"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 24, 7:31*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. *Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

--
Ed Huntress

After Don says that challenges should not be by fire, your statement
seems to be saying that any challenge to the government is treason.

Dan

Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

Very well put, don.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

There was a time about 200 years ago that a rabble assembled into a
formidable force.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.
Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

ed, are you channeling King George III now?

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:16:54 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:
No..but Ive located a 12" bull plug

Whassat?


http://www.anvilintl.com/ProductSear...d=113&ptid=665

The thingy with the round end.

Amazing. Nothing like the first ten Google links for "bull plug". Is
google losing its contextual track?


Put in your own splitter, didja?

Of course I did. On the house side of the meter of course.

But of course. g

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:16:54 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:
No..but Ive located a 12" bull plug

Whassat?


http://www.anvilintl.com/ProductSear...d=113&ptid=665

The thingy with the round end.

Amazing. Nothing like the first ten Google links for "bull plug". Is
google losing its contextual track?

Google has always been crap. Try Altavista instead.

wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 7:31 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

--
Ed Huntress

After Don says that challenges should not be by fire, your statement
seems to be saying that any challenge to the government is treason.

Dan

You always display a fertile imagination, Dan. Don described a "challenge by
fire" as revolution or anarchy. I pointed out that, under US law, it is
treason. That's all. The rest is something that happened between your ears.

--
Ed Huntress

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of distance. While I
support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm also not interested in
challenging the power of the US Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

Very well put, don.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

There was a time about 200 years ago that a rabble assembled into a
formidable force.

That was around the time that George Washington marched 16,000 federalized
militiamen into western PA, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and indicted a
bunch of them for treason, wasn't it?

Are you wishing for a repeat?

--
Ed Huntress

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.
Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

ed, are you channeling King George III now?

I'm channeling the Constitution of the United States of America, the words
of the Founders, and a serious reading of history.

What are you channeling? This?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/are...agines-c,2849/

Read the Constitution. Read history. The whole thing, not the cherry-picked
bits that the neo-anarchists and right-wing whackos like to believe.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

--
Ed Huntress

It would be just like the Germans that loved their country and wanted Hitler
overthrown.

RogerN

Ed Huntress wrote:

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of distance. While I
support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm also not interested in
challenging the power of the US Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

Very well put, don.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

There was a time about 200 years ago that a rabble assembled into a
formidable force.

That was around the time that George Washington marched 16,000 federalized
militiamen into western PA, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and indicted a
bunch of them for treason, wasn't it?

Are you wishing for a repeat?

--
Ed Huntress

Say what you want about your beloved founders, constitution, laws, etc.,
but having watched world events in recent years, can you honestly say
that you think the US government could withstand a home-soil insurgency
of even 10,000 (0.001% of the population) coordinated, committed
insurgents? I'm not so sure.

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

--
Ed Huntress

It would be just like the Germans that loved their country and wanted
Hitler overthrown.

RogerN

More like Timothy McVeigh, who thought that he was starting a revolution,
that the fact that the majority of people voted against his beliefs should
be ignored, or they should be killed.

Something like you, Roger. Aren't you the one who was talking about putting
the crosshairs on liberals?

If you ever decide to do more than flap your gums about it, you'll have your
choice of lethal injections now.

--
Ed Huntress

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of distance. While I
support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm also not interested in
challenging the power of the US Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

Very well put, don.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

There was a time about 200 years ago that a rabble assembled into a
formidable force.

That was around the time that George Washington marched 16,000
federalized
militiamen into western PA, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and indicted
a
bunch of them for treason, wasn't it?

Are you wishing for a repeat?

--
Ed Huntress

Say what you want about your beloved founders, constitution, laws, etc.,

Thank you, I will. I think very highly of them -- unlike the phonies here
who make up fantastical tales about endless usurpations and create fantasies
for themselves of becoming terrorists from within.

but having watched world events in recent years, can you honestly say
that you think the US government could withstand a home-soil insurgency
of even 10,000 (0.001% of the population) coordinated, committed
insurgents? I'm not so sure.

Yes. The Sons of Timothy McVeigh would find out in a hurry that most of us
would do everything we could to help wipe them out. Out-of-shape blowhards,
largely ignorant, stupid, and delusional, and much too impressed with their
own skills and abilities, the "insurgents" would never have a chance to
coordinate before they were found out and suppressed. And their commitment
would collapse in a heartbeat when they saw the trouble they'd unleashed.

That's the reality.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of distance. While I
support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm also not interested in
challenging the power of the US Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

Very well put, don.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

There was a time about 200 years ago that a rabble assembled into a
formidable force.

That was around the time that George Washington marched 16,000
federalized
militiamen into western PA, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and indicted
a
bunch of them for treason, wasn't it?

Are you wishing for a repeat?

--
Ed Huntress

Say what you want about your beloved founders, constitution, laws, etc.,

Thank you, I will. I think very highly of them -- unlike the phonies here
who make up fantastical tales about endless usurpations and create fantasies
for themselves of becoming terrorists from within.

but having watched world events in recent years, can you honestly say
that you think the US government could withstand a home-soil insurgency
of even 10,000 (0.001% of the population) coordinated, committed
insurgents? I'm not so sure.

Yes. The Sons of Timothy McVeigh would find out in a hurry that most of us
would do everything we could to help wipe them out. Out-of-shape blowhards,
largely ignorant, stupid, and delusional, and much too impressed with their
own skills and abilities, the "insurgents" would never have a chance to
coordinate before they were found out and suppressed. And their commitment
would collapse in a heartbeat when they saw the trouble they'd unleashed.

That's the reality.

The reality is that the US has completely lost the national cohesiveness
that allowed it to win WWII, which is why we have essentially lost every
war since then and are loosing the two or three we are currently bogged
down in.

In the time since WWII, a lot has been learned about waging an
asymmetric war, except how to effectively counter one. We've been
fighting an asymmetric war in Iraq and Afghanistan for quite some time
now and not really making much progress.

Iraq / Afghanistan is an asymmetric war on foreign soil where our troops
have no personal loyalties. As we've seen trying to get Iraqi and Afghan
troops mustered to support their own governments, personal loyalties are
a big problem in fighting an asymmetric war on your own home soil.

We have also seen that various foreign countries are quite willing to
support such an insurgency if it seems to further their aims. The US has
of course done the exact same thing in the past, supporting such groups
as the Talliban when it seemed to further our aims in fighting a proxy
war with Russia.

You like to point to a few kooks like McVeigh and convince yourself that
all potential internal threats are of that ilk, but I don't see that as
being the case. If you look at the many cases of attacks in the US by
environmental or animal rights terrorists, you find a very different
picture of perpetrators who blend in, who have supporters who will
assist them and who in a great many cases have not been identified or
prosecuted.

It is important to note that most of the perpetrators of the
environmental and animal terrorism fit closely with the profile of the
terrorists and insurgents you see in Iraq and Afghanistan, young, angry
and disillusioned and with a cause they have convinced themselves
justifies violent attacks.

I think the most likely source of an insurgency is not from geriatric
anti-government ranters on newsgroups, but rather from a relatively
young group with a religious or religion like ideology.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:34:41 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

--
Ed Huntress

It would be just like the Germans that loved their country and wanted Hitler
overthrown.

RogerN


Errr... and who were they? Certainly Hitler, and his party were
elected with sufficient votes to be the largest party in the coalition
government, he kick started the economy, created jobs through
government spending, re-structured the military, recovered German
territory that had been taken away after WW I, and pulled the country
out of a depression that was far worse then the recent financial
debacle in the U.S. (In fact rather similar to some claims made for
O'Bama).

I think that if you investigate you will discover that, firstly, the
"underground" was, in terms of population insignificant, generally
ineffective, either communist or acting out of self-interest, i.e.,
the Generals, who had no interest in changing any of the underlying
factors but wished to replace Hitler in an attempt to pacify the
Allies so that an armistice could be negotiated, and generally had no
effect on the outcome of the war.

The majority of those who wanted to"save the nation" didn't appear
until after the defeat in 1945. Take a look at the political
background of the police chiefs, mayors, and all other government
officials appointed by the Allies to run the country after the
surrender. Nearly all were members of the Nazi party, or had served
under the Nazi government. Why? Because they supported the
government.


John B.

On 2010-03-25, John wrote:
Errr... and who were they? Certainly Hitler, and his party were
elected with sufficient votes to be the largest party in the coalition
government, he kick started the economy, created jobs through
government spending, re-structured the military, recovered German
territory that had been taken away after WW I, and pulled the country
out of a depression that was far worse then the recent financial
debacle in the U.S. (In fact rather similar to some claims made for
O'Bama).

I am not very well read on the German economy prior to WWII.

I believe that there were a few factors that helped Germany achieve full
employment and improve economy. One was renouncing reparations
payments. Another was increased military production. One more was
recovery of the world economy.

I think that if you investigate you will discover that, firstly, the
"underground" was, in terms of population insignificant, generally
ineffective, either communist or acting out of self-interest, i.e.,
the Generals, who had no interest in changing any of the underlying
factors but wished to replace Hitler in an attempt to pacify the
Allies so that an armistice could be negotiated, and generally had no
effect on the outcome of the war.

The majority of those who wanted to"save the nation" didn't appear
until after the defeat in 1945. Take a look at the political
background of the police chiefs, mayors, and all other government
officials appointed by the Allies to run the country after the
surrender. Nearly all were members of the Nazi party, or had served
under the Nazi government. Why? Because they supported the
government.

That's right. There was next to no opposition to Hitler, which was
partly helped by his effective secret police, but also, Hitler was
supported by the public opinion.

The more convenient after war narrative of Germans was that Hitler was
an usurper (partly true) and led unwilling Germans on to committing
crimes that they did not support (not true in my opinion). I believe
that to be a myth.

For example, 101st police battalion was formed out of very ordinary
people (not some indoctrinated youngsters) and was sent to exterminate
remaining Jews in Poland. Only one person realized that what they were
doing was morally wrong and refused to continue. He suffered
essentially no repercussions, but no one else followed his lead.

i

On 2010-03-25, Ignoramus16885 wrote:
On 2010-03-25, John wrote:
Errr... and who were they? Certainly Hitler, and his party were
elected with sufficient votes to be the largest party in the coalition
government, he kick started the economy, created jobs through
government spending, re-structured the military, recovered German
territory that had been taken away after WW I, and pulled the country
out of a depression that was far worse then the recent financial
debacle in the U.S. (In fact rather similar to some claims made for
O'Bama).

I am not very well read on the German economy prior to WWII.

I believe that there were a few factors that helped Germany achieve full
employment and improve economy. One was renouncing reparations
payments. Another was increased military production. One more was
recovery of the world economy.

I think that if you investigate you will discover that, firstly, the
"underground" was, in terms of population insignificant, generally
ineffective, either communist or acting out of self-interest, i.e.,
the Generals, who had no interest in changing any of the underlying
factors but wished to replace Hitler in an attempt to pacify the
Allies so that an armistice could be negotiated, and generally had no
effect on the outcome of the war.

The majority of those who wanted to"save the nation" didn't appear
until after the defeat in 1945. Take a look at the political
background of the police chiefs, mayors, and all other government
officials appointed by the Allies to run the country after the
surrender. Nearly all were members of the Nazi party, or had served
under the Nazi government. Why? Because they supported the
government.

That's right. There was next to no opposition to Hitler, which was
partly helped by his effective secret police, but also, Hitler was
supported by the public opinion.

The more convenient after war narrative of Germans was that Hitler was
an usurper (partly true) and led unwilling Germans on to committing
crimes that they did not support (not true in my opinion). I believe
that to be a myth.

For example, 101st police battalion was formed out of very ordinary
people (not some indoctrinated youngsters) and was sent to exterminate
remaining Jews in Poland. Only one person realized that what they were
doing was morally wrong and refused to continue. He suffered
essentially no repercussions, but no one else followed his lead.

i

I hasten to follow up on this to mention that Wikipedia says that 15
people out of 500 opted out. This is not my recollection of ordinary
men book, but I guess I was wrong. I still have the book somewhere.

i

"John" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:34:41 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

--
Ed Huntress

It would be just like the Germans that loved their country and wanted
Hitler
overthrown.

RogerN


Errr... and who were they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

Certainly Hitler, and his party were
elected with sufficient votes to be the largest party in the coalition
government, he kick started the economy, created jobs through
government spending, re-structured the military, recovered German
territory that had been taken away after WW I, and pulled the country
out of a depression that was far worse then the recent financial
debacle in the U.S. (In fact rather similar to some claims made for
O'Bama).

I think that if you investigate you will discover that, firstly, the
"underground" was, in terms of population insignificant, generally
ineffective, either communist or acting out of self-interest, i.e.,
the Generals, who had no interest in changing any of the underlying
factors but wished to replace Hitler in an attempt to pacify the
Allies so that an armistice could be negotiated, and generally had no
effect on the outcome of the war.

The majority of those who wanted to"save the nation" didn't appear
until after the defeat in 1945. Take a look at the political
background of the police chiefs, mayors, and all other government
officials appointed by the Allies to run the country after the
surrender. Nearly all were members of the Nazi party, or had served
under the Nazi government. Why? Because they supported the
government.


John B.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:10:33 +0700, the renowned John
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:34:41 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

--
Ed Huntress

It would be just like the Germans that loved their country and wanted Hitler
overthrown.

RogerN


Errr... and who were they? Certainly Hitler, and his party were
elected with sufficient votes to be the largest party in the coalition
government, he kick started the economy, created jobs through
government spending, re-structured the military, recovered German
territory that had been taken away after WW I, and pulled the country
out of a depression that was far worse then the recent financial
debacle in the U.S. (In fact rather similar to some claims made for
O'Bama).

I think that if you investigate you will discover that, firstly, the
"underground" was, in terms of population insignificant, generally
ineffective, either communist or acting out of self-interest, i.e.,
the Generals, who had no interest in changing any of the underlying
factors but wished to replace Hitler in an attempt to pacify the
Allies so that an armistice could be negotiated, and generally had no
effect on the outcome of the war.

The majority of those who wanted to"save the nation" didn't appear
until after the defeat in 1945. Take a look at the political
background of the police chiefs, mayors, and all other government
officials appointed by the Allies to run the country after the
surrender. Nearly all were members of the Nazi party, or had served
under the Nazi government. Why? Because they supported the
government.


John B.

A clean copy of _Triumph des Willens_ by Leni Riefenstahl has shown up
on youtube, with English subtitles:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcFuH...eature=related

Quite an amazing piece of filmmaking.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:29:39 -0500, Ignoramus16885
wrote:

On 2010-03-25, John wrote:
Errr... and who were they? Certainly Hitler, and his party were
elected with sufficient votes to be the largest party in the coalition
government, he kick started the economy, created jobs through
government spending, re-structured the military, recovered German
territory that had been taken away after WW I, and pulled the country
out of a depression that was far worse then the recent financial
debacle in the U.S. (In fact rather similar to some claims made for
O'Bama).

I am not very well read on the German economy prior to WWII.

I believe that there were a few factors that helped Germany achieve full
employment and improve economy. One was renouncing reparations
payments. Another was increased military production. One more was
recovery of the world economy.

Certainly, but did the average German care a whit about anything but
he could get a job and his money was worth something a week after he
got his pay. In fact I'll wager that to the average German an
announcement that the Leader had refused to pay the repatriations
would have made him a hero. Certainly to the power structure - the
military and the industrial sectors he was doing the right thing.

I think that if you investigate you will discover that, firstly, the
"underground" was, in terms of population insignificant, generally
ineffective, either communist or acting out of self-interest, i.e.,
the Generals, who had no interest in changing any of the underlying
factors but wished to replace Hitler in an attempt to pacify the
Allies so that an armistice could be negotiated, and generally had no
effect on the outcome of the war.

The majority of those who wanted to"save the nation" didn't appear
until after the defeat in 1945. Take a look at the political
background of the police chiefs, mayors, and all other government
officials appointed by the Allies to run the country after the
surrender. Nearly all were members of the Nazi party, or had served
under the Nazi government. Why? Because they supported the
government.

That's right. There was next to no opposition to Hitler, which was
partly helped by his effective secret police, but also, Hitler was
supported by the public opinion.

The more convenient after war narrative of Germans was that Hitler was
an usurper (partly true) and led unwilling Germans on to committing
crimes that they did not support (not true in my opinion). I believe
that to be a myth.

For example, 101st police battalion was formed out of very ordinary
people (not some indoctrinated youngsters) and was sent to exterminate
remaining Jews in Poland. Only one person realized that what they were
doing was morally wrong and refused to continue. He suffered
essentially no repercussions, but no one else followed his lead.

I think that most people forget, or ignore, the fact that no leader
exists in a vacuum. Every one, no matter how despotic is supported by
a group who support his policies and actively work to assist him. And,
while it is pleasant to believe that it was "That Devil" who is solely
responsible a little investigation will show that there were a whole
masses of people who supported him.

John B.

"Pinstripe Sniper" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

You always display a fertile imagination, Dan. Don described a "challenge
by
fire" as revolution or anarchy. I pointed out that, under US law, it is
treason. That's all. The rest is something that happened between your
ears.

cough I lean toward big business being the corrupting influence on
big government. So if anything, disrupting government will just make
it easier for big business to push more stuff their way.

The recent Supreme Court ruling that allows corporate entities to
directly fund elections (did I get that right?) is the scariest thing
I've heard of in a while.


PsS

Guess you didn't hear about Bill and Hillary's methods of getting
"contributions".

Steve

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:15:17 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


Id estimate 10 million people will be killing Leftwingers.

Aren't you the nitwit who estimated that he'd driven 626 miles per
day, every day for 35 years? And aren't you the BS artist who insists
that he lives on "acreage" that's actually just a small lot? Does the
Flat Earth Society realize that you're a free agent?

Wayne

On 2010-03-25, John wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:29:39 -0500, Ignoramus16885
wrote:

On 2010-03-25, John wrote:
Errr... and who were they? Certainly Hitler, and his party were
elected with sufficient votes to be the largest party in the coalition
government, he kick started the economy, created jobs through
government spending, re-structured the military, recovered German
territory that had been taken away after WW I, and pulled the country
out of a depression that was far worse then the recent financial
debacle in the U.S. (In fact rather similar to some claims made for
O'Bama).

I am not very well read on the German economy prior to WWII.

I believe that there were a few factors that helped Germany achieve full
employment and improve economy. One was renouncing reparations
payments. Another was increased military production. One more was
recovery of the world economy.

Certainly, but did the average German care a whit about anything but
he could get a job and his money was worth something a week after he
got his pay.

Maybe the average German did not care, but I do.

In fact I'll wager that to the average German an announcement that
the Leader had refused to pay the repatriations would have made him
a hero. Certainly to the power structure - the military and the
industrial sectors he was doing the right thing.

Indeed.

I think that if you investigate you will discover that, firstly, the
"underground" was, in terms of population insignificant, generally
ineffective, either communist or acting out of self-interest, i.e.,
the Generals, who had no interest in changing any of the underlying
factors but wished to replace Hitler in an attempt to pacify the
Allies so that an armistice could be negotiated, and generally had no
effect on the outcome of the war.

The majority of those who wanted to"save the nation" didn't appear
until after the defeat in 1945. Take a look at the political
background of the police chiefs, mayors, and all other government
officials appointed by the Allies to run the country after the
surrender. Nearly all were members of the Nazi party, or had served
under the Nazi government. Why? Because they supported the
government.

That's right. There was next to no opposition to Hitler, which was
partly helped by his effective secret police, but also, Hitler was
supported by the public opinion.

The more convenient after war narrative of Germans was that Hitler was
an usurper (partly true) and led unwilling Germans on to committing
crimes that they did not support (not true in my opinion). I believe
that to be a myth.

For example, 101st police battalion was formed out of very ordinary
people (not some indoctrinated youngsters) and was sent to exterminate
remaining Jews in Poland. Only one person realized that what they were
doing was morally wrong and refused to continue. He suffered
essentially no repercussions, but no one else followed his lead.

I think that most people forget, or ignore, the fact that no leader
exists in a vacuum. Every one, no matter how despotic is supported by
a group who support his policies and actively work to assist him. And,
while it is pleasant to believe that it was "That Devil" who is solely
responsible a little investigation will show that there were a whole
masses of people who supported him.

Indeed, this is true. In the case of that 101st battalion, I am sure
that the policemen were not refising to kill Jews because they thought
it was the right thing to do and a great idea.

After the war, all kinds of rationalizations were invented to hide
this, as it is too unpleasant to contemplate.

i

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:34:40 -0600, the infamous "Pete C."
scrawled the following:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:16:54 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:
No..but Ive located a 12" bull plug

Whassat?


http://www.anvilintl.com/ProductSear...d=113&ptid=665

The thingy with the round end.

Amazing. Nothing like the first ten Google links for "bull plug". Is
google losing its contextual track?

Google has always been crap. Try Altavista instead.

I've always had good luck with Google due to its breadth. OK,
Altavista was much more contextually correct with a search for "bull
plug". Thanks. I'll leave Firefox tuned to AltaVista for awhile.
(I added it the last time we had this conversation.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:16:05 -0700, Steve B wrote:


Guess you didn't hear about Bill and Hillary's methods of getting
"contributions".

Steve

This is why you consistently appear as a dumb ****. What proof do you have
or just more made up lies that you expect someone to believe. I know you
to be too stupid to find a link for your lie.

Tell TMT that the "interweb" extends beyond the boundries of of the USA.
The news server aioe isn't in or limited to the USA either.

Get some friends.

By the way, are you still beating your wife?

steve

Gunner Asch wrote:

Pretty good synopsis.

Of course you left out those that have nothing left to lose. Aging
veterans, those living in their cars because of foreclosure and so
forth.

Id estimate 10 million people will be killing Leftwingers.

Shrug

Gunner

Local residents asked the Southern Pacific Railroad if the station could
be named Moro when the rails arrived about 1900.
Instead, the railroad directed the station be called Moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft,_California

Local residents asked the Southern Pacific Railroad if the station could
be named Moro when the rails arrived about 1900.
Instead, the railroad directed the station be called Moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft,_California


Perfect name. You have to be a Moron to live in Taft/Moron. Gunner
proves that point as well as anything possibly could. But if you were
going by him it's a toss up as to whether the town should be named Liar
instead.

Hawke

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:16:05 -0700, Steve B wrote:


Guess you didn't hear about Bill and Hillary's methods of getting
"contributions".

Steve

This is why you consistently appear as a dumb ****. What proof do you have
or just more made up lies that you expect someone to believe. I know you
to be too stupid to find a link for your lie.

Tell TMT that the "interweb" extends beyond the boundries of of the USA.
The news server aioe isn't in or limited to the USA either.

Get some friends.

By the way, are you still beating your wife?

steve

What are you doing this weekend, dumb ****? Why don't you come by and let's
talk? I'll be in Vegas Friday. Let's get together real soon.

Steve

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:31:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

Perhaps, after decades of legal maneuvering and dicking around. Faint
threat, minor deterrent.

The more immediate reality is the matter of picking a firefight with
young, strong, eager gov't forces of superior numbers and armament in
combat-ready condition and state of training. Guerilla warfare isn't
about posturing or political protest, it's about killing stealthily
while accepting and even embracing significant mortal risk.

The "more immediate reality" that you describe is objectively accurate, but
has no operative significance. Because the juvenile blowhards who are
fantasizing about it don't have the balls to even attempt it. All talk, no
go, they've run out of testicles by the time they hit the "send" key. Their
fantasy isn't even worth a reasoned and objective response.


There's nothing patriotic about anarchy. There is also nothing
patriotic about acceptance of greed and corruption in our congress and
offensive arrogance exhibited by our elected president. Not that his
swaggerwide predecessor was any less offensive.

First off, I doubt if most people agree with you about Obama's "arrogance."
Most of us (I'm in the plurality here, who favor his performance) think he
took too long to tell the Republican obstructionists to go **** up a rope --
the Dems are in the majority, and they were elected to lead, not to suck up
to Republicans who are trying to exploit a political wedge (and let the
country be damned) or to knee-jerk to every poll.

And if you don't like the leaders we have, then you know what to do about
it. Fantasizing about shooting them, like Larry, Gunner, and the rest of the
knuckleheads are doing, is the most offensive thing going on here.

--
Ed Huntress

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of distance.
While I
support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm also not interested in
challenging the power of the US Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

Very well put, don.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's
revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless
done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on
usenet.

There was a time about 200 years ago that a rabble assembled into a
formidable force.

That was around the time that George Washington marched 16,000
federalized
militiamen into western PA, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and
indicted
a
bunch of them for treason, wasn't it?

Are you wishing for a repeat?

--
Ed Huntress

Say what you want about your beloved founders, constitution, laws,
etc.,

Thank you, I will. I think very highly of them -- unlike the phonies here
who make up fantastical tales about endless usurpations and create
fantasies
for themselves of becoming terrorists from within.

but having watched world events in recent years, can you honestly say
that you think the US government could withstand a home-soil insurgency
of even 10,000 (0.001% of the population) coordinated, committed
insurgents? I'm not so sure.

Yes. The Sons of Timothy McVeigh would find out in a hurry that most of
us
would do everything we could to help wipe them out. Out-of-shape
blowhards,
largely ignorant, stupid, and delusional, and much too impressed with
their
own skills and abilities, the "insurgents" would never have a chance to
coordinate before they were found out and suppressed. And their
commitment
would collapse in a heartbeat when they saw the trouble they'd unleashed.

That's the reality.

The reality is that the US has completely lost the national cohesiveness
that allowed it to win WWII, which is why we have essentially lost every
war since then and are loosing the two or three we are currently bogged
down in.

In the time since WWII, a lot has been learned about waging an
asymmetric war, except how to effectively counter one. We've been
fighting an asymmetric war in Iraq and Afghanistan for quite some time
now and not really making much progress.

Iraq / Afghanistan is an asymmetric war on foreign soil where our troops
have no personal loyalties. As we've seen trying to get Iraqi and Afghan
troops mustered to support their own governments, personal loyalties are
a big problem in fighting an asymmetric war on your own home soil.

We have also seen that various foreign countries are quite willing to
support such an insurgency if it seems to further their aims. The US has
of course done the exact same thing in the past, supporting such groups
as the Talliban when it seemed to further our aims in fighting a proxy
war with Russia.

You like to point to a few kooks like McVeigh and convince yourself that
all potential internal threats are of that ilk, but I don't see that as
being the case. If you look at the many cases of attacks in the US by
environmental or animal rights terrorists, you find a very different
picture of perpetrators who blend in, who have supporters who will
assist them and who in a great many cases have not been identified or
prosecuted.

It is important to note that most of the perpetrators of the
environmental and animal terrorism fit closely with the profile of the
terrorists and insurgents you see in Iraq and Afghanistan, young, angry
and disillusioned and with a cause they have convinced themselves
justifies violent attacks.

I think the most likely source of an insurgency is not from geriatric
anti-government ranters on newsgroups, but rather from a relatively
young group with a religious or religion like ideology.

The animals rightists have been rattling their swords for 40 years. So far,
the republic remains safe from them.

The other groups are something like them -- mumblers and grumblers, with a
few freaks among them who do something violent, but mostly without a lot of
brains, and 'way short on balls.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:03:42 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of distance.
While I
support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm also not interested in
challenging the power of the US Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

Very well put, don.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's
revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless
done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on
usenet.

There was a time about 200 years ago that a rabble assembled into a
formidable force.

That was around the time that George Washington marched 16,000
federalized
militiamen into western PA, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and
indicted
a
bunch of them for treason, wasn't it?

Are you wishing for a repeat?

--
Ed Huntress

Say what you want about your beloved founders, constitution, laws,
etc.,

Thank you, I will. I think very highly of them -- unlike the phonies
here
who make up fantastical tales about endless usurpations and create
fantasies
for themselves of becoming terrorists from within.

but having watched world events in recent years, can you honestly say
that you think the US government could withstand a home-soil
insurgency
of even 10,000 (0.001% of the population) coordinated, committed
insurgents? I'm not so sure.

Yes. The Sons of Timothy McVeigh would find out in a hurry that most of
us
would do everything we could to help wipe them out. Out-of-shape
blowhards,
largely ignorant, stupid, and delusional, and much too impressed with
their
own skills and abilities, the "insurgents" would never have a chance to
coordinate before they were found out and suppressed. And their
commitment
would collapse in a heartbeat when they saw the trouble they'd
unleashed.

That's the reality.

The reality is that the US has completely lost the national cohesiveness
that allowed it to win WWII, which is why we have essentially lost every
war since then and are loosing the two or three we are currently bogged
down in.

In the time since WWII, a lot has been learned about waging an
asymmetric war, except how to effectively counter one. We've been
fighting an asymmetric war in Iraq and Afghanistan for quite some time
now and not really making much progress.

Iraq / Afghanistan is an asymmetric war on foreign soil where our troops
have no personal loyalties. As we've seen trying to get Iraqi and Afghan
troops mustered to support their own governments, personal loyalties are
a big problem in fighting an asymmetric war on your own home soil.

We have also seen that various foreign countries are quite willing to
support such an insurgency if it seems to further their aims. The US has
of course done the exact same thing in the past, supporting such groups
as the Talliban when it seemed to further our aims in fighting a proxy
war with Russia.

You like to point to a few kooks like McVeigh and convince yourself that
all potential internal threats are of that ilk, but I don't see that as
being the case. If you look at the many cases of attacks in the US by
environmental or animal rights terrorists, you find a very different
picture of perpetrators who blend in, who have supporters who will
assist them and who in a great many cases have not been identified or
prosecuted.

It is important to note that most of the perpetrators of the
environmental and animal terrorism fit closely with the profile of the
terrorists and insurgents you see in Iraq and Afghanistan, young, angry
and disillusioned and with a cause they have convinced themselves
justifies violent attacks.

I think the most likely source of an insurgency is not from geriatric
anti-government ranters on newsgroups, but rather from a relatively
young group with a religious or religion like ideology.


Pretty good synopsis.

Of course you left out those that have nothing left to lose. Aging
veterans, those living in their cars because of foreclosure and so
forth.

Id estimate 10 million people will be killing Leftwingers.

Shrug

Gunner

Like you, Gunner, they're all talk, and with no guts to do anything about
it. That's why you intend to sit on your porch and play the banjo.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:06:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:31:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

Perhaps, after decades of legal maneuvering and dicking around. Faint
threat, minor deterrent.

The more immediate reality is the matter of picking a firefight with
young, strong, eager gov't forces of superior numbers and armament in
combat-ready condition and state of training. Guerilla warfare isn't
about posturing or political protest, it's about killing stealthily
while accepting and even embracing significant mortal risk.

The "more immediate reality" that you describe is objectively accurate, but
has no operative significance. Because the juvenile blowhards who are
fantasizing about it don't have the balls to even attempt it. All talk, no
go, they've run out of testicles by the time they hit the "send" key. Their
fantasy isn't even worth a reasoned and objective response.


There's nothing patriotic about anarchy. There is also nothing
patriotic about acceptance of greed and corruption in our congress and
offensive arrogance exhibited by our elected president.

Your point would be more meaningful if not for the fact that you get
offended, or at least pretend to be offended, by things like missing
uppercase.

Not that his
swaggerwide predecessor was any less offensive.

First off, I doubt if most people agree with you about Obama's "arrogance."
Most of us (I'm in the plurality here, who favor his performance) think he
took too long to tell the Republican obstructionists to go **** up a rope --
the Dems are in the majority, and they were elected to lead, not to suck up
to Republicans who are trying to exploit a political wedge (and let the
country be damned) or to knee-jerk to every poll.

And if you don't like the leaders we have, then you know what to do about
it. Fantasizing about shooting them, like Larry, Gunner, and the rest of the
knuckleheads are doing, is the most offensive thing going on here.

Is it just me, or did you get pretty much the same feeling reading
Don's post as you did listening to Boehner's recent comments? And BTW,
what the heck color is Boehner going for with that ridiculous spray-on
tan? It reminds me of a Halloween pumpkin that's been left out until
it's time to make room for the reindeer. Laughed my ass off a few
minutes ago reading about Frum getting the boot from the AEI.
Apparently the real victims of the "great cull" will be any repugs who
dare to be even slightly honest. On their next sortie the great
cullers are probably going to TP his house.

Wayne

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Pete C." wrote:


Wes wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

Perhaps you should look at the thread and see who you're talking about.
I'm a centrist extremist and as anti-socialist as they come.

But you don't like dogs.

Wes

Nope, no dogs. Love cats, but only have one.

I'm a dog guy but all of my dogs have coexisted with kitties.

Once upon a time, I came home early and was reading a magazine with the tv
on when I heard
a strange knock on the storm door. I looked and saw a somewhat emaciated
kittie hitting
the door with her paw.

I felt sorry for that poor thing so I opened the door intending to give
her a quick meal
and a trip out the door. Well she came in, jumped up on the dryer and
started munching on
Samson and Midnights food that we kept up there out of reach of the dog.

I didn't really pick up on that. Sometimes I'm slow, I'll admit that.

Anyway, the wife comes home, sees the cat, now in my lap, and gives me a
look, oh you've
met Boots.

Evidently she felt sorry for the stray, didn't want to ask me to keep yet
another pet
since we had 3 at the time.

She had been going out each night and opening the window of my Escort so
the cat had a
safe place to sleep each night along with feeding it. Each morning she
got up before I
did and chased it out before I got up. We were taking the newspaper at
the time so she
had a reason to go out. Oh honey, I'll get the paper. That sort of
thing.

Since the cat spent all that time in my car, and likely got used to my
smell, it bonded to
me and became my cat. RIP Boots. When it got down to keeping her alive
by iv drips it
was time to let her go. Sure miss the damn cat, who needs an alarm clock
when your cats
stomach is tuned to your weekday work wake up schedule.

Wes

No such thing as a free cat! (I should have been a Vet.!) However, "A" and
"B" more than work off their kibble and leave trophies, minus the brains, at
the engineering office door almost every night.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:06:07 -0700, Steve B wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:16:05 -0700, Steve B wrote:


Guess you didn't hear about Bill and Hillary's methods of getting
"contributions".

Steve

This is why you consistently appear as a dumb ****. What proof do you have
or just more made up lies that you expect someone to believe. I know you
to be too stupid to find a link for your lie.

Tell TMT that the "interweb" extends beyond the boundries of of the USA.
The news server aioe isn't in or limited to the USA either.

Get some friends.

By the way, are you still beating your wife?

steve

What are you doing this weekend, dumb ****? Why don't you come by and let's
talk? I'll be in Vegas Friday. Let's get together real soon.

Steve

Bring your wife. If you don't I will.
Steve

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
snip
No..but Ive located a 12" bull plug

Whassat?


B-U-L-L P-L-U-G not butt plug!

Buerste wrote:

No such thing as a free cat! (I should have been a Vet.!) However, "A" and
"B" more than work off their kibble and leave trophies, minus the brains, at
the engineering office door almost every night.


Don't you get tired of disposing of brainless liberals every morning?


--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:06:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:31:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of
distance. While I support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm
also not interested in challenging the power of the US
Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's
revolution or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior
force unless done with considerably more coordination and
fieldcraft than is evident among noisy dissidents clamoring for
attention or trolling on usenet.

It's treason, and is an executable offense.

Perhaps, after decades of legal maneuvering and dicking around.
Faint threat, minor deterrent.

The more immediate reality is the matter of picking a firefight with
young, strong, eager gov't forces of superior numbers and armament
in combat-ready condition and state of training. Guerilla warfare
isn't about posturing or political protest, it's about killing
stealthily while accepting and even embracing significant mortal
risk.

The "more immediate reality" that you describe is objectively
accurate, but has no operative significance. Because the juvenile
blowhards who are fantasizing about it don't have the balls to even
attempt it. All talk, no go, they've run out of testicles by the
time they hit the "send" key. Their fantasy isn't even worth a
reasoned and objective response.


There's nothing patriotic about anarchy. There is also nothing
patriotic about acceptance of greed and corruption in our congress
and offensive arrogance exhibited by our elected president.

Your point would be more meaningful if not for the fact that you get
offended, or at least pretend to be offended, by things like missing
uppercase.

Not that his
swaggerwide predecessor was any less offensive.

First off, I doubt if most people agree with you about Obama's
"arrogance." Most of us (I'm in the plurality here, who favor his
performance) think he took too long to tell the Republican
obstructionists to go **** up a rope -- the Dems are in the
majority, and they were elected to lead, not to suck up to
Republicans who are trying to exploit a political wedge (and let the
country be damned) or to knee-jerk to every poll.

And if you don't like the leaders we have, then you know what to do
about it. Fantasizing about shooting them, like Larry, Gunner, and
the rest of the knuckleheads are doing, is the most offensive thing
going on here.

Is it just me, or did you get pretty much the same feeling reading
Don's post as you did listening to Boehner's recent comments? And BTW,
what the heck color is Boehner going for with that ridiculous spray-on
tan?

Tang


--
John R. Carroll

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of distance.
While I
support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm also not interested in
challenging the power of the US Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

Very well put, don.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's
revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless
done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on
usenet.

There was a time about 200 years ago that a rabble assembled into a
formidable force.

That was around the time that George Washington marched 16,000
federalized
militiamen into western PA, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and
indicted
a
bunch of them for treason, wasn't it?

Are you wishing for a repeat?

--
Ed Huntress

Say what you want about your beloved founders, constitution, laws,
etc.,

Thank you, I will. I think very highly of them -- unlike the phonies here
who make up fantastical tales about endless usurpations and create
fantasies
for themselves of becoming terrorists from within.

but having watched world events in recent years, can you honestly say
that you think the US government could withstand a home-soil insurgency
of even 10,000 (0.001% of the population) coordinated, committed
insurgents? I'm not so sure.

Yes. The Sons of Timothy McVeigh would find out in a hurry that most of
us
would do everything we could to help wipe them out. Out-of-shape
blowhards,
largely ignorant, stupid, and delusional, and much too impressed with
their
own skills and abilities, the "insurgents" would never have a chance to
coordinate before they were found out and suppressed. And their
commitment
would collapse in a heartbeat when they saw the trouble they'd unleashed.

That's the reality.

The reality is that the US has completely lost the national cohesiveness
that allowed it to win WWII, which is why we have essentially lost every
war since then and are loosing the two or three we are currently bogged
down in.

In the time since WWII, a lot has been learned about waging an
asymmetric war, except how to effectively counter one. We've been
fighting an asymmetric war in Iraq and Afghanistan for quite some time
now and not really making much progress.

Iraq / Afghanistan is an asymmetric war on foreign soil where our troops
have no personal loyalties. As we've seen trying to get Iraqi and Afghan
troops mustered to support their own governments, personal loyalties are
a big problem in fighting an asymmetric war on your own home soil.

We have also seen that various foreign countries are quite willing to
support such an insurgency if it seems to further their aims. The US has
of course done the exact same thing in the past, supporting such groups
as the Talliban when it seemed to further our aims in fighting a proxy
war with Russia.

You like to point to a few kooks like McVeigh and convince yourself that
all potential internal threats are of that ilk, but I don't see that as
being the case. If you look at the many cases of attacks in the US by
environmental or animal rights terrorists, you find a very different
picture of perpetrators who blend in, who have supporters who will
assist them and who in a great many cases have not been identified or
prosecuted.

It is important to note that most of the perpetrators of the
environmental and animal terrorism fit closely with the profile of the
terrorists and insurgents you see in Iraq and Afghanistan, young, angry
and disillusioned and with a cause they have convinced themselves
justifies violent attacks.

I think the most likely source of an insurgency is not from geriatric
anti-government ranters on newsgroups, but rather from a relatively
young group with a religious or religion like ideology.

The animals rightists have been rattling their swords for 40 years. So far,
the republic remains safe from them.

The other groups are something like them -- mumblers and grumblers, with a
few freaks among them who do something violent, but mostly without a lot of
brains, and 'way short on balls.

I see you missed or chose to ignore the substance of what I wrote.
Head-in-sand has been proven to be an ineffective strategy.

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of distance.
While I
support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm also not interested
in
challenging the power of the US Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

Very well put, don.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's
revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless
done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is
evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on
usenet.

There was a time about 200 years ago that a rabble assembled into
a
formidable force.

That was around the time that George Washington marched 16,000
federalized
militiamen into western PA, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and
indicted
a
bunch of them for treason, wasn't it?

Are you wishing for a repeat?

--
Ed Huntress

Say what you want about your beloved founders, constitution, laws,
etc.,

Thank you, I will. I think very highly of them -- unlike the phonies
here
who make up fantastical tales about endless usurpations and create
fantasies
for themselves of becoming terrorists from within.

but having watched world events in recent years, can you honestly
say
that you think the US government could withstand a home-soil
insurgency
of even 10,000 (0.001% of the population) coordinated, committed
insurgents? I'm not so sure.

Yes. The Sons of Timothy McVeigh would find out in a hurry that most
of
us
would do everything we could to help wipe them out. Out-of-shape
blowhards,
largely ignorant, stupid, and delusional, and much too impressed with
their
own skills and abilities, the "insurgents" would never have a chance
to
coordinate before they were found out and suppressed. And their
commitment
would collapse in a heartbeat when they saw the trouble they'd
unleashed.

That's the reality.

The reality is that the US has completely lost the national
cohesiveness
that allowed it to win WWII, which is why we have essentially lost
every
war since then and are loosing the two or three we are currently bogged
down in.

In the time since WWII, a lot has been learned about waging an
asymmetric war, except how to effectively counter one. We've been
fighting an asymmetric war in Iraq and Afghanistan for quite some time
now and not really making much progress.

Iraq / Afghanistan is an asymmetric war on foreign soil where our
troops
have no personal loyalties. As we've seen trying to get Iraqi and
Afghan
troops mustered to support their own governments, personal loyalties
are
a big problem in fighting an asymmetric war on your own home soil.

We have also seen that various foreign countries are quite willing to
support such an insurgency if it seems to further their aims. The US
has
of course done the exact same thing in the past, supporting such groups
as the Talliban when it seemed to further our aims in fighting a proxy
war with Russia.

You like to point to a few kooks like McVeigh and convince yourself
that
all potential internal threats are of that ilk, but I don't see that as
being the case. If you look at the many cases of attacks in the US by
environmental or animal rights terrorists, you find a very different
picture of perpetrators who blend in, who have supporters who will
assist them and who in a great many cases have not been identified or
prosecuted.

It is important to note that most of the perpetrators of the
environmental and animal terrorism fit closely with the profile of the
terrorists and insurgents you see in Iraq and Afghanistan, young, angry
and disillusioned and with a cause they have convinced themselves
justifies violent attacks.

I think the most likely source of an insurgency is not from geriatric
anti-government ranters on newsgroups, but rather from a relatively
young group with a religious or religion like ideology.

The animals rightists have been rattling their swords for 40 years. So
far,
the republic remains safe from them.

The other groups are something like them -- mumblers and grumblers, with
a
few freaks among them who do something violent, but mostly without a lot
of
brains, and 'way short on balls.

I see you missed or chose to ignore the substance of what I wrote.
Head-in-sand has been proven to be an ineffective strategy.

I'm sorry Pete, but the ideas relating to what the US might face were so
weird and off-the-wall that I thought it would be better not to tell you
what I think about it.

It sounds like you're anticipating an asymmetric war with home-grown
terrorists and youth death squads that are organizing in church basements as
we speak.

The short take is that I think you guys have lost a few of your marbles.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:51:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I will be watching with interest, and with a lot of distance.
While I
support liberty, and the Constitution, I'm also not interested
in
challenging the power of the US Government.

Challenge of the government is essential to democracy. Fear of
retribution for challenge of government is clear evidence of
submission to and acceptance of tyranny.

Very well put, don.

That's not to say that challenges should be by fire. That's
revolution
or anarchy, doomed to fail against vastly superior force unless
done
with considerably more coordination and fieldcraft than is
evident
among noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on
usenet.

There was a time about 200 years ago that a rabble assembled into
a
formidable force.

That was around the time that George Washington marched 16,000
federalized
militiamen into western PA, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and
indicted
a
bunch of them for treason, wasn't it?

Are you wishing for a repeat?

--
Ed Huntress

Say what you want about your beloved founders, constitution, laws,
etc.,

Thank you, I will. I think very highly of them -- unlike the phonies
here
who make up fantastical tales about endless usurpations and create
fantasies
for themselves of becoming terrorists from within.

but having watched world events in recent years, can you honestly
say
that you think the US government could withstand a home-soil
insurgency
of even 10,000 (0.001% of the population) coordinated, committed
insurgents? I'm not so sure.

Yes. The Sons of Timothy McVeigh would find out in a hurry that most
of
us
would do everything we could to help wipe them out. Out-of-shape
blowhards,
largely ignorant, stupid, and delusional, and much too impressed with
their
own skills and abilities, the "insurgents" would never have a chance
to
coordinate before they were found out and suppressed. And their
commitment
would collapse in a heartbeat when they saw the trouble they'd
unleashed.

That's the reality.

The reality is that the US has completely lost the national
cohesiveness
that allowed it to win WWII, which is why we have essentially lost
every
war since then and are loosing the two or three we are currently bogged
down in.

In the time since WWII, a lot has been learned about waging an
asymmetric war, except how to effectively counter one. We've been
fighting an asymmetric war in Iraq and Afghanistan for quite some time
now and not really making much progress.

Iraq / Afghanistan is an asymmetric war on foreign soil where our
troops
have no personal loyalties. As we've seen trying to get Iraqi and
Afghan
troops mustered to support their own governments, personal loyalties
are
a big problem in fighting an asymmetric war on your own home soil.

We have also seen that various foreign countries are quite willing to
support such an insurgency if it seems to further their aims. The US
has
of course done the exact same thing in the past, supporting such groups
as the Talliban when it seemed to further our aims in fighting a proxy
war with Russia.

You like to point to a few kooks like McVeigh and convince yourself
that
all potential internal threats are of that ilk, but I don't see that as
being the case. If you look at the many cases of attacks in the US by
environmental or animal rights terrorists, you find a very different
picture of perpetrators who blend in, who have supporters who will
assist them and who in a great many cases have not been identified or
prosecuted.

It is important to note that most of the perpetrators of the
environmental and animal terrorism fit closely with the profile of the
terrorists and insurgents you see in Iraq and Afghanistan, young, angry
and disillusioned and with a cause they have convinced themselves
justifies violent attacks.

I think the most likely source of an insurgency is not from geriatric
anti-government ranters on newsgroups, but rather from a relatively
young group with a religious or religion like ideology.

The animals rightists have been rattling their swords for 40 years. So
far,
the republic remains safe from them.

The other groups are something like them -- mumblers and grumblers, with
a
few freaks among them who do something violent, but mostly without a lot
of
brains, and 'way short on balls.

I see you missed or chose to ignore the substance of what I wrote.
Head-in-sand has been proven to be an ineffective strategy.

I'm sorry Pete, but the ideas relating to what the US might face were so
weird and off-the-wall that I thought it would be better not to tell you
what I think about it.

It sounds like you're anticipating an asymmetric war with home-grown
terrorists and youth death squads that are organizing in church basements as
we speak.

Interesting since that is exactly the situation you have in the middle
east, yet you think somehow it couldn't happen here.


The short take is that I think you guys have lost a few of your marbles.

And I think you are blinding yourself to possibilities you don't want to
consider.