On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 13:59:47 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

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



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, ...")

According to some reports the other army commanders (the only cohesive
force left) imposed on Soeharto and literally forced him into taking
the position of Temporary President.


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.

Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 14:06:14 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

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

True, and "history is written by the victors. But understand the
reasons for victory or defeat is more enlightening then blindly
attributing victory to some mythical unconventional form of warfare.
Cheers,

John B.

On 7/2/2011 5:00 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:23:23 -0500, "David R.
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

I see that in your words, but not in his. He refers only to "head of state".

David

On Jul 2, 5:03*pm, 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.



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.

Hey...the Rapture came and went...and you missed.

You missed the Great Cull too....Obama was elected President and
kicked McCain's butt.

How do you like living in a post Great Cull world Gummer...a place
where conservatives are scorned and hated by America.

TMT

On Jul 2, 5:20*pm, "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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm...but what does the Bible say about killing poor little raccoons?

Will you end up as a human cap on some raccoon in heaven?

TMT

On Jul 2, 5:29*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Laugh..laugh...laugh..

TMT

On Jul 2, 5:47*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...







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

"RogerN" wrote in message
newsJWdnRT81IUuFpfTnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@earthlink .com...
"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Buzz...Buzz...Buzz...

TMT

On Jul 2, 8:34*pm, john B. wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very good point John.

Hey Gummer...how about an ACTUAL DATE FOR THE GREAT CULL?

And we are still waiting for YOUR LIST of people who will be killed.

So how about it Gummer?

If I am one of those marked for death, I need to know it so I can make
room for your Great Cull in my day planner.

Better yet, why don't your people get in contact with my people and we
can do lunch..maybe talk a book deal for conservatives...with lots of
pictures in crayon.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT



TMT

On Jul 2, 8:47*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well Timmy did sleep around a lot with the other conservative wives.

Gummer...did your ex ever mention a Timmy?

TMT

On Jul 2, 9:35*pm, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 14:06:14 -0700, pyotr filipivich





wrote:
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

True, and "history is written by the victors. But understand the
reasons for victory or defeat is more enlightening then blindly
attributing victory to some mythical unconventional form of warfare.
Cheers,

John B.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am waiting to see history rewrote to say that they won because they
wore raccoon caps with the tails all pointed the same direction.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 8:34 pm, john B. wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very good point John.

Hey Gummer...how about an ACTUAL DATE FOR THE GREAT CULL?

Shhhh. It's being called The Rupture now. The Sons of Timothy McVeigh will
be charging up hills and screaming "Oh God, I'm coming!" as they stroke
their AR-15s.

Then they all develop hernias trying to climb hills, and just scream "Oh,
God" as they fall down clutching their privates. It will be a religious
experience.

--
Ed Huntress

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

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

Correct. The Queen can dismiss Parliament.


It happened here in Oz, the Governor General ( Queen's local
representative ) dismissed Pariament and another election had to be
held.

Alan

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 08:14:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


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.


The Brits have no Constitution? Since when?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliam..._1911_and_1949

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

And then.....

Charter of Liberties
Habeas Corpus Act 1679
Petition of Right
Fundamental Laws of England
Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689
Rights of Englishmen
Penal Law
Penal Laws (Ireland)


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

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 08:42:14 +0700, john B.
wrote:


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.

So Im hoping to inspire a revolt???

And which Government is run by Leftwingers?

Really? Here on Usenet?

Odd that.

You really are a right ******.

Pity about that

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 22:12:14 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Great Britain is "a monarchy with a king or queen
as head of state

Odd that....


--
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 22:12:14 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

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

I see that in your words, but not in his. He refers only to "head of state".

David

"Great Britain is "a monarchy with a king or queen as head of state"

Odd that..eh wot?



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

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:47:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"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."

The Timothy J. McVeigh Society ?

Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:12:14 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/2/2011 5:00 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:23:23 -0500, "David R.
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

I see that in your words, but not in his. He refers only to "head of state".

David

The Queen IS the head of state in Great Britain...

Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:05:52 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Jul 2, 5:20*pm, "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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm...but what does the Bible say about killing poor little raccoons?

Will you end up as a human cap on some raccoon in heaven?

TMT

King James Bible:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:07:38 +0800, wrote:

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

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

Correct. The Queen can dismiss Parliament.


It happened here in Oz, the Governor General ( Queen's local
representative ) dismissed Pariament and another election had to be
held.

Alan

Not sure about now, but then the Governor General was the Head of
State of Australia.

Cheers,

John B.

On Jul 3, 7:42*am, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:05:52 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Jul 2, 5:20 pm, "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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm...but what does the Bible say about killing poor little raccoons?

Will you end up as a human cap on some raccoon in heaven?

TMT

King James Bible:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Cheers,

John B.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for providing proof that shows that it is a sin to kill poor
little raccoons.

Dominion means responsible as in being a good steward for what is
God's not ours.

Roger is going to roast.

TMT

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:45:23 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 08:14:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


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.


The Brits have no Constitution? Since when?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...United_Kingdom

Gunner, you need to read the site before you post. Your "proof" on the
side above reads:

"Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core constitutional
document. In this sense, it is said not to have a written
constitution... "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliam..._1911_and_1949

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

This site provides a pointer to the site you mention above that says
there is no constitution.

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

This one states that the Magna charter was exactly that, a charter,
the definition of which is:

A charter is the grant of authority or rights, stating that the
granter formally recognizes the prerogative of the recipient to
exercise the rights specified. It is implicit that the granter retains
superiority (or sovereignty), and that the recipient admits a limited
(or inferior) status within the relationship, and it is within that
sense that charters were historically granted, and that sense is
retained in modern usage of the term. Also, charter can simply be a
document giving royal permission to start a colony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

An act of parliament, in other words a law.

And then.....

Charter of Liberties
Habeas Corpus Act 1679
Petition of Right
Fundamental Laws of England
Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689
Rights of Englishmen
Penal Law
Penal Laws (Ireland)

Lets face it Gunner, there is no English/British/United Kingdom
Constitution and all your dodging and ducking won't change it.

Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:47:23 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 08:42:14 +0700, john B.
wrote:


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.

So Im hoping to inspire a revolt???

And which Government is run by Leftwingers?

Really? Here on Usenet?

Odd that.

You really are a right ******.

Pity about that

Gunner


No I didn't say that you were planning a revolution I was merely
pointing out that Timothy's assessment of the political system is the
same as you espouse, "they are different then me and thus wrong"..

Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:25:20 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:42*am, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:05:52 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Jul 2, 5:20 pm, "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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm...but what does the Bible say about killing poor little raccoons?

Will you end up as a human cap on some raccoon in heaven?

TMT

King James Bible:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Cheers,

John B.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for providing proof that shows that it is a sin to kill poor
little raccoons.

Dominion means responsible as in being a good steward for what is
God's not ours.

Roger is going to roast.

TMT


Err....

domination ~ noun rare
1. social control by dominating
2. power to dominate or defeat

dominate ~ verb common
1. be larger in number, quantity, power, status or importance
2. be in control
3. have dominance or the power to defeat over
4. be greater in significance than
5. look down on

Cheers,

John B.

On Jul 3, 9:09*pm, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:25:20 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Jul 3, 7:42*am, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:05:52 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools

wrote:
On Jul 2, 5:20 pm, "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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm...but what does the Bible say about killing poor little raccoons?

Will you end up as a human cap on some raccoon in heaven?

TMT

King James Bible:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Cheers,

John B.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for providing proof that shows that it is a sin to kill poor
little raccoons.

Dominion means responsible as in being a good steward for what is
God's not ours.

Roger is going to roast.

TMT

Err....

domination ~ noun * *rare
*1. social control by dominating
*2. power to dominate or defeat

dominate ~ verb * *common
*1. be larger in number, quantity, power, status or importance
*2. be in control
*3. have dominance or the power to defeat over
*4. be greater in significance than
*5. look down on

Cheers,

John B.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL....care to show us where that is in the Bible?

God didn't write the dictionary.

TMT

On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 09:03:02 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:45:23 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 08:14:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


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.


The Brits have no Constitution? Since when?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...United_Kingdom

Gunner, you need to read the site before you post. Your "proof" on the
side above reads:

"Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core constitutional
document. In this sense, it is said not to have a written
constitution... "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliam..._1911_and_1949

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

This site provides a pointer to the site you mention above that says
there is no constitution.

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

This one states that the Magna charter was exactly that, a charter,
the definition of which is:

A charter is the grant of authority or rights, stating that the
granter formally recognizes the prerogative of the recipient to
exercise the rights specified. It is implicit that the granter retains
superiority (or sovereignty), and that the recipient admits a limited
(or inferior) status within the relationship, and it is within that
sense that charters were historically granted, and that sense is
retained in modern usage of the term. Also, charter can simply be a
document giving royal permission to start a colony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

An act of parliament, in other words a law.

And then.....

Charter of Liberties
Habeas Corpus Act 1679
Petition of Right
Fundamental Laws of England
Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689
Rights of Englishmen
Penal Law
Penal Laws (Ireland)

Lets face it Gunner, there is no English/British/United Kingdom
Constitution and all your dodging and ducking won't change it.

Cheers,

John B.

No wonder England is so ****ed up then in other words, right?

Fascinating. And here I was thinking it actually had civilized
government and human rights defined.

No wonder you lads are way above the US in murders and other violent
crimes and put those who defend themselves in prisons.

Gunner

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

Gunner Asch on Fri, 01 Jul 2011 23:06:44 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
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?

Not what he said. The Queen reigns, but does not rule. At least
in the United Kingdom. Blame it on James II being such an ass bandit


Fascinating!!



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

It is a constitutional monarchy, with an elected legislative
assembly.

Damn..time changes so rapidly doesnt it?

Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Gunner Asch on Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:48:39 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:12:14 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Great Britain is "a monarchy with a king or queen
as head of state

Odd that....

How so?
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Gunner Asch on Sat, 02 Jul 2011 06:25:38 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
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?

Don't play the fool, Gunner, you do it badly.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

john B. on Sun, 03 Jul 2011 08:14:04 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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.

It does not have a Written Constitution, but the claim is made
that there are various Charters, Decrees, Pronouncements, Customs and
Acts of Parliament whcih together compose a "British Constitution".
Things are done 'this way" because any other way would not be British.
Harumpf.

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.

Point.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Gunner Asch on Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:45:23 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 08:14:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


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.


The Brits have no Constitution? Since when?

Since the Roman's left after four hundred years of colonization,
or when the Angles and Saxons invaded and suppressed the Brits (many
of whom did move over the channel, to come back with the Normans.).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...United_Kingdom

quote: "Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core
constitutional document. In this sense, it is said not to have a
written constitution,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliam..._1911_and_1949

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

And then.....

Charter of Liberties
Habeas Corpus Act 1679
Petition of Right
Fundamental Laws of England
Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689
Rights of Englishmen
Penal Law
Penal Laws (Ireland)

Not one of which is The Founding law of the Country of Great
Britain, etc. there is no equivalent to the USA's founding legal
document, which sets out the forms of the Government.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Gunner Asch on Mon, 04 Jul 2011 02:13:22 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Lets face it Gunner, there is no English/British/United Kingdom
Constitution and all your dodging and ducking won't change it.

Cheers,

John B.

No wonder England is so ****ed up then in other words, right?

Fascinating. And here I was thinking it actually had civilized
government and human rights defined.

It does. Or rather did. As customs and traditions, whcih one
messed with at one's own peril. (On one of the Channel Islands, which
remain property of the monarch in their own person, and are not part
of the Kingdom, one can still knee and cry "Harold" - and appeal
directly to the Queen. )

No wonder you lads are way above the US in murders and other violent
crimes and put those who defend themselves in prisons.

That has more to do with the failure of the British Government to
protect and extend the ancient rights of all Englishmen, to life
liberty and the pursuit of property. It isn't the fault of the
average Englishman, or woman, that the Government has abrogated many
of those ancient rights.
God willing, they can recover them, but another English Civil war
will be worse than the prior two.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to
beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
--James D. Nicoll

On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:44:28 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Sat, 02 Jul 2011 06:25:38 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
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?

Don't play the fool, Gunner, you do it badly.

Hey...its hard lowering myself down that far to their levels. I dont get
much practice at it.

Gunner

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

On Jul 4, 4:44*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sat, 02 Jul 2011 06:25:38 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:





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?

* * * * Don't play the fool, Gunner, you do it badly.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...Gummer is the RCM Villiage Idiot.

And he works hard at it.

The only thing he works hard at.

TMT

On Jul 4, 7:30*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:44:28 -0700, pyotr filipivich





wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sat, 02 Jul 2011 06:25:38 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:
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?

* *Don't play the fool, Gunner, you do it badly.

Hey...its hard lowering myself down that far to their levels. I dont get
much practice at it.

Gunner

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

- Show quoted text -

The gutter is your home.

And the sidewalk will be your patio when they evict you.

TMT

john B. on Sun, 03 Jul 2011 09:35:49 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


True, and "history is written by the victors. But understand the
reasons for victory or defeat is more enlightening then blindly
attributing victory to some mythical unconventional form of warfare.
Cheers,

True. But the important detail is that even in that "war" the
majority of the populace was more of the "kindly hold your war some
where else, and let us know who wins."

John B.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

john B. on Sun, 03 Jul 2011 09:21:24 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 13:59:47 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
john B. on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:34:46 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
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, ...")

According to some reports the other army commanders (the only cohesive
force left) imposed on Soeharto and literally forced him into taking
the position of Temporary President.

Which I am sure he took up With Great Reluctance (tm). And he may
actually have been reluctant, and viewed it as a temporary expedient
in order to get things working well again. It is the temptations of
such a high office which are the downfall.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

john B. on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:41:17 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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.

And if you are a Jew, and a Pharisee, the law still applies to
you, even if you do become a Christian. That much hasn't changed.
Paul was a devout Pharisee, and he knew that it was hard enough to
keep Torah if you were raised in it.

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.

For devout Jews, it was a problem. Which is why the first church
council realized that for non-Jews, the applicable Mosaic law was the
forbidding the eating of blood, eating meat offered to idols, or
strangled, and fornication. As Paul rightly pointed out (the short
form), is that the law was not sufficient to save the Jews, nor
necessary for the salvation of the 'Greeks'.
--
pyotr filipivich
"We are today in the most literal sense a lawless society, for our law
has ceased to be law and become instead its opposite -- mere force at the
disposal of whoever is at the controls." Charles A. Reich, _Peters Quotations_, (c) 1977.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:37:47 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

john B. on Sun, 03 Jul 2011 09:21:24 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 13:59:47 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
john B. on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:34:46 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
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, ...")

According to some reports the other army commanders (the only cohesive
force left) imposed on Soeharto and literally forced him into taking
the position of Temporary President.

Which I am sure he took up With Great Reluctance (tm). And he may
actually have been reluctant, and viewed it as a temporary expedient
in order to get things working well again. It is the temptations of
such a high office which are the downfall.

Well, I'm not sure how reluctant he was. Certainly he was one of the
top generals in the army at the time and one doesn't rise to that
lever without a certain amount of enthusiasm. And given that he was
(if I remember correctly) the highest ranked general in the Jakarta
area at the time one might wonder how much coercion was heart felt and
how much was in the way of insuring future promotions :-)

But once he was in power he actually did an outstanding job of forcing
development. Under Soekarno the economy was stagnating, inflation was
going wild, and people were hungry. Soeharto developed foreign
relations, encouraged foreign investment and transfer of technology
and got the economy going.



John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:37:47 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

john B. on Sun, 03 Jul 2011 09:35:49 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


True, and "history is written by the victors. But understand the
reasons for victory or defeat is more enlightening then blindly
attributing victory to some mythical unconventional form of warfare.
Cheers,

True. But the important detail is that even in that "war" the
majority of the populace was more of the "kindly hold your war some
where else, and let us know who wins."

John B.


Probably a fair assessment of most wars.


John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)