Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 ================================================== |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 ================================================= = |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
"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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
They got the son of a bitch! Saddam Captured in Takrit!!!
"jim rozen" wrote in message Because they can't afford to pay for their cable TV service. Jim Your logic escapes me. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 ================================================ == |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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." |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 ================================================== |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
They got the son of a bitch! Saddam Captured in Takrit!!!
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 ================================================== |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
They got the son of a bitch! Saddam Captured in Takrit!!!
"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. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
"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) |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
"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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
"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) |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 ================================================== |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
They got the son of a bitch! Saddam Captured in Takrit!!!
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 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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! =----- |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
They got the son of a bitch! Saddam Captured in Takrit!!!
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 |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
"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 |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
"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 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
"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 |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
"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 |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
They got the son of a bitch! Saddam Captured in Takrit!!!
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 ================================================== |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 ================================================== |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 ================================================== |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 ************************************************** ********************* |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. follow up on Mr. Gunner's comment
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 |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
They got the son of a bitch! Saddam Captured in Takrit!!!
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 |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
They got the son of a bitch! Saddam Captured in Takrit!!!
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" |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT- Did the Prez lie about WMD? | Metalworking | |||
Pearl Harbor | Metalworking | |||
OT- Intelligence Bombshell: Saddam Financed Lead 9/11 Hijacker | Metalworking |