wrote in message
...
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
m...
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?

I think it's you. g Don is speaking about the practicalities of geriatric
guerilla warfare. I think he's focusing on something that doesn't matter,
because they don't have the balls for it in the first place.

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.

On my TV, it looks a lot like one of the two-tone colors of my parents' '55
Pontiac Star Chief. It was called "Firegold." It has a little metalflake in
it.

I can't imagine where he got it, unless he has a paint service that can
replicate DUCO 1962-Z.

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

They're having problems. The ones with brains and some honesty are jumping
ship or being kicked overboard.

Kicking Frum off of the AEI was a big mistake, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:44:44 -0400, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


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

Whassat?


B-U-L-L P-L-U-G

OK, got it.


not butt plug!

Whassat? (NO PICTURES!)

--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey

"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:

"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.

It's bizarre that you think your fellow Americans are as vulnerable to
superstitious nonsense and value life as little as the members of Al Queda,
and would form death squads to cleanse the country for the True Believers.

If you believe that, you must not think very much of your countrymen. You
certainly wouldn't trust them to own guns. Are you sure you're in the right
country here, Pete?



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.

I'm working on more likely scenarios, like an invasion from Alpha Centauri.

--
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:

"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.

It's bizarre that you think your fellow Americans are as vulnerable to
superstitious nonsense and value life as little as the members of Al Queda,
and would form death squads to cleanse the country for the True Believers.

If you believe that, you must not think very much of your countrymen. You
certainly wouldn't trust them to own guns. Are you sure you're in the right
country here, Pete?

From my centrist position, I see generations of kids being told that the
religion that is being imposed on them is under attack and they need to
fight it. I see successive generations becoming more extremist in their
views.

I think that another decade or two down the line as the islamist threat
inches closer due to the governments inability to deal with the
situation, these generations who have been brainwashed day after day
could become so terrified of the threat that they decide they need a new
crusade to oust the ineffective government and deal with the islamst
threat.

The fact that out current military personnel is largely from these same
generations and communities of true believers compounds the situation
and brings the same prospects of personal loyalties overriding national
loyalties as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan with their own troops.




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.

I'm working on more likely scenarios, like an invasion from Alpha Centauri.

No, you're avoiding thinking honestly about uncomfortable possibilities.

I'd be quite happy if I'm wrong or at least if we don't see something
like this in my lifetime, but I think the probability is non-zero.

Which country do you live in?

I'm in the USA, which is (or used to be) a constitutional
republic.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"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 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.

It's bizarre that you think your fellow Americans are as vulnerable to
superstitious nonsense and value life as little as the members of Al Queda,
and would form death squads to cleanse the country for the True Believers.

If you believe that, you must not think very much of your countrymen. You
certainly wouldn't trust them to own guns. Are you sure you're in the right
country here, Pete?



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.

I'm working on more likely scenarios, like an invasion from Alpha Centauri.


I'll tell you what it is, Ed. See, Pete's a conservative, and from 2001
until last year he's gotten used to having a government that did pretty
much what he wanted it to. He got used to seeing conservatives win every
battle in Washington and so did all the other conservatives. But now
they have been losing every battle and the government is doing the
opposite of what he wants it to do. He's gone from being in the majority
to being a minority and it doesn't feel right. It seems like his country
isn't his anymore and that somehow he's being mistreated. All the
conservatives like him feel like their wants should be catered to and
instead they are a minority that is getting nothing the way they want
it. This has upset them very much. So much they are talking about
secession, rebellion, lynching, killing, and other such things.
Unfortunately, they seem to be headed for minority status for a long
time to come. They will get used to it, their anger will subside, and in
time they will shut up. But it's going to take a while for them to
adjust to the new normal. It's like losing your wealth. At first it's a
terrible shock but in time you learn to adjust. You don't like it but
you adjust. Pete is just learning that his party doesn't get to run the
country anymore and his opponents do. He's not happy like all
conservatives so they are being pricks about it. But isn't that what you
would expect from them?

Hawke

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:13:25 -0700, wrote:



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.

You may have me confused with someone else. I don't recall declaring
offense by missing upper case. I've no problem with the writings of
poet e.e. cummings who sometimes eschewed use of uppercase letters.

In any case, upper or lower, do you disagree with my assertions? Do
you support anarchy, greed and corruption in our congress and
presidential arrogance?

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:47:06 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Which country do you live in?

I'm in the USA, which is (or used to be) a constitutional
republic.

Our constitution protects free speech which includes challenge to
government. That's the law of the land whether you like it or not.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:52:26 -0500, Ignoramus30639
wrote:

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.


i

But, does Obama care that you care?

John B.

Hawke wrote:

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.

It's bizarre that you think your fellow Americans are as vulnerable to
superstitious nonsense and value life as little as the members of Al Queda,
and would form death squads to cleanse the country for the True Believers.

If you believe that, you must not think very much of your countrymen. You
certainly wouldn't trust them to own guns. Are you sure you're in the right
country here, Pete?



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.

I'm working on more likely scenarios, like an invasion from Alpha Centauri.


I'll tell you what it is, Ed. See, Pete's a conservative, and from 2001
until last year he's gotten used to having a government that did pretty
much what he wanted it to. He got used to seeing conservatives win every
battle in Washington and so did all the other conservatives. But now
they have been losing every battle and the government is doing the
opposite of what he wants it to do. He's gone from being in the majority
to being a minority and it doesn't feel right. It seems like his country
isn't his anymore and that somehow he's being mistreated. All the
conservatives like him feel like their wants should be catered to and
instead they are a minority that is getting nothing the way they want
it. This has upset them very much. So much they are talking about
secession, rebellion, lynching, killing, and other such things.
Unfortunately, they seem to be headed for minority status for a long
time to come. They will get used to it, their anger will subside, and in
time they will shut up. But it's going to take a while for them to
adjust to the new normal. It's like losing your wealth. At first it's a
terrible shock but in time you learn to adjust. You don't like it but
you adjust. Pete is just learning that his party doesn't get to run the
country anymore and his opponents do. He's not happy like all
conservatives so they are being pricks about it. But isn't that what you
would expect from them?

Hawke

Sorry dippy-do, I'm a centrist extremist and I don't have a "party".

If you actually comprehended anything I wrote you would have seen that I
think the liberals are ineffective in dealing with the islamist threat,
and the religious conservatives (of any religion) are the main threat to
civilization.

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
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

I'll meet you at the corner of Pecos and Tropicana at 1 PM. I have a big
red Dodge Ram 2500 pickup. See you then.

Steve

"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:

"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.

It's bizarre that you think your fellow Americans are as vulnerable to
superstitious nonsense and value life as little as the members of Al
Queda,
and would form death squads to cleanse the country for the True
Believers.

If you believe that, you must not think very much of your countrymen. You
certainly wouldn't trust them to own guns. Are you sure you're in the
right
country here, Pete?

From my centrist position, I see generations of kids being told that the
religion that is being imposed on them is under attack and they need to
fight it. I see successive generations becoming more extremist in their
views.

Pete, I don't see any trend that would indicate that. Nor do I think it's
possible.

Are you old enough to remember Eisenhower calling out federal troops to
defend school integration? State militia being called up after the Civil
Rights Act was passed? I remember it. That was a lot more serious. It was
suppressed with no serious conflicts. That's what *could* happen again, but
it appears highly unlikely.

Right now we have a lot of angry people who aren't really sure why they're
angry, except that they're being fed slogans and bull**** that hardly any of
them have taken the time to understand. So, they've gotten a little frisky
and they're blowing off steam. It's not really a big deal. They don't have
the courage of their convictions because they don't really have any
convictions. Unlike the protesters against civil rights, they don't have a
unifying, coherent thing that's clear and visible. They have concepts.
Concepts are not facts on the ground that they can see, like black kids
walking into an all-white school, with schoolbooks under their arms.

This is going nowhere. It's all talk and symbols.

I think that another decade or two down the line as the islamist threat
inches closer due to the governments inability to deal with the
situation, these generations who have been brainwashed day after day
could become so terrified of the threat that they decide they need a new
crusade to oust the ineffective government and deal with the islamst
threat.

They have neither the ability nor the balls to pull off anything more than a
skirmish here and there.


The fact that out current military personnel is largely from these same
generations and communities of true believers compounds the situation
and brings the same prospects of personal loyalties overriding national
loyalties as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan with their own troops.

There are always people who fear the military. I'm not one of them. There
always has been the potential for the US military to go rogue. After 200
years, it's time to calm down about it.





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.

I'm working on more likely scenarios, like an invasion from Alpha
Centauri.

No, you're avoiding thinking honestly about uncomfortable possibilities.

We can worry about imaginary scenarios from every angle, Pete. It's just
paranoia. There's *always* some scenario that people can imagine that will
end the world as we know it. It's not healthy to get hung up on things that
might happen. If you're going to engage in that kind of thinking, at least
write some sci-fi or terrorist stories and make a few bucks off of it. d8-)


I'd be quite happy if I'm wrong or at least if we don't see something
like this in my lifetime, but I think the probability is non-zero.

I think you'll wind up happy.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:48:42 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
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
om...
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?

I think it's you. g Don is speaking about the practicalities of geriatric
guerilla warfare.

Sure, but framing it that way, and throwing in the mealy-mouthed
comments about "arrogance" and "offensive", and implying that GW and
BO are somehow in the same league for swagger, smacks of insincerity
to me. Exactly as it did with Boehner holding up his empty fire hose
after spending months fanning the flames of nutbaggery.

I think he's focusing on something that doesn't matter,
because they don't have the balls for it in the first place.

I thought that his use of military terms to describe the potential
confrontation was hilarious. Don is all about "fieldcraft" guffaw,
while too many of the revolutionary forces would prefer wagging their
fingers in the face of people in wheelchairs. Oops, according to this
morning's news, the revolution just lost another volunteer.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...w.html?sid=101
How long before gummer explains that by getting in the parkinsons
guy's face, they ultimately shortened his life, which counts as a cull
on the "battlefield"?

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.

On my TV, it looks a lot like one of the two-tone colors of my parents' '55
Pontiac Star Chief. It was called "Firegold." It has a little metalflake in
it.

I can't imagine where he got it, unless he has a paint service that can
replicate DUCO 1962-Z.

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

They're having problems. The ones with brains and some honesty are jumping
ship or being kicked overboard.

Kicking Frum off of the AEI was a big mistake, IMO.

It's every screwed-up kid's dream... to get rid of all the adults.
From the right's point of view it probably makes perfect sense. Gotta'
free up some chairs for Palin's entourage. :-)

Wayne

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:56:32 -0700, Steve B wrote:


I'll meet you at the corner of Pecos and Tropicana at 1 PM. I have a big
red Dodge Ram 2500 pickup. See you then.

Steve

Panhandling?

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:01:02 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:13:25 -0700, wrote:



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.

You may have me confused with someone else

Nope. I remember two times, one the "g" in god, and one with
somebody's surname I think. Both were part of your trying to avoid
responding to straight talk. I also remember comparing you to someone
I knew who took offense at the wearing of ball caps in restaurants. I
thought that everybody had heard the fable about the boy who cried
wolf, but apparently not.

I don't recall declaring
offense by missing upper case. I've no problem with the writings of
poet e.e. cummings who sometimes eschewed use of uppercase letters.

In any case, upper or lower, do you disagree with my assertions?

Only the mealy-mouthed parts.

Do
you support anarchy, greed and corruption in our congress

Of course I don't, and you well know it. Perhaps you thought that
asking that question might get me to take you more seriously? LOL
Meanwhile, apparently you've also forgotten that you and gummer have
discussed trusting each other in foxholes, as well as the need to
watch out for 12 year-old girls who might sneak up and flatten your
tires during a sortie. My point then was that anarchist loudmouth old
farts are a joke, but the two of you seemed to be taking it pretty
seriously.

and
presidential arrogance?

There you go again. You not only proclaimed Obama arrogant, but
implied that he rates right up there with Bush in that department. Yet
you don't say what you based that on, because trying to flesh out that
opinion would be like explaining why lakes and toilets are equally
good for fishing.

Wayne

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:

"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.

It's bizarre that you think your fellow Americans are as vulnerable to
superstitious nonsense and value life as little as the members of Al
Queda,
and would form death squads to cleanse the country for the True
Believers.

If you believe that, you must not think very much of your countrymen. You
certainly wouldn't trust them to own guns. Are you sure you're in the
right
country here, Pete?

From my centrist position, I see generations of kids being told that the
religion that is being imposed on them is under attack and they need to
fight it. I see successive generations becoming more extremist in their
views.

Pete, I don't see any trend that would indicate that. Nor do I think it's
possible.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. I have (know thy enemy)
and the trend is there.


Are you old enough to remember Eisenhower calling out federal troops to
defend school integration? State militia being called up after the Civil
Rights Act was passed? I remember it. That was a lot more serious. It was
suppressed with no serious conflicts. That's what *could* happen again, but
it appears highly unlikely.

Nope, I'm not that old.


Right now we have a lot of angry people who aren't really sure why they're
angry, except that they're being fed slogans and bull**** that hardly any of
them have taken the time to understand. So, they've gotten a little frisky
and they're blowing off steam. It's not really a big deal. They don't have
the courage of their convictions because they don't really have any
convictions. Unlike the protesters against civil rights, they don't have a
unifying, coherent thing that's clear and visible. They have concepts.
Concepts are not facts on the ground that they can see, like black kids
walking into an all-white school, with schoolbooks under their arms.

I'm not sure what "angry people" you're referring to, certainly they
have nothing whatsoever to do with the potential threat I indicated.


This is going nowhere. It's all talk and symbols.

I think that another decade or two down the line as the islamist threat
inches closer due to the governments inability to deal with the
situation, these generations who have been brainwashed day after day
could become so terrified of the threat that they decide they need a new
crusade to oust the ineffective government and deal with the islamst
threat.

They have neither the ability nor the balls to pull off anything more than a
skirmish here and there.

Again, I guess you haven't been paying attention. I have and I see the
underpinnings coming together.



The fact that out current military personnel is largely from these same
generations and communities of true believers compounds the situation
and brings the same prospects of personal loyalties overriding national
loyalties as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan with their own troops.

There are always people who fear the military. I'm not one of them. There
always has been the potential for the US military to go rogue. After 200
years, it's time to calm down about it.

I didn't say anything about the military going "rogue", I indicated that
personal loyalties could get in the way and cause inaction.






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.

I'm working on more likely scenarios, like an invasion from Alpha
Centauri.

No, you're avoiding thinking honestly about uncomfortable possibilities.

We can worry about imaginary scenarios from every angle, Pete. It's just
paranoia. There's *always* some scenario that people can imagine that will
end the world as we know it. It's not healthy to get hung up on things that
might happen. If you're going to engage in that kind of thinking, at least
write some sci-fi or terrorist stories and make a few bucks off of it. d8-)

There is nothing imaginary about it, and it is not paranoia, there is
clear precedent for it.

I see a religion that has previously had a violent expansionist phase,
that is now becoming increasingly terrified of loosing power, and as a
result is becoming more extremist. There is no reasonable reason to
believe that it could not slip back into a violent phase again, to
confront it's competitor which is also in a violent expansionist phase
currently.

It's not healthy to walk around with the proverbial rose colored glasses
and ignore the real issues around you.



I'd be quite happy if I'm wrong or at least if we don't see something
like this in my lifetime, but I think the probability is non-zero.

I think you'll wind up happy.

I hope so, but ~40 years is a long time and a lot can happen in that
amount of time.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:25:37 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:01:02 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:13:25 -0700, wrote:



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.

You may have me confused with someone else

Nope. I remember two times, one the "g" in god, and one with
somebody's surname I think. Both were part of your trying to avoid
responding to straight talk. I also remember comparing you to someone
I knew who took offense at the wearing of ball caps in restaurants. I
thought that everybody had heard the fable about the boy who cried
wolf, but apparently not.

I don't recall declaring
offense by missing upper case. I've no problem with the writings of
poet e.e. cummings who sometimes eschewed use of uppercase letters.

In any case, upper or lower, do you disagree with my assertions?

Only the mealy-mouthed parts.

Do
you support anarchy, greed and corruption in our congress

Of course I don't, and you well know it. Perhaps you thought that
asking that question might get me to take you more seriously? LOL
Meanwhile, apparently you've also forgotten that you and gummer have
discussed trusting each other in foxholes, as well as the need to
watch out for 12 year-old girls who might sneak up and flatten your
tires during a sortie. My point then was that anarchist loudmouth old
farts are a joke, but the two of you seemed to be taking it pretty
seriously.

and
presidential arrogance?

There you go again. You not only proclaimed Obama arrogant, but
implied that he rates right up there with Bush in that department. Yet
you don't say what you based that on, because trying to flesh out that
opinion would be like explaining why lakes and toilets are equally
good for fishing.

Wayne

Personal attack, insults, name-calling, irrelevancies, gross
distortions and outright falsehoods. Yawn. Perhaps TMT will play with
you.

Pete C. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

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


From my centrist position, I see generations of kids being told
that the religion that is being imposed on them is under attack and
they need to fight it. I see successive generations becoming more
extremist in their views.

Pete, I don't see any trend that would indicate that. Nor do I think
it's possible.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. I have (know thy enemy)
and the trend is there.


Are you old enough to remember Eisenhower calling out federal troops
to defend school integration? State militia being called up after
the Civil Rights Act was passed? I remember it. That was a lot more
serious. It was suppressed with no serious conflicts. That's what
*could* happen again, but it appears highly unlikely.

Nope, I'm not that old.

That's to bad. You missed a genuine and violent episode that would have
guided your thinking today.



Right now we have a lot of angry people who aren't really sure why
they're angry, except that they're being fed slogans and bull****
that hardly any of them have taken the time to understand. So,
they've gotten a little frisky and they're blowing off steam. It's
not really a big deal. They don't have the courage of their
convictions because they don't really have any convictions. Unlike
the protesters against civil rights, they don't have a unifying,
coherent thing that's clear and visible. They have concepts.
Concepts are not facts on the ground that they can see, like black
kids walking into an all-white school, with schoolbooks under their
arms.

I'm not sure what "angry people" you're referring to, certainly they
have nothing whatsoever to do with the potential threat I indicated.


This is going nowhere. It's all talk and symbols.

I think that another decade or two down the line as the islamist
threat inches closer due to the governments inability to deal with
the situation, these generations who have been brainwashed day
after day could become so terrified of the threat that they decide
they need a new crusade to oust the ineffective government and deal
with the islamst threat.

They have neither the ability nor the balls to pull off anything
more than a skirmish here and there.

Again, I guess you haven't been paying attention. I have and I see the
underpinnings coming together.



The fact that out current military personnel is largely from these
same generations and communities of true believers compounds the
situation and brings the same prospects of personal loyalties
overriding national loyalties as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan with
their own troops.

There are always people who fear the military. I'm not one of them.
There always has been the potential for the US military to go rogue.
After 200 years, it's time to calm down about it.

I didn't say anything about the military going "rogue", I indicated
that personal loyalties could get in the way and cause inaction.

Pretty unlikely. You might be surprised at the degree to which the military
is disconnected (deliberately) from civilian life.
We also have a military Command in North America now - NORCOM - and they are
trained accordingly.
You could also look back at history. Douglas Macarthur burned hell out of
the bonus marcher's tent city right on the Mall.

There is nothing imaginary about it, and it is not paranoia, there is
clear precedent for it.

I see a religion that has previously had a violent expansionist phase,
that is now becoming increasingly terrified of loosing power, and as a
result is becoming more extremist. There is no reasonable reason to
believe that it could not slip back into a violent phase again, to
confront it's competitor which is also in a violent expansionist phase
currently.

I've been wondering what you were thinking and if this is it it's worth
noting that our entire law enforcement community would be ( and to some
extent is now) ordered to begin attending church on a regular basis.
This nations LEO's have already "infiltrated" this nations Mosque's and so
forth for the express purpose of gathering intelligence.
That would be a lot easier in Christian places of worship.
You also ought to research Fusion Centers and the uses to which they are
put.
Ten thousand people getting organized would be obvious very early on. There
would be changes, for instance, in individual energy usage patterns. Fusion
Centers get all of that stuff as well as anecdotal evidence from the public,
private and law enforcement communities. It's all computerized and can be
accessed by any participating agency.

Finally, our government is geared for self preservation. Nobody wants to see
their job threatened.


I hope so, but ~40 years is a long time and a lot can happen in that
amount of time.

Finally, Americans aren't especially religious. Never have been and never
will be. The trend, in fact, is in the other direction.

There are far greater threats to America's well being than an armed
insurrection of any stripe.
Focusing on the kooks has lead to a real misallocation of resources.


--
John R. Carroll

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:47:27 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Hawke wrote:

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.

It's bizarre that you think your fellow Americans are as vulnerable to
superstitious nonsense and value life as little as the members of Al Queda,
and would form death squads to cleanse the country for the True Believers.

If you believe that, you must not think very much of your countrymen. You
certainly wouldn't trust them to own guns. Are you sure you're in the right
country here, Pete?



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.

I'm working on more likely scenarios, like an invasion from Alpha Centauri.


I'll tell you what it is, Ed. See, Pete's a conservative, and from 2001
until last year he's gotten used to having a government that did pretty
much what he wanted it to. He got used to seeing conservatives win every
battle in Washington and so did all the other conservatives. But now
they have been losing every battle and the government is doing the
opposite of what he wants it to do. He's gone from being in the majority
to being a minority and it doesn't feel right. It seems like his country
isn't his anymore and that somehow he's being mistreated. All the
conservatives like him feel like their wants should be catered to and
instead they are a minority that is getting nothing the way they want
it. This has upset them very much. So much they are talking about
secession, rebellion, lynching, killing, and other such things.
Unfortunately, they seem to be headed for minority status for a long
time to come. They will get used to it, their anger will subside, and in
time they will shut up. But it's going to take a while for them to
adjust to the new normal. It's like losing your wealth. At first it's a
terrible shock but in time you learn to adjust. You don't like it but
you adjust. Pete is just learning that his party doesn't get to run the
country anymore and his opponents do. He's not happy like all
conservatives so they are being pricks about it. But isn't that what you
would expect from them?

Hawke

Democrats Losing Party Members Rapidly According to Poll
By Tom White, on March 3rd, 2010, at 1:24 pm

Rasmussen Reports has an interesting take on their Party Affiliation
survey. While their conclusion that membership in both parties is down,
the decline for the Democrats has been rapid since 2008, indicating that
many who became Democrats during the Bush presidency have now become
unaffiliated again, with those identifying as Democrats shrinking to the
lowest numbers since the poll began in January, 2004.

While the Republicans have held within a range of 31% to 34% going back
to January, 2008, the Democrats peaked prior to the Obama election at
almost 42% and are now down to 35%. At one point, the advantage (now
only 3%) was over 10% for the Democrats.

It appears that while Republicans are holding fairly steady, Democrats
are in a steep and rapid decline.

I disagree with the Rasmussen conclusion that both parties are losing
members. To be sure, the poll proves that Democrats are leaving in
droves – membership is down nearly 20% from 2008. But the numbers
leaving the Republican ranks are far smaller, and most are likely “Tea
Party” Republicans who are moving away from the Republicans, but
definitely not towards the Democrats. Most will ultimately vote for the
Republican candidates.

Those leaving the Democratic party are moving towards the Republican
party, as they shift to the right. Or more likely as the Democrats shift
to the left.

While the Republicans would no doubt like to see a trend moving towards
Republicans, the good news is, the Democrat deserters are moving to the
right.

Those abandoning the Democrats are angry with the leftist policies and
radicalism of the Democratic Party. But while they are angry with the
Democrats, they are not exactly falling in love with Republicans.










"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:02:32 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:25:37 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:01:02 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:13:25 -0700, wrote:



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.

You may have me confused with someone else

Nope. I remember two times, one the "g" in god, and one with
somebody's surname I think. Both were part of your trying to avoid
responding to straight talk. I also remember comparing you to someone
I knew who took offense at the wearing of ball caps in restaurants. I
thought that everybody had heard the fable about the boy who cried
wolf, but apparently not.

I don't recall declaring
offense by missing upper case. I've no problem with the writings of
poet e.e. cummings who sometimes eschewed use of uppercase letters.

In any case, upper or lower, do you disagree with my assertions?

Only the mealy-mouthed parts.

Do
you support anarchy, greed and corruption in our congress

Of course I don't, and you well know it. Perhaps you thought that
asking that question might get me to take you more seriously? LOL
Meanwhile, apparently you've also forgotten that you and gummer have
discussed trusting each other in foxholes, as well as the need to
watch out for 12 year-old girls who might sneak up and flatten your
tires during a sortie. My point then was that anarchist loudmouth old
farts are a joke, but the two of you seemed to be taking it pretty
seriously.

and
presidential arrogance?

There you go again. You not only proclaimed Obama arrogant, but
implied that he rates right up there with Bush in that department. Yet
you don't say what you based that on, because trying to flesh out that
opinion would be like explaining why lakes and toilets are equally
good for fishing.

Wayne

Personal attack, insults, name-calling, irrelevancies, gross
distortions and outright falsehoods. Yawn. Perhaps TMT will play with
you.


Im not terribly sure that they are not the same people.



"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:02:32 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:25:37 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:01:02 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:13:25 -0700, wrote:



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.

You may have me confused with someone else

Nope. I remember two times, one the "g" in god, and one with
somebody's surname I think. Both were part of your trying to avoid
responding to straight talk. I also remember comparing you to someone
I knew who took offense at the wearing of ball caps in restaurants. I
thought that everybody had heard the fable about the boy who cried
wolf, but apparently not.

I don't recall declaring
offense by missing upper case. I've no problem with the writings of
poet e.e. cummings who sometimes eschewed use of uppercase letters.

In any case, upper or lower, do you disagree with my assertions?

Only the mealy-mouthed parts.

Do
you support anarchy, greed and corruption in our congress

Of course I don't, and you well know it. Perhaps you thought that
asking that question might get me to take you more seriously? LOL
Meanwhile, apparently you've also forgotten that you and gummer have
discussed trusting each other in foxholes, as well as the need to
watch out for 12 year-old girls who might sneak up and flatten your
tires during a sortie. My point then was that anarchist loudmouth old
farts are a joke, but the two of you seemed to be taking it pretty
seriously.

and
presidential arrogance?

There you go again. You not only proclaimed Obama arrogant, but
implied that he rates right up there with Bush in that department. Yet
you don't say what you based that on, because trying to flesh out that
opinion would be like explaining why lakes and toilets are equally
good for fishing.

Wayne

Personal attack, insults, name-calling, irrelevancies, gross
distortions and outright falsehoods.

Gosh, what a shock, you back up your declarations by sidestepping with
more declarations. Again, just like Boehner, whose sincere guffaw
call for civility was accompanied by an apparent failure to recall
that he's been using words like "Armageddon". As evidence of your own
insincerity, I cited your declaration that BA is somehow in the same
"offensive arrogance" league as GW. If you came to that belief based
on facts, then why not spell them out? Not even gonna' try, eh? How
does that make you any different from those "noisy dissidents
clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet"? Anyway,
congratulations, holding unsupportable opinions and dodging straight
talk qualifies you for an automatic honorary tea party membership.

Wayne

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:47:27 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Hawke wrote:

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.

It's bizarre that you think your fellow Americans are as vulnerable to
superstitious nonsense and value life as little as the members of Al Queda,
and would form death squads to cleanse the country for the True Believers.

If you believe that, you must not think very much of your countrymen. You
certainly wouldn't trust them to own guns. Are you sure you're in the right
country here, Pete?



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.

I'm working on more likely scenarios, like an invasion from Alpha Centauri.


I'll tell you what it is, Ed. See, Pete's a conservative, and from 2001
until last year he's gotten used to having a government that did pretty
much what he wanted it to. He got used to seeing conservatives win every
battle in Washington and so did all the other conservatives. But now
they have been losing every battle and the government is doing the
opposite of what he wants it to do. He's gone from being in the majority
to being a minority and it doesn't feel right. It seems like his country
isn't his anymore and that somehow he's being mistreated. All the
conservatives like him feel like their wants should be catered to and
instead they are a minority that is getting nothing the way they want
it. This has upset them very much. So much they are talking about
secession, rebellion, lynching, killing, and other such things.
Unfortunately, they seem to be headed for minority status for a long
time to come. They will get used to it, their anger will subside, and in
time they will shut up. But it's going to take a while for them to
adjust to the new normal. It's like losing your wealth. At first it's a
terrible shock but in time you learn to adjust. You don't like it but
you adjust. Pete is just learning that his party doesn't get to run the
country anymore and his opponents do. He's not happy like all
conservatives so they are being pricks about it. But isn't that what you
would expect from them?

Hawke

Democrats Losing Party Members Rapidly According to Poll
By Tom White, on March 3rd, 2010, at 1:24 pm

Rasmussen Reports has an interesting take on their Party Affiliation
survey. While their conclusion that membership in both parties is down,
the decline for the Democrats has been rapid since 2008, indicating that
many who became Democrats during the Bush presidency have now become
unaffiliated again, with those identifying as Democrats shrinking to the
lowest numbers since the poll began in January, 2004.

While the Republicans have held within a range of 31% to 34% going back
to January, 2008, the Democrats peaked prior to the Obama election at
almost 42% and are now down to 35%. At one point, the advantage (now
only 3%) was over 10% for the Democrats.

It appears that while Republicans are holding fairly steady, Democrats
are in a steep and rapid decline.

I disagree with the Rasmussen conclusion that both parties are losing
members. To be sure, the poll proves that Democrats are leaving in
droves – membership is down nearly 20% from 2008. But the numbers
leaving the Republican ranks are far smaller, and most are likely “Tea
Party” Republicans who are moving away from the Republicans, but
definitely not towards the Democrats. Most will ultimately vote for the
Republican candidates.

Those leaving the Democratic party are moving towards the Republican
party, as they shift to the right. Or more likely as the Democrats shift
to the left.

While the Republicans would no doubt like to see a trend moving towards
Republicans, the good news is, the Democrat deserters are moving to the
right.

Those abandoning the Democrats are angry with the leftist policies and
radicalism of the Democratic Party. But while they are angry with the
Democrats, they are not exactly falling in love with Republicans.

Nope, the "democrat deserters" are not moving to the rights at all, they
are remaining in the center as the democratic party moves further to the
left. They are the centrists who marginally aligned themselves with the
democrats in opposition to some of the conservatives, but who are not
about to stick with the democrats as they move further to the left.

The real problem in this country is that the majority of the population
is centrist, but the two political parties have been over run by wingers
so neither party represents the majority of the population.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:00:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:02:32 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:25:37 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:01:02 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:13:25 -0700, wrote:



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.

You may have me confused with someone else

Nope. I remember two times, one the "g" in god, and one with
somebody's surname I think. Both were part of your trying to avoid
responding to straight talk. I also remember comparing you to someone
I knew who took offense at the wearing of ball caps in restaurants. I
thought that everybody had heard the fable about the boy who cried
wolf, but apparently not.

I don't recall declaring
offense by missing upper case. I've no problem with the writings of
poet e.e. cummings who sometimes eschewed use of uppercase letters.

In any case, upper or lower, do you disagree with my assertions?

Only the mealy-mouthed parts.

Do
you support anarchy, greed and corruption in our congress

Of course I don't, and you well know it. Perhaps you thought that
asking that question might get me to take you more seriously? LOL
Meanwhile, apparently you've also forgotten that you and gummer have
discussed trusting each other in foxholes, as well as the need to
watch out for 12 year-old girls who might sneak up and flatten your
tires during a sortie. My point then was that anarchist loudmouth old
farts are a joke, but the two of you seemed to be taking it pretty
seriously.

and
presidential arrogance?

There you go again. You not only proclaimed Obama arrogant, but
implied that he rates right up there with Bush in that department. Yet
you don't say what you based that on, because trying to flesh out that
opinion would be like explaining why lakes and toilets are equally
good for fishing.

Wayne

Personal attack, insults, name-calling, irrelevancies, gross
distortions and outright falsehoods. Yawn. Perhaps TMT will play with
you.


Im not terribly sure that they are not the same people.

Still making a career of setting the weak-retort bar ever lower, eh
gummy?

Don Foreman: "noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on
usenet"

Who do you think he's talking about there, nitwit? Oh wait, he might
still try to explain that he didn't mean that comment to apply to
*the* noisiest dissident. Even better, as he did a year or so ago,
maybe he'll try to convince me to fear toothless deadbeats. Perhaps
they're not just deadly snorf, but coincidentally deadly-slow as
well! Must be some new secret form of "fieldcraft". The kind where a
warrior guffaw makes thousands of threats over a decade, yet remains
firmly attached to his office chair whining about being broke. LOL

Wayne

Sorry dippy-do, I'm a centrist extremist and I don't have a "party".

You're a centrist extremist, are you? That's different. In fact it's so
different that no one but you has ever heard of it. Truth is that term
is an oxymoron. So you're something, but not that, just like you're not
a short, tall man. I smell a conservative in disguise. I don't have a
party either but some people still insist on calling me a liberal. So I
think you're a conservative.



If you actually comprehended anything I wrote you would have seen that I
think the liberals are ineffective in dealing with the islamist threat,
and the religious conservatives (of any religion) are the main threat to
civilization.

Well, I do agree that religion is a threat to humanity but I don't know
if it's a main threat. I don't think you have the evidence to support
your belief that liberals are ineffective in dealing with Islamic
threats. "Islam" in itself is not a threat to the U.S. There is a group
of fundamentalist Muslims that do pose a threat to the U.S. but it's not
that big a threat and it's not a threat that liberals can't handle. The
facts show that Obama's administration and policies regarding anti U.S.
Muslims are proving more effective than the last administration was in
dealing with them. I think your view is based on emotion and not facts.
If you were just looking at the facts you would see the liberal Obama
administration is dealing quite well with what you call the islamist
threat. Which, all by itself, indicates your conservative point of view
despite what label you put on yourself.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

Sorry dippy-do, I'm a centrist extremist and I don't have a "party".

You're a centrist extremist, are you? That's different. In fact it's so
different that no one but you has ever heard of it. Truth is that term
is an oxymoron. So you're something, but not that, just like you're not
a short, tall man. I smell a conservative in disguise. I don't have a
party either but some people still insist on calling me a liberal. So I
think you're a conservative.

Nope, very center. Pro gun, pro choice, anti-socialist and
anti-superstition.


If you actually comprehended anything I wrote you would have seen that I
think the liberals are ineffective in dealing with the islamist threat,
and the religious conservatives (of any religion) are the main threat to
civilization.

Well, I do agree that religion is a threat to humanity but I don't know
if it's a main threat. I don't think you have the evidence to support
your belief that liberals are ineffective in dealing with Islamic
threats. "Islam" in itself is not a threat to the U.S. There is a group
of fundamentalist Muslims that do pose a threat to the U.S. but it's not
that big a threat and it's not a threat that liberals can't handle. The
facts show that Obama's administration and policies regarding anti U.S.
Muslims are proving more effective than the last administration was in
dealing with them. I think your view is based on emotion and not facts.
If you were just looking at the facts you would see the liberal Obama
administration is dealing quite well with what you call the islamist
threat. Which, all by itself, indicates your conservative point of view
despite what label you put on yourself.

Hawke

I didn't say that the previous administration did any better at dealing
with the threat. I certainly do not agree that the current
administration is making much progress either.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

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!'

Redundant.

Buerste wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

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?

Redundant.


DUH! That's why you have to dispose of them! ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
North Central Florida

http://www.flickr.com/photos/materrell/

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Sorry dippy-do, I'm a centrist extremist and I don't have a "party".

You're a centrist extremist, are you? That's different. In fact it's so
different that no one but you has ever heard of it. Truth is that term is
an oxymoron. So you're something, but not that, just like you're not a
short, tall man. I smell a conservative in disguise. I don't have a party
either but some people still insist on calling me a liberal. So I think
you're a conservative.



If you actually comprehended anything I wrote you would have seen that I
think the liberals are ineffective in dealing with the islamist threat,
and the religious conservatives (of any religion) are the main threat to
civilization.

Well, I do agree that religion is a threat to humanity but I don't know if
it's a main threat. I don't think you have the evidence to support your
belief that liberals are ineffective in dealing with Islamic threats.
"Islam" in itself is not a threat to the U.S. There is a group of
fundamentalist Muslims that do pose a threat to the U.S. but it's not that
big a threat and it's not a threat that liberals can't handle. The facts
show that Obama's administration and policies regarding anti U.S. Muslims
are proving more effective than the last administration was in dealing
with them. I think your view is based on emotion and not facts. If you
were just looking at the facts you would see the liberal Obama
administration is dealing quite well with what you call the islamist
threat. Which, all by itself, indicates your conservative point of view
despite what label you put on yourself.

Hawke

Probably true, but if we had a Democrat in office instead of Bush, we would
more than likely had terrorists with ICBM's by now, probably made in USA and
sold to them by Democrats, and probably also pre-programmed with all the
best strategic points in the USA. As bad as Bush was, he was probably at
least 100 X better than the Democraps that ran against him. Perhaps the
people didn't vote as much for Bush as they did against what the Democrats
had to offer!

RogerN

On Mar 26, 7:45*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message

...







Sorry dippy-do, I'm a centrist extremist and I don't have a "party".

You're a centrist extremist, are you? That's different. In fact it's so
different that no one but you has ever heard of it. Truth is that term is
an oxymoron. So you're something, but not that, just like you're not a
short, tall man. I smell a conservative in disguise. I don't have a party
either but some people still insist on calling me a liberal. So I think
you're a conservative.

If you actually comprehended anything I wrote you would have seen that I
think the liberals are ineffective in dealing with the islamist threat,
and the religious conservatives (of any religion) are the main threat to
civilization.

Well, I do agree that religion is a threat to humanity but I don't know if
it's a main threat. I don't think you have the evidence to support your
belief that liberals are ineffective in dealing with Islamic threats.
"Islam" in itself is not a threat to the U.S. There is a group of
fundamentalist Muslims that do pose a threat to the U.S. but it's not that
big a threat and it's not a threat that liberals can't handle. The facts
show that Obama's administration and policies regarding anti U.S. Muslims
are proving more effective than the last administration was in dealing
with them. I think your view is based on emotion and not facts. If you
were just looking at the facts you would see the liberal Obama
administration is dealing quite well with what you call the islamist
threat. Which, all by itself, indicates your conservative point of view
despite what label you put on yourself.

Hawke

Probably true, but if we had a Democrat in office instead of Bush, we would
more than likely had terrorists with ICBM's by now, probably made in USA and
sold to them by Democrats, and probably also pre-programmed with all the
best strategic points in the USA. *As bad as Bush was, he was probably at
least 100 X better than the Democraps that ran against him. *Perhaps the
people didn't vote as much for Bush as they did against what the Democrats
had to offer!

RogerN

Roger, do you really believe that, or are you just parroting your
favorite winger talk show host or web site?

On what do you base your probability assessments?

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:56:32 -0700, Steve B wrote:


I'll meet you at the corner of Pecos and Tropicana at 1 PM. I have a big
red Dodge Ram 2500 pickup. See you then.

Steve

Panhandling?

I was there today. Where were you, you cowardly piece of ****?

Steve

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:01:11 -0500, the infamous "Pete C."
scrawled the following:


Gunner Asch wrote:

Democrats Losing Party Members Rapidly According to Poll
By Tom White, on March 3rd, 2010, at 1:24 pm

Wunnerful news!

--big snip--
Those abandoning the Democrats are angry with the leftist policies and
radicalism of the Democratic Party. But while they are angry with the
Democrats, they are not exactly falling in love with Republicans.

Nope, the "democrat deserters" are not moving to the rights at all, they
are remaining in the center as the democratic party moves further to the
left. They are the centrists who marginally aligned themselves with the
democrats in opposition to some of the conservatives, but who are not
about to stick with the democrats as they move further to the left.

I bailed from the Republicans when they shifted over to fringe right
and whacko religionists.


The real problem in this country is that the majority of the population
is centrist, but the two political parties have been over run by wingers
so neither party represents the majority of the population.

Pre-CISELY! Nor did the Green nor Libertarian parties come close to
filling my needs. I kid people about my being a liberally moderate
conservative, but that pretty much describes my makeup. shrug


Metal question: Where can I find a used mini-mill, cheap? Y'know,
the type that HF, Sieg, Griz, and Homier sell for $-500.

P.S: Sorry for the on-topic subject at the end.

--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:56:20 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:02:32 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:25:37 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:01:02 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:13:25 -0700, wrote:



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.

You may have me confused with someone else

Nope. I remember two times, one the "g" in god, and one with
somebody's surname I think. Both were part of your trying to avoid
responding to straight talk. I also remember comparing you to someone
I knew who took offense at the wearing of ball caps in restaurants. I
thought that everybody had heard the fable about the boy who cried
wolf, but apparently not.

I don't recall declaring
offense by missing upper case. I've no problem with the writings of
poet e.e. cummings who sometimes eschewed use of uppercase letters.

In any case, upper or lower, do you disagree with my assertions?

Only the mealy-mouthed parts.

Do
you support anarchy, greed and corruption in our congress

Of course I don't, and you well know it. Perhaps you thought that
asking that question might get me to take you more seriously? LOL
Meanwhile, apparently you've also forgotten that you and gummer have
discussed trusting each other in foxholes, as well as the need to
watch out for 12 year-old girls who might sneak up and flatten your
tires during a sortie. My point then was that anarchist loudmouth old
farts are a joke, but the two of you seemed to be taking it pretty
seriously.

and
presidential arrogance?

There you go again. You not only proclaimed Obama arrogant, but
implied that he rates right up there with Bush in that department. Yet
you don't say what you based that on, because trying to flesh out that
opinion would be like explaining why lakes and toilets are equally
good for fishing.

Wayne

Personal attack, insults, name-calling, irrelevancies, gross
distortions and outright falsehoods.

Gosh, what a shock, you back up your declarations by sidestepping with
more declarations. Again, just like Boehner, whose sincere guffaw
call for civility was accompanied by an apparent failure to recall
that he's been using words like "Armageddon". As evidence of your own
insincerity, I cited your declaration that BA is somehow in the same
"offensive arrogance" league as GW. If you came to that belief based
on facts, then why not spell them out? Not even gonna' try, eh? How
does that make you any different from those "noisy dissidents
clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet"? Anyway,
congratulations, holding unsupportable opinions and dodging straight
talk qualifies you for an automatic honorary tea party membership.

Wayne

Let's review: I made a couple of observations and stated an opinion,
no ad hominem attack toward anyone other than perhaps two presidents
who have seemed very arrogant to me -- as did Clinton and Nixon. You
may disagree, don't need to **** in my mailbox to express yourself.

You launched a vitriolic personal diatribe at me. Perhaps vitriol and
rhetorically creative sarcastic ridicule is what you regard as
"straight talk", or perhaps that's merely a rhetorical device.

I don't present what I think as "right" nor strive to influence, I
merely offer my opinion. Every reader gets to decide what they think
is right. If you need cites and research consult with Ed, he's really
good at that.

You clearly strive to influence opinion on the N.G. against Gunner and
now me, as might an adolescent girl though you are rather more
articulate than most adolescent girls. Good luck with that. I've
been here a while as reader and contributor, reader opinions are
well-formed one way or another. Whatever they might be, neither of us
will change them with clever rhetoric anytime soon.

Go bicker with TMT. He's more your speed.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:56:13 -0700, Steve B wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:56:32 -0700, Steve B wrote:


I'll meet you at the corner of Pecos and Tropicana at 1 PM. I have a big
red Dodge Ram 2500 pickup. See you then.

Steve

Panhandling?

I was there today. Where were you, you cowardly piece of ****?

Steve

Wait till tomorrow, I can't stop laughing long enough right now.
I'll bet your Mom has nicknames for you that you haven't heard.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 02:03:33 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:56:20 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:02:32 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:25:37 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:01:02 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:13:25 -0700, wrote:



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.

You may have me confused with someone else

Nope. I remember two times, one the "g" in god, and one with
somebody's surname I think. Both were part of your trying to avoid
responding to straight talk. I also remember comparing you to someone
I knew who took offense at the wearing of ball caps in restaurants. I
thought that everybody had heard the fable about the boy who cried
wolf, but apparently not.

I don't recall declaring
offense by missing upper case. I've no problem with the writings of
poet e.e. cummings who sometimes eschewed use of uppercase letters.

In any case, upper or lower, do you disagree with my assertions?

Only the mealy-mouthed parts.

Do
you support anarchy, greed and corruption in our congress

Of course I don't, and you well know it. Perhaps you thought that
asking that question might get me to take you more seriously? LOL
Meanwhile, apparently you've also forgotten that you and gummer have
discussed trusting each other in foxholes, as well as the need to
watch out for 12 year-old girls who might sneak up and flatten your
tires during a sortie. My point then was that anarchist loudmouth old
farts are a joke, but the two of you seemed to be taking it pretty
seriously.

and
presidential arrogance?

There you go again. You not only proclaimed Obama arrogant, but
implied that he rates right up there with Bush in that department. Yet
you don't say what you based that on, because trying to flesh out that
opinion would be like explaining why lakes and toilets are equally
good for fishing.

Wayne

Personal attack, insults, name-calling, irrelevancies, gross
distortions and outright falsehoods.

Gosh, what a shock, you back up your declarations by sidestepping with
more declarations. Again, just like Boehner, whose sincere guffaw
call for civility was accompanied by an apparent failure to recall
that he's been using words like "Armageddon". As evidence of your own
insincerity, I cited your declaration that BA is somehow in the same
"offensive arrogance" league as GW. If you came to that belief based
on facts, then why not spell them out? Not even gonna' try, eh? How
does that make you any different from those "noisy dissidents
clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet"? Anyway,
congratulations, holding unsupportable opinions and dodging straight
talk qualifies you for an automatic honorary tea party membership.

Wayne

Let's review: I made a couple of observations and stated an opinion,
no ad hominem attack toward anyone other than perhaps two presidents
who have seemed very arrogant to me -- as did Clinton and Nixon. You
may disagree, don't need to **** in my mailbox to express yourself.

You launched a vitriolic personal diatribe at me. Perhaps vitriol and
rhetorically creative sarcastic ridicule is what you regard as
"straight talk", or perhaps that's merely a rhetorical device.

I don't present what I think as "right" nor strive to influence, I
merely offer my opinion. Every reader gets to decide what they think
is right. If you need cites and research consult with Ed, he's really
good at that.

You clearly strive to influence opinion on the N.G. against Gunner and
now me, as might an adolescent girl though you are rather more
articulate than most adolescent girls. Good luck with that. I've
been here a while as reader and contributor, reader opinions are
well-formed one way or another. Whatever they might be, neither of us
will change them with clever rhetoric anytime soon.

Go bicker with TMT. He's more your speed.

Hear hear!

Poor Whine..all bluster..no bottom

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 05:07:59 -0400, Steve B
wrote:

Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!go blin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: Steve B
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
Subject: Who will be the first?
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 05:07:59 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 21
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: LthOcAgD533n6XG1FQCMwg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To:
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
Bytes: 1960
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.crafts.metalworking:1151020

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:56:13 -0700, Steve B wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:56:32 -0700, Steve B wrote:


I'll meet you at the corner of Pecos and Tropicana at 1 PM. I have a big
red Dodge Ram 2500 pickup. See you then.

Steve

Panhandling?

I was there today. Where were you, you cowardly piece of ****?

Steve

Wait till tomorrow, I can't stop laughing long enough right now.
I'll bet your Mom has nicknames for you that you haven't heard.

Need ammo that cant be traced, Steve?

Id be happy to donate some (to the Real Steve, not the ****bird)

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

Larry Jaques wrote:

Metal question: Where can I find a used mini-mill, cheap? Y'know,
the type that HF, Sieg, Griz, and Homier sell for $-500.

P.S: Sorry for the on-topic subject at the end.

You find it at HF when you get a 20% off coupon and buy the mill when it
is also on sale. Just a matter of timing.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 02:03:33 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Let's review: I made a couple of observations and stated an opinion,

Here's the passage I cited as an example of your Boehner-like
insincerity: "offensive arrogance exhibited by our elected president.
Not that his swaggerwide predecessor was any less offensive."

no ad hominem attack toward anyone other than perhaps two presidents
who have seemed very arrogant to me -- as did Clinton and Nixon.

That's four presidents. Anyway, it's clear which one you're talking
about, despite all your backasswards doubletalk.

You
may disagree,
don't need to **** in my mailbox to express yourself.

I'll express myself any way I like, as you are free to do as well. I'm
willing to debate your opinion, while you are not because you *know*
it's a debate you'll lose spectacularly. Instead all we'll see from
you is more bobbing and weaving.

You launched a vitriolic personal diatribe at me.

Oh please. You're hilariously easy to offend, or at least pretend to
be. If you think that you're more intelligent than the average
knee-jerk partisan, then why not spend your time proving it instead of
playing the victim?

Perhaps vitriol and
rhetorically creative sarcastic ridicule is what you regard as
"straight talk", or perhaps that's merely a rhetorical device.

I challenged you to back up your opinion. Entire books have been
written to describe GW's offensive arrogance. But you have yet to come
up with a single example of BO's, much less describe why you think the
two are comparable. Clearly you prefer to talk around the issue.

I don't present what I think as "right" nor strive to influence, I
merely offer my opinion.

And there we have it. It's as close as we'll come to you admitting
that your opinion at hand is ill-formed and unsupportable. Which makes
you little different from the ignorati who say things like "keep your
government hands off my medicare". They're entitled to their
unsupportable opinions as well, and you're free to be as much like
them as you have time for. Or you can try to be different from them
by defending your opinion with facts. Nobody's stopping you either
way.

Every reader gets to decide what they think
is right. If you need cites and research consult with Ed, he's really
good at that.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Nobody knows more about your opinion
than you, so why would I ask Ed or anyone else to defend it?

You clearly strive to influence opinion on the N.G. against Gunner and
now me, as might an adolescent girl though you are rather more
articulate than most adolescent girls. Good luck with that. I've
been here a while as reader and contributor, reader opinions are
well-formed one way or another. Whatever they might be, neither of us
will change them with clever rhetoric anytime soon.

You're right about few opinions being changed, but there are
exceptions. Since you decided to head down this road, here's your
chance to be honest. When gummer claimed to own a "free and clear
home", did you take him at his word, even though he's allergic to
facts? Well, now you know better. And who changed your mind by putting
the truth up against his BS?

Go bicker with TMT. He's more your speed.

Wrong again. Say what you want about TMT, but he posts a lot of
factual information which tends to be inarguable. I prefer mocking the
weasely, and you seem determined to prove yourself qualified with
gummeresque sidestepping.

Wayne

"Gunner Asch" wrote

Need ammo that cant be traced, Steve?

Id be happy to donate some (to the Real Steve, not the ****bird)

Gunner

Not to worry, Gunner. This coward won't even come into my time zone. So,
for now, I will just put him on ignore. He knows how to find me, should he
ever find his balls and want to talk. But, I seriously doubt he has any
balls.

Steve

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:35:03 -0700, Steve B wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote

Need ammo that cant be traced, Steve?

Id be happy to donate some (to the Real Steve, not the ****bird)

Gunner

Not to worry, Gunner. This coward won't even come into my time zone. So,
for now, I will just put him on ignore. He knows how to find me, should he
ever find his balls and want to talk. But, I seriously doubt he has any
balls.

Steve

You and gummer should get together for a reach around. Too funny!

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:58:34 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:


Need ammo that cant be traced, Steve?

Id be happy to donate some (to the Real Steve, not the ****bird)

Gunner

You and little stevie will only need two bullets for suicide.
I would not have noticed you if stevie had not quoted you.
As usual you have nothing of value to add.
Perhaps that is why you get blocked by so many.

Ta! Ta!