text:
Jim Walsh <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

You can say that if you are part of the people or in some way an
insider. As is, your opinion count little. For comaprison, many
Americans think American governemnt is the mortal enemy of the
American people. Example,

"The federal government, from the perspective of those in the
movement,
is a fearsome foe and a threat to American freedoms of religion,
speech, assembly, the right to self-defense and the right to self-
determination..." (SOLDIERS OF GOD by H.L. Bushart, J.R. Craig, and M.
Barnes)

One may or may not agree with them. However, he can be sure that these
people don't wish America ill. They are part of America and they have
stake in America's well being. It is in their interest to have a
strong, wealthy and better America. In contrast, I am not sure you
wish the Chinese people well at all.


author: Tom Goodman

subject: Re: American democracy: It is about money

text:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:26:40 +0800, Jim Walsh
<[email]> wrote:

So why do you still promote the same political line by the US govt ?
This the first time I hear you say US is the bad guy or maybe I missed
your posts ? Or maybe this is not the same Jim Walsh like the one few
years before ? If you're the same JW, you sure change your tone now. I
am shock. Maybe you age too much in 3 -1/2 years and lose your memory
since I last participated in usenet ?

The world can only become a better place if certain freedom, beliefs
and speech are restricted. How many wars started and people killed
because of religions, beliefs, and freedom of hate speech ?

WW2 couldn't happen if Hitler had not the freedom to spread his Nazism
view. He had been thrown into jail at the start for promoting Nazism
but later was given freedom to do so, then people believed and
followed him.

Tom Goodman

Revelation 18:24
And in her(USA) was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of
all that were slain upon the earth.


author: Jim Walsh

text:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:34:33 -0700, charles liu thought carefully and
wrote:

I fully support the Chinese people deciding their own matters. Sadly, they
can't at the present time.

Oddly, although you accuse me of interfering in the business of the
Chinese people, it is the CCP which is doing the interfering, with your
constant support.


text:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:43:28 -0700, LT Lee thought carefully and wrote:

...

I can say that because I live in Taiwan, a free country.

One person, one opinion, one vote. My opinion counts just as much as any
other person's. Of course in the PRC, the opinion of the communists
outweigh the opinions of the 95%.

Boring. Not relevant.


text:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:54:12 -0400, Tom Goodman thought carefully and
wrote:

Tell me what you think the US government political line is.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq, first and second. Was that the US
government political line?

Really? You must have a reading problem.

No. No. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are essential to making
the World a more peaceful place.

Some wars were started because freedom of religion existed and people like
you wanted to take it away. Some wars were started (rare) because people
like you wanted to forbid certain religions and the members of those
religions fought to be free.

Weird. You need to read some history. I suggest you read "Hitler and the
Rise of the Nazi Party" by Frank McDonough. It disproves the claim that
freedom created the necessary and sufficient conditions for Hitler's rise
to power.


author: charles liu

text:
Jim Walsh <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

In light of the fact you have no citation to back up your claim, yet I
have provided ample citations in the "narrowing the gap..." thread,
showing the rights they have demanded and received, and they can and
do decide their own matters. And the Chinese people will continue to
make progress, with or without your constant put-down.


text:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:57:24 -0700, charles liu thought carefully and
wrote:

You can't find a single sentence in any of my posts putting down the
Chinese people. Unlike you, I fully support their right to be free.


author: Smaneck

subject: Re: bickering intellectuals

text:
Matthew asks:

It already does under certain circumstances. Slander is punishable by law, for
instance, and Fred could be held liable for accusing the NSA of murdering Dan
Jordan. But the Covenant could never be inforced by laws of the state, I don't
believe.

Yes. I asked the House of Justice about those very passages from 'Abdu'l-Baha
talks which Fred and Juan have been alluding to. The response was contained in
thier Feb. 8 letter which I will post below. But when 'Abdu'l-Bah a talks about
freedom of opinion the word used is *nazar* or perspective, rather than *ra'i.*
I believe that *nazar* refers primarily to theological matters while *ra'i*
refers to matters of law and practice which are under the jurisdiction of the
House of Justice. I still need to study the subject of conscience further in
the original texts of the Writings. But here is the answer given to me by the
House of Justice. I will first post the question I posed for them:

"as you are no doubt aware, Dr. Cole
 has been vigorously insisted that the investigation which was
 launched by the International Teaching Center against himself and
 others was motivated by a desire to impose a rigid doctrinal
 conformity on Baha'i scholars which would be inconsistent with our
 ability to function as academics.  I had argued, to the contrary,
 that the investigation was largely launched in reaction to what was
 seen as an attack on the Institutions themselves. For this reason
 your letter of 20 July created much confusion for me because it
 seemed to vindicate Dr. Cole's perception of these events.  My question is, to
what extent does the House see these problems as
 issues of doctrinal heresy which must therefore be suppressed and to what
 extent are the Institutions empowered to do this? I am aware, for
 instance, of the verse in the Will and Testament which reads: "To none is
 given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular
 conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of the Cause
 and the House of Justice." I note, however that the term for opinion here
  is rai which is one of the principles (usul) of Islamic jurisprudence.
 Given the juridical language of this entire section of the Will and
 Testament I would assume that `Abdu'l-Baha was speaking here largely of
 opinions in regard to matters of Baha'i law and practice rather than
 doctrine.  If the Universal House of Justice does regard the imposition of
 orthodoxy on the Baha'i community as within the purview of the
 authority of the Institutions I wonder if you could explain to me how
 this fits in with the tolerance  which `Abdu'l-Baha calls for elsewhere
 within the Writings. I am thinking for instance of the passage in Kitab-I
 Bada'i al-Athar 1:294 where `Abdu'l-Baha insists that there must be no
 interference in beliefs or conscience. I also note that in another Tablet
 `Abdu'l-Baha states that so long as courtesy is maintained that in the
 Faith no one can rule over a persons conscience. He goes on to say that
 such freedom does not extend to matters of divine law. (Ma'idih-yi Asmani
 5:17-18.) I also have in mind Baha'u'llah's Tablet to Bourjerdi where
 even over the vital issue of the station of the Manifestation,
 Baha'u'llah refuses to allow the imposition of rigid dogma."

This is the answer I received from them:

As you well understand, not only the right but also the responsibility of each
believer to explore truth for himself or herself are fundamental to the Baha'i
teachings.  This principle is an integral feature of the
coming of age of humankind, inseparable from the social transformation to
which Baha'u'llah is calling the peoples of the world.  It is as relevant
to specifically scholarly activity as it is to the rest of spiritual and
intellectual life.  Every human being is ultimately responsible to God for
the use which he or she makes of these possibilities; conscience is never
to be coerced, whether by other individuals or institutions.

     Conscience, however, is not an unchangeable absolute.  One dictionary
definition, although not covering all the usages of the term, presents the
common understanding of the word "conscience" as "the sense of right and
wrong as regards things for which one is responsible; the faculty or
principle which pronounces upon the moral quality of one's actions or
motives, approving the right and condemning the wrong".

     The functioning of one's conscience, then, depends upon one's
understanding of right and wrong; the conscience of one person may be
established upon a disinterested striving after truth and justice, while
that of another may rest on an unthinking predisposition to act in
accordance with that pattern of standards, principles and prohibitions
which is a product of his social environment.  Conscience, therefore, can
serve either as a bulwark of an upright character or can represent an
accumulation of prejudices learned from one's forebears or absorbed from a
limited social code.

     A Baha'i recognizes that one aspect of his spiritual and intellectual
growth is to foster the development of his conscience in the light of
divine Revelation -- a Revelation which, in addition to providing a wealth
of spiritual and ethical principles, exhorts man "to free himself from
idle fancy and imitation, discern with the eye of oneness His glorious
handiwork, and look into all things with a searching eye".  This process
of development, therefore, involves a clear-sighted examination of the
conditions of the world with both heart and mind.  A Baha'i will
understand that an upright life is based upon observance of certain
principles which stem from Divine Revelation and which he recognizes as
essential for the well-being of both the individual and society. In order
to uphold such principles, he knows that, in certain cases, the voluntary
submission of the promptings of his own personal conscience to the
decision of the majority is a conscientious requirement, as in
wholeheartedly accepting the majority decision of an Assembly at the
outcome of consultation.

     In the discussion of wisdom in your email of 21 September 1997, you
observe that maybe "Baha'i academics all too often have not recognized
that to a great extent failure to exercise wisdom represents a failure of
love."  The House of Justice agrees that the exercise of wisdom calls for
a measure of love and the development of a sensitive conscience.  These,
in turn, involve not only devotion to a high standard of uprightness, but
also consideration of the effects of one's words and actions.

      A Baha'i's duty to pursue an unfettered search after truth should  lead
him to understand the Teachings as an organic, logically coherent whole,
should cause him to examine his own ideas and motives, and should enable
him to see that adherence to the Covenant, to which he is a party, is not blind
imitation but conscious choice, freely made and freely followed.

     In many of His utterances, `Abdu'l-Baha extols governments which
     uphold
freedom of conscience for their citizens.  As can be seen from the
context, these statements refer to the freedom to follow the religion of
one's choice. In the original of a passage to which you refer in your
email of 17 November 1997, He gives the following analysis of freedom.

          There are three types of freedom.  The first is divine freedom,
     which is one of the inherent attributes of the Creator for He is
     unconstrained in His will, and no one can force Him to change His
     decree in any matter whatsoever....

          The second is the political freedom of Europeans, which leaves
     the individual free to do whatsoever he desires as long as his action
     does not harm his neighbour.  This is natural freedom, and its
     greatest expression is seen in the animal world.  Observe these birds
     and notice with what freedom they live.  However much man may try, he
     can never be as free as an animal, because the existence of order
     acts as an impediment to freedom.

          The third freedom is that which is born of obedience to the laws
     and ordinances of the Almighty.  This is the freedom of the human
     world, where man severs his affections from all things.  When he does
     so, he becomes immune to all hardship and sorrow.  Wealth or material
     power will not deflect him from moderation and fairness, neither will
     poverty or need inhibit him from showing forth happiness and
     tranquillity.  The more the conscience of man develops, the more will
     his heart be free and his soul attain unto happiness.  In the
     religion of God, there is freedom of thought because God, alone,
     controls the human conscience, but this freedom should not go beyond
     courtesy.  In the religion of God, there is no freedom of action
     outside the law of God.  Man may not transgress this law, even though
     no harm is inflicted on one's neighbour.  This is because the purpose
     of Divine law is the education of all -- others as well as oneself --
     and, in the sight of God, the harm done to one individual or to his
     neighbour is the same and is reprehensible in both cases.  Hearts
     must possess the fear of God.  Man should endeavour to avoid that
     which is abhorrent unto God.  Therefore, the freedom that the laws of
     Europe offer to the individual does not exist in the law of God.
     Freedom of thought should not transgress the bounds of courtesy, and
     actions, likewise, should be governed by the fear of God and the
     desire to seek His good pleasure.

     Education of the individual Baha'i in the Divine law is one of the  duties
of Spiritual Assemblies.  In a letter to a National Assembly on 1 March
1951, Shoghi Effendi wrote:

     The deepening and enrichment of the spiritual life of the individual
     believer, his increasing comprehension of the essential verities
underlying this Faith, his training in its administrative processes,
     his understanding of the fundamentals of the Covenants established by
     its Author and the authorized Interpreter of its teachings, should be
     made the supreme objectives of the national representatives
     responsible for the edification, the progress and consolidation of
     these communities.

     Such is the duty resting on the elected institutions of the Faith for
the promotion of the spiritual, moral and ethical lives of the individual
believers.  Parallel with this, the Baha'i Faith upholds the freedom of
conscience which permits a person to follow his chosen religion:  no one
may be compelled to become a Baha'i, or to remain a Baha'i if he
conscientiously wishes to leave the Faith.  As to the thoughts of the
Baha'is themselves -- that is those who have chosen to follow the religion
of Baha'u'llah -- the institutions do not busy themselves with what
individual believers think unless those thoughts become expressed in
actions which are inimical to the basic principles and vital interests of
the Faith.

     With regard to the accusation that to make such distinctions borders on
restriction of the freedom of speech, one should accept that civil society
has long recognized that utterance can metamorphose into behaviour, and
has taken steps to protect itself and its citizens against such behaviour
when it becomes socially destructive.  Laws against sedition and
hate-mongering are examples that come readily to mind.

     It will surely be clear to you from the above comments that the
     categories
of "issues of doctrinal heresy which must therefore be suppressed" and
"the imposition of orthodoxy on the Baha'i community", to which you refer,
are concepts essentially drawn from the study of Christianity and are
inapplicable to the far more complex interrelationships and principles
established by the Baha'i Faith.

     It is important for all those Baha'is who are engaged in the academic
study of the Baha'i Faith to address the theoretical problems which
undoubtedly exist, while refusing to be distracted by insidious and
unscholarly attacks and calumnies which may periodically be injected into
their discussions by the ill-intentioned.  Discussion with those who
sincerely raise problematic issues, whether they be Baha'is or not, and
whether -- if the latter -- they disagree with Baha'i teachings, can be
beneficial and enlightening.  However, to continue dialogue with those who
have shown a fixed antagonism to the Faith, and have demonstrated their
imperviousness to any ideas other than their own, is usually fruitless
and, for the Baha'is who take part, can be burdensome and even spiritually
corrosive."

warmest,

Susan


author: NightSerf

subject: Re: bickering intellectuals

text:
It is unsurprising that the House has touched on the most
disturbing aspect that I've observed in this fledgling ng: a
lack of courtesy common in usenet but completely out of step
with the teachings of Baha'u'llah.  It is wonderful that a
group has been established in which areas can be touched upon
that don't make it into the moderated group, but the lack of
moderation has prompted several people to engage in personal
attacks that detract from any rational discourse.

Perhaps a few more people could take that extra moment before
hitting the send button to look over their posts and remove
anything that could be perceived as an attact, intended or
not.  We'd all be better for it.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: bickering intellectuals or why can't the UHJ read texts?

text:
It their reply to Susan the universal house of justice quoted `Abdu'l-Baha as
saying,

     "In the
     religion of God, there is freedom of thought because God, alone,
     controls the human conscience, but this freedom should not go beyond
     courtesy."

In other words, `Abdu'l-Baha thought Baha'is should be able to express their
conscientiously held views politely as much as they liked.  Which is all the
Walbridges, McKenny, Scholl, myself and their other victims did.

The rest of the letter Susan quoted goes on to abrogate that right on all
sorts of vague and arbitrary grounds, contradicting the clear text of the
Master.  As someone who reads texts for a living, I continue to be astonished
that these people think they can get away with playing such a hypocritical
shell game.

They say:

These are the people who sent their man to my own home to interrogate me and
then had me (a well known professor of Middle East Studies at a major
university!) threatened with being shunned unless I fell silent!  If that
isnt' the coercion of conscience then I don't know what is!

Then they say:

In other words, whenever these people in Haifa don't like something that is
being said by an enrolled Baha'i, they can arbitrarily charge her with the
expression of heretical thoughts inimical (in their view) to the basic
principles of the Baha'i faith.  I.e. they are claiming the right of
authoritative Interpretation of the Baha'i scriptures and the right to impose
their interpretation on Baha'i individuals, in direct contradiction of the
Guardian's explicit text.  And then they say that they don't coerce
consciences!

It is also worrisome that they had to look in the dictionary to find the
meaning of conscience, and that they don't seem too comfortable with the
results of their foray into the lexicons.

Well, as Machiavelli said, it takes luck or skill to get into power in a
theocracy, but once you're esconced there you don't need either luck or skill
to remain in power.

cheers    Juan

Juan Cole
History, U of Michigan
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own


author: Kaydon

subject: ping Carrie and anyone interested in ACIM

text:
Here's a link to a book called "The Power". It goes well with what ACIM
teaches.

http://www.mediafire.com/?b6sl5964660bvq6

<3
xoxoxoo


author: Carrie

subject: Re: ping Carrie and anyone interested in ACIM

text:
"Kaydon" <[email]> wrote in message
news:it58d9$rl5$[email]...

 Thanks! Where do you get all these books from? Is there an overall source
LOL


author: Sidney Lambe

text:
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Kaydon
<[email]> wrote:

According to ACIM, we have no power. Miracles are only performed
by God, and only God matters.

This is very, very wrong.

This is the kind of teaching that only a facist, authoritarian,
patriarchal organization would promote.

They all claim that they want you to obey God, but THEY
get to tell you what God wants.

It is pathetic scam. Older than prostitution.

Look at the title: A Course in Miracles.

But right in the Introduction to Miracles, it says
that miracles don't matter only their source does.

That's very deceptive. You are attacted by the
false offer to teach people how to do miracles,

These people are like cheap, used-car salespersons.

You cannot trust them at all.


text:
Carrie wrote:

I get all sorts of self help newsletters and I'm frequently hearing of
new things. I often go "hmm ... that sounds kewl!!". So then I search,
and in doing so I usually find a heap of other things that interest me
:o)

<3
xoxoxoxoo


text:
"Sidney Lambe" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

      I'd love to see quotes where you get this from.

   The miracle is a change of mind, a shift of perception. Changing one's
mind/thinking and seeing something in a different way. Changing the "cause"
and this the effect changes.
    It really works because I see you as an entertaining person, devoting a
lot of time to keeping discussions going on this previously "dead"
newsgroup, and maybe in way, making light of things, but others might not
realize this.
     I know it doesn't matter to you, but it feels good to me, and not
negative energy.
     I've learned a lot from you, like about what I believe and how to apply
it.

    I think it says "the Love that inspires them".  Love is the highest
energy form there is. Well, if you don't believe this, it wouldn't be for
you.

   "Miracles are natrual, when they don't occur something has gone wrong".

    So don't.


text:
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Kaydon
<[email]> wrote:

That's good. Because you are a fucking basket case.

There is no end of well-intentioned, but ignorant people who
would love to sell you one "magick therapy" or another. Most of
them really believe their own bullshit, but some are just plain
con artists.

A very, very few are true Healers. Or Teachers.

There are many experts who could sell refrigerators to the eskimos.
They are very good at spinning illusions.

Especially if they believe their own bullshit.

You haven't noticed that they haven't helped YOU much.

Because they haven't helped you much :-)

[delete]


text:
"Kaydon" <[email]> wrote in message
news:it5c8t$nfv$[email]...

   That sounds like what I do, without the newsletters. I have found a lot
of books, especially the old ones are online now. Public Domain or
soemthing. Or, maybe someone just puts them up to share LOL


subject: Sometimes the "War On Drugs" causes more american deaths than even the War In Iraq:  Time to legalize drugs!

text:
Actually this is evidence that the war on drugs is killing americans.

If all drugs were made leagal there would not be the monetary incentive
to join a gang and fight vilonet battles over drug market "turf".
(anyone notice the similarity to the gang battles during alchohol
prohibition... gee they dont do that anyomre at all!!!)

However if we could use this as an excuse to bring all the soldiers
back from Iraq and then after all the soldiers are out of Iraq legalize
drugs we could solve two problems at once.

Drive around McClean, VA(the home of CIA headquarters) and read the
road signs: "George Bush's CIA"
Nixon is spinning in his grave wondering what Bush has to do to be
impeached.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of
State and Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern
fascism.


author: The New Conservatives

subject: Re: Sometimes the "War On Drugs" causes more american deaths than even the War In Iraq:  Time to legalize drugs!

text:
On 17 Mar 2005 19:56:31 -0800, [email] wrote:

Prohibition is counter-productive in its consequences, but some
surprising vested interests do very well out of it! And I don't just
mean the drug dealers and smugglers... Legalise all drugs (regrettable
but necessary) and we would reap huge benefits (and put *all* the
money-grasping profiteers who do very nicely out of it out of
business).


author: Clough

text:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:37:15 +0000, The New Conservatives
<root@newconservative!notformail!party.org> wrote:

It's arguable that the existence of drugs, including alcohol and
tobacco is regrettable, but they do exist, they will always exist and
the only meaningful question is what to do about it.

Attempting to prohibit them with legal sanctions against users has
proved to be catastrophic, as well as being on very doubtful grounds
as far as individual rights and responsibilities and the limits of
government interference in those areas go in a free democracy.

The most sensible and least damaging thing to do by far would be to
legally regulate supply. This has massive advantages over prohibition.

But the most sensible thing is not always that which is done and for
some incomprehensible reason society has decided the best way to to
deal with drugs is to hand over the trade, tax free and totally
unregulated, to organised crime.

Quite amazing, really, it makes one wonder.

Clough


text:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:00:53 +0200, Clough <[email]>
wrote:

It certainly does. Mainstream political parties lack the courage to
take imaginative action to address the problem. So we're stuck with
our jails bulging with half the victims of the problem, and the other
half living in fear of them.


author: GEM

text:
"Clough" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Wonder?

Why would one wonder WHO would turn over free money to organized crime, when
the answer is obvious?

Organized Crime would turn over free money to Organized Crime.
Nobody else would. They'd keep it for themselves.

That America needs to wonder says much for America's ability to deny what is
right under its nose when its embarrassing or contradicts faith in
authourity.

The American Mafia runs America, under its fake fugurehead George Dubya
Bush.
In the right suit, Mafiosa look just like regular politicians and replace
them easily.
Everything that America has lost since 9/11 has fallen into their hands as
planned.

America has lost every battle of the Silent War and still has no idea who
the attackers are.
I'm not putting much money on America to survive this war. Or the world for
that matter.

GEM


author: Gun Woman

subject: POLL

text:
Assault Weapons Ban - Poll from CNN

We really need some help on this poll, so far we are losing almost 3 to
1.  I think everyone is aware how much mileage the folks at CNN are
going to try and get out of this if in fact the results show the
majority of people want the AWB extended.  Please take a minute to go to
the site by clicking the link below and cast your vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/05/09/gun.control.rally.ap/index.html


author: The Lone Weasel

subject: Re: POLL

text:
Gun Woman <[email]> wrote in
news:Xns94EEDC2307894Boo@206.124.0.13:

/

I voted to extend the assault weapon ban, Bazooka Breath,
even though I wouldn't mind having an AK-47, but like yall
said an assault weapon is just a semi-automatic rifle and any
semi-auto hunting rifle is practically the same thing if not
better, so I'll just get one of those when I need an assault
rifle.

The latest tally...

[begin tally 12:15 am 040520]

Lifted 33%
72769 votes

Extended 67%
147355 votes

Total: 220124 votes

[end tally]


author: Nightwing

subject: Re: POLL

text:
I am for extended the ban. I am not worried about assault rifles, but I am
very worried about MORONS
with assault rifles. Unfortunatly being a Moron isn't a crime. Could you
imagine if we could lock up morons, we
would have have to build a prison the size of Texas, but at least we could
keep the assault weapons.

"Gun Woman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns94EEDC2307894Boo@206.124.0.13...


subject: Re: POLL

text:
On 19-May-2004, Gun Woman <[email]> wrote:

What situation do you envision where you need a fucking assault weapon? And
if you need that kind of firepower, what makes you think the other guy isn't
better armed and better trained?

The majority of people in this country want the federal ban on assault
weapons extended...forever.

BTW, I did click the link and vote. Thanks for the tipoff.


author: gavnook

subject: Re: POLL

text:
The Lone Weasel <[email]> wrote in
news:Xns94EF46E3A7C2loneweaselyahooco@130.133.1.4:

Why'd you vote to extend then?

--gavnook

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable.
--John F. Kennedy


subject: Re: POLL

text:
Nightwing wrote:

Being from France must make you stupid, doesn't it?


author: Strabo

subject: Re: POLL

text:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 20:35:05 +0200, "Nightwing" <[email]>
wrote:

Then you must also be very worried about MORONS with cars;
MORONS with fertilizer; MORONS with bleach; MORONS with
rocks; MORONS with planes; MORONS that vote.

Laws of prohibition and prior restraint are made with you
in mind.

The only question is, which will disappear first, MORONS or
everything that worries you?


author: James Mayer

subject: Re: POLL

text:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 08:18:16 GMT, [email] wrote:

    And you don't really know what these so-called assault weapons
really are, do you?

    They don't have a clue what they want or what an "assault weapon"
really is.

"[Assault weapons'] menacing looks, coupled with the public's
confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic
assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to
be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for
restrictions on these weapons."
--Josh Sugarmann, executive director of New Right Watchband spokesman
for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, "Assault Weapons and
Accessories in America," policy report of New Right Watch and the
Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, September 1988


author: Eric

subject: Re: POLL

text:
<[email]> wrote:

To kill someone as rapidly and efficiently as possible who would
otherwise kill me or my family.

It makes no sense to require someone to be less armed and less trained
to defend their life and the life of their family.


author: You Know Who

subject: Re: POLL

text: It doesn't much matter what they want. We don't live in a democracy.


subject: Re: POLL

text:
gavnook <[email]> wrote in
news:Xns94EF8A1CC879gavnook@68.12.19.6:

You agree that regular semi-auto rifles are just as good if
not better than semi-auto assault weapons, right?  So who
gives a damn if a few goofy looking so-called assault weapons
are banned; we still have semi-auto assault weapons that were
manufactured before the ban, right?

Our troops are dying in Iraq as Bush's idiotic war spins out
of control, the economy still sucks for most Americans and
will for a long time, and the average price of gasoline
nationwide is over two dollars a gallon.  We already have
more guns than we have people in this country.

Time to worry about important stuff.  When that's taken care
of, worry about piddling stuff again.

_________________

Perpetua lex est, nullam legem humanum ac positivam
perpetuam esse; et clausula quae abrogationem excludit
initio non valet. It is a perpetual law that no human or
positive law can be perpetual; and a clause in a law which
precludes the power of abrogation is void ab initio. Bacon's
Max. in Reg. 19.


subject: Re: POLL

text:
On 20-May-2004, [email] (Eric) wrote:

You didn't describe a SITUATION. You described a vague OBJECTIVE. We already
know killing is your point. But what SITUATION could you possibly envision
where an assault weapon would actually protect your family? A street
robbery? A carjacking?

Think like a person who is trying to find a practical tool to solve a
practical problem. Let's hear a situation, a problem, where a large weapon
is the solution or tool of choice.

Please describe a situation you have been in where you either pulled a gun
or could have made the situation better if you had had a gun. Any gun.

Eric


subject: Re: POLL

text:
On 20-May-2004, You Know Who <[email]> wrote:

I know. But it's fun to pretend.

Eric


subject: Re: POLL

text:
No.

Most normal, reasonable people give a damn.

Until they decide those are "dangerous" too.

I don't have enough guns.

This is important stuff.


subject: Re: POLL

text:
The Lone Weasel <[email]> wrote in
news:Xns94EF564257E1Cloneweaselyahooco@130.133.1.4:

Wrong. There are certain features banned by the 1994 AWB that I happen to
like. Higher capacity magazines, for instance. And I tend to prefer
military style rifles over hunting rifles, since I don't hunt. If hunting
rifles were "better", our soldiers would carry them.

You do. In fact, you apparently think it's a good idea. You're basically
asking why anyone would object to an arbitrary law. In other words, you
think the law is somehow okay, not in spite of, but because of it's
pointlessness.

What's this "we" shit? I was 15 years old when the AWB went into effect.
I didn't own any firearms at that time. Now I have to pay an extra high
price if I want anything pre-ban, because the supply of those items can
only drop.

Again, point?

Look, I have to worry about a government that might take me to Iraq and
hand me a weapon it doesn't trust me with in my own country. Don't you
dare accuse me of not knowing what's important.

BTW, you did not answer my question. Maybe you should run for office.

--gavnook

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
--John F. Kennedy


author: Walt

subject: Re: POLL

text:
"The Lone Weasel" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns94EF564257E1Cloneweaselyahooco@130.133.1.4...

So as far as your concerned, it's okay for the left to declair something is
illegal simply because they think it "looks" threatening? What's next?
PitBulls? How about banning people with hair lips? They can scare the hell
out of some unsuspecting 'innocent'.

WTF does any of this have to do with the extension of the AWB?

You mean like protecting the sanctity of the Constitution by making sure the
right of a person to keep and bare arms is not impugned simply because the
gun LOOKS funny?
 When that's taken care

Yea, like making sure I get out to VOTE!

Walt
Livin it up in sunny Florida!


subject: Re: POLL

text:
[email] wrote:

How long have you been starved of oxygen?

First, YOU must define what an "ASSAULT WEAPON" is, you silly vague
child!

Then, you must tell us all what "NEED" is, vs what a person has a right
to own!


author: GS

subject: Re: POLL

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] wrote:
Need has nothing to do with it bozo!  It is simply that I "want"
one.  It's none of your business why is it?

Again, this is none of your pathetic business.  Mind your own rights and
leave mine alone.


subject: Re: POLL

text:
[email] wrote:

Noted!
 You seem to do that quite often.


subject: Re: POLL

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] wrote:
If the majority wanted to reinstitute slavery that would be OK
then right?  The Constitution and Bill of Rights were put in place
to keep the majority from riding roughshod over the individual.


author: Steve Krulick

subject: Re: POLL

text:
[email] wrote:

Madison, in the Federalist (14) draws a distinction between a
republic and a "true" or "pure" democracy: "It is, that in a
democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in
person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their
representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be
confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a
large region... As the natural limit of a democracy is that
distance from the central point which will just permit the most
remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions
demand, and will include no greater number than can join in
those functions."

That being said, democracy IS currently defined as:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people
and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free
elections."

That is certainly broader than Madison's "true" democracy, but
certain trolls and disingenuous obfuscators wish to ignore how
words are actually used in context, but, like Humpty Dumpty, use
words just as they want to use them, even defining OTHER persons
idiosyncratically.

Is this the old "We're a REPUBLIC, NOT a DEMOCRACY!" wheeze?

If so, ObiRush has brainwashed you well, young Jedi!

Here's another one: "Dubya is a husband, not a father." One
more: "Ice Cream is a dessert, not a food."

See the way this works... say that something is one thing, and
therefore can't be something else. Now, maybe this can work in
clearly mutually exclusionary cases -- "Steve is a boy, not a
girl" -- but that isn't always so.

We live in a constitutional representative democratic republic.
We live in a republican democracy.

Why don't we see what the dictionaries say:

Democracy:

Merriam-Webster New Collegiate: 1b) a government in which the
supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them
directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu.
involving periodically held free elections.

American Heritage Dictionary: 1) Government by the people,
exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Let's see what Dubya said at his Inaugurauction:

"Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom
and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon
the wind, taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is
more than the creed of our country. It is the in-born hope of
our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear
and pass along... The most important tasks of a democracy are
done by everyone..."

Personally, I think he's bloviating; and since the majority of
voters did NOT vote for him, but he claims to be Prez in spite
of that, I think he should be restricted from using the word
"democracy," and have his knuckles rapped each time he utters
the sacred meme.

How about another prez, Ike, at his farewell from office?:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for
the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes...  It is the task of
statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and
other forces, new and old, within the principles of our
democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our
free society... We want democracy to survive for all generations
to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow..."

I could go on and on with speeches from US presidents and
from public documents going back over two hundred years, all
matter-of-factly referring to the US as a democracy, indeed, the
world's oldest continuous democracy. (What do you think
Jefferson and his colleagues were thinking when they called
their political party "Democrat-Republican"?)

Trent Lott called Sen. Jeffords move to independence: "... the
impetuous decision of one man to undermine our democracy!" OUR
democracy? What do you think he was talking about? Is Lott
standing at the head of some mob rule tyranny of the masses we
never realized? Does he really believe in direct voting on
legislation by the mob? Or was he just posturing and bloviating
like Bush?

Do YOU want to adhere to some musty and narrow Aristotelian
equation that makes democracy = mob rule = tyranny of the
masses?

I will only accept people using Aristotle's narrow definition of
democracy (mob rule! tyranny of the masses!) if they can explain
it in original Greek!

Are you a strict Aristotelian who can't abide standard usage of
words as they've been used for over two hundred years? To quote
fellow poster mahabarbara:

Indeed, here's some commentary from the First Congress, 1789,
during debates over the 1st Amen:

GALES & SEATON'S HISTORY OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS
761-762 / 771-772
August 15, 1789   Amendments to the Constitution

Mr. Page: ... The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells you, that in
England this principle is doubted; how far this is consonant
with the nature of the Government I will not pretend to say; but
I am not astonished to find that the administrators of a
monarchical Government are unassailable by the weak voice of the
people; but under a DEMOCRACY, whose great end is to form a code
of laws congenial with the public sentiment, the popular opinion
ought to be collected and attended to. Our present object is, I
presume, to secure to our constituents and to posterity these
inestimable rights. Our Government is derived from the people,
of consequence the people have a right to consult for the common
good; but to what end will this be done, if they have not the
power of instructing their representatives? Instruction and
representation in a republic appear to me to be inseparably
connected; but were I the subject of a monarch, I should doubt
whether the public good did not depend more upon the prince's
will than the will of the people...

Mr. Gerry: There was one remark which escaped him, when he was
up before. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone) had said that
amendment would change the nature of the Government, and make it
a DEMOCRACY. Now he had always heard that it WAS a DEMOCRACY;
but perhaps he was misled and the honorable gentleman was right
in distinguishing it by some other appellation; perhaps an
aristocracy was a term better adapted to it.
[Gerry's use of sarcasm noted]

Mr. Page: ... [The amendment] was strictly compatible with the
spirit and the nature of the Government; all power vests in the
people of the United States; it is, therefore, a Government OF
THE PEOPLE, A DEMOCRACY. If it were consistent with the peace
and tranquillity of the inhabitants, every freeman would have a
right to come and give his vote upon the law; but, inasmuch as
this cannot he done, by reason of the extent of territory, and
some other causes, the people have agreed that their
representatives shall exercise a part of their authority...

----------

To be fair, we are more of a plutocratic, kleptocratic
corpocracy than a democracy today, anyway. (The founders
certainly did NOT intend the Republic to be run by non-person
corporations any more than by mobs.) Yet they also sanctioned
slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, blacks,
amerindians, 18-year-olds, and non-property owners. We have
corrected those latter oversights, so why not correct other
anachronistic vestiges of anti-democratic 18th century
prejudices?

Methinks your powdered wig is on too tight.


subject: Re: POLL

text:
gavnook <[email]> wrote in
news:Xns94EFAC89C6EBBgavnook@68.6.19.6:

That's just wrong, because TPG gunloons argued that so-called
assault weapons were just semi-auto rifles like hunting
rifles.  I just assumed they were telling the truth.

Now you say assault weapons have advantages over regular
hunting rifles, high capacity mags, the military style -
whatever that means - and the fact that the military uses
assault weapons which suggests they're better at killing
people than regular hunting rifles...

Maybe that's why we have an assault-weapon ban!  Thanks for
pointing that out, glasnookie...

Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.

________________

Longum tempus, et longus usus qui excedit memoria hominum,
sufficit pro jure. Long time and long use, beyond the memory
of man, suffices for right. Co. Litt. 115.


subject: Re: POLL

text:
"Walt" <[email]> wrote in
news:EQvrc.25286$[email]:

Actually, Gabnook said the assault weapons are more deadly,
better for infantry troops.

Read the thread, dumbass.

Pitbulls can be very fucking dangerous if their owners abuse
them and train them poorly, as most do.

Do you have a harelip?  Strange feature to pick for being
scary.

Seems pretty obvious to me.  You obviously have more trivial
interests.

You don't have any Constitutional right to have assault
weapons, ridiculous troll.

_______________

Lex non curat de minimis. The law does not regard small
matters. Hob. 88.


author: O O

subject: Re: POLL

text:
Re: POLL
 ,  [email] wrote:
The majority of people in this country want the federal ban on assault
weapons extended...forever.
----------------------------
It doesn't much matter what they want. We don't live in a democracy.
--------------------------
I know. But it's fun to pretend.
Eric
--------------------------------
If the majority wanted to reinstitute slavery that would be OK then
right? The Constitution and Bill of Rights were put in place to keep the
majority from riding roughshod over the individual.
------------------------------------------------
By Jove!, you do understand, if the majority wants to stop the minority
from having and keeping arms the, Bill of Rights was supposed to keep
the majority from riding roughshod over the individual.....OvwvO


subject: Re: POLL

text:
GS wrote:

Straw. One would have to amend the Const, with all that implies
(passing 2/3 of both houses of Congress, 3/4 of state
legislatures, or as otherwise required by Art V of the Const),
which is NOT a simple majority.

Do you prefer, perhaps, that the MINORITY should rule? Hamilton
thought not, and confirmed that the essence of decision making
in a Republic had to conform to the will of the majority, and
that minorities should not be able to "outvote" majorities by
undemocratic "accounting" methods (four small states outvoting
one large state that has double the population of the other
four).

But was it to let the MINORITY ride roughshod over the MAJORITY?
Is THAT what you defend?

Madison, in the Federalist (14) draws a distinction between a
republic and a "true" or "pure" democracy: "It is, that in a
democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in
person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their
representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be
confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a
large region... As the natural limit of a democracy is that
distance from the central point which will just permit the most
remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions
demand, and will include no greater number than can join in
those functions."

That being said, democracy IS currently defined as:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people
and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free
elections."

That is certainly broader than Madison's "true" democracy, but
certain trolls and disingenuous obfuscators wish to ignore how
words are actually used in context, but, like Humpty Dumpty, use
words just as they want to use them, even defining OTHER persons
idiosyncratically.

Is this the old "We're a REPUBLIC, NOT a DEMOCRACY!" wheeze?

If so, ObiRush has brainwashed you well, young Jedi!

Here's another one: "Dubya is a husband, not a father." One
more: "Ice Cream is a dessert, not a food."

See the way this works... say that something is one thing, and
therefore can't be something else. Now, maybe this can work in
clearly mutually exclusionary cases -- "Steve is a boy, not a
girl" -- but that isn't always so.

We live in a constitutional representative democratic republic.
We live in a republican democracy.

Why don't we see what the dictionaries say:

Democracy:

Merriam-Webster New Collegiate: 1b) a government in which the
supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them
directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu.
involving periodically held free elections.

American Heritage Dictionary: 1) Government by the people,
exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Let's see what Dubya said at his Inaugurauction:

"Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom
and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon
the wind, taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is
more than the creed of our country. It is the in-born hope of
our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear
and pass along... The most important tasks of a democracy are
done by everyone..."

Personally, I think he's bloviating; and since the majority of
voters did NOT vote for him, but he claims to be Prez in spite
of that, I think he should be restricted from using the word
"democracy," and have his knuckles rapped each time he utters
the sacred meme.

How about another prez, Ike, at his farewell from office?:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for
the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes...  It is the task of
statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and
other forces, new and old, within the principles of our
democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our
free society... We want democracy to survive for all generations
to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow..."

I could go on and on with speeches from US presidents and
from public documents going back over two hundred years, all
matter-of-factly referring to the US as a democracy, indeed, the
world's oldest continuous democracy. (What do you think
Jefferson and his colleagues were thinking when they called
their political party "Democrat-Republican"?)

Trent Lott called Sen. Jeffords move to independence: "... the
impetuous decision of one man to undermine our democracy!" OUR
democracy? What do you think he was talking about? Is Lott
standing at the head of some mob rule tyranny of the masses we
never realized? Does he really believe in direct voting on
legislation by the mob? Or was he just posturing and bloviating
like Bush?

Do YOU want to adhere to some musty and narrow Aristotelian
equation that makes democracy = mob rule = tyranny of the
masses?

I will only accept people using Aristotle's narrow definition of
democracy (mob rule! tyranny of the masses!) if they can explain
it in original Greek!

Are you a strict Aristotelian who can't abide standard usage of
words as they've been used for over two hundred years? To quote
fellow poster mahabarbara:

Indeed, here's some commentary from the First Congress, 1789,
during debates over the 1st Amen:

GALES & SEATON'S HISTORY OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS
761-762 / 771-772
August 15, 1789   Amendments to the Constitution

Mr. Page: ... The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells you, that in
England this principle is doubted; how far this is consonant
with the nature of the Government I will not pretend to say; but
I am not astonished to find that the administrators of a
monarchical Government are unassailable by the weak voice of the
people; but under a DEMOCRACY, whose great end is to form a code
of laws congenial with the public sentiment, the popular opinion
ought to be collected and attended to. Our present object is, I
presume, to secure to our constituents and to posterity these
inestimable rights. Our Government is derived from the people,
of consequence the people have a right to consult for the common
good; but to what end will this be done, if they have not the
power of instructing their representatives? Instruction and
representation in a republic appear to me to be inseparably
connected; but were I the subject of a monarch, I should doubt
whether the public good did not depend more upon the prince's
will than the will of the people...

Mr. Gerry: There was one remark which escaped him, when he was
up before. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone) had said that
amendment would change the nature of the Government, and make it
a DEMOCRACY. Now he had always heard that it WAS a DEMOCRACY;
but perhaps he was misled and the honorable gentleman was right
in distinguishing it by some other appellation; perhaps an
aristocracy was a term better adapted to it.
[Gerry's use of sarcasm noted]

Mr. Page: ... [The amendment] was strictly compatible with the
spirit and the nature of the Government; all power vests in the
people of the United States; it is, therefore, a Government OF
THE PEOPLE, A DEMOCRACY. If it were consistent with the peace
and tranquillity of the inhabitants, every freeman would have a
right to come and give his vote upon the law; but, inasmuch as
this cannot he done, by reason of the extent of territory, and
some other causes, the people have agreed that their
representatives shall exercise a part of their authority...

----------

To be fair, we are more of a plutocratic, kleptocratic
corpocracy than a democracy today, anyway. (The founders
certainly did NOT intend the Republic to be run by non-person
corporations any more than by mobs.) Yet they also sanctioned
slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, blacks,
amerindians, 18-year-olds, and non-property owners. We have
corrected those latter oversights, so why not correct other
anachronistic vestiges of anti-democratic 18th century
prejudices?

Methinks your powdered wig is on too tight.


subject: Re: POLL

text:
The Lone Weasel <[email]> wrote in
news:Xns94EFC6A47662Bloneweaselyahooco@130.133.1.4:

Not exactly. The argument tends to be that the AWB is arbitrary. There is
no logical reason for it's existence.

First off, military style would be the style of firearms commonly used by
modern military, such as the M-4/M-16/AR-15 and AK-47. In other words,
the specific weapons banned by the AWB. All rifles of sufficient caliber
are quite lethal. It's not so much that these ugly guns are better for
killing people than other rifles, but that they're better suited for most
combat situations. Infantrymen would be at a significant disadvantage
using lower capicity, longer, less durable weapons. It is for this reason
that such weapons should be the LAST to be banned, not the first.

--gavnook

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
--John F. Kennedy


subject: Re: POLL

text:
On 21 May 2004 23:38:23 GMT, The Lone Weasel
<[email]> wrote:

    Your continued denial of the truth brands you as a what?

     According to Miller, they are the ones specifically protected:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

     ... when called for service these men were expected to
 appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind
in common use at the time."

2A
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

     Letï¿½s compare the two:

    ... when called for service (in the militia because the security
and freedoms of The United States is being threatened from without
or within)these men were expected to appear bearing arms ( with
ammunition and being well practiced in their use(well regulated))
supplied by themselves (the people keeping and bearing Arms) and of
the kind in common use at the time (typical militarily usefull
weapons)(shall not be infringed) .


subject: Re: POLL

text:
Steve Krulick <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

So it would be okay if the Constituion were ammended say so?

--gavnook

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable.
--John F. Kennedy


subject: Re: POLL

text:
gavnook <[email]> wrote in
news:Xns94F03B5FBFDBBgavnook@68.6.19.6:

You just said assault weapons are deadlier than hunting
rifles.  As I recall you can also modify some of them to
select or full automatics, they used to sell kits for that
that you could buy at gunshows, gun shops, from private
sellers, ads in gun magazines.

I don't know gunsmithing, but could you also use those
conversion kits, say, on a Marlin lever-action?  Or a semi-
auto huntin rifle?

Probably the military style makes it easier to handle the
rifle, aim and shoot quickly, when killing the enemy.  We see
those rifles the troops have in Iraq, the way they hold them
seems unusual to me but it must be efficient.

What a coincidence.

A .22 is pretty damn lethal, bounces off your bones tearing
your innards to shreds.  I think there's a Geneva Convention
against those kinds of rounds; they require bullets that
would pass through possibly resulting in a more survivable
wound.

Like gunning down kindergarten kiddies and their middle-aged
teachers, all unarmed.

Or maybe like squaring off against those ravenous squirrels
waiting to pounce on your head and eat your eyeballs, and
then the rest of you, it takes hours bore they reach your
heart, you feel them digging through the breastplate, into
the gristle, into the meat of your heart, you feel something
squirting you in the face, it's one of the squirrels pissing
down a hole they gnawed into your sinuses, and then merciful
oblivion...

No, you're still conscious as they teach the baby squirrels
to consume your liver and some smartass teenage squirrels
play tetherball with your genitals, and then you hear a
scream, no it's not you, the little bastards ate away your
larynx early on - it's your wife - oh god this is the worst!
- she's having sex - sex with the liberal mayor of your town!
Mayor Goldman - NANCY Goldman!  If only you had an AK-47 none
of this would have happened - you could have killed the
squirrels as they leapt at you - in stop-motion like in the
movies - and then you could have killed your wife and that
lesbian mayor.  And it's all the fault of liberals who passed
that damn assault weapon ban!

If you're in the military or the militia they give you guns
like that.

If you're not an infantryman you don't need military weapons.

__________________

Bonum necessarium extra terminos necessitatis non est bonum.
Necessary good is not good beyond the bounds of necessity.
Hob. 144.


subject: Re: POLL

text:
gavnook wrote:

Would it be "morally" OK? No, of course not, silly.

Would it ever happen? No, of course not, silly.

But if the Const WERE so amended, it would be as legal as it was
pre-Civil War.

That's how the Const works!

Care to address the REST of my post?:

Do you prefer, perhaps, that the MINORITY should rule? Hamilton
thought not, and confirmed that the essence of decision making
in a Republic had to conform to the will of the majority, and
that minorities should not be able to "outvote" majorities by
undemocratic "accounting" methods (four small states outvoting
one large state that has double the population of the other
four).

But was it to let the MINORITY ride roughshod over the MAJORITY?
Is THAT what you defend?

Madison, in the Federalist (14) draws a distinction between a
republic and a "true" or "pure" democracy: "It is, that in a
democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in
person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their
representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be
confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a
large region... As the natural limit of a democracy is that
distance from the central point which will just permit the most
remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions
demand, and will include no greater number than can join in
those functions."

That being said, democracy IS currently defined as:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people
and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free
elections."

That is certainly broader than Madison's "true" democracy, but
certain trolls and disingenuous obfuscators wish to ignore how
words are actually used in context, but, like Humpty Dumpty, use
words just as they want to use them, even defining OTHER persons
idiosyncratically.

Is this the old "We're a REPUBLIC, NOT a DEMOCRACY!" wheeze?

If so, ObiRush has brainwashed you well, young Jedi!

Here's another one: "Dubya is a husband, not a father." One
more: "Ice Cream is a dessert, not a food."

See the way this works... say that something is one thing, and
therefore can't be something else. Now, maybe this can work in
clearly mutually exclusionary cases -- "Steve is a boy, not a
girl" -- but that isn't always so.

We live in a constitutional representative democratic republic.
We live in a republican democracy.

Why don't we see what the dictionaries say:

Democracy:

Merriam-Webster New Collegiate: 1b) a government in which the
supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them
directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu.
involving periodically held free elections.

American Heritage Dictionary: 1) Government by the people,
exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Let's see what Dubya said at his Inaugurauction:

"Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom
and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon
the wind, taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is
more than the creed of our country. It is the in-born hope of
our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear
and pass along... The most important tasks of a democracy are
done by everyone..."

Personally, I think he's bloviating; and since the majority of
voters did NOT vote for him, but he claims to be Prez in spite
of that, I think he should be restricted from using the word
"democracy," and have his knuckles rapped each time he utters
the sacred meme.

How about another prez, Ike, at his farewell from office?:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for
the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes...  It is the task of
statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and
other forces, new and old, within the principles of our
democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our
free society... We want democracy to survive for all generations
to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow..."

I could go on and on with speeches from US presidents and
from public documents going back over two hundred years, all
matter-of-factly referring to the US as a democracy, indeed, the
world's oldest continuous democracy. (What do you think
Jefferson and his colleagues were thinking when they called
their political party "Democrat-Republican"?)

Trent Lott called Sen. Jeffords move to independence: "... the
impetuous decision of one man to undermine our democracy!" OUR
democracy? What do you think he was talking about? Is Lott
standing at the head of some mob rule tyranny of the masses we
never realized? Does he really believe in direct voting on
legislation by the mob? Or was he just posturing and bloviating
like Bush?

Do YOU want to adhere to some musty and narrow Aristotelian
equation that makes democracy = mob rule = tyranny of the
masses?

I will only accept people using Aristotle's narrow definition of
democracy (mob rule! tyranny of the masses!) if they can explain
it in original Greek!

Are you a strict Aristotelian who can't abide standard usage of
words as they've been used for over two hundred years? To quote
fellow poster mahabarbara:

Indeed, here's some commentary from the First Congress, 1789,
during debates over the 1st Amen:

GALES & SEATON'S HISTORY OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS
761-762 / 771-772
August 15, 1789   Amendments to the Constitution

Mr. Page: ... The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells you, that in
England this principle is doubted; how far this is consonant
with the nature of the Government I will not pretend to say; but
I am not astonished to find that the administrators of a
monarchical Government are unassailable by the weak voice of the
people; but under a DEMOCRACY, whose great end is to form a code
of laws congenial with the public sentiment, the popular opinion
ought to be collected and attended to. Our present object is, I
presume, to secure to our constituents and to posterity these
inestimable rights. Our Government is derived from the people,
of consequence the people have a right to consult for the common
good; but to what end will this be done, if they have not the
power of instructing their representatives? Instruction and
representation in a republic appear to me to be inseparably
connected; but were I the subject of a monarch, I should doubt
whether the public good did not depend more upon the prince's
will than the will of the people...

Mr. Gerry: There was one remark which escaped him, when he was
up before. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone) had said that
amendment would change the nature of the Government, and make it
a DEMOCRACY. Now he had always heard that it WAS a DEMOCRACY;
but perhaps he was misled and the honorable gentleman was right
in distinguishing it by some other appellation; perhaps an
aristocracy was a term better adapted to it.
[Gerry's use of sarcasm noted]

Mr. Page: ... [The amendment] was strictly compatible with the
spirit and the nature of the Government; all power vests in the
people of the United States; it is, therefore, a Government OF
THE PEOPLE, A DEMOCRACY. If it were consistent with the peace
and tranquillity of the inhabitants, every freeman would have a
right to come and give his vote upon the law; but, inasmuch as
this cannot he done, by reason of the extent of territory, and
some other causes, the people have agreed that their
representatives shall exercise a part of their authority...

----------

To be fair, we are more of a plutocratic, kleptocratic
corpocracy than a democracy today, anyway. (The founders
certainly did NOT intend the Republic to be run by non-person
corporations any more than by mobs.) Yet they also sanctioned
slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, blacks,
amerindians, 18-year-olds, and non-property owners. We have
corrected those latter oversights, so why not correct other
anachronistic vestiges of anti-democratic 18th century
prejudices?

Methinks your powdered wig is on too tight.


subject: Re: POLL

text:
The Lone Weasel <[email]> wrote in
news:Xns94F0638324056loneweaselyahooco@130.133.1.4:

I said no such thing.

I'm not a gunsmith either, but I understand that pratically any semi-auto
firearm can be made to fire full-auto.

<snip>

<snip>

I'm in the militia and nobody's given me shit. In fact, people like you
think I shouldn't be able to even buy weapons like that.

Then why are they issued to all US Army soldiers, including finance
clerks, and trombone players.

--gavnook

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
--John F. Kennedy


author: Kerry Sleaze Continues

subject: Re: Photo of Kerry with Fonda enrages Vietnam veterans

text:
"abracadabra" <[email]> wrote in message
news:XrqYb.8486$[email]...
program.

Proof?


author: Tom Aldrich

text:
Kerry Sleaze Continues wrote:

Well of course you know where they are, their probadly under the crap in your
trailer, when are you going to get off the comp and get a real life
stupid ass clown


author: Hanoi John Kerry

text:
Tommy quickly concedes intellectual defeat, once again.....

"Tom Aldrich" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
the
reports
biological
al
Hussein
your


author: America

subject: Re: Soldier Deaths Due To Bush Lies Make Him Guilty of Treason

text:
The buskultie is without intellect, unable to contemplate the
inappropriate nature of telling lies, cheating, stealing, or killing.


author: Andrew Bettison

subject: Man or Human?

text:
A reflection on listening.  In particular, listening to women,
although a lot of this applies when listening to men as well.

She tells her story.  Chances are, there's a man somewhere in it
who mistreated her.  Rape, abuse, harrassment, or just objectification...
it needn't be severe.  In any case, there's a man, and in her story
he's a perpetrator.  If she's having difficulty telling her story
straight, then chances are she's still identifying as his victim
in some measure.

Now, I have a choice here.  I can place my Manhood above my Humanity,
or I can place my Humanity above my Manhood.

What if Manhood comes first?  I identify more strongly with the
man in her story than with her.  Suddenly she's describing me.
I'm being attacked.  I want to retaliate.  Argue.  She senses this,
and it's no longer safe for her to keep talking.  End of story.
Still a victim.

So I place my Humanity first.  She's talking about a bad man, and
he's not me.  I keep listening.  She senses safety, and starts to
let her distress show.  Sweeping generalisations about men.  She
stops noticing that I'm a man - right now I'm a Human - and says
stuff which, taken personally, could be pretty offensive.  I didn't
do any of this stuff to her, so there's no need to believe her
accusations.  They're just the product of her experience.  She
finishes her story.  No argument from me; no invalidation.  Her
victim's weaker, her Human's stronger.

A question: _why_ is it so important for me to _be a Man_ all the
time?


author: Martin Bosworth

subject: Re: Man or Human?

text:
Let me begin by reiterating the old aphorism that a REAL man doesn't rape,
so your manhood shouldn't condemn you outright.
Now, what is a "man"?  We're dealing with centuries of cultural, social,
and psychological paradigms that hang over a simple "fifteen centimeters of
flesh", to quote a novel I recently read.  How do we sort out the "John Wayne
macho man" from the "sensitive PC 90's man" and the "clueless Neanderthal
man", etc., etc., ?
	The answer is Don't!!! Stop worrying about other people's perceptions
of your gender role in society==it is YOUR role to play.  You can take all of
the different factors mentioned above, and say, <FUCK 'EM>.  BE YOURSELF, and
be a friend to your friend.
	If you empathize with the "aggressor" in the story, that is good! It
will help you sort out fact from fiction, and point your friend in the right
direction to get help and support, without automatically consigning her to the
'victim' model.  And just because you empathize with someone, doesn't make you
SUSCEPTIBLE to their flaws.  Heck, I could empathize with the cops who beat up
Rodney King, but that didn't make it any harder for me to see that what they
did was abhorrent and inhumane.  (BTW, if anyone infers from this that I am
somehow a racist, you are welcome to flame to me all you want.  I DON'T GIVE
A FUCK!!!!!)
	Humanity cuts across gender, race, religion, ethnicity.  The blood
we bleed, the ties that bind--all these things are stronger than bullshit
machismo.  Good luck, and peace.

Martin "wrath" Bosworth ([email])

Andrew Bettison ([email]) wrote:
: A reflection on listening.  In particular, listening to women,
: although a lot of this applies when listening to men as well.

: She tells her story.  Chances are, there's a man somewhere in it
: who mistreated her.  Rape, abuse, harrassment, or just objectification...
: it needn't be severe.  In any case, there's a man, and in her story
: he's a perpetrator.  If she's having difficulty telling her story
: straight, then chances are she's still identifying as his victim
: in some measure.

: Now, I have a choice here.  I can place my Manhood above my Humanity,
: or I can place my Humanity above my Manhood.

: What if Manhood comes first?  I identify more strongly with the
: man in her story than with her.  Suddenly she's describing me.
: I'm being attacked.  I want to retaliate.  Argue.  She senses this,
: and it's no longer safe for her to keep talking.  End of story.
: Still a victim.

: So I place my Humanity first.  She's talking about a bad man, and
: he's not me.  I keep listening.  She senses safety, and starts to
: let her distress show.  Sweeping generalisations about men.  She
: stops noticing that I'm a man - right now I'm a Human - and says
: stuff which, taken personally, could be pretty offensive.  I didn't
: do any of this stuff to her, so there's no need to believe her
: accusations.  They're just the product of her experience.  She
: finishes her story.  No argument from me; no invalidation.  Her
: victim's weaker, her Human's stronger.

: A question: _why_ is it so important for me to _be a Man_ all the
: time?

: --
: Andrew Bettison


author: Christina

subject: Re: Man or Human?

text:
Andrew, your post was very intelligent and sensitive.  You are right in
saying that it is right to be human before trying to be a "man".  A lot
of "masculinity" in society, especially the emphasis on being "macho",
overly aggressive to the point of violence or harassment, and so on are
social constructs and are not, in my opinion, what it means to be a man
in reality.
In my opinion, being a man constitutes doing exactly what you have done:
expressing sensitivity and compassion and also strength.  It is also what
I consider being human.
I'm glad you also realize that women in this newsgroup and elsewhere are
not accusing all men of being "bad", although we may be angry at times
and it may seem that we are accusing all men.  But we are not.  There are
very few women, even among us "femmenazis" :-) who feel that all men are
out to do something terrible to us.
Thanks for understanding, and setting an example.  Your post is one of
the nicest I've seen here in a long time.


author: Peter B.

subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
"Jan Drew" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Deleted unfounded copyright text.

Janet Drew lies..................................a lot!


author: Mark Probert-Drew

subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
On May 22, 8:59 pm, Jan Drew <[email]> wrote:

I can imagine it.

Hogwash. As a kid, I used to get some from my dentist and play with
it.

I have lived to an age which Jan Drool cannot even calculate. Call me
Methusallah.


subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
On May 22, 11:06 pm, Steven Bornfeld <[email]>
wrote:

Agreed. I am even old enough to get a kit called "Asbestos-The
Friendly Mineral". Those days are over.

At my "age" that would be a challenge.


author: Peter Bowditch

subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
Jan Drew <[email]> wrote:

That must be why I'm so dead. I've held mercury in my hand countless
times - when I was at the dentist as a child, while doing chemistry at
high school, ...

Making stupid statements like "A single drop on a human hand can be
irreversibly fatal" just illustrates how weak the argument against
mercury is.


subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
On May 23, 8:09 am, Peter Bowditch <[email]> wrote:

I was thinking about that. Perhaps a half-drop can be reversibly
fatal?


author: Jan

subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
On May 22, 9:52 pm, Mark Probert-Drew <[email]> wrote:

***In August 1996 Karen Wetterhahn,  a chemistry professor at
Dartmouth
College in Hanover, New Hampshire, spilled a few drops of a
laboratory
compound called dimethyl mercury onto one of her hands. She was
wearing latex lab gloves, so she didn’t think much of it. A colleague
saw her at a conference the following November. “She said she thought
she was coming down with the flu,” says toxicologist Vas Aposhian of
the University of Arizona. By the time Wetterhahn was diagnosed with
mercury poisoning, in January, it was too late. Despite subsequent
treatment that helped clear the metal from her body, she lapsed into
a
vegetative state in February and died the following June. ***


subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
On May 22, 11:06 pm, Steven Bornfeld <[email]>
wrote:

Shame on you, Steve.  This is a serious matter.
You used to be a gentleman, what happened?

***In August 1996 Karen Wetterhahn,  a chemistry professor at
Dartmouth
College in Hanover, New Hampshire, spilled a few drops of a
laboratory
compound called dimethyl mercury onto one of her hands. She was
wearing latex lab gloves, so she didn’t think much of it. A colleague
saw her at a conference the following November. “She said she thought
she was coming down with the flu,” says toxicologist Vas Aposhian of
the University of Arizona. By the time Wetterhahn was diagnosed with
mercury poisoning, in January, it was too late. Despite subsequent
treatment that helped clear the metal from her body, she lapsed into
a
vegetative state in February and died the following June.***


subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
On May 23, 8:09 am, Peter Bowditch <[email]> wrote:

[   ]

***In August 1996 Karen Wetterhahn,  a chemistry professor at
Dartmouth
College in Hanover, New Hampshire, spilled a few drops of a
laboratory
compound called dimethyl mercury onto one of her hands. She was
wearing latex lab gloves, so she didn’t think much of it. A colleague
saw her at a conference the following November. “She said she thought
she was coming down with the flu,” says toxicologist Vas Aposhian of
the University of Arizona. By the time Wetterhahn was diagnosed with
mercury poisoning, in January, it was too late. Despite subsequent
treatment that helped clear the metal from her body, she lapsed into
a
vegetative state in February and died the following June.***

http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2008-10th-anniversary-edition/remembering-karen-wetterhahn

http://collaborations.denison.edu/naosmm/topics/dartmouth.html

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/srp/training/training6.cfm


author: Mark Probert

subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
On May 24, 1:06 am, Jan <[email]> wrote:

You moved th goal posts, you idiot. The article was clearly referring
to elemental mercury, not dimethyl mercury.

However, this now proves that you realize that the toxicity of mercury
depends on the form.


subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
"Jan Drew" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

  More options May 22, 8:59 pm

Deleted copyright and lies repeated by one infected with parrotosis.

One has to wonder how many children did Jan harm in her day care?


author: Steven Bornfeld

subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
Mark Probert-Drew wrote:

	I did too.  I wouldn't recommend it as an activity to my daughter though.

	I genuflect in your general direction.

Steve


subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
"Mark Probert-Drew" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On May 22, 11:06 pm, Steven Bornfeld <[email]>
wrote:

Agreed. I am even old enough to get a kit called "Asbestos-The
Friendly Mineral". Those days are over.
===============================================
Sadly they are. The asbestos which was the most harmful was from US mines.
Canadian stuff was far less harmful and could be considered safe if
administered properly. What a shame corporate paranoia is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X2
----------------------------------------------------------------
At my "age" that would be a challenge.


subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
"Mark Probert-Drew" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On May 23, 8:09 am, Peter Bowditch <[email]> wrote:

I was thinking about that. Perhaps a half-drop can be reversibly
fatal?
===============================================
Nah, with Mercury there are only drops, no halfsies. I'm still waiting for
her to drop dead from the merc in her mouth or the miniscule amt that is in
her gold jewelry, you know.....the stuff she bought from JEWelers? LOL.


subject: Re: Our Preferred Poison

text:
Jan <[email]> wrote:

Dimethyl mercury is not mercury, Jan.


author: [redacted]

subject: The right wing "illegal immigrant" red herring -- GOP, Bush Crime Family Looking For Any Distraction Away From Them

text:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_4713152,00.html

In D.C., it is all illegal immigrants, all the time

Those seeking a better life in the U.S. make the perfect political
scapegoat

By Dale McFeatters, Scripps Howard News Service

May 20, 2006

Reaction in the rest of the country may vary, but the nation's capital
is really happy about illegal immigrants, maybe not the actual people
but the issue of illegal immigrants.

These have been difficult times for the White House, Congress --
especially the high-octane Republican conservatives -- call-in-show
hosts, and even the stray Democrat.

It's hard out there for politicians.

The Iraq war drags on without resolution,

Osama bin Laden is still on the loose,

gasoline is $3 a gallon,

a nutcase is running Iran,

the Bush administration is lurching from one public-relations disaster
to another,

leftists are making a comeback in Latin America,

White House aides are indicted,

a member of Congress is sent to jail and more investigations are
pending,

the economy is making strange noises

and the voters are threatening reprisals at the polls.

Not a pretty picture, but just as events were at their darkest, illegal
immigrants came riding to the rescue -- actually, not quite like the
cavalry;

mostly, they worked hard and stayed out of sight.

The lawmakers glommed onto the illegals like the desperate people they
are -- the lawmakers, not the illegals.

As Emma Lazarus might have written:

"Send me your tired, your poor,

"Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

"And we will make scapegoats of them."

In Washington, it is all illegal immigrants, all the time.

The House wants them rounded up and deported.

The Senate wants some of them rounded up and deported.

And President Bush proposes an 11-year process to allow the good ones
to stay -- if they pay big fines and all their taxes, stay out of
trouble with the law, are continuously employed, provide references and
learn to speak English.

And Bush is considered a softie on illegal immigrants.

We're even going to deploy the National Guard to our southern border.

To do what no one seems to know, but it shows we're serious -- or
something.

Really, though, could you ask for a better political scapegoat than
illegal immigrants?

Something to safely and harmlessly take the public's mind off the fact
that filling up the family car costs the equivalent of the GDP of the
nations these people come from.

Illegals can't vote, so there's no danger they'll take it out on
politicians at the ballot box.

They hold low-paying jobs, so there's no danger of them donating a
whole lot of campaign cash to your opponent.

They have no trade association that could hire, say, a Jack Abramoff.

If they get uppity, they can be deported.

Since many of them don't speak English, it doesn't matter what they say
since most Americans couldn't understand them anyway.

And there are about 12 million of them, enough to demonize, enough to
require creating a new ethnic group, "OTMs" -- for Other Than Mexicans
-- but not enough to cause serious trouble.

Even if they go through all the hoops to become citizens, we're still
wary.

Mindful that the First Amendment could be dangerous if it fell into the
wrong hands, a U.S. government-issued study guide for citizenship omits
freedom of the press from its First Amendment flashcard.

It's our way of saying:

"Not so fast, newcomer. This is a free country, but don't push it."

Illegal immigrants sneak into our country seeking a new life.

And they've found one -- as a campaign issue.

____________________________________________________

Harry
(see all of Harry Hope's excellent posts as they break, put this link
in your browser, use it, this is a search on google groups, on the
author Harry Hope sorted by date... nothing fancy):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=-nIhFBQAAACtBOUGAhN9cSve8yYdFJBuOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A&


author: Jim E

subject: Re: The right wing "illegal immigrant" red herring -- GOP, Bush Crime Family Looking For Any Distraction Away From Them

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Deny all services to illegal aliens.
Mine the border.

Problem solved.

Pretty damn simple actually.

            Jim E


author: jgarbuz

text:
[email] wrote:

That's because illegal immigration is the biggest common threat facing
both the US and Europe today!  If left unchecked it will BALKANIZE the
US and eventually cause it to break up like Yugoslavia!
The real unspoken truth is, that for ANY nation to remain in existence,
with a few exceptions like Switzerland, there has to be a main
MAJORITARIAN culture that predominates, and serves as a template that
other minorities must strive to adhere to and emulate. OTherwise you
produce threatening subcultures that ultimately will strive to
challenge and subordinate the founding culture. In the time of the
Roman Empire, it was Roman citizenship that was eagerly sought after,
and one had to become Romanized. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
In the US, the WASP founding culture has been the template that other
groups had to "assimilate" into. That is, to proceed up the ladder into
the higher realms, you have to speak, dress, groom, look
and play (golf) like a  WASP. You worked hard to get your kids into
their top schools. Only then might you be granted a degree of
"respectability" and acceptance.  That was the unwritten rule of
becoming a "real" American, i.e., to become as WASP-like as possible.
But when you rapidly introduce a very large foreign population, rooted
in a very different, albeit equally rich and old imperial culture, such
as the culture of Spain that was inculcated into the hearts and souls
of the indigenous populations of South and Central America,  and one
that sees either little possibility and little reason to try
to acculturate themselves within the paradigms of the  unwritten and
unspoken WASP culture that defines American foundational culture, then
you are setting up the conditions of Balkanization that have eventually
split up other attempted multicultural
and multiethnic entities in the past. And these are the unbespoken
fears that now beset the rapidly aging WASP, and others who in previous
generations acculturated themselves into the WASP paradigm even if they
not being WASPs themselves, and now fear the rise of a very different
culture threatening to challenge the very basis
of what being American has meant for over 200 years.  Though "political
correctness"
makes it impossible to publicy utter such trepidations, out of a fear
of being labelled "racist," the bulk of the American people simply
understand in their gut what the
unaffected pseudointellectual pundits thoughtlessly dismiss out of
hand. But the raising of MExican flags by the marching illegals have
brought these concerns out in th open, even though they are STILL not
being discussed openly and honestly.
Americans prefer to pretend to be WASPs rather than to be Hispanics!
They are prepared to allow other subcultures to coexist in the
sidelines, but never, God forbid, to serously challenge the predominant
cultural paradigm. ANd i am with them.


author: Paul Harper

text:
Jim E wrote:

The ability to spell "European" correctly, perhaps?  By your every
post, your ignorance and limited intellect becomes more and more
obvious. Keep going, loser...

Paul.


text:
Jim E wrote:

Yeah, right. A bit like the missing of the changed follow-ups.
Whatever, loser, whatever...

Paul.


text:
On Sun, 21 May 2006 20:51:00 -0700, "Jim E" <[email]> wrote:

And if you could stop all flights and ships from leaving the US as
well, we'd all be a lot happier.  (For a value of "we" that means
people living outside the US who are sick and tired of the US's
amateur interference)

Paul.


text:
"Paul Harper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The spelling is intentional you silly old shit.

        Jim E


text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I have been calling you has beens europeons for years.
I have recently started using the term eurabians.
Your submission to islam is a pathetic thing to watch.

            Jim E


text:
"Paul Harper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I believe the operative phrase would be "tough shit"

            Jim E


author: vernon

text:
"Jim E" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

It was cute.
Euro peon

he he he he


text:
"Jim E" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I don't know about the limitation or inference of "your", but the western
submission to Islam extremely pathetic and dangerous.


text:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:08:12 -0700, "Jim E" <[email]> wrote:

Spoken like the fully paid-up member of the fascist oppressors that
you are. Got the armband, the KKK membership card and the
highly-polished leather jackboots?

And some people wonder why others laugh when some say the fascists
lost World War Two....

Paul.


text:
"Paul Harper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You socialist losers just can't resist calling any forward step for America
and freedom as some kind of Nazism, or whatever negative buzz word you can
think of .
You socialists have been tossed by the voters.
Work or die.

            Jim E


text:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 13:12:01 -0700, "Jim E" <[email]> wrote:

Once again, you demonstrate all the good reasons for neither living
nor working in America.

Something that I am very happy to embrace.

It is an uncivilised place.

(and before any clueless arsewipe says anything, yes, I have had the
misfortune to have been there, and know of what I speak).

Paul.


text:
"Paul Harper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The idea of self sufficiency, or personal responsibility totally eludes you
commie shits.

Speaking of your government DOLE check?

Couldn't cut it huh loser? Coouldn't make it in a society where some
actually still strive to excell.
Had to run back to your socialist haven for the treminally worthless.

            Earn or Die.

            Jim E


text:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:22:33 -0700, "Jim E" <[email]> wrote:

Do I detect the sound of teddies being thrown out of the pram?

You miss the point, jackboot boy, it's self sufficiency (from America)
that I am wanting. Me and millions of other people. Get used to it,
chuckles, there are significant portions of the world (I would venture
to guess a majority) who do NOT think the sun shines out of America's
arse, but knows *exactly* what does come out. And it don't smell good.

No. Never had one. Never needed one. Nice to know they are available
to those who do, though.

Not really, sonny. I am very happy with my 600,000 pound (what's that,
just over the million dollars?) house on the south coast of England.
Just because I have a social conscience, and care about my fellow
human beings does not make me a failure.

In exactly the same way, it is not necessary to shit on other people
to do well - something that you will never, for as long as you live,
understand.

Your lack of humanity, caring and conscience on the other hand makes
you the loser you seem to think I should be. Sub-human. Deal with it.

You can't handle the truth, junior. Come back when you grow a
functioning brain stem.

Paul.


text:
"Paul Harper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

If you have such a profound social conscience why do you wallow in a million
dollar home while the great unwashed
perfect dumpster diving?
You are the same kind of protected rich parasite as our Teddy (the drowner)
Kennedy, always willing to spend the money of others for your little
socialist experiments.
After you have given all your own to the poor you can ASK for mine.
Rich liberal is the ultimate hypocrisy.

        Jim E


author: The Reverend

text:
On Tue, 23 May 2006 16:57:22 -0700, "Jim E" <[email]> wrote:

Oh look - the jewloving Jimbo is actually a liberal!


text:
On Tue, 23 May 2006 16:57:22 -0700, "Jim E" <[email]> wrote:

Not remotely. You're forgetting a) I *earned* that money, and b) the
tax regime of my country. We *have* a social system that looks after
the less fortunate, and it's funded from taxation at a high rate (40%
basic income tax, 17.5% VAT and around 10% National Insurance) that I
am happy to pay.

If I were you sonny, I'd stick to messing about in boats. That's
clearly the limit of your capabilities.

Paul.


text:
"Paul Harper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

What else would one expect from a presumptuous old
europeon.

Boats? Your delusions are getting weirder by the day.

            Jim E


author: Adam H.

subject: Re: Boston Globe: Authenticity Backed On Bush Documents

text:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:10:07 -0400, "Scout"
<[email]> wrote:

That's kind of irrelevant - I said perhaps, and the fact is that
typewriters did exist that could have made these memos. Different
proportional fonts were available, after all.

But it does solve the 'typewriters could not have done it' problem,
because typewriters *could*. Besides, that was a reply to the
'Microsoft Word' fallacy.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


author: Scout

text:
"Adam H." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

No, because the models that were around don't match the font spacing
proportions of the memo. So while a typewrite *could* have had a Times new
Roman, this was a rare and unusual type font and wouldn't be expected in
tight budgeted guard unit. In the end I think that unless someone can
produce a document of impeccable credentials with the same font and
proportional characteristics the probability that these are forgeries can
not be denied. So my solution is simple for those that wish to prove the
authenticity. Find documents in the existing public record which can be
absolutely established as coming from this source and which share the same
characteristics of these memos. If you can, then I, at least, would be
willing to accept them at their face value. If no such documents can't be
produced, then I have to assume these are isolated examples of a non-typical
product and hence are most likely forgeries.


text:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:47:32 -0400, "Scout"
<[email]> wrote:

The memos are not in Times New Roman. It is a Roman-type font, but it
isn't TNR (or at least not the TNR you see from Microsoft).

Possibility, not probability.

That's an assumption without evidence. It is up to the people claiming
that these *are* forgeries to provide the proof. I have been pointing
out that every piece of 'proof' can be countered with facts. First we
had the 'typewriters couldn't do proportional type' claim, which was
countered. Then we had the superscript and curly apostrophe claim,
also countered. Then the kerning claim, which was contradicted by the
claimants.

I don't claim that these are authentic. I claim that the so-called
'proof' that they are forgeries is severely lacking.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


text:
"Adam H." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]>
special
40s).
memos
new

So you claim, but what exactly determines that it is not Times New Roman?

Any possibility means that there is a probability.

same
non-typical

Well, actually if you want to push the issue, it's those introducing these
documents into evidence to prove they are authentic. So far they haven't
done so.


text:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:18:59 -0400, "Scout"
<[email]> wrote:

Looking at the letters. It is a Roman-type font, but it isn't TNR (or,
more specifically, it is not TNR as found on Microsoft machines). Look
at 8s, 3s, and 2s especially. While the original's quality is poor the
differences are there. There are many fonts that are very similar to
TNR - if you take similar-size TNR and Geneva sentences and overlay
them the match is almost exact at small font sizes. There is a
graphical demo at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/213416/348

Granted. But using the word 'probability' is commonly understood to
indicate that the outcome is probable (that is, better than 50%),
rather than improbable.

But it's also up to those that shout 'forgery' to produce evidence,
and so far their evidence has been inconclusive at best. The
typography claims are not decisive.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


subject: Re: Boston Globe: Authenticity Backed On Bush Documents (addition)

text:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:18:59 -0400, "Scout"
<[email]> wrote:

(added a little more in the () below).

Looking at the letters. It is a Roman-type font, but it isn't TNR (or,
more specifically, it is not TNR as found on Microsoft machines). Look
at 8s, 3s, and 2s especially. While the original's quality is poor the
differences are there. There are many fonts that are very similar to
TNR - if you take similar-size TNR and Geneva sentences and overlay
them the match is almost exact at small font sizes. There is a
graphical demo at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/213416/348

(addendum, just found something else: Look at the capital 'M' in the
PDF at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf

The center of the letter does not descend to the baseline, while in
TNR it does).

Granted. But using the word 'probability' is commonly understood to
indicate that the outcome is probable (that is, better than 50%),
rather than improbable.

But it's also up to those that shout 'forgery' to produce evidence,
and so far their evidence has been inconclusive at best. The
typography claims are not decisive.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


author: David Lentz

text:
"Adam H." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

<snip>

these

Lt Colonel Killians did not type.   So who did produce the Rathergate memos?

David


author: Ray Fischer

text:
David Lentz <[email]> wrote:

J.R.R. Tolkien did not own a printing press, therefore the Lord of the
Rings books did not come from Tolkien


text:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:05:36 GMT, "David Lentz"
<[email]> wrote:

That's irrelevant. Do try to keep up with the point. You want to claim
the memos are false, produce something better than incorrect claims
about fonts and apostrophes. I have yet to see any convincing evidence
that says these are forgeries or real - but then, I don't have a claim
one way or the other.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


text:
"Ray Fischer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ci5snu$ou3$[email]...
haven't
memos?

Yep, Tolkien did not print the Lord of the Rings books.

Those that did put their stamp on the book to indicate who had produced it.
With typists this was normally their initials in the corner of the page.