"RogerN" wrote in message
news
"john B." wrote in message
news
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"john B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:35:22 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

snip
Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you can
play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows
pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been written
so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the
Bible
to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in
somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they
connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you don't
take
the time to look.

RogerN


In which Bible, Roger? You are aware that there, disregarding for a
moment the Jewish writings, are at least 8 "primary" versions and a
multitude of subsidiary versions many of which vary, of the Christian
Bible while the Jewish Tanach is a single version.

Take as an example the 6th commandment "Thou shall not kill":
In the original Jewish writings it is written "Thou shall not commit
murder". The modern Christian version, the Roman Catholic "New
American Bible" Bible has it "thou shall not Kill" while the Lutheran
"New International Version" says "You shall not murder".

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not
realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing. If that were the only verse in the Bible I could see how
it
would be a little more difficult to understand, but since there is
specific
instances that call for the death penalty it should clear it up for all
but
those who don't want to understand.

You are really grasping aren't you. Quite obviously there is a
difference between murder and killing. One being that your God
certainly sanctioned killing while condemning murder.

For easy example with abortion versus capitol punishment. Liberals are
for killing innocent babies and for protecting criminals. God if for
protecting the innocent babies and punishing the criminals. TMT is for
protecting criminals and raccoons and killing innocent babies.

As there are innumerable (some authorities have it as many as 50
different versions) of the Christian Bible, many of which vary in
content, which one is correct?

Are their differences as huge as killing and murdering? Please feel free
to
explain how one can murder without killing. I've compared passages in
many
popular versions of the Bible and they say the same thing in a slightly
different way.


Do you really believe that or are you just hoping that I will? But
yes, both the Christian God and current US laws agree that there is a
difference between murder and killing. After all both have no
compunction in ordering their young men out to "kill" the enemy while
at the same time rewarding "murder" by execution.

Just a Gunner said, murder is illegal killing. But since the 6th
commandment was establishing law for those at that time, calling it
illegal killing would have been a circular reference, like the law is
"don't break the law". That would explain why some interpretations say
don't kill and others say don't murder. Chances are that if you don't
kill you won't murder, but if you go on to read more detail you can
understand that killing for a reason wasn't illegal but murdering without
sufficient reason was illegal. Learn more and get the bigger picture, all
would get the death penalty under God's law, no human measures up, that is
why God himself paid the price.

The basic Christian argument seems to be that if they vary then God
intend it which leaves the question of whether the god of the
Catholics is a different god the god of the Lutherans.

I've heard many claim that the New Testament writings were made up by the
Catholic Church Fathers to rule over the people. If that were the case
then
why do the Protestants and Lutherans have scriptural grounds for
believing
slightly different than the Catholics? After all, if the Catholics just
made it all up it should fully agree with their religious practices.

Not only the Church Fathers but practically everyone who had a hand in
running things for the past 2,000 years or so, certainly starting with
St. Paul.. After all Christ stated specifically that he had not come
to change the law, and to a Jew of that time it could have only one
meaning - the Jewish law, which like Islam's Sharia law today,
governed both religious and secular life.

Take the time to read the church explanations for why they don't need
to be circumcised or can eat pork. Even for an extremely devout
individual it must be rather a strain to believe that.

But I'm confident that you can take any version of the Christian Bible
and
if you follow the teachings of Jesus, if there is something wrong with
that
version then God will let you know. God's word is a lamp unto my feet
and a
light unto my path, not high beams that illuminate everything all at
once.
Walk in the light that you can see and more light will come. I have the
feeling you're not interested in walking in the light but just trying to
condemn the path.

RogerN

You are undoubtedly correct, but y'all don't just read the New
Testament. I have no idea what denomination you follow but attend a
Southern Baptist meeting and you'll hear very little New Testament.
What you'll hear is right out of the Jewish Book :-)

Moses represented the law in the Old Testament, the law was given to
Moses. No one was able to enter the promised land through Moses
leadership, no one can enter Heaven through keeping the law. But Joshua,
the Greek name Jesus is the Hebrew name Joshua, was able to deliver on
God's promise through faith. Abraham received God's promise through
faith, Abraham's seed of the promise are not those who were born of his
lineage but those who receive God's promises by faith, just as he did.

The book of Esther also is a great story of God's plan of salvation. The
law was that Jews would be killed, but the head honcho, who's wife was
Esther, a Jewish woman, decided to make another law to protect the Jewish
people. This lines up perfectly with "the soul that sins will die" and
God himself, through Jesus Christ, justifies those who believe in him.

As Jesus said, the Old Testament writers wrote of him. I didn't see it at
first but the more I learn the more I find out there is to learn.

RogerN

Save yourself a lot of trouble, Roger, and forget all of your mumbo-jumbo
casuistry. Bible or no Bible, don't kill unless it's the only way to keep
yourself from being killed.

Otherwise, you're going to prison, or to a lifetime in a mental hospital for
the criminally insane. That's the bottom line, not your imaginings derived
from your weird reading of the Bible. It won't help you in court.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:17:08 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Or do you think that the US military is composed of droids who do not
believe in Freedom?

A single example among many many...

http://www.mikenew.com/index.html#

http://www.mikenew.com/CSP_Act_2011.html

Now claiming that its a "typically American act" is very much of a lie.
Why did you try to use it on everyone here? Doing so..simply makes you
look stupid.

Gunner

You rather prove my argument. 549 guys followed orders (rather
blindly) and one rebelled. the vast majority simply follow and a tiny
minority are actually leaders, just exactly as has happened in
military units have done through-out history. In fact the military has
always worked that way. Identify the leaders and promote them.

Take the Mi-Lai incident for example. Apparently all the troops either
took part, or fired into the air. Not one actually argued that Calley
shouldn't, couldn't, legally make such an order, although, if I
remember correctly, the Services had all been made aware for years
that "I just followed orders, Sir" was not a valid defense.

Nope Gunner, the vast bulk of any population is content to follow
orders and take the hand-outs. Bread and circus, as the Romans said
and it hasn't changed.

Cheers,

John B.

Of course. But dont forget..that the American Revolution was fought by
only 10% of the population on the rebels side.

Give we have 300 million people..that means 30,000,000 armed and ****ed
off individuals will be on the march.

Given that ALL the cops, police, security people, military of all
branches and so forth top out about 3 million max...it would appear to
be something of an unfair advantage to the civilians..a very large
number of who have done recent military or law enforcement service.

And further more..a SIGNIFICANT number of current military in
CONUS..would simply go home, stay in the barracks..or turn rebel along
with their arms and materials. National Guard troops would stay home
and protect their homes and towns. Not allow themselves to be shipped
several states away to battle with hit and run, blending with the
schools of minnows, rebels.

It takes 2 guys to operate a M60 tank..and only one to teach a dozen new
crews. Same with any of the readily available military arms found in
any national guard training base..and all US military bases.

Same with the Navy..with the exception of subs and carriers..and Id
hazard to guess one could get enough ex military civilians to man thoses
as well. And they are not of a big concern..as only the carriers can
strike rebel targets. The Feral Government would lose most of the US in
a matter of days. And the areas not taken..can be isolated..turned
off..very easily.

Nukes of course would not be used. Afterall..who would they aim one at?
That 10% of the population who are in rebellion? The ones blending in
with the sheep in the towns and cities?

If the Feral Government did launch one..the people involved would be
killed by the now aghast one time loyalists.

So the Government had best keep this in mind..if the wheels come
off..the powers that be..would die..and very quickly. Or be isolated and
starved out.

Even if they managed to call in the UN..think those people would have a
chance against the now ****ed off sheep..who would increase the rebels
numbers by many many tens of percent.

Once the Second American Revolution happens...the government..and the
Leftwingers are...dead. Shrug..nothing less.

Such has been gamed by the military, the cops, and the People for many
years.

While it would be a nasty nasty event..it wouldnt last all that
long..and there wouldnt be a Feral alive at the end of it.

And the People would restore the Constitution and States rights once
again.

It would really really suck to be identified as a Leftwinger. Suckage
indeed. Though..it would be for a very short period of time.


Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
news
"john B." wrote in message
news
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"john B." wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:35:22 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

snip
Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you can
play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows
pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been written
so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the
Bible
to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in
somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they
connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you
don't
take
the time to look.

RogerN


In which Bible, Roger? You are aware that there, disregarding for a
moment the Jewish writings, are at least 8 "primary" versions and a
multitude of subsidiary versions many of which vary, of the Christian
Bible while the Jewish Tanach is a single version.

Take as an example the 6th commandment "Thou shall not kill":
In the original Jewish writings it is written "Thou shall not commit
murder". The modern Christian version, the Roman Catholic "New
American Bible" Bible has it "thou shall not Kill" while the Lutheran
"New International Version" says "You shall not murder".

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not
realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing. If that were the only verse in the Bible I could see how
it
would be a little more difficult to understand, but since there is
specific
instances that call for the death penalty it should clear it up for all
but
those who don't want to understand.

You are really grasping aren't you. Quite obviously there is a
difference between murder and killing. One being that your God
certainly sanctioned killing while condemning murder.

For easy example with abortion versus capitol punishment. Liberals are
for killing innocent babies and for protecting criminals. God if for
protecting the innocent babies and punishing the criminals. TMT is for
protecting criminals and raccoons and killing innocent babies.

As there are innumerable (some authorities have it as many as 50
different versions) of the Christian Bible, many of which vary in
content, which one is correct?

Are their differences as huge as killing and murdering? Please feel
free to
explain how one can murder without killing. I've compared passages in
many
popular versions of the Bible and they say the same thing in a slightly
different way.


Do you really believe that or are you just hoping that I will? But
yes, both the Christian God and current US laws agree that there is a
difference between murder and killing. After all both have no
compunction in ordering their young men out to "kill" the enemy while
at the same time rewarding "murder" by execution.

Just a Gunner said, murder is illegal killing. But since the 6th
commandment was establishing law for those at that time, calling it
illegal killing would have been a circular reference, like the law is
"don't break the law". That would explain why some interpretations say
don't kill and others say don't murder. Chances are that if you don't
kill you won't murder, but if you go on to read more detail you can
understand that killing for a reason wasn't illegal but murdering without
sufficient reason was illegal. Learn more and get the bigger picture,
all would get the death penalty under God's law, no human measures up,
that is why God himself paid the price.

The basic Christian argument seems to be that if they vary then God
intend it which leaves the question of whether the god of the
Catholics is a different god the god of the Lutherans.

I've heard many claim that the New Testament writings were made up by
the
Catholic Church Fathers to rule over the people. If that were the case
then
why do the Protestants and Lutherans have scriptural grounds for
believing
slightly different than the Catholics? After all, if the Catholics just
made it all up it should fully agree with their religious practices.

Not only the Church Fathers but practically everyone who had a hand in
running things for the past 2,000 years or so, certainly starting with
St. Paul.. After all Christ stated specifically that he had not come
to change the law, and to a Jew of that time it could have only one
meaning - the Jewish law, which like Islam's Sharia law today,
governed both religious and secular life.

Take the time to read the church explanations for why they don't need
to be circumcised or can eat pork. Even for an extremely devout
individual it must be rather a strain to believe that.

But I'm confident that you can take any version of the Christian Bible
and
if you follow the teachings of Jesus, if there is something wrong with
that
version then God will let you know. God's word is a lamp unto my feet
and a
light unto my path, not high beams that illuminate everything all at
once.
Walk in the light that you can see and more light will come. I have the
feeling you're not interested in walking in the light but just trying to
condemn the path.

RogerN

You are undoubtedly correct, but y'all don't just read the New
Testament. I have no idea what denomination you follow but attend a
Southern Baptist meeting and you'll hear very little New Testament.
What you'll hear is right out of the Jewish Book :-)

Moses represented the law in the Old Testament, the law was given to
Moses. No one was able to enter the promised land through Moses
leadership, no one can enter Heaven through keeping the law. But Joshua,
the Greek name Jesus is the Hebrew name Joshua, was able to deliver on
God's promise through faith. Abraham received God's promise through
faith, Abraham's seed of the promise are not those who were born of his
lineage but those who receive God's promises by faith, just as he did.

The book of Esther also is a great story of God's plan of salvation. The
law was that Jews would be killed, but the head honcho, who's wife was
Esther, a Jewish woman, decided to make another law to protect the Jewish
people. This lines up perfectly with "the soul that sins will die" and
God himself, through Jesus Christ, justifies those who believe in him.

As Jesus said, the Old Testament writers wrote of him. I didn't see it
at first but the more I learn the more I find out there is to learn.

RogerN

Save yourself a lot of trouble, Roger, and forget all of your mumbo-jumbo
casuistry. Bible or no Bible, don't kill unless it's the only way to keep
yourself from being killed.

Otherwise, you're going to prison, or to a lifetime in a mental hospital
for the criminally insane. That's the bottom line, not your imaginings
derived from your weird reading of the Bible. It won't help you in court.

--
Ed Huntress


I've seen people kill germs with Lysol and they never got in trouble or even
had to appear in court. I know that's ridiculous but some would apply it in
that way if you just say "do not kill".

RogerN

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Roger, that describes many people. Well said.

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

Someday they might stand before the Lord and he may say "why didn't you obey
my word" and they might reply that there were so many versions and so much
of it was unclear. The Lord may reply, "you didn't obey the parts that were
plain and easily understood, if you wouldn't obey the simple parts why
should we think you would obey the other parts if you understood them?"

If you only understand 10%, obey that 10% and more understanding will be
given to you. Use what you have and you will be given more.

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
news
"john B." wrote in message
news On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"john B." wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:35:22 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

snip
Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you
can
play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows
pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been written
so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the
Bible
to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in
somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they
connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you
don't
take
the time to look.

RogerN


In which Bible, Roger? You are aware that there, disregarding for a
moment the Jewish writings, are at least 8 "primary" versions and a
multitude of subsidiary versions many of which vary, of the Christian
Bible while the Jewish Tanach is a single version.

Take as an example the 6th commandment "Thou shall not kill":
In the original Jewish writings it is written "Thou shall not commit
murder". The modern Christian version, the Roman Catholic "New
American Bible" Bible has it "thou shall not Kill" while the Lutheran
"New International Version" says "You shall not murder".

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not
realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more
specific
than killing. If that were the only verse in the Bible I could see how
it
would be a little more difficult to understand, but since there is
specific
instances that call for the death penalty it should clear it up for all
but
those who don't want to understand.

You are really grasping aren't you. Quite obviously there is a
difference between murder and killing. One being that your God
certainly sanctioned killing while condemning murder.

For easy example with abortion versus capitol punishment. Liberals are
for killing innocent babies and for protecting criminals. God if for
protecting the innocent babies and punishing the criminals. TMT is for
protecting criminals and raccoons and killing innocent babies.

As there are innumerable (some authorities have it as many as 50
different versions) of the Christian Bible, many of which vary in
content, which one is correct?

Are their differences as huge as killing and murdering? Please feel
free to
explain how one can murder without killing. I've compared passages in
many
popular versions of the Bible and they say the same thing in a slightly
different way.


Do you really believe that or are you just hoping that I will? But
yes, both the Christian God and current US laws agree that there is a
difference between murder and killing. After all both have no
compunction in ordering their young men out to "kill" the enemy while
at the same time rewarding "murder" by execution.

Just a Gunner said, murder is illegal killing. But since the 6th
commandment was establishing law for those at that time, calling it
illegal killing would have been a circular reference, like the law is
"don't break the law". That would explain why some interpretations say
don't kill and others say don't murder. Chances are that if you don't
kill you won't murder, but if you go on to read more detail you can
understand that killing for a reason wasn't illegal but murdering
without sufficient reason was illegal. Learn more and get the bigger
picture, all would get the death penalty under God's law, no human
measures up, that is why God himself paid the price.

The basic Christian argument seems to be that if they vary then God
intend it which leaves the question of whether the god of the
Catholics is a different god the god of the Lutherans.

I've heard many claim that the New Testament writings were made up by
the
Catholic Church Fathers to rule over the people. If that were the case
then
why do the Protestants and Lutherans have scriptural grounds for
believing
slightly different than the Catholics? After all, if the Catholics
just
made it all up it should fully agree with their religious practices.

Not only the Church Fathers but practically everyone who had a hand in
running things for the past 2,000 years or so, certainly starting with
St. Paul.. After all Christ stated specifically that he had not come
to change the law, and to a Jew of that time it could have only one
meaning - the Jewish law, which like Islam's Sharia law today,
governed both religious and secular life.

Take the time to read the church explanations for why they don't need
to be circumcised or can eat pork. Even for an extremely devout
individual it must be rather a strain to believe that.

But I'm confident that you can take any version of the Christian Bible
and
if you follow the teachings of Jesus, if there is something wrong with
that
version then God will let you know. God's word is a lamp unto my feet
and a
light unto my path, not high beams that illuminate everything all at
once.
Walk in the light that you can see and more light will come. I have
the
feeling you're not interested in walking in the light but just trying
to
condemn the path.

RogerN

You are undoubtedly correct, but y'all don't just read the New
Testament. I have no idea what denomination you follow but attend a
Southern Baptist meeting and you'll hear very little New Testament.
What you'll hear is right out of the Jewish Book :-)

Moses represented the law in the Old Testament, the law was given to
Moses. No one was able to enter the promised land through Moses
leadership, no one can enter Heaven through keeping the law. But
Joshua, the Greek name Jesus is the Hebrew name Joshua, was able to
deliver on God's promise through faith. Abraham received God's promise
through faith, Abraham's seed of the promise are not those who were born
of his lineage but those who receive God's promises by faith, just as he
did.

The book of Esther also is a great story of God's plan of salvation.
The law was that Jews would be killed, but the head honcho, who's wife
was Esther, a Jewish woman, decided to make another law to protect the
Jewish people. This lines up perfectly with "the soul that sins will
die" and God himself, through Jesus Christ, justifies those who believe
in him.

As Jesus said, the Old Testament writers wrote of him. I didn't see it
at first but the more I learn the more I find out there is to learn.

RogerN

Save yourself a lot of trouble, Roger, and forget all of your mumbo-jumbo
casuistry. Bible or no Bible, don't kill unless it's the only way to keep
yourself from being killed.

Otherwise, you're going to prison, or to a lifetime in a mental hospital
for the criminally insane. That's the bottom line, not your imaginings
derived from your weird reading of the Bible. It won't help you in court.

--
Ed Huntress


I've seen people kill germs with Lysol and they never got in trouble or
even had to appear in court. I know that's ridiculous but some would
apply it in that way if you just say "do not kill".

RogerN

People, fer chrissake. Not germs.

Sheesh. Your imagination must be a curious place, Roger. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:48:53 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:17:08 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Or do you think that the US military is composed of droids who do not
believe in Freedom?

A single example among many many...

http://www.mikenew.com/index.html#

http://www.mikenew.com/CSP_Act_2011.html

Now claiming that its a "typically American act" is very much of a lie.
Why did you try to use it on everyone here? Doing so..simply makes you
look stupid.

Gunner

You rather prove my argument. 549 guys followed orders (rather
blindly) and one rebelled. the vast majority simply follow and a tiny
minority are actually leaders, just exactly as has happened in
military units have done through-out history. In fact the military has
always worked that way. Identify the leaders and promote them.

Take the Mi-Lai incident for example. Apparently all the troops either
took part, or fired into the air. Not one actually argued that Calley
shouldn't, couldn't, legally make such an order, although, if I
remember correctly, the Services had all been made aware for years
that "I just followed orders, Sir" was not a valid defense.

Nope Gunner, the vast bulk of any population is content to follow
orders and take the hand-outs. Bread and circus, as the Romans said
and it hasn't changed.

Cheers,

John B.

Of course. But dont forget..that the American Revolution was fought by
only 10% of the population on the rebels side.

Gunner, for Christ's sake read a little history. The British tried to
fight essentially a two front war, as France had declared war against
England; the Spanish against England and at the same time the English
were also fighting the Dutch - at the end of a very long supply line -
about 3 months. - and couldn't keep the troops supplied. Yorktown was
a battle between some 16,000 American and French troops against 6,000
English, and although the Americans & French claimed the victory the
English actually surrendered because anticipated reinforcements were
blockaded by French ships.

But regardless, the population of the US is estimated to have been
about 2,5 million in 1776. 10% of the population would have been
250,000 people. The largest army that the U.S. was ever able to field
was 14,000 troops which would have been about 6% of the friendlies.

There were 22 major battles fought during the war with the U.S. wining
9, English - 12. Draw -1. The maximum that the U.S. fielded was about
14,000 (White Plains, freeman's Farm and Saratoga). The English won
against a larger army at least five times - Brandywine US 8,000 - Eng
- 6,000; Freeman's Farm US-14,000 English 8,000; German Town US 14,000
English 8,000; USD 4,400 English 1,900)

Give we have 300 million people..that means 30,000,000 armed and ****ed
off individuals will be on the march.

Based on the Revolutionary War it actually means about 18,000,000, of
whom what, 20% are Blacks or Hispanics, possibly not too enthusiastic
about helping Whitie get the upper hand again, so your group is now
about 14,000,000 with some 4,000,000 folks snipping at their back and
looting their homes. Which of course, just as in the Revolutionary
war, causes at least an equal number of the dedicated to stay home and
watch over their family. Next, of course you need to mobilize these
troops as if you let them run wild they will, as all undisciplined
troops do, take to looting and raping for their own benefit. So who is
going to stand up and be Leader (knowing of course that they either
win or hang). No gunner, your fantasy needs some more work on it
before it becomes a valid war plan.

Of course, what you are really talking about is another Kosovo.

snipped


Gunner
Cheers,

John B.

"john B." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:48:53 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:17:08 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Or do you think that the US military is composed of droids who do not
believe in Freedom?

A single example among many many...

http://www.mikenew.com/index.html#

http://www.mikenew.com/CSP_Act_2011.html

Now claiming that its a "typically American act" is very much of a lie.
Why did you try to use it on everyone here? Doing so..simply makes you
look stupid.

Gunner

You rather prove my argument. 549 guys followed orders (rather
blindly) and one rebelled. the vast majority simply follow and a tiny
minority are actually leaders, just exactly as has happened in
military units have done through-out history. In fact the military has
always worked that way. Identify the leaders and promote them.

Take the Mi-Lai incident for example. Apparently all the troops either
took part, or fired into the air. Not one actually argued that Calley
shouldn't, couldn't, legally make such an order, although, if I
remember correctly, the Services had all been made aware for years
that "I just followed orders, Sir" was not a valid defense.

Nope Gunner, the vast bulk of any population is content to follow
orders and take the hand-outs. Bread and circus, as the Romans said
and it hasn't changed.

Cheers,

John B.

Of course. But dont forget..that the American Revolution was fought by
only 10% of the population on the rebels side.

Gunner, for Christ's sake read a little history. The British tried to
fight essentially a two front war, as France had declared war against
England; the Spanish against England and at the same time the English
were also fighting the Dutch - at the end of a very long supply line -
about 3 months. - and couldn't keep the troops supplied. Yorktown was
a battle between some 16,000 American and French troops against 6,000
English, and although the Americans & French claimed the victory the
English actually surrendered because anticipated reinforcements were
blockaded by French ships.

But regardless, the population of the US is estimated to have been
about 2,5 million in 1776. 10% of the population would have been
250,000 people. The largest army that the U.S. was ever able to field
was 14,000 troops which would have been about 6% of the friendlies.

There were 22 major battles fought during the war with the U.S. wining
9, English - 12. Draw -1. The maximum that the U.S. fielded was about
14,000 (White Plains, freeman's Farm and Saratoga). The English won
against a larger army at least five times - Brandywine US 8,000 - Eng
- 6,000; Freeman's Farm US-14,000 English 8,000; German Town US 14,000
English 8,000; USD 4,400 English 1,900)

Give we have 300 million people..that means 30,000,000 armed and ****ed
off individuals will be on the march.

Based on the Revolutionary War it actually means about 18,000,000, of
whom what, 20% are Blacks or Hispanics, possibly not too enthusiastic
about helping Whitie get the upper hand again, so your group is now
about 14,000,000 with some 4,000,000 folks snipping at their back and
looting their homes. Which of course, just as in the Revolutionary
war, causes at least an equal number of the dedicated to stay home and
watch over their family. Next, of course you need to mobilize these
troops as if you let them run wild they will, as all undisciplined
troops do, take to looting and raping for their own benefit. So who is
going to stand up and be Leader (knowing of course that they either
win or hang). No gunner, your fantasy needs some more work on it
before it becomes a valid war plan.

Of course, what you are really talking about is another Kosovo.

snipped


Gunner
Cheers,

John B.

What he's talking about is a fantasy in which the other 90% of the country
would be the enemy -- which was not at all the case in the American
Revolution. The enemy there was a foreign colonizer and occupier, and the
largest part of the American population played little direct part in it at
all.

Something strange affects the minds of these "cullers," as it did with
Timothy McVeigh and some of the militias a couple of decades ago. Like bad
film actors, they've come to believe their own PR. They think that most
people agree with them and strongly sympathize, while most Americans, as
****ed off as they may be, are not going to let roving bands of
self-appointed revolutionaries take over our democratically elected
government. Too many of them, or their ancestors, fought and died so we
could have this form of government, which was the first that could be
altered by the people through the ballot box if they get sufficiently
****ed.

It's the cullers who would wind up in body bags, or in prison camps. George
Washington set the tone for it in 1794. The leaders were pacified, found
guilty of treason, and then pardoned and sent home. Jefferson had a similar
idea about what to do with these malcontents:

"The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive...Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them." -- Thomas Jefferson, "Tree of Liberty"
letter

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:56:07 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Of course. But dont forget..that the American Revolution was fought by
only 10% of the population on the rebels side.

Gunner, for Christ's sake read a little history. The British tried to
fight essentially a two front war, as France had declared war against
England; the Spanish against England and at the same time the English
were also fighting the Dutch - at the end of a very long supply line -
about 3 months. - and couldn't keep the troops supplied. Yorktown was
a battle between some 16,000 American and French troops against 6,000
English, and although the Americans & French claimed the victory the
English actually surrendered because anticipated reinforcements were
blockaded by French ships.

Yes and? New Orleans was fought long after the surrendor as well.

And?

But regardless, the population of the US is estimated to have been
about 2,5 million in 1776. 10% of the population would have been
250,000 people. The largest army that the U.S. was ever able to field
was 14,000 troops which would have been about 6% of the friendlies.

The largest SINGLE army. And how many single armies were there?

Eight.


There were 22 major battles fought during the war with the U.S. wining
9, English - 12. Draw -1. The maximum that the U.S. fielded was about
14,000 (White Plains, freeman's Farm and Saratoga). The English won
against a larger army at least five times - Brandywine US 8,000 - Eng
- 6,000; Freeman's Farm US-14,000 English 8,000; German Town US 14,000
English 8,000; USD 4,400 English 1,900)

Yes indeed. And the US won virtually every battle in Vietnam also. Yet
its claimed we "lost".

And? You do understand that the Revolutionary war was fought via
symetrical warfare...right? With the rebels using asymetrical tactics in
many cases that didnt involve "battles". Yet the Brits died like flies
(along with the Hessians)

Give we have 300 million people..that means 30,000,000 armed and ****ed
off individuals will be on the march.

Based on the Revolutionary War it actually means about 18,000,000, of
whom what, 20% are Blacks or Hispanics, possibly not too enthusiastic
about helping Whitie get the upper hand again, so your group is now
about 14,000,000 with some 4,000,000 folks snipping at their back and
looting their homes. Which of course, just as in the Revolutionary
war, causes at least an equal number of the dedicated to stay home and
watch over their family. Next, of course you need to mobilize these
troops as if you let them run wild they will, as all undisciplined
troops do, take to looting and raping for their own benefit. So who is
going to stand up and be Leader (knowing of course that they either
win or hang). No gunner, your fantasy needs some more work on it
before it becomes a valid war plan.

Interesting revisions you made there. Most of which are inaccurate as
hell..but hey..bleeeeve what you wish. But son...10% of 300 million
doesnt work out to be 18,000,000. But lets assume your figures are
correct. We are NOT talking about symetrical warfare here. No teams are
going to stand in rows and shoot at each other.

And yes...very much like Kosovo. The problem is...is that one side isnt
armed ..is untrained..and wont fight worth a ****. They can only die.

And the military. or large portions of it....may likely join the rebels.
After all..they are going to be fighting for the very same things they
took that pesky Oath to fight for.

I suggest you review your very own Bishops War to start...

and read the writings of Jane Ohlmeyer and her works on The Wars of the
Three.

Or perhaps you would care more for this explaination:::

The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I
was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and
conservative landlords, Parliament beat the King because it could appeal
to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in
town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider
masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to
understand what the struggle was really about.
—Christopher Hill

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:18:16 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"john B." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:48:53 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:17:08 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Or do you think that the US military is composed of droids who do not
believe in Freedom?

A single example among many many...

http://www.mikenew.com/index.html#

http://www.mikenew.com/CSP_Act_2011.html

Now claiming that its a "typically American act" is very much of a lie.
Why did you try to use it on everyone here? Doing so..simply makes you
look stupid.

Gunner

You rather prove my argument. 549 guys followed orders (rather
blindly) and one rebelled. the vast majority simply follow and a tiny
minority are actually leaders, just exactly as has happened in
military units have done through-out history. In fact the military has
always worked that way. Identify the leaders and promote them.

Take the Mi-Lai incident for example. Apparently all the troops either
took part, or fired into the air. Not one actually argued that Calley
shouldn't, couldn't, legally make such an order, although, if I
remember correctly, the Services had all been made aware for years
that "I just followed orders, Sir" was not a valid defense.

Nope Gunner, the vast bulk of any population is content to follow
orders and take the hand-outs. Bread and circus, as the Romans said
and it hasn't changed.

Cheers,

John B.

Of course. But dont forget..that the American Revolution was fought by
only 10% of the population on the rebels side.

Gunner, for Christ's sake read a little history. The British tried to
fight essentially a two front war, as France had declared war against
England; the Spanish against England and at the same time the English
were also fighting the Dutch - at the end of a very long supply line -
about 3 months. - and couldn't keep the troops supplied. Yorktown was
a battle between some 16,000 American and French troops against 6,000
English, and although the Americans & French claimed the victory the
English actually surrendered because anticipated reinforcements were
blockaded by French ships.

But regardless, the population of the US is estimated to have been
about 2,5 million in 1776. 10% of the population would have been
250,000 people. The largest army that the U.S. was ever able to field
was 14,000 troops which would have been about 6% of the friendlies.

There were 22 major battles fought during the war with the U.S. wining
9, English - 12. Draw -1. The maximum that the U.S. fielded was about
14,000 (White Plains, freeman's Farm and Saratoga). The English won
against a larger army at least five times - Brandywine US 8,000 - Eng
- 6,000; Freeman's Farm US-14,000 English 8,000; German Town US 14,000
English 8,000; USD 4,400 English 1,900)

Give we have 300 million people..that means 30,000,000 armed and ****ed
off individuals will be on the march.

Based on the Revolutionary War it actually means about 18,000,000, of
whom what, 20% are Blacks or Hispanics, possibly not too enthusiastic
about helping Whitie get the upper hand again, so your group is now
about 14,000,000 with some 4,000,000 folks snipping at their back and
looting their homes. Which of course, just as in the Revolutionary
war, causes at least an equal number of the dedicated to stay home and
watch over their family. Next, of course you need to mobilize these
troops as if you let them run wild they will, as all undisciplined
troops do, take to looting and raping for their own benefit. So who is
going to stand up and be Leader (knowing of course that they either
win or hang). No gunner, your fantasy needs some more work on it
before it becomes a valid war plan.

Of course, what you are really talking about is another Kosovo.

snipped


Gunner
Cheers,

John B.

What he's talking about is a fantasy in which the other 90% of the country
would be the enemy -- which was not at all the case in the American
Revolution. The enemy there was a foreign colonizer and occupier, and the
largest part of the American population played little direct part in it at
all.

Something strange affects the minds of these "cullers," as it did with
Timothy McVeigh and some of the militias a couple of decades ago. Like bad
film actors, they've come to believe their own PR. They think that most
people agree with them and strongly sympathize, while most Americans, as
****ed off as they may be, are not going to let roving bands of
self-appointed revolutionaries take over our democratically elected
government. Too many of them, or their ancestors, fought and died so we
could have this form of government, which was the first that could be
altered by the people through the ballot box if they get sufficiently
****ed.

It's the cullers who would wind up in body bags, or in prison camps. George
Washington set the tone for it in 1794. The leaders were pacified, found
guilty of treason, and then pardoned and sent home. Jefferson had a similar
idea about what to do with these malcontents:

"The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive...Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them." -- Thomas Jefferson, "Tree of Liberty"
letter

Of course, but one does live in hope that logic might bloom, even in
the stony fields :-)
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:27:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:56:07 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Of course. But dont forget..that the American Revolution was fought by
only 10% of the population on the rebels side.

Gunner, for Christ's sake read a little history. The British tried to
fight essentially a two front war, as France had declared war against
England; the Spanish against England and at the same time the English
were also fighting the Dutch - at the end of a very long supply line -
about 3 months. - and couldn't keep the troops supplied. Yorktown was
a battle between some 16,000 American and French troops against 6,000
English, and although the Americans & French claimed the victory the
English actually surrendered because anticipated reinforcements were
blockaded by French ships.

Yes and? New Orleans was fought long after the surrendor as well.

And?

But regardless, the population of the US is estimated to have been
about 2,5 million in 1776. 10% of the population would have been
250,000 people. The largest army that the U.S. was ever able to field
was 14,000 troops which would have been about 6% of the friendlies.

The largest SINGLE army. And how many single armies were there?

Eight.

In 1776 there were 20,000 people under arms with approximately 2/3rds
in the Continental Congress forces and the remainder in state
militias. If there were 8 armies that meant that there were about
2,500 men in an American Army. Are you sure?

I think that your math needs to recruit more help.

There were 22 major battles fought during the war with the U.S. wining
9, English - 12. Draw -1. The maximum that the U.S. fielded was about
14,000 (White Plains, freeman's Farm and Saratoga). The English won
against a larger army at least five times - Brandywine US 8,000 - Eng
- 6,000; Freeman's Farm US-14,000 English 8,000; German Town US 14,000
English 8,000; USD 4,400 English 1,900)

Yes indeed. And the US won virtually every battle in Vietnam also. Yet
its claimed we "lost".

That is a subject much debated but the U.S. did win the war,
militarily, i.e., defeated their armies and bombed them into
submission.. Then I believe that we lost the negotiation, so it might
be said that we won the war and lost the peace.

And? You do understand that the Revolutionary war was fought via
symetrical warfare...right? With the rebels using asymetrical tactics in
many cases that didnt involve "battles". Yet the Brits died like flies
(along with the Hessians)

That is a much publicized "fact", unfortunately incorrect.

I first read it in reference to Bunker Hill (which the English won)
where casualties were Americans - 450 and British 1150, but with the
possible exception of two smaller battles (Toconderoga and, notably,
Kings Mountain) battles were fought in typical army style of massed
formation with muskets, and bayonets, as the main personal weapon, in
fact the training of American forces by General Steuben who trained
the American regiments in a form of European battle drill, was said to
be a major factor in subsequent American victories.

Causalities in face to face encounters between armies for the entire
period was round about 11,185 English and 19,703 Americans, which
seems to imply that whatever the American's mode of battle it was less
effective then the English.

Give we have 300 million people..that means 30,000,000 armed and ****ed
off individuals will be on the march.

Based on the Revolutionary War it actually means about 18,000,000, of
whom what, 20% are Blacks or Hispanics, possibly not too enthusiastic
about helping Whitie get the upper hand again, so your group is now
about 14,000,000 with some 4,000,000 folks snipping at their back and
looting their homes. Which of course, just as in the Revolutionary
war, causes at least an equal number of the dedicated to stay home and
watch over their family. Next, of course you need to mobilize these
troops as if you let them run wild they will, as all undisciplined
troops do, take to looting and raping for their own benefit. So who is
going to stand up and be Leader (knowing of course that they either
win or hang). No gunner, your fantasy needs some more work on it
before it becomes a valid war plan.

Interesting revisions you made there. Most of which are inaccurate as
hell..but hey..bleeeeve what you wish. But son...10% of 300 million
doesnt work out to be 18,000,000. But lets assume your figures are
correct. We are NOT talking about symetrical warfare here. No teams are
going to stand in rows and shoot at each other.

Gunner, you claim to have fought in Vietnam but strangely you don't
seem to have noticed that irregular forces snipping from behind
fences, if they ever existed, don't win wars. What wins wars is massed
forces - major destruction B-52 raids into major cities, ports and
transportation, etc. In fact Giap's greatest claim to fame was that he
avoided major battles which would have likely resulted in the North's
army being destroyed.

And yes...very much like Kosovo. The problem is...is that one side isnt
armed ..is untrained..and wont fight worth a ****. They can only die.

And the military. or large portions of it....may likely join the rebels.
After all..they are going to be fighting for the very same things they
took that pesky Oath to fight for.

I suggest you review your very own Bishops War to start...

Certainly. another Scottish fight against English domination - except
I don't think they have made a movie yet.

and read the writings of Jane Ohlmeyer and her works on The Wars of the
Three.

Or perhaps you would care more for this explaination:::

The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I
was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and
conservative landlords, Parliament beat the King because it could appeal
to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in
town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider
masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to
understand what the struggle was really about.
—Christopher Hill


Ah yes, the truth; from a noted Marxist Historian and founding member
of the Communist Party Historians Group. Does the word "revisionist"
strike a note?

But a less sectarian view point is that it was a battle between forces
that supported a parliament against those who espoused the divine
right of kings.



Gunner
Cheers,

John B.

On 6/30/2011 6:27 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:56:07 +0700, john
wrote:


Of course. But dont forget..that the American Revolution was fought by
only 10% of the population on the rebels side.

Gunner, for Christ's sake read a little history. The British tried to
fight essentially a two front war, as France had declared war against
England; the Spanish against England and at the same time the English
were also fighting the Dutch - at the end of a very long supply line -
about 3 months. - and couldn't keep the troops supplied. Yorktown was
a battle between some 16,000 American and French troops against 6,000
English, and although the Americans& French claimed the victory the
English actually surrendered because anticipated reinforcements were
blockaded by French ships.

Yes and? New Orleans was fought long after the surrendor as well.

Yes, in a different war, the War of 1812.

David

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:42:35 +0700, john B.
wrote:


But regardless, the population of the US is estimated to have been
about 2,5 million in 1776. 10% of the population would have been
250,000 people. The largest army that the U.S. was ever able to field
was 14,000 troops which would have been about 6% of the friendlies.

The largest SINGLE army. And how many single armies were there?

Eight.

In 1776 there were 20,000 people under arms with approximately 2/3rds
in the Continental Congress forces and the remainder in state
militias. If there were 8 armies that meant that there were about
2,500 men in an American Army. Are you sure?

I think that your math needs to recruit more help.

I think your history needs a bit more research...seriously.


There were 22 major battles fought during the war with the U.S. wining
9, English - 12. Draw -1. The maximum that the U.S. fielded was about
14,000 (White Plains, freeman's Farm and Saratoga). The English won
against a larger army at least five times - Brandywine US 8,000 - Eng
- 6,000; Freeman's Farm US-14,000 English 8,000; German Town US 14,000
English 8,000; USD 4,400 English 1,900)

Yes indeed. And the US won virtually every battle in Vietnam also. Yet
its claimed we "lost".

That is a subject much debated but the U.S. did win the war,
militarily, i.e., defeated their armies and bombed them into
submission.. Then I believe that we lost the negotiation, so it might
be said that we won the war and lost the peace.

Yet all the history books claim we lost in RVN. Feel free to google it.

And? You do understand that the Revolutionary war was fought via
symetrical warfare...right? With the rebels using asymetrical tactics in
many cases that didnt involve "battles". Yet the Brits died like flies
(along with the Hessians)

That is a much publicized "fact", unfortunately incorrect.

Given that your version of history appears to be very Turtledovish....

I first read it in reference to Bunker Hill (which the English won)
where casualties were Americans - 450 and British 1150, but with the
possible exception of two smaller battles (Toconderoga and, notably,
Kings Mountain) battles were fought in typical army style of massed
formation with muskets, and bayonets, as the main personal weapon, in
fact the training of American forces by General Steuben who trained
the American regiments in a form of European battle drill, was said to
be a major factor in subsequent American victories.

Yes indeed. And that will apply to todays combat techniques how
exactly?

Causalities in face to face encounters between armies for the entire
period was round about 11,185 English and 19,703 Americans, which
seems to imply that whatever the American's mode of battle it was less
effective then the English.

I suggest you review those numbers a bit more. And give us the numbers
of those who perished as a result of climate, not battle.


Give we have 300 million people..that means 30,000,000 armed and ****ed
off individuals will be on the march.

Based on the Revolutionary War it actually means about 18,000,000, of
whom what, 20% are Blacks or Hispanics, possibly not too enthusiastic
about helping Whitie get the upper hand again, so your group is now
about 14,000,000 with some 4,000,000 folks snipping at their back and
looting their homes. Which of course, just as in the Revolutionary
war, causes at least an equal number of the dedicated to stay home and
watch over their family. Next, of course you need to mobilize these
troops as if you let them run wild they will, as all undisciplined
troops do, take to looting and raping for their own benefit. So who is
going to stand up and be Leader (knowing of course that they either
win or hang). No gunner, your fantasy needs some more work on it
before it becomes a valid war plan.

Interesting revisions you made there. Most of which are inaccurate as
hell..but hey..bleeeeve what you wish. But son...10% of 300 million
doesnt work out to be 18,000,000. But lets assume your figures are
correct. We are NOT talking about symetrical warfare here. No teams are
going to stand in rows and shoot at each other.

Gunner, you claim to have fought in Vietnam but strangely you don't
seem to have noticed that irregular forces snipping from behind
fences, if they ever existed, don't win wars. What wins wars is massed
forces - major destruction B-52 raids into major cities, ports and
transportation, etc. In fact Giap's greatest claim to fame was that he
avoided major battles which would have likely resulted in the North's
army being destroyed.

Yet history is repleat with such. So you think that B52s will be
employed against Americans in American cities? Fascinating.
Horrifying..but fascinating indeed.

And yes...very much like Kosovo. The problem is...is that one side isnt
armed ..is untrained..and wont fight worth a ****. They can only die.

And the military. or large portions of it....may likely join the rebels.
After all..they are going to be fighting for the very same things they
took that pesky Oath to fight for.

I suggest you review your very own Bishops War to start...

Certainly. another Scottish fight against English domination - except
I don't think they have made a movie yet.

Yet the Scots won.

and read the writings of Jane Ohlmeyer and her works on The Wars of the
Three.

Or perhaps you would care more for this explaination:::

The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I
was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and
conservative landlords, Parliament beat the King because it could appeal
to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in
town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider
masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to
understand what the struggle was really about.
—Christopher Hill


Ah yes, the truth; from a noted Marxist Historian and founding member
of the Communist Party Historians Group. Does the word "revisionist"
strike a note?

Hey..he is British, no? VBG

But a less sectarian view point is that it was a battle between forces
that supported a parliament against those who espoused the divine
right of kings.

Yes it was. And the People won, not the kings.

You seem to keep forgetting that.

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:15:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


What he's talking about is a fantasy in which the other 90% of the country
would be the enemy -- which was not at all the case in the American
Revolution. The enemy there was a foreign colonizer and occupier, and the
largest part of the American population played little direct part in it at
all.

The poor lad does tend to ignore history..and today sentiment doesnt he?

Pity about that. Lets hope he doesnt wind up hanging from a bit of
barbed wire from a street lamp.


Something strange affects the minds of these "cullers," as it did with
Timothy McVeigh and some of the militias a couple of decades ago. Like bad
film actors, they've come to believe their own PR. They think that most
people agree with them and strongly sympathize, while most Americans, as
****ed off as they may be, are not going to let roving bands of
self-appointed revolutionaries take over our democratically elected
government. Too many of them, or their ancestors, fought and died so we
could have this form of government, which was the first that could be
altered by the people through the ballot box if they get sufficiently
****ed.

"this form of government"?? A socialist state that bypasses the
Constitution at every twist and turn?

Again the poor fellow forgets history and trys to minimize his masters
attempts to gut the Nation. (soft strains of the Internationale playing
in the backround)


It's the cullers who would wind up in body bags, or in prison camps. George
Washington set the tone for it in 1794. The leaders were pacified, found
guilty of treason, and then pardoned and sent home. Jefferson had a similar
idea about what to do with these malcontents:

Shrug...time will tell indeed. The Whiskey Rebellion wasnt a nationwide
event. Pity that.


"The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive...Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them." -- Thomas Jefferson, "Tree of Liberty"
letter

Interesting misquoteing..typical of the Leftwing agenda. Lets take a
better look at that..shall we?

Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The [ ]
ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into
every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length
believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers
themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have
believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it
ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts?

And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably
conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in
ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without
such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The
part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance
of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty.

We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one
rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each
state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a
rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers
are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit
of resistance?

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon
& pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The
tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

VBG

No attempts to change things in that direct snippet, unlike the other
persons "quote"

It does put a somewhat different light on things..doesnt it?

VBG

Of course, but one does live in hope that logic might bloom, even in
the stony fields :-)
Cheers,

John B.

Indeed. Stoney fields are where the Left will be interred for eternity.

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:57:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:42:35 +0700, john B.
wrote:


But regardless, the population of the US is estimated to have been
about 2,5 million in 1776. 10% of the population would have been
250,000 people. The largest army that the U.S. was ever able to field
was 14,000 troops which would have been about 6% of the friendlies.

The largest SINGLE army. And how many single armies were there?

Eight.

In 1776 there were 20,000 people under arms with approximately 2/3rds
in the Continental Congress forces and the remainder in state
militias. If there were 8 armies that meant that there were about
2,500 men in an American Army. Are you sure?

I think that your math needs to recruit more help.

I think your history needs a bit more research...seriously.

Always glad to learn - give me a reference.

There were 22 major battles fought during the war with the U.S. wining
9, English - 12. Draw -1. The maximum that the U.S. fielded was about
14,000 (White Plains, freeman's Farm and Saratoga). The English won
against a larger army at least five times - Brandywine US 8,000 - Eng
- 6,000; Freeman's Farm US-14,000 English 8,000; German Town US 14,000
English 8,000; USD 4,400 English 1,900)

Yes indeed. And the US won virtually every battle in Vietnam also. Yet
its claimed we "lost".

That is a subject much debated but the U.S. did win the war,
militarily, i.e., defeated their armies and bombed them into
submission.. Then I believe that we lost the negotiation, so it might
be said that we won the war and lost the peace.

Yet all the history books claim we lost in RVN. Feel free to google it.

I hadn't realized how much B.S. had been printed, most of which
ignores the fact that the North was quite happy to sign a treaty to
end the way. But perhaps history calls it something else when your
enemy sues for peace.

And? You do understand that the Revolutionary war was fought via
symetrical warfare...right? With the rebels using asymetrical tactics in
many cases that didnt involve "battles". Yet the Brits died like flies
(along with the Hessians)

That is a much publicized "fact", unfortunately incorrect.

Given that your version of history appears to be very Turtledovish....

I first read it in reference to Bunker Hill (which the English won)
where casualties were Americans - 450 and British 1150, but with the
possible exception of two smaller battles (Toconderoga and, notably,
Kings Mountain) battles were fought in typical army style of massed
formation with muskets, and bayonets, as the main personal weapon, in
fact the training of American forces by General Steuben who trained
the American regiments in a form of European battle drill, was said to
be a major factor in subsequent American victories.

Yes indeed. And that will apply to todays combat techniques how
exactly?

Causalities in face to face encounters between armies for the entire
period was round about 11,185 English and 19,703 Americans, which
seems to imply that whatever the American's mode of battle it was less
effective then the English.

I suggest you review those numbers a bit more. And give us the numbers
of those who perished as a result of climate, not battle.

Climate? Whatever are you talking about? Both the English and the
German troops came from countries with very similar climate to the
Eastern America.

I had a look but the only reference to weather influence in various
battles was Quebec 1775 - Americans lost considerable numbers during
advance - which may have refereed to inclement weather, and
Trenton 1776 where is was said that Washington's troops suffered
excessively from the cold and that some had no shoes.


Give we have 300 million people..that means 30,000,000 armed and ****ed
off individuals will be on the march.

Based on the Revolutionary War it actually means about 18,000,000, of
whom what, 20% are Blacks or Hispanics, possibly not too enthusiastic
about helping Whitie get the upper hand again, so your group is now
about 14,000,000 with some 4,000,000 folks snipping at their back and
looting their homes. Which of course, just as in the Revolutionary
war, causes at least an equal number of the dedicated to stay home and
watch over their family. Next, of course you need to mobilize these
troops as if you let them run wild they will, as all undisciplined
troops do, take to looting and raping for their own benefit. So who is
going to stand up and be Leader (knowing of course that they either
win or hang). No gunner, your fantasy needs some more work on it
before it becomes a valid war plan.

Interesting revisions you made there. Most of which are inaccurate as
hell..but hey..bleeeeve what you wish. But son...10% of 300 million
doesnt work out to be 18,000,000. But lets assume your figures are
correct. We are NOT talking about symetrical warfare here. No teams are
going to stand in rows and shoot at each other.

Gunner, you claim to have fought in Vietnam but strangely you don't
seem to have noticed that irregular forces snipping from behind
fences, if they ever existed, don't win wars. What wins wars is massed
forces - major destruction B-52 raids into major cities, ports and
transportation, etc. In fact Giap's greatest claim to fame was that he
avoided major battles which would have likely resulted in the North's
army being destroyed.

Yet history is repleat with such. So you think that B52s will be
employed against Americans in American cities? Fascinating.
Horrifying..but fascinating indeed.

No, probably not unless the Republic of California succeeds.

And yes...very much like Kosovo. The problem is...is that one side isnt
armed ..is untrained..and wont fight worth a ****. They can only die.

And the military. or large portions of it....may likely join the rebels.
After all..they are going to be fighting for the very same things they
took that pesky Oath to fight for.

I suggest you review your very own Bishops War to start...

Certainly. another Scottish fight against English domination - except
I don't think they have made a movie yet.

Yet the Scots won.

Yes, in the first war, the Scots fielded an army of some 12,000 men
and the war ended in a negated peace. The second war was a debacle
with an impoverished King unable to support the war which ended with
the Treaty of Ripon.

Since the war(s) were fought with conventional (for the times) armies
none of this serves to reinforce your seeming assertion that irregular
troops have any chance of success against an organized military.


and read the writings of Jane Ohlmeyer and her works on The Wars of the
Three.

Or perhaps you would care more for this explaination:::

The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I
was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and
conservative landlords, Parliament beat the King because it could appeal
to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in
town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider
masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to
understand what the struggle was really about.
—Christopher Hill


Ah yes, the truth; from a noted Marxist Historian and founding member
of the Communist Party Historians Group. Does the word "revisionist"
strike a note?

Hey..he is British, no? VBG

But a less sectarian view point is that it was a battle between forces
that supported a parliament against those who espoused the divine
right of kings.

Yes it was. And the People won, not the kings.

You seem to keep forgetting that.

Gunner

They did? Certainly they executed Charles I but when the country
sickened of the totalitarian government of the Cromwells, the Governor
of Scotland marched his army south and ousted them and Charles II
returned as King of England. And England has remained a Kingdom.

Cheers,

John B.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:15:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


What he's talking about is a fantasy in which the other 90% of the
country
would be the enemy -- which was not at all the case in the American
Revolution. The enemy there was a foreign colonizer and occupier, and the
largest part of the American population played little direct part in it
at
all.

The poor lad does tend to ignore history..and today sentiment doesnt he?

Pity about that. Lets hope he doesnt wind up hanging from a bit of
barbed wire from a street lamp.


Something strange affects the minds of these "cullers," as it did with
Timothy McVeigh and some of the militias a couple of decades ago. Like
bad
film actors, they've come to believe their own PR. They think that most
people agree with them and strongly sympathize, while most Americans, as
****ed off as they may be, are not going to let roving bands of
self-appointed revolutionaries take over our democratically elected
government. Too many of them, or their ancestors, fought and died so we
could have this form of government, which was the first that could be
altered by the people through the ballot box if they get sufficiently
****ed.

"this form of government"?? A socialist state that bypasses the
Constitution at every twist and turn?

Again the poor fellow forgets history and trys to minimize his masters
attempts to gut the Nation. (soft strains of the Internationale playing
in the backround)


It's the cullers who would wind up in body bags, or in prison camps.
George
Washington set the tone for it in 1794. The leaders were pacified, found
guilty of treason, and then pardoned and sent home. Jefferson had a
similar
idea about what to do with these malcontents:

Shrug...time will tell indeed. The Whiskey Rebellion wasnt a nationwide
event. Pity that.


"The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive...Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to
the facts, pardon and pacify them." -- Thomas Jefferson, "Tree of
Liberty"
letter

Interesting misquoteing..typical of the Leftwing agenda. Lets take a
better look at that..shall we?

Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The [ ]
ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into
every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length
believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers
themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have
believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it
ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts?

And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably
conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in
ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without
such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The
part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance
of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty.

We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one
rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each
state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a
rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers
are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit
of resistance?

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon
& pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The
tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

VBG

No attempts to change things in that direct snippet, unlike the other
persons "quote"

It does put a somewhat different light on things..doesnt it?

VBG

Of course, but one does live in hope that logic might bloom, even in
the stony fields :-)
Cheers,

John B.

Indeed. Stoney fields are where the Left will be interred for eternity.

Gunner

You always ignore the "remedy" that Jefferson proposed for rebellions,
Gunner. It's to pacify them -- spilling some of their blood, if necessary --
and to straighten them out. Jefferson thought it was good from time to time
to kill a few of those rebels.

Actually, he probably didn't. You also snip out the final lines of the "Tree
of Liberty" letter, in which Jefferson explains to William Smith that he's
being humorous:

"The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a
little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot
inform."

Both Washington and Jefferson recognized the same "remedy." Whether you can
actually be "set right as to facts" remains an open question. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 20:09:18 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:57:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:42:35 +0700, john B.
wrote:


But regardless, the population of the US is estimated to have been
about 2,5 million in 1776. 10% of the population would have been
250,000 people. The largest army that the U.S. was ever able to field
was 14,000 troops which would have been about 6% of the friendlies.

The largest SINGLE army. And how many single armies were there?

Eight.

In 1776 there were 20,000 people under arms with approximately 2/3rds
in the Continental Congress forces and the remainder in state
militias. If there were 8 armies that meant that there were about
2,500 men in an American Army. Are you sure?

I think that your math needs to recruit more help.

I think your history needs a bit more research...seriously.

Always glad to learn - give me a reference.

There were 22 major battles fought during the war with the U.S. wining
9, English - 12. Draw -1. The maximum that the U.S. fielded was about
14,000 (White Plains, freeman's Farm and Saratoga). The English won
against a larger army at least five times - Brandywine US 8,000 - Eng
- 6,000; Freeman's Farm US-14,000 English 8,000; German Town US 14,000
English 8,000; USD 4,400 English 1,900)

Yes indeed. And the US won virtually every battle in Vietnam also. Yet
its claimed we "lost".

That is a subject much debated but the U.S. did win the war,
militarily, i.e., defeated their armies and bombed them into
submission.. Then I believe that we lost the negotiation, so it might
be said that we won the war and lost the peace.

Yet all the history books claim we lost in RVN. Feel free to google it.

I hadn't realized how much B.S. had been printed, most of which
ignores the fact that the North was quite happy to sign a treaty to
end the way. But perhaps history calls it something else when your
enemy sues for peace.

And? You do understand that the Revolutionary war was fought via
symetrical warfare...right? With the rebels using asymetrical tactics in
many cases that didnt involve "battles". Yet the Brits died like flies
(along with the Hessians)

That is a much publicized "fact", unfortunately incorrect.

Given that your version of history appears to be very Turtledovish....

I first read it in reference to Bunker Hill (which the English won)
where casualties were Americans - 450 and British 1150, but with the
possible exception of two smaller battles (Toconderoga and, notably,
Kings Mountain) battles were fought in typical army style of massed
formation with muskets, and bayonets, as the main personal weapon, in
fact the training of American forces by General Steuben who trained
the American regiments in a form of European battle drill, was said to
be a major factor in subsequent American victories.

Yes indeed. And that will apply to todays combat techniques how
exactly?

Causalities in face to face encounters between armies for the entire
period was round about 11,185 English and 19,703 Americans, which
seems to imply that whatever the American's mode of battle it was less
effective then the English.

I suggest you review those numbers a bit more. And give us the numbers
of those who perished as a result of climate, not battle.

Climate? Whatever are you talking about? Both the English and the
German troops came from countries with very similar climate to the
Eastern America.

I was referring to those downed by disease. Valley Forge was only one of
the climate related casualty makers......

I had a look but the only reference to weather influence in various
battles was Quebec 1775 - Americans lost considerable numbers during
advance - which may have refereed to inclement weather, and
Trenton 1776 where is was said that Washington's troops suffered
excessively from the cold and that some had no shoes.

Indeed.



Give we have 300 million people..that means 30,000,000 armed and ****ed
off individuals will be on the march.

Based on the Revolutionary War it actually means about 18,000,000, of
whom what, 20% are Blacks or Hispanics, possibly not too enthusiastic
about helping Whitie get the upper hand again, so your group is now
about 14,000,000 with some 4,000,000 folks snipping at their back and
looting their homes. Which of course, just as in the Revolutionary
war, causes at least an equal number of the dedicated to stay home and
watch over their family. Next, of course you need to mobilize these
troops as if you let them run wild they will, as all undisciplined
troops do, take to looting and raping for their own benefit. So who is
going to stand up and be Leader (knowing of course that they either
win or hang). No gunner, your fantasy needs some more work on it
before it becomes a valid war plan.

Interesting revisions you made there. Most of which are inaccurate as
hell..but hey..bleeeeve what you wish. But son...10% of 300 million
doesnt work out to be 18,000,000. But lets assume your figures are
correct. We are NOT talking about symetrical warfare here. No teams are
going to stand in rows and shoot at each other.

Gunner, you claim to have fought in Vietnam but strangely you don't
seem to have noticed that irregular forces snipping from behind
fences, if they ever existed, don't win wars. What wins wars is massed
forces - major destruction B-52 raids into major cities, ports and
transportation, etc. In fact Giap's greatest claim to fame was that he
avoided major battles which would have likely resulted in the North's
army being destroyed.

Yet history is repleat with such. So you think that B52s will be
employed against Americans in American cities? Fascinating.
Horrifying..but fascinating indeed.

No, probably not unless the Republik of California succeeds.

It wont succeed. At least..the cities wont. They are heavily Leftwing.

And yes...very much like Kosovo. The problem is...is that one side isnt
armed ..is untrained..and wont fight worth a ****. They can only die.

And the military. or large portions of it....may likely join the rebels.
After all..they are going to be fighting for the very same things they
took that pesky Oath to fight for.

I suggest you review your very own Bishops War to start...

Certainly. another Scottish fight against English domination - except
I don't think they have made a movie yet.

Yet the Scots won.

Yes, in the first war, the Scots fielded an army of some 12,000 men
and the war ended in a negated peace. The second war was a debacle
with an impoverished King unable to support the war which ended with
the Treaty of Ripon.

Yet you claim the Brits never lost.

Since the war(s) were fought with conventional (for the times) armies
none of this serves to reinforce your seeming assertion that irregular
troops have any chance of success against an organized military.

Yet you keep claiming that the People will line up against the
Government Troops and volley fire..or swing their axes and broadswords
at each other.


and read the writings of Jane Ohlmeyer and her works on The Wars of the
Three.

Or perhaps you would care more for this explaination:::

The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I
was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and
conservative landlords, Parliament beat the King because it could appeal
to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in
town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider
masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to
understand what the struggle was really about.
—Christopher Hill


Ah yes, the truth; from a noted Marxist Historian and founding member
of the Communist Party Historians Group. Does the word "revisionist"
strike a note?

Hey..he is British, no? VBG

But a less sectarian view point is that it was a battle between forces
that supported a parliament against those who espoused the divine
right of kings.

Yes it was. And the People won, not the kings.

You seem to keep forgetting that.

Gunner

They did? Certainly they executed Charles I but when the country
sickened of the totalitarian government of the Cromwells, the Governor
of Scotland marched his army south and ousted them and Charles II
returned as King of England. And England has remained a Kingdom.

Yes it has..in Name Only.

Gunner


Cheers,

John B.

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

Gunner Asch on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:18:09 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing.

Murder is unlawful killing. Pure and simple.

Its like saying Having Sex, (for Killing)..and ass ****ing a 3 yr old
(for murder.)

A very serious difference.

One may or may not be a good thing.

One is Always a bad thing.

"Murder - the illegitimate taking of a human life" Ra'tash in
Hebrew, it is the word in the commandment "do no murder." Has nothing
to do with capital punishment, combat, or self-defense.

The problem is that the translators in the late 16th century
picked a very fine equivalent in "kill" - as there was an
understanding that "killing" is not the same as "executing" or
"justifiable homicide".

And do we not maintain this distinction when it comes to homicide?
Are there not four kinds - accidental, felonious, justifiable and
laudable? Do we not distinguish between the premeditated murder, the
crime of passion, and manslaughter?

Just because the modern progressives can't tell the difference
between "murder" and "execute" is evidence of their moral confusion.

Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
"What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why then, the war would come to you."
Bertolt Brecht 1898-1956

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:12:19 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 20:09:18 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:57:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:42:35 +0700, john B.
wrote:


But regardless, the population of the US is estimated to have been
about 2,5 million in 1776. 10% of the population would have been
250,000 people. The largest army that the U.S. was ever able to field
was 14,000 troops which would have been about 6% of the friendlies.

The largest SINGLE army. And how many single armies were there?

Eight.

In 1776 there were 20,000 people under arms with approximately 2/3rds
in the Continental Congress forces and the remainder in state
militias. If there were 8 armies that meant that there were about
2,500 men in an American Army. Are you sure?

I think that your math needs to recruit more help.

I think your history needs a bit more research...seriously.

Always glad to learn - give me a reference.

There were 22 major battles fought during the war with the U.S. wining
9, English - 12. Draw -1. The maximum that the U.S. fielded was about
14,000 (White Plains, freeman's Farm and Saratoga). The English won
against a larger army at least five times - Brandywine US 8,000 - Eng
- 6,000; Freeman's Farm US-14,000 English 8,000; German Town US 14,000
English 8,000; USD 4,400 English 1,900)

Yes indeed. And the US won virtually every battle in Vietnam also. Yet
its claimed we "lost".

That is a subject much debated but the U.S. did win the war,
militarily, i.e., defeated their armies and bombed them into
submission.. Then I believe that we lost the negotiation, so it might
be said that we won the war and lost the peace.

Yet all the history books claim we lost in RVN. Feel free to google it.

I hadn't realized how much B.S. had been printed, most of which
ignores the fact that the North was quite happy to sign a treaty to
end the way. But perhaps history calls it something else when your
enemy sues for peace.

And? You do understand that the Revolutionary war was fought via
symetrical warfare...right? With the rebels using asymetrical tactics in
many cases that didnt involve "battles". Yet the Brits died like flies
(along with the Hessians)

That is a much publicized "fact", unfortunately incorrect.

Given that your version of history appears to be very Turtledovish....

I first read it in reference to Bunker Hill (which the English won)
where casualties were Americans - 450 and British 1150, but with the
possible exception of two smaller battles (Toconderoga and, notably,
Kings Mountain) battles were fought in typical army style of massed
formation with muskets, and bayonets, as the main personal weapon, in
fact the training of American forces by General Steuben who trained
the American regiments in a form of European battle drill, was said to
be a major factor in subsequent American victories.

Yes indeed. And that will apply to todays combat techniques how
exactly?

Causalities in face to face encounters between armies for the entire
period was round about 11,185 English and 19,703 Americans, which
seems to imply that whatever the American's mode of battle it was less
effective then the English.

I suggest you review those numbers a bit more. And give us the numbers
of those who perished as a result of climate, not battle.

Climate? Whatever are you talking about? Both the English and the
German troops came from countries with very similar climate to the
Eastern America.

I was referring to those downed by disease. Valley Forge was only one of
the climate related casualty makers......

If you were referring to losses of English troops in America due to
exposure, disease, etc., then apparently it was no higher then normal
as I can find no references to it in any source. Given that most
diseases had no effective treatment in those days it is likely that
disease among English troops was no higher then in the community as a
whole.

I had a look but the only reference to weather influence in various
battles was Quebec 1775 - Americans lost considerable numbers during
advance - which may have refereed to inclement weather, and
Trenton 1776 where is was said that Washington's troops suffered
excessively from the cold and that some had no shoes.

Indeed.



Give we have 300 million people..that means 30,000,000 armed and ****ed
off individuals will be on the march.

Based on the Revolutionary War it actually means about 18,000,000, of
whom what, 20% are Blacks or Hispanics, possibly not too enthusiastic
about helping Whitie get the upper hand again, so your group is now
about 14,000,000 with some 4,000,000 folks snipping at their back and
looting their homes. Which of course, just as in the Revolutionary
war, causes at least an equal number of the dedicated to stay home and
watch over their family. Next, of course you need to mobilize these
troops as if you let them run wild they will, as all undisciplined
troops do, take to looting and raping for their own benefit. So who is
going to stand up and be Leader (knowing of course that they either
win or hang). No gunner, your fantasy needs some more work on it
before it becomes a valid war plan.

Interesting revisions you made there. Most of which are inaccurate as
hell..but hey..bleeeeve what you wish. But son...10% of 300 million
doesnt work out to be 18,000,000. But lets assume your figures are
correct. We are NOT talking about symetrical warfare here. No teams are
going to stand in rows and shoot at each other.

Gunner, you claim to have fought in Vietnam but strangely you don't
seem to have noticed that irregular forces snipping from behind
fences, if they ever existed, don't win wars. What wins wars is massed
forces - major destruction B-52 raids into major cities, ports and
transportation, etc. In fact Giap's greatest claim to fame was that he
avoided major battles which would have likely resulted in the North's
army being destroyed.

Yet history is repleat with such. So you think that B52s will be
employed against Americans in American cities? Fascinating.
Horrifying..but fascinating indeed.

No, probably not unless the Republik of California succeeds.

It wont succeed. At least..the cities wont. They are heavily Leftwing.

And yes...very much like Kosovo. The problem is...is that one side isnt
armed ..is untrained..and wont fight worth a ****. They can only die.

And the military. or large portions of it....may likely join the rebels.
After all..they are going to be fighting for the very same things they
took that pesky Oath to fight for.

I suggest you review your very own Bishops War to start...

Certainly. another Scottish fight against English domination - except
I don't think they have made a movie yet.

Yet the Scots won.

Yes, in the first war, the Scots fielded an army of some 12,000 men
and the war ended in a negated peace. The second war was a debacle
with an impoverished King unable to support the war which ended with
the Treaty of Ripon.

Yet you claim the Brits never lost.

I did? I don't remember doing that and it would be a highly illogical
thing to do as any superficial reading of history would prove one
wrong, wouldn't it?

Since the war(s) were fought with conventional (for the times) armies
none of this serves to reinforce your seeming assertion that irregular
troops have any chance of success against an organized military.

Yet you keep claiming that the People will line up against the
Government Troops and volley fire..or swing their axes and broadswords
at each other.


and read the writings of Jane Ohlmeyer and her works on The Wars of the
Three.

Or perhaps you would care more for this explaination:::

The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I
was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and
conservative landlords, Parliament beat the King because it could appeal
to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in
town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider
masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to
understand what the struggle was really about.
—Christopher Hill


Ah yes, the truth; from a noted Marxist Historian and founding member
of the Communist Party Historians Group. Does the word "revisionist"
strike a note?

Hey..he is British, no? VBG

But a less sectarian view point is that it was a battle between forces
that supported a parliament against those who espoused the divine
right of kings.

Yes it was. And the People won, not the kings.

You seem to keep forgetting that.

Gunner

They did? Certainly they executed Charles I but when the country
sickened of the totalitarian government of the Cromwells, the Governor
of Scotland marched his army south and ousted them and Charles II
returned as King of England. And England has remained a Kingdom.

Yes it has..in Name Only.

No, in fact a "Kingdom" is simply a country with a King (or Queen) as
the head of government, which Great Britain certainly has.


Gunner


Cheers,

John B.
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:04:47 +0700, john B.
wrote:


They did? Certainly they executed Charles I but when the country
sickened of the totalitarian government of the Cromwells, the Governor
of Scotland marched his army south and ousted them and Charles II
returned as King of England. And England has remained a Kingdom.

Yes it has..in Name Only.

No, in fact a "Kingdom" is simply a country with a King (or Queen) as
the head of government, which Great Britain certainly has.

So the King (or Queen) is sole leader and rule maker in Britian?
Fascinating!!

When did they change that? Last week, it was a representative democracy.

Damn..time changes so rapidly doesnt it?

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 23:06:44 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:04:47 +0700, john B.
wrote:


They did? Certainly they executed Charles I but when the country
sickened of the totalitarian government of the Cromwells, the Governor
of Scotland marched his army south and ousted them and Charles II
returned as King of England. And England has remained a Kingdom.

Yes it has..in Name Only.

No, in fact a "Kingdom" is simply a country with a King (or Queen) as
the head of government, which Great Britain certainly has.

So the King (or Queen) is sole leader and rule maker in Britian?
Fascinating!!

When did they change that? Last week, it was a representative democracy.

Damn..time changes so rapidly doesnt it?

Gunner


Gunner, do take the time and effort to at least read what I wrote. A
the definition for a "Kingdom" is exactly what I said;

a country with a king as head of state
a monarchy with a king or queen as head of state

Both of which conditions have been met by the U.K. government since
the days of Charles II.

The official name of the place we are discussing is the "United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The queen's most common titles a

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great
Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen,
Defender of the Faith.

In London, she was proclaimed as Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the
Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and
Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:53:13 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 23:06:44 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:04:47 +0700, john B.
wrote:


They did? Certainly they executed Charles I but when the country
sickened of the totalitarian government of the Cromwells, the Governor
of Scotland marched his army south and ousted them and Charles II
returned as King of England. And England has remained a Kingdom.

Yes it has..in Name Only.

No, in fact a "Kingdom" is simply a country with a King (or Queen) as
the head of government, which Great Britain certainly has.

So the King (or Queen) is sole leader and rule maker in Britian?
Fascinating!!

When did they change that? Last week, it was a representative democracy.

Damn..time changes so rapidly doesnt it?

Gunner


Gunner, do take the time and effort to at least read what I wrote. A
the definition for a "Kingdom" is exactly what I said;

a country with a king as head of state
a monarchy with a king or queen as head of state

Both of which conditions have been met by the U.K. government since
the days of Charles II.

The official name of the place we are discussing is the "United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The queen's most common titles a

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great
Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen,
Defender of the Faith.

In London, she was proclaimed as Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the
Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and
Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Cheers,

John B.

So the Queen makes all the laws, all the rules and runs the country.

Is that your claim?

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:38:37 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Since the Tea Party came about, we've been hearing a lot of mistaken
pronouncements about what the Constitution says and what our Founders meant.
It's pretty comical.

My suspicion is that the people who wrote the constitution meant
exactly what they wrote, at least if I were writing a legal document
which was intended to be the foundation of a new form of government
that is what I'd do, and I have no reason to think that they were less
intelligent then I am.

All this talk about "what they meant" is, in my mind idiocy, which is
not to say that the document might not need to be later modified to
fit more modern times and it contains a mechanism to do just that.

But more to the point no one has an excuse for not knowing about the
Constitution, if he desires debate it. Before the Internet, perhaps,
but with the information glut it is difficult to believe that anyone
who wants to know can't find a source of information.

Indeed. Which is why Leftwingers try finding work arounds and when they
cant..they simply ignore the Constitution.

But...shrug..that will end in less than 2 yrs when all the leftwingers
are killed


--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:38:37 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Since the Tea Party came about, we've been hearing a lot of mistaken
pronouncements about what the Constitution says and what our Founders
meant.
It's pretty comical.

My suspicion is that the people who wrote the constitution meant
exactly what they wrote, at least if I were writing a legal document
which was intended to be the foundation of a new form of government
that is what I'd do, and I have no reason to think that they were less
intelligent then I am.

All this talk about "what they meant" is, in my mind idiocy, which is
not to say that the document might not need to be later modified to
fit more modern times and it contains a mechanism to do just that.

But more to the point no one has an excuse for not knowing about the
Constitution, if he desires debate it. Before the Internet, perhaps,
but with the information glut it is difficult to believe that anyone
who wants to know can't find a source of information.

Indeed. Which is why Leftwingers try finding work arounds and when they
cant..they simply ignore the Constitution.

But...shrug..that will end in less than 2 yrs when all the leftwingers
are killed

I thought it was just one year from now, Gunner. At least, that's what you
said.

Are you pushing it up, like the other doomsday guys?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 10:39:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
But...shrug..that will end in less than 2 yrs when all the leftwingers
are killed

I thought it was just one year from now, Gunner. At least, that's what you
said.

Are you pushing it up, like the other doomsday guys?
==========
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Men
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

_The Hollow Man_ by T.S. Eliot 1888-1965


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On 7/2/2011 8:25 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:53:13 +0700, john
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 23:06:44 -0700, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:04:47 +0700, john
wrote:


They did? Certainly they executed Charles I but when the country
sickened of the totalitarian government of the Cromwells, the Governor
of Scotland marched his army south and ousted them and Charles II
returned as King of England. And England has remained a Kingdom.

Yes it has..in Name Only.

No, in fact a "Kingdom" is simply a country with a King (or Queen) as
the head of government, which Great Britain certainly has.

So the King (or Queen) is sole leader and rule maker in Britian?
Fascinating!!

When did they change that? Last week, it was a representative democracy.

Damn..time changes so rapidly doesnt it?

Gunner


Gunner, do take the time and effort to at least read what I wrote. A
the definition for a "Kingdom" is exactly what I said;

a country with a king as head of state
a monarchy with a king or queen as head of state

Both of which conditions have been met by the U.K. government since
the days of Charles II.

The official name of the place we are discussing is the "United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The queen's most common titles a

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great
Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen,
Defender of the Faith.

In London, she was proclaimed as Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the
Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and
Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Cheers,

John B.

So the Queen makes all the laws, all the rules and runs the country.

Is that your claim?

Gunner

No, he points out that Great Britain is "a monarchy with a king or queen
as head of state" and says nothing about who "makes all the laws, all
the rules and runs the country".

David

Gunner Asch on Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:06:49 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:46:55 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:03:11 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



It refers to the teabaggers' imagined connection between their mythological
version of the Boston Tea Party and their discontent over losing the last
presidential election. It's perfectly appropriate for their lousy
understanding of American history and the US Constitution, which they tend
to make up as they go along.

This guy is a representative example:

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

Amazing. and to cap it at the bottom of the web page there were
several other news items, I had a look at one entitled "30 Years Of
Man's Life Disappear In Mysterious 'Kansas Rectangle" which talks
about a bloke who disappeared driving through an area of Kansas. All
this from "America's Finest News source". It's gotta be some kinna
joke.
Cheers,

John B.


Blink blink...its the Onion for Croms sake.

It is on the intrawebs, that must mean it is true, yes?
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Gunner Asch on Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:57:32 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

I first read it in reference to Bunker Hill (which the English won)
where casualties were Americans - 450 and British 1150,

The battle of Bunker Hill (properly Breed's Hill) was an example
of what happens when troops make a frontal assault on dug in troops.
Even with the short ranges of the weapons, it was not a good idea.

but with the
possible exception of two smaller battles (Toconderoga and, notably,
Kings Mountain) battles were fought in typical army style of massed
formation with muskets, and bayonets, as the main personal weapon, in
fact the training of American forces by General Steuben who trained
the American regiments in a form of European battle drill, was said to
be a major factor in subsequent American victories.

Yes indeed. And that will apply to todays combat techniques how
exactly?

I don't know about you, but I have no intention of "leading with
my face" in any battle involving the US Army. In other words, even in
This Modern Era, aiming at his weakness is smarter than aiming at his
strength.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

john B. on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:34:46 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

The Indonesian Constitution was not changed and the President ruled by
decree.

Indeed. And I fully believe such will happen here..with the exception
of a dictator rising to the top.

Keep in mind..that in a nation where superior firearms are in every
closet..the ability of a military to overcome is much smaller than that
of a nation armed with knives and swords......


Gunner


Unless the U.S. is different, and I don't think it is, if chaos
reaches the level that it did in Java in 1965-6 I cannot see how a
"Strong man" cold fail to take advantage of it.

Exactly what happened, by the way. Soeharto was third ranking in the
Army and commanded an elite unit stationed close to Jakarta
essentially to control the capital in an emergency. The emergency
occurred and Soeharto did put down the resurrection in Jakarta and
controlled the capitol. the picture then gets a bit murky but either
the remaining senior military convinced Soeharto to take over as
Temporary President, or with control of the only active military in
the area he forced them to appoint him is a matter of conjecture but
once Temporary he found ways to become more permanent.

I am sure that Soeharto only acted out of the Need for Competent
Leadership in This Time of Trial, with Great Reluctance and Only for
The Good of the Nation. "And that's our story and we're sticking with
it!" It is not new. ("For Brutus is a solid cat, ...")

A typically American act,

Not just "typical American" but political opportunism since
shortly after we invented language and fire.

practiced from the very beginning. Get a
toe in the door, kill enough of the Others to weaken then and cclaim
it all for your own.

You don't think it will happen again?

Again? Myself, I don't know. I hope not. But I am not as
certain that "it" could never happen here. Not even with every other
citizen having a firearm.


--
pyotr filipivich
"Thus Carthaginian Peace is not what Carthage did, but what was done
unto Carthage, namely total destruction and elimination of its power,.
transferring the people of Carthage into slavery, salting the fields,
burning the city to the ground, and saying rude things about Carthage
on Radio Romulus." Alison Brooks

john B. on Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:56:07 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Of course. But dont forget..that the American Revolution was fought by
only 10% of the population on the rebels side.

Gunner, for Christ's sake read a little history. The British tried to
fight essentially a two front war, as France had declared war against
England; the Spanish against England and at the same time the English
were also fighting the Dutch - at the end of a very long supply line -
about 3 months. - and couldn't keep the troops supplied. Yorktown was
a battle between some 16,000 American and French troops against 6,000
English, and although the Americans & French claimed the victory the
English actually surrendered because anticipated reinforcements were
blockaded by French ships.

Yes and...?? The gold medal in the speed skating competition
went to the Australian, after all four leaders fell down. IF the
other guy runs the table, but then scratches on the last shot, it is
still my win. It is said that the mission of any army is to feed the
troops in the field. If it cannot do that, it is failing. Even in
the 18th century, logistics and maneuver were part and parcel of the
military art. At the Battle of Yorktown the British were unable to
feed their troops, and send them where they wanted to do so. Thus the
battle is recorded as a British loss because they could not complete
the mission. The British couldn't lift the siege, so surrendered
because the alternative was defeat in battle.
If you can't lift the siege, you can't feed the troops 'in the
field' - you lose. I'm trying to recall the crazy campaign where the
Romans besieged one army, while another army besieged them. I think
it was one of the Gaulish wars. The Roman's won that one, because
they were able to feed the troops, and prevent the other side from
accomplishing their mission (feed their warriors and outlast the
Romans).
Anyway, the 'stats' of a game/war don't matter so much as who
won. In 1993, Saddam Hussein could claim victory, because President
Bush was out of office, while he, Saddam, was still in office, and
still ran Iraq. Likewise, the British lost at Yorktown. For
different reasons than they lost at Saratoga, but still they lost the
battle.

pyotr

--
pyotr filipovich
There are two things to remember about History, and both are cliches:
The First is "After all, these are Modern Times."
The Second is "The good Old Days, they were Better."

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:23:23 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/2/2011 8:25 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:53:13 +0700, john
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 23:06:44 -0700, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:04:47 +0700, john
wrote:


They did? Certainly they executed Charles I but when the country
sickened of the totalitarian government of the Cromwells, the Governor
of Scotland marched his army south and ousted them and Charles II
returned as King of England. And England has remained a Kingdom.

Yes it has..in Name Only.

No, in fact a "Kingdom" is simply a country with a King (or Queen) as
the head of government, which Great Britain certainly has.

So the King (or Queen) is sole leader and rule maker in Britian?
Fascinating!!

When did they change that? Last week, it was a representative democracy.

Damn..time changes so rapidly doesnt it?

Gunner


Gunner, do take the time and effort to at least read what I wrote. A
the definition for a "Kingdom" is exactly what I said;

a country with a king as head of state
a monarchy with a king or queen as head of state

Both of which conditions have been met by the U.K. government since
the days of Charles II.

The official name of the place we are discussing is the "United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The queen's most common titles a

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great
Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen,
Defender of the Faith.

In London, she was proclaimed as Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the
Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and
Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Cheers,

John B.

So the Queen makes all the laws, all the rules and runs the country.

Is that your claim?

Gunner

No, he points out that Great Britain is "a monarchy with a king or queen
as head of state" and says nothing about who "makes all the laws, all
the rules and runs the country".

David

But he contends that the King/Queen control Britian


--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:16:10 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 10:39:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
But...shrug..that will end in less than 2 yrs when all the leftwingers
are killed

I thought it was just one year from now, Gunner. At least, that's what you
said.

No..Ive not said "less than a year"

I have said anywhere between 18 months and 2 yrs (currently)

At one time..it was 3 yrs..then 2 1/2..then 2....

The clock is indeed ticking. And of course..I would recommend a 6 month
+/- window.

But..it will happen.

Shrug

I hope Im wrong..very very much. But..shrug..I suspect Im not.



Are you pushing it up, like the other doomsday guys?
==========
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Men
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

_The Hollow Man_ by T.S. Eliot 1888-1965

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

"john B." wrote in message
news
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:29:03 -0400, "Stephen B."
wrote:

"john B." wrote

SNIP
Take the time to read the church explanations for why they don't
need
to be circumcised or can eat pork. Even for an extremely devout
individual it must be rather a strain to believe that.
SNIP

That may be interesting to read. Could you let me know How I can find
that.

Titles, links, whatever..

Steven, I'm sure that you can find it. Try googling "+Jesus +I have
not come to change the law"

You'll find enough web sites to keep you happy for an evening.

And, you'll find many of the mealy mouth arguments for why you don't
need to get your foreskin snipped, generally preceded by the words
like "Jesus' ministry caused many changes in the law, changes so
dramatic that laws were "set aside" or declared "obsolete". A good
argument except that I can find no reference to God having made this
statement or any other that might be interpreted to mean this.

Of course Paul, if memory doesn't fail, used essentially this argument
to recruit the gentiles, but you don't profess to be a Paulest.

You forgot the 2nd half of Jesus' statement, "but have come to fulfill the
law". Sorry, can't snip a verse in half and get the whole meaning. In the
Old Testament Moses represented the law, was Moses able to deliver to the
promised land? Nope, but the promises of God could be received through
faith, by the leading of Joshua (Jesus in Greek) through faith. Jesus is on
almost every page of the Jewish scriptures. From the concept of the Trinity
(and God (singular) said let us (plural) create man...) to Joshua leading to
the promised land, the Earth being baptized in the flood, God's plan of
salvation revealed in Esther.... The entire Old Testament tells of the
fulfilling in the New Testament, that's why it's one Bible to Christians.
Jesus was rejected by the Jews, just at the Jewish writings foreshadowed and
foretold...

RogerN

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:16:10 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 10:39:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
But...shrug..that will end in less than 2 yrs when all the leftwingers
are killed

I thought it was just one year from now, Gunner. At least, that's what
you
said.

No..Ive not said "less than a year"

I have said anywhere between 18 months and 2 yrs (currently)

At one time..it was 3 yrs..then 2 1/2..then 2....

Yes. And it was "3 years" two years ago.

Online remedial arithmetic classes will be held on Tuesdays. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
news "john B." wrote in message
news On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"john B." wrote in message
news:brof079umohq8skvch7vqn7bl9jhn68n7k@4ax. com...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:35:22 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

snip
Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you
can
play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows
pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been
written so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the
Bible
to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in
somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they
connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you
don't
take
the time to look.

RogerN


In which Bible, Roger? You are aware that there, disregarding for a
moment the Jewish writings, are at least 8 "primary" versions and a
multitude of subsidiary versions many of which vary, of the
Christian
Bible while the Jewish Tanach is a single version.

Take as an example the 6th commandment "Thou shall not kill":
In the original Jewish writings it is written "Thou shall not commit
murder". The modern Christian version, the Roman Catholic "New
American Bible" Bible has it "thou shall not Kill" while the
Lutheran
"New International Version" says "You shall not murder".

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not
realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more
specific
than killing. If that were the only verse in the Bible I could see
how it
would be a little more difficult to understand, but since there is
specific
instances that call for the death penalty it should clear it up for
all but
those who don't want to understand.

You are really grasping aren't you. Quite obviously there is a
difference between murder and killing. One being that your God
certainly sanctioned killing while condemning murder.

For easy example with abortion versus capitol punishment. Liberals are
for killing innocent babies and for protecting criminals. God if for
protecting the innocent babies and punishing the criminals. TMT is for
protecting criminals and raccoons and killing innocent babies.

As there are innumerable (some authorities have it as many as 50
different versions) of the Christian Bible, many of which vary in
content, which one is correct?

Are their differences as huge as killing and murdering? Please feel
free to
explain how one can murder without killing. I've compared passages in
many
popular versions of the Bible and they say the same thing in a
slightly
different way.


Do you really believe that or are you just hoping that I will? But
yes, both the Christian God and current US laws agree that there is a
difference between murder and killing. After all both have no
compunction in ordering their young men out to "kill" the enemy while
at the same time rewarding "murder" by execution.

Just a Gunner said, murder is illegal killing. But since the 6th
commandment was establishing law for those at that time, calling it
illegal killing would have been a circular reference, like the law is
"don't break the law". That would explain why some interpretations say
don't kill and others say don't murder. Chances are that if you don't
kill you won't murder, but if you go on to read more detail you can
understand that killing for a reason wasn't illegal but murdering
without sufficient reason was illegal. Learn more and get the bigger
picture, all would get the death penalty under God's law, no human
measures up, that is why God himself paid the price.

The basic Christian argument seems to be that if they vary then God
intend it which leaves the question of whether the god of the
Catholics is a different god the god of the Lutherans.

I've heard many claim that the New Testament writings were made up by
the
Catholic Church Fathers to rule over the people. If that were the
case then
why do the Protestants and Lutherans have scriptural grounds for
believing
slightly different than the Catholics? After all, if the Catholics
just
made it all up it should fully agree with their religious practices.

Not only the Church Fathers but practically everyone who had a hand in
running things for the past 2,000 years or so, certainly starting with
St. Paul.. After all Christ stated specifically that he had not come
to change the law, and to a Jew of that time it could have only one
meaning - the Jewish law, which like Islam's Sharia law today,
governed both religious and secular life.

Take the time to read the church explanations for why they don't need
to be circumcised or can eat pork. Even for an extremely devout
individual it must be rather a strain to believe that.

But I'm confident that you can take any version of the Christian Bible
and
if you follow the teachings of Jesus, if there is something wrong with
that
version then God will let you know. God's word is a lamp unto my feet
and a
light unto my path, not high beams that illuminate everything all at
once.
Walk in the light that you can see and more light will come. I have
the
feeling you're not interested in walking in the light but just trying
to
condemn the path.

RogerN

You are undoubtedly correct, but y'all don't just read the New
Testament. I have no idea what denomination you follow but attend a
Southern Baptist meeting and you'll hear very little New Testament.
What you'll hear is right out of the Jewish Book :-)

Moses represented the law in the Old Testament, the law was given to
Moses. No one was able to enter the promised land through Moses
leadership, no one can enter Heaven through keeping the law. But
Joshua, the Greek name Jesus is the Hebrew name Joshua, was able to
deliver on God's promise through faith. Abraham received God's promise
through faith, Abraham's seed of the promise are not those who were
born of his lineage but those who receive God's promises by faith, just
as he did.

The book of Esther also is a great story of God's plan of salvation.
The law was that Jews would be killed, but the head honcho, who's wife
was Esther, a Jewish woman, decided to make another law to protect the
Jewish people. This lines up perfectly with "the soul that sins will
die" and God himself, through Jesus Christ, justifies those who believe
in him.

As Jesus said, the Old Testament writers wrote of him. I didn't see it
at first but the more I learn the more I find out there is to learn.

RogerN

Save yourself a lot of trouble, Roger, and forget all of your
mumbo-jumbo casuistry. Bible or no Bible, don't kill unless it's the
only way to keep yourself from being killed.

Otherwise, you're going to prison, or to a lifetime in a mental hospital
for the criminally insane. That's the bottom line, not your imaginings
derived from your weird reading of the Bible. It won't help you in
court.

--
Ed Huntress


I've seen people kill germs with Lysol and they never got in trouble or
even had to appear in court. I know that's ridiculous but some would
apply it in that way if you just say "do not kill".

RogerN

People, fer chrissake. Not germs.

Sheesh. Your imagination must be a curious place, Roger. g

--
Ed Huntress

I realize anybody with more brains than a gnat can understand it but
remember, TMT lurks here.

RogerN

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 06:25:38 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:53:13 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 23:06:44 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:04:47 +0700, john B.
wrote:


They did? Certainly they executed Charles I but when the country
sickened of the totalitarian government of the Cromwells, the Governor
of Scotland marched his army south and ousted them and Charles II
returned as King of England. And England has remained a Kingdom.

Yes it has..in Name Only.

No, in fact a "Kingdom" is simply a country with a King (or Queen) as
the head of government, which Great Britain certainly has.

So the King (or Queen) is sole leader and rule maker in Britian?
Fascinating!!

When did they change that? Last week, it was a representative democracy.

Damn..time changes so rapidly doesnt it?

Gunner


Gunner, do take the time and effort to at least read what I wrote. A
the definition for a "Kingdom" is exactly what I said;

a country with a king as head of state
a monarchy with a king or queen as head of state

Both of which conditions have been met by the U.K. government since
the days of Charles II.

The official name of the place we are discussing is the "United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The queen's most common titles a

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great
Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen,
Defender of the Faith.

In London, she was proclaimed as Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the
Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and
Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Cheers,

John B.

So the Queen makes all the laws, all the rules and runs the country.

Is that your claim?

Gunner

Whether the Queen runs the country or bakes tarts is immaterial, it is
still a kingdom.

I have heard it referred to as a "Constitutional Monarchy" but
unfortunately the people who do that seem unaware that the United
Kingdom has no constitution so they, quite literally, do not know what
they are talking about.

Your argument is much like calling the U.S. a "democracy" when
according to the constitution it is a "republic" and at least three of
the Founding Fathers were horrified by the thought of a democracy.

Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:00:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:23:23 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/2/2011 8:25 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:53:13 +0700, john
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 23:06:44 -0700, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:04:47 +0700, john
wrote:


They did? Certainly they executed Charles I but when the country
sickened of the totalitarian government of the Cromwells, the Governor
of Scotland marched his army south and ousted them and Charles II
returned as King of England. And England has remained a Kingdom.

Yes it has..in Name Only.

No, in fact a "Kingdom" is simply a country with a King (or Queen) as
the head of government, which Great Britain certainly has.

So the King (or Queen) is sole leader and rule maker in Britian?
Fascinating!!

When did they change that? Last week, it was a representative democracy.

Damn..time changes so rapidly doesnt it?

Gunner


Gunner, do take the time and effort to at least read what I wrote. A
the definition for a "Kingdom" is exactly what I said;

a country with a king as head of state
a monarchy with a king or queen as head of state

Both of which conditions have been met by the U.K. government since
the days of Charles II.

The official name of the place we are discussing is the "United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The queen's most common titles a

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great
Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen,
Defender of the Faith.

In London, she was proclaimed as Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the
Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and
Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Cheers,

John B.

So the Queen makes all the laws, all the rules and runs the country.

Is that your claim?

Gunner

No, he points out that Great Britain is "a monarchy with a king or queen
as head of state" and says nothing about who "makes all the laws, all
the rules and runs the country".

David

But he contends that the King/Queen control Britian

No, you are wrong again. I stated that the country was a "monarchy",
that is all. And you argue. As for "controls" you might be interested
to know that the British military swears allegiance to the Monarch.

The "Oaths Act" of 1968 set forth that:

The oath of allegiance is "I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will
be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria,
her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

Another little titbit. the Queen has the legal right to discharge the
British Prime Minster and dissolve the Parliament.

Now, given that the entire British Military and Police force swears
allegiance to the King/Queen who has the legal right to discharge the
ministers and parliament, who "controls" the country?

Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 06:27:55 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:38:37 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Since the Tea Party came about, we've been hearing a lot of mistaken
pronouncements about what the Constitution says and what our Founders meant.
It's pretty comical.

My suspicion is that the people who wrote the constitution meant
exactly what they wrote, at least if I were writing a legal document
which was intended to be the foundation of a new form of government
that is what I'd do, and I have no reason to think that they were less
intelligent then I am.

All this talk about "what they meant" is, in my mind idiocy, which is
not to say that the document might not need to be later modified to
fit more modern times and it contains a mechanism to do just that.

But more to the point no one has an excuse for not knowing about the
Constitution, if he desires debate it. Before the Internet, perhaps,
but with the information glut it is difficult to believe that anyone
who wants to know can't find a source of information.

Indeed. Which is why Leftwingers try finding work arounds and when they
cant..they simply ignore the Constitution.

But...shrug..that will end in less than 2 yrs when all the leftwingers
are killed


The doomsayers seem better organized then you "cullests". The can fix
an actual date for the big event.

Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:03:15 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:16:10 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 10:39:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
But...shrug..that will end in less than 2 yrs when all the leftwingers
are killed

I thought it was just one year from now, Gunner. At least, that's what you
said.

No..Ive not said "less than a year"

I have said anywhere between 18 months and 2 yrs (currently)

At one time..it was 3 yrs..then 2 1/2..then 2....

The clock is indeed ticking. And of course..I would recommend a 6 month
+/- window.

But..it will happen.

Shrug

I hope Im wrong..very very much. But..shrug..I suspect Im not.


Ah yes, the foot steps of Timothy McVeigh. who stated that he hoped
to inspire a revolt against what he considered to be a tyrannical
federal government.

Cheers,

John B.

"john B." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:03:15 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:16:10 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 10:39:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
But...shrug..that will end in less than 2 yrs when all the leftwingers
are killed

I thought it was just one year from now, Gunner. At least, that's what
you
said.

No..Ive not said "less than a year"

I have said anywhere between 18 months and 2 yrs (currently)

At one time..it was 3 yrs..then 2 1/2..then 2....

The clock is indeed ticking. And of course..I would recommend a 6 month
+/- window.

But..it will happen.

Shrug

I hope Im wrong..very very much. But..shrug..I suspect Im not.


Ah yes, the foot steps of Timothy McVeigh. who stated that he hoped
to inspire a revolt against what he considered to be a tyrannical
federal government.

Cheers,

John B.

Ha! You've got it, John. We call Gunner's culler friends "The Sons of
Timothy McVeigh."

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 17:20:55 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

"john B." wrote in message
news
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:29:03 -0400, "Stephen B."
wrote:

"john B." wrote

SNIP
Take the time to read the church explanations for why they don't
need
to be circumcised or can eat pork. Even for an extremely devout
individual it must be rather a strain to believe that.
SNIP

That may be interesting to read. Could you let me know How I can find
that.

Titles, links, whatever..

Steven, I'm sure that you can find it. Try googling "+Jesus +I have
not come to change the law"

You'll find enough web sites to keep you happy for an evening.

And, you'll find many of the mealy mouth arguments for why you don't
need to get your foreskin snipped, generally preceded by the words
like "Jesus' ministry caused many changes in the law, changes so
dramatic that laws were "set aside" or declared "obsolete". A good
argument except that I can find no reference to God having made this
statement or any other that might be interpreted to mean this.

Of course Paul, if memory doesn't fail, used essentially this argument
to recruit the gentiles, but you don't profess to be a Paulest.

You forgot the 2nd half of Jesus' statement, "but have come to fulfill the
law". Sorry, can't snip a verse in half and get the whole meaning. In the
Old Testament Moses represented the law, was Moses able to deliver to the
promised land? Nope, but the promises of God could be received through
faith, by the leading of Joshua (Jesus in Greek) through faith. Jesus is on
almost every page of the Jewish scriptures. From the concept of the Trinity
(and God (singular) said let us (plural) create man...) to Joshua leading to
the promised land, the Earth being baptized in the flood, God's plan of
salvation revealed in Esther.... The entire Old Testament tells of the
fulfilling in the New Testament, that's why it's one Bible to Christians.
Jesus was rejected by the Jews, just at the Jewish writings foreshadowed and
foretold...

RogerN

No Roger, I didn't forget the second part. But the rest of your post
is typical "Paulien" argument for new adherents not following the Law.

I can find nothing directly attributed to God or Jesus that in any way
alludes to an authority to ignore the Law. Nor, for that matter, any
authority for the concept of a "Trinity" and in fact the trinity
scheme "took substantially its present form by the end of the 4th
century". Note please that it took 400 years to come up with the
notion.

In fact the LDS church seems to differ from the main stream Christians
as :

"the most significant area of departure is the rejection by the LDS
Church of certain parts of ecumenical creeds such as the Nicene Creed,
which defines the predominant view of the Christian God as a Trinity
of three separate persons with "one substance". LDS Church theology
includes the belief in a "Godhead" composed of God the Father, His Son
Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate persons who share a
unity of purpose or will; however, they are viewed as three distinct
beings making one Godhead."

When the adherents of an idea get to arguing it is damned hard to
figure out which one is right.

Cheers,

John B.