Lisa Wants to Arm Citizens with B52s!
inver...@my-dejanews.com
haa...@webtv.net (Lisa Rochwarg) wrote:
> Well, admittedly, an armed citizenry is much more
> dangerous than an unarmed citiizenry, when the targets
> are human.
>
> There's not too much a Sam Colt can do
> to a fleet of B-52s, though it might be amusing to see
> Charlton Heston french-kissing a cruise missile.
So what are you saying? That citizens should be armed
with the more "humanitarian" B-52s? Or that citizens
need anti-aircraft guns?
> And it would serve him right for his advocacy of
> insurrection against a duly-elected government.
>
> Lisa
Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
in the 1980s? Did that make the death squads legitimate?
Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"? For that
matter, wasn't Hitler himself "duly elected"? That puts
Heston in bed with the FSLN, the ANC, and the largely
communist Resistance Movement in WW II. Does that change
your opinion of him?!
Charlie
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Juan Liberale
says...
>
>In article <20285-37...@newsd-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> haa...@webtv.net (Lisa Rochwarg) wrote:
>
>> Well, admittedly, an armed citizenry is much more
>> dangerous than an unarmed citiizenry, when the targets
>> are human.
>>
>> There's not too much a Sam Colt can do
>> to a fleet of B-52s, though it might be amusing to see
>> Charlton Heston french-kissing a cruise missile.
>
> So what are you saying? That citizens should be armed
>with the more "humanitarian" B-52s? Or that citizens
>need anti-aircraft guns?
Hey, if the second amendment is a sacred right, then B52's
should be covered by "arms". Of course you gun wackos are
just being manupulated by the NRA/KKK coalition.
>
>> And it would serve him right for his advocacy of
>> insurrection against a duly-elected government.
>>
>> Lisa
>
> Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
>in the 1980s? Did that make the death squads legitimate?
>Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"? For that
>matter, wasn't Hitler himself "duly elected"? That puts
>Heston in bed with the FSLN, the ANC, and the largely
>communist Resistance Movement in WW II. Does that change
>your opinion of him?!
>
> Charlie
>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
of today.
The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
the conservatives of today.
Bill Bonde
>
> In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
> in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
> tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
> and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
> members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
> of today.
> The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
> food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
> elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
> the conservatives of today.
>
and control of business.
inver...@my-dejanews.com
<337D76DBA4B45AC1.7A064F58...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, upy...@rnc.com wrote:
> In article <7e5a12$l11$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, inver...@my-dejanews.com
> says...
> >
> >In article <20285-37...@newsd-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > haa...@webtv.net (Lisa Rochwarg) wrote:
> >
> >> Well, admittedly, an armed citizenry is much more
> >> dangerous than an unarmed citiizenry, when the targets
> >> are human.
> >>
> >> There's not too much a Sam Colt can do
> >> to a fleet of B-52s, though it might be amusing to see
> >> Charlton Heston french-kissing a cruise missile.
> >
> > So what are you saying? That citizens should be armed
> >with the more "humanitarian" B-52s? Or that citizens
> >need anti-aircraft guns?
>
> Hey, if the second amendment is a sacred right, then B52's
> should be covered by "arms". Of course you gun wackos are
> just being manupulated by the NRA/KKK coalition.
Actually, they wouldn't be, since they are not the
sort of weapon a "well-regulated militia" would use. If
we wanted to include them in the right to bear arms, I
think we would have to expand the Second Amendment.
Notice the contrast between the rulers and the citizens.
: The rulers have B52s and every other weapon imaginable,
including nuclear bombs, but somehow, the anti-gun nuts
fail to notice this stupendous arsenal.
: The citizen has small-arms, and this drives the anti-gun
nuts crazy
If you're opposition to weapons were GENUINE, you would
start by taking the weapons away from the police-state.
> In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
> in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
> tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
> and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
> members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
> of today.
> The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
> food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
> elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
> the conservatives of today.
In the early days, there were two kinds of
tribes: agrarians and nomads. The nomads said
to themselves "Why should we work, when we can
simply STEAL the food the peasants have grown."
Thus an era of lawlessness dawned. But after
a while, the lawlessness began to infect nomad
culture itself, as the nomads began stealing
not just from the peasants but also from each
other.
The nomad ruler became aware of the problem.
"We need to find a way to make SOME forms of
theft GOOD, and other forms BAD." he said.
And then he seized on the idea of government
altruism. "Some of the peasants are poorer
than the others. We will take the grain from
the rich and give a little back to the poor.
That will divide the peasants and get the poor
on our side.".
"How will that change things?" asked an aide.
"After all, it's still STEALING!".
"No, no, no!" said the ruler. "Don't call
it stealing! Call it COMPASSION! We are not
THIEVES: we are HUMANITARIANS! We are doing
GOD's work now! The poor peasants may even
start to WORSHIP us!"
Juan Liberale
Just because you gun crazies keep having your weapons turning up
blazing away at school chidren.
>
>If you're opposition to weapons were GENUINE, you would
>start by taking the weapons away from the police-state.
Police state? You stupid little Mcveigh clones need to get
yourself on medication. What a fuckwit you are.
--
inver...@my-dejanews.com
have a monopoly on compassion and sharing. Now
it is true that many "liberals" are (or once
were) influenced by compassion, but they need to
realize that other kinds of people are also
influenced by compassion.
Compassion takes various forms:
: one person may give the starving man a fish,
: another may give the man a net,
: a third may give the man a government!
There are:
: compassionate liberals,
: compassionate conservatives,
: compassionate populists,
: compassionate NRA members,
: compassionate communists, perhaps even
: compassionate fascists
These groups differ not in their idealism,
but in their ideology. After a while, the
ideology takes over and the initial idealism
is forgotten. Perhaps this explains why
most "liberals" feel so little compassion
for Klinton's victims.
In article <370662AC...@mailexcite.com>,
std...@mailexcite.com wrote:
> Juan Liberale wrote:
> >
> > In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
> > in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
> > tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
> > and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
> > members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
> > of today.
> > The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
> > food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
> > elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
> > the conservatives of today.
> >
> But strangely the conservatives of today have more of the money, power
> and control of business.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jason Gottlieb
inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
> in the 1980s?
No.
> Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"?
No.
> wasn't Hitler himself "duly elected"?
No.
All three of the above groups used force of arms to come to power.
Give guns to power-hungry lunatics. Go ahead, destabilize things.
--
Jason Gottlieb
My homepage: http://www.columbia.edu/~jpg40
Writings on East Asian Politics:
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/politics_east_asia
Kurt Nicklas
>
>
>
>inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
>> in the 1980s?
>
>No.
>
>
>> Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"?
>
>No.
>
>
>> wasn't Hitler himself "duly elected"?
>
>No.
>
>All three of the above groups used force of arms to come to power.
>
>Give guns to power-hungry lunatics. Go ahead, destabilize things.
Yep. Power-hungry lunatics like John Hancock, Sam Adams, George Washington,
Tom Jefferson et al. They sure knew how to use force of arms.
--
Kurt Nicklas
'You'd better put some ice on that'
- Bill Clinton
'I don't feel I was lied to because I didn't want to know in
the first place.' - ze...@snowcrest.net
rose...@idt.net
>These groups differ not in their idealism,
>but in their ideology. After a while, the
>ideology takes over and the initial idealism
>is forgotten.
Unfortunately, conservatism is based not on idealism, but rational
statism, wealth, and self serving concepts.
If it ain't got a bottom line positive, a self serving reason for
taking place, or provides the means to acquire wealth and property,
coupled with a pathological need for not changing, it ain't no good.
bre...@no-spam.com
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:48:00 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Liberale is trying to suggest that "liberals"
>have a monopoly on compassion and sharing. Now
>it is true that many "liberals" are (or once
>were) influenced by compassion, but they need to
>realize that other kinds of people are also
>influenced by compassion.
>
> Compassion takes various forms:
> : one person may give the starving man a fish,
> : another may give the man a net,
> : a third may give the man a government!
>
> There are:
> : compassionate liberals,
> : compassionate conservatives,
> : compassionate populists,
> : compassionate NRA members,
> : compassionate communists, perhaps even
> : compassionate fascists
>
>These groups differ not in their idealism,
>but in their ideology. After a while, the
>ideology takes over and the initial idealism
>is forgotten.
Sensible so far. Then over-credulity sets in:
>Perhaps this explains why
>most "liberals" feel so little compassion
>for Klinton's victims.
You misspelled 'Clinton', and left out 'alleged'.
We would feel compassion for victims if there were any. We differ not
in our idealsim, but in our scepticism.
Cheers,
Bredon
********************************************************
Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
Julie Steele defense site: (trial May 3, 1999)
http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
Petition against Starr, and good info:
http://www.rain.org/~openmind/petition.htm
http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
*****************************************************
rose...@idt.net
>=
>=Unfortunately, conservatism is based not on idealism, but rational
>=statism, wealth, and self serving concepts.
>
> In fact, it is more based on "if it ain't broke don't fix it, and if it is
> broke, try fixing it a little so as not to rock the boat."
Conservatives have had their ass in a snit since 1864 when Lincoln
"fixed" their economic system in the south.
Conservative have been in a bigger snit since 1964 when Democrats
"fixed" the Jim Crow laws and applied the due process clause to the
States.
Conservatives have been in a snit for ANY change.
Looneytarians have been in a snit because they don't understand that
unlimited personal wealth and freedom was tried and failed miserably
AND that the theory of libertarianism is a sham.
> "Liberalism", as it calls itself today, is based on feel-good emotionalism
> to the exclusion of all else, including rational analysis and recognition
> of trends and facts. It is summed up in the phrase
> "Any end justifies the means if it is for the Children".
Which is one of your main problems.
To say that liberalism is the "feel good" simply ignores the
predication of conservatism on material wealth, accumulation of wealth
or property based on INDIVIDUAL pursuits.
The 'assumption' is that by doing so (in a totally unrealistic
interpretation) in a 'principled manner" that society will be better
off.
NOT so, as we have consistently seen from history, especially in the
years 1870-1930.
Mike .J=S
<jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
> > in the 1980s?
>
> No.
>
> > Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"?
>
> No.
>
> > wasn't Hitler himself "duly elected"?
>
> No.
>
> All three of the above groups used force of arms to come to power.
You're *wrong*, Gottlieb. The Nazis may have had their bands of thugs,
but that had little to do with their winning pluralities in German
democratic elections. They won those on the basis of appealing, as all
socialist scum do, to the avarice of the lowest common denominator.
> Give guns to power-hungry lunatics.
Like Clinton?
> Go ahead, destabilize things.
You voted for the fucker, didn't you?
Hope you're happy.
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com. +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
How Easter Eggs are made: http://www.sublimedirectory.com/pod.jpg
Bill Kasper
<snip>
=
=Unfortunately, conservatism is based not on idealism, but rational
=statism, wealth, and self serving concepts.
God, I only wish.
If it were, I'd be a conservative.
In fact, it is more based on "if it ain't broke don't fix it, and if it is
broke, try fixing it a little so as not to rock the boat."
"Liberalism", as it calls itself today, is based on feel-good emotionalism
to the exclusion of all else, including rational analysis and recognition
of trends and facts. It is summed up in the phrase
"Any end justifies the means if it is for the Children".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper
SIGINT, VR-WC->, Evacuation Detail
"Flee the Corpse"
Bill Kasper
<snip>
=
=Give guns to power-hungry lunatics. Go ahead, destabilize things.
Unfortunately, that is the situation with all government...
Disarm the government, and the people are safe.
Bill Kasper
=
=
=>=
=>=Unfortunately, conservatism is based not on idealism, but rational
=>
=
=> In fact, it is more based on "if it ain't broke don't fix it, and if it is
=> broke, try fixing it a little so as not to rock the boat."
=
=Conservatives have had their ass in a snit since 1864 when Lincoln
="fixed" their economic system in the south.
You mean when he dissolved states' rights?
Probably. But you are talking about those of Southern birth, not
"conservatives.
=
=Conservative have been in a bigger snit since 1964 when Democrats
="fixed" the Jim Crow laws and applied the due process clause to the
=States.
Funny I thought that was a populist, grass-roots change.
Now you tell me it was just Democrats?
Hmm...
=
=Conservatives have been in a snit for ANY change.
Except for whittling away rights in the name of "law and order".
Witness the drug war.
Just like the liberals.
Witness the Terrorism Bill.
There is not difference. Both groups support more and more authority
for the government, and less and less freedom for the individual.
That is why I am neither "liberal" nor "conservative".
=
=Looneytarians have been in a snit because they don't understand that
=unlimited personal wealth and freedom was tried and failed miserably
=AND that the theory of libertarianism is a sham.
This is just a lie, plain and simple. If unlimited personal freedom was
ever tried anywhere, it was either before the dawn of recorded history,
or practiced by lone individuals. It has never been tried by a society.
Except maybe by Clinton supporters, who believe Bill Clinton should
not be subject to any laws, restrictions, encumberances, or obstacles
in his quest for whatever the fuck he is trying to do...
=
=> "Liberalism", as it calls itself today, is based on feel-good emotionalism
=> to the exclusion of all else, including rational analysis and recognition
=> of trends and facts. It is summed up in the phrase
=> "Any end justifies the means if it is for the Children".
=
=Which is one of your main problems.
Yes it is. I have a problem with irrationality masquerading as wisdom.
It is folly doomed to kill itself and its audience.
=
=To say that liberalism is the "feel good" simply ignores the
=predication of conservatism on material wealth, accumulation of wealth
=or property based on INDIVIDUAL pursuits.
Then why don't you dispute it? You didn't, you just changed the
focus back to "conservatism".
BTW, your definition of conservatism is innacurate. Your definition
perfectly describes objectivism and libertarian/anarchic capitalism, though.
Don't confuse them, the difference is important.
=
=The 'assumption' is that by doing so (in a totally unrealistic
=interpretation) in a 'principled manner" that society will be better
=off.
=
=NOT so, as we have consistently seen from history, especially in the
=years 1870-1930.
So *that* is why Russia, North Korea, and Cuba are the economic
dynamos of this century, while free-market, individualistic America
is a third-world sewer?
Check your premises. They are fatally flawed.
inver...@my-dejanews.com
bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> Very sensible...
I'm glad you liked it.
> You misspelled 'Clinton', and left out 'alleged'.
> We would feel compassion for victims if there were
> any. We differ not in our idealsim, but in our scepticism.
Sorry. I mention the victims without even thinking,
because I've seen the videotapes, and I expect liberals
to come to the aid of these people. I'm disillusioned.
I keep thinking there must be a way to get through the
"liberal" armor.
Have you SEEN the videotapes? -- "The Clinton
Chronicles", "Obstruction of Justice", "The Mena
Coverup"? How do you answer the people interviewed?
-- Jean Duffy, Linda Ives, Gary Johnson, Sharline
Wilson and others? How do you answer Terry Reed
and Joyce Riley?
If you have NOT seen the videotapes or read the
books, then how do you know what you are skeptical
OF? I have no special animus towards Clinton. Bush,
I'm sure, was just as bad -- look at all the people
murdered as a result of the Inslaw scandal. A true
liberal, I'm sure, would be less eager to defend
the man at the top and at least willing to LISTEN
to the charges of alleged victims on the bottom.
Charlie
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
inver...@my-dejanews.com
> inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
> > in the 1980s?
> No.
Yes, it was! Not fairly elected, but duly elected
The U.S. even certified the elections, and used that
to justify giving six-billion dollars to the death-squad
regime.
> > Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"?
> No.
Britain, the U.S., and much of the world sure acted as
if it was. Of course not everyone got to vote, but the
same is true of elections forty years ago in the U.S..
Are you claiming that Truman and Eisenhower and JFK were
not duly elected?
> > wasn't Hitler himself "duly elected"?
> No.
I thought Hitler got a plurality in the 1932 elections.
> All three of the above groups used force of arms to come to power.
> Give guns to power-hungry lunatics. Go ahead, destabilize things.
The system ALWAYS uses force! Here in the U.S., Republican
candidate Alan Keyes was forcibly dragged off the stage when
he tried to claim his right to participate in a debate. More
subtle kinds of force are used to exclude third parties. In most
cases, the system doesn't need guns, true. That's because it
has something more effective: the "media" and the "money".
> --
> Jason Gottlieb
> My homepage: http://www.columbia.edu/~jpg40
> Writings on East Asian Politics:
> http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/politics_east_asia
John Savard
>> > In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
>> > in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
>> > tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
>> > and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
>> > members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
>> > of today.
>> > The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
>> > food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
>> > elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
>> > the conservatives of today.
No, it's not as simple as that.
In the early days, when people lived in the jungles and the caves, the
tribes all acted like the "liberals" you describe.
Later on, though, the forest got crowded. Some tribes didn't have enough
food for all their babies.
Some responded by walking a long distance to find a less crowded forest.
Some decided to kill or drive away the tribe next door to have more land.
After this sort of thing went on for years, some of the tribes found their
"less crowded forest" in the ice and snow. And, yes, when a family in those
tribes lost their hunter or fisher, they cast the family out into the
elements to perish - because there was so little food out there. They
didn't become the conservatives of today: they became the Eskimos of today.
But some other tribes did something special. They worked harder to make
more food out of the land they had: instead of just gathering plants, they
planted seeds and tended the plants. They invented agriculture.
Once they did that, though, there was no way - unless they could go to a
large amount of empty land, which just didn't exist - they could leave
their land and still eat. Not after putting so much work into their food.
So these tribes had to have strong armies. And they had to have tight
discipline to get people to do the extra work to feed the armies - because
agriculture is back-breaking work at the best of times.
The early civilizations - in some ways they were socialistic, in some ways
ultra-conservative. They were not liberal or democratic. If a daughter
didn't get married off: worse yet, if she got pregnant before being married
off, so that she wouldn't...that was too many mouths to feed. Say hello to
the Old Testament code of sexual morality. (A woman says she was raped?
This was within the city limits? She didn't scream? She's lying: kill her.)
Other tribes converted their hunting and gathering way of life to nomadic
herding - and stealing from trade caravans was a pleasant little supplement
to one's income. They became the Arabs of today.
We are largely descended from former "Third World" people who got invaded
by the first civilizations. We aren't Iraqis (Babylonians), Egyptians, or
Chinese - most of us. No, we're Celts and Goths who learned civilization
from the Romans; or Italians (Romans) who learned civilization from the
Greeks. And the Greeks learned civilization from the Babylonians and
Egyptians.
The folk characteristics of Western Man are, thus, derived from those of an
agricultural peasantry. Here we are, working day and night just to grow
enough food to keep ourselves alive. Yes, we'll share with our relatives -
our own people - when we can. But there isn't enough extra to even begin to
think of helping people from _another_ tribe. (Thus, the liberals of today,
who think in terms of a common humanity - including blacks and Hispanics in
their concept of the American family - aren't descended from _any_ ancient
tribe: this is a *new* idea. I'm not saying it isn't praiseworthy: but it's
a tough sell. Try cutting the unemployment rate first.)
And back then - and today in the Third World - the King decides he wants
the peasants to pay their taxes in gold and not wheat - so they have to
sell their land to the rich guy in town and become his tenants. Read serfs.
The American people aren't liberal enough to give their money to the poor -
and they aren't conservative enough to sit still while the big corporations
make all the money and throw them out of work.
They want to be sure, though, before they jump. They want a leader with the
charm of Bill Clinton and the intelligence of George Bush - before they'll
vote for one who says he'll change things. Before they'll dare to vote for
someone espousing the policies they want. The policies of Pat Buchannan.
John Savard (teneerf is spelled backwards)
http://members.xoom.com/quadibloc/index.html
Jason Gottlieb
"Mike .J=S" wrote:
>
> In article <370A31A9...@columbia.edu>, Jason Gottlieb
> <jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> > inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
> > > in the 1980s?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > wasn't Hitler himself "duly elected"?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > All three of the above groups used force of arms to come to power.
>
> You're *wrong*, Gottlieb. The Nazis may have had their bands of thugs,
> but that had little to do with their winning pluralities in German
> democratic elections. They won those on the basis of appealing, as all
> socialist scum do, to the avarice of the lowest common denominator.
Hitler held the German parliament at gunpoint until they voted him
Chancellor. He was "elected" by barely enough to get him a seat in the
chamber. Without guns for him and his cronies, he would have been
laughed out of the parliament. He also wouldn't have had a very
successful genocide campaign.
Would you support Hitler's right to bear arms in 1933? Would you support
Mao's right to bear arms in 1947? Pol Pot in the 60s? The Hutus in the
90s? How libertarian-stupid are you, really?
Jason Gottlieb
inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <370A31A9...@columbia.edu>,
> Jason Gottlieb <jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> > inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
> > > in the 1980s?
>
> > No.
>
> Yes, it was! Not fairly elected, but duly elected
> The U.S. even certified the elections, and used that
> to justify giving six-billion dollars to the death-squad
> regime.
The US "helped" ensure the results of the election.
> > > Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"?
>
> > No.
>
> Britain, the U.S., and much of the world sure acted as
> if it was.
That's because we were colonial bastards, until we came to (some) sense
and tried to bring the regime down.
> > All three of the above groups used force of arms to come to power.
> > Give guns to power-hungry lunatics. Go ahead, destabilize things.
>
> The system ALWAYS uses force! Here in the U.S., Republican
> candidate Alan Keyes was forcibly dragged off the stage when
> he tried to claim his right to participate in a debate.
He has the right to speak. But nobody has an obligation to give him a
stage and a microphone. You have no right to enter my house in order to
speak.
Scott Erb
>Hitler held the German parliament at gunpoint until they voted him
>Chancellor. He was "elected" by barely enough to get him a seat in the
>chamber. Without guns for him and his cronies, he would have been
>laughed out of the parliament. He also wouldn't have had a very
>successful genocide campaign.
Quite true -- in fact, violence was an integral part of Hitler's rise to
power, as he used it to destabilize Weimar. Too many guns also helped
lead to the problems in former Yugoslavia (see: "The Fall of Yugoslavia"
by Misha Glenny, and the role of the gun throughout).
bre...@no-spam.com
I agree with some commentator on the impeachment who said that the
majority supporting Clinton were being 'conservative' with a small-c.
"He's doing a good job, the economy is good, don't rock the boat. He
made a little mistake but not enough to be worth changing presidents
between elections. Starr wasted money digging this up, disrupting the
country over nothing. We've gone 200 years without impeaching an
elected president, let's not start now. No telling how it might damage
the consitution and balance of powers. The custom of "impeachment is
unthinkable" has worked 200 years, let's not change it." Etc.
conservatively yours,
Bredon
----
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:34:27 GMT, rose...@idt.net wrote:
>bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net (Bill Kasper) wrote:
>
>
>>=
>>=Unfortunately, conservatism is based not on idealism, but rational
>>=statism, wealth, and self serving concepts.
>>
>
>> In fact, it is more based on "if it ain't broke don't fix it, and if it is
>> broke, try fixing it a little so as not to rock the boat."
>
>Conservatives have had their ass in a snit since 1864 when Lincoln
>"fixed" their economic system in the south.
>
>Conservative have been in a bigger snit since 1964 when Democrats
>"fixed" the Jim Crow laws and applied the due process clause to the
>States.
>
>Conservatives have been in a snit for ANY change.
>
>Looneytarians have been in a snit because they don't understand that
>unlimited personal wealth and freedom was tried and failed miserably
>AND that the theory of libertarianism is a sham.
>
>> "Liberalism", as it calls itself today, is based on feel-good emotionalism
>> to the exclusion of all else, including rational analysis and recognition
>> of trends and facts. It is summed up in the phrase
>> "Any end justifies the means if it is for the Children".
>
>Which is one of your main problems.
>
>To say that liberalism is the "feel good" simply ignores the
>predication of conservatism on material wealth, accumulation of wealth
>or property based on INDIVIDUAL pursuits.
>
>The 'assumption' is that by doing so (in a totally unrealistic
>interpretation) in a 'principled manner" that society will be better
>off.
>
>NOT so, as we have consistently seen from history, especially in the
>years 1870-1930.
bre...@no-spam.com
time to you spend watching videos of people who claim to have been
abudcted by aliens etc? Or that the government is covering up their
3-headed babies? There's a lot of pain claimed in tabloids, and
today's technology lets some of those same sort of storeies get into
videos.
When the video is funded by political enemies ... then we'd expect
better production and less obvious stories.
I don't know why people tell wierd, paranoid stories, and seem to feel
and believe them. Some of them seem like 'credible' people. But
equally 'credible' people tell the UFO stories too.
Sadlly,
Bredon
---
>> ********************************************************
>> Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
>> Julie Steele defense site: (trial May 3, 1999)
>> http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
>> News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
>> Petition against Starr, and good info:
>> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/petition.htm
>> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
>> The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
>> *****************************************************
>>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
********************************************************
Billy Beck
scot...@maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote:
>In article <370B99F0...@columbia.edu>, jp...@columbia.edu says...
>
>>Hitler held the German parliament at gunpoint until they voted him
>>Chancellor. He was "elected" by barely enough to get him a seat in the
>>chamber. Without guns for him and his cronies, he would have been
>>laughed out of the parliament. He also wouldn't have had a very
>>successful genocide campaign.
>
>Quite true --
"Not surprisingly, the 1930 election and the succeeding election
in July 1932, when the Nazis more than doubled their vote again, from
6.4 million to 13.7 million, have attracted more interest than any
others in German history. Since the ballot was secret the question of
who voted for the Nazis is one that cannot be answered with certainty;
but great ingenuity has been shown in studying the evidence even if
there is still controversy about the results.(1)
Part of the explanation is for the change in the Nazis' fortune
was a dramatic increase in the turnout: 82 percent of those eligible
to vote, approximately 35 million against the 31 million of 1928, 4
million new voters who had either not bothered to vote before or had
come on to the register for the first time."
(Alan Bullock: "Hitler And Stalin - Parallel Lives", 1991, Alfred
A. Knopf, Chapter Seven, "Hitler Within Sight Of Power", p. 216)
(1) This summary is based on sampling the large number of articles
that have been published and four comprehensive studies by H. A.
Winkler, "Mittelstand, Demokratie, and Nationalsozialismus" (Cologne:
1972); Richard F. Hamilton, "Who Voted For Hitler?" (Princeton: 1982);
Michael Kater, "The Nazi Party: A Social Profile of Members and
Leaders, 1919-1945" (Oxford: 1983); Thomas Childers, "The Nazi Voter:
The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919-33" (Chapel Hill,
N.C.: 1984). Although I have learned much from the detailed research
of Professor Hamilton, I am not convinced by his general conclusions,
which seem to me too much colored by his obsession with disproving the
"lower-middle class" thesis. (See the review by Jeremy Noakes of the
Childers and Hamilton books in the "Times Literary Supplement",
September 21, 1984.) The three books by Kater, Childers, and Hamilton
contain full bibliographical references to the periodical literature
and regional studies in German and English.
(op. cit., end-note at p. 1001)
>... in fact, violence was an integral part of Hitler's rise to
>power, as he used it to destabilize Weimar. Too many guns also helped
>lead to the problems in former Yugoslavia (see: "The Fall of Yugoslavia"
>by Misha Glenny, and the role of the gun throughout).
Quiet, ProfessorBoy. Big kids are involved now, who know what
you're up to. It's no good to go sliding off-point now that you've
taken your patented mosquito-buzz at attempting to deny that the
democratic principle is what made it possible for the like of Hitler
to come anywhere near "the German parliament" (in the words of the
previous attempt).
Inlookers: it's no mistake that Bullock begins chapter seven of
his book (an essential in the study) with analysis of democracy at
work in the destruction of Germany. Nor is this the only chapter
pertinent to the subject. Look: the essential aspect of this
discussion is one constantly recurrent in Usenet; the fact that
democracy is necessarily open to this very sort of disaster vs. the
stark nonsense that Adolph Hitler was not voted into power.
Ankle-biters like Gottlieb are happy to begin their analyses in
mid-air or wherever-else suits them in order to dodge the fact that,
without millions of people voting for him and his, Hitler would likely
have died sometime near the early 60's a starving bum scrounging for
pencil-heads in order to eke out drinking money with a scribble
fobbed-off on kind-hearted tourists at Vienna. The reason they deny
the complicity of democracy in the actual history is that they cannot
possibly admit that principally similar horrors could happen *here*,
far less address the prospect that it's already in progress.
Most wormy of all, of course, is the dear lecturer from the
University of Maine, and his investment in "socially constructed
reality", which must be protected at all costs from the question of
whose reality was "socially constructed" at, say, Bergen-Belsen or
Warsaw, how (all the way to the roots), and what that says about his
whole cockeyed peep at what reality actually is.
Billy
VRWC fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Scott Erb
>
>>>Hitler held the German parliament at gunpoint until they voted him
>>>Chancellor. He was "elected" by barely enough to get him a seat in the
>>>chamber. Without guns for him and his cronies, he would have been
>>>laughed out of the parliament. He also wouldn't have had a very
>>>successful genocide campaign.
>>
>>Quite true --
>
> "Not surprisingly, the 1930 election and the succeeding election
>in July 1932, when the Nazis more than doubled their vote again, from
>6.4 million to 13.7 million, have attracted more interest than any
>others in German history. Since the ballot was secret the question of
>who voted for the Nazis is one that cannot be answered with certainty;
>but great ingenuity has been shown in studying the evidence even if
>there is still controversy about the results.(1)
OK. Note as well that:
1) In 1928 the Nazis had only 2.6%. They jumped to 37.3% in July 1932,
but then fell to 33.1% in November 1932. They were (according to Henry
Ashby Turner) literally falling apart before Van Papen saved them by
trying to form a conservative majority, giving Hitler the Chancellorship.
2) Republican (pro-democracy) parties had 50% of the vote in 1928,
pre-depression, but fell to 36.3% by November 1932. Obviously, voters in
Germany didn't trust democracy to deal with the problems the depression
caused.
3) The Communists also jumped from 10 to 17% between 1928 and 1932.
Simply, democracies don't last when the people don't want them;
democracies can fall apart and lead to disasters.
However, that doesn't deny the point that violence was part and parcel of
the Nazi strategy for destabilizing Weimar and, combined with the
depression, trying to gain support.
> Part of the explanation is for the change in the Nazis' fortune
>was a dramatic increase in the turnout: 82 percent of those eligible
>to vote, approximately 35 million against the 31 million of 1928, 4
>million new voters who had either not bothered to vote before or had
>come on to the register for the first time."
That explains some of it. But in general, parties shifted away from
Democratic to polarized parties of the Left or Right.
-snip-
>>... in fact, violence was an integral part of Hitler's rise to
>>power, as he used it to destabilize Weimar. Too many guns also helped
>>lead to the problems in former Yugoslavia (see: "The Fall of Yugoslavia"
>>by Misha Glenny, and the role of the gun throughout).
>
> Quiet, ProfessorBoy. Big kids are involved now, who know what
>you're up to.
Perhaps if you'd state what your point is, we could know what you're up to
as well.
> It's no good to go sliding off-point now that you've
>taken your patented mosquito-buzz at attempting to deny that the
>democratic principle is what made it possible for the like of Hitler
>to come anywhere near "the German parliament" (in the words of the
>previous attempt).
Do you want to argue that Hitler became Chancellor in Germany because
democracy existed -- that it would have been impossible in any other type
of system? That could be an interesting argument. How would you prove
causality?
> Inlookers: it's no mistake that Bullock begins chapter seven of
>his book (an essential in the study) with analysis of democracy at
>work in the destruction of Germany. Nor is this the only chapter
>pertinent to the subject. Look: the essential aspect of this
>discussion is one constantly recurrent in Usenet; the fact that
>democracy is necessarily open to this very sort of disaster vs. the
>stark nonsense that Adolph Hitler was not voted into power.
Hitler never got a majority, but no one I know of denies that democracies
can fall apart and lead to disasters. Indeed, when I teach comparative
politics that's one of my main points -- to get students to realize that
democracies aren't magic, and don't always work. Americans too often
assume democracies can always work.
>Ankle-biters like Gottlieb are happy to begin their analyses in
>mid-air or wherever-else suits them in order to dodge the fact that,
>without millions of people voting for him and his, Hitler would likely
>have died sometime near the early 60's a starving bum scrounging for
>pencil-heads in order to eke out drinking money with a scribble
>fobbed-off on kind-hearted tourists at Vienna. The reason they deny
Uh, since we're not writing the whole story of Weimar (though you can find
my lecture notes on the subject at:
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/lectures.htm), its not surprising the
whole story isn't told. But that doesn't deny Jason's point, that
violence was part of Hitler's rise to power. Not even the people you cite
deny that!
>the complicity of democracy in the actual history is that they cannot
>possibly admit that principally similar horrors could happen *here*,
>far less address the prospect that it's already in progress.
OK, Billy, listen carefully: one point I've always made is that such
things CAN happen here, and that more easily than people realize. On that
point, we agree.
> Most wormy of all, of course, is the dear lecturer from the
>University of Maine, and his investment in "socially constructed
>reality", which must be protected at all costs from the question of
>whose reality was "socially constructed" at, say, Bergen-Belsen or
>Warsaw, how (all the way to the roots), and what that says about his
>whole cockeyed peep at what reality actually is.
You've drifted off into nonsense in that last paragraph.
Do you have a point?
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Billy Beck
mosquit:
>> Part of the explanation is for the change in the Nazis' fortune
>>was a dramatic increase in the turnout: 82 percent of those eligible
>>to vote, approximately 35 million against the 31 million of 1928, 4
>>million new voters who had either not bothered to vote before or had
>>come on to the register for the first time."
>
>That explains some of it. But in general, parties shifted away from
>Democratic to polarized parties of the Left or Right.
Why d'ya think it is that I have no trouble understanding that
you know exactly what you're doing when you hit the cap-shift key
while the rest of us are talking about "democratic", as in: majority
rule?
Scott Erb
says...
> Why d'ya think it is that I have no trouble understanding that
>you know exactly what you're doing when you hit the cap-shift key
>while the rest of us are talking about "democratic", as in: majority
>rule?
(smile)
I knew this would happen. I post something based on facts and even points
of agreement, and Billy responds with a simple flame.
That's why I have trouble believing that you are as smart as you try to
claim to be, Billy.
However, we each agree that democracy can fall apart and lead to
disasters. You certainly haven't shown that something else can do better,
or that democracy is a bad system. And you haven't refuted Jason's point,
which I was supporting, that Hitler used violence to create instability
and grab power.
So, I guess you have your flames. The rest of us have reason, evidence,
and rationality. Billy, you're the ultimate subjectivist, relying on
emotion and bluster. I wish you'd learn the power of reason and the mind.
You might find that it would make life much more interesting.
ciao, scott
bre...@no-spam.com
>In article <370B99F0...@columbia.edu>, jp...@columbia.edu says...
>
>>Hitler held the German parliament at gunpoint until they voted him
>>Chancellor. He was "elected" by barely enough to get him a seat in the
>>chamber. Without guns for him and his cronies, he would have been
>>laughed out of the parliament.
Thanks, I didn't know that. I was assuming the "Hitler was popularly
elected" people had done their homework.
How much if any popular support did he have, before guns?
>>He also wouldn't have had a very
>>successful genocide campaign.
>
>Quite true -- in fact, violence was an integral part of Hitler's rise to
>power, as he used it to destabilize Weimar. Too many guns also helped
>lead to the problems in former Yugoslavia (see: "The Fall of Yugoslavia"
>by Misha Glenny, and the role of the gun throughout).
>
>>Would you support Hitler's right to bear arms in 1933? Would you support
>>Mao's right to bear arms in 1947? Pol Pot in the 60s? The Hutus in the
>>90s?
Summarize? Weren't tehse things more a matter of use of guns by
authorities etc than by individuals?
clarence NELSON
>From: bre...@no-spam.com quieried the following
Summarize? Weren't tehse things more a matter of use of guns by
authorities etc than by individuals? <
I don't have my citations handy like Bill or Scott (gentleman I again
bow to you and would enjoy being in your classes) but I do posses a
sigman cum laude in history from Parkside here in Kenosha. So I think I
can take a wack at your question and answer it well.
Guns were a periphial part of Hitlers rise to power. Street fighting
(between the SA brown shirts and the communists) was more common. Both
Bill and Scott have covered the political part much more elequently than
I am capable.
I doubt if the availability or lack there of,of firearms would have had
any bearing on Hitler's being appointed Chancellor. The more accepted
reasons are as noted by Scott and Bill and the Versailles (sp I would
bet) treaty, along with the world wide depression as noted by the
others.
It was a turbulant time in Europe and remember that Germany paid a huge
price in blood in WWI. That is bound do leave a scare on a nation's
psyche. And it in fact did.
If you read the other's post carefully and what little I may have been
able to contribute you can get a pretty good starting idea of how Hitler
obtained his power.
Bear in mind as in most things in life it is more complicated than
simplistic. Perhaps the first 300 or so pages of William Shirers "The
Rise and Fall of the Third Rich" would be of some assistance.
clarence NELSON
Pardon my French but by damn am I impressed. I thought I was pretty
good at this history stuff in my own right but wow outstanding research
and citation the kind this NG needs a lot more of. I bow to you sir.
BZ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Wed, Apr 7, 1999, 7:51pm (CDT+5) From: wj...@mindspring.com
(Billy Beck) Re:
Quite true --
"Not surprisingly, the 1930
election and the succeeding election in July 1932, when the Nazis more
than doubled their vote again, from 6.4 million to 13.7 million, have
attracted more interest than any others in German history. Since the
ballot was secret the question of who voted for the Nazis is one that
cannot be answered with certainty; but great ingenuity has been shown in
studying the evidence even if there is still controversy about the
results.(1)
Part of the explanation is for the
change in the Nazis' fortune was a dramatic increase in the turnout: 82
percent of those eligible to vote, approximately 35 million against the
31 million of 1928, 4 million new voters who had either not bothered to
vote before or had come on to the register for the first time."
(Alan Bullock: "Hitler And Stalin -
Parallel Lives", 1991, Alfred
A. Knopf, Chapter Seven, "Hitler Within Sight Of Power", p. 216)
(1) This summary is based on sampling the large number of articles that
have been published and four comprehensive studies by H. A. Winkler,
"Mittelstand, Demokratie, and Nationalsozialismus" (Cologne: 1972);
Richard F. Hamilton, "Who Voted For Hitler?" (Princeton: 1982); Michael
Kater, "The Nazi Party: A Social Profile of Members and Leaders,
1919-1945" (Oxford: 1983); Thomas Childers, "The Nazi Voter: The Social
Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919-33" (Chapel Hill, N.C.: 1984).
Although I have learned much from the detailed research of Professor
Hamilton, I am not convinced by his general conclusions, which seem to
me too much colored by his obsession with disproving the "lower-middle
class" thesis. (See the review by Jeremy Noakes of the Childers and
Hamilton books in the "Times Literary Supplement", September 21, 1984.)
The three books by Kater, Childers, and Hamilton contain full
bibliographical references to the periodical literature and regional
studies in German and English.
(op. cit., end-note at p. 1001)
.. in fact, violence was an integral part of Hitler's rise to power, as
he used it to destabilize Weimar. Too many guns also helped lead to the
problems in former Yugoslavia (see: "The Fall of Yugoslavia" by Misha
Glenny, and the role of the gun throughout).
Quiet, ProfessorBoy. Big kids are
involved now, who know what you're up to. It's no good to go sliding
off-point now that you've taken your patented mosquito-buzz at
attempting to deny that the democratic principle is what made it
possible for the like of Hitler to come anywhere near "the German
parliament" (in the words of the previous attempt).
Inlookers: it's no mistake that
Bullock begins chapter seven of
his book (an essential in the study) with analysis of democracy at work
in the destruction of Germany. Nor is this the only chapter pertinent to
the subject. Look: the essential aspect of this discussion is one
constantly recurrent in Usenet; the fact that democracy is necessarily
open to this very sort of disaster vs. the stark nonsense that Adolph
Hitler was not voted into power. Ankle-biters like Gottlieb are happy to
begin their analyses in mid-air or wherever-else suits them in order to
dodge the fact that, without millions of people voting for him and his,
Hitler would likely have died sometime near the early 60's a starving
bum scrounging for pencil-heads in order to eke out drinking money with
a scribble fobbed-off on kind-hearted tourists at Vienna. The reason
they deny the complicity of democracy in the actual history is that they
cannot possibly admit that principally similar horrors could happen
*here*, far less address the prospect that it's already in progress.
Most wormy of all, of course, is
the dear lecturer from the University of Maine, and his investment in
"socially constructed reality", which must be protected at all costs
from the question of whose reality was "socially constructed" at, say,
Bergen-Belsen or Warsaw, how (all the way to the roots), and what that
says about his whole cockeyed peep at what reality actually is.
inver...@my-dejanews.com
bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> You sound sincere. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but ... how much
> time to you spend watching videos of people who claim to have been
> abudcted by aliens etc? Or that the government is covering up their
> 3-headed babies? There's a lot of pain claimed in tabloids, and
> today's technology lets some of those same sort of storeies get into
> videos.
These aren't at all the same. The claims are not exaggerated.
There's a difference between saying
: I was beat up to within an inch of my life. I suffered
a fractured skull and several broken ribs.
and
: I saw weird little men and they took me to another planet
The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them, and that's
why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
> When the video is funded by political enemies ... then
> we'd expect better production and less obvious stories.
If the video were funded by political friends, it
wouldn't exist! (Much of the information in at least one
of the videos is taken from network and local tv footage,
by the way: some mainstream reporters have TRIED to get
these stories covered.)
> I don't know why people tell wierd, paranoid stories,
> and seem to feel and believe them. Some of them seem
> like 'credible' people. But equally 'credible' people
> tell the UFO stories too.
If UFO stories are told with as much credibility as I
see on these "Clinton victim" videos, then I would have to
change my assessment of UFO's. I have an open mind.
Again, I would think liberal compassion would impel you
to take at interest in people who claim to suffered so
grievously at the hands of corrupt authority. I still
don't understand why this is not the case.
> >> ********************************************************
> >> Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
> >> Julie Steele defense site: (trial May 3, 1999)
> >> http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
> >> News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
> >> Petition against Starr, and good info:
> >> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/petition.htm
> >> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
> >> The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
> >> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
> >> *****************************************************
> >>
> >
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> ********************************************************
> Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
> Julie Steele defense site: (trial May 3, 1999)
> http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
> News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
> Petition against Starr, and good info:
> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/petition.htm
> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
> The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
> *****************************************************
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Billy Beck
brain sushi:
>In article <370bc50e...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com
>says...
>> Why d'ya think it is that I have no trouble understanding that
>>you know exactly what you're doing when you hit the cap-shift key
>>while the rest of us are talking about "democratic", as in: majority
>>rule?
>
>(smile)
>
>I knew this would happen. I post something based on facts and even points
>of agreement, and Billy responds with a simple flame.
>
>That's why I have trouble believing that you are as smart as you try to
>claim to be, Billy.
That's just too bad.
>However, we each agree that democracy can fall apart and lead to
>disasters. You certainly haven't shown that something else can do better,
>or that democracy is a bad system. And you haven't refuted Jason's point,
>which I was supporting, that Hitler used violence to create instability
>and grab power.
"Jason's point" completely dodged the whole upthread track of the
matter of voting immoral regimes into power. I'm "smart" enough to
both study the history and post it up for creepy liars like you in
order to keep things on track. I don't give a shit whether you and I
happen to agree, because in your case it's simply a stopped-clock
accident, and it doesn't mean anything coming from someone with the
consistency of a weathervane in the wake of Mr. Bill. Finally, I'm
not the sort of person who settles for the risk of political disaster
simply because someone like *you* hasn't the nerve to live his own
life without resort to direction of the herd, and, for all your
alleged open-mindedness, nobody could "show" you anything at variance
with your kabalic belief in the vox populi enforced with unilateral
state coercion. (Say what you will about me, but do this justice: I
would never force *you* to live my mistakes. You and your state
cannot claim the same moral innocence.) As I said years ago now, Erb:
I'd rather attempt to pin a blob of mercury to my desktop than
approach *you* with rational argument. You're just a punching bag.
>So, I guess you have your flames.
That's right, and you have 'em, too, when I take it in mind.
>The rest of us have reason, evidence, and rationality.
You got nothin', ProfessorBoy. Don't let your day job fool you.
Mike 'J=S
<jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Would you support Hitler's right to bear arms in 1933? Would you support
> Mao's right to bear arms in 1947? Pol Pot in the 60s? The Hutus in the
> 90s? How libertarian-stupid are you, really?
Why do you support Lon Horuchi's right to bear arms, Mr. Moron?
inver...@my-dejanews.com
> Would you support Hitler's right to bear arms in 1933?
If ALL in Germany had the same right, yes: let the
S.A. / S.S. face some armed opposition.
> Would you support Mao's right to bear arms in 1947?
If all in China had the same right, yes. Armed
people may have been able to resist the CCP. I think
armed people tend to be more self-reliant and thus
harder to manipulate than the unarmed masses.
> Pol Pot in the 60s?
Don't you mean 1970s? The armed STATE (in the form
of the U.S.) set the stage for Pol Pot. Our bombing of
Cambodia destabilized the Lon Nol regime and enabled the
Khmer Rouge to take over. (I wonder whether our gleeful
bombing in Yugoslavia will yield a similar result.)
Many, perhaps most, of the people murdered by the
Khmer Rouge were worked or clubbed to death. Would
you advocate banning all clubs?
> The Hutus in the 90s?
The Hutus used machettes. What if the Tutsis had
had firearms?
> How libertarian-stupid are you, really?
> --
> Jason Gottlieb
> My homepage: http://www.columbia.edu/~jpg40
> Writings on East Asian Politics:
> http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/politics_east_asia
I'm not a philosophical libertarian. I'm just being
pragmatic. GOVERNMENT has murdered about 100 MILLION
people in this century alone. Given this fact, I don't
think it is wise to let government have all the guns.
All of your examples above presuppose that one side is
armed and the other isn't. In reality, both sides would
be armed, in which case arms might serve to deter violence.
Charlie
scott erb
says...
> Finally, I'm
>not the sort of person who settles for the risk of political disaster
I hate to break this to you, Billy, but NO system is without risk of
political disaster. None. You have to settle for that kind of risk
because that's the world you live in.
>simply because someone like *you* hasn't the nerve to live his own
>life without resort to direction of the herd, and, for all your
>alleged open-mindedness, nobody could "show" you anything at variance
>with your kabalic belief in the vox populi enforced with unilateral
>state coercion.
I suspect I contribute more to society than you.
But your insults are irrelevant to the point at hand.
> (Say what you will about me, but do this justice: I
>would never force *you* to live my mistakes.
You don't have the power to. And I don't have the power to force you to
live by mine. If you want to see yourself as some kind of victim, go
ahead. I'm too self-reliant for that.
Charlie Inverse
>
> In article <370bea67...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com
> says...
>
> > Finally, I'm
> >not the sort of person who settles for the risk of political disaster
> >life without resort to direction of the herd, and, for all your
> >alleged open-mindedness, nobody could "show" you anything at variance
> >with your kabalic belief in the vox populi enforced with unilateral
> >state coercion.
> I suspect I contribute more to society than you.
> But your insults are irrelevant to the point at hand.
Billy raises an interesting question, though: How much ARE we guided
by the herd, and how much of our lives is truly our own?
For example, WHY do we listen to polls? Why do we care? If 99% of
America says that war is fun, does that mean that war really IS fun?
Or does it simply mean that those of us who know otherwise have our
work cut out for us?
Or, for example, HOW do we counteract the tendency to absorb
perspective from the "media"? How do we step back from the
commentaries and regain the ability to think for ourselves? How
do we learn to read between the lines, and see the issues that
the "media" hide?
What IS a free person? And why is such a person an asset to
society? Why do we need free people? Wouldn't the system be much
more efficient, if everyone were simply to follow orders and
behave?
Charlie
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
---------== Over 72,000 Groups, Plus Dedicated Binaries Servers ==--------
scott erb
> Billy raises an interesting question, though: How much ARE we guided
>by the herd, and how much of our lives is truly our own?
Most people are guided by the herd. It takes a real effort to overcome
the sort of hypnosis that society creates and think critically and
individually. But the rewards of such a life I think outweigh the
difficulty. When one starts really breaking out of our cultural hypnosis
I think the first experience is cynacism and perhaps a tendency towards
ideological fanatacism. When one belief is taken, people yearn for
another (be it Marx, Rand, or whomever). But in time, I think more and
more people come to realize that freedom of the mind in and of itself
makes life fun and joyful.
> For example, WHY do we listen to polls? Why do we care? If 99% of
>America says that war is fun, does that mean that war really IS fun?
I only look at them for the sake of understanding how society thinks and
to help predict what would happen. My own point of view is not at all
dependent on the polls (in fact, as someone on the so-called "left" who is
against the war in Kosovo, I'm in a pretty distinct minority!)
>Or does it simply mean that those of us who know otherwise have our
>work cut out for us?
But of course, those who think they know otherwise often disagree. One
key to wisdom is to know that ones' own belief is as fallible as the next
person's. We still have to act on what we believe, but if we don't
recognize that we may be wrong, we won't have a mind open enough to assess
new data and alter our beliefs if appropriate.
> Or, for example, HOW do we counteract the tendency to absorb
>perspective from the "media"? How do we step back from the
>commentaries and regain the ability to think for ourselves? How
Knowledge. Read different sources. Learn logic, understand philosophy,
learn to read between the lines and understand the biases. For instance,
I'm convinced the media believes it is objective, but the biases are based
in their culture, their reliance on certain sources, and their own way of
filtering the data. We can't know for sure from the media what's
happening, but with critical thought we can know what to hold suspect.
>do we learn to read between the lines, and see the issues that
>the "media" hide?
Or at least understand how bias gets in the way. I reject some kind of
media conspiracy theory. Many media folk are hypnotised too, and no
matter how much you, I or anyone else might think they've overcome their
cultural hypnosis, we're still to some extent products of our cultural
upbringing. Its a constant struggle to think critically, assess, question
our own beliefs, and re-assess. Show me someone who thinks they have it
all figured out and won't ever change their view, and I'll show you a very
deluded individual.
> What IS a free person? And why is such a person an asset to
>society? Why do we need free people? Wouldn't the system be much
>more efficient, if everyone were simply to follow orders and
>behave?
Efficient, maybe, but I doubt that kind of life would be worth living.
ciao, scott
Billy Beck
scot...@maine.edu (scott erb) thumped his skinny chest:
>I suspect I contribute more to society than you.
Yeah, well, I'm sure that's quite groovy for "society".
Me? I work for a living. I'm the only one who counts, and
that's why people hire me.
scott erb
says...
> Me? I work for a living. I'm the only one who counts, and
>that's why people hire me.
Cool. Most people, including myself, work for a living.
ciao, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/nato_bombing.htm
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Jason Gottlieb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> Ankle-biters like Gottlieb are happy to begin their analyses in
> mid-air or wherever-else suits them in order to dodge the fact that,
> without millions of people voting for him and his, Hitler would likely
> have died sometime near the early 60's a starving bum scrounging for
> pencil-heads in order to eke out drinking money with a scribble
> fobbed-off on kind-hearted tourists at Vienna. The reason they deny
> the complicity of democracy in the actual history is that they cannot
> possibly admit that principally similar horrors could happen *here*,
> far less address the prospect that it's already in progress.
Except for one thing, Beck -- I wasn't advocating "pure democracy." I
was railing against the philosophy that every man should be allowed to
own the firepower to make him the master of everyone else's domain
around him.
How can you be for liberty, and at the same time for giving every random
hateful Joe or Adolph the right to end your liberty at a whiff. Just a
pull of a trigger, and bam, all your vaunted libertarian philosophies
end.
> Most wormy of all, of course, is the dear lecturer from the
> University of Maine, and his investment in "socially constructed
> reality",
What Professor Erb knows that you forget is that our "socially
constructed reality" was constructed for a *reason.* Life in
BillyBeckWorld turned out to be nasty, brutish, and short. Sure, you had
plenty of freedom -- until you died of cholera at 23.
Jason Gottlieb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> > And you haven't refuted Jason's point,
> >which I was supporting, that Hitler used violence to create instability
> >and grab power.
>
> "Jason's point" completely dodged the whole upthread track of the
> matter of voting immoral regimes into power.
Beck, check the subject line: the "upthread track" was that giving lots
of people lots of weapons destabilizes and brings bad things. Scott has
nicely elaborated on how Hitler's violence destabilized Weimar Germany.
You just say, "hey, he was elected, therefore democracy is bad." That
does not address the point: he got elected (sort of) by threatening
people and using violence. Guns made that easier.
All your libertarian whining doesn't change the fact that you're
ignoring the argument to bring out BillyBeck Argument #2 (Democracy
Sucks, Nobody is the Boss of Me).
Tim Starr
<jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>>Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected" in the 1980s?
>
>No.
Why not?
>>Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"?
>
>No.
Why not?
>>wasn't Hitler himself "duly elected"?
>
>No.
Absolutely false.
>All three of the above groups used force of arms to come to power.
False. Hitler didn't come to power in a coup d'etat, he won a plurality in
the elections. He came to power just as democratically as Salvador Allende
did in Chile.
>Give guns to power-hungry lunatics. Go ahead, destabilize things.
Does the President know that you talk about him that way?
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
<jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <370A31A9...@columbia.edu>,
> > Jason Gottlieb <jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
> > > > in the 1980s?
> >
> > > No.
> >
> > The U.S. even certified the elections, and used that
> > to justify giving six-billion dollars to the death-squad
> > regime.
>
> The US "helped" ensure the results of the election.
Y'mean, like Red China "helped" ensure the results of the last US Presidential
election?
>>>>Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"?
>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Britain, the U.S., and much of the world sure acted as if it was.
>
>That's because we were colonial bastards, until we came to (some) sense
>and tried to bring the regime down.
Nope. Apartheid South Africa wasn't a colony, it was a Republic, the
Republic of South Africa. The Nationalist government of the RSA came to
power when the Brits de-colonized South Africa, after laying the foundations
of Apartheid.
Oh, BTW, the ANC used force to come to power, too - just like the Nazis.
Tim Starr
<jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> "Mike .J=S" wrote:
> >
> > In article <370A31A9...@columbia.edu>, Jason Gottlieb
> > <jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
> > > > in the 1980s?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> >
> > but that had little to do with their winning pluralities in German
> > democratic elections. They won those on the basis of appealing, as all
> > socialist scum do, to the avarice of the lowest common denominator.
>
>Chancellor.
False. The NSDAP won the biggest plurality, but Hindenburg appointed his
rivals to see if they could form governments because he didn't want Hitler
taking over. They failed to form governments, so he was forced to appoint
Hitler as a last resort. The German parliament had nothing to do with it.
>He was "elected" by barely enough to get him a seat in the chamber.
False. The NSDAP got the biggest plurality in the spring & fall elections
of 1932. Its share of the vote slipped a bit in the fall elections due to
the backlash against Hitler's public defense of the murder of a Commie by
the Brownshirts, but it was still the biggest plurality.
>Without guns for him and his cronies, he would have been laughed out of the
>parliament.
The brownshirts used clubs & knives, mostly. What guns they had they got from
the German military. One of the Social Democrat regimes in the late '20s
passed "gun control" laws to try to disarm the Brownshirts & Commies, but it
didn't work. All it did was set a precedent which the Nazis were able to use
later when it came time for them to disarm their intended victims.
>He also wouldn't have had a very successful genocide campaign.
Bullshit. They barely had to use their guns for the Holocaust, since almost
all of their intended victims were already disarmed. Try reading up on some
of the armed resistance to the Holocaust sometime, like Israel Gutman's
"Resistance", or in his chapter in Leni Yahil's "The Holocaust: The Fate of
European Jews."
>Would you support Hitler's right to bear arms in 1933?
He'd already forfeited his right to bear arms through his crimes.
Would you support Mordecai Anilewicz's right to bear arms in 1943? Would you
support the Haganah's right to bear arms in Palestine in the late 1920s?
>Would you support Mao's right to bear arms in 1947?
He'd also forfeited the right through his crimes.
>Pol Pot in the 60s?
Same.
>The Hutus in the 90s?
The Hutus controlled the Rwandan government, stupid. You're the one that
advocates that governments have a monopoly on weapons (which has been
known to be one of the characteristics of totalitarianism since the 1950s).
How would you have kept the Rwandan Hutus disarmed, especially since most
of the genocide they perpetrated was with machetes, not guns?
>How libertarian-stupid are you, really?
Nowhere near as statist-dumb as you, evidently, since I've already shot down
most of these same arguments of yours, years ago. When will you ever learn?
Oh, BTW, since you've previously said that South Korea's transition to
democracy was peaceful, mind telling us how President Park died? Hmm???
Rob Robertson
>
> In article <370B99F0...@columbia.edu>, Jason Gottlieb
> <jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> > Mao's right to bear arms in 1947? Pol Pot in the 60s? The Hutus in the
> > 90s? How libertarian-stupid are you, really?
>
> Why do you support Lon Horuchi's right to bear arms, Mr. Moron?
"Federal Supremacy Clause"
> Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com. +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
>
> How Easter Eggs are made: http://www.sublimedirectory.com/pod.jpg
_
Rob
Jason Gottlieb
Tim Starr wrote:
>
> Oh, BTW, since you've previously said that South Korea's transition to
> democracy was peaceful, mind telling us how President Park died? Hmm???
He was killed in a UN black helicopter attack flown by Scaife, Vince
Foster, and your mom.
Tim, if you want to say something, just say it.
Jason Gottlieb
Tim Starr wrote:
>
> In article <370B9A6D...@columbia.edu>, Jason Gottlieb
> <jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >
> > inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <370A31A9...@columbia.edu>,
> > > Jason Gottlieb <jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
> > > > > in the 1980s?
> > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > Yes, it was! Not fairly elected, but duly elected
> > > The U.S. even certified the elections, and used that
> > > to justify giving six-billion dollars to the death-squad
> > > regime.
> >
> > The US "helped" ensure the results of the election.
>
> Y'mean, like Red China "helped" ensure the results of the last US Presidential
> election?
Yeah, I'm sure that $100K from Asian-*Americans* made a big difference
to the Republicans, spending tens of millions.
> >>>>Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"?
> >>
> >>>No.
> >>
> >>Britain, the U.S., and much of the world sure acted as if it was.
> >
> >That's because we were colonial bastards, until we came to (some) sense
> >and tried to bring the regime down.
>
> Nope. Apartheid South Africa wasn't a colony, it was a Republic, the
> Republic of South Africa.
Yeah, Tim, and the "republicans" were native Africans. Right.
> Oh, BTW, the ANC used force to come to power, too - just like the Nazis.
Quote Tim starr on this one, folks: "Nelson Mandela = Hitler."
Bill Kasper
signal:
<snip>
=
=The brownshirts used clubs & knives, mostly. What guns they had they got from
=the German military. One of the Social Democrat regimes in the late '20s
=passed "gun control" laws to try to disarm the Brownshirts & Commies, but it
=didn't work. All it did was set a precedent which the Nazis were able to use
=later when it came time for them to disarm their intended victims.
=
<snip>
This fascination with accurate analysis of the facts of history will simply
not be tolerated.
It doesn't feel good...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper
SIGINT, VR-WC->, Evacuation Detail
"Flee the Corpse"
Bill Kasper
=In article <370bea67...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com
=says...
<snip>
=
=> (Say what you will about me, but do this justice: I
=>would never force *you* to live my mistakes.
=
=You don't have the power to.
Yes he does, but he refuses to exercize it.
Cogitate on that.
= And I don't have the power to force you to
=live by mine.
Yes you do.
1) You vote
2) You pay thugs to enforce your vote
= If you want to see yourself as some kind of victim, go
=ahead. I'm too self-reliant for that.
You should have said "We are too self-reliant", it would have
been slightly funnier...
Tim Starr
<jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>Tim Starr wrote:
>>
>>Oh, BTW, since you've previously said that South Korea's transition to
>>democracy was peaceful, mind telling us how President Park died? Hmm???
>
>He was killed in a UN black helicopter attack flown by Scaife, Vince
>Foster, and your mom.
Nope. Try again, Asian Studies major. How'd Park die? It's OK if you don't
know, just admit it.
>Tim, if you want to say something, just say it.
Nope. You ignore everything I say that conflicts with your prejudices,
anyways, so it's more effective to get you to say it.
Tim Starr
> > <jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <370A31A9...@columbia.edu>,
> > > > Jason Gottlieb <jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
> > > > > > in the 1980s?
> > > >
> > > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it was! Not fairly elected, but duly elected
> > > > The U.S. even certified the elections, and used that
> > > > to justify giving six-billion dollars to the death-squad
> > > > regime.
> > >
> > > The US "helped" ensure the results of the election.
> >
> > Y'mean, like Red China "helped" ensure the results of the last US
> > Presidential election?
>
>Yeah, I'm sure that $100K from Asian-*Americans* made a big difference
>to the Republicans, spending tens of millions.
What about the money from Loral, in exchange for the permits to export
missile technology to Red China?
You care so much about preventing small arms proliferation within the US -
how come you don't care about nuclear proliferation in Asia?
>>>>>>Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"?
>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>Britain, the U.S., and much of the world sure acted as if it was.
>>>
>>>That's because we were colonial bastards, until we came to (some) sense
>>>and tried to bring the regime down.
>>
>>Nope. Apartheid South Africa wasn't a colony, it was a Republic, the
>>Republic of South Africa.
>
>Yeah, Tim, and the "republicans" were native Africans. Right.
Yes, they were, just as much as African-Americans are natives of America. In
much of South Africa, the whites have been there longer than the Bantus,
because the whites got there first. Whites have lived in South Africa for
400 years, Gottlieb. The descendants of the original Dutch settlers are more
"native Africans" than you are a "native American."
As usual, your ignorance of foreign countries has misled you. The true claim
of the ANC that the Apartheid regime was illegitimate was that it oppressed a
majority of the people of South Africa, not that the blacks got there first.
>>Oh, BTW, the ANC used force to come to power, too - just like the Nazis.
>
>Quote Tim starr on this one, folks: "Nelson Mandela = Hitler."
Lie. Every time I catch you in a mistake, you try to lie your way out of it.
Why is that?
Do you deny that the ANC used force to come to power just as much as Hitler
did?
I didn't equate them, because Mandela's rule has been very different than
Hitler's, after Mandela came to power. You argued that Hitler came to power
through violence, because the Brownshirts did violence on his behalf. I
merely pointed out that the ANC had its own armed gangs, too, which did
violence on behalf of the ANC to help it come to power, too. This is a well-
known fact to anyone that knows anything more about South Africa other than
what they get from the propaganda the ANC distributed for public consumption
outside South Africa.
Tell us, Gottlieb, how come Winnie Mandela no longer has any position of much
public influence in the ANC? How come she was divorced by Nelson? What was
the dark side of her "soccer team"? While you're at it, tell us: what is
"necklacing"?
Tim Starr
<jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>Billy Beck wrote:
>>
>>>And you haven't refuted Jason's point, which I was supporting, that Hitler
>>>used violence to create instability and grab power.
>>
>>"Jason's point" completely dodged the whole upthread track of the
>>matter of voting immoral regimes into power.
>
>Beck, check the subject line: the "upthread track" was that giving lots
>of people lots of weapons destabilizes and brings bad things.
Which is why Switzerland is so unstable? Which is why Israel's policy of
easy-access to weapons for Israelis so they can defend themselves against
Arab terrorists has led to a decline in shootings by terrorists?
>Scott has nicely elaborated on how Hitler's violence destabilized Weimar
>Germany. You just say, "hey, he was elected, therefore democracy is bad."
>That does not address the point: he got elected (sort of) by threatening
>people and using violence.
So did Nelson Mandela. So what?
>Guns made that easier.
Made it easier for the ANC, too, but I don't see you objecting to how they
came to power.
>All your libertarian whining doesn't change the fact that you're
>ignoring the argument...
You're projecting, Gottlieb. That's your tactic, not Billy's.
Tim Starr
wrote:
[snip]
>1) In 1928 the Nazis had only 2.6%. They jumped to 37.3% in July 1932,
>but then fell to 33.1% in November 1932. They were (according to Henry
>Ashby Turner) literally falling apart before Van Papen saved them by
>trying to form a conservative majority, giving Hitler the Chancellorship.
So, you agree that Gottlieb was full of it when he claimed that Hitler came
to power by holding the German parliament at gunpoint. Thank you!
[snip]
>However, that doesn't deny the point that violence was part and parcel of
>the Nazi strategy for destabilizing Weimar...
It was also part of the ANC's strategy for destabilizing Apartheid, too. So
what?
[snip]
>>>... in fact, violence was an integral part of Hitler's rise to
>>>power, as he used it to destabilize Weimar. Too many guns also helped
>>>lead to the problems in former Yugoslavia (see: "The Fall of Yugoslavia"
>>>by Misha Glenny, and the role of the gun throughout).
You've repeatedly referred to Glenny's book as if it somehow supported your
claim, Professor, but I've been unable to find any such support for it when
I've examined it in bookstores. Other books I've examined have said that
the UN embargo which had been imposed AT THE REQUEST OF SERBIA had the
effect of depriving Croatia & Bosnia of the weapons they needed to defend
themselves against the Serbs.
I don't suppose you'd care to actually quote the text of Glenny's book which
supports your claim?
Tim STarr
Tim Starr
wrote:
>In article <370B99F0...@columbia.edu>, jp...@columbia.edu says...
>
>>Hitler held the German parliament at gunpoint until they voted him
>>chamber. Without guns for him and his cronies, he would have been
>>laughed out of the parliament. He also wouldn't have had a very
>>successful genocide campaign.
>
>Quite true...
FALSE, & you know it.
>-- in fact, violence was an integral part of Hitler's rise to power...
Different claim entirely. It was also an integral part of Mandela's rise to
power. So what?
>as he used it to destabilize Weimar.
The ANC used it to destabilize Apartheid, too. So what?
>Too many guns also helped lead to the problems in former Yugoslavia...
No, not enough guns in the hands of the Croats & Bosnian Moslems led to the
problems in Yugoslavia.
>(see: "The Fall of Yugoslavia" by Misha Glenny, and the role of the gun
>throughout).
Seen it, didn't see any such thing in it.
Tim Starr
Wm. J. Beck, Jr.
(clarence NELSON) Re: Lisa Wants to Arm Citizens with B52s!
Clarence Nelson says;
I don't have my citations
handy like Bill or Scott
(gentleman I again bow to
you...
I think you should try to keep better track of the Bills & BILLYs
Clarence, or I'll be basking in a lot of undeserved compliments. I'm
Bill, and I haven't exchanged posts with Scott Erb in several months.
However in this one. a few of your remarks caught my attention.
Guns were a periphial part of
Hitlers rise to power. Street
fighting (between the SA brown
shirts and the communists) was
more common. Both Bill [Billy]
and Scott have covered the
political part much more
elequently than I am capable.
I doubt if the availability or lack
there of,of firearms would have
had any bearing on Hitler's being appointed
Chancellor. The more
accepted reasons are as noted
by Scott and Bill [Billy] and the
Versailles (sp I would bet) treaty,
along with the world wide
depression as noted by the others.
It was a turbulant time in Europe
and remember that Germany
paid a huge price in blood in WWI.
Indeed they did. The War Reparations demanded of the people of Germany
by the Allies, were draconion and virtually impossible for the defeated
country to meet.
That is bound do leave a scare on
a nation's psyche. And it in fact did.
And when the 1923 hyper-inflation of the currrency didn't work, but
only plowed them in deeper, one can readily see that a people,
desperate for soutions and frantically looking for someone (anyone) to
blame, began searching for a leader. Guess who.
If you read the other's post
carefully and what little I may
have been able to contribute you
can get a pretty good starting
idea of how Hitler obtained
his power.
I think you contributed a little more than a little. You know this
Democracy thing often works in many ways beyond the formal use of the
polling booth or the ballot box.
Regardless of the immediate mechanics of Hitler's rise to power, it is
significant to note that he immediately achieved ovrwhelming and
enthusiastic popular support (a sure form of democracy in action).
Remember the newsreels of him speaking. Did you see the veritable
square mileages of people standing in awe?
Bill Beck
Tim Starr
wrote:
>In article <370cb8c6...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com
>says...
>
>>Me? I work for a living. I'm the only one who counts, and that's why
>>people hire me.
>
>Cool. Most people, including myself, work for a living.
Yes, but your work is more akin to that of Joseph Goebbels, poisoning the
minds of the young with statist claptrap.
Tim Starr
<jp...@columbia.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>How can you be for liberty, and at the same time for giving every random
>hateful Joe or Adolph the right to end your liberty at a whiff.
Billy's not in favor of giving anyone the right to end anyone's liberty "at
a whiff." There's a difference between defending the right to have tools
which can be used to violate people's rights, & defending the right to use
those tools to violate people's rights.
Communications devices can be used to commit libel & slander, but that doesn't
mean that if you defend freedom of expression that you defend the right to
commit libel & slander.
This sort of sophistry is beneath contempt, Gottlieb. You've gotten worse.
Scott Erb
says...
>>Would you support Hitler's right to bear arms in 1933?
>
Well, Tim, I'm a bit surprised at this, but welcome the fact that you at
least seem to recognize that the state has a legitimate interest in
preventing people who have committed certain crimes from exercising the
right to bear arms.
ciao, scott
gdy52150
wrote:
>
>scot...@maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote:
>
>>In article <370B99F0...@columbia.edu>, jp...@columbia.edu says...
>>
>>>Hitler held the German parliament at gunpoint until they voted him
>>>Chancellor. He was "elected" by barely enough to get him a seat in the
>>>chamber. Without guns for him and his cronies, he would have been
>>>laughed out of the parliament. He also wouldn't have had a very
>>>successful genocide campaign.
>>
>>Quite true --
>
> "Not surprisingly, the 1930 election and the succeeding election
>in July 1932, when the Nazis more than doubled their vote again, from
>6.4 million to 13.7 million, have attracted more interest than any
>others in German history. Since the ballot was secret the question of
>who voted for the Nazis is one that cannot be answered with certainty;
>but great ingenuity has been shown in studying the evidence even if
>there is still controversy about the results.(1)
try reading "Who voted for Hitler" it shows that his strongest support
came from the upper classes.
>
> Part of the explanation is for the change in the Nazis' fortune
>was a dramatic increase in the turnout: 82 percent of those eligible
>to vote, approximately 35 million against the 31 million of 1928, 4
>million new voters who had either not bothered to vote before or had
>come on to the register for the first time."
>
> (Alan Bullock: "Hitler And Stalin - Parallel Lives", 1991, Alfred
>A. Knopf, Chapter Seven, "Hitler Within Sight Of Power", p. 216)
>
>(1) This summary is based on sampling the large number of articles
>that have been published and four comprehensive studies by H. A.
>Winkler, "Mittelstand, Demokratie, and Nationalsozialismus" (Cologne:
>1972); Richard F. Hamilton, "Who Voted For Hitler?" (Princeton: 1982);
>Michael Kater, "The Nazi Party: A Social Profile of Members and
>Leaders, 1919-1945" (Oxford: 1983); Thomas Childers, "The Nazi Voter:
>The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919-33" (Chapel Hill,
>N.C.: 1984). Although I have learned much from the detailed research
>of Professor Hamilton, I am not convinced by his general conclusions,
>which seem to me too much colored by his obsession with disproving the
>"lower-middle class" thesis. (See the review by Jeremy Noakes of the
>Childers and Hamilton books in the "Times Literary Supplement",
>September 21, 1984.) The three books by Kater, Childers, and Hamilton
>contain full bibliographical references to the periodical literature
>and regional studies in German and English.
>
> (op. cit., end-note at p. 1001)
>
>>... in fact, violence was an integral part of Hitler's rise to
>>power, as he used it to destabilize Weimar. Too many guns also helped
>>lead to the problems in former Yugoslavia (see: "The Fall of Yugoslavia"
>>by Misha Glenny, and the role of the gun throughout).
>
> Quiet, ProfessorBoy. Big kids are involved now, who know what
>you're up to. It's no good to go sliding off-point now that you've
>taken your patented mosquito-buzz at attempting to deny that the
>democratic principle is what made it possible for the like of Hitler
>to come anywhere near "the German parliament" (in the words of the
>previous attempt).
>
> Inlookers: it's no mistake that Bullock begins chapter seven of
>his book (an essential in the study) with analysis of democracy at
>work in the destruction of Germany. Nor is this the only chapter
>pertinent to the subject. Look: the essential aspect of this
>discussion is one constantly recurrent in Usenet; the fact that
>democracy is necessarily open to this very sort of disaster vs. the
>stark nonsense that Adolph Hitler was not voted into power.
>Ankle-biters like Gottlieb are happy to begin their analyses in
>mid-air or wherever-else suits them in order to dodge the fact that,
>without millions of people voting for him and his, Hitler would likely
>have died sometime near the early 60's a starving bum scrounging for
>pencil-heads in order to eke out drinking money with a scribble
>fobbed-off on kind-hearted tourists at Vienna. The reason they deny
>the complicity of democracy in the actual history is that they cannot
>possibly admit that principally similar horrors could happen *here*,
>far less address the prospect that it's already in progress.
>
> Most wormy of all, of course, is the dear lecturer from the
>University of Maine, and his investment in "socially constructed
>reality", which must be protected at all costs from the question of
>whose reality was "socially constructed" at, say, Bergen-Belsen or
>Warsaw, how (all the way to the roots), and what that says about his
>whole cockeyed peep at what reality actually is.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
home of "The Mr. Sam Memorial Blithering Idiot Of
The Month Award"
Do your patriotic duty and reward your favorite
cackling loon by voting today
at http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html
GDY Weasel
======================================================
bre...@no-spam.com
>In article <3716a9be...@news.sonic.net>,
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>
>> You sound sincere. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but ... how much
>> time to you spend watching videos of people who claim to have been
>> abudcted by aliens etc? Or that the government is covering up their
>> 3-headed babies? There's a lot of pain claimed in tabloids, and
>> today's technology lets some of those same sort of storeies get into
>> videos.
>
> These aren't at all the same. The claims are not exaggerated.
>There's a difference between saying
>
> : I was beat up to within an inch of my life. I suffered
> a fractured skull and several broken ribs.
>
>and
>
> : I saw weird little men and they took me to another planet
Yes. As I said, when it is tabloids funding the stories, the stories
are more interesting.
>
>The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
>Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
>articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
>Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
>what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them, and that's
>why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
What did Starr think of them?
>
>> When the video is funded by political enemies ... then
>> we'd expect better production and less obvious stories.
>
> If the video were funded by political friends, it
>wouldn't exist!
Of course. If funded by tabloids, the stories would be more colorful.
> (Much of the information in at least one
>of the videos is taken from network and local tv footage,
>by the way: some mainstream reporters have TRIED to get
>these stories covered.)
>
>> I don't know why people tell wierd, paranoid stories,
>> and seem to feel and believe them. Some of them seem
>> like 'credible' people. But equally 'credible' people
>> tell the UFO stories too.
>
> If UFO stories are told with as much credibility as I
>see on these "Clinton victim" videos, then I would have to
>change my assessment of UFO's. I have an open mind.
Fine. How much time are you willing to spend on UFO stories to assess
the tellers' credibililty?
>
> Again, I would think liberal compassion would impel you
>to take at interest in people who claim to suffered so
>grievously at the hands of corrupt authority. I still
>don't understand why this is not the case.
Feeling compassion for someone does not mean believing all their
theories. I can belive that some people were beaten up, and for some
reason they are /saying/ that Clinton was somehow involved in it.
The two parts of the story are separate. The beating may be quite
true, in all details. But that does not make "I'm sure it was someone
in Clinton's pay" true also.
We can have compassion for Kangas and his family, we can believe he
died in Sciafe's building -- without believing Scaife himself lured
him there and murdererd him. We can even theoroize that he was
murdered, tho not by Scaife. Etc.
I have compassion for Kathleen Willey aboaut her cat and her tires.
But that doesn't mean believeing the theory that Clinton had something
to do with those things. (Even if a jogger had the same theory.) Cats
disappear all the time, no one does it. Vandalism happens all the
time.
SAdly,
Bredon
---
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 12:55:35 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <370b4852...@news.sonic.net>,
>> > bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> Very sensible...
>> >
>> > I'm glad you liked it.
>> >
>> >> You misspelled 'Clinton', and left out 'alleged'.
>> >
>> >> We would feel compassion for victims if there were
>> >> any. We differ not in our idealsim, but in our scepticism.
>> >
>> > Sorry. I mention the victims without even thinking,
>> >because I've seen the videotapes, and I expect liberals
>> >to come to the aid of these people. I'm disillusioned.
>> >I keep thinking there must be a way to get through the
>> >"liberal" armor.
>> >
>> > Have you SEEN the videotapes? -- "The Clinton
>> >Chronicles", "Obstruction of Justice", "The Mena
>> >Coverup"? How do you answer the people interviewed?
>> >-- Jean Duffy, Linda Ives, Gary Johnson, Sharline
>> >Wilson and others? How do you answer Terry Reed
>> >and Joyce Riley?
>> >
>> > If you have NOT seen the videotapes or read the
>> >books, then how do you know what you are skeptical
>> >OF? I have no special animus towards Clinton. Bush,
>> >I'm sure, was just as bad -- look at all the people
>> >murdered as a result of the Inslaw scandal. A true
>> >liberal, I'm sure, would be less eager to defend
>> >the man at the top and at least willing to LISTEN
>> >to the charges of alleged victims on the bottom.
>> >
>> > Charlie
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:48:00 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Liberale is trying to suggest that "liberals"
>> >> >have a monopoly on compassion and sharing. Now
>> >> >it is true that many "liberals" are (or once
>> >> >were) influenced by compassion, but they need to
>> >> >realize that other kinds of people are also
>> >> >influenced by compassion.
>> >> >
>> >> > Compassion takes various forms:
>> >> > : one person may give the starving man a fish,
>> >> > : another may give the man a net,
>> >> > : a third may give the man a government!
>> >> >
>> >> > There are:
>> >> > : compassionate liberals,
>> >> > : compassionate conservatives,
>> >> > : compassionate populists,
>> >> > : compassionate NRA members,
>> >> > : compassionate communists, perhaps even
>> >> > : compassionate fascists
>> >> >
>> >> >These groups differ not in their idealism,
>> >> >but in their ideology. After a while, the
>> >> >ideology takes over and the initial idealism
>> >> >is forgotten.
>> >>
>> >> Sensible so far. Then over-credulity sets in:
>> >>
>> >> >Perhaps this explains why
>> >> >most "liberals" feel so little compassion
>> >> >for Klinton's victims.
>> >>
>> >> You misspelled 'Clinton', and left out 'alleged'.
>> >>
>> >> We would feel compassion for victims if there were any. We differ not
>> >> in our idealsim, but in our scepticism.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Bredon
>> >>
>> >> ********************************************************
>> >> Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
>> >> Julie Steele defense site: (trial May 3, 1999)
>> >> http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
>> >> News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
>> >> Petition against Starr, and good info:
>> >> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/petition.htm
>> >> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
>> >> The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
>> >> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
>> >> *****************************************************
>> >>
>> >
>> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>>
>> ********************************************************
>> Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
>> Julie Steele defense site: (trial May 3, 1999)
>> http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
>> News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
>> Petition against Starr, and good info:
>> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/petition.htm
>> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
>> The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
>> *****************************************************
>>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
********************************************************
Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
Julie Steele defense site: (trial May 3, 1999)
http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
Petition against Starr, and good info:
http://www.rain.org/~openmind/petition.htm
http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
*****************************************************
Bill Kasper
=In article <7ej2cj$v8h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tims...@my-dejanews.com
=says...
=>>Would you support Hitler's right to bear arms in 1933?
=>
=>He'd already forfeited his right to bear arms through his crimes.
=
=Well, Tim, I'm a bit surprised at this, but welcome the fact that you at
=least seem to recognize that the state has a legitimate interest in
=preventing people who have committed certain crimes from exercising the
=right to bear arms.
=ciao, scott
=
I'll just butt right in here...
The "state" doesn't have the right to do anything.
It is a fiction, and therefor assigning rights to it is rather looney.
Only individuals have rights, and only individual rights can be
violated.
Hitler lost his right when he initiated force on another person.
If you are talking about "who enforces the forfeiture of a right",
that is a different question with an arbitrary answer: It doesn't
matter. The right has been forfietted. The logical choice for
enforcement would be whomever the victims choose (themselves,
or perhaps someone they have contracted with to provide defense),
but it is immaterial to the point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anyway, as to neutron weapons, they were termed the
capitalist weapon because they would preserve invaded German
or Israeli infrastructure while killing off the invaders.
"Think of Cloontin's OAF (Operation Allied Force) as the
perfect leftwing weapon of mass destruction. It kills off
all the infrastructure (bridges, empty buildings, etc) so
as to leave the populace unable to fend for themselves, thus
ready fodder for a life of government subsidy."- Gary Cruse
esrevnI eilrahC
bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
> >Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
> >articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
> >Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
> >what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them, and that's
> >why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
> What did Starr think of them?
Of all the Clinton scandals -- travelgate, filegate, Vince
Foster, BCCI, Sudan, Waco, Mena, OKC, Ron Brown, Bill Colby,
Admiral Borda, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, and subsequent hits,
Gennifer Flowers, Gary Johnson -- Kevin Starr chose the LEAST
substantial to use as the basis for impeachment. Doesn't that
sound strange to you?
For information about Kenneth Starr, see:
http://www.willgriffin.com/kenstarr.htm
Starr has represented China (PRC) interests in a number of
corrupt deals involving sales of military technology to China.
For example (from the above web-site):
e) you also won another suit for Hughes Aircraft of the
"Winstar" type (involving hundreds of millions of
dollars) at the end of May, 1998 and that you have used
your position as OIC in a profound conflict of interest
to successfully sue the People of the United States,
(your OIC client) wherein if you were defeated in this
and your many other lawsuits against the People of the
United States you would then claim and contended such a
defeat was politically predicated upon the fact that you
are OIC; and
f) at all material times, with emphasis since August 5, 1994,
you represented Hughes Aircraft in satellite technology
deals with the People’s Republic of China, knowing that
Senator Fred Thompson, et. al. contended and investigated
a "Chinese Conspiracy" relating to these matters, where
then you violated you Duty of Candor for failing to
disclose this relationship; and
Robert Fiske, the first special prosecutor to investigate
the Foster death was not much better.
Fiske had gotten Clark Clifford off without even a trial
for his role in BCCI, one of the biggest scandals of the
century. I believe Fiske was owned by Clinton. His White
House counsel, Bernard Nussbaum, was a friend of Fiske's.
We also know that Fiske recommended to Nussbaum that Louis
Freeh head up the FBI. William Sessions, you may recall,
was fired as head of the FBI the day before Vince Foster
was found dead.
-- Jim Johnson, former Arkansas senator and supreme court judge
I've read somewhere -- can't locate the source just now --
that cocaine funds coming out of ADFA in Arkansas were funneled
through BCCI banks.
Americans are so naive. We've fallen victim to a classic
scam: two theives, each offering to investigate the other.
Our indoctrination leads us to believe that D's and R's are
MORTAL AND ETERNAL ENEMIES!!! -- so we are unable or unwilling
to see the extent to which the two corrupt parties prop up each
other.
Liberals demonize Starr and turn him into an OGRE. And thus
we think "Wow! If even an ogre like Starr can't find anything,
then Clinton must be clean as a whistle!" In reality, Starr
is the best friend Clinton ever had.
esrevnI eilrahC
Scott D. Erb
>So, you agree that Gottlieb was full of it when he claimed that Hitler came
>to power by holding the German parliament at gunpoint. Thank you!
Here's a hint, Tim -- Jason was speaking literally.
>Other books I've examined have said that
>the UN embargo which had been imposed AT THE REQUEST OF SERBIA had the
>effect of depriving Croatia & Bosnia of the weapons they needed to defend
>themselves against the Serbs.
Please list these books and the sources. From what I've read (evidenced by
the ground strength of the Bosnian forces in 1995), Bosnia was very well
armed. Certainly the Krajina Serbs and the people in the countryside were
well armed with light arms. Light arms just don't do much against a major
military force, but they can help a country slip into chaos. The Croats also
fought a pretty good ground war against the Serbs in 1995 when they won back
most of the occupied territory, and then "ethnically cleansed" it of 200,000
Serbs (whom they also disarmed).
Perhaps you should read Glenny again, esp. the parts where he notes that
everyone had a gun, that a gun almost like a symbol of manhood, etc, the type
of people these fighters were, etc.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
>Tim Starr <tims...@my-dejanews.com> sent out the following digital smoke
>signal:
>=the German military. One of the Social Democrat regimes in the late '20s
>=passed "gun control"
Tell me, when in the late twenties were the Social Democrats in power?
I think you're making this up as you go along.
Scott D. Erb
bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net says...
>
>=You don't have the power to.
>
> Yes he does, but he refuses to exercize it.
No, he hasn't the power. Sorry. I believe that individuals who confidently
and rationally work to create their own world, not whining about the
conditions around them or the choices of others, forge their won way in life.
Some internet poster certainly can't make much of a difference.
> Yes you do.
> 1) You vote
> 2) You pay thugs to enforce your vote
So if someone votes and pays taxes, then they are victimizing you, eh?
You guys are pretty weak willed and weak minded if you see yourselves as such
victims in this society. Oh well, that's your problem. Enjoy feeling like
martyrs who see some kind of truth, fighting for your hopeless cause.
Have a good weekend!
esrevnI eilrahC
> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Feeling compassion for someone does not mean believing all their
> theories. I can belive that some people were beaten up, and for some
> reason they are /saying/ that Clinton was somehow involved in it.
Gary Johnson, I believe, was beaten up after he went public
with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
> The two parts of the story are separate. The beating may be quite
> true, in all details. But that does not make "I'm sure it was someone
> in Clinton's pay" true also.
>
> We can have compassion for Kangas and his family, we can believe he
> died in Sciafe's building -- without believing Scaife himself lured
> him there and murdererd him. We can even theoroize that he was
> murdered, tho not by Scaife. Etc.
Of course. You would have to show motive and means and
character. Now if:
: Scaife's relatives were selling cocaine on a large scale
: Scaife's businesses were laundering cocaine proceeds
: Scaife had had a history of illicit sexual adventures
: Scaife's sexual conquests had been threatened into silence
: Scaife were running for office and his prospects depended
on having a clean image
: Scaife associates had a habit of getting themselves murdered
if all of these things were true and Kangas had the goods on
Scaife, then wouldn't we be justified in suspecting murder?
> SAdly,
> Bredon
> ---
Sometime in 1993, I began communicting with a man
by the name of John Hillyer, an investigative
reporter and a former cameraman for NBC. John told
me that he had met many people in Arkansas, credible
people who had much to tell of the criminal activities
which took place when Bill Clinton was governor.
With great skepticism I went to Arkansas to meet with
John and some of his sources in February 1994. What I
learned shocked me. This book contains some of that
same alarming information about our president, Bill
Clinton (and his circle of power), that I observed and
which the mainstream media has chosen to ignore. You'll
read "first-hand" testimonies about drug running, money
laundering, illegal payoffs, abuse of power, the
improper use of law enforcement authorities, and yes,
even murder.
These allegations are backed up by copies of actual
documents from the Arkansas State Police intelligence
files. These documents, some of them from the Drug
Enforcement Agency and the FBI, corroborate the
illegal drug trade in Bill Clinton's Arkansas. These
documents also show that Clinton's two biggest
campaign supporters were the kingpin figures in the
drug trafficking and money laundering activities.
-- Pat Matrisciana, "America Needs the Truth", introduction
to _The_Clinton_Chronicles
John Kennedy
wrote:
"I'll just rely on the force of government to keep you guys in
line and paying your taxes. Whine away on the internet if you
feel better." -- Scott Erb
Zepp
wrote:
>In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> Feeling compassion for someone does not mean believing all their
>> theories. I can belive that some people were beaten up, and for some
>> reason they are /saying/ that Clinton was somehow involved in it.
>
> Gary Johnson, I believe, was beaten up after he went public
>with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
>The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
Proof, backwards boy?
>
>> The two parts of the story are separate. The beating may be quite
>> true, in all details. But that does not make "I'm sure it was someone
>> in Clinton's pay" true also.
>>
>> We can have compassion for Kangas and his family, we can believe he
>> died in Sciafe's building -- without believing Scaife himself lured
>> him there and murdererd him. We can even theoroize that he was
>> murdered, tho not by Scaife. Etc.
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
*********************************************************************
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Now mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence
http://
WARNING: Contains ideas.
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John Kennedy
>In article <7ej2cj$v8h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tims...@my-dejanews.com
>says...
>>>Would you support Hitler's right to bear arms in 1933?
>>
>>He'd already forfeited his right to bear arms through his crimes.
>
>Well, Tim, I'm a bit surprised at this, but welcome the fact that you at
>least seem to recognize that the state has a legitimate interest in
>preventing people who have committed certain crimes from exercising the
>right to bear arms.
>ciao, scott
No that doesn't follow, there is no necessary relationship between
states and rights, so if one forfeited a right it would not follow
that the state had a legitimate interest in anything.
But "forfeited the right" is an imprecise figure of speech. You cannot
forfeit a right, it's simply the case that just retaliation against
you for the initiation of force is no violation of your rights.
Zepp
wrote:
>In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> >The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
>> >Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
>> >articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
>> >Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
>> >what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them, and that's
>> >why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
>
>> What did Starr think of them?
>
> Of all the Clinton scandals -- travelgate, filegate, Vince
>Foster, BCCI, Sudan, Waco, Mena, OKC, Ron Brown, Bill Colby,
>Admiral Borda, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, and subsequent hits,
>Gennifer Flowers, Gary Johnson -- Kevin Starr chose the LEAST
>substantial to use as the basis for impeachment. Doesn't that
>sound strange to you?
Everything you guys do sounds strange to honest people.
>
> For information about Kenneth Starr, see:
>
> http://www.willgriffin.com/kenstarr.htm
Ooooh! Eating your own now, are you? Cannibalism is always the first
sign of a failed revolution.
Really. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
*********************************************************************
Juan Liberale
>
>> >The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
>> >Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
Oh oh. It is the international conspiracy crowd with their
ususl "the sky is falling" warning.
Here is the argument that you idiots could see if you
would stay off the meth long enough for the paranoid
delusions to abate.
The government is mostly an inept body that cannot
correctly coordinate a large luncheon, much less
a grand conspiracy. The CIA is on a par with the Keystone
Kops and their history is littered with far more
blunders than successes.
You moronic assertion that Kenny Starr is covering for
Clinton just show the advanced deterioration of
your mental processes. Are you really so fucking
stupid as to think that this grand conspiracy would
choose impeachment over dismissal? Fucking idiot.
keep looking under those rocks. You will eventually
find your parents.
--
In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
of today.
The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
the conservatives of today.
Juan Liberale
>
>> Feeling compassion for someone does not mean believing all their
>> theories. I can belive that some people were beaten up, and for some
>> reason they are /saying/ that Clinton was somehow involved in it.
>
>with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
>The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
Urban right wing myth fuck face. You morons hear shit on
your short wave militia radio and are so stupid as to
accept anything detrimental to Clinton as proof. You are
a fucking idiot and you will spend the rest of your miserable
existence as an idiot. Here is a clue. Bill Clinton has
notheing toi do with the fact that you are a loser. It is
a genetic mental defect and your best option may be just a
prescription away.
>
>> The two parts of the story are separate. The beating may be quite
>> true, in all details. But that does not make "I'm sure it was someone
>> in Clinton's pay" true also.
>>
>> We can have compassion for Kangas and his family, we can believe he
>> died in Sciafe's building -- without believing Scaife himself lured
>> him there and murdererd him. We can even theoroize that he was
>> murdered, tho not by Scaife. Etc.
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
esrevnI eilrahC
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:10:20 GMT, esrevnI eilrahC <Inv...@hovac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> > bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Feeling compassion for someone does not mean believing all their
> >> theories. I can belive that some people were beaten up, and for some
> >> reason they are /saying/ that Clinton was somehow involved in it.
> >
> >with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
> >The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
>
Ask Gary Johnson. He'll show you the scars. I can't PROVE
that Johnson is telling the truth. I can only say that he
LOOKS credible, and the story he tells pertains directly to
Clinton.
> >> The two parts of the story are separate. The beating may be quite
> >> true, in all details. But that does not make "I'm sure it was someone
> >> in Clinton's pay" true also.
> >>
> >> We can have compassion for Kangas and his family, we can believe he
> >> died in Sciafe's building -- without believing Scaife himself lured
> >> him there and murdererd him. We can even theoroize that he was
> >> murdered, tho not by Scaife. Etc.
> >
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> *********************************************************************
>
> http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
>
> Now mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
> http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
> http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
> http://resurgent.virtualave.net
> http://home.att.net/~Resurgence
> http://
> WARNING: Contains ideas.
>
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Ernest Brown
activity has been an established legal fact for years, and a principle
that the NRA (!) fully supports.
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Scott Erb wrote:
> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 99 07:28:28 EST
> From: Scott Erb <scot...@Maine.edu>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.society.liberalism,
> alt.politics.clinton, talk.politics.misc
> Subject: Re: Lisa Wants to Arm Citizens with B52s!
rose...@idt.net
>In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> Gary Johnson, I believe, was beaten up after he went public
>with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
>The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
How do we know that's what it showed if we can't see it.
However it makes awfully good right wing fodder if we SAY that's what
it.
> Of course. You would have to show motive and means and
>character. Now if:
>
> : Scaife's relatives were selling cocaine on a large scale
> : Scaife's businesses were laundering cocaine proceeds
> : Scaife had had a history of illicit sexual adventures
> : Scaife's sexual conquests had been threatened into silence
> : Scaife were running for office and his prospects depended
> on having a clean image
> : Scaife associates had a habit of getting themselves murdered
We'd not believe that either.
what we CAN believe is that Scaife, a billionaire conservative
conspiricist know for his quirky ways, has threatened others, uses his
money to systematically harass and discredit those who disagree with
him, engages thugs of all ilk, and in most peoples opinion, DOES have
the means, motivation and opportunity to "take care" of anyone in the
capacity able to hurt him
Anyone who shoots punkins trying to disprove a suicide is patently
psychotic.
rose...@idt.net
>> > Gary Johnson, I believe, was beaten up after he went public
>> >with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
>> >The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
>>
>> Proof, backwards boy?
>
> Ask Gary Johnson. He'll show you the scars. I can't PROVE
>that Johnson is telling the truth. I can only say that he
>LOOKS credible, and the story he tells pertains directly to
>Clinton.
and right wingers can prove NOTHING in the litany of bullshit you
listed as suspected behavior from Clinton.
Moreover, the lunatic fringe that Scaife keeps as company certainly
makes an allegation of murder a lot more credible against him than the
patently stupid shit he's trying to foist off as truth against a
political enemy.
RHA
esrevnI eilrahC <Inv...@hovac.com> wrote:
>In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>
>
>> Feeling compassion for someone does not mean believing all their
>> theories. I can belive that some people were beaten up, and for some
>> reason they are /saying/ that Clinton was somehow involved in it.
>
>with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
>The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
>
>> true, in all details. But that does not make "I'm sure it was someone
>> in Clinton's pay" true also.
>>
>> We can have compassion for Kangas and his family, we can believe he
>> died in Sciafe's building -- without believing Scaife himself lured
>> him there and murdererd him. We can even theoroize that he was
>> murdered, tho not by Scaife. Etc.
>
>character. Now if:
>
> : Scaife's relatives were selling cocaine on a large scale
> : Scaife's businesses were laundering cocaine proceeds
> : Scaife had had a history of illicit sexual adventures
> : Scaife's sexual conquests had been threatened into silence
> : Scaife were running for office and his prospects depended
> on having a clean image
> : Scaife associates had a habit of getting themselves murdered
>
Shoots, and here I thought you might attempt to make
sense....even Jerry Falwell is now pretending he knows
nothing, nothing at all (best if read with a John Banner
accent) about the "Clinton Chronicles". Are you gonna
call a minister a liar?
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
rha
Zepp
wrote:
>In article <370f5e85....@news.snowcrest.net>,
> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:10:20 GMT, esrevnI eilrahC <Inv...@hovac.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
>> > bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> Feeling compassion for someone does not mean believing all their
>> >> theories. I can belive that some people were beaten up, and for some
>> >> reason they are /saying/ that Clinton was somehow involved in it.
>> >
>> > Gary Johnson, I believe, was beaten up after he went public
>> >with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
>> >The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
>>
>> Proof, backwards boy?
>
> Ask Gary Johnson. He'll show you the scars. I can't PROVE
>that Johnson is telling the truth. I can only say that he
>LOOKS credible, and the story he tells pertains directly to
>Clinton.
I've got scars, and Clinton never laid a hand on me.
>
>> >> The two parts of the story are separate. The beating may be quite
>> >> true, in all details. But that does not make "I'm sure it was someone
>> >> in Clinton's pay" true also.
>> >>
>> >> We can have compassion for Kangas and his family, we can believe he
>> >> died in Sciafe's building -- without believing Scaife himself lured
>> >> him there and murdererd him. We can even theoroize that he was
>> >> murdered, tho not by Scaife. Etc.
>> >
>> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>>
>> http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
>>
>> Now mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
>> http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
>> http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
>> http://resurgent.virtualave.net
>> http://home.att.net/~Resurgence
>> http://
>> WARNING: Contains ideas.
>>
>> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
*********************************************************************
bre...@no-spam.com
wrote:
>In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> Feeling compassion for someone does not mean believing all their
>> theories. I can belive that some people were beaten up, and for some
>> reason they are /saying/ that Clinton was somehow involved in it.
>
> Gary Johnson, I believe, was beaten up after he went public
What do you mean by 'went public'?
>with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
If the tape was shown publiclly, the tv station or whatever would have
a copy of their story. I bet they don't.
>The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
The only copy, doubtless.
Mr. X was beaten up after he publiclly announced he had a video of
Elvis stepping from a flying saucer. The video was taken.
Proof! Elvis Lives!!!
Cheers,
Bredon
>
>> The two parts of the story are separate. The beating may be quite
>> true, in all details. But that does not make "I'm sure it was someone
>> in Clinton's pay" true also.
>>
>> We can have compassion for Kangas and his family, we can believe he
>> died in Sciafe's building -- without believing Scaife himself lured
>> him there and murdererd him. We can even theoroize that he was
>> murdered, tho not by Scaife. Etc.
>
> Of course. You would have to show motive and means and
>character.
/snip of even less-supported charges that Starr would have loved/
bre...@no-spam.com
wrote:
>In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> >The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
>> >Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
>> >articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
>> >Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
>> >what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them,
Have you seen the people who claim alien abductions etc?
>> > and that's
>> >why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
>
>> What did Starr think of them?
>
> Of all the Clinton scandals -- travelgate, filegate, Vince
>Foster, BCCI, Sudan, Waco, Mena, OKC, Ron Brown, Bill Colby,
>Admiral Borda, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, and subsequent hits,
>Gennifer Flowers, Gary Johnson -- Kevin Starr chose the LEAST
>substantial to use as the basis for impeachment. Doesn't that
>sound strange to you?
Er, he chose the only one that had even a tiny bit of substance: the
Monica affair and their attempts to keep it private.
>
> For information about Kenneth Starr, see:
>
> http://www.willgriffin.com/kenstarr.htm
>
>Starr has represented China (PRC) interests in a number of
>corrupt deals involving sales of military technology to China.
>For example (from the above web-site):
/snip/
> Americans are so naive. We've fallen victim to a classic
>scam: two theives, each offering to investigate the other.
Who offered to investigate Starr, and when?
>Our indoctrination leads us to believe that D's and R's are
>MORTAL AND ETERNAL ENEMIES!!! -- so we are unable or unwilling
>to see the extent to which the two corrupt parties prop up each
>other.
Why have an impeachment at all, then?
(repeated):
> Starr chose the LEAST
>substantial to use as the basis for impeachment.
>
> Liberals demonize Starr and turn him into an OGRE. And thus
>we think "Wow! If even an ogre like Starr can't find anything,
>then Clinton must be clean as a whistle!" In reality, Starr
>is the best friend Clinton ever had.
Not intentionally, I'm sure. :-)
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> >The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
>> >Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
>> >articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
>> >Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
>> >what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them, and that's
>> >why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
>
>> What did Starr think of them?
>
> Of all the Clinton scandals -- travelgate, filegate, Vince
>Foster, BCCI, Sudan, Waco, Mena, OKC, Ron Brown, Bill Colby,
>Admiral Borda, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, and subsequent hits,
>Gennifer Flowers, Gary Johnson -- Kevin Starr chose the LEAST
>substantial to use as the basis for impeachment. Doesn't that
>sound strange to you?
Yes! Starr is OBVIOUSLY Ron Brown come back in white-face to avoid
legal liability. I thought I was the ONLY one to notice.
You know, I did a little calculation about all the friends and
associate of Bill - tens of thousands - and how FEW are on the lists
of suspicious deaths - only a few dozen. OBVIOUSLY the number of
Bill's friends, body guards, people who ever lived in Arkansas or ever
knew anyone who ever lived in Arkansas, and so on, who have died
suspiciously - is WAY WAY lower than would be expected by chance. I
figure that there are about 100 times as many who SHOULD have died,
based on actuarial tables.
SO how come all these tens of thousands of folks in some way linked to
Clinton are STILL ALL ALIVE?
Well, can you say Faust? Is that Goethe enough for you?
>
> For information about Kenneth Starr, see:
>
> http://www.willgriffin.com/kenstarr.htm
>
>Starr has represented China (PRC) interests in a number of
>corrupt deals involving sales of military technology to China.
>For example (from the above web-site):
>
> Americans are so naive. We've fallen victim to a classic
>scam: two theives, each offering to investigate the other.
>Our indoctrination leads us to believe that D's and R's are
>MORTAL AND ETERNAL ENEMIES!!! -- so we are unable or unwilling
>to see the extent to which the two corrupt parties prop up each
>other.
>
> Liberals demonize Starr and turn him into an OGRE. And thus
>we think "Wow! If even an ogre like Starr can't find anything,
>then Clinton must be clean as a whistle!" In reality, Starr
>is the best friend Clinton ever had.
>
> esrevnI eilrahC
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
gdy52150
wrote:
>
>scot...@maine.edu (scott erb) thumped his skinny chest:
>
>>I suspect I contribute more to society than you.
>
> Yeah, well, I'm sure that's quite groovy for "society".
>
> Me? I work for a living. I'm the only one who counts, and
>that's why people hire me.
yup and I bet that you are the best damn ditch digger in those parts.
the schmoo
>esrevnI eilrahC <Inv...@hovac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> > Gary Johnson, I believe, was beaten up after he went public
>>> >with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
>>> >The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
>>>
>>> Proof, backwards boy?
>>
>> Ask Gary Johnson. He'll show you the scars. I can't PROVE
>>that Johnson is telling the truth. I can only say that he
>>LOOKS credible, and the story he tells pertains directly to
>>Clinton.
>
>and right wingers can prove NOTHING in the litany of bullshit you
>listed as suspected behavior from Clinton.
can you prove Oswald killed Kennedy? That he didn't?
Can you prove were weren't lied to? That we were?
Sometimes you have to evaluate the available evidence and draw your
own conclusions. If one accepts as gospel what the government and the
courts to tell him the "truth" is, well, I guess he ends up like
you....Helpless. Hopeless. Ignorant by choice. And, in the none too
distant future, no longer of any use to the government and/or the
party he blindly supports.
the schmoo
>The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
>
>Urban right wing myth fuck face. You morons hear shit on
>your short wave militia radio and are so stupid as to
>accept anything detrimental to Clinton as proof. You are
>a fucking idiot and you will spend the rest of your miserable
>existence as an idiot. Here is a clue. Bill Clinton has
>notheing toi do with the fact that you are a loser. It is
>a genetic mental defect and your best option may be just a
>prescription away.
well said.
>--
>In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
>in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
>tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
>and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
>members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
>of today.
>The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
>food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
>elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
>the conservatives of today.
>
In the good old days, when most of the human race still lived in the
sticks, there were two tribes. When a family in the first tribe lost a
breadwinner, they sat on their asses and whined for help and charity
and got all pissy if they weren't given all the handouts they thought
they deserved. They substituted the term "less fortunate" for
everything from "lazy," "stupid," "drunk," and "envious," and never
learned a goddamned thing from the poor bastard that worked himself to
death supporting them. They evolved into the liberals of today.
The second tribe was different. When one of their own (?) lost the
food grubber, they said "Well, that's the end of the free ride. We'd
best get off our asses." Guess what they turned into.
bbot...@eatel.net
esrevnI eilrahC <Inv...@hovac.com> wrote:
> In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>
>
> > >The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
> > >Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
> > >articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
> > >Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
> > >what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them, and that's
> > >why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
>
> > What did Starr think of them?
>
> Foster, BCCI, Sudan, Waco, Mena, OKC, Ron Brown, Bill Colby,
> Admiral Borda, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, and subsequent hits,
> Gennifer Flowers, Gary Johnson -- Kevin Starr chose the LEAST
> substantial to use as the basis for impeachment. Doesn't that
> sound strange to you?
>
they could pin on him. I particularly know that Clinton
had nothing to do with the Mena events nor did Mena have
anything to do with the Kevin Ives or Don Henry events.
I know this from first hand experience. I have also looked
closely at the Vince Foster death and best bets are he
committed suicide, unless you are of political mentality
and simply hate Clinton. That takes care of much of your
"positioning" without closure. No, it doesn't sound strange
at all.
esrevnI eilrahC
tyre...@workOMITmail.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> You know, I did a little calculation about all the friends and
> associate of Bill - tens of thousands - and how FEW are on the lists
> of suspicious deaths - only a few dozen. OBVIOUSLY the number of
> Bill's friends, body guards, people who ever lived in Arkansas or ever
> knew anyone who ever lived in Arkansas, and so on, who have died
> suspiciously - is WAY WAY lower than would be expected by chance. I
> figure that there are about 100 times as many who SHOULD have died,
> based on actuarial tables.
So your calculations demonstrate that Clinton is somehow
keeping thousands of would-be corpses alive? If I were you,
I would go over those calculations again. Either that, or
you "liberals" are right about Clinton being the next closest
thing to Christ.
esrevnI eilrahC
In article <3717b71f...@news.newsguy.com>,
tyre...@workOMITmail.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:32:09 GMT, esrevnI eilrahC <Inv...@hovac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> > bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >> >The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
> >> >Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
> >> >articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
> >> >Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
> >> >what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them, and that's
> >> >why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
> >
> >> What did Starr think of them?
> >
> > Of all the Clinton scandals -- travelgate, filegate, Vince
> >Foster, BCCI, Sudan, Waco, Mena, OKC, Ron Brown, Bill Colby,
> >Admiral Borda, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, and subsequent hits,
> >Gennifer Flowers, Gary Johnson -- Kevin Starr chose the LEAST
> >substantial to use as the basis for impeachment. Doesn't that
> >sound strange to you?
>
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
esrevnI eilrahC
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
> Ooooh! Eating your own now, are you? Cannibalism is
> always the first sign of a failed revolution.
> Really. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
Very funny! But patriots have been pointing to Starr's
China ties for at least a year.
: The "left" idolizes Clinton and demonizes Starr
: The "right" idolizes Starr and demonizes Clinton
But we're POPULISTS: We do neither. To us, the two fascist
Global Plantation "parties" are EQUALLY corrupt. Starr was
never "one of us". As I said before, Starr is the best
friend Clinton ever had.
esrevnI eilrahC
> >In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
> > bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >> >The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
> >> >Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
> >> >articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
> >> >Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
> >> >what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them, and that's
> >> >why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
> >
> >> What did Starr think of them?
> >
> > Of all the Clinton scandals -- travelgate, filegate, Vince
> >Foster, BCCI, Sudan, Waco, Mena, OKC, Ron Brown, Bill Colby,
> >Admiral Borda, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, and subsequent hits,
> >Gennifer Flowers, Gary Johnson -- Kevin Starr chose the LEAST
> >substantial to use as the basis for impeachment. Doesn't that
> >sound strange to you?
>
> Everything you guys do sounds strange to honest people.
> >
> > For information about Kenneth Starr, see:
> >
> > http://www.willgriffin.com/kenstarr.htm
>
> Ooooh! Eating your own now, are you? Cannibalism is always the first
> sign of a failed revolution.
>
> Really. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
> >
Zepp
wrote:
>rose...@idt.net wrote:
>
>>esrevnI eilrahC <Inv...@hovac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> > Gary Johnson, I believe, was beaten up after he went public
>>>> >with a videotape showing Bill Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers.
>>>> >The thugs took the tape. That's pretty direct Clinton involvement.
>>>>
>>>> Proof, backwards boy?
>>>
>>> Ask Gary Johnson. He'll show you the scars. I can't PROVE
>>>that Johnson is telling the truth. I can only say that he
>>>LOOKS credible, and the story he tells pertains directly to
>>>Clinton.
>>
>>and right wingers can prove NOTHING in the litany of bullshit you
>>listed as suspected behavior from Clinton.
>
>can you prove Oswald killed Kennedy? That he didn't?
>
>Can you prove were weren't lied to? That we were?
>
>Sometimes you have to evaluate the available evidence and draw your
>own conclusions. If one accepts as gospel what the government and the
>courts to tell him the "truth" is, well, I guess he ends up like
>you....Helpless. Hopeless. Ignorant by choice. And, in the none too
>distant future, no longer of any use to the government and/or the
>party he blindly supports.
You are free to draw your own conclusions, but we are under no
constraints to respect them.
RH
Zepp wrote in message <370f5ef6....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>>> >The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
>>> >Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
>>> >articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
>>> >Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
>>> >what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them, and that's
>>> >why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
>>
>>> What did Starr think of them?
>>
>> Of all the Clinton scandals -- travelgate, filegate, Vince
>>Foster, BCCI, Sudan, Waco, Mena, OKC, Ron Brown, Bill Colby,
>>Admiral Borda, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, and subsequent hits,
>>Gennifer Flowers, Gary Johnson -- Kevin Starr chose the LEAST
>>substantial to use as the basis for impeachment. Doesn't that
>>sound strange to you?
>
>Everything you guys do sounds strange to honest people.
>>
>> For information about Kenneth Starr, see:
>>
>> http://www.willgriffin.com/kenstarr.htm
>
>Ooooh! Eating your own now, are you? Cannibalism is always the first
>sign of a failed revolution.
>
>Really. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
JQP started this a few years ago, right here in this group. I can still
remember him posting about Starr as a 'sellout' when Susan McDougal was the
Target du Jour of the ACI. And of course, Henry Hyde went into 'scapegoat'
mode on Starr immediately after the failed impeachment trial. Additionally,
look at the way they've marginalized Arrianna Huffington for actually
developing brain cells. I further expect that Mary Matlin will be next.
The ultraconservatives have a long history of cannibalism going back to what
they did to Buckley when he started to argue for the legalization of
marijuana. But what we're seeing now is the result of the severe damage
done to the Republican Party by the actions and attitudes of the extremist
Right Wing. The party has to turn away from these loons or face political
extinction. And the Right Wing has never learned to keep its mouth shut.
Looking for some kind of loyalty or honor in the Rabid Right is like looking
for a cross in Dracula's grave.
RH
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>In article <3717b71f...@news.newsguy.com>,
> tyre...@workOMITmail.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>> You know, I did a little calculation about all the friends and
>> associate of Bill - tens of thousands - and how FEW are on the lists
>> of suspicious deaths - only a few dozen. OBVIOUSLY the number of
>> Bill's friends, body guards, people who ever lived in Arkansas or ever
>> knew anyone who ever lived in Arkansas, and so on, who have died
>> suspiciously - is WAY WAY lower than would be expected by chance. I
>> figure that there are about 100 times as many who SHOULD have died,
>> based on actuarial tables.
>
> So your calculations demonstrate that Clinton is somehow
>keeping thousands of would-be corpses alive? If I were you,
>I would go over those calculations again. Either that, or
>you "liberals" are right about Clinton being the next closest
>thing to Christ.
You ever do the numbers? Consider the pool of eligibles for the list -
and the pool of types of death included. I have NO doubt that the
number of "suspicious" deaths on the list is far lower than the number
of deaths which would be suspected by chance alone - if the pool of
eligible events were properly calculated. I DO estimate the undercount
at about 100 fold, roughly.
I mean - why wasn't SOnny Bono counted? People far more remote were.
Just a point that the body count is not too well thought out.
And I LOVE the logic used to "count" people. Ron Brown was shot in the
top of his head, straight down, by someone who then crashed the plane
to kill Ron Brown. And, coincidentally, himself. Or Foster: the REAL
bullet which killed him was a .22 - so the crooks then shot him AGAIN
with a .38 to make it look like suicide.
Is this group grand or what?
I think a tad more logic is called for.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
bre...@no-spam.com
probabilities. Be clear about what is known, what is surmised, etc.
Mark some things as probably true, others as unknown.
Hopefully as we learn more, some knowns will connect up and move some
surmises into the category of knowns. But there are lots of gradations
along the way.
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:54:50 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:47:53 GMT, Moo...@ByCracky.Com (the schmoo)
>wrote:
>
>>rose...@idt.net wrote:
>>
>>>esrevnI eilrahC <Inv...@hovac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
/snip/
>>>and right wingers can prove NOTHING in the litany of bullshit you
>>>listed as suspected behavior from Clinton.
>>
>>can you prove Oswald killed Kennedy? That he didn't?
It seems highly likely at this point. It was the obvious conclusion at
the time, and a lot of energy has been spent from both sides for many
years trying to demolish it, without success.
I would rate it about 95% certain. But am open to new evidence.
>>
>>Can you prove were weren't lied to? That we were?
About what? We are often lied to, and often told the truth, or part of
it. We need to be suspicious of anything told us by the government, of
course -- or by the wannabe government :-), or the tabloids, or people
who would gain by sensational books, etc.
>>
>>Sometimes you have to evaluate the available evidence
Time and interest permitting. Still, the problem is, in most of these
matters, the only /available/ evidence may produce a skewed picture.
For instance, the evidence about Kangas available to me first-hand, is
his website, his posts, and the statements of his friends. This
produces a very positive picture, and makes the suicide theory seem
unlikely. Evidence about the nature of the wound, the details of the
witnesses' story, etc, is not available to me; if it were, the picture
might add up differently.
>>and draw your
>>own conclusions.
Of course. But how firmly? We draw /tentative/ conclluions,
hypotheses.
>> If one accepts as gospel
We should not accept /anything/ as gospel, no matter where it comes
from! Nor accept anything as more proven than it is. :-)
>>what the government and the
>>courts to tell him the "truth" is,
Of course we cannot do that. This is the sort of information that
painted pictures of Steele as a villain ("attempting to influence one
or more jurors" by, sfaik, telling her side of the story to Larry
King!), that labelled Clinton's conversations with Currie as
"obstruction of justice", etc etc.
We have to be especially careful of accepting a /label/ when we do not
know the fact/action it is actually referring to.
bre...@no-spam.com
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 09:46:29 -0700, "RH" <are...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Zepp wrote in message <370f5ef6....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:32:09 GMT, esrevnI eilrahC <Inv...@hovac.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>,
>>> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT, inver...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>
/snip/
>>> Of all the Clinton scandals -- travelgate, filegate, Vince
>>>Foster, BCCI, Sudan, Waco, Mena, OKC, Ron Brown, Bill Colby,
>>>Admiral Borda, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, and subsequent hits,
>>>Gennifer Flowers, Gary Johnson -- Kevin Starr chose the LEAST
>>>substantial to use as the basis for impeachment. Doesn't that
>>>sound strange to you?
>>
>>Everything you guys do sounds strange to honest people.
>>>
>>> For information about Kenneth Starr, see:
>>>
>>> http://www.willgriffin.com/kenstarr.htm
>>
>>Ooooh! Eating your own now, are you? Cannibalism is always the first
>>sign of a failed revolution.
>>
>>Really. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
I'm liking seeing this with Goldberg and Isikoff.
http://www.slate.com/Features/spikey/SideB01.asp
Wonder if it was a deep plot of Slate to invite Goldberg to reveiw
Isikoff's book? :-)
It was also kind of nice to watch PJ's backers fighting over the
$850,000 settlement, when her first lawyers alone had billed her
$875,000. She had to hire a third lawyer to fight the first two (and
the Rutherford Foundation??) to get any of it for herself. And has
promised some of the lawyers a percentage of her "future earnings"
(from books and interviews I assume).
Cheers,
Bredon
---
>
>JQP started this a few years ago, right here in this group. I can still
>remember him posting about Starr as a 'sellout' when Susan McDougal was the
>Target du Jour of the ACI. And of course, Henry Hyde went into 'scapegoat'
>mode on Starr immediately after the failed impeachment trial. Additionally,
>look at the way they've marginalized Arrianna Huffington for actually
>developing brain cells. I further expect that Mary Matlin will be next.
>The ultraconservatives have a long history of cannibalism going back to what
>they did to Buckley when he started to argue for the legalization of
>marijuana. But what we're seeing now is the result of the severe damage
>done to the Republican Party by the actions and attitudes of the extremist
>Right Wing. The party has to turn away from these loons or face political
>extinction. And the Right Wing has never learned to keep its mouth shut.
>
>Looking for some kind of loyalty or honor in the Rabid Right is like looking
>for a cross in Dracula's grave.
>
>RH
>
********************************************************
esrevnI eilrahC
> bbot...@eatel.net <7eqaic$ioe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>> esrevnI eilrahC <Inv...@hovac.com> <7engc9$ffn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>>> bre...@no-spam.com <3729d4b9...@news.sonic.net>
>>>> inver...@my-dejanews.com Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:58:13 GMT
> No, it doesn't sound strange. It sounds like that is all
> they could pin on him. I particularly know that Clinton
> had nothing to do with the Mena events nor did Mena have
> anything to do with the Kevin Ives or Don Henry events.
> I know this from first hand experience.
I have an open mind. However, it's your "first hand
experience" against the first-hand experience of others
who testify at length on videotape about Clinton's role.
If you want to convince me, you will have elaborate
greatly.
When you say Clinton "had nothing to do with" the Mena
drug operation, that seems rather categorical. Do you
mean that Clinton wasn't the one who started it? Or do
you mean that Clinton wasn't even aware of the operation?
The latter is completely implausible. The evidence
indicates that Clinton participated.
> I have also looked closely at the Vince Foster death
> and best bets are he committed suicide, unless you are
> of political mentality and simply hate Clinton. That
> takes care of much of your "positioning" without closure.
> No, it doesn't sound strange at all.
I do NOT "hate Clinton". I think the puritanism fostered
by the Republicans is far worse than the promiscuity fostered
by Clinton. In some ways, Clinton has actually been good
for the country -- an antidote to hypocrisy, at least!
There are, however, dozens, probably hundreds, of facts
that indicate the Vince Foster investigations were repeatedly
and obviously cooked. It may well be that Foster committed
suicide, but if so, he certainly didn't do it in Fort Marcy
Park. At that point, we have to ask who moved him and why,
and why the elaborate cover-up? I think we have to assume
murder, until it is proven otherwise.
But I like your attitude. At least you DID "look closely",
which is more than most "liberals" seem to do. As I said, I
have an open mind. Offer evidence and I'll listen.
esrevnI eilrahC
> > > >The people interviewed are HIGHLY credible and responsible.
> > > >Many of them are veterans in law enforcement. They are very
> > > >articulate. Their accounts are detailed and quite believable.
> > > >Since you haven't seen them, I repeat, you don't even know
> > > >what you are skeptical OF. I HAVE seen them, and that's
> > > >why I seem obsessed with getting these people a hearing.
> > > What did Starr think of them?
> > Of all the Clinton scandals -- travelgate, filegate, Vince
> > Foster, BCCI, Sudan, Waco, Mena, OKC, Ron Brown, Bill Colby,
> > Admiral Borda, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, and subsequent hits,
> > Gennifer Flowers, Gary Johnson -- Kevin Starr chose the LEAST
> > substantial to use as the basis for impeachment. Doesn't that
> > sound strange to you?
[see top for reply]
esrevnI eilrahC
>> Inv...@hovac.com <370CA6...@hovac.com>
Sorry my reply is so late. The problem is, I agree with
almost everything you say!
> > Billy raises an interesting question, though: How much ARE
> > we guided by the herd, and how much of our lives is truly our own?
>
> Most people are guided by the herd. It takes a real
> effort to overcome the sort of hypnosis that society
> creates and think critically and individually.
.... There are voices which we hear in solitude, but
they grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the
world. Society everywhere is in conspiracy against
the manhood of every one of its members. Society is a
joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for
the better securing of his bread to each stockholder,
to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater.
The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-
reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities
and creators, but names and customs.
Whoso would be a man, must be a bonconformist. He
who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered
by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be
goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the
integrity of your own mind.
-- Emerson, "Self Reliance". Quoting these words, right
now, gives me a THRILL! What clarity and eloquence!
> But the rewards of such a life I think outweigh the
> difficulty.
They sure do! Transcendence is ecstasy! Intellectual
freedom is heady stuff! I think if the "left" were
serious about revolution, it would celebrate this freedom
with all its might!
esrevnI eilrahC
esrevnI eilrahC
> scot...@maine.edu (scott erb) <7eid9g$2hoi$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
>> Inv...@hovac.com <370CA6...@hovac.com>
> When one starts really breaking out of our cultural
> hypnosis I think the first experience is cynicism
> and perhaps a tendency towards ideological fanatacism.
> When one belief is taken, people yearn for another
> (be it Marx, Rand, or whomever). But in time, I think
> more and more people come to realize that freedom of
> the mind in and of itself makes life fun and joyful.
I often speak of "extremism of the middle". I use the
metaphor of a crowd at the locked gates of a stadium.
The people on the fringe are getting crushed, but the
people in the middle continue to push. The "centrists"
hear the cries coming from the fringe, and they say
"Listen to the noise those lunatics are making!". They
think it's all in good fun, so they continue to push
blindly.
The "center" is extreme in its shallowness and apathy,
in its insularity and inhumanity. The people at the
edge may be crazy, but at least they're getting a TASTE
of reality. To be a full human being, I think one has
to explore the WHOLE political terrain. Maybe then one
returns to the "center", but the "center" is now a
SYNTHESIS, not an exclusion or cancelation of all that is
alive.
HOW does one start "really breaking out" of the
"cultural hypnosis"? How did YOU?
In my case, it was shortwave radio in the late 1970s.
I grew up believing that the Soviets were akin to ogres,
crazed, vicious, eager to nuke us out of pure spite.
Then I discovered Radio Moscow. The announcers were
polite, friendly, warm, respectful, genial; the
commentaries intelligent, sensible; the side of history
presented was fresh and plausible.
At the same time, I was reading _National_Review, and
most of the NR writers insisted on behaving like rabid,
crazed, vicious, cold-blooded militarists. Though I
remained skeptical of Radio Moscow, as I would be
skeptical of any advertisement, I came to like the people
and the sensible pro-peace pro-trade commentaries. Thus
I was led to start questioning my Cold War stereotypes
and beliefs. Later, when I discovered the U.S. peace
movement (miniscule as it was), I discovered that Radio
Moscow had actually far UNDERSTATED the situation: The
U.S. role in the race to the precipice was far, far worse
than what Radio Moscow was saying.
The point is, RM gave me a CHOICE, a SECOND perspective.
Most Americans I suppose, never get such a choice, so
they have nothing to COMPARE the mainstream perspective
WITH. Having a choice forces one to begin to think for
ONESELF, come to one's OWN conclusions, feel one's OWN
feelings.
Scott Erb
> The "center" is extreme in its shallowness and apathy,
>in its insularity and inhumanity. The people at the
You need to define "center." It appears to me you set it up as a straw
man.
>edge may be crazy, but at least they're getting a TASTE
>of reality.
The "edge" is in and of itself no more or less legitimate or correct than
the "center." One's beliefs have to be assessed on the basis of what that
belief is, not simply how it relates to other beliefs.
Or simply: it is irrational to say that the center is better because it is
not the extreme, or to say the extreme is better because it is not the
center. Either position is irrational.
> To be a full human being, I think one has
>to explore the WHOLE political terrain. Maybe then one
>returns to the "center", but the "center" is now a
>SYNTHESIS, not an exclusion or cancelation of all that is
>alive.
I certainly agree that ANY position -- on the edge or in the middle --
chosen only because of where that position is seems irrational. But you
above seem to admit that some people who are "centrists" may have arrived
at their position by exploring extremes and choosing the center. Thus
blanket attacks on "centrists" can't be accurate, it depends on each
individual process to get there. The same, of course, goes for
extremists. Some are mindless ideologues following some book or teaching,
others are thinkers who have explored ideas and keep exploring, who
currently find a particular position which happens to be located on the
extreme most persuasive.
> HOW does one start "really breaking out" of the
>"cultural hypnosis"? How did YOU?
I think one has to question what is taught, experience other cultures (not
necessarily international, though that helps), read and learn, and try to
think scientifically/rationally.
The key is to question beliefs and understandings, and not just to hold on
to learned prejudices and biases.
Rest deleted -- I agree completely that reading and experiencing opposite
and different perspectives is necessary, and that people need to reach
beyond the "convenient" sources of ideas and news. I believe that
universities should, if they are fulfilling their duty, be a hotbed of
diverse ideas, allowing students to see different views and learn. Too
many these days tend to program students into a conventional wisdom, and
that is ultimately detrimental to a society.
cheers, scott
esrevnI eilrahC
> scot...@maine.edu (scott erb) <7eid9g$2hoi$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
>> Inv...@hovac.com <370CA6...@hovac.com>
> > For example, WHY do we listen to polls? Why do we care?
> >If 99% of America says that war is fun, does that mean that
> >war really IS fun?
> I only look at them for the sake of understanding how society
> thinks and to help predict what would happen. My own point
> of view is not at all dependent on the polls (in fact, as
> someone on the so-called "left" who is against the war in
> Kosovo, I'm in a pretty distinct minority!)
> >Or does it simply mean that those of us who know otherwise
> >have our work cut out for us?
> But of course, those who think they know otherwise often
> disagree. One key to wisdom is to know that ones' own
> belief is as fallible as the next person's. We still
> have to act on what we believe, but if we don't recognize
> that we may be wrong, we won't have a mind open enough to
> assess new data and alter our beliefs if appropriate.
In asking these largely rhetorical questions, I guess I
was trying to get at our unconscious stimulus-response
patterns:
Stimulus: 95% of the American people want war in Kosovo
Response: I need to want war in Kosovo too
This dynamic exploits the blind herd instinct. An true
individual, of course, would step back and say there are
VARIOUS ways to respond:
Response: I have a lot of people I need to reach!
> > Or, for example, HOW do we counteract the
> >tendency to absorb perspective from the "media"?
> >How do we step back from the commentaries and
> >regain the ability to think for ourselves?
>
> Knowledge. Read different sources. Learn logic,
> understand philosophy, learn to read between the
> lines and understand the biases. For instance,
> I'm convinced the media believes it is objective,
> but the biases are based in their culture, their
> reliance on certain sources, and their own way of
> filtering the data. We can't know for sure from
> the media what's happening, but with critical
> thought we can know what to hold suspect.
I would answer Imagination. Few Americans are
able to imagine a global conspiracy to rule the
world. Thus they are unable to put two and two
together.
In the early 1980s, I discovered that it was the
U.S., not the S.U., that was leading the race to the
precipice. I at first saw this as good news, because
I thought we could at least control ourselves, whereas
we wouldn't be able to control a foreign power. So I
tried to tell relatives, friends and co-workers. But
far from seeing my information as good news, people
responded with anger or apathy. They found it impossible
to imagine the U.S. as the "Bad Guy", so the information
I had simply "didn't compute".
I used to scoff at Bible-thumpers. Then, around
1994, I began to find out the truth about Waco and
Koresh. Koresh, of course, was not a fundamentalist
-- his gloss on the Bible was very fanciful. What
I discovered through Koresh and company is that the
Book of Revelations, though not true in any literal
sense, at least gave the Davidians the ability to
IMAGINE what they were up against. They were able
to see the U.S. system as "Babylon", and thus they
were able to step outside it and create a loving
(and in some ways too "loving"!) community. Other
Americans, who take the Bible less seriously, if at
all, are trapped in the "media" worldview.
"Science fiction" -- i.e., fantasy -- likewise
gives one the power to step outside "Babylon".
I disagree with you when you say the "media" think
they are unbiased. Reporters often find their stories
rewritten by the editor. They are told what the editor
or advertiser wants, and they are expected to censor
themselves accordingly. If they refuse, they get fired
or sent to the obituaries page.
Look at what happened to Gary Webb! He must have had
support from his editor to get his story published. Then
the editor came under intense pressure from the CIA
papers -- e.g., the _Washington_Post, the _NYT. At last
the editor groveled and Webb was sent to the far suburbs.
> >How do we learn to read between the lines, and
> >see the issues that the "media" hide?
> Or at least understand how bias gets in the way. I reject
> some kind of media conspiracy theory.
Such as?
> Many media folk are hypnotised too, and no matter
> how much you, I or anyone else might think they've
> overcome their cultural hypnosis, we're still to some
> extent products of our cultural upbringing. Its a
> constant struggle to think critically, assess, question
> our own beliefs, and re-assess. Show me someone who
> thinks they have it all figured out and won't ever
> change their view, and I'll show you a very deluded
> individual.
Very true! The general lack of dialogue in the U.S.
further hampers the critical process: Instead of the
various sides criticizing each other and keeping each
other honest, they just stop talking to each other.
The Internet is just about the only public space we have
left!
> > What IS a free person? And why is such a person
> >an asset to society? Why do we need free people?
> >Wouldn't the system be much more efficient, if
> >everyone were simply to follow orders and behave?
(These sound like rhetorical questions.)
> Efficient, maybe, but I doubt that kind of life would
> be worth living.
Exactly!
> ciao, scott
Tim Starr
scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>
> >Tim Starr <tims...@my-dejanews.com> sent out the following digital smoke
> >signal:
> >=the German military. One of the Social Democrat regimes in the late '20s
> >=passed "gun control"
>
> Tell me, when in the late twenties were the Social Democrats in power?
Sorry, I made a slight mistake. The Social Democrats weren't in power in the
late 1920s, but they did start the wave of victim disarmament measures that
came in Germany after WWI:
'After Germany's defeat in World War I, the democratic Weimar government,
fearing (with good cause) efforts by Communists or the militaristic right to
overthrow the government, ordered the surrender of all firearms. Governmental
efforts to disarm the civilian population--in part to comply with the
ersailles Treaty--apparently ended in 1921.[23]
'The major German gun control law (which was not replaced by the Nazis until
1938) was enacted by a center-right government in 1928.[24] The law required a
permit to acquire a gun or ammunition and a permit to carry a firearm. Firearm
and ammunition dealers were required to obtain permits to sell and to keep a
register of their sales. Also, persons who owned guns that did not have a
serial number were ordered to have the dealer or manufacturer stamp a serial
number on them. Permits to acquire guns and ammunition were to be granted only
to persons of "undoubted reliability,"[25] and carry permits were to be given
"only if a demonstration of need is set forth."[26] Apparently police
discretion cut very heavily against permit applicants. For example, in the
town of Northeim, only nine hunting permits were issued to a population of
10,000 people.[27]'
- http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/lethal.html
>I think you're making this up as you go along.
You're the one that seconded Gottlieb's LIE that Hitler came to power by
holding the Reichstag hostage at gunpoint, Professor. Didn't anyone ever tell
you lying's not acceptable under academic ethics?
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
wrote:
>In article <7ej2cj$v8h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tims...@my-dejanews.com
>says...
>
>>>Would you support Hitler's right to bear arms in 1933?
>>
>>He'd already forfeited his right to bear arms through his crimes.
>
Why?
>but welcome the fact that you at least seem to recognize that the state has
>a legitimate interest in preventing people who have committed certain crimes
>from exercising the right to bear arms.
The State has no legitimate interests of its own. I have a legitimate
interest in disarming those who've proven themselves to be a threat to the
persons &/or property of innocents. So do all other innocent people.
Innocent people have an equally legitimate interest in arming each other, for
mutual defense.
Scott Erb
> In asking these largely rhetorical questions, I guess I
>was trying to get at our unconscious stimulus-response
>patterns:
>
> Stimulus: 95% of the American people want war in Kosovo
> Response: I need to want war in Kosovo too
Yes, I think we can agree that such following the herd is a bad thing, and
it happens all too often. That doesn't mean the herd is always wrong, but
it certainly isn't always right.
>This dynamic exploits the blind herd instinct. An true
>individual, of course, would step back and say there are
>VARIOUS ways to respond:
For my response to NATO bombing as it unfolds see:
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/nato_bombing.htm
> I would answer Imagination. Few Americans are
>able to imagine a global conspiracy to rule the
>world. Thus they are unable to put two and two
>together.
I can imagine it, but after working in DC and traveling and studying, I
think that any conspiracy is a loose one, international bankers and others
who want to assure that cooperation and capitalism expand. But they
disagree amongst themselves, and are increasingly thwarted by independent
governmental actions and other political impediments. The loss of
communism only makes it more difficult for any sort of "world order"
vision to be accomplished. The danger with such conspiracy theories is
they tend to overestimate the power of the alleged conspirators.
> In the early 1980s, I discovered that it was the
>U.S., not the S.U., that was leading the race to the
>precipice. I at first saw this as good news, because
>I thought we could at least control ourselves, whereas
>we wouldn't be able to control a foreign power. So I
>tried to tell relatives, friends and co-workers. But
>far from seeing my information as good news, people
>responded with anger or apathy. They found it impossible
>to imagine the U.S. as the "Bad Guy", so the information
>I had simply "didn't compute".
I think the US and the USSR were two super powers playing superpower
games, in a dangerous and unnecessary type of rivalry. I don't know if
I'd say either was the good or bad guy, both were abusing power and
ignoring the human cost of that use of power.
> I used to scoff at Bible-thumpers. Then, around
>1994, I began to find out the truth about Waco and
>Koresh. Koresh, of course, was not a fundamentalist
>-- his gloss on the Bible was very fanciful. What
>I discovered through Koresh and company is that the
>Book of Revelations, though not true in any literal
>sense, at least gave the Davidians the ability to
>IMAGINE what they were up against. They were able
>to see the U.S. system as "Babylon", and thus they
>were able to step outside it and create a loving
>(and in some ways too "loving"!) community. Other
>Americans, who take the Bible less seriously, if at
>all, are trapped in the "media" worldview.
Koresh was using the type of herd mentality you decry, denying the
individualism of his "flock" to push his own beliefs. That is precisely
the sort of thing a "true individual" opposes. You can think the US over
reacted or was wrong at Waco, but romanticizing the Davidians or Koresh
goes to the other extreme.
> "Science fiction" -- i.e., fantasy -- likewise
>gives one the power to step outside "Babylon".
I like Star Trek Voyager myself...
> I disagree with you when you say the "media" think
>they are unbiased. Reporters often find their stories
>rewritten by the editor. They are told what the editor
>or advertiser wants, and they are expected to censor
>themselves accordingly. If they refuse, they get fired
>or sent to the obituaries page.
Of course stories get rewritten by editors -- that's their job. But at
most reputable news outlets I think even the editors try to be objective;
I think the bias is more cultural, sort of an acceptance of the common
sense or conventional wisdom of the day (which is usually pro-American,
pro-capitalist, etc.) From the contact I've had with reporters, I know
most of them feel very strongly about their role as people out to find out
the truth and report it.
> Look at what happened to Gary Webb! He must have had
>support from his editor to get his story published. Then
>the editor came under intense pressure from the CIA
>papers -- e.g., the _Washington_Post, the _NYT. At last
>the editor groveled and Webb was sent to the far suburbs.
I don't know that particular case.
-snip-
> Very true! The general lack of dialogue in the U.S.
>further hampers the critical process: Instead of the
>various sides criticizing each other and keeping each
>other honest, they just stop talking to each other.
>The Internet is just about the only public space we have
>left!
Universities as well -- we had a good forum on Kosovo the other day, which
included among other things an ex-Vietnam vet very much against the war,
arguing with a German woman who had been freed after WWII arguing that we
have to stand up for what she sees as an humanitarian cause. Other ideas
were presented, it was intense discussion at times, but certainly not any
sort of herd mentality. Perhaps this doesn't happen enough in the press
and universities, but that is where it must happen.
ciao, scott