Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0

: Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the Constitution itself, thanks...


Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two centuries, even for,
say, information on things that have happened in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.


-- Andy Barss


I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But there are some things that
were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an amendment process to the Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the Constitution there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But *ignoring* our given
laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is neither ethical nor legal...

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution says no one
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. But what does "due process" mean? It says no search warrant shall
be issued except for probable cause. But wwhat does "probable cause"
mean? It forbids cruel and unusual punishment; what is that? I could go
on, but you get the picture. The drafters of the Constitution purposely
used a considerable number of such ambiguous phrases, knowing the courts
would have to decide what they mean on a case by case basis. True, the
courts have abused that power from time to time, but so have the other
two branches of government.

Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0

Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the
Constitution itself, thanks...


Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two
centuries, even for, say, information on things that have happened
in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.


-- Andy Barss


I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But
there are some things that were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an
amendment process to the Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the
Constitution there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But
*ignoring* our given laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is
neither ethical nor legal...

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution says no
one
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. But what does "due process" mean? It says no search warrant
shall
be issued except for probable cause. But wwhat does "probable cause"
mean? It forbids cruel and unusual punishment; what is that? I could
go
on, but you get the picture. The drafters of the Constitution
purposely
used a considerable number of such ambiguous phrases, knowing the
courts
would have to decide what they mean on a case by case basis. True,
the
courts have abused that power from time to time, but so have the other
two branches of government.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is an air pollutant the
regulation of which is within the EPA's charter. I wonder how long it's
going to be before they outlaw soda and beer. Of course the
grandstanding elected lawyer who brought the suit is going to get a big
fat surprise when he finds that he has to wear a CO2 scrubber at all
times.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: Andrew Barss wrote:
: Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: : http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0
:
: : Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the Constitution itself, thanks...
:
:
: Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two centuries, even for,
: say, information on things that have happened in the last two centuries?
:
: Interesting approach to life.
:
:
: -- Andy Barss

: I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But there are some things that
: were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an amendment process to the Constitution itself.
: If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the Constitution there is a way
: to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But *ignoring* our given
: laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is neither ethical nor legal...

You missed both my point and my second point. You said militias were not
dangerous loons the way, say, skinheads and KKKers are. I said tou were wrong on that, and
pointed you to a website that gave many examples of dangerous loony militia groups.

And you missed my point. The fact that some militias may be nutcases does not make all or
most of them so. But pretty much all KKKers and skinheads are, in fact, evil and nutcases.

You then said you preferred the Constitution.

See the point now?

Yes, you and SPLC are all exorcised because some private citizens have amassed large
caches of weapons. That's why I pointed you to the Constitution - that behavior is
*protected* by the 2nd Amendment. Until/unless such groups otherwise engage in fraud/force/
threat, their collection of weaponry does not prima facia make them suspect for wanting
the violent overthrow of the US government. For example, the private armed citizens
patroling the southern US border constitute a kind of private militia. There are hardly
a threat to our union. Quite the opposite, they are trying to protect the union.

The problem with the SPLC and their fellow travelers is that they start breathlessly
hyperventilating anytime someone uses the words "guns" or "militia" as if it were
intately the case that these constitute a threat upon the rest of us. They do not.

-- Andy Barss

Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
:
http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0


: Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the
Constitution itself, thanks...


Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two centuries,
even for,
say, information on things that have happened in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.


-- Andy Barss


I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But there
are some things that
were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an amendment process to the
Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the Constitution
there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But
*ignoring* our given
laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is neither ethical nor
legal...

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution says no one
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. But what does "due process" mean? It says no search warrant shall
be issued except for probable cause. But wwhat does "probable cause"
mean? It forbids cruel and unusual punishment; what is that? I could go
on, but you get the picture. The drafters of the Constitution purposely
used a considerable number of such ambiguous phrases, knowing the courts
would have to decide what they mean on a case by case basis. True, the
courts have abused that power from time to time, but so have the other
two branches of government.

There's no question that we have both "law given" and "law found". But my hearburn
is with a legal and legislative process that fundamentally ignores the clear
intent of the original law as given when it *is* unambiguous. Yes, "probable cause"
is something that can legitimately be debated. But "Congress shall make no law ..."
isn't, for example, but the Congress critters and the courts seem not to care.

The most significant of the obvious original intent was to severly restrict the range
and influence of the Federal government's actions. This is not only directly expressed
in the Consitution, it is described openly in the debates that surrounded ratification.
The leviathan that the Federal government has become today can only be described
one way: unlawful.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Andrew Barss wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:
:
http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0


: Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the
Constitution itself, thanks...


Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two centuries,
even for,
say, information on things that have happened in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.


-- Andy Barss


I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But there
are some things that
were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an amendment process to the
Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the Constitution
there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But
*ignoring* our given
laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is neither ethical nor
legal...

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution says no one
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. But what does "due process" mean? It says no search warrant shall
be issued except for probable cause. But wwhat does "probable cause"
mean? It forbids cruel and unusual punishment; what is that? I could go
on, but you get the picture. The drafters of the Constitution purposely
used a considerable number of such ambiguous phrases, knowing the courts
would have to decide what they mean on a case by case basis. True, the
courts have abused that power from time to time, but so have the other
two branches of government.


There's no question that we have both "law given" and "law found".

I spent three years in law school and 20 years practicing, and I've
never heard either one of those terms.


But my hearburn
is with a legal and legislative process that fundamentally ignores the clear
intent of the original law as given when it *is* unambiguous. Yes, "probable cause"
is something that can legitimately be debated. But "Congress shall make no law ..."
isn't, for example, but the Congress critters and the courts seem not to care.

The most significant of the obvious original intent was to severly restrict the range
and influence of the Federal government's actions. This is not only directly expressed
in the Consitution, it is described openly in the debates that surrounded ratification.
The leviathan that the Federal government has become today can only be described
one way: unlawful.

I once asked my constitutional law professor about the constitutionality
of independent federal agencies. He agreed they were unconstitional,
but thought they are so deeply entrenched that there's no hope of a
court declaring them unconstitutional.

"J. Clarke" writes:
Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0

Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the
Constitution itself, thanks...


Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two
centuries, even for, say, information on things that have happened
in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.


-- Andy Barss


I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But
there are some things that were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an
amendment process to the Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the
Constitution there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But
*ignoring* our given laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is
neither ethical nor legal...

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution says no
one
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. But what does "due process" mean? It says no search warrant
shall
be issued except for probable cause. But wwhat does "probable cause"
mean? It forbids cruel and unusual punishment; what is that? I could
go
on, but you get the picture. The drafters of the Constitution
purposely
used a considerable number of such ambiguous phrases, knowing the
courts
would have to decide what they mean on a case by case basis. True,
the
courts have abused that power from time to time, but so have the other
two branches of government.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is an air pollutant the
regulation of which is within the EPA's charter. I wonder how long it's
going to be before they outlaw soda and beer. Of course the
grandstanding elected lawyer who brought the suit is going to get a big
fat surprise when he finds that he has to wear a CO2 scrubber at all
times.

I take it the words "carbon neutral" mean nothing to you?

scott

Scott Lurndal wrote:
"J. Clarke" writes:
Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0

Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the
Constitution itself, thanks...


Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two
centuries, even for, say, information on things that have happened
in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.


-- Andy Barss


I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But
there are some things that were not supposed to be negotiable w/o
an amendment process to the Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the
Constitution there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But
*ignoring* our given laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous,
is neither ethical nor legal...

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution says no
one
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law. But what does "due process" mean? It says no search
warrant shall
be issued except for probable cause. But wwhat does "probable
cause" mean? It forbids cruel and unusual punishment; what is that?
I could go
on, but you get the picture. The drafters of the Constitution
purposely
used a considerable number of such ambiguous phrases, knowing the
courts
would have to decide what they mean on a case by case basis. True,
the
courts have abused that power from time to time, but so have the
other two branches of government.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is an air pollutant
the regulation of which is within the EPA's charter. I wonder how
long it's going to be before they outlaw soda and beer. Of course
the grandstanding elected lawyer who brought the suit is going to
get a big fat surprise when he finds that he has to wear a CO2
scrubber at all times.

I take it the words "carbon neutral" mean nothing to you?

So you're saying that he's going to buy somebody else's carbon
allowance so that he can orate unimpeded?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Scott Lurndal wrote:
SNIP.

I take it the words "carbon neutral" mean nothing to you?

scott

They ought not to mean anything to anybody - there is no agreed to
measure of how to achieve this state...

Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Andrew Barss wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:
:
http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0



: Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the
Constitution itself, thanks...


Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two centuries,
even for,
say, information on things that have happened in the last two
centuries?

Interesting approach to life.


-- Andy Barss


I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But there
are some things that
were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an amendment process to the
Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the Constitution
there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But
*ignoring* our given
laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is neither ethical nor
legal...

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution says no one
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. But what does "due process" mean? It says no search warrant shall
be issued except for probable cause. But wwhat does "probable cause"
mean? It forbids cruel and unusual punishment; what is that? I could go
on, but you get the picture. The drafters of the Constitution purposely
used a considerable number of such ambiguous phrases, knowing the courts
would have to decide what they mean on a case by case basis. True, the
courts have abused that power from time to time, but so have the other
two branches of government.


There's no question that we have both "law given" and "law found".

I spent three years in law school and 20 years practicing, and I've
never heard either one of those terms.

Law given is law that is actually enacted by a legislative process.
Law found is law that appears on the other side of an appellate finding -
the interpretation reveals the law.

Neither are particularly legal terms, they are just linguistic shortcuts.



But my hearburn
is with a legal and legislative process that fundamentally ignores the
clear
intent of the original law as given when it *is* unambiguous. Yes,
"probable cause"
is something that can legitimately be debated. But "Congress shall
make no law ..."
isn't, for example, but the Congress critters and the courts seem not
to care.

The most significant of the obvious original intent was to severly
restrict the range
and influence of the Federal government's actions. This is not only
directly expressed
in the Consitution, it is described openly in the debates that
surrounded ratification.
The leviathan that the Federal government has become today can only be
described
one way: unlawful.

I once asked my constitutional law professor about the constitutionality
of independent federal agencies. He agreed they were unconstitional,
but thought they are so deeply entrenched that there's no hope of a
court declaring them unconstitutional.

Sadly true and all the more reason I am convinced the US liberty is ultimately
doomed - the institutions that keep us free are ignored in favor of the social
flavor of the moment.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

There's no question that we have both "law given" and "law found".

I spent three years in law school and 20 years practicing, and I've
never heard either one of those terms.

Law given is law that is actually enacted by a legislative process.
Law found is law that appears on the other side of an appellate finding -
the interpretation reveals the law.

Neither are particularly legal terms, they are just linguistic shortcuts.

In other words, you just made them up.
Have you ever heard of statutes? Statutes are laws enacted by
legislatures.
Have you ever heard of common law? Common law is that body of law
resulting from court decisions used as precedent in other cases, other
than decisions construing statutes.

Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

There's no question that we have both "law given" and "law found".

I spent three years in law school and 20 years practicing, and I've
never heard either one of those terms.

Law given is law that is actually enacted by a legislative process.
Law found is law that appears on the other side of an appellate finding -
the interpretation reveals the law.

Neither are particularly legal terms, they are just linguistic shortcuts.

In other words, you just made them up.

In other words, I used English words to describe a condition.

Have you ever heard of statutes? Statutes are laws enacted by
legislatures.

Have you ever heard of common law? Common law is that body of law
resulting from court decisions used as precedent in other cases, other
than decisions construing statutes.

I've heard of both and they map directly to the descriptions I used. If you're
offended that I failed to use the precise legal terminology that you would
have understood, my deep and abject apologies...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk writes:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
SNIP.

I take it the words "carbon neutral" mean nothing to you?

scott

They ought not to mean anything to anybody - there is no agreed to
measure of how to achieve this state...

The point was that the C02 emissions from an individual human
respiration and flatulence _are_ carbon neutral. So no matter
how much hot air is disgorged, the net effect on the atmosphere is
zero.

scott

In article , wrote:

The point was that the C02 emissions from an individual human
respiration and flatulence _are_ carbon neutral. So no matter
how much hot air is disgorged, the net effect on the atmosphere is
zero.

What if the person is dieting?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
SNIP.

I take it the words "carbon neutral" mean nothing to you?

scott

They ought not to mean anything to anybody - there is no agreed to
measure of how to achieve this state...

The point was that the C02 emissions from an individual human
respiration and flatulence _are_ carbon neutral. So no matter
how much hot air is disgorged, the net effect on the atmosphere is
zero.

Then all CO2 emissions are "carbon neutral". There is no way for the
environment to distinguish between CO2 that comes out of a politician
and CO2 that comes out of a car.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:

Then all CO2 emissions are "carbon neutral".

When measured on geologic time scales, sure.

When measured over shorter time frames (decades, centuries, or even
millennia), though, there is a difference. Burning ethanol, wood, or paper
releases carbon which was last in the atmosphere as recently as the previous
growing season, and thus does not contribute to a net increase in atmospheric
CO2 levels over any time frame longer than a few tens of months.

Burning fossil fuels such as petroleum, natural gas, or coal, OTOH, releases
carbon which was last in the atmosphere perhaps a hundred million years ago,
and thus *does* contribute to a net increase in atmospheric CO2 when measured
over any historic [as distinguished from geologic] time frame.

There is no way for the
environment to distinguish between CO2 that comes out of a politician
and CO2 that comes out of a car.

No, but as noted above, one causes a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels,
and the other does not.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

(Doug Miller) writes:
In article , wrote:

The point was that the C02 emissions from an individual human
respiration and flatulence _are_ carbon neutral. So no matter
how much hot air is disgorged, the net effect on the atmosphere is
zero.

What if the person is dieting?

Less carbon uptake == less carbon emission.


scott

In article , wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:
In article ,
wrote:

The point was that the C02 emissions from an individual human
respiration and flatulence _are_ carbon neutral. So no matter
how much hot air is disgorged, the net effect on the atmosphere is
zero.

What if the person is dieting?

Less carbon uptake == less carbon emission.

Not until his weight stabilizes. As long as he's losing weight, he's emitting
more carbon than he's taking up. This means, of course, that dieters are
contributing to global warming, and Weight Watchers groups should be heavily
taxed -- unless their members purchase carbon offset credits from fatties.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Apr 5, 7:28 am, Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
:http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&op0=%2B&fl0=...

: Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the Constitution itself, thanks...

Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two centuries, even for,
say, information on things that have happened in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.

-- Andy Barss

I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But there are some things that
were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an amendment process to the Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the Constitution there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But *ignoring* our given
laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is neither ethical nor legal...

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution says no one
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. But what does "due process" mean? It says no search warrant shall
be issued except for probable cause. But wwhat does "probable cause"
mean? It forbids cruel and unusual punishment; what is that? I could go
on, but you get the picture. The drafters of the Constitution purposely
used a considerable number of such ambiguous phrases, knowing the courts
would have to decide what they mean on a case by case basis. True, the
courts have abused that power from time to time, but so have the other
two branches of government.

In some cases an 'ambiguous phrases' like establishment of religion"
was an established term of art that was anything but ambiguous.

I think your chosen examples are closer to your point.

--

FF

On Apr 5, 8:00 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&op0=%2B&fl0=...

Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the
Constitution itself, thanks...

Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two
centuries, even for, say, information on things that have happened
in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.

-- Andy Barss

I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But
there are some things that were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an
amendment process to the Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the
Constitution there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But
*ignoring* our given laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is
neither ethical nor legal...

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution says no
one
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. But what does "due process" mean? It says no search warrant
shall
be issued except for probable cause. But wwhat does "probable cause"
mean? It forbids cruel and unusual punishment; what is that? I could
go
on, but you get the picture. The drafters of the Constitution
purposely
used a considerable number of such ambiguous phrases, knowing the
courts
would have to decide what they mean on a case by case basis. True,
the
courts have abused that power from time to time, but so have the other
two branches of government.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is an air pollutant the
regulation of which is within the EPA's charter.

That's not exactly much of a stretch now is it ? A wide assortment
of other naturally occurring chemicals have always been accepted
as being within the EPA's guideline as pollutants.

I wonder how long it's
going to be before they outlaw soda and beer. Of course the
grandstanding elected lawyer who brought the suit is going to get a big
fat surprise when he finds that he has to wear a CO2 scrubber at all
times.


All of that is entirely beside of the point of course.

--

FF

On Apr 5, 2:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

You missed both my point and my second point.
You said militias were not
dangerous loons the way, say, skinheads and KKKers are.
I said tou were wrong on that, and
pointed you to a website that gave many examples of
dangerous loony militia groups.

Classic Daneliuk--ignore the reason the information was
presented, especially in in answer to a question he posed,
and instead criticize in for some completely unrelated
and irrelevant reason.


And you missed my point. The fact that some militias
may be nutcases does not make all or most of them so.

Yet ALL of them are immune from republican criticism. Why
is that?



Yes, you and SPLC are all exorcised because some private citizens have amassed large
caches of weapons. That's why I pointed you to the Constitution - that behavior is
*protected* by the 2nd Amendment.

You mean like Noam Chompsky who engages in a behavior
that is *protected* by the 1st Amendment?

Are we to understand that so long a a person or a group
engages in a behavior that is protected by the Constitution,
our politicians should refrain from criticising them?

--

FF

On Apr 5, 9:25 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:

I take it the words "carbon neutral" mean nothing to you?

So you're saying that he's going to buy somebody else's carbon
allowance so that he can orate unimpeded?


IOW, yes, you have no idea as to what is meant by 'carbon neutral'.

--

FF

On Apr 6, 5:23 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
SNIP.

I take it the words "carbon neutral" mean nothing to you?

scott

They ought not to mean anything to anybody - there is no agreed to
measure of how to achieve this state...

The point was that the C02 emissions from an individual human
respiration and flatulence _are_ carbon neutral. So no matter
how much hot air is disgorged, the net effect on the atmosphere is
zero.

Then all CO2 emissions are "carbon neutral". There is no way for the
environment to distinguish between CO2 that comes out of a politician
and CO2 that comes out of a car.


1) That ambiguity is irrelevant.

2) CO2 coming out of a politician can be distinguished from that
coming out of a car. The Seuss effect is one of the ways we
know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 60 years
or so has been primarily from fossil fuels and cement manufacture.

--

FF

wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

You missed both my point and my second point.
You said militias were not
dangerous loons the way, say, skinheads and KKKers are.
I said tou were wrong on that, and
pointed you to a website that gave many examples of
dangerous loony militia groups.

Classic Daneliuk--ignore the reason the information was
presented, especially in in answer to a question he posed,
and instead criticize in for some completely unrelated
and irrelevant reason.


IOW, you have no thoughtful response to the matter at hand.


And you missed my point. The fact that some militias
may be nutcases does not make all or most of them so.

Yet ALL of them are immune from republican criticism. Why
is that?

Let me pull a Fredfighter he Cite your sources that they are "immune"
from criticism by the Rs. If you mean the Rs are largely silent on them,
then my guess is that there is no significant portion of the Rs that pay
attention to what the Klackers and extremist militia have to say.

This is decidedly *not* the case in the matter of the Ds' relationship
with the radical Left. Going back as far as FDR, the Democrats have had
a close relationship with everything from the Loud Left up to and
including openly avowed Communists. In his first book, Mitrokhin
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Mitrokhin) documents how the FDR
administration was riddled with Soviet spies and sympathizers and
*the FDR administration knew it*. The Democrat party has a long
tired 20th Century history of aligning itself with anti-democratic
causes from the aforementioned FDR infestation all the way to the
recent squealings from Jimmy Carter that exaggerated the sins of
the West and displayed convenient amnesia about the severity of
the sins of people like Castro.

My only point in this subthread is that the Ds are getting worse and
worse over time in this regard. During the Cuban missile crisis both
Rs and Ds came together and supported a Democrat president in what
was obviously the good of the nation. Only 40 years later we see
the Ds decent into radical Left sewage as so complete that they are
unable to articulate anything meaningful in support of their nation.
They are only sure that the R president is wrong, wrong, wrong on
(almost) all matters at (almost) all times. I repeat: The Rs are
often stupid, the Ds are consistently dangerous.



Yes, you and SPLC are all exorcised because some private citizens have amassed large
caches of weapons. That's why I pointed you to the Constitution - that behavior is
*protected* by the 2nd Amendment.

You mean like Noam Chompsky who engages in a behavior
that is *protected* by the 1st Amendment?

Never once have I said he should be deprived of his right to speak
or write as he sees fit. These are and should remain protected behaviors.
I am similarly exercising my right to speak openly and describe his ideas
as foul and dangerous and identify those ideas as being increasingly
embraced by one of the two major political parties in my nation - whether
or not they actually quote Chomsky himself.


Are we to understand that so long a a person or a group
engages in a behavior that is protected by the Constitution,
our politicians should refrain from criticising them?

No, and your attempt to inject this notion into a conversation that
never had even a glimmer of such an idea is - predictably - pathetic.
As always, when you run out of ideas (which happens fairly rapidly
of late) you inject new strawmen more amenable to your rhetorical
skills.

Just FYI (and to help your grasp of the debate here), the discussion
at hand has *nothing* to do with preventing anyone from speaking their
piece (so long as it is not fraudulent or threatening). It has to do
with criticizing wrong analysis and ideas: By the SPLC, by the radical
left, and (increasingly) by the "leadership" of the Ds...


--

FF



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Apr 7, 11:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

You missed both my point and my second point.
You said militias were not
dangerous loons the way, say, skinheads and KKKers are.
I said tou were wrong on that, and
pointed you to a website that gave many examples of
dangerous loony militia groups.

Classic Daneliuk--ignore the reason the information was
presented, especially in in answer to a question he posed,
and instead criticize in for some completely unrelated
and irrelevant reason.

IOW, you have no thoughtful response to the matter at hand.

Yet another of your tactics, accuse others of
that which you do. You digressed off into second
amendment rights instead of discussing whether or
not the militias were dangerous nut-cases as
implied by Mr Barss.





And you missed my point. The fact that some militias
may be nutcases does not make all or most of them so.

Yet ALL of them are immune from republican criticism. Why
is that?

Let me pull aFredfighterhe Cite your sources that they are "immune"
from criticism by the Rs.

Fair enough. Don't hold your breath, just like
I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to present
evidence that the Democrats are influenced at all
by Noam Chompsky or Rosie O'Donnel, let alone
being more influenced by them than by the likes
of John Dead, Harold Ford, Michele Stockwell,
Paul Weinstein, or for that matter, to 'revere'
them.

And though it is just plain silly to have to keep
saying this: Note that I do not deny that such
evidence exists, only that you have as of yet
presented any.


If you mean the Rs are largely silent on them,
then my guess is that there is no significant
portion of the Rs that pay
attention to what the Klackers and extremist
militia have to say.

See? We agree on something!


This is decidedly *not* the case in the matter of the Ds' relationship
with the radical Left. Going back as far as FDR, the Democrats have had
a close relationship with everything from the Loud Left up to and
including openly avowed Communists. In his first book, Mitrokhin
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Mitrokhin) documents how the FDR
administration was riddled with Soviet spies and sympathizers and
*the FDR administration knew it*.

Are Rosie and Noam even mentioned in it?

How did Mitrokhin _document_ how the FDR
administration was riddled with Soviet spies
and sympathizers and *the FDR administration
knew it*.? I'm guess that he wrote that it was
so, anything more substantial?

The Democrat party has a long
tired 20th Century history of aligning itself with anti-democratic
causes from the aforementioned FDR infestation all the way to the
recent squealings from Jimmy Carter that exaggerated the sins of
the West and displayed convenient amnesia about the severity of
the sins of people like Castro.


Have you read his most recent book?


My only point in this subthread is that the Ds are getting worse and
worse over time in this regard. During the Cuban missile crisis both
Rs and Ds came together and supported a Democrat president in what
was obviously the good of the nation. Only 40 years later we see
the Ds decent into radical Left sewage as so complete that they are
unable to articulate anything meaningful in support of their nation.
They are only sure that the R president is wrong, wrong, wrong on
(almost) all matters at (almost) all times. I repeat: The Rs are
often stupid, the Ds are consistently dangerous.



Yes, you and SPLC are all exorcised because some private citizens have amassed large
caches of weapons. That's why I pointed you to the Constitution - that behavior is
*protected* by the 2nd Amendment.

You mean like Noam Chompsky who engages in a behavior
that is *protected* by the 1st Amendment?

Never once have I said he should be deprived
of his right to speak
or write as he sees fit.

No, and your attempt to inject this notion into a
conversation that never had even a glimmer of such
an idea is - predictably - pathetic.

Would you consider abandoning that tactic to
address the issue?

These are and should remain protected behaviors.

Then why introduce the BOR if not to obfuscate
and evade?

Does the second amendment provide any more
evidence that we should not criticize the dangerous
nut cases among them, than does the first for
those whom you criticize?

If you agree with me that it does not, the
why did yo bring it up in the first place?

If you wish to argue that Chomspky exercises
his first amendment rights irresponsibly, fine.
Surely you can appreciated that some feel
the mililtias similarly abuse their second
amendment rights.

I am similarly exercising my right to speak openly
and describe his ideas
as foul and dangerous and identify those ideas
as being increasingly
embraced by one of the two major political
parties in my nation - whether
or not they actually quote Chomsky himself.


So long as you are not going to be bothered with
showing evidence, why not cut to the chase and
just blame the Democratic platform on Satan?



Are we to understand that so long a a person or a group
engages in a behavior that is protected by the Constitution,
our politicians should refrain from criticising them?

No, and your attempt to inject this notion into a conversation that
never had even a glimmer of such an idea is - predictably - pathetic.
As always, when you run out of ideas (which happens fairly rapidly
of late) you inject new strawmen more amenable to your rhetorical
skills.

If you hadn't run out of ideas, why did you digress
into the argument from irrelevancy?


Just FYI (and to help your grasp of the debate here), the discussion
at hand has *nothing* to do with preventing anyone from speaking their
piece (so long as it is not fraudulent or threatening). It has to do
with criticizing wrong analysis and ideas: By the SPLC, by the radical
left, and (increasingly) by the "leadership" of the Ds...


And more immediately, by you.


--

FF

On Apr 7, 11:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
...
This is decidedly *not* the case in the matter of the Ds' relationship
with the radical Left. Going back as far as FDR, the Democrats have had
a close relationship with everything from the Loud Left up to and
including openly avowed Communists. In his first book, Mitrokhin
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Mitrokhin) documents how the FDR
administration was riddled with Soviet spies and sympathizers and
*the FDR administration knew it*.


The biography you reference indicates he entered
the Soviet Foreign Service in 1948 and fell
into disfavor with the KBG in 1956 whereupon he
was transferred to the KGB archives. That makes
it clear he had no direct involvement with the
FDR administration. It is intriguing to speculate
as whether and how the KGB archives differentiated
between fact and disinformation, especially
regarding that available to a disgruntled agent.


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

Notes, among other things:

Christopher Andrew was chosen as to
collaborate with Vasili Mitrokhin because
of specialization in espionage and he had
signed the Official Secrets Act. However,
the primary sources the archive is based
upon have never been seen by independent
historians.

--

FF

On Apr 8, 1:48 am, wrote:
On Apr 7, 11:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


..., let alone
being more influenced by them than by the likes
of John Dead,

err, sorry, IMTT: 'Howard Dean'.

--

FF

wrote:
On Apr 7, 11:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
...
This is decidedly *not* the case in the matter of the Ds' relationship
with the radical Left. Going back as far as FDR, the Democrats have had
a close relationship with everything from the Loud Left up to and
including openly avowed Communists. In his first book, Mitrokhin
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Mitrokhin) documents how the FDR
administration was riddled with Soviet spies and sympathizers and
*the FDR administration knew it*.


The biography you reference indicates he entered
the Soviet Foreign Service in 1948 and fell
into disfavor with the KBG in 1956 whereupon he
was transferred to the KGB archives. That makes
it clear he had no direct involvement with the
FDR administration. It is intriguing to speculate
as whether and how the KGB archives differentiated
between fact and disinformation, especially
regarding that available to a disgruntled agent.


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

Notes, among other things:

Christopher Andrew was chosen as to
collaborate with Vasili Mitrokhin because
of specialization in espionage and he had
signed the Official Secrets Act. However,
the primary sources the archive is based
upon have never been seen by independent
historians.

--



Unlike you, apparently, I've read Mitrokhin's original book. He was an
archivist and librarian for the KGB for decades and meticulously copied
documents sent to him for storage. Whether or not he was in "disfavor"
is unclear and irrelevant in any case. He was in a position to provide
copies of primary evidence as regards to Soviet intelligence activies
during the Cold War. In the latter part of the 20th Century he defected
via the UK and gave them copies of all this stuff in exchange for the
safe extraction of his family. It is in these notes that the FDR
infiltration is documented.

Oh, wait, I forgot - it is the West that is always wrong, and any
indication of the activities of the enemies of the West is to be looked
upon with contempt. Mitrokhin, by every account I have read, is a
credible source. The fact that his entire stash of information wasn't
vetted by you, doesn't bother me a lot. I've seen no evidence to
undermine his claims.

This is not complicated. The American "Left" has long been known to be a
loose federation of radicals from the Black Panthers to the Weathermen
to the CPUSA to the KGB agents who fomented a lot of the "student
unrest" of the 1960s. No matter how well this is documented, no matter
how many Mitrokhin-like documents are produced as the former USSR opens
its archives, people like you will forever live in a state of denial. I
have no idea why, other than personal hubris: you couldn't possibly be
that wrong about so much for so long. But you are, and even in the face
of primary sources, you *still* do the "Left isn't all that bad"
tapdance. In order to maintain this level of fiction, you'll need to go
back the Black Helicopter level of conspiracy theories (cf Oliver Stone
& Rosie O'Donnell, both noted historians) to explain away sources like
Mitrokhin - obviously he's a fraud, and all of this is some vast
conspiracy to make the gentle Left look bad. Right...



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote:
On Apr 7, 11:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
You missed both my point and my second point.
You said militias were not
dangerous loons the way, say, skinheads and KKKers are.
I said tou were wrong on that, and
pointed you to a website that gave many examples of
dangerous loony militia groups.
Classic Daneliuk--ignore the reason the information was
presented, especially in in answer to a question he posed,
and instead criticize in for some completely unrelated
and irrelevant reason.
IOW, you have no thoughtful response to the matter at hand.

Yet another of your tactics, accuse others of
that which you do. You digressed off into second
amendment rights instead of discussing whether or
not the militias were dangerous nut-cases as
implied by Mr Barss.

But the essential claim was that they are dangerous
precisely because they accumulate weapons. It seems
not to have occured to you or Mr. Barss that this
very act is a protected behavior under our very
foundational laws. I was merely helping remind you
of our own legal history. No digression, entirely on
point - though it does have the disadvantage of making
you look more foolish than usual.





And you missed my point. The fact that some militias
may be nutcases does not make all or most of them so.
Yet ALL of them are immune from republican criticism. Why
is that?
Let me pull aFredfighterhe Cite your sources that they are "immune"
from criticism by the Rs.

Fair enough. Don't hold your breath, just like
I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to present
evidence that the Democrats are influenced at all
by Noam Chompsky or Rosie O'Donnel, let alone

The evidence is that they recite the same mantras. I will stipulate that
who is influencing whom may be debatable. I rather think that Rosie has
never had an original thought (other than, "I need more ice cream" which
isn't really original), so she is almost certainly not an "influencer".
But when you hear the same tired "it's the US's fault" being peddled by
Chomsky, O'Donnell, Churchill, Sheen, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, isn't
there a teensie possibility that they're singing from the same hymn
book? Or are they all just simultaneously similarly insane? They are
parroting Chomsky. Most of them are probably not smart enough to read
him with any real understanding, but they parrot his ideas - ideas that
have been handed down from the intellectual elites to the foot soldiers
who garner media attention. Is is a conspiracy? No. It's just a bunch of
boneheads believing what they want to in the first place. Chomsky is the
high priest. They are the supplicants. It's a religion of sorts.


being more influenced by them than by the likes
of John Dead, Harold Ford, Michele Stockwell,
Paul Weinstein, or for that matter, to 'revere'
them.

And though it is just plain silly to have to keep
saying this: Note that I do not deny that such
evidence exists, only that you have as of yet
presented any.

There is no evidence I could produce that you would
accept. When backing into a corner, your habit has
been to become silent until you can launch another
rhetorical assault.



If you mean the Rs are largely silent on them,
then my guess is that there is no significant
portion of the Rs that pay
attention to what the Klackers and extremist
militia have to say.

See? We agree on something!

This is decidedly *not* the case in the matter of the Ds' relationship
with the radical Left. Going back as far as FDR, the Democrats have had
a close relationship with everything from the Loud Left up to and
including openly avowed Communists. In his first book, Mitrokhin
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Mitrokhin) documents how the FDR
administration was riddled with Soviet spies and sympathizers and
*the FDR administration knew it*.

Are Rosie and Noam even mentioned in it?

Of course not. Rosie isn't smart enough to understand the big words in
history books, and Chomsky is too smart to get caught with his hands in
the cookie jar that is the insane Left. Besided, why would either
identify the real roots of the ideology they espouse so loudly. It would
repulse most thinking people (i.e., Anyone not riveted into the
"intellectual" community of the East or the "entertainment" community of
the West).



How did Mitrokhin _document_ how the FDR
administration was riddled with Soviet spies
and sympathizers and *the FDR administration
knew it*.? I'm guess that he wrote that it was
so, anything more substantial?

The Democrat party has a long
tired 20th Century history of aligning itself with anti-democratic
causes from the aforementioned FDR infestation all the way to the
recent squealings from Jimmy Carter that exaggerated the sins of
the West and displayed convenient amnesia about the severity of
the sins of people like Castro.


Have you read his most recent book?

You mean the one where he blames the Jews for the Hamas murders of
innocent folk or some such thing? No, I didn't bother. He's gone from
genial and well intentioned liberal, to full left-wing nutjob. Wait,
were you talking about Castro or Carter? If Castro wrote a book,
I've not read it. I prefer my revolutionary drivel straight up,
no chaser.


My only point in this subthread is that the Ds are getting worse and
worse over time in this regard. During the Cuban missile crisis both
Rs and Ds came together and supported a Democrat president in what
was obviously the good of the nation. Only 40 years later we see
the Ds decent into radical Left sewage as so complete that they are
unable to articulate anything meaningful in support of their nation.
They are only sure that the R president is wrong, wrong, wrong on
(almost) all matters at (almost) all times. I repeat: The Rs are
often stupid, the Ds are consistently dangerous.



Yes, you and SPLC are all exorcised because some private citizens have amassed large
caches of weapons. That's why I pointed you to the Constitution - that behavior is
*protected* by the 2nd Amendment.
You mean like Noam Chompsky who engages in a behavior
that is *protected* by the 1st Amendment?
Never once have I said he should be deprived
of his right to speak
or write as he sees fit.

No, and your attempt to inject this notion into a
conversation that never had even a glimmer of such
an idea is - predictably - pathetic.

It's good to know I can at least help you learn to improve
your rhetorical skills, however irrelevant the quote may be
in this context.

Would you consider abandoning that tactic to
address the issue?

These are and should remain protected behaviors.

Then why introduce the BOR if not to obfuscate
and evade?

Because the essential claim of the SPLC was about how
the militia being dangerouse was because they were caching
weapons. Well - it is one of the claims.


Does the second amendment provide any more
evidence that we should not criticize the dangerous
nut cases among them, than does the first for
those whom you criticize?

I would pay a fair sum to understand the level of
rational depravity it takes to go from a clear debate
to the twisted variants you invent so as never to be
demonstrated as being wrong. No one, myself especially,
demanded that they not be criticized. The claim was, and
is, that militia's broadly cannot be lumped into the
same category as the Klackers and Skinheads merely because
they accumulate weapons.


If you agree with me that it does not, the
why did yo bring it up in the first place?

If you wish to argue that Chomspky exercises
his first amendment rights irresponsibly, fine.
Surely you can appreciated that some feel
the mililtias similarly abuse their second
amendment rights.

I understand the concern. I always have. But
I prefer to measure people by the ideas they express
and the actions they take, not what they have in
their gun safes. Chomsky has repeatedly articulated
anti-Western/anti-American ideas that are vile in their
formulation and flatly wrong. I have read the writings
of some militia that are horrifying. But I have also
read some that made plenty of sense. Whether or not
they were "horrifying" had nothing to do with the
numbers and kinds of weapons they possessed. It had
to do with the ideas they expressed.

I am similarly exercising my right to speak openly
and describe his ideas
as foul and dangerous and identify those ideas
as being increasingly
embraced by one of the two major political
parties in my nation - whether
or not they actually quote Chomsky himself.


So long as you are not going to be bothered with
showing evidence, why not cut to the chase and
just blame the Democratic platform on Satan?

The evidence is clear, you just don't accept it. Moreover, I have never
introduced the "Democratic Platform" for discussion, you just did. The
platform is a political device intended to get people to vote for the
party. It would not be a place that the genesis of these aforementioned
bad ideas would be noted.




Are we to understand that so long a a person or a group
engages in a behavior that is protected by the Constitution,
our politicians should refrain from criticising them?
No, and your attempt to inject this notion into a conversation that
never had even a glimmer of such an idea is - predictably - pathetic.
As always, when you run out of ideas (which happens fairly rapidly
of late) you inject new strawmen more amenable to your rhetorical
skills.

If you hadn't run out of ideas, why did you digress
into the argument from irrelevancy?

Just FYI (and to help your grasp of the debate here), the discussion
at hand has *nothing* to do with preventing anyone from speaking their
piece (so long as it is not fraudulent or threatening). It has to do
with criticizing wrong analysis and ideas: By the SPLC, by the radical
left, and (increasingly) by the "leadership" of the Ds...


And more immediately, by you.

Here are the facts:

1) The Soviets penetrated the American Left as far back as the
FDR administration and as recently as the 1960s counterculture
"revolution". This has been documented by Mitrokhin who was in
an excellent position to do so.

2) The intellectual voices within the Left have become increasingly
strident and anti-American over the past 50 years. No utterance
of, say, Jack Kennedy, could remotely compare to some of the
stupidities issued by Jimmy Carter. Chomsky is as bad or worse today
than the popular Left of the 1960s, and they at least had an excuse:
most of them were stoned. There are plenty of other examples.
(The amnesia of the current Democrat senators, the elevation of
so-called multi-culturalism over the preservation of Western culture,
the denial of the religious roots and intentions of the Framers, the
unwillingness to acknowledge the proper role for military action - all
these are hallmarks of the Left introduced and nurtured by its
"intellectuals".)

3) The popular voices of the Left - primarily from the arts and entertainment
communities - are full of accusations of conspiracy, collusion,
and American evil intent over a breadth of topics, most recently the
9/11 attacks. These would be laughable if they weren't actually being
taken seriously by other people in this ecosystem of ideas.

Your answer is to deny that any of this is so, and if the rest
of us would just suspend our rational faculties, we too could
see the benign Left as you do. Your views can only be defended by
closing our eyes and stopping up our ears. In short, it is a
reality denial position. It's not much of an argument of any kind,
just yet another demonstration of the depravity required to defend
the Left's ideas as they currently exist.




--

FF




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article om,
says...

Sixty percent of Federal Judges and seven of the nine current
Justices of the USSC, as well as seven of the nine serving when
Clinton LEFT office, were appointed by Republicans.

Just about right, if you remember that seven of the last ten
Presidential elections have been won by the Republican candidate.

On Apr 8, 1:42 pm, Doug Miller wrote:
In article om,
says...

Sixty percent of Federal Judges and seven of the nine current
Justices of the USSC, as well as seven of the nine serving when
Clinton LEFT office, were appointed by Republicans.

Just about right,

Those numbers for the USSC are _exact_ the information is
readily available in various biographical sources. The number
for Federal Judges is from other sources.

if you remember that seven of the last ten
Presidential elections have been won by the Republican candidate.

Yet that didn't stop them from whining about the 'out-of-control'
Federal Judiciary they put into place. Evidently the Party leadership
felt betrayed by Justices whose rulings sis not keep up with the
Party line. Even Scalia sometimes ****es them off, though I daresay
that Souter has been their biggest dissapointment.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

: But the essential claim was that they are dangerous
: precisely because they accumulate weapons.


No, the point was, and is, that you said something wrong,
a useful online data source was given that, had you read it,
would have shown you to be wrong, and yet you persist.



It seems
: not to have occured to you or Mr. Barss that this
: very act is a protected behavior under our very
: foundational laws.


I think all parties to this thread are well aware that
gun ownership is, at least partially, allowed under the
second amendment. Thanks for reminding everyone of the obvious.


I was merely helping remind you
: of our own legal history.


You really are pompous, aren't you?


No digression, entirely on
: point - though it does have the disadvantage of making
: you look more foolish than usual.

You know, saying stuff like this really strengthens
one's perception of you.


-- Andy Barss

In article . com, wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:42 pm, Doug Miller wrote:
In article om,
says...

Sixty percent of Federal Judges and seven of the nine current
Justices of the USSC, as well as seven of the nine serving when
Clinton LEFT office, were appointed by Republicans.

Just about right,

Those numbers for the USSC are _exact_ the information is
readily available in various biographical sources. The number
for Federal Judges is from other sources.

You missed the point, which was that the numbers you cited are pretty much
what would be expected ...

if you remember that seven of the last ten
Presidential elections have been won by the Republican candidate.

I wasn't questioning the accuracy of your figures, only pointing out that they
shouldn't be a surprise to anybody who's been paying attention to election
results (which of course determine who gets to appoint the judges).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

: But the essential claim was that they are dangerous
: precisely because they accumulate weapons.


No, the point was, and is, that you said something wrong,
a useful online data source was given that, had you read it,
would have shown you to be wrong, and yet you persist.



It seems
: not to have occured to you or Mr. Barss that this
: very act is a protected behavior under our very
: foundational laws.


I think all parties to this thread are well aware that
gun ownership is, at least partially, allowed under the
second amendment. Thanks for reminding everyone of the obvious.


I was merely helping remind you
: of our own legal history.


You really are pompous, aren't you?


Here is YOUR quote Sparky:

"Militia groups in the US have amassed huge caches of
weapons, many of them having the explicit goal of violently
overthrowing the US government."

It is YOU who (improperly) joined together the idea of weapons
accumulation and the "explict goal of violently overthrowing..."
(It's the comma that implies the connection. A period after the
first clause would give you some ground to stand on.)

So, no, I'm neither pompous nor wrong in this case, merely
responsive to your ridiculous position.


No digression, entirely on
: point - though it does have the disadvantage of making
: you look more foolish than usual.

You know, saying stuff like this really strengthens
one's perception of you.

Judging by what you managed to write so far, I'm not deeply
concerned about how you perceive me. I do, however, so much
enjoy the tap dance duet you and Freddie have entered into.
It is most entertaining to watch people demonstrate my thesis -
that the Left and it defenders are increasingly populated by
loons - by watching the looney rhetoric fly by at light speed
from you two. You prove the point. So, just to help you
get this right:

1) Well armed citizens or groups are not a particular menace
to society just on the face of that fact.

2) Being well armed is explicitly protected by our Constitution.

3) Thus, "armed militias" do not translate to being the moral
equivalent of the Klackers or Skinheads, two groups that are
always loons.

4) The language of the Klackers and Skinheads (extreme Right loons)
does not populate the utterances of the mainstream Right. However,
the language of the Chomskys and Churchills (extreme Left loons)
*does* populate the utterances of the mainstream Left, particularly
the Left that gets a lot of media time and exposure. However,
neither the mainstream Right or Left comment on their looney
elements. The mainstream Right because they draw essentially
nothing from their loons and the mainstream Left because they *do*
draw so much from their own loons. The mainstream Left must thus
defend rather than decry the radical Left stupidities they've
embraced over time.

The Right is stupid (mostly) and the Left is dangerous (almost entirely)...




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Apr 8, 10:58 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:42 pm, Doug Miller wrote:
In article om,
says...

Sixty percent of Federal Judges and seven of the nine current
Justices of the USSC, as well as seven of the nine serving when
Clinton LEFT office, were appointed by Republicans.

Just about right,

Those numbers for the USSC are _exact_ the information is
readily available in various biographical sources. The number
for Federal Judges is from other sources.

You missed the point, which was that the
numbers you cited are pretty much
what would be expected ...


No, I didn't miss the point, I was annoyed at your
use of "just about".




if you remember that seven of the last ten
Presidential elections have been won by the Republican candidate.

I wasn't questioning the accuracy of your figures, only pointing out that they
shouldn't be a surprise to anybody who's been paying attention to election
results (which of course determine who gets to appoint the judges).


But Mr Miller, if I cannot rely upon you to check my
facts whom can I trust?

--

FF

On Apr 9, 12:45 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

: But the essential claim was that they are dangerous

: precisely because they accumulate weapons.

No, the point was, and is, that you said something wrong,
a useful online data source was given that, had you read it,
would have shown you to be wrong, and yet you persist.

It seems
: not to have occured to you or Mr. Barss that this
: very act is a protected behavior under our very
: foundational laws.

I think all parties to this thread are well aware that
gun ownership is, at least partially, allowed under the
second amendment. Thanks for reminding everyone
of the obvious.

I was merely helping remind you
: of our own legal history.

You really are pompous, aren't you?

Here is YOUR quote Sparky:

"Militia groups in the US have amassed huge caches of
weapons, many of them having the explicit goal of violently
overthrowing the US government."

It is YOU who (improperly) joined together the idea of weapons
accumulation and the "explict goal of violently overthrowing..."
(It's the comma that implies the connection. A period after the
first clause would give you some ground to stand on.)

No, it is YOU who disingenuously claim
that Mr Barss' criticism was exclusively
based on the accumulation of arms and
independent of the putative intended use.


So, no, I'm neither pompous nor wrong in this case, merely
responsive to your ridiculous position.

Mr Barss, it would seem, was giving you the benefit
of the doubt.


No digression, entirely on
: point - though it does have the disadvantage of making
: you look more foolish than usual.

You know, saying stuff like this really strengthens
one's perception of you.

Judging by what you managed to write so far, I'm not deeply
concerned about how you perceive me. I do, however, so much
enjoy the tap dance duet you and Freddie have entered into.
It is most entertaining to watch people demonstrate my thesis -
that the Left and it defenders are increasingly populated by
loons - by watching the looney rhetoric fly by at light speed
from you two. You prove the point. So, just to help you
get this right:

1) Well armed citizens or groups are not a particular menace
to society just on the face of that fact.

Just to help you get it right, no one has said
anything that contradicts that.


2) Being well armed is explicitly protected by our Constitution.


Just to help you get it right, no one has said
anything that contradicts that.

3) Thus, "armed militias" do not translate to being the moral
equivalent of the Klackers or Skinheads, two groups that are
always loons.

You are incredibly naive if you suppose there is no, or
even little overlap or comingling among them.


4) The language of the Klackers and Skinheads
(extreme Right loons)
does not populate the utterances
of the mainstream Right.

The Klackers, Skinheads, militias, mainstream republicans,
and yourself utter:

Obsessive concern over illegal immigration, some
claiming it is a threat to National Security.

The claim that taxation and government expenditure
for many purposes is _Robbery_ (not so many
mainstreamers sign on to that one)

A claim that 'we' are at war with 'Islam' (again
many mainstreamers excepted)

A desire to reduce legal immigration Not
inherently nutsy or immoral just a shared
position--the same is true for _some_ others
below.

A claim that multiculturalism, not intolerance is
a root cause of ethnically motivated violence.

Opposition to Affrimative Action.

A claim that criticism of themselves and their
positions is tantamount to treason.

The claim that the self-evident Unalienable Rights
declared in the Declaration of Independence are
self-evidently only possessed by US citizens.

The claim that murder, torture and denial
of a hearing or trial are not murder, torture
or denial of due process, nor any sort of
wrongful act at all so long as the object of
the exercise is an 'evil' person. In truth YOU
don't even require evilness, just an absence
of standing within your personal social/legal
contract theory.

However,
the language of the Chomskys and Churchills (extreme Left loons)
*does* populate the utterances of the mainstream Left, particularly
the Left that gets a lot of media time and exposure. However,
neither the mainstream Right or Left comment on their looney
elements. The mainstream Right because they draw essentially
nothing from their loons and the mainstream Left because they *do*
draw so much from their own loons.

IOW the Right wing nutjobs are espousing
a distorted and exaggeration perversion of the
'right mainstream' but the Left wing nutjobs are
_leading_ the 'left mainstream.'

Have you an explanation for that asymmetry other
than "It's obvious."?

The mainstream Left must thus
defend rather than decry the radical Left stupidities they've
embraced over time.

For instance?


The Right is stupid (mostly) and the Left is
dangerous (almost entirely)...


All of which (except for the quote itself) ignores:

"many of them having the explicit goal of violently
overthrowing the US government."

The "Left" often attacks fundamental rights like
free speech or ownership of property. But it
is the "Right" that attacks the twin cornerstones
of Liberalism on which our Nation is built, Constitutional
Government and respect for the rule of law.

They are not so stupid as to admit it, rather they
claim 'obvious' interpretations that are so horribly
contrary to the plain language and clear principles
of the Constituion and Law that even Antonin
Scalia sometimes is moved to slap them down.

--

FF

On Apr 9, 1:50 am, wrote:
....

IOW the Right wing nutjobs are espousing
a distorted and exaggeration perversion of the
'right mainstream' but the Left wing nutjobs are
_leading_ the 'left mainstream.'

Have you an explanation for that asymmetry other
than "It's obvious."?


Just to be clear, I was inquiring about the asymmetry of
your analysis.

--

FF

wrote:
SNIP

3) Thus, "armed militias" do not translate to being the moral
equivalent of the Klackers or Skinheads, two groups that are
always loons.

You are incredibly naive if you suppose there is no, or
even little overlap or comingling among them.

And you are far more dishonest in so saying. There is
"overlap" between pedorasts and Catholics but this
does not mean that Catholics ought to be assumed to
be pedorasts. There is "overlap" between any pair
of groups you'd likely be able to name but this
does not imply causality.


4) The language of the Klackers and Skinheads
(extreme Right loons)
does not populate the utterances
of the mainstream Right.

The Klackers, Skinheads, militias, mainstream republicans,
and yourself utter:

Obsessive concern over illegal immigration, some
claiming it is a threat to National Security.

"Obsessive" according to you and yours. My only position
on the matter is that a nation that cannot control
its borders cannot control its security (cf Iraq for
a pungent example). Moreover, if immigration law
does not need to be followed then why should ANY law
be observed? Why is it OK to observe immigration
law almost entirely and only in the breach? The answer
of course is that the Left needs more poor voters and
the Right needs cheap labor. At the very least, they
should both have the decency to change the law to reflect
their desired reality.


The claim that taxation and government expenditure
for many purposes is _Robbery_ (not so many
mainstreamers sign on to that one)

More specifically, they claim - properly - that
*Federal* expenditure beyond that permitted by
the Constitution is illegal and the government
that does so is acting criminally. Oh, I keep
forgetting - it's not really a "law" - it's just
a bunch of helpful suggestions until the "progressives"
can come along and "improve" things.


A claim that 'we' are at war with 'Islam' (again
many mainstreamers excepted)

Since I don't read the Klacker and Skinhead websites,
I have to take you word on this. I have not
heard this from the mainstream Right at all.


A desire to reduce legal immigration Not
inherently nutsy or immoral just a shared
position--the same is true for _some_ others
below.


This another new one to me. The mainstream Right
does not demand this as best as I've seen - they
need the cheap labor.

A claim that multiculturalism, not intolerance is
a root cause of ethnically motivated violence.

Multiculturalism always leads to violence. Once cannot be equally
embracing of all cultures without therefore embracing the murder,
slavery, female genital mutilation, pederasty, and other human rights
abuses that characterize some of the world's most popular cultures.
Geographically, Africa leaps to mind and Islam jumps forward if we're
looking for an example religion. The idea that all cultures ought to be
equally understood *and* revered is stupid on its face. Ethnically
motivated violence comes from exactly these kinds of cultures that the
multi-cultural monkeys are so keen on.


Opposition to Affrimative Action.

No. Opposition to Affirmative Action *in the private sector*.
Equal access to law, government, and the jobs therein ought
to be preserved without question. But jamming a gun down
the private sectors throat to make the drooling Left happy
is immoral and well outside the proper role of the government.


A claim that criticism of themselves and their
positions is tantamount to treason.

I have heard this in a few quarters. Upon further
investigation it usually turns out to be exaggerated.
Criticizing the policy of *any* government is a protected
act, not treason. But revealing troop movements, top secret
intelligence operations, and the like all in the name of some
self-important "anti war" cause it at least borderline
treason because it materially undermines the wellbeing of
the nation and/or its troops.


The claim that the self-evident Unalienable Rights
declared in the Declaration of Independence are
self-evidently only possessed by US citizens.

I have already explained this at length to you
and you refuse to reply to a simple question:
How do people not party to a contract have the
right to make claims upon its protections?
(Hint: They can't, and you won't.)


The claim that murder, torture and denial
of a hearing or trial are not murder, torture
or denial of due process, nor any sort of
wrongful act at all so long as the object of
the exercise is an 'evil' person. In truth YOU
don't even require evilness, just an absence
of standing within your personal social/legal
contract theory.

I merely require the rule of law to apply first.
Absent that, I am willing to grant some leniency
if doing so is in our own self-interest. You, OTOH,
want to invent rights out of whole cloth, just because
you said so. You want to apply covenants to which
the US is not a signatory, and/or protect people under
clauses not intended for them. In short - like all
saviors of mankind - you are so sure you are right, we
can just dispense with law, the philosophy of law,
and the plain meaning of our legal history.


However,
the language of the Chomskys and Churchills (extreme Left loons)
*does* populate the utterances of the mainstream Left, particularly
the Left that gets a lot of media time and exposure. However,
neither the mainstream Right or Left comment on their looney
elements. The mainstream Right because they draw essentially
nothing from their loons and the mainstream Left because they *do*
draw so much from their own loons.

IOW the Right wing nutjobs are espousing
a distorted and exaggeration perversion of the
'right mainstream' but the Left wing nutjobs are
_leading_ the 'left mainstream.'

Not "leading" - "infesting". The Soviets learned long ago
that a lie repeated properly and loud enough becomes the
truth. The radical Left has taken this path to mainstream
their "ideas".



Have you an explanation for that asymmetry other
than "It's obvious."?


I have my theories on why this is true, but cannot demonstrate
any of them because my data points are anecdotal.



The mainstream Left must thus
defend rather than decry the radical Left stupidities they've
embraced over time.

For instance?

9/11 was an inside job.
The taking of the UK vessel this past few weeks was a setup.
The workers in the WTC were "little Eichmans" not deserving of our sorrow.
Islam is the religion of peace (all historical evidence to contrary notwithstanding).
Israel is the aggressor in the Middle East.
The US/West is the central problem in geopolitics and can fairly be blamed for most problems.


The Right is stupid (mostly) and the Left is
dangerous (almost entirely)...


All of which (except for the quote itself) ignores:

"many of them having the explicit goal of violently
overthrowing the US government."

The "Left" often attacks fundamental rights like
free speech or ownership of property. But it
is the "Right" that attacks the twin cornerstones
of Liberalism on which our Nation is built, Constitutional
Government and respect for the rule of law.

If you're looking for a defense of the Right from me here, listen
to the crickets. But there is a degree of culpability here -
a severity of nonsense, so to speak. The Right is often ridiculous
in its views, but it is rarely if ever as vitriolic, fulminating,
and generally hateful as the voices on the Left. In the worst
moments of the Clinton presidency I *never* saw any Rightwing
anti-American rhetoric when, say, Billy blew up the aspirin
factory in Africa to get people's minds off his personal problems.
The Right is bad, the Left is far, far, far worse.


They are not so stupid as to admit it, rather they
claim 'obvious' interpretations that are so horribly
contrary to the plain language and clear principles
of the Constituion and Law that even Antonin
Scalia sometimes is moved to slap them down.


Yes, yes, the Right is full of it. But the Left is actually
an imminent danger to our future. I used to despise them
about equally, but the Left pulled way ahead with its many
assaults on our nation's virtue, our military, the nature
of our place in the world, the revelation of secret intelligence
operations, their hatred of any wealth other than their pet
actors and singers, their contempt for middle America, and
all the rest that is the lovely Left. The Right would have
to really buckle down and concentrate to be as despicable
and flatly evil as the Left has become in the past 4 decades.
Listening to Bush and Cheney makes me shake my head. Listening
to Carter, Clinton (either one), Levy, Leahy, Schumer, and
Finestein makes me want to vomit...





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article .com, wrote:
On Apr 8, 10:58 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:42 pm, Doug Miller wrote:
In article om,
says...

Sixty percent of Federal Judges and seven of the nine current
Justices of the USSC, as well as seven of the nine serving when
Clinton LEFT office, were appointed by Republicans.

Just about right,

Those numbers for the USSC are _exact_ the information is
readily available in various biographical sources. The number
for Federal Judges is from other sources.

You missed the point, which was that the
numbers you cited are pretty much
what would be expected ...


No, I didn't miss the point, I was annoyed at your
use of "just about".

Obviously you *have* missed the point, and continue to miss it. Since you're
still having difficulty, let me spell it out as clearly as I can.

I don't argue with your figures for the composition of the USSC and the
Federal judiciary, and the phrase "just about" was not applied to their
accuracy (as should have been clear to anyone with a normal ability to
comprehend written English). For the sake of this discussion, I'm willing to
stipulate that the figures you presented are entirely correct.

My point is that a +/- 70% Republican-appointed judiciary is "just about" what
one would expect, if one has been paying attention to the fact that the
Republican candidate has won 70% of the Presidential elections in the last
forty years.




if you remember that seven of the last ten
Presidential elections have been won by the Republican candidate.

I wasn't questioning the accuracy of your figures, only pointing out that they
shouldn't be a surprise to anybody who's been paying attention to election
results (which of course determine who gets to appoint the judges).

But Mr Miller, if I cannot rely upon you to check my
facts whom can I trust?

The facts of this matter are not in dispute. I merely point out that no
particular significance should be attached to them, since they are "just
about" what would be expected anyway.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Apr 9, 12:37 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
On Apr 8, 10:58 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:42 pm, Doug Miller wrote:
In article om,
says...

Sixty percent of Federal Judges and seven of the nine current
Justices of the USSC, as well as seven of the nine serving when
Clinton LEFT office, were appointed by Republicans.

Just about right,

Those numbers for the USSC are _exact_ the information is
readily available in various biographical sources. The number
for Federal Judges is from other sources.

You missed the point, which was that the
numbers you cited are pretty much
what would be expected ...

No, I didn't miss the point, I was annoyed at your
use of "just about".

Obviously you *have* missed the point, and continue to miss it. Since you're
still having difficulty, let me spell it out as clearly as I can.

I don't argue with your figures for the composition of the USSC and the
Federal judiciary, and the phrase "just about" was not applied to their
accuracy (as should have been clear to anyone with a normal ability to
comprehend written English). For the sake of this discussion, I'm willing to
stipulate that the figures you presented are entirely correct.

I disagree. I think that most people with a normal ability
to comprehend written English would consider "just about
right" to be a comment addressing accuracy.



My point is that a +/- 70% Republican-appointed judiciary is "just about" what
one would expect, if one has been paying attention to the fact that the
Republican candidate has won 70% of the Presidential elections in the last
forty years.

We agree on that point. I trust you will also agree that "just
about right" is not equivalent to "just about what one would
expect."

What one would not expect, without a bit of experience, is
that the Republicans would so bitterly attack the Judiciary
they put into place.

--

FF

On Apr 8, 10:07 pm, Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

: But the essential claim was that they are dangerous
: precisely because they accumulate weapons.

No, the point was, and is, that you said something wrong,
a useful online data source was given that, had you read it,
would have shown you to be wrong, and yet you persist.

No surprise.

I once directed Mr Daneliuk to the section
of the UCMJ which addresses the persons
who are subject to its provisions. In his
reply he informed us that he did not have to
read it in order to know what it said and
proceeded to (incorrectly) lecture us on
its applicability.

I had also erred on the subject but the
difference is that I checked my information,
Mr Daneliuk refused to do so even when
all he had to do was click on a link
and read the webpage.

After all, he is also able to ascertain both
the content of books and the motivations
of their authors without reading them, and
even is able to read our minds so as to
determine out motivations and to clarify
what we meant to write, when we make
the mistake of writing something different
from what we really mean.

--

FF