why?

I *feel* like I should take prescription pain killers
and then play holier-than-thou.

But why?

You have just put your finger on a substantial
failing of the human race - one that oddly enough
tends to cut across race, religion, sex - not to
mention political outlook.

In many cases, indeed. Now answer the questions above.

Jim

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

" ..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

"Alan Moore" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:22:07 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Wait a minute. You live in California. How the hell do you expect anyone
to
believe you know what IS? The whole state is just a stage set, and your
government is run by actors and out-of-work entertainers.

As you may or may not not be aware, we have some pretty heavy problems
in this state these days. So a weight lifter for governor may not be
quite as nonsensical as it sounds at first hearing.

Haha! Now I better understand the logic of your politics. g

I really enjoy California. I watch it Tuesday and Thursday evenings on TV. I
hear you leave it on 24 hours a day now, right?

Probably the most reality oriented political group in the US, is the
libertarians.

AAaaaaah, thud....

I found some of them out in New Idria not long ago. They seemed to be
raising some of their own food on a pile of tailings from the mercury
mines there. This may explain something to you.

Maybe. Libertarians seem to me to be adults who never bothered with the
optional readings in American History class, and who tried to make it up by
reading Classic Comics stories about Alexander Hamilton and Thomas
Jefferson. They know about Jefferson boffing the house slave, but they
missed the part where he said he hoped we weren't so foolish as to leave the
Constitution unchanged. I think he said we should change it every 13 years,
if I remember correctly.

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:22:07 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Recent releases of Soviet documents have shown that there were indeed
a great number of clandistine Communist activists among those
blacklisted. Jumping Joe McCarthy was an oportunistic clod..but as it
turns out, he was indeed correct in far more cases than previously
accepted. People who did provide aid, information etc to the
Soviets. Do the websearches on this fascinating topic. Its rather
moot now, as the USSR is kaput..but those individuals in many cases
are still alive.

He was right that there were a lot of communists, the treasonous kind, in
the US government. However, he got almost all of the names wrong. So he was
on the right scent but he made up the list of names for the most part.


I did critique Joe, did I not?

Its very hard for anyone, to not use their own prejudices and mindset
in such matters. Particularly for those whom have not devoted any
appreciable amount of time to listening to both sides of an issue,
before forming a judgment. Once an individual has heard and understood
both sides of an issue, he can then form a rock hard Stand on
something, but that must include data, and fact, rather than solely
emotional content.

cough, cough...

You seem to be confusing the emotion with which I defend my position,
with the position itself.


As you may have guessed..Im a bit opinionated G..

gak! cough, wheeze...

but my opinions and
Stand on an issue are based on data, reason, logic and very little
emotion.

CHOKE! gasp, hack, cough...

You seem to be confusing the emotion with which I defend my position,
with the position itself.


...Because of this, I tend to be something of a pragmatist. I know what
IS, and what things Should be, and tend to try to work a compromise
with both, but never letting Should be overload what Is.

Wait a minute. You live in California. How the hell do you expect anyone to
believe you know what IS? The whole state is just a stage set, and your
government is run by actors and out-of-work entertainers.

The state of California..hell..the county I live in is bigger than
your entire state. I live smack dab in the middle of gun owning,
conservative blue collar, dont suffer fools willingly country. Most of
the land mass of California is such. Its only in less than 6 areas
that the morons live. California has been run by the flakes and nutz
on the Left for many years, they tend to gravitate to those urban
areas from other places..."give us your liberals, your waste, your
stupid masses"...

Btw...the current Governor..while an actor, is making the Libs
livid..LOL and its a glory to behold. While he is not a conservatives
conservative, he is, compared to the fruits and flakes..a Bircher..and
they think he is one..God its refreshing to see Maxine Waters foaming
at the mouth in true, rather than mock rage, knowing it was her
constituints which put him there.


Probably the most reality oriented political group in the US, is the
libertarians.

AAaaaaah, thud....

hummm looks like a debate on the subject is in the offering. G want
to take a shot at it?

Cold hard facts are the basis of their platform, no
matter how emotionaly they argue it G. And because they neither use
religion or emotion as a basis..they get flack from both the Right and
the Left.

Not to mention the people who have to put up with their made-up version of
history and their utopian idea of free-range social Darwinism and
no-holds-barred business wheeling and dealing.

Granted..some of the Libertarians (large L) are no less zany than
those on the Left..but they tend to be my kind of zany.

Lets be practical here for a moment..

I thought you were a libertarian.

Im a Republitarian. A pragmatic libertarian (small L) Big difference.
While the Libertarians have reality (most of them) on their side..they
are not realistic about quick change. The inertia of the Left/Right is
a powerful thing to change directions. Im pragmatic enough to know it
will take time, and the change has to be implimented from the bottom.
The Libertarians (large L) want it over night and from the top down.
Never happen.

Now we Republitarians are indeed making progress and are filling the
void for many moderate to conservative Democrats, as the Democratic
party self destructs. We do live in interesting times.

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

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:11:33 -0800, Koz
wrote:

Sorry. I was taught by my father that calling someone Mr. was a sign of
respect (gawd I hate it when school teachers want the kids to call em by
their first name!). It's the only way I have of trying to show that I
am not one of those "attacking fools" and trying to ask a serious
quesion of your opinion.

Koz

I understand. I dont "feel" G that Im worthy of any more nor any
less respect you would give to another poster here. I have no
illusions about myself, well..few ...I did turn 50 recently and I
think Im just as good with the ladies as I was at 25...but..they are
being kind and humoring an old man.......G

As you notice..you get civil debate from me, as your tone is civil,
you ask honest questions, and its a pleasure discussing issues with
you. Others here...well..

Gunner


Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:34:39 -0800, Koz
wrote:



I had to ask Mr Gunner...sorry to those who are sick of off topic stuff.



btw..its simply Gunner. Im just a simple, big old ugly harmless
fuzzball. Not Sir, or Mr. or esquire.

My Dad, and most cops are Sir. The guy that signs my service invoices
is Mr.

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



" ..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

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:05:18 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:

Koz wrote...
Is it not a part
of the US culture that one has the right to have an opinion that the
government should run differently as long as one does not advocate the
violent overthrow of the government?

Wait a minute. What was the purpose of the right to bear arms?

Jim

Bingo!

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

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:15:03 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:09:20 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:24:55 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

.
As a child I went hungry because of the criminal character of another
american institution -- the House Committee on Un-American Activities
-- whose investigation caused my father to be blacklisted and unable
to find employment, although they failed to turn up any wrongdoing of
any kind.

Bummer. Was he a Communist? Its ok to speak freely now.

He was eventually court-martialled on a charge of "disloyalty". The
principal piece of evidence against him was testimony to the effect
that he had disagreed with the statement: "Should he come to power in
Jugoslavia, Tito will be a puppet of Stalin." By 1956 it was pretty
clear that the original statement was false, and he was found not
guilty. He considered himself lucky that he wen't before a court
martial, rather than a civilian court in those days. He was a poor boy
from the rural deep south, and an organizer for the steelworkers
union. You now know as much of his politics in those days as I do.

If he was an organizer..then he was likely associating with at the
least..Socialists..which in the 50s..was not a good thing,
particularly in the South. It depends on which sort of organizer he
was..and which Union he belonged to and who his associates were.


Perhaps that's the kind of America you want to see, Gunner, one in
which the innocent suffer for what some demagogue decides is the
common good. But that's not the real America. There's a good reason
why we no longer have a house committee on un-American activities.

Your interpretation of my mindset is noted, and tossed in the trash.

No, I'll drink the toast of Senator and General Carl Schurz: "My
country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When wrong, to
be set right."

And I agree.

It seems to me that there's some setting right to be done.

Al Moore

There always is, no matter whom the occupant of 1600 Penn Ave is. I
happen to believe this occupant is doing rather well in repairing the
damage done by other previous occupants.

Well, if you consider low inflation and high employment figures
"damage" I'd have to agree. Bush seems to be doing a pretty fair job
of "fixing" those.

Al Moore

Ah...Clinton, rode the Reagan economic rocket. Sorry buddy..but thats
the truth.

Now on the other hand..
If he was responsible for the economy..then we can safely say he was
responsible for the last 3 yrs of recession we are just coming out of,
correct? He is responsible for the demise of the machine tool
industry, the manufacturing in the US, the energy crisis and the
foreign policies that lead us to 9/11. Not to mention the Enron
scandal, and the explosion of the Dot Com bubble and millions of
people loosing their retirement funds.

Is that what you are claiming?

If that is so..then you must also be claiming that Bush then is
responsible for the end of the recession, the very strong upturn in
manufacturing, the rising Dow and the rather large productive numbers
that we are seeing, the housing market boom, etc etc

Al...think hard before answering.....

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

Alan Moore wrote:


Proud to be an American. Not so proud of his government.


Yo Alan,

With Gunner you're barking up the wrong tree. Won't get you anywhere.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:42:27 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:15:03 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:09:20 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:24:55 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

.
As a child I went hungry because of the criminal character of another
american institution -- the House Committee on Un-American Activities
-- whose investigation caused my father to be blacklisted and unable
to find employment, although they failed to turn up any wrongdoing of
any kind.

Bummer. Was he a Communist? Its ok to speak freely now.

He was eventually court-martialled on a charge of "disloyalty". The
principal piece of evidence against him was testimony to the effect
that he had disagreed with the statement: "Should he come to power in
Jugoslavia, Tito will be a puppet of Stalin." By 1956 it was pretty
clear that the original statement was false, and he was found not
guilty. He considered himself lucky that he wen't before a court
martial, rather than a civilian court in those days. He was a poor boy
from the rural deep south, and an organizer for the steelworkers
union. You now know as much of his politics in those days as I do.

If he was an organizer..then he was likely associating with at the
least..Socialists..which in the 50s..was not a good thing,

That would have been in the '30s. Long before I was born

particularly in the South.

By that time, he was in Ohio. That's where my Mom was from.

It depends on which sort of organizer he
was..and which Union he belonged to and who his associates were.

You believe in guilt by association? No wonder you seem to approve of
the notion of rehabilitating the late unlamented Senator from
Wisconsin...

Ah...Clinton, rode the Reagan economic rocket. Sorry buddy..but thats
the truth.

Voodoo economics worked, eh? And Bush adn Carter had nothing to do
with it. Frankly, I think the bubble was bogus to begin with. As
Gurtured Stein said of Oakland, "There's no there there..."

Now on the other hand..
If he was responsible for the economy..then we can safely say he was
responsible for the last 3 yrs of recession we are just coming out of,
correct? He is responsible for the demise of the machine tool
industry, the manufacturing in the US, the energy crisis and the
foreign policies that lead us to 9/11. Not to mention the Enron
scandal, and the explosion of the Dot Com bubble and millions of
people loosing their retirement funds.

I seem to recall the Enron debacle having something to do with
retirement fund losses. I also seem to recall that we here in CA had
some trouble with Enron -- like about $50 billion worth -- wiht Bush
perfectly happpy to help them out but unwilling to meet with any of
our elected representatives to discuss the matter. Maybe your
recollection is different. Does Bush plan to get us any of that money
back? Or is he just going to keep on giving it to his friends?

Is that what you are claiming?

If that is so..then you must also be claiming that Bush then is
responsible for the end of the recession, the very strong upturn in
manufacturing, the rising Dow and the rather large productive numbers
that we are seeing, the housing market boom, etc etc

And the low employment figures, and the falling dollar, and...

Al...think hard before answering.....

Sometimes I do. Sometimes the answers are obvious from inspection.

Al Moore

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:20:55 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Alan Moore" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:22:07 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Wait a minute. You live in California. How the hell do you expect anyone
to
believe you know what IS? The whole state is just a stage set, and your
government is run by actors and out-of-work entertainers.

As you may or may not not be aware, we have some pretty heavy problems
in this state these days. So a weight lifter for governor may not be
quite as nonsensical as it sounds at first hearing.

Haha! Now I better understand the logic of your politics. g

I really enjoy California. I watch it Tuesday and Thursday evenings on TV. I
hear you leave it on 24 hours a day now, right?

Yes. Since the Enron collapse we don't have to turn it off nights and
weekends.

Probably the most reality oriented political group in the US, is the
libertarians.

AAaaaaah, thud....

I found some of them out in New Idria not long ago. They seemed to be
raising some of their own food on a pile of tailings from the mercury
mines there. This may explain something to you.

Maybe. Libertarians seem to me to be adults who never bothered with the
optional readings in American History class, and who tried to make it up by
reading Classic Comics stories about Alexander Hamilton and Thomas
Jefferson. They know about Jefferson boffing the house slave, but they
missed the part where he said he hoped we weren't so foolish as to leave the
Constitution unchanged. I think he said we should change it every 13 years,
if I remember correctly.

Well, (counts on fingers. Takes off shoes counts on toes. Runs out of
appendages) I think that's actually about the average rate of passing
amendments.

BTW, when the Library of Congress burned to the ground, Jefferson
offered his private collection as the nucleus of a new library. Some
in congress didn't want to accept it because Jefferson's collection
included works by (gasp!) freethinkers and athieists! So, as you see,
he was not exactly typical of his times.

Al Moore

Gunner wrote:

As you may have guessed..Im a bit opinionated G..but my opinions and
Stand on an issue are based on data, reason, logic and very little
emotion.

Yeah right, and I'm the Pope.

Gunner, you're so full of ****, i can smell it here in San Francisco! "Very
little emotion", my ass!. You're nothing but. You don't know a fact if it bit
you in the ass.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:48:22 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:22:07 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Wait a minute. You live in California. How the hell do you expect anyone to
believe you know what IS? The whole state is just a stage set, and your
government is run by actors and out-of-work entertainers.

As you may or may not not be aware, we have some pretty heavy problems
in this state these days. So a weight lifter for governor may not be
quite as nonsensical as it sounds at first hearing.

Probably the most reality oriented political group in the US, is the
libertarians.

AAaaaaah, thud....

I found some of them out in New Idria not long ago. They seemed to be
raising some of their own food on a pile of tailings from the mercury
mines there. This may explain something to you.

I understand that isn't all they're raising over there. G How *do*
they support themselves just by selling those little bits of jewelry?
Sue

snip

Al Moore
DoD 734

Alan Moore wrote:

Voodoo economics worked, eh? And Bush adn Carter had nothing to do
with it. Frankly, I think the bubble was bogus to begin with. As
Gurtured Stein said of Oakland, "There's no there there..."


If you are goping to quote someone, at least get the name right please. It's
Gertrude Stein.

And it would also help if you would get the context of the quote right. The
quote was not about Oakland, but about her childhood home.

The quote "There is no there there" appears in Stein's Book "Everybody's
Autobiography". When Stein returned to California on her lecture tour to the
United States in the 1930s, she wanted to visit her childhood home in Oakland,
CA. She records that she could not find the house. (It had been torn down)
Hence, "there is no there there."

This is what she wrote: "What was the use of my having come from Oakland it was
not natural to have come from there yes write about if I like or anything if I
like but not there, there is no there there."

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

According to a recent BBC/NOVA program, the Soviets admitted to some 325
"agents" working in the US Government during the McCarthy probe years.
McCarthy nailed exactly two (count 'em). He could have done better by
posting the names and throwing darts at the lists.

Regards,

Marv


Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Recent releases of Soviet documents have shown that there were indeed
a great number of clandistine Communist activists among those
blacklisted. Jumping Joe McCarthy was an oportunistic clod..but as it
turns out, he was indeed correct in far more cases than previously
accepted. People who did provide aid, information etc to the
Soviets. Do the websearches on this fascinating topic. Its rather
moot now, as the USSR is kaput..but those individuals in many cases
are still alive.


SNIP

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:09:40 GMT, Marv Soloff
wrote:

According to a recent BBC/NOVA program, the Soviets admitted to some 325
"agents" working in the US Government during the McCarthy probe years.
McCarthy nailed exactly two (count 'em). He could have done better by
posting the names and throwing darts at the lists.

Regards,

Marv


Yup. But he was indeed correct..that there were Commies in the wood
pile, was he not?

Gunner


Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Recent releases of Soviet documents have shown that there were indeed
a great number of clandistine Communist activists among those
blacklisted. Jumping Joe McCarthy was an oportunistic clod..but as it
turns out, he was indeed correct in far more cases than previously
accepted. People who did provide aid, information etc to the
Soviets. Do the websearches on this fascinating topic. Its rather
moot now, as the USSR is kaput..but those individuals in many cases
are still alive.


SNIP

" ..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

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:40:10 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:

As you may have guessed..Im a bit opinionated G..but my opinions and
Stand on an issue are based on data, reason, logic and very little
emotion.

Yeah right, and I'm the Pope.

Gunner, you're so full of ****, i can smell it here in San Francisco! "Very
little emotion", my ass!. You're nothing but. You don't know a fact if it bit
you in the ass.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

And you were doing so well over the last week or two. Even a very nice
email. Sigh..

As Ive written several times in the last day..I do present or defend
my stands with emotion, due to my strong beliefs...but the beliefs
themselves are based on logic, reason and reality.

On the other hand..I suspect you have been sniffing the mercury
again..and are suffering from the mid stages of Mad Hatters Syndrome.

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

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:29:23 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:42:27 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:15:03 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:09:20 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:24:55 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

.
As a child I went hungry because of the criminal character of another
american institution -- the House Committee on Un-American Activities
-- whose investigation caused my father to be blacklisted and unable
to find employment, although they failed to turn up any wrongdoing of
any kind.

Bummer. Was he a Communist? Its ok to speak freely now.

He was eventually court-martialled on a charge of "disloyalty". The
principal piece of evidence against him was testimony to the effect
that he had disagreed with the statement: "Should he come to power in
Jugoslavia, Tito will be a puppet of Stalin." By 1956 it was pretty
clear that the original statement was false, and he was found not
guilty. He considered himself lucky that he wen't before a court
martial, rather than a civilian court in those days. He was a poor boy
from the rural deep south, and an organizer for the steelworkers
union. You now know as much of his politics in those days as I do.

If he was an organizer..then he was likely associating with at the
least..Socialists..which in the 50s..was not a good thing,

That would have been in the '30s. Long before I was born

Wobblies. Not well respected at the best of times....ask Leslie the
loonie.

particularly in the South.

By that time, he was in Ohio. That's where my Mom was from.

It depends on which sort of organizer he
was..and which Union he belonged to and who his associates were.

You believe in guilt by association? No wonder you seem to approve of
the notion of rehabilitating the late unlamented Senator from
Wisconsin...

Do I believe? No. But it was evident someone did......

Ah...Clinton, rode the Reagan economic rocket. Sorry buddy..but thats
the truth.

Voodoo economics worked, eh? And Bush adn Carter had nothing to do
with it. Frankly, I think the bubble was bogus to begin with. As
Gurtured Stein said of Oakland, "There's no there there..."

Now on the other hand..
If he was responsible for the economy..then we can safely say he was
responsible for the last 3 yrs of recession we are just coming out of,
correct? He is responsible for the demise of the machine tool
industry, the manufacturing in the US, the energy crisis and the
foreign policies that lead us to 9/11. Not to mention the Enron
scandal, and the explosion of the Dot Com bubble and millions of
people loosing their retirement funds.

I seem to recall the Enron debacle having something to do with
retirement fund losses. I also seem to recall that we here in CA had
some trouble with Enron -- like about $50 billion worth -- wiht Bush
perfectly happpy to help them out but unwilling to meet with any of
our elected representatives to discuss the matter. Maybe your
recollection is different. Does Bush plan to get us any of that money
back? Or is he just going to keep on giving it to his friends?

Tch Al...you avoided the question completly. Do go back and answer it
thankyouveddymuch.

Is that what you are claiming?

If that is so..then you must also be claiming that Bush then is
responsible for the end of the recession, the very strong upturn in
manufacturing, the rising Dow and the rather large productive numbers
that we are seeing, the housing market boom, etc etc

And the low employment figures, and the falling dollar, and...

Again he avoids the questions..odd how that happens when he is given a
simple choice.

Al...think hard before answering.....

Sometimes I do. Sometimes the answers are obvious from inspection.
and C..sometimes you are simply a party hack. Shrug.

Al Moore

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

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:23:29 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Alan Moore wrote:


Proud to be an American. Not so proud of his government.


Yo Alan,

With Gunner you're barking up the wrong tree. Won't get you anywhere.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Will he change my opinion? No. Do I still respect him for being an
American? Yes.

I wasnt so proud of the 8 yrs of the last administration. Shrug..while
you folks were so defensive of him.

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

Sure he was right. At that time, saying someone was a Communist or had
Communist leanings was like saying they were left-handed or that the
Pope was Catholic. McCarthy was an asshole, a scumbag, a (insert slur of
your choice here). He did much, much damage to this country and to many,
many innocent people. For what - two very low level fellow travelers?
Is this the model of a Right wing, Fellow Ammurican, Conservative hero?
C'mon, Gunner, you know better than that.
Regards,

Marv

Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:09:40 GMT, Marv Soloff
wrote:


According to a recent BBC/NOVA program, the Soviets admitted to some 325
"agents" working in the US Government during the McCarthy probe years.
McCarthy nailed exactly two (count 'em). He could have done better by
posting the names and throwing darts at the lists.

Regards,

Marv



Yup. But he was indeed correct..that there were Commies in the wood
pile, was he not?

Gunner


Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Recent releases of Soviet documents have shown that there were indeed
a great number of clandistine Communist activists among those
blacklisted. Jumping Joe McCarthy was an oportunistic clod..but as it
turns out, he was indeed correct in far more cases than previously
accepted. People who did provide aid, information etc to the
Soviets. Do the websearches on this fascinating topic. Its rather
moot now, as the USSR is kaput..but those individuals in many cases
are still alive.


SNIP


" ..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

In article , Gunner says...

Most Liberals for example..go through life with a huge amount of their
opinions formed on their feelings.

Cites?

g

G'wan, you can't put such a comment up here without
us snorting our coffee out our noses. I propose that
conservatives suffer from the same illness.

I believe I covered that in the original post to Koz.

Indeed you did, and if I had not jumped at
the bait I would have seen your agreement with
the above sentiment. I disagree however that
the driving force for the 'touchy-feely' stuff
varies as you travel the liberal-to-conservative
spectrum.

Jim

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

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

but my opinions and
Stand on an issue are based on data, reason, logic and very little
emotion.

CHOKE! gasp, hack, cough...

Or, "Bzzzzt - BLAM!!"

Uh oh. Gunner's lightning rod wasn't up in time.



Jim

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

In article , lane says...

2004 will be an interesting election. I suspect that all
those folks out of work don't *really* give a **** about
whom gets captured.

and why would you assume that?

Because they can't afford to pay for
their cable TV service.

Jim

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

In article , Marv Soloff says...

Sure he was right. At that time, saying someone was a Communist or had
Communist leanings was like saying they were left-handed or that the
Pope was Catholic. McCarthy was an asshole, a scumbag, a (insert slur of
your choice here). He did much, much damage to this country and to many,
many innocent people. For what - two very low level fellow travelers?
Is this the model of a Right wing, Fellow Ammurican, Conservative hero?

What's next? "Heros of the KKK?" Sure, some of the folks
they lynched really *had* committed crimes.

Once somebody like McCarthy ****s all over the constitution
he's a traitor himself. For the record:

T H E E N D D O E S N ' T J U S T I F Y T H E M E A N S

Never has, never will. Doesn't matter how many commies he
smoked out, or how many kittens he rescued from the tree.

If Joe had used those same techniques to further a different
cause, he'd be a flat out villan in gunner's book.

Jim

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

In article , Gunner says...

Yup. But he was indeed correct..that there were Commies in the wood
pile, was he not?

And it was OK to run all over anyone in his way to find
both of them? Is that how you want your government run?
Hypothetical: There's an illegally owned weapon in your
town. The local police decide to round up all the weapon
owners in that town and put them on Joe's witness stand
in public, and sweat them. You are required to testify
about all the weapon owners you know and name names of
possible malefactors. A good idea?

As a famous person once said, 'instruct the witness to answer
the question, yes or no.'

Jim

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

Alan Moore wrote...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:05:18 GMT, Jim Wilson
What was the purpose of the right to bear arms?

To insure that congress should make no law abridging that right. Next
question?

I could have worded my first one better. I didn't ask what the purpose of
the second amendment was. I want to know why the framers considered the
freedom to bear arms a right of the people.

Jim

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:22:07 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Recent releases of Soviet documents have shown that there were indeed
a great number of clandistine Communist activists among those
blacklisted. Jumping Joe McCarthy was an oportunistic clod..but as it
turns out, he was indeed correct in far more cases than previously
accepted. People who did provide aid, information etc to the
Soviets. Do the websearches on this fascinating topic. Its rather
moot now, as the USSR is kaput..but those individuals in many cases
are still alive.

He was right that there were a lot of communists, the treasonous kind, in
the US government. However, he got almost all of the names wrong. So he
was
on the right scent but he made up the list of names for the most part.


I did critique Joe, did I not?

Yes, you're being so fair and balanced, Gunner, that I'm wondering what got
into your drinking water. g

I also don't think you're one of those who see this as a vindication for
McCarthy so much as a condemnation of the way we dismissed his claims, or
the mainstream did, at least, for 35 years after his humiliation. The big
shock to me is not so much that McCarthy was on to something, but that our
entire range of mechanisms for questioning and investigation failed so
utterly after he was gone. The whole issue just went off the radar screen
until those Yale-supported analyses of the old papers from the USSR,
conducted in the early '90s, uncovered what had been going on among the
communist party members in the US.


You seem to be confusing the emotion with which I defend my position,
with the position itself.

I don't think so. Your emotional tirades against liberals have such a deep
and biting sarcasm and dismissiveness to them that it's hard to imagine that
they're merely "defenses" for your position. On the other hand, any such
demonizing usually is a defense of some kind, with shrillness calibrated to
compensate for the weakness of one's own position.

If some of them represent the "logic" of your conclusions, while others are
representative of emotional defense for your position, maybe you could put
footnotes on them: "This is how I arrived at my position," on one, and "I
don't really believe this one; it's just an emotional defense of my
position," on another.


Btw...the current Governor..while an actor, is making the Libs
livid..LOL and its a glory to behold. While he is not a conservatives
conservative, he is, compared to the fruits and flakes..a Bircher..and
they think he is one..God its refreshing to see Maxine Waters foaming
at the mouth in true, rather than mock rage, knowing it was her
constituints which put him there.

Austrians have a knack for government. It's probably in his genes. They're
big on parades, BTW. I expect the Rose Parade to be one hell of a blowout
next year, with some really surprising floats. g

Probably the most reality oriented political group in the US, is the
libertarians.

AAaaaaah, thud....

hummm looks like a debate on the subject is in the offering. G want
to take a shot at it?

We could start with the Libertarian platform. Can you handle that? Then we
could point out that you, like many who call themselves libertarians, are
actually "None-of-the-Aboves." In other words, the only things you have in
common are the things you dislike -- which is almost everything that most
people call civilized society -- and an idiosyncratic reading of history.

Shall we start with the platform?

Granted..some of the Libertarians (large L) are no less zany than
those on the Left..but they tend to be my kind of zany.

Hmm. I think that discussion just ended before it got started. g


Lets be practical here for a moment..

I thought you were a libertarian.

Im a Republitarian. A pragmatic libertarian (small L) Big difference.
While the Libertarians have reality (most of them) on their side..they
are not realistic about quick change. The inertia of the Left/Right is
a powerful thing to change directions. Im pragmatic enough to know it
will take time, and the change has to be implimented from the bottom.
The Libertarians (large L) want it over night and from the top down.
Never happen.

I don't think "pragmatic" is the word you're reaching for there. A more
accurate word is "strategic." A pragmatist is constitutionally
non-ideological -- a results-oriented type, with no particular plan for
getting there. As the term applies to politics and government, a pragmatist
is focused on one desirable result above all others: a better life, in every
way, for the citizens of that society. He doesn't care how you get there.
It's a pure idea all by itself, like libertarianism is.

What you seem to be after is the implementation of an ideology, tempered by
a realistic understanding of politics, in the broad sense. The difference is
that an ideolologue sees his ideology as the path to the better life. The
pragmatist is skeptical of all ideological "paths," because he believes
they're all crippled by self-imposed blindness and the inherent weaknesses
of ideological consistency.


Now we Republitarians are indeed making progress and are filling the
void for many moderate to conservative Democrats, as the Democratic
party self destructs. We do live in interesting times.

When you consider that libertarianism is a utopian idea, like good time
management or better understanding between nations, it's easy for anyone to
say he's a libertarian. It's like going to church on Sunday to make up for
how you live the rest of the week.

But the policies of the current Republican party are anything but
libertarian. They're aristocratic shading into oligarchic. Unlike a
philosophical libertarian, a contemporary Republican apparachik is devoted
to a core of somewhat authoritarian, aristocratic ideas embodied in the
party leadership.

So melding together libertarianism and contemporary Republicanism produces a
very cranky and dissonant set of beliefs and policies. I attribute your own
dismissiveness and crankiness to your own flailing attempt to reconcile
those contradictions. g

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


I don't think so. Your emotional tirades against liberals have such a deep
and biting sarcasm and dismissiveness to them that it's hard to imagine that
they're merely "defenses" for your position. On the other hand, any such
demonizing usually is a defense of some kind, with shrillness calibrated to
compensate for the weakness of one's own position.

If some of them represent the "logic" of your conclusions, while others are
representative of emotional defense for your position, maybe you could put
footnotes on them: "This is how I arrived at my position," on one, and "I
don't really believe this one; it's just an emotional defense of my
position," on another.


Thanks for those two paragraphs. Because of my own emotional blinds in the
matter, I would never be able to rebuff Gunner's utter nonsense in such a well
spoken way. I guess the guy just presents a red flag to me every time he types
away on his keyboard.

Most of the time I just laugh at his silly and ridiculous tirades, and every
once in a while I blow my top.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Marv Soloff wrote:

Sure he was right. At that time, saying someone was a Communist or had
Communist leanings was like saying they were left-handed or that the
Pope was Catholic. McCarthy was an asshole, a scumbag, a (insert slur of
your choice here). He did much, much damage to this country and to many,
many innocent people. For what - two very low level fellow travelers?
Is this the model of a Right wing, Fellow Ammurican, Conservative hero?
C'mon, Gunner, you know better than that.
Regards,


No, obviously he doesn't know better than that.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:34:55 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Alan Moore wrote:

Voodoo economics worked, eh? And Bush adn Carter had nothing to do
with it. Frankly, I think the bubble was bogus to begin with. As
Gurtured Stein said of Oakland, "There's no there there..."


If you are goping to quote someone, at least get the name right please. It's
Gertrude Stein.

I know. I'm temporarily (I hope) partially blind, and have trouble
editing my normally bad typing.

And it would also help if you would get the context of the quote right. The
quote was not about Oakland, but about her childhood home.

The quote "There is no there there" appears in Stein's Book "Everybody's
Autobiography". When Stein returned to California on her lecture tour to the
United States in the 1930s, she wanted to visit her childhood home in Oakland,
CA. She records that she could not find the house. (It had been torn down)
Hence, "there is no there there."

This is what she wrote: "What was the use of my having come from Oakland it was
not natural to have come from there yes write about if I like or anything if I
like but not there, there is no there there."

Sounds like a description of Oakland to me...

Al Moore

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:23:29 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Alan Moore wrote:


Proud to be an American. Not so proud of his government.


Yo Alan,

With Gunner you're barking up the wrong tree. Won't get you anywhere.

Being somewhat blind at the moment, I wasn't going anywhere anyway.
Especially not into the shop with all them rotating machines, darn
it... :-(

Al Moore

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:29:32 GMT, Sue wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:48:22 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:22:07 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

snip

Wait a minute. You live in California. How the hell do you expect anyone to
believe you know what IS? The whole state is just a stage set, and your
government is run by actors and out-of-work entertainers.

As you may or may not not be aware, we have some pretty heavy problems
in this state these days. So a weight lifter for governor may not be
quite as nonsensical as it sounds at first hearing.

Probably the most reality oriented political group in the US, is the
libertarians.

AAaaaaah, thud....

I found some of them out in New Idria not long ago. They seemed to be
raising some of their own food on a pile of tailings from the mercury
mines there. This may explain something to you.

I understand that isn't all they're raising over there. G How *do*
they support themselves just by selling those little bits of jewelry?

Subsidy from the Sheriff's department? Or maybe to the Sheriff's
department? They've got miles of grazing land to the East of them and
could probably get some beef during the spring and summer months, for
which the ranchers insurance should pay...

Al Moore

On 16 Dec 2003 05:40:14 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Yup. But he was indeed correct..that there were Commies in the wood
pile, was he not?

And it was OK to run all over anyone in his way to find
both of them? Is that how you want your government run?
Hypothetical: There's an illegally owned weapon in your
town. The local police decide to round up all the weapon
owners in that town and put them on Joe's witness stand
in public, and sweat them. You are required to testify
about all the weapon owners you know and name names of
possible malefactors. A good idea?

But that wasn't the way McCarthy worked. More like putting them all up
in private to see which ones would crumble, then putting those up in
public.

And just our of idle curiousity, how many American agents do you
suppose were active in the USSR at that time?

Al Moore

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:33:33 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:

Alan Moore wrote...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:05:18 GMT, Jim Wilson
What was the purpose of the right to bear arms?

To insure that congress should make no law abridging that right. Next
question?

I could have worded my first one better. I didn't ask what the purpose of
the second amendment was. I want to know why the framers considered the
freedom to bear arms a right of the people.

Because they didn't think they could afford an army, but didn't want
the nation left vulnerable to an invader. And at the time, they
couldn't afford an army, and nowadays, we're barred by law from using
our guns on any current invaders...

Makes you wonder a bit, doesn't it?

Al Moore