"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...


So are we in a war, or a squabble?


We're in a war, but not with a country. There is no recognizable
political entity at all; trying to identify one is what led us to invade
Iraq. If we can only take on and beat a *country*, the thinking goes, we
will have asserted our position and dismantled an antagonistic state.
(But we still don't want to *declare* war, or we'll be at war with the
people of that country, as well as the "evil ones." That could be
messy.)

But the enemy wasn't really a state. So now we have a generalized,
amorphous, indeterminate war. Welcome to the new world.

--
Ed Huntress

Sorry Ed, but it sounds like the same old ****.

How are we supposed to know when we win?

Or lose?


What is it you want to win? The old things -- stopping a country's
threats of violence, etc. -- aren't available anymore.

--
Ed Huntress

Then it's perpetual war?

Maybe. Or maybe something else. What's it's not is old-time war.

--
Ed Huntress

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Yup, war is hell.

--
Ed Huntress

Yes it is, but that's what we say when we really mean tough **** for
the
innocent people we kill as we go after the ones we want.

Or tough **** for us when the killing is on the other side.

Except for one thing, the killing of our people is so much less than it is
on the other side. Remember we're masters of war, so when we inflict harm
on
our enemies we do it at a far higher rate than any of them do to us. In
the
process we kill enormous numbers of innocents. Iraq is proof of that. Look
at the amount of insurgents we killed compared to how many civilians we
killed. It's the civilians who have the high casualty rate.



We offed a whole
lot of them in Panama when we went after one guy, Manuel Noriega. Our
view
is if innocents get killed by us that's just the cost of doing
business.
You'll notice that our attitude is quite different when our people get
killed as collateral damage.

You have a short-sighted view of civilian casualties, Hawke. There use to
be
many, many more, in nearly every war.

No I don't. You're looking at war as it is recently. Look at it
historically
and you find that it used to be soldiers and warriors who got killed not
the
civilians. Look at the numbers in WWI.
Relatively few civilians were killed
but millions of soldiers died.

Not so. WWI deaths included an estimated 9.7 million combatants and 10
million civilians. That's a Wikipedia number but it's extensively footnoted.
That included deaths in combat and deaths from disease and starvation, which
afflicted both the military and the civilians.

Same with the Civil War. Historically wars
were fought among soldiers and civilian deaths were small.

The most frequently quoted number for military deaths in the US Civil War is
620,000. Civilians, 50,000.

The 2nd WW was
the aberation.

In the Franco-Prussian War, 1870 - 1871, an estimated 590,000 French
civilians were killed.

You're talking about a tiny slice of human history, Hawke: roughly from the
30 Years War (early 17th century) to the invention of the machine gun and
the end of conventional troop assaults on open ground. Prior to that,
civilian populations were slaughtered or enslaved. After that, they got
caught in the massive amounts of fire, often at long range and later from
the air.

The norm through the vast majority of human history was massive civilian
deaths.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Yup, war is hell.

--
Ed Huntress

Yes it is, but that's what we say when we really mean tough **** for
the
innocent people we kill as we go after the ones we want.

Or tough **** for us when the killing is on the other side.

Except for one thing, the killing of our people is so much less than it
is
on the other side. Remember we're masters of war, so when we inflict
harm
on
our enemies we do it at a far higher rate than any of them do to us. In
the
process we kill enormous numbers of innocents. Iraq is proof of that.
Look
at the amount of insurgents we killed compared to how many civilians we
killed. It's the civilians who have the high casualty rate.



We offed a whole
lot of them in Panama when we went after one guy, Manuel Noriega. Our
view
is if innocents get killed by us that's just the cost of doing
business.
You'll notice that our attitude is quite different when our people
get
killed as collateral damage.

You have a short-sighted view of civilian casualties, Hawke. There use
to
be
many, many more, in nearly every war.

No I don't. You're looking at war as it is recently. Look at it
historically
and you find that it used to be soldiers and warriors who got killed not
the
civilians. Look at the numbers in WWI.
Relatively few civilians were killed
but millions of soldiers died.

Not so. WWI deaths included an estimated 9.7 million combatants and 10
million civilians. That's a Wikipedia number but it's extensively
footnoted.
That included deaths in combat and deaths from disease and starvation,
which
afflicted both the military and the civilians.

Same with the Civil War. Historically wars
were fought among soldiers and civilian deaths were small.

The most frequently quoted number for military deaths in the US Civil War
is
620,000. Civilians, 50,000.

The 2nd WW was
the aberation.

In the Franco-Prussian War, 1870 - 1871, an estimated 590,000 French
civilians were killed.

You're talking about a tiny slice of human history, Hawke: roughly from
the
30 Years War (early 17th century) to the invention of the machine gun and
the end of conventional troop assaults on open ground. Prior to that,
civilian populations were slaughtered or enslaved. After that, they got
caught in the massive amounts of fire, often at long range and later from
the air.

The norm through the vast majority of human history was massive civilian
deaths.

--
Ed Huntress


No, I think not. First World War stats I've seen are not what Wiki reports.
Besides that starvation isn't the same as being killed in a war. Half of the
Civil War casualties died of disease but that was a direct result of the
war. Neither the north or south killed civilians in large numbers. It didn't
happen in the Revolutionary War either. My reading of history shows that
until recently, last century, most people killed in wars were soldiers. I
know that in the Greek and Roman days armies met for battle in the field and
they were not slaughtering civilians wholesale. Napoleon's armies fought
other armies not civilians. That's not to say that plenty of civilians
didn't die because armies fought. But it was never like in WWII where more
civilians were killed than soldiers. That is not the way it was throughout
the history I've read.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Yup, war is hell.

--
Ed Huntress

Yes it is, but that's what we say when we really mean tough **** for
the
innocent people we kill as we go after the ones we want.

Or tough **** for us when the killing is on the other side.

Except for one thing, the killing of our people is so much less than it
is
on the other side. Remember we're masters of war, so when we inflict
harm
on
our enemies we do it at a far higher rate than any of them do to us. In
the
process we kill enormous numbers of innocents. Iraq is proof of that.
Look
at the amount of insurgents we killed compared to how many civilians we
killed. It's the civilians who have the high casualty rate.



We offed a whole
lot of them in Panama when we went after one guy, Manuel Noriega.
Our
view
is if innocents get killed by us that's just the cost of doing
business.
You'll notice that our attitude is quite different when our people
get
killed as collateral damage.

You have a short-sighted view of civilian casualties, Hawke. There use
to
be
many, many more, in nearly every war.

No I don't. You're looking at war as it is recently. Look at it
historically
and you find that it used to be soldiers and warriors who got killed
not
the
civilians. Look at the numbers in WWI.
Relatively few civilians were killed
but millions of soldiers died.

Not so. WWI deaths included an estimated 9.7 million combatants and 10
million civilians. That's a Wikipedia number but it's extensively
footnoted.
That included deaths in combat and deaths from disease and starvation,
which
afflicted both the military and the civilians.

Same with the Civil War. Historically wars
were fought among soldiers and civilian deaths were small.

The most frequently quoted number for military deaths in the US Civil War
is
620,000. Civilians, 50,000.

The 2nd WW was
the aberation.

In the Franco-Prussian War, 1870 - 1871, an estimated 590,000 French
civilians were killed.

You're talking about a tiny slice of human history, Hawke: roughly from
the
30 Years War (early 17th century) to the invention of the machine gun and
the end of conventional troop assaults on open ground. Prior to that,
civilian populations were slaughtered or enslaved. After that, they got
caught in the massive amounts of fire, often at long range and later from
the air.

The norm through the vast majority of human history was massive civilian
deaths.

--
Ed Huntress


No, I think not. First World War stats I've seen are not what Wiki
reports.
Besides that starvation isn't the same as being killed in a war. Half of
the
Civil War casualties died of disease but that was a direct result of the
war. Neither the north or south killed civilians in large numbers. It
didn't
happen in the Revolutionary War either. My reading of history shows that
until recently, last century, most people killed in wars were soldiers. I
know that in the Greek and Roman days armies met for battle in the field
and
they were not slaughtering civilians wholesale. Napoleon's armies fought
other armies not civilians. That's not to say that plenty of civilians
didn't die because armies fought. But it was never like in WWII where more
civilians were killed than soldiers. That is not the way it was throughout
the history I've read.

Well, you read whatever history makes you feel good, then. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:34:51 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Then it's perpetual war?

Maybe. Or maybe something else. What's it's not is old-time war.

Perpetual cluster****.

What do you think about Charlie Reese's comments on our woes?
( from http://www.restoretherepublic.com/content/view/281/ )

--snip--
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES

BY CHARLEY REESE


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and
then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans
are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if
all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have
inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and
I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.
The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code.
Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You
and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen [minus Dr. Ron Paul], one
president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of
the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually
responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason
They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a
senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing.
I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's
responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that
what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive
amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a
SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. Bush ALONE for creating
deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress
to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land,
gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for
originating and approving appropriations and taxes.


REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot
replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of
incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to
defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of
the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what
they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the
budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the
Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545
people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs
they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can
reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and
from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist
disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or
"politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they
alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held
accountable by the People who are their bosses - provided the voters
have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of
them out of office and clean up their mess.
--snip--

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine

FINALLY someone who understands the problem

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

What do you think about Charlie Reese's comments on our woes?
( from http://www.restoretherepublic.com/content/view/281/ )

--snip--
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES

BY CHARLEY REESE


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and
then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans
are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if
all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have
inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and
I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.
The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code.
Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You
and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen [minus Dr. Ron Paul], one
president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of
the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually
responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason
They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a
senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing.
I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's
responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that
what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive
amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a
SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. Bush ALONE for creating
deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress
to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land,
gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for
originating and approving appropriations and taxes.


REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot
replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of
incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to
defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of
the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what
they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the
budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the
Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545
people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs
they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can
reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and
from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist
disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or
"politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they
alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held
accountable by the People who are their bosses - provided the voters
have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of
them out of office and clean up their mess.
--snip--

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
FINALLY someone who understands the problem

A lot of words and the bottom line is:
provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
Looking at the current crop of candidates, we are going to have business as
usual. Everyone has used and abused the earmark business. Change is a word
designed to elict votes.





THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES

Should read the 300 million people responsible for America's woes. We are
the ones asking for the 545 to take care of us.

BY CHARLEY REESE


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and
then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans
are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if
all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have
inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and
I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.
The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code.
Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You
and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen [minus Dr. Ron Paul], one
president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of
the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually
responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason
They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a
senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing.
I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's
responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that
what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive
amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a
SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. Bush ALONE for creating
deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress
to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land,
gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for
originating and approving appropriations and taxes.


REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot
replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of
incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to
defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of
the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what
they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the
budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the
Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545
people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs
they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can
reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and
from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist
disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or
"politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they
alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held
accountable by the People who are their bosses - provided the voters
have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of
them out of office and clean up their mess.
--snip--

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it
wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas
Paine

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
FINALLY someone who understands the problem

A lot of words and the bottom line is:
provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
Looking at the current crop of candidates, we are going to have business
as
usual. Everyone has used and abused the earmark business. Change is a
word
designed to elict votes.





THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES

Should read the 300 million people responsible for America's woes. We
are
the ones asking for the 545 to take care of us.

TRUE, the real problem lies with the voters. Until the vote is
restricted to those who support (pay taxes) and defend (belong to the
unorganized militia) society things will get worse until the next
revolution. Power is never relinquished peacefully ;(

The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according to US
statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be allowed to
vote. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
FINALLY someone who understands the problem

A lot of words and the bottom line is:
provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
Looking at the current crop of candidates, we are going to have business as
usual. Everyone has used and abused the earmark business. Change is a word
designed to elict votes.





THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES

Should read the 300 million people responsible for America's woes. We are
the ones asking for the 545 to take care of us.

TRUE, the real problem lies with the voters. Until the vote is
restricted to those who support (pay taxes) and defend (belong to the
unorganized militia) society things will get worse until the next
revolution. Power is never relinquished peacefully ;(

BY CHARLEY REESE


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and
then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans
are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if
all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have
inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and
I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.
The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code.
Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You
and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen [minus Dr. Ron Paul], one
president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of
the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually
responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason
They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a
senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing.
I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's
responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that
what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive
amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a
SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. Bush ALONE for creating
deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress
to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land,
gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for
originating and approving appropriations and taxes.


REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot
replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of
incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to
defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of
the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what
they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the
budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the
Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545
people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs
they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can
reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and
from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist
disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or
"politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they
alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held
accountable by the People who are their bosses - provided the voters
have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of
them out of office and clean up their mess.
--snip--

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it
wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas
Paine

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:04:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" quickly quoth:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
FINALLY someone who understands the problem

A lot of words and the bottom line is:
provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
Looking at the current crop of candidates, we are going to have business as
usual. Everyone has used and abused the earmark business. Change is a word
designed to elict votes.

It sure is when Bama says it. sigh

What we need on the ballot is a checkbox for NOTA. Let's let the
terms of the current crop of *******s expire and -not- replace them.
The country would be better off without a CONgress for awhile, eh?

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:25:05 -0600, nick hull
wrote:

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they
alone, have the power.
================
Nice post

I wish this could be printed on the front page of every paper in
the US and read every hour on the hour on every tv and radio
station on the Monday before election day. [for our international
readers, US Federal elections are traditionally held on the
second Tuesday after the first Monday in November.]


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:04:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" quickly quoth:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
FINALLY someone who understands the problem
A lot of words and the bottom line is:
provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
Looking at the current crop of candidates, we are going to have business as
usual. Everyone has used and abused the earmark business. Change is a word
designed to elict votes.

It sure is when Bama says it. sigh

What we need on the ballot is a checkbox for NOTA. Let's let the
terms of the current crop of *******s expire and -not- replace them.
The country would be better off without a CONgress for awhile, eh?

Except for the absence of checks and balances.
The best situation is a chief executive of one party, and a
congressional majority (in at least House or Senate) of the other party.
....and a conservative Supreme Court

The citizens are safest when government does the least.

Ed Huntress wrote:
The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according to US
statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be allowed to
vote. d8-)
Ed Huntress

OUCH! That was unfair Ed. :-)
...lew...

Lew Hartswick wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according
to US statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be
allowed to vote. d8-)
Ed Huntress
OUCH! That was unfair Ed. :-)

Most of us own property though

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according to
US statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be
allowed to vote. d8-)
Ed Huntress
OUCH! That was unfair Ed. :-)
...lew...

Maybe we can get 3/5 of a vote each. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Rex" wrote in message
...
Lew Hartswick wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according to
US statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be
allowed to vote. d8-)
Ed Huntress
OUCH! That was unfair Ed. :-)

Most of us own property though

He said we need both. I'm going to see if I can alter my birth
certificate...

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:43:27 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Rex
quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:04:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" quickly quoth:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
FINALLY someone who understands the problem
A lot of words and the bottom line is:
provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
Looking at the current crop of candidates, we are going to have business as
usual. Everyone has used and abused the earmark business. Change is a word
designed to elict votes.

It sure is when Bama says it. sigh

What we need on the ballot is a checkbox for NOTA. Let's let the
terms of the current crop of *******s expire and -not- replace them.
The country would be better off without a CONgress for awhile, eh?

Except for the absence of checks and balances.
The best situation is a chief executive of one party, and a
congressional majority (in at least House or Senate) of the other party.
...and a conservative Supreme Court

Agreed.


The citizens are safest when government does the least.

Indeed!

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message
...
Lew Hartswick wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according to
US statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be
allowed to vote. d8-)
Ed Huntress
OUCH! That was unfair Ed. :-)
Most of us own property though

He said we need both. I'm going to see if I can alter my birth
certificate...

Perhaps a dab of Grecian Formula...

Rex wrote:
Lew Hartswick wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according
to US statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be
allowed to vote. d8-)
Ed Huntress

OUCH! That was unfair Ed. :-)

Most of us own property though
Yes. In several parts of the country.
PA and NM, does that give me two votes? :-)
...lew...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
...
Rex wrote:
Lew Hartswick wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according
to US statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be
allowed to vote. d8-)
Ed Huntress

OUCH! That was unfair Ed. :-)

Most of us own property though
Yes. In several parts of the country.
PA and NM, does that give me two votes? :-)
...lew...

Only if you're younger than 45. Otherwise, line up over there, with the
illegal aliens. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES

Should read the 300 million people responsible for America's woes. We
are
the ones asking for the 545 to take care of us.

TRUE, the real problem lies with the voters. Until the vote is
restricted to those who support (pay taxes) and defend (belong to the
unorganized militia) society things will get worse until the next
revolution. Power is never relinquished peacefully ;(

The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according to
US
statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be allowed
to
vote. d8-)

I would say that any gun owner who is willing to defend this country
(internally) should be considered part of the unorganized militia,
regardless of age or sex.

OK. When we elect you to national office, you can begin campaigning for that
right away. The law is a couple of hundred years old, but maybe it's time
for something new. d8-)

Oh, FWIW, women who are members of the National Guard are also considered to
be part of the militia.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:38:40 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES

Should read the 300 million people responsible for America's woes. We
are
the ones asking for the 545 to take care of us.

TRUE, the real problem lies with the voters. Until the vote is
restricted to those who support (pay taxes) and defend (belong to the
unorganized militia) society things will get worse until the next
revolution. Power is never relinquished peacefully ;(

The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according to US
statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be allowed to
vote. d8-)

I would say that any gun owner who is willing to defend this country
(internally) should be considered part of the unorganized militia,
regardless of age or sex.

And a number of cases in the ADA and age discrimination laws can be
cited to raise the age limit quite well.

Gunner


Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES

Should read the 300 million people responsible for America's woes. We
are
the ones asking for the 545 to take care of us.

TRUE, the real problem lies with the voters. Until the vote is
restricted to those who support (pay taxes) and defend (belong to the
unorganized militia) society things will get worse until the next
revolution. Power is never relinquished peacefully ;(

The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according to US
statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be allowed to
vote. d8-)

I would say that any gun owner who is willing to defend this country
(internally) should be considered part of the unorganized militia,
regardless of age or sex.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:38:40 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES

Should read the 300 million people responsible for America's woes.
We
are
the ones asking for the 545 to take care of us.

TRUE, the real problem lies with the voters. Until the vote is
restricted to those who support (pay taxes) and defend (belong to the
unorganized militia) society things will get worse until the next
revolution. Power is never relinquished peacefully ;(

The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according to
US
statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be allowed
to
vote. d8-)

I would say that any gun owner who is willing to defend this country
(internally) should be considered part of the unorganized militia,
regardless of age or sex.

And a number of cases in the ADA and age discrimination laws can be
cited to raise the age limit quite well.

You could join those old farts who are trying to use that law to get into
co-ed teenager summer camps, too.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:38:40 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES
Should read the 300 million people responsible for America's woes.
We
are
the ones asking for the 545 to take care of us.
TRUE, the real problem lies with the voters. Until the vote is
restricted to those who support (pay taxes) and defend (belong to the
unorganized militia) society things will get worse until the next
revolution. Power is never relinquished peacefully ;(
The unorganized militia is able-bodied males aged 18 to 45, according to
US
statutes. I guess that means most of us on this NG shouldn't be allowed
to
vote. d8-)
I would say that any gun owner who is willing to defend this country
(internally) should be considered part of the unorganized militia,
regardless of age or sex.
And a number of cases in the ADA and age discrimination laws can be
cited to raise the age limit quite well.

You could join those old farts who are trying to use that law to get into
co-ed teenager summer camps, too.

Hey, watch who you call an old fart!! g