In article , Alan Moore says...

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

I prefer to think of this issue in *absolute* terms,
ie how does the activity of the administration treat
the constitution? In those terms what mccarthy did
was wrong, and no amount of look what he found, or
what else were we doing at the time, can make that
appear justified, or any worse, in those terms.

Jim

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

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

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.

Mmm, what is your basis for that explanation? I have never heard it
before and I don't understand it. Truthfully, it doesn't make sense to
me. If the framers wanted to avoid vulnerability to invasion, it would
have been far more prudent to *require* that the populace maintain arms.
But that is not what they did. They prohibited Congress from infringing
on the citizen's right to bear arms. That has a vastly different
character, does it not?

Jim

VERY true. There are those here who believe strongly that the ends DOES
justify the means. A good example of this is the current idolization of
Reagan, even speaking of putting his face on the dime. Yet that man
(yea, those under him) was willing to commit what is essentially a
illegal (I would say treasonous) act and circumvent the laws of the
United states to send weapons to the Contras.

The point of the "Touchy Feely" post I made earlier was that emotional
beliefs have more to do with these arguments/discussions than the facts.
Reagan was WRONG ( in my view because I do not believe the ends are
justified). However, there are many here who were probably thrilled at
the idea of him being on the dime. These views are not based on FACT,
but based on core beliefs.

The problem comes when we attack in the defense of our core beliefs when
challenged. One defense used commonly used here is selectively choosing
fact/evidence and using that to say that beliefs are not the root of our
choice, facts are. However, on most issues one can find factual
information on BOTH sides. Rather than attack someone who grabs "facts"
only to support their beliefs, discussions should relate to the roots of
those beliefs. What we would probably find is that the final answer is
"I don't know, I just believe", as the final answer for Christians is
regarding their belief.

Damn. I rambled again off topic and didn't actually say anything.

Koz

jim rozen wrote:

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
================================================= =

"Jim Wilson" wrote in message
k.net...
Alan Moore wrote...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:33:33 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:

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.

Mmm, what is your basis for that explanation? I have never heard it
before and I don't understand it. Truthfully, it doesn't make sense to
me. If the framers wanted to avoid vulnerability to invasion, it would
have been far more prudent to *require* that the populace maintain arms.
But that is not what they did. They prohibited Congress from infringing
on the citizen's right to bear arms. That has a vastly different
character, does it not?

Jim

See Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Then you'll want to look up
annotations regarding the calling of the militia and the Militia Act of
1792. In the annotations, you'll want to note the relative authorities of
the federal government versus those of the states in peacetime versus war.
It's a little tricky to follow but it's worth the effort.

It was left up to the states to decide how to constitute their own militias,
but the Militia Act required the states to do so. Most didn't want the
expense of arming them, which is one likely reason that the militia phrase
was written into the 2nd. It was a reason that all of them would agree to
without complaint.

Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
Because they can't afford to pay for
their cable TV service.

Jim



Your logic escapes me.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:58:27 -0800, Koz
wrote:

VERY true. There are those here who believe strongly that the ends DOES
justify the means. A good example of this is the current idolization of
Reagan, even speaking of putting his face on the dime. Yet that man
(yea, those under him) was willing to commit what is essentially a
illegal (I would say treasonous) act and circumvent the laws of the
United states to send weapons to the Contras.

Ahhh , He inherited that stuff and as we all know that is a
"falsehood" and no one can "recall".

The point of the "Touchy Feely" post I made earlier was that emotional
beliefs have more to do with these arguments/discussions than the facts.
Reagan was WRONG ( in my view because I do not believe the ends are
justified). However, there are many here who were probably thrilled at
the idea of him being on the dime. These views are not based on FACT,
but based on core beliefs.

Your right about that.

The problem comes when we attack in the defense of our core beliefs when
challenged. One defense used commonly used here is selectively choosing
fact/evidence and using that to say that beliefs are not the root of our
choice, facts are. However, on most issues one can find factual
information on BOTH sides. Rather than attack someone who grabs "facts"
only to support their beliefs, discussions should relate to the roots of
those beliefs. What we would probably find is that the final answer is
"I don't know, I just believe", as the final answer for Christians is
regarding their belief.

Damn. I rambled again off topic and didn't actually say anything.

Koz

jim rozen wrote:

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
================================================ ==

Ed Huntress wrote...
"Jim Wilson" wrote in message
k.net...
I want to know why the framers considered the
freedom to bear arms a right of the people.

See Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Then you'll want to look up
annotations regarding the calling of the militia and the Militia Act of
1792. In the annotations, you'll want to note the relative authorities of
the federal government versus those of the states in peacetime versus war.
It's a little tricky to follow but it's worth the effort.

Done. Thank you.

It was left up to the states to decide how to constitute their own militias,
but the Militia Act required the states to do so. Most didn't want the
expense of arming them, which is one likely reason that the militia phrase
was written into the 2nd. It was a reason that all of them would agree to
without complaint.

It seems you were responding primarily to my remark that "if the framers
wanted to avoid vulnerability to invasion, it would have been far more
prudent to *require* that the populace maintain arms." That statement was
in response to Alan's assertion that the second amendment was written to
address the framers' concerns that the nation could not afford an army
but nevertheless needed protection from potential invasion. I am
convinced that the vulnerability was indeed addressed explicitly, but
elsewhere; not in the Second Amendment. I doubt that the framers were
motivated by the reason Alan suggested.

Unless I misunderstand you, I believe my original question stands. The
annotations -- thanks for the reference, BTW -- on the Second Amendment
are interesting and enlightening, but it appears that nothing in them nor
in the amendment itself provides a clear answer as to its purpose [1].
Also, I do not find anything in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
or in its annotations that suggests why the Second Amendment might later
have been proposed (and adopted!).

Do you know of any contemporary or historical references that
directly address why the Second Amendment was made?

Jim

[1] "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed." There is discussion in the annotations that some learned
folks have held the opinion that infringing the right is prohibited only
where doing so would interfere with the Militia. That is, Congress cannot
infringe the people's right to bear arms if doing so would hamper a well
regulated Militia. A reasonable interpretation, perhaps, but it is
certainly not clear that that was the intent, nor is it clear to me
without unreasonable convolution how such an infringement might inhibit
the formation or maintenance of a "well regulated Militia."

In article , Sunworshiper says...

...circumvent the laws of the
United states to send weapons to the Contras.

Ahhh , He inherited that stuff and as we all know that is a
"falsehood" and no one can "recall".

Yep, and everyone knows that ollie north in his nice
neat uniform is a stand-up patriot.

Jim

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

In article , lane says...

Your logic escapes me.

The folks who would vote for GWB have jost their
jobs, so they can't afford to watch the dog & pony
show starring S.H. so they can't benefit from the
excitement. So they don't know or care about
what he thinks or says or what kind of a hole
in the ground he was living in, or what a tremendous
victory it is for the US.

They just know they can't pay the rent, can't keep
up the car payments.

Jim

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

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

Your logic escapes me.

The folks who would vote for GWB have jost their
jobs, so they can't afford to watch the dog & pony
show starring S.H. so they can't benefit from the
excitement. So they don't know or care about
what he thinks or says or what kind of a hole
in the ground he was living in, or what a tremendous
victory it is for the US.

They just know they can't pay the rent, can't keep
up the car payments.

Jim



Oh I understand about the money and paying the bills, what I don't
understand is how you think that it happens just to those who voted for GWB.

And I'm not even going to get into GWB and the economy....... nope, not
going to do it. Even if you try to drag me kicking and screaming. grin
Lane.

Koz wrote in message ...


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

Don't sweat it Koz. According to guMMer and his pet kraut, all you
have to do to be a pinko commie *******, is the same thing that
millions of Americans did, before, during, and after WWII, belong to a
union. Never mind that my father and grandfather were doing such an
Un American thing as making ammunition for our five inch guns as fast
and as efficiently as was possible, gummer will still say pinko.
gummer just ****ed up in the head, as well as everywhere else.

"Jim Wilson" wrote in message
.net...
Ed Huntress wrote...
"Jim Wilson" wrote in message
k.net...
I want to know why the framers considered the
freedom to bear arms a right of the people.

See Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Then you'll want to look
up
annotations regarding the calling of the militia and the Militia Act of
1792. In the annotations, you'll want to note the relative authorities
of
the federal government versus those of the states in peacetime versus
war.
It's a little tricky to follow but it's worth the effort.

Done. Thank you.

It was left up to the states to decide how to constitute their own
militias,
but the Militia Act required the states to do so. Most didn't want the
expense of arming them, which is one likely reason that the militia
phrase
was written into the 2nd. It was a reason that all of them would agree
to
without complaint.

It seems you were responding primarily to my remark that "if the framers
wanted to avoid vulnerability to invasion, it would have been far more
prudent to *require* that the populace maintain arms."

Yes, I was.

That statement was
in response to Alan's assertion that the second amendment was written to
address the framers' concerns that the nation could not afford an army
but nevertheless needed protection from potential invasion. I am
convinced that the vulnerability was indeed addressed explicitly, but
elsewhere; not in the Second Amendment. I doubt that the framers were
motivated by the reason Alan suggested.

I don't believe that it was a matter of cost, but, as you saw in Article I
and the Militia Act, the federal government at that time depended upon the
state militias for defense at the federal level. The federal government had
the authority to call up the militias and to organize them into an army.

They had a strong aversion to standing armies, you'll recall, and as the
result of several factors -- the assumed right to bear arms, the prerogative
of the states to maintain militias, and the abovementioned aversion to
standing armies -- an ad-hoc army assembled from states' militias, which in
turn were assembled from able-bodied and armed citizens, was the design for
land defense. You probably noted somewhere in there, I think in Article I,
that the federal government was to maintain a navy but not an army.


Unless I misunderstand you, I believe my original question stands. The
annotations -- thanks for the reference, BTW -- on the Second Amendment
are interesting and enlightening, but it appears that nothing in them nor
in the amendment itself provides a clear answer as to its purpose [1].
Also, I do not find anything in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
or in its annotations that suggests why the Second Amendment might later
have been proposed (and adopted!).

Do you know of any contemporary or historical references that
directly address why the Second Amendment was made?

I do, but not much that I'd recommend unless you have the time to make a
career of it. 99% of it is written by advocates and they tend to be
selective arguments.

One exception, and an important work on the subject, is an article by
Sanford Levinson, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," Yale Law Journal 99
(December 1989). It may be online.

There are several troubles in understanding the 2nd. First is that there is
almost no record of the discussions about it that were conducted during the
First Federal Congress. Second, the Anti-Federalists who demanded a bill of
rights wanted a list of specific changes to the plan for federal government,
not a list of individual rights, as many people suppose. Third, it was
written by highly literate men and they chose to couch it in an arch
grammatical construction (the nominative absolute), which is inherently
ambiguous today, as it was in the late 18th century.

No doubt you'll be directed to various sources by others here. If you choose
to read them, keep in mind that the primary purpose of the Bill of Rights
was to pacify those who demanded such a bill. Several of the framers,
including Hamilton, thought the Bill was entirely unnecessary. In that sense
it was a political document intended to secure approval of the Constitution
itself.

And if you should be sidetracked into an argument that the federal Bill of
Rights was derived from the Virginia Bill of Rights (1776), bear in mind
that Virginia's B of R did not say anything about the right to keep and bear
arms. It did talk about a militia:

"SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State;
that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to
liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict
subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Have fun. You can make a life's avocation out of studying it, and there are
worse ways to spend your time.

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

Tom Quackenbush wrote...
Jim Wilson wrote:

Do you know of any contemporary or historical references that
directly address why the Second Amendment was made?

I'd be interested, as well. Here's one:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia.

Absolutely fascinating reading. Thank you!

Jim

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilson wrote:

snip

Do you know of any contemporary or historical references that
directly address why the Second Amendment was made?

I'd be interested, as well. Here's one:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia.

Extracted from The Origins of the American Constitution, A Documentary
History,
Edited by Michael Kammen, Penguin Books, 1986;
and from Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the
First Federal Congress,
Edited by Helen E. Veit, et al., The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1991.
(Edacted by Jim Knoppow)

You'll notice that the journal of the House, which is what the URL above
points to, hardly discusses a right to keep or bear arms at all. The House
debates were mostly about the religious-objector issue and about details of
the militia.

The Senate's debates were private, so we don't know what went on in there.
And the problem arises of how much the House's position was based on the
need for a militia, especially since that's the issue over which most of the
open discussion occurred.

There are a lot of empty pages there somewhere.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote...


Do you know of any contemporary or historical references that
directly address why the Second Amendment was made?

I do, but not much that I'd recommend unless you have the time to make a
career of it. 99% of it is written by advocates and they tend to be
selective arguments.

One exception, and an important work on the subject, is an article by
Sanford Levinson, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," Yale Law Journal 99
(December 1989). It may be online.

It is, in several places. Here's one:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

Thanks for the reference. It was a useful read and not overwhelmingly
biased. At least I think I could make out the bias and compensate
accordingly. (G)

There are several troubles in understanding the 2nd

After a few hours reading, I'm nearly convinced that it cannot be
*understood* at all. I fear at best it may be interpreted. I suspect that
the framers were themselves unclear on the subject, at least as a body,
and as so often happens in parliamentary procedure, a cob-job that sort
of spoke to each interested member's purpose was at length approved by
the majority just to end the debate.

And if you should be sidetracked into an argument that the federal Bill of
Rights was derived from the Virginia Bill of Rights (1776), bear in mind
that Virginia's B of R did not say anything about the right to keep and bear
arms.

However, based on Tom's reference, the amendments proposed by Virginia
(among others) clearly intended to secure to the people the right to bear
arms.

The reason for the amendment remains murky, but the House debate on the
topic supports the notion that at least some of the Representatives meant
for it to protect the individual's right and, in one gentleman's view,
"to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government."

Have fun. You can make a life's avocation out of studying it, and there are
worse ways to spend your time.

Well, I certainly don't want to do that; there are better uses for the
time, too! I really just wanted to understand why the question hasn't
been laid to rest, and I learned a good bit in that regard.

Thanks for the help.

Jim

"Jim Wilson" wrote in message
k.net...

There are several troubles in understanding the 2nd

After a few hours reading, I'm nearly convinced that it cannot be
*understood* at all. I fear at best it may be interpreted.

In that sense, it's the same as the majority of the Constitution and
Constutional law. It just happens to be a little less penetrable than most.

There are two great contemporary benefits of the 2nd Amendment, in my
opinion: First, it's encouraged thousands of people to read at least a
little bit of Constitutional history. Second, it's given them reason to
think about political philosophy -- even if it's led most of those to become
libertarians. g


Thanks for the help.

Jim

I'm glad you found it interesting enough to do some reading. Despite my
wisecrack above, I happen to think that just reading about it is a
constructive thing for all of us.

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

In article , Ed Huntress
says...


... Second, the Anti-Federalists who demanded a bill of
rights wanted a list of specific changes to the plan for federal government,
not a list of individual rights, as many people suppose.

Really an historical perspective is in order here - the
original constitution was not so much concerned about the
rights of citizens, as it was about the tug of war between
the new proposed federal government, and the states that
would be joining.

Amazing as it would seem, unless the citizen in question
was either wealthy, powerful, or a major landowner, the
new government really did not recognize or care about him.

Jim

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

On 16 Dec 2003 16:41:39 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Sunworshiper says...

...circumvent the laws of the
United states to send weapons to the Contras.

Ahhh , He inherited that stuff and as we all know that is a
"falsehood" and no one can "recall".

Yep, and everyone knows that ollie north in his nice
neat uniform is a stand-up patriot.

Jim

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

I'm not sure I follow you , is that a double negative? And you
disagree with me , or just adding to the fact.

tonyp wrote:

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/5F01

% Homer fires three shots at the television; the final bullet turns it
on.

Agnes: I've never seen such recklessness!
Louie: You mighta hurt someone!
Cleetus: Are you some kind of moron?
Homer: Yeah, but...
Krusty: Hey, yutz! Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection,
hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King
of England out of your face.



I am embarassed. You and Frank White, and of course Gunner, are correct. Homer
does ask Lisa if she would rather be pushed around by the King of England,
earlier in the episode, but Gunner's tag line is indeed spoken by Krusty. As a
Simpsons afficionado, I hang my head in shame.

-- Tony P.

Don't be.. Even Gunner can be right ONCE this year...

Ike

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:24:48 GMT, 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,

Marv

Marv..you seem to miss the point that while I agree with much of your
description of Joe M....he was correct and no..in those times..being a
communist was not the same as being left handed..else claiming someone
was..would not have resulted in many innocent people being harmed.
Correct?

We were in the intitial stages of the Cold War..when bombers were
actually poised. The Rosenthals had been executed..etc etc.

Because the moles were well placed..reflects on the inability to ferret
them out..not that his claims were surious.

Gunner

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
m...


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

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:57:11 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:


Thanks for the reference. It was a useful read and not overwhelmingly
biased. At least I think I could make out the bias and compensate
accordingly. (G)

Bias? Chuckle..the author was a staunch anti-gun individual before he
started his research. Intellectually honest, he changed his opinion
after doing the research.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:57:11 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:


The reason for the amendment remains murky, but the House debate on the
topic supports the notion that at least some of the Representatives meant
for it to protect the individual's right and, in one gentleman's view,
"to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government."

I suggest for a better bit of insight..read the Federalist Papers..and
the Anti-Federalist papers, where the individuals in question spoke
rather frankly about the reasons behind the Constitutions various
elements

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:11:56 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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

Interesting spin through your post.
And I strongly disagree with your conclusions. Shrug

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie




5. The lie will then be made into some form of ? law

:)


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On 16 Dec 2003 18:33:05 -0800, (Lennie the
Lurker) wrote:

Koz wrote in message ...


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

Don't sweat it Koz. According to guMMer and his pet kraut, all you
have to do to be a pinko commie *******, is the same thing that
millions of Americans did, before, during, and after WWII, belong to a
union. Never mind that my father and grandfather were doing such an
Un American thing as making ammunition for our five inch guns as fast
and as efficiently as was possible, gummer will still say pinko.
gummer just ****ed up in the head, as well as everywhere else.

chuckle....the Unuseful Idiot pokes up his head again.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:11:40 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

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.

Interesting bit of psycho babble. Fatally flawed..but interesting
Frankly Ed..I dont like Liberals because of what they have done to my
country, or what their agendas are.

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.


Gosh Ed..when the lefties or Rinos (yourself included) do such, Id be
happy to write the various footnotes. It will be interesting to see
their rational. Any of course that start with "I feel..." will
immediately fail the bull**** test.

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.

Yup..your emotional blinds are huge, tall, wide, and amusing in a sort
of " watching a retarded kid trying to eat an ice cream cone for the
first time" way. Your hot buttons are big, bright red and easily
pushed.

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

Chuckle...I never blow my top at your absurdness. But I do respond with
the same vigor.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Gunner

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered
by an occasional assassination." --Voltaire

On 16 Dec 2003 16:49:11 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , lane says...

Your logic escapes me.

The folks who would vote for GWB have jost their
jobs, so they can't afford to watch the dog & pony
show starring S.H. so they can't benefit from the
excitement. So they don't know or care about
what he thinks or says or what kind of a hole
in the ground he was living in, or what a tremendous
victory it is for the US.

They just know they can't pay the rent, can't keep
up the car payments.

Jim

The folks who lost their jobs voted for Clinton & Co. Which is why they
voted in Bush as a hopeful better replacement. Seems that so far their
faith has not been in vain.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:57:11 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:


The reason for the amendment remains murky, but the House debate on the
topic supports the notion that at least some of the Representatives meant
for it to protect the individual's right and, in one gentleman's view,
"to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government."

I suggest for a better bit of insight..read the Federalist Papers..and
the Anti-Federalist papers, where the individuals in question spoke
rather frankly about the reasons behind the Constitutions various
elements


Those will help to understand the nature of the debate, but, like any
polemics in a political contest, neither one is the legislative argument
itself. That's one reason why the Supreme Court has been unsteady on the
whole issue: the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are unofficial
arguments, and don't have the weight of the minutes of government
proceedings.

Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:11:56 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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

Interesting spin through your post.

"Spin"? What do you mean by "spin" on my post?

Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:11:40 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

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.

Interesting bit of psycho babble. Fatally flawed..but interesting
Frankly Ed..I dont like Liberals because of what they have done to my
country, or what their agendas are.

Frankly, Gunner, I don't think you would recognize most argumentive flaws.
There is no flaw in what I said above. Your tirades, such as the silly sig
you're using now, are indeed dismissive and irredeemably sarcastic and
biting. You're so blinded by your emotional distress that you've thoroughly
demonized anyone who you regard as leftist.

That isn't the behavior of a "reasonable, logical" person, such as you claim
to be. That's the behavior of someone so frustrated that he's half-blind
with rage.

As for what liberals have done to your country, they protected for you free
speech, the right to a fair trial uncoerced by police and prosecutors, the
right to vote, and a few other things that the conservatives of their day
would have denied you.

"Your country," which also is my country, and that of everyone else who
lives here, has been shaped by ideas from both sides of the political
spectrum. You and I and everyone else here has benefitted from the debate
and synthesis of ideas, not from the program of one side or the other. The
history of it is unequivocal.

Ed Huntress

FYI It wasn't Gunner whom I thought would do the accusing. Gunner, at
least to me, has always been civil and honest with his answers.

Koz

Gunner wrote:

On 16 Dec 2003 18:33:05 -0800, (Lennie the
Lurker) wrote:



Koz wrote in message ...


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


Don't sweat it Koz. According to guMMer and his pet kraut, all you
have to do to be a pinko commie *******, is the same thing that
millions of Americans did, before, during, and after WWII, belong to a
union. Never mind that my father and grandfather were doing such an
Un American thing as making ammunition for our five inch guns as fast
and as efficiently as was possible, gummer will still say pinko.
gummer just ****ed up in the head, as well as everywhere else.



chuckle....the Unuseful Idiot pokes up his head again.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:11:40 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

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.

Interesting bit of psycho babble. Fatally flawed..but interesting
Frankly Ed..I dont like Liberals because of what they have done to my
country, or what their agendas are.

Frankly, Gunner, I don't think you would recognize most argumentive flaws.
There is no flaw in what I said above. Your tirades, such as the silly sig
you're using now, are indeed dismissive and irredeemably sarcastic and
biting. You're so blinded by your emotional distress that you've
thoroughly
demonized anyone who you regard as leftist.

That isn't the behavior of a "reasonable, logical" person, such as you
claim
to be. That's the behavior of someone so frustrated that he's half-blind
with rage.

As for what liberals have done to your country, they protected for you
free
speech, the right to a fair trial uncoerced by police and prosecutors, the
right to vote, and a few other things that the conservatives of their day
would have denied you.

"Your country," which also is my country, and that of everyone else who
lives here, has been shaped by ideas from both sides of the political
spectrum. You and I and everyone else here has benefitted from the debate
and synthesis of ideas, not from the program of one side or the other. The

history of it is unequivocal.

Ed Huntress



Let me preface the following first by saying that I will not usually get
involved with political discussions. In my experience it is like trying to
knock over a brick wall with a toothpick, in that it is a total waste of
time & effort.



But I have to say that Ed’s post (see above) rang bells in my head load and
clear. Thank you Ed!



Ed I agree with you 100%. Anyone who is 100% left or right scares the hell
out of me. This country is a melting pot, people and politics. Sorry Gunner,
I have to agree with Ed, you might be a "nice" guy, but your political
rantings scare me, and I'm a conservative Republican. You are a political
zealot, and like religious zealots that have a myopic view of things where
everything to them is either black or white, you refuse to see the world as
a million shades of gray and color.



BTW you’ll catch more bees with honey, than vinegar.



Lane

Still, with the amount of bombast, steam, farting, etc the Committee
generated, McCarthy accomplished virtually nothing. In fact, the
kingpin, the leader of all the "atomic spies" went to England where,
after a discreet period of time and much good physics he was granted a
knighthood. Let's face it, Gunner, McCarthy was a clown and a dangerous
one at that. The Conservatives are doing themselves a disservice even
being remotely associated with Joe McCarthy. Better you should use
Ronald Reagan as a role model (I didn't know... nobody told me...I
wasn't there...etc.).

Regards,

Marv

Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:24:48 GMT, 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,

Marv


Marv..you seem to miss the point that while I agree with much of your
description of Joe M....he was correct and no..in those times..being a
communist was not the same as being left handed..else claiming someone
was..would not have resulted in many innocent people being harmed.
Correct?

We were in the intitial stages of the Cold War..when bombers were
actually poised. The Rosenthals had been executed..etc etc.

Because the moles were well placed..reflects on the inability to ferret
them out..not that his claims were surious.

Gunner

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
om...



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


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

In article , Gunner says...

The folks who lost their jobs voted for Clinton & Co. Which is why they
voted in Bush as a hopeful better replacement. Seems that so far their
faith has not been in vain.

They're still out of work though. Quickest way
to manufacture a democrat is to pink-slip a republican.

Jim

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

In article , Marv Soloff says...

Still, with the amount of bombast, steam, farting, etc the Committee
generated, McCarthy accomplished virtually nothing.

And desecrated the constitution while doing so.

Jim

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

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Frankly, Gunner, I don't think you would recognize most argumentive flaws.
There is no flaw in what I said above. Your tirades, such as the silly sig
you're using now, are indeed dismissive and irredeemably sarcastic and
biting. You're so blinded by your emotional distress that you've thoroughly
demonized anyone who you regard as leftist.

In all fairness I would say this is a consistent position for
him. I keep waiting to find the individual (here on rcm) who
is further to end of the political spectrum than gunner. In
vain.

As for what liberals have done to your country, they protected for your free
speech, the right to a fair trial uncoerced by police and prosecutors, the
right to vote, and a few other things that the conservatives of their day
would have denied you.

Search and siezure for one. Nobody can go on a Homeland Hunting
Mission to investigate what arms gunner has stashed in his house,
because of that bill of rights thing. And it *ain't* the
second amendment that does that!! And yet ashcroft tries
to degrade that exact protection, and nary a peep from gunner.

"Your country," which also is my country, and that of everyone else who
lives here, has been shaped by ideas from both sides of the political
spectrum. You and I and everyone else here has benefitted from the debate
and synthesis of ideas, not from the program of one side or the other. The
history of it is unequivocal.

I wonder. It may be that he simply feels compelled to present
the unpopular side of the debate. Could it possibly be, that
there's another side there? That on some other ng, he's
decrying the hole in the ozone layer, he's trumpeting Sarah
Brady's message, he's spreading the word about global warming?

Maybe if we weren't all such ACLU types here we could expose
the true, inner, touchy-feely gunner. One never knows, does
one?

Jim

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

Marv Soloff wrote:

Still, with the amount of bombast, steam, farting, etc the Committee
generated, McCarthy accomplished virtually nothing. In fact, the

I'm confused. What "committee" are you talking about? The "House
Un-American Activities Committee"? If so, what did SENATOR Joe McCarthy
have to do with a HOUSE committee? McCarthy (right or wrong I'm not
debating) was talking about communist spies working for the government. The
HUAC was looking for spies in Hollywood, subversive films, etc. [There is
some evidence to show that one member was communist, from New York as I
remember.]

Somebody please correct me, but I don't remember too many senators sitting
on house committees.

Brad

--

************************************************** *********************
Brad Millard On-line ballistics for small arms...
www.eskimo.com/~jbm
************************************************** *********************

My error. HUAC and the Army McCarthy hearings were separate (or so they
say).

Regards,

Marv

James B. Millard wrote:
Marv Soloff wrote:


Still, with the amount of bombast, steam, farting, etc the Committee
generated, McCarthy accomplished virtually nothing. In fact, the


I'm confused. What "committee" are you talking about? The "House
Un-American Activities Committee"? If so, what did SENATOR Joe McCarthy
have to do with a HOUSE committee? McCarthy (right or wrong I'm not
debating) was talking about communist spies working for the government. The
HUAC was looking for spies in Hollywood, subversive films, etc. [There is
some evidence to show that one member was communist, from New York as I
remember.]

Somebody please correct me, but I don't remember too many senators sitting
on house committees.

Brad

Gunner wrote:
The folks who lost their jobs voted for Clinton & Co. Which is why
they voted in Bush as a hopeful better replacement. Seems that so far
their faith has not been in vain.

Gunner

If your idea of a job is directing traffic in Bagdad in full body armor -
yup. (G).
Ken.
The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

Bill Darby wrote in message ...
Thank God!!!!
If God had anything to do with it the United States couldn't helped
put the S.O.B in power in the first place.
They should have put a bullet in the S.O.B's head and put in back in
the hole.
michael

Gunner wrote:

YEEEEEEEHHHHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"