What is the United State Marine Corps like?
Peter
Peter
Roger L. Perkins
wouldn't understand about what he said.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Peter wrote in message <7c7mrl$agk$1...@news2.tor.accglobal.net>...
Hdlinnebur
wrote;
>I'm thinking about entering the USMC about this time next year when all =
>my schooling is done with. After telling a career counselor about my =
>choice to enter, she suggested that I talk to people already in the =
>USMC. Not knowing anyone, I thought I would ask this newsgroup. I =
>would like to know anything anyone has to say, good or bad, about =
>experiences and what general day to day life is like. What bootcamp, =
>and combat is like? Anything that you would think I should know and =
>definitely stuff a recruiter wouldn't tell me when I enlist.
>
>Peter
You did not state what it is you would like to do in the Corps.
Any particular type of work (MOS) you would like to do?
The day to day routines can very widely with the type of Military Occupational
Specialty (MOS) you have.
The 'average' day of an airwinger is very different from that of a grunt.
I was 27 in bootcamp. It is really not that hard "if" you are mentally prepared
for it. I left a great many 18 year olds in the dust, and I was a two pack a
day smoker before going in.
But, then again, I was doing 3 and 5 mi. runs prior to going in, as well as
plenty of sit-ups and push-ups.
Prior to going to bootcamp you will go to a Military Entrance Processing
center. It is there that you will take your oath of enlistment.
You will pledge your life for our country and Constitution.
I would suggest that you actually learn something about the Constitution prior
to going in. That is, get a copy of the Federalist papers and study it.
After do so, you may want to take into account your education level and your
interests in picking a MOS that could be used in preserving that Constitution.
PS Contrary to what Perky has to say, recruiters are in the selling profession,
and if you don't have the right questions to ask it is not likely that they
will volunteer an answer.
Bill
service not hear your Constitution Crap. And don't even think about trying
to recruit this guy to your "cause".. I usually have high tolerance for
your line of reasoning... But this is too much.
Bill
Hdlinnebur <hdlin...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990311131025...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
Hdlinnebur
wrote;
>What kind of F**ked up response is that HD??? This kid wants to join the
>service not hear your Constitution Crap. And don't even think about trying
>to recruit this guy to your "cause".. I usually have high tolerance for
>your line of reasoning... But this is too much.
>
>Bill
It's my opinion that more people should take the time to learn about our
constitution. Especially those who take a oath to defend it.
I suggested the Federalist Papers so Peter can learn about the constitution
from those who played a significant role in its passage. Not from those who
twist and pervert it.
I would hope that Peter would take the time to read the Federalist Papers. Like
me, he might also be amazed at the relevance of their thoughts to todays world.
Technology has changed, man has not.
You wrote; "This kid wants to join the
service not hear your Constitution Crap."
I did not give Peter any of my 'Constitution Crap'. I merely gave him a source
(from the horse's mouth) of knowedge.
In the news recently there have been some stories about Publishers Clearing
House. People are not reading the documents they get from these people very
well. As as result many people are ending up in the poor house while waiting
for their grand prize to arrive.
It would seem reasonable to me that if you take a oath to give your life for a
document, you ought to have a understanding of it. A failure to understand it
could lead to things much worse then the poor house.
Roger L. Perkins
so fast. This is a guy who advocates the overthrow of the legal government
and, IF he was in the Corps, should have been thrown out at the first
chance. Obviously he never read the oath, if he took it.
Listen to guys like Bill.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Hdlinnebur wrote in message
Hdlinnebur
>Yeah, you take advise from this gangster, Peter. That'll get you in trouble
>so fast.
Peter, Roger does have a point here. Studying the constitution can get you into
trouble, unless of course you keep your mouth shut.
If you were to go around and spout off about what you have learned, and make
comparisons to our current political situation, it can get you into trouble.
You will be labeled as a subversive.
Like one of my personal heros said;" If Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were
around today, their enunciation of constitutional principles would be greeted
with derision and contempt by no less than 520 of 535 members of the House and
Senate."
(Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University [3-12-99
edition of Human Events])
Said, but true. That is why the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is being
pushed in the schools. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are dead letters in
the eyes of this nations' elite.
David Balaban
VALE!
David
David Balaban
find out WHAT you'll be defending, who you'll be working for, and MROE
IMPORTANTLY, the footsteps you'll be following -- We don't have the Roman
Eagle and Latin Maxims because it sounds good!
I leave you with THIS quote to ponder:
“The man who will go where his colors go, without asking, who will fight a
phantom foe in jungle and mountain range, without counting, and who will
suffer and die in the midst of incredible hardship, without complaint, is
still what he has always been, from Imperial Rome to the seacoast of
Britain to democratic America. He is the stuff of which legions are
forged. His pride is his colors and regiment, his training hard and
thorough and coldly realistic, to fit him for what he must face, and his
obedience is to his orders. As a legionary, he held the gates of
civilization for the classical world. . . he has been called a United
States Marine.”
--LtCol. T.R. Fehrenbach, United States Army, Korean War
________________________________________________
Semper Fidelis! (et Semper Prudens)
David J. Stennett
William Gates
Roger L. Perkins
You never did answer my point (and others) about Article I, clause 16,
section 8 of the Constitution that says the Congress has the power:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress"
Why? Because then you couldn't have an excuse to be a little "militiaman"
without actually having to obey the law in the process. Or how about that
"survey" of Marines you talk about? Ever find anyone who actually took it?
No. Or that UN Oath? No there, too. And the UN Declaration of Human Right
(done in the 1950's, by the way) is so unknown that my students in college
never heard of it, much less my kid in high school. And it's almost 40
years old!! What kind of threat is that?
Face it. You like to call anyone who disagrees with your incredibly stupid
and ignorant position on undermining the legal government of this country a
communist but you yourself aren't exactly the good American you try to paint
yourself as. You are just another gangster looking for an excuse to hurt
someone.
Just another punk who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Hdlinnebur wrote in message
<19990313121949...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
Hdlinnebur
wrote;
>Yeah, and you are such an expert.
>
>You never did answer my point (and others) about Article I, clause 16,
>section 8 of the Constitution that says the Congress has the power:
>"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
>governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
>States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
>Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
>discipline prescribed by Congress"
(311 USC 10)
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
•(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under
45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become,
citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who
are members of the National Guard.
•(b) The classes of the militia are -
•(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
•(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
>
>Why? Because then you couldn't have an excuse to be a little "militiaman"
>without actually having to obey the law in the process. Or how about that
>"survey" of Marines you talk about? Ever find anyone who actually took it?
>No.
My not having met an individual that took the 29 Palms survey is irrelevant. I
gave you the report number and all the information necessary to get a copy.
Or that UN Oath? No there, too.
Incorrect again. The oath does exist. Had your medication not worn off you may
recall that I posted 3 different sources for it. The fact that Rep. Lloyd
Doggetts' office has stated that no American has taken it yet, doesn't mean
that it won't happen, or that there aren't plans for that.
And the UN Declaration of Human Right
>(done in the 1950's, by the way) is so unknown that my students in college
>never heard of it, much less my kid in high school. And it's almost 40
>years old!! What kind of threat is that?
That does not surprize me. In a survey of poison Ivy League schools several
years ago, most of the students were not aware of many current events or even
basic history. Some 20 or 30 percent didn't know who Nelson Mandela was!!!
"What kind of threat is that?" What you don't know can hurt you. Like
hydroflouric acid it seeps through your skin with barely a noticable itch and a
slight redness, but, by then it is already attacking away at the calsium in
your bones.
There is no great incentive for having students know that much about the UN,
let alone our constitution.
So Roger, when are you going to have comparison studies of the UN Declaration
and our constitution with your 'students'?
You can video tape it and send me a copy.
>
>Face it. You like to call anyone who disagrees with your incredibly stupid
>and ignorant position on undermining the legal government of this country a
>communist but you yourself aren't exactly the good American you try to paint
>yourself as. You are just another gangster looking for an excuse to hurt
>someone.
That is just plain silly Roger. If I were the gangster you claim me to be I
would have been hurting people along time ago for reasons having nothing to do
with our government.
Roger L. Perkins
Palms thing. You don't know anyone who actually took it but you will pass on the
rumor because it suits you to propagate these lies. I wonder why that is? Of
course, nobody has ever done alot of things and I suppose that is grounds for
passing whatever off as fact as you did with the Oath thing and the 29 Palms
thing. No credibility. Just a liar trying to sow dissension with half-truths. I
have always claimed you were not a friend of this nation, and this just goes to
further prove my point. And you talk about Clinton!
As to my students, we deal with reality, not imagined events. We have looked at
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - put out in the 1950's, I might add -
and discussed that. It's reality, if naive. As to sending you a tape, not! Pay
your tuition like everyone else and take the class. Assuming, of course, you can
get admitted. That is the real question.
Now, to your little Constitutional quote. It discusses the militia, but does not
answer my question (like most of what you say, it avoids the point). Control of
the militia rests with state government (federal under certain circumstances).
They "regulate" the militia. They call it forth. That is the point. You, as an
individual, have no authority to form a militia. That is not your "right", it is
the Congresses. And don't go quoting the Federalist Papers or some other thing to
make your point. Use existing laws. Those are what govern the nation and that is
why you are so frustrated. You don't.
Sorry. You'll have to play dress up knowing you have no authority to do so. Just
another gang-banger.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Hdlinnebur
wrote;
>Oh yeah, nobody has taken the UN oath, but it's a threat huh? Same for the
>29
>Palms thing. You don't know anyone who actually took it but you will pass on
>the
>rumor because it suits you to propagate these lies.
Roger, if you need help in writing a letter or putting a stamp on a letter to
aquire this survey, I would be more than happy to help you.
I wonder why that is?
>Of
>course, nobody has ever done alot of things and I suppose that is grounds for
>passing whatever off as fact as you did with the Oath thing and the 29 Palms
>thing. No credibility. Just a liar trying to sow dissension with
>half-truths. I
>have always claimed you were not a friend of this nation, and this just goes
>to
>further prove my point. And you talk about Clinton!
Roger, here is the link to the Communist Party USA. I believe that your desire
to search for the 'truth' would make you a perect addition to their cause.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/cp-usa/
>
>As to my students, we deal with reality, not imagined events. We have looked
>at
>the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - put out in the 1950's, I might
>add -
>and discussed that. It's reality, if naive. As to sending you a tape, not!
>Pay
>your tuition like everyone else and take the class. Assuming, of course, you
>can
>get admitted. That is the real question.
>
>Now, to your little Constitutional quote.
Actually it is not from the Const.. It is from US Code.
It discusses the militia, but does
>not
>answer my question (like most of what you say, it avoids the point). Control
>of
>the militia rests with state government (federal under certain
>circumstances).
>They "regulate" the militia. They call it forth. That is the point. You,
>as an
>individual, have no authority to form a militia.
I am afraid that you are incorrect. Nothing in federal law says that members of
the [un]organized militia can not form organizations for the purpose of
practicing paramilitary activities.
For the sake of argument I will assume that you are intelligent enough to
understand that clause (b)(2) indicates that the general citizenry (primarily
males) are the unorganized militia.
> •(b) The classes of the militia are -
> •(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
> and the Naval Militia; and
>
> •(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
> the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
> Naval Militia.
So tell me Roger, how is that I, a member of the unorganized militia, can be
made a criminal for engaging in martial activities which can only serve our
country and Const.?
Are you saying that those who make up the unorganized militia should not be
able to engage in activities that would make them better suited to serve in the
organized militia?
That is not your "right",
>it is
>the Congresses. And don't go quoting the Federalist Papers or some other
>thing to
>make your point. Use existing laws. Those are what govern the nation and
>that is
>why you are so frustrated.
Can't disagree with you there. But, that would put you in the same camp as
presidential aid Paul Begala.
Begala, in reference to the Dear Leaders' excutive orders said,"Stroke of the
pen, law of the land, Kinda cool."
Yeah, I can certainly see how you would not want me to quote from the
Federalist Papers.
Peter
Peter
Francis J H Park
things that the Marine Corps offers that the Army, for example, doesn't. I
would imagine it appeals more to someone who likes the prestige and traditions
of the Marine Corps - and the Marine Corps is very strong on tradition.
One thing I do like about the Marine Corps is that it pushes considerable
responsibility onto individual marines. The Marines I've spoken to about
junior/middle-level enlisted leadership have said that even though a lance
corporal is not an NCO grade, it's considered to be a grade-in-waiting, so to
speak, where the "corporal" bit is emphasized. Conversely, a gunnery sergeant
in the Marine Corps has far more unspoken authority than a sergeant first
class, the equivalent rank in the Army. Most platoon sergeant jobs in the
Army are coded for sergeants first class - they are coded for staff sergeants
in the Marine Corps.
One thing the Marines tend to build on, particularly in the junior enlisted
ranks, is indoctrination - the Marines achieve in many ways the same thing
with indoctrination the same things the Army tries to do with training, and I
would say that institutional esprit de corps of your average Marine differs
quite a bit from that of your average soldier. The only place in the Army
where I see that level of indoctrination is the 75th Ranger Regiment, which is
a truly exceptional Army unit.
I don't necessarily say that's a bad thing - I think the Army would really
benefit from a mandatory officer school like TBS, for example, but the Army
has a different focus. I freely claim to be biased, of course, being a combat
arms guy myself, but in retrospect, if I'd had an opportunity to go to a
school that offered Marine Option NROTC, I'd probably be a Marine captain
rather than an Army captain. So it goes.
I tell people the Army was somewhat of a consolation prize for me, but I can't
regret the choices I've made. Opportunities for officers in my specialty
(armor) are extremely limited in the Marine Corps, and as a historian by
education and hobby, my cavalry assignments have allowed me the tradition and
history I really like about the military.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
CPT Francis Park, AR
attached to HHC/2/11 Infantry
Roger L. Perkins
logic, isn't it? Or lack thereof. You also avoid the questions - again. Also
typical.
Face it. Your agenda is to spread as much distrust for this country as you can
under the guise of being a "patriot". You use half-truths, innuendo, and lies to
do that. Like this UN oath. It just isn't there, but you try and portray it as if
it is hoping to catch some simple-minded guy like New who will believe it.
Nope. You aren't a friend of this country and my guess is that very few of the
people who read this are fooled.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Hdlinnebur wrote:
> >Roger L. Perkins
>
> wrote;
>
> >Oh yeah, nobody has taken the UN oath, but it's a threat huh? Same for the
> >29
> >Palms thing. You don't know anyone who actually took it but you will pass on
> >the
> >rumor because it suits you to propagate these lies.
>
> Roger, if you need help in writing a letter or putting a stamp on a letter to
> aquire this survey, I would be more than happy to help you.
>
> I wonder why that is?
> >Of
> >course, nobody has ever done alot of things and I suppose that is grounds for
> >passing whatever off as fact as you did with the Oath thing and the 29 Palms
> >thing. No credibility. Just a liar trying to sow dissension with
> >half-truths. I
> >have always claimed you were not a friend of this nation, and this just goes
> >to
> >further prove my point. And you talk about Clinton!
>
> Roger, here is the link to the Communist Party USA. I believe that your desire
> to search for the 'truth' would make you a perect addition to their cause.
> http://www.hartford-hwp.com/cp-usa/
>
> >
> >As to my students, we deal with reality, not imagined events. We have looked
> >at
> >the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - put out in the 1950's, I might
> >add -
> >and discussed that. It's reality, if naive. As to sending you a tape, not!
> >Pay
> >your tuition like everyone else and take the class. Assuming, of course, you
> >can
> >get admitted. That is the real question.
>
> >
> >Now, to your little Constitutional quote.
>
> Actually it is not from the Const.. It is from US Code.
>
> It discusses the militia, but does
> >not
> >answer my question (like most of what you say, it avoids the point). Control
> >of
> >the militia rests with state government (federal under certain
> >circumstances).
> >They "regulate" the militia. They call it forth. That is the point. You,
> >as an
> >individual, have no authority to form a militia.
>
> I am afraid that you are incorrect. Nothing in federal law says that members of
> the [un]organized militia can not form organizations for the purpose of
> practicing paramilitary activities.
>
> For the sake of argument I will assume that you are intelligent enough to
> understand that clause (b)(2) indicates that the general citizenry (primarily
> males) are the unorganized militia.
> > •(b) The classes of the militia are -
> > •(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
> > and the Naval Militia; and
> >
> > •(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
> > the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
> > Naval Militia.
>
> So tell me Roger, how is that I, a member of the unorganized militia, can be
> made a criminal for engaging in martial activities which can only serve our
> country and Const.?
> Are you saying that those who make up the unorganized militia should not be
> able to engage in activities that would make them better suited to serve in the
> organized militia?
>
> That is not your "right",
> >it is
> >the Congresses. And don't go quoting the Federalist Papers or some other
> >thing to
> >make your point. Use existing laws. Those are what govern the nation and
> >that is
> >why you are so frustrated.
>
> Can't disagree with you there. But, that would put you in the same camp as
> presidential aid Paul Begala.
> Begala, in reference to the Dear Leaders' excutive orders said,"Stroke of the
> pen, law of the land, Kinda cool."
>
> Yeah, I can certainly see how you would not want me to quote from the
> Federalist Papers.
>
Евгений Ожогин
balls by going perosnal. The schmuck just does not realise it is arguments
that count here, not the the steaming load of horseshit he has been piling
up here lately. So, why not let the baby gp play his toys.
The lesson I got in Internet is the killfile.
Regards.
Ivan the Bear
=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business...=
Roger L. Perkins <pe...@sisna.com> wrote in message
36F40AA7...@sisna.com...
>Here you go again. I disagree with you so I am a communist. Typical of
your
>logic, isn't it? Or lack thereof. You also avoid the questions - again.
Also
>typical.
>
>Face it. Your agenda is to spread as much distrust for this country as you
can
>under the guise of being a "patriot". You use half-truths, innuendo, and
lies to
>do that. Like this UN oath. It just isn't there, but you try and portray
it as if
>it is hoping to catch some simple-minded guy like New who will believe it.
>
>Nope. You aren't a friend of this country and my guess is that very few of
the
>people who read this are fooled.
>
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
>
>Hdlinnebur wrote:
>
>> >Roger L. Perkins
>>
>> wrote;
>>
>> >Oh yeah, nobody has taken the UN oath, but it's a threat huh? Same for
the
>> >29
>> >Palms thing. You don't know anyone who actually took it but you will
pass on
>> >the
>> >rumor because it suits you to propagate these lies.
>>
>> Roger, if you need help in writing a letter or putting a stamp on a
letter to
>> aquire this survey, I would be more than happy to help you.
>>
>> I wonder why that is?
>> >Of
>> >course, nobody has ever done alot of things and I suppose that is
grounds for
>> >passing whatever off as fact as you did with the Oath thing and the 29
Palms
>> >thing. No credibility. Just a liar trying to sow dissension with
>> >half-truths. I
>> >have always claimed you were not a friend of this nation, and this just
goes
>> >to
>> >further prove my point. And you talk about Clinton!
>>
>> Roger, here is the link to the Communist Party USA. I believe that your
desire
>> to search for the 'truth' would make you a perect addition to their
cause.
>> http://www.hartford-hwp.com/cp-usa/
>>
>> >
>> >As to my students, we deal with reality, not imagined events. We have
looked
>> >at
>> >the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - put out in the 1950's, I
might
>> >add -
>> >and discussed that. It's reality, if naive. As to sending you a tape,
not!
>> >Pay
>> >your tuition like everyone else and take the class. Assuming, of course,
you
>> >can
>> >get admitted. That is the real question.
>>
>> >
>> >Now, to your little Constitutional quote.
>>
>> Actually it is not from the Const.. It is from US Code.
>>
>> It discusses the militia, but does
>> >not
>> >answer my question (like most of what you say, it avoids the point).
Control
>> >of
>> >the militia rests with state government (federal under certain
>> >circumstances).
>> >They "regulate" the militia. They call it forth. That is the point.
You,
>> >as an
>> >individual, have no authority to form a militia.
>>
>> I am afraid that you are incorrect. Nothing in federal law says that
members of
>> the [un]organized militia can not form organizations for the purpose of
>> practicing paramilitary activities.
>>
>> For the sake of argument I will assume that you are intelligent enough to
>> understand that clause (b)(2) indicates that the general citizenry
(primarily
>> males) are the unorganized militia.
>> > •(b) The classes of the militia are -
>> > •(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
>> > and the Naval Militia; and
>> >
>> > •(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
>> > the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
>> > Naval Militia.
>>
>> So tell me Roger, how is that I, a member of the unorganized militia, can
be
>> made a criminal for engaging in martial activities which can only serve
our
>> country and Const.?
>> Are you saying that those who make up the unorganized militia should not
be
>> able to engage in activities that would make them better suited to serve
in the
>> organized militia?
>>
>> That is not your "right",
>> >it is
>> >the Congresses. And don't go quoting the Federalist Papers or some
other
>> >thing to
>> >make your point. Use existing laws. Those are what govern the nation
and
>> >that is
>> >why you are so frustrated.
>>
>> Can't disagree with you there. But, that would put you in the same camp
as
>> presidential aid Paul Begala.
>> Begala, in reference to the Dear Leaders' excutive orders said,"Stroke of
the
>> pen, law of the land, Kinda cool."
>>
>> Yeah, I can certainly see how you would not want me to quote from the
>> Federalist Papers.
>>
Bill
managed to get one response (from Capt Park) to his inquiry.
Bill
Peter
Bill wrote in message <01be73c9$6e69c9c0$5736...@x.knology.net>...
Hdlinnebur
wrote;
>Here you go again. I disagree with you so I am a communist.
No Roger. I just felt that your inability to look up anything I have stated or
shown to you, would make you a good candidate for membership in the CPUSA.
The CPUSA is looking for a few good men like you. Men who, even in the face of
over whelming evidence, will stick to the party line.
If you can deny the existence of the 29 palms survey and the UN oath at this
point, I believe you would make a fine addition to their ranks.
Tonight, people much like yourself, are at the Oscars.....and to this day, they
to are in denial.
Roger L. Perkins
have a point and so does some other kid listening in who knows no better. I
have gone nose-to-nose with this guy and his type several times. After you keep
pointing out that they don't ever answer the question they tend to go to
alt.militia.conspiracy for awhile and leave the normal people alone.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Евгений Ожогин" wrote:
> Easy, Roger. The pimple-faced no-ggodnik is just trying to show off his
> balls by going perosnal. The schmuck just does not realise it is arguments
> that count here, not the the steaming load of horseshit he has been piling
> up here lately. So, why not let the baby gp play his toys.
>
> The lesson I got in Internet is the killfile.
>
> Regards.
>
> Ivan the Bear
> =Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business...=
>
> Roger L. Perkins <pe...@sisna.com> wrote in message
> 36F40AA7...@sisna.com...
> >Here you go again. I disagree with you so I am a communist. Typical of
> your
> >logic, isn't it? Or lack thereof. You also avoid the questions - again.
> Also
> >typical.
> >
> >Face it. Your agenda is to spread as much distrust for this country as you
> can
> >under the guise of being a "patriot". You use half-truths, innuendo, and
> lies to
> >do that. Like this UN oath. It just isn't there, but you try and portray
> it as if
> >it is hoping to catch some simple-minded guy like New who will believe it.
> >
> >Nope. You aren't a friend of this country and my guess is that very few of
> the
> >people who read this are fooled.
> >
> >Roger
> >AIRBORNE!
> >
> >Hdlinnebur wrote:
> >
> >> >Roger L. Perkins
> >>
> >> wrote;
> >>
> >> >Oh yeah, nobody has taken the UN oath, but it's a threat huh? Same for
> the
> >> >29
> >> >Palms thing. You don't know anyone who actually took it but you will
> pass on
> >> >the
> >> >rumor because it suits you to propagate these lies.
> >>
> >> Roger, if you need help in writing a letter or putting a stamp on a
> letter to
> >> aquire this survey, I would be more than happy to help you.
> >>
> >> I wonder why that is?
> >> >Of
> >> >course, nobody has ever done alot of things and I suppose that is
> grounds for
> >> >passing whatever off as fact as you did with the Oath thing and the 29
> Palms
> >> >thing. No credibility. Just a liar trying to sow dissension with
> >> >half-truths. I
> >> >have always claimed you were not a friend of this nation, and this just
> goes
> >> >to
> >> >further prove my point. And you talk about Clinton!
> >>
> >> Roger, here is the link to the Communist Party USA. I believe that your
> desire
> >> to search for the 'truth' would make you a perect addition to their
> cause.
> >> http://www.hartford-hwp.com/cp-usa/
> >>
> >> >
> >> >As to my students, we deal with reality, not imagined events. We have
> looked
> >> >at
> >> >the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - put out in the 1950's, I
> might
> >> >add -
> >> >and discussed that. It's reality, if naive. As to sending you a tape,
> not!
> >> >Pay
> >> >your tuition like everyone else and take the class. Assuming, of course,
> you
> >> >can
> >> >get admitted. That is the real question.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Now, to your little Constitutional quote.
> >>
> >> Actually it is not from the Const.. It is from US Code.
> >>
> >> It discusses the militia, but does
> >> >not
> >> >answer my question (like most of what you say, it avoids the point).
> Control
> >> >of
> >> >the militia rests with state government (federal under certain
> >> >circumstances).
> >> >They "regulate" the militia. They call it forth. That is the point.
> You,
> >> >as an
> >> >individual, have no authority to form a militia.
> >>
> >> I am afraid that you are incorrect. Nothing in federal law says that
> members of
> >> the [un]organized militia can not form organizations for the purpose of
> >> practicing paramilitary activities.
> >>
> >> For the sake of argument I will assume that you are intelligent enough to
> >> understand that clause (b)(2) indicates that the general citizenry
> (primarily
> >> males) are the unorganized militia.
> >> > •(b) The classes of the militia are -
> >> > •(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
> >> > and the Naval Militia; and
> >> >
> >> > •(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
> >> > the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
> >> > Naval Militia.
> >>
> >> So tell me Roger, how is that I, a member of the unorganized militia, can
> be
> >> made a criminal for engaging in martial activities which can only serve
> our
> >> country and Const.?
> >> Are you saying that those who make up the unorganized militia should not
> be
> >> able to engage in activities that would make them better suited to serve
> in the
> >> organized militia?
> >>
> >> That is not your "right",
> >> >it is
> >> >the Congresses. And don't go quoting the Federalist Papers or some
> other
> >> >thing to
> >> >make your point. Use existing laws. Those are what govern the nation
> and
> >> >that is
> >> >why you are so frustrated.
> >>
> >> Can't disagree with you there. But, that would put you in the same camp
> as
> >> presidential aid Paul Begala.
> >> Begala, in reference to the Dear Leaders' excutive orders said,"Stroke of
> the
> >> pen, law of the land, Kinda cool."
> >>
> >> Yeah, I can certainly see how you would not want me to quote from the
> >> Federalist Papers.
> >>
Roger L. Perkins
right to assumed validity. Nice move. Doesn't work tho'. Neither did posting
something about militia composition instead of who controls, which is the point.
Why not face it. You're just another gangster trying to look legitimate.
Now, since everyone else is getting tired of your and my crap, I'll sign off.
Until you say something stupid again. Then I'll be right there.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Hdlinnebur wrote:
> >Roger L. Perkins
>
> wrote;
>
> >Here you go again. I disagree with you so I am a communist.
>
> No Roger. I just felt that your inability to look up anything I have stated or
> shown to you, would make you a good candidate for membership in the CPUSA.
>
> The CPUSA is looking for a few good men like you. Men who, even in the face of
> over whelming evidence, will stick to the party line.
>
> If you can deny the existence of the 29 palms survey and the UN oath at this
> point, I believe you would make a fine addition to their ranks.
>
> Tonight, people much like yourself, are at the Oscars.....and to this day, they
> to are in denial.
>