rglench...@my-dejanews.com writes: } }In article <905758501$1...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, } Thomas R Beck <beck0...@tc.umn.edu> wrote: }} }} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote: }} }} }} }} }} "Vince Foster". }} }} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that }has }} }investigated it. }} }} }} }} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool.
\
R Glen did not write these words. Let me repeat, R Glen did not write these words.
}} }} }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's }} }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton }hating }} }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up? }Is }} }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask }this }} }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree, }and }} }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over. }} }} Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type }} coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this }} old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white }people, }} women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly }} would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so }called }} "staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about anyone's }} rights but their's. } } Mr Beck makes a gratuitous slander against me, and how am I to defend }myself? Obviously, if I say I would not do such things, then it follows from }such as Beck, that I only say such to prevent anyone from becoming aware of }my 'true intentions'. If I accept his charge, then I only confirm his }accusation. I could ask for my friends on this NG to come to my defence, but }what good would that do, since they would obviously be fellow travelers or }useful idiots. My only defense is my record of postings. Have I ever made a }remark similar to Becks lie? I have made special efforts to include all pov }in this NG. I have never ever even once suggested or called for anyones }censorship in this NG or real life. I have constantly attacked fascists, }neo-nazis and Christian Identity types that have questioned the human value }of the same groups Mr Beck says I dont give a rats ass about. If thats the }case then why would I have done as I have? My only rational suppositions }left to me, is either Mr Beck is knowingly making false accusations, is }ignorant, or is merely presuming my pov since I am a so-called 'soft' }homophobe. I do believe that homosexual conduct is conditioned, largely, and }that it is immoral, and that discrimination against homosexuals is }justifiable in a few circumstances. But I have always denounced violence }against homo's, and have always insisted that homo's should have equal }protection underthe law, except for those few areas mentioned above. I think }that later generations will regard my position (if anyone meanders through }the old dusty databanks to find my posts for whatever reason) as moderate. I }dont really care, however. The church will triumph over its enemies and that }is all that truly concerns me. In the end, Satan and his followers are thrown }into the Lake of Fire. And fools like Thomas Beck wont matter much then }anyway. } }RGlenCheek }
I think so how he mistook the post that I was responding to as being one of yours. As I pointed out in my response to this, you did not the write the section above in question.
In article <905814302$5...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
rglench...@my-dejanews.com wrote: }In article <905788218$3...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, } D...@VVVwintDELLernet.com (Michae+ Schneder) wrote: }} }} In article <905758501$1...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Thomas R Beck }} <beck0...@tc.umn.edu> wrote: }} }} }Do not look for these so called }} }"staunch defenders of the constitution" to giv-- }} }} Don't confuse me for one of *them*, Tom. }} } }He wont, Mike. A libertarian athiest
*Half* right. At least you're getting warm.
}is only half a step away from a hedonistic elitist
What is one of those? A man who enjoys life without your approval?
}anyway. But who is *them*, Mike? We 'homophobes'? We }'christians'? We 'rednecks'?
"Staunch defenders of the constitution". (Jesus...)
}They say that in the moment of truth you discover who can be relied on to }display courage, and stand for what they beleive in and defend their own. Its }good to know how quick you are to point the finger at everyone else. Dont }worry about alienating all of *them*, just make sure the libs dont confuse }you for one of *them*.
Courage is for naught without intelligence to guide it.
Email: Replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS. +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ "If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign." -- Bill Clinton, responding to a question about President Nixon, while running for the US House of Representatives, 1974. +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ Jim Bell's Theorem: http://jya.com/ap.htm and http://jya.com/jdb-zola.htm
THEQ...@webtv.net (R M) wrote: }<html><P>Republican goal?</P><P>You, my friend, may have been duped by }the President's spin-doctors, or by the press. Starr was appointed by }the attorney-general, not by the Republicans. The attorney-general was }appointed by Clinton. Clinton, himself, extended the law which }permitted special prosecutors to act.</P><P>Can you name any Republican }who influenced Kenneth Starr--who assisted, or directed his }investigation?</P><P>Starr is an <b>Independant</b> Prosecutor. And a }reluctant one, at that. Few remember the criticism he received, when he }wished to abandon his role, and return to his prefered life as a }professor. He stuck it out, though, and has performed his duty, while }being attacked, almost daily, by the President's staff, and by loyal }Democrats.</P><P>It is evident, after reading the evidence, that the }President had acted like a horny teen-ager towards Ms. Lewinsky, and }others; and not like a mature 50 year old man, who just happened to also }hold this nation's highest office.</P><P>This nation, my friend. Not }Uganda, or Senegal. The United States of America. A nation of parents }who have, too often, found their eyes filled with tears of pride; even }before their tears of sorrow had dried...for their sons and daughters, }who had sacrificed their lives for others, over-seas; for those high and }noble principles which used to define this nation. Honor, integrity, }freedom.</P><P>Which of those virtues do you believe the President }possesses?</P><P>Bill Clinton, leading on an innocent girl, for his own }selfish satisfaction, is bad enough. It shows a complete lack of }judgement and character for any man, much less the "Leader of the free }world". I think that the lying son-of-a-bitch should have been }impeached over his actions towards Kathryn Willy, a long-time }ago.</P><P>Forty Million Dollars? Again, you have fallen into the }President's spin. "Forty Million Dollars" has been the key phrase of }supporting liberals, and the press, throughout this whole tawdry }episode. Is tax money such an important issue? Why don't we talk about }President Clinton's first-term budget, and the highest tax increase in }the history of this country, and the world. Forty Million dollars--I }don't like it, but it is a drop in the bucket in this government of }waste.</P><P>"Is this the best that Starr can do?" Travel-gate, }file-gate, Whitewater, foreign contributions to the President and the }Democratic party, Cattle futures, etc., etc., etc. There <b>may</b> }have been something there; had not 80 key witnesses had either fled the }country, or had met untimely deaths.</P><P>Go figure.</P><P>Bill and }Hillary did not achieve office because their very personal views, and }commitments, were shared with the majority of Americans. They achieved }office because they were willing to bend, or abandon, their beliefs, to }appeal to the majority of voters. This has always been a poll-driven }Presidency.</P><P>An insincere (but popular), candidate, and }incumbent.</P><P>The American people have, according to Slick Willie's }definition, " not been subjected to sex", by that liar.</P><P>It is }becoming a polular phrase among young people, in this country. Young }men are begging young women--to "not have sex with them."</P><P>We have }been flattered, and deceived, again and again, by Bill Clinton. We }have, collectively, <b>not</b> been screwed by that consummate }liar.</P><P>
Email: Replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS. +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ "If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign." -- Bill Clinton, responding to a question about President Nixon, while running for the US House of Representatives, 1974. +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ Jim Bell's Theorem: http://jya.com/ap.htm and http://jya.com/jdb-zola.htm
} } In article <905814300$5...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, } rglench...@my-dejanews.com writes: } } } } }In article <905758501$1...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, } } Thomas R Beck <beck0...@tc.umn.edu> wrote: } }} } }} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote: } }} } }} }} } }} }} "Vince Foster". } }} } }} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that } }has } }} }investigated it. } }} } }} }} } }} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool. } \ } } R Glen did not write these words. Let me repeat, R Glen did not write these } words. } } }} } }} }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's } }} }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton } }hating } }} }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up? } }Is } }} }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask } }this } }} }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree, } }and } }} }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over. } }} } }} Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type } }} coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this } }} old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white } }people, } }} women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly } }} would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so } }called } }} "staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about anyone's } }} rights but their's. } } } } Mr Beck makes a gratuitous slander against me, and how am I to defend } }myself? Obviously, if I say I would not do such things, then it follows from } }such as Beck, that I only say such to prevent anyone from becoming aware of } }my 'true intentions'. If I accept his charge, then I only confirm his } }accusation. I could ask for my friends on this NG to come to my } defence, but } }what good would that do, since they would obviously be fellow travelers or } }useful idiots. My only defense is my record of postings. Have I ever } made a } }remark similar to Becks lie? I have made special efforts to include all pov } }in this NG. I have never ever even once suggested or called for anyones } }censorship in this NG or real life. I have constantly attacked fascists, } }neo-nazis and Christian Identity types that have questioned the human value } }of the same groups Mr Beck says I dont give a rats ass about. If thats the } }case then why would I have done as I have? My only rational suppositions } }left to me, is either Mr Beck is knowingly making false accusations, is } }ignorant, or is merely presuming my pov since I am a so-called 'soft' } }homophobe. I do believe that homosexual conduct is conditioned, largely, and } }that it is immoral, and that discrimination against homosexuals is } }justifiable in a few circumstances. But I have always denounced violence } }against homo's, and have always insisted that homo's should have equal } }protection underthe law, except for those few areas mentioned above. I think } }that later generations will regard my position (if anyone meanders through } }the old dusty databanks to find my posts for whatever reason) as moderate. I } }dont really care, however. The church will triumph over its enemies and that } }is all that truly concerns me. In the end, Satan and his followers are thrown } }into the Lake of Fire. And fools like Thomas Beck wont matter much then } }anyway. } } } }RGlenCheek } } } } I think so how he mistook the post that I was responding to as being one of } yours. As I pointed out in my response to this, you did not the write the } section above in question. } }
I accept your explanation, HCCRR. Maybe Mr Beck made a mistake. I appreciate your speaking honestly on this matter. There is nothing I value more than free speech for all, and I think my conduct on this NG and in general supports my vanity here (all things in this life are vain).
Thanks again, HCCRR. You've shown more courage than some that I would have thought would defend me, if for no more reason than simple honesty.
RGlenCheek
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
rglench...@my-dejanews.com wrote: }In article <905758501$1...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, } Thomas R Beck <beck0...@tc.umn.edu> wrote: }} }} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote: }} }} }} }} }} "Vince Foster". }} }} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that has }} }investigated it. }} }} }} }} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool. }} }} }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's }} }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton hating }} }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up? }Is }} }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask }this }} }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree, }and }} }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over. }} }} Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type }} coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this }} old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white }people, }} women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly }} would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called }} "staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about anyone's }} rights but their's. } Mr Beck makes a gratuitous slander against me, and how am I to defend }myself? Obviously, if I say I would not do such things, then it follows from }such as Beck, that I only say such to prevent anyone from becoming aware of }my 'true intentions'. If I accept his charge, then I only confirm his }accusation. I could ask for my friends on this NG to come to my defence, but }what good would that do, since they would obviously be fellow travelers or }useful idiots. My only defense is my record of postings. Have I ever made a }remark similar to Becks lie? I have made special efforts to include all pov }in this NG. I have never ever even once suggested or called for anyones }censorship in this NG or real life.
I thought the "Shut the fuck up .." comment to be from rglencheek, but I was in error.
}I have constantly attacked fascists, }neo-nazis and Christian Identity types that have questioned the human value }of the same groups Mr Beck says I dont give a rats ass about. If thats the }case then why would I have done as I have?
Are you not the same rglencheek who has frequently espoused the cause of the Taliban? Is it not true that you do so because you admire them for using their particular vision of what is commanded by fundamentalist Islam to guide their governance of Afganistan, rather than, say, priciples of tolerance and respect for the rights of others?
}My only rational suppositions }left to me, is either Mr Beck is knowingly making false accusations, is }ignorant, or is merely presuming my pov since I am a so-called 'soft' }homophobe. I do believe that homosexual conduct is conditioned, largely, and }that it is immoral, and that discrimination against homosexuals is }justifiable in a few circumstances. But I have always denounced violence }against homo's, and have always insisted that homo's should have equal }protection underthe law, except for those few areas mentioned above. I think }that later generations will regard my position (if anyone meanders through }the old dusty databanks to find my posts for whatever reason) as moderate. I }dont really care, however.
If I am not again in error, aren't you the same rglencheek who likes to base a good bit of his position on his belief in the ultimate triumph of fundamentalist Christian theology?
}The church will triumph over its enemies and that }is all that truly concerns me. In the end, Satan and his followers are thrown }into the Lake of Fire. And fools like Thomas Beck wont matter much then }anyway. }RGlenCheek
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:20:06 -0500, RGlenCheek wrote: } Clinton should not be impeached on the basis of this report, IMO. What } was done is scandalous, yes, high crime, no. With all thats been claimed, } Starr should have found more. This report is a tacit admission that its we } on the Right who have been repeatedly lied to with baseless charges against } a man who an electoral majority put into office. This is the best Starr can } do? OK, shut up already! Get off the mans back, and lets get back to the } issues.
--------------------------------------------- You make some very valid points and I think that Starr is an idiot <grin>.
Those hundreds of FBI files bother me though and they bother me a lot. I was *very* much in favor of President Nixon being impreached as I thought he was "beneath the dignity" of what a President "should be". One of the main reasons I was "against" Nixon was his "enemies list".
I don't see a great deal of difference between Nixon and Clinton in this case.
I think Starr is an idiot partially because he ignored about 80% of his "case" and paid attention to the "sexual" parts of his investigation.
About "sex" per se I could care less (unless it concerns me <smile>). But there have been enough other accusations against President Clinton that I would think that Starr could have released a few details on the first couple of years of his "investigation".
I see no reason why President Clinton shouldn't be impeached.
On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 9:50:03 -0500, David A. Tharp wrote: } Sex biols down to square inches of the male body interacting with square } inches of the female body. Now in most cases this causes no problems } because it takes place in prvite and is talked about (if at all) in privite } also.
rglench...@my-dejanews.com writes: } }In article <905824217$5...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, } hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote: }} }} In article <905814300$5...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, }} rglench...@my-dejanews.com writes: }} }} } }} }In article <905758501$1...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, }} } Thomas R Beck <beck0...@tc.umn.edu> wrote: }} }} }} }} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote: }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} "Vince Foster". }} }} }} }} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body }that }} }has }} }} }investigated it. }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool. }} \ }} }} R Glen did not write these words. Let me repeat, R Glen did not write }these }} words. }} }} }} }} }} }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince }Foster's }} }} }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton }} }hating }} }} }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck }up? }} }Is }} }} }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I }ask }} }this }} }} }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you }disagree, }} }and }} }} }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over. }} }} }} }} Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's }type }} }} coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything }this }} }} old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white }} }people, }} }} women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most }certainly }} }} would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so }} }called }} }} "staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about }anyone's }} }} rights but their's. }} } }} } Mr Beck makes a gratuitous slander against me, and how am I to defend }} }myself? Obviously, if I say I would not do such things, then it follows }from }} }such as Beck, that I only say such to prevent anyone from becoming aware }of }} }my 'true intentions'. If I accept his charge, then I only confirm his }} }accusation. I could ask for my friends on this NG to come to my }} defence, but }} }what good would that do, since they would obviously be fellow travelers or }} }useful idiots. My only defense is my record of postings. Have I ever }} made a }} }remark similar to Becks lie? I have made special efforts to include all }pov }} }in this NG. I have never ever even once suggested or called for anyones }} }censorship in this NG or real life. I have constantly attacked fascists, }} }neo-nazis and Christian Identity types that have questioned the human }value }} }of the same groups Mr Beck says I dont give a rats ass about. If thats the }} }case then why would I have done as I have? My only rational suppositions }} }left to me, is either Mr Beck is knowingly making false accusations, is }} }ignorant, or is merely presuming my pov since I am a so-called 'soft' }} }homophobe. I do believe that homosexual conduct is conditioned, largely, }and }} }that it is immoral, and that discrimination against homosexuals is }} }justifiable in a few circumstances. But I have always denounced violence }} }against homo's, and have always insisted that homo's should have equal }} }protection underthe law, except for those few areas mentioned above. I }think }} }that later generations will regard my position (if anyone meanders through }} }the old dusty databanks to find my posts for whatever reason) as moderate. }I }} }dont really care, however. The church will triumph over its enemies and }that }} }is all that truly concerns me. In the end, Satan and his followers are }thrown }} }into the Lake of Fire. And fools like Thomas Beck wont matter much then }} }anyway. }} } }} }RGlenCheek }} } }} }} I think so how he mistook the post that I was responding to as being one of }} yours. As I pointed out in my response to this, you did not the write the }} section above in question. }} }} } }I accept your explanation, HCCRR. Maybe Mr Beck made a mistake. I appreciate }your speaking honestly on this matter. There is nothing I value more than }free speech for all, and I think my conduct on this NG and in general }supports my vanity here (all things in this life are vain). } }Thanks again, HCCRR. You've shown more courage than some that I would have }thought would defend me, if for no more reason than simple honesty. } }RGlenCheek
} } rglench...@my-dejanews.com wrote: } } }In article <905758501$1...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, } } Thomas R Beck <beck0...@tc.umn.edu> wrote: } }} } }} hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote: } }} } }} }} } }} }} "Vince Foster". } }} } }} }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that has } }} }investigated it. } }} } }} }} } }} }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool. } }} } }} }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's } }} }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton hating } }} }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up? } }Is } }} }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask } }this } }} }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree, } }and } }} }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over. } }} } }} Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type } }} coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this } }} old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white } }people, } }} women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly } }} would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called } }} "staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about anyone's } }} rights but their's. } } } Mr Beck makes a gratuitous slander against me, and how am I to defend } }myself? Obviously, if I say I would not do such things, then it follows from } }such as Beck, that I only say such to prevent anyone from becoming aware of } }my 'true intentions'. If I accept his charge, then I only confirm his } }accusation. I could ask for my friends on this NG to come to my defence, but } }what good would that do, since they would obviously be fellow travelers or } }useful idiots. My only defense is my record of postings. Have I ever made a } }remark similar to Becks lie? I have made special efforts to include all pov } }in this NG. I have never ever even once suggested or called for anyones } }censorship in this NG or real life. } } I thought the "Shut the fuck up .." comment to be from rglencheek, but I was } in error.
I appreciate your honesty in admitting this. NP.
} }I have constantly attacked fascists, } }neo-nazis and Christian Identity types that have questioned the human value } }of the same groups Mr Beck says I dont give a rats ass about. If thats the } }case then why would I have done as I have? } } Are you not the same rglencheek who has frequently espoused the cause of the } Taliban?
No, I do not espouse their cause. I admire certain aspects of their movement, such as their commitment, zeal, and resourcefulness, much as I admire some of these same traits in Stalin. I deplore their hatred of all but whom they consider the most pure, their intolerance of free thought and moral progress. I hope, pray, and believe that they will 'mellow' and acquire these traits, if not the present generation, then the next. Also, I think the tactics, discipline and morale of the Taleban is a good example for the militias, but certainly no one should emulate the intolerance, and moral backwardness of their movement.
}Is it not true that you do so because you admire them for using }their } particular vision of what is commanded by fundamentalist Islam to guide their } governance of Afganistan, rather than, say, priciples of tolerance and respect } for the rights of others?
No, I dont admire them for that. I do think that Western Nihilism, Existentialism, Materialism, and hedonism is rightly being rejected across the globe by those more wise, and I applaud that. The next century is going to see the complete collapse of Western values, and christian fundamentalism will have even more increased sway. We will see a sharpened dichotamy between those of faith and science over the next few years, but those of rational faith are beginning to embrace the full implications of science within a framework of faith again for various reasons, and they will win the debate, IMO. This does not imply any intolerance toward anyone else, such as that shown by Scientific American which fired one of its editors a few years ago because it was discovered that he was an Old Earth Creationist.
} }My only rational suppositions } }left to me, is either Mr Beck is knowingly making false accusations, is } }ignorant, or is merely presuming my pov since I am a so-called 'soft' } }homophobe. I do believe that homosexual conduct is conditioned, largely, and } }that it is immoral, and that discrimination against homosexuals is } }justifiable in a few circumstances. But I have always denounced violence } }against homo's, and have always insisted that homo's should have equal } }protection underthe law, except for those few areas mentioned above. I think } }that later generations will regard my position (if anyone meanders through } }the old dusty databanks to find my posts for whatever reason) as moderate. I } }dont really care, however. } } If I am not again in error, aren't you the same rglencheek who likes to } base a good bit of his position on his belief in the ultimate triumph of } fundamentalist Christian theology?
Close, but no. I dont believe Jesus is God, so I cant consider myself truly fundamentalist. I believe that the God of Abraham has guided a body of those who love Him for millenia. This body consists of all who worship or cherish those Divine features of the Divine Personality, such as Love, Truth, Goodness, etc. Thus this body includes those who do not personally worship Jehovah, and even athiests and agnostics who do not realize that the Truth and Good they value is an aspect of the God they do not know or acknowledge. But that is why there will be a Judgement by God. If it were a simple formula, (you worship in a building named *** Church) = (go to heaven), then what is the need of the Judgement of an omniscient, infinitely wise God? There would be none. God is the only One qualified to make such judgements, and He will make them based on our behavior, which says far more than any proffession of faith. This is not to minimize evil. Evil is going to be punished, but as the Bible says, God does not stay angry for ever. Even the Fires of Hell will become empty, as Gods Love conquers every heart there, and takes them back home to live in His Presence. All will eventually be saved, and every knee will bow.
} }The church will triumph over its enemies and that } }is all that truly concerns me. In the end, Satan and his followers are thrown } }into the Lake of Fire. And fools like Thomas Beck wont matter much then } }anyway. } } }RGlenCheek } } 'Nuf said. }
Given your admission of error, I retract my characterization of you as a fool. And the church shall be triumphant, but here I do not refer to the visible church that men organize sects of, I am refering to the invisible universal church of all who worship the God of Abraham, knowingly or not. But there is also a particular struggle by the church here in the US, to endure the persecution of Biblical christians that is growing yearly. Check out my Wenatchee posts for an egregious example of this persecution. And it is only going to get worse, because fewer and fewer of the educated can understand religious terminalogy and distinctions in this country. Religious education is pathetic in our major universities, and when given, it is usually a characature of fundamentalism that is presented. This ignorance breeds contempt, dehumanization, and heavy-handedness like that exemplified at Waco.
If you search my postings through DejaNews, you will see I am being consistent, IMO.
RGlenCheek
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
"Gray Shockley" <g...@compcomm.com> wrote: } }On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:20:06 -0500, RGlenCheek wrote: }} Clinton should not be impeached on the basis of this report, IMO. What }} was done is scandalous, yes, high crime, no. With all thats been claimed, }} Starr should have found more. This report is a tacit admission that its we }} on the Right who have been repeatedly lied to with baseless charges against }} a man who an electoral majority put into office. This is the best Starr can }} do? OK, shut up already! Get off the mans back, and lets get back to the }} issues. }--------------------------------------------- }You make some very valid points and I think that Starr is an idiot <grin>. } }Those hundreds of FBI files bother me though and they bother me a lot. I was }*very* much in favor of President Nixon being impreached as I thought he was }"beneath the dignity" of what a President "should be". One of the main reasons }I was "against" Nixon was his "enemies list". } }I don't see a great deal of difference between Nixon and Clinton in this case. } }I think Starr is an idiot partially because he ignored about 80% of his "case" }and paid attention to the "sexual" parts of his investigation. } }About "sex" per se I could care less (unless it concerns me <smile>). But there }have been enough other accusations against President Clinton that I would think }that Starr could have released a few details on the first couple of years of }his "investigation". } }I see no reason why President Clinton shouldn't be impeached. } }We deserve better. } }Gray } } }
Did you ever think that the sex is just a smoke screen? I agree
that he has more serious matters hanging over his head. To think
that this man is the leader of our country. FRED C.DOBBS
}}}Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event }}}of R Glenn's type coming to power, there would be a }}}reign of terror to rival anything this old world has }}}ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white }}}people, women and those who walk on the queer side of }}}life would most certainly would be in for a less than }}}enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called }}}"staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's }}}ass about anyone's rights but their's.
First of all, HCCR's point is well taken, the previous discussion was between him and Mike Schneider, not Richard Glenn. You appeared to confuse the latter with the former, even though Mike and Richard have actually been involved in a heated debate over religion (see threads about Bin Ladin).
I have disagreed with RGlenn many times, and I am probably just about as far from him on the mainstream political spectrum as it gets (I'm the person he probably warns his children against). :) But he's not a totalitarian. If he and his fellow believers were in power, I would not approve of *most* of his policies; I would think them unfair, maybe even oppressive. But a 'reign of terror'? Nope, not by any reasonable definition. And he does seem to be mellowing a little about homosexuals (good, RGlenn. Keep it up). RGlenn's philosophy, as far as I can see, is one of economic libertarianism with a strong religiously-oriented socially conservative element.
BTW, Mike Schneider (atheistic anarcho-capitalist, quotes Ayn Rand approvingly) isn't a totalitarian either, though his apparent refusal to harbor any self-doubts or to allow for any compromise in his statements is troubling.
There have been people here which fit your description- people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one of the hallmarks of the other side to call their opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists" when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all posts with the latter two words should be banned from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually) so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has a point there...
}There have been people here which fit your description- }people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one }of the hallmarks of the other side to call their }opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists" }when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been }calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap }of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your }credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all }posts with the latter two words should be banned }from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually) }so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has }a point there...
It seems those on the left dislike being called communists more than those on the right dislike being called fascists...wonder why? I think it's because it hits too close to home. I also find it rather telling that you leave out the often used terms by the antis like trailer trash, militianoid,loons...............etc. But, that aside, what I find most interesting is how the anti-militia people want to regulate the content on the militia news group.
I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist plot to me. Face it Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom.
<U...@forever.com> writes: } }Stewart Millen wrote in message }<905978109$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>... } }(snipped) } }}There have been people here which fit your description- }}people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one }}of the hallmarks of the other side to call their }}opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists" }}when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been }}calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap }}of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your }}credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all }}posts with the latter two words should be banned }}from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually) }}so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has }}a point there... } } }It seems those on the left dislike being called communists more than those }on the right dislike being called fascists...wonder why?
Probably because both are inaccurate statements.
I think it's
}because it hits too close to home. I also find it rather telling that you }leave out the often used terms by the antis like trailer trash, }militianoid,loons...............etc.
Those aren't good either and should be used only in the proper context.
But, that aside, what I find most
}interesting is how the anti-militia people want to regulate the content on }the militia news group.
Excuse me? When have I attempted to regulate a damned thing here?
} }I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist plot to me. Face it }Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom.
Bullshit.
} }John } }
For John D's benifit From the Merriam Webster dictionary:
com*mu*nism (noun)
[French communisme, from commun common]
First appeared 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
We don't advocate such a doctrine at all. Hell I own private property.
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
Not us again. I believe in capitalism. In fact, I have spent my adult life in the private sector.
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
Which none of us subscribe to at all.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
Certainly not. As political consultant and some campaign manager, I prefer our system of competitive elections and ideas to a system where only one view can legally be held.
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
Yeah, like that ever came close to happening in the good ol' USSR.
rglench...@my-dejanews.com wrote: } } In article <905758501$1...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, } Thomas R Beck <beck0...@tc.umn.edu> wrote: } } } } hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote: } } } } }} } } }} "Vince Foster". } } } } }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that has } } }investigated it. } } } } }} } } }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool. } } } } }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's } } }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton hating } } }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up? } Is } } }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask } this } } }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree, } and } } }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over. } } } } Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type } } coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this } } old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white } people, } } women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly } } would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called } } "staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about anyone's } } rights but their's. } } Mr Beck makes a gratuitous slander against me, and how am I to defend } myself?
It was not slander, it was fact. We all know what the country would look like with you and yours in power.
} Obviously, if I say I would not do such things, then it follows from } such as Beck, that I only say such to prevent anyone from becoming aware of } my 'true intentions'.
Actually, anyone familiar with the militia movement knows it is based on either the threat of violence or use of violence to impose on this country a right-wing agenda.
<U...@forever.com> wrote: } } }Stewart Millen wrote in message }<905978109$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>... } }(snipped) } }}There have been people here which fit your description- }}people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one }}of the hallmarks of the other side to call their }}opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists" }}when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been }}calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap }}of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your }}credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all }}posts with the latter two words should be banned }}from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually) }}so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has }}a point there... } } }It seems those on the left dislike being called }communists more than those on the right dislike being }called fascists...wonder why?
Is that true? Do you have a "dislike-o-meter"?
}I think it's }because it hits too close to home.
Not true at all. Communism is not liberalism, not even close.
}I also find it }rather telling that you leave out the often used terms }by the antis like trailer trash, militianoid, loons }...............etc.
When have I used those terms? Cite them please.
}But, that aside, what I find most }interesting is how the anti-militia people want to }regulate the content on the militia news group.
Read my statement again. Kaa suggested (tongue-in- cheek, I think) that those terms be banned because they're *tiresome* and *meaningless*. Which of those two words do you have problem understanding?
}I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist }plot to me.
Reading your posts, seems like everything sounds like a Communist plot to you.
}Face it }Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom.
HCCRR wrote in message <906003304$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
(snip)
}Excuse me? When have I attempted to regulate a damned thing here?
Another spin on your part HCCRR, what a joke you make of yourself. Anyone reading this thread knows that I was making a direct response to Stewarts comment on Kaa wanting the mam bot to kick out any posts that contained the words communist or fascists. Wasn't conversing with you. Very disengenoius HCCRR, but then we expect that from you and the other lefties.
}} }}I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist plot to me. Face it }}Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom. } }Bullshit.
Really, I bet you find the term Communist tiresome too, dont you? I know Kaa does and Stewart and a few others do. Very uncomfortable term for you guy's. Good. maybe you will take a closer look at your agenda.
}For John D's benifit From the Merriam Webster dictionary: } }com*mu*nism (noun)
More schoolboy bullshit. I'll give you a D- for being able to copy + paste.
}[French communisme, from commun common] } }First appeared 1840 } } 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property } }We don't advocate such a doctrine at all. Hell I own private property.
Property taxes are used by the States in many places and the States have become proxies for the Fed. Don't pay your taxes the State takes your property, with the blessings of the Fed. The Fed taking property in large sections. (protected zones) Environmental bullshit dictating the use of ones "private property". BTW, the most popular Communist in the world in rather fond of the Eco freaks. He doesn't want much just wants to control the worlds water supply. After all comrade since water and air are "limited" resources we must have some central controlling body to make sure it's used and distributed equally. Gorby and Al Gore are great Buds and they know what's good for us don"t they? In many places you have to get the states permission to dig a hole on your own property or fface heavy fines.
} b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as }needed
SS, Welfare, Subsides, medicare, interstate highway system, Through regulation, labor, food supply and about everything else you can think of is controlled through th Fed in some manner or another. Controll = Ownership.
}Not us again. I believe in capitalism. In fact, I have spent my adult life in }the private sector.
You believe in "capitalism" totally controlled and regulated by the Fed. See above. Or are you saying you're willing to get the Fed regulations the hell out of our buisness?
} 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and }Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. } }Which none of us subscribe to at all.
Bullshit, push your agenda regardless of the consequences. "legally" eliminate the bill of rights. Even if it does create dissent the Fed can just roast those that want their Freedom. Yeah right, no violence on the left, they do it for the children......even if it means killing them.
} b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian }party controls state-owned means of production
It's called the Fed. They do it through Regulation, taxes, public education, and the redistribution of wealth. Education the production line of drones for industry. Of course Fed controlled industry. Very Communist.
}Certainly not. As political consultant and some campaign manager, I prefer our }system of competitive elections and ideas to a system where only one view can }legally be held.
Congratulations, you are well on your way to creating a police state. Where people are spied on, protected from themseleves, and are guilty until proven innocent. Yeah, you like a variety of views, as long as it leads to more regulation and government control. The Soviets always considered their elections to be free and competitive too. But, guess what, in key positions you kept seeing the same names year after year after year.
I like term limits, how about you?
} c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has }withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably } }Yeah, like that ever came close to happening in the good ol' USSR.
It will never happen anywhere. Not even in the system people like you are pushing. You are going to fail, you know that don't you. If there's is another revolution in this country it will be caused by people like you.
} d : communist systems collectively } }Based on previous definitions.
Why don't you want to talk about real communism? Why is it that you and your leftist buddies want the term communist to just go away or only talk about it in the text book utopian sense. Dictionary definitions.
When it comes to Communism it should be talked about in the real sense. We have two examples, both of which are relatively current and familiar. China and the Soviet Union. Miserable failures, nothing utopian about them. Both the result of a huge central bureaucracy, "doing what's good for their people". This will *always* happen when to much power is given to a central bureaucracy. We are at that point now. People like you want to ever increase the authority of the Fed. Everything we do is under the auspices of Big Brother, and people like you want to make them even more efficient at controlling us.
You say your free. Think about that the next time you take a shit on your government regulated toilet..................comrade.
No, just by apparent reactions. Do you have a meter like your buddy Kurt?
}}I think it's }}because it hits too close to home. } }Not true at all. Communism is not liberalism, not }even close.
In your opinion. Which by the way is not the only opinion.
}}I also find it }}rather telling that you leave out the often used terms }}by the antis like trailer trash, militianoid, loons }}...............etc. } }When have I used those terms? Cite them please.
I was speaking in general terms. That's why I said "often used terms by the antis". If I was directing the term directly to you I would have said, often used terms by Stewart. Having a little comprhensiion problem to day Stew or are you just trying to spin this into an issue? BTW, I spelled comprehension wrong so you can correct me. I know how you lefties love to do that.
}}But, that aside, what I find most }}interesting is how the anti-militia people want to }}regulate the content on the militia news group. } }Read my statement again. Kaa suggested (tongue-in- }cheek, I think) that those terms be banned because }they're *tiresome* and *meaningless*.
Another spin! Outstanding job Stew. I like the way you say that now that you've been caught (tongue-in-cheek, I think). Excellent!
}Which of those two words do you have problem understanding?
Oh, so you were serious. Well let's see, tiresome, meaning you're tired of someone thinking your politics is kin to Communism and meaningless because you can't believe anyone disagrees with your politics. Gee Stew, sounds like your quite an intolerant fellow. Ever get the feeling that you would like to go out and burn to death a bunch of "wrong thinking" peoples babies? I certainly hope not, I used to think you were somewhat level headed......even if you did favor communism.
}}I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist }}plot to me. } }Reading your posts, seems like everything sounds }like a Communist plot to you.
Nah, Stew.......only sounds like that to Communists.
}}Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom. } }Is that why I push PGP?
I don't know why you push PGP Stew. Do you have something to hide? If you do I wouldn't use PGP. I thought a deal was made with the Fed for a convenient backdoor into PGP. But, I wouldn't give that any thought, probably just one of those useless conspiracy theories.
josp...@worldnet.att.net wrote: } } rglench...@my-dejanews.com wrote: } } } } In article <905758501$1...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, } } Thomas R Beck <beck0...@tc.umn.edu> wrote: } } } } } } hc...@aol.com (HCCRR) wrote: } } } } } } }} } } } }} "Vince Foster". } } } } } } }His death has been ruled a suicide by every single responsible body that has } } } }investigated it. } } } } } } }} } } } }} Now shut the fuck up, you jabbering, know-nothing fool. } } } } } } }Apparently you are the know nothing fool. Who has declared Vince Foster's } } } }death anything but a suicide except for foaming at the mouth Clinton hating } } } }wackos? BTW asshole, where do you come off asking me to shut the fuck up? } } Is } } } }this an example of general lack of support for the first amendment? I ask } } this } } } }because you guys seem to be rather afraid of those with whom you disagree, } } and } } } }bodes ill in the accidental event you nutcases ever took over. } } } } } } Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event of R Glenn's type } } } coming to power, there would be a reign of terror to rival anything this } } } old world has ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white } } people, } } } women and those who walk on the queer side of life would most certainly } } } would be in for a less than enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called } } } "staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's ass about anyone's } } } rights but their's. } } } } Mr Beck makes a gratuitous slander against me, and how am I to defend } } myself? } } It was not slander, it was fact. We all know what the country would look } like with you and yours in power.
It was actually a mistake on his part that he admitted to. Doh! Pothier is caught screwing the pooch again! IT must be really tough to be a consistently brain-dead, knee-jerk pseudo-fascist. But you do give it a really good effort.
} } Obviously, if I say I would not do such things, then it follows from } } such as Beck, that I only say such to prevent anyone from becoming aware of } } my 'true intentions'. } } Actually, anyone familiar with the militia movement knows it is based on } either the threat of violence or use of violence to impose on this } country a right-wing agenda. }
He was refering to me, not the militia movement. Doh! Your bad again, pottymouth. You must be a cross between a masochist and an exhibitionist the way you like to show the world the boundlessness of your idiocy.
} <<rest of rambling apologia snipped>> }
Yeah, skip the other persons point of view, Pothead. Its only mindless detail anyway, right? Just get to the conclusions like a good Lefty. If you ever have an original thought, it would have to be a stray.
RGlenCheek
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
stewart_mil...@hotmail.com wrote: } } -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- } } On Tue, 15 Sep 98 7:50:00 GMT, Thomas R Beck } <beck0...@tc.umn.edu> (Tom Beck) wrote: } } <snip rglenn's and hccrr's comments> } } }}}Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event } }}}of R Glenn's type coming to power, there would be a } }}}reign of terror to rival anything this old world has } }}}ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white } }}}people, women and those who walk on the queer side of } }}}life would most certainly would be in for a less than } }}}enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called } }}}"staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's } }}}ass about anyone's rights but their's. } } First of all, HCCR's point is well taken, the previous } discussion was between him and Mike Schneider, not Richard } Glenn. You appeared to confuse the latter with the former, } even though Mike and Richard have actually been involved } in a heated debate over religion (see threads about Bin } Ladin).
But I think Mike and I have reached an understanding. I dont consider him an amoral person, just a godless person whose virtues are vestigial remnants of a higher values system. :)
} I have disagreed with RGlenn many times, and I am probably } just about as far from him on the mainstream political } spectrum as it gets (I'm the person he probably warns } his children against). :)
True, I warn my kids about associating with Australians on a daily basis. Its that Texas-envy thing they have. :)
} But he's not a totalitarian. If } he and his fellow believers were in power, I would not } approve of *most* of his policies; I would think them } unfair, maybe even oppressive.
For the record, I would never want to be the guy responsible for so much. I have a responsibility-phobia and aspire to little more than NG opinionation. (is that a word?)
} But a 'reign of terror'? } Nope, not by any reasonable definition. And he does } seem to be mellowing a little about homosexuals (good, } RGlenn. Keep it up).
Actually, my views havent changed as much as I have learned there are different conotations to many of the words I use than I imagined. When I say I dont approve of a lifestyle, siome think I am ready to start an inquisition or open death camps. No, I tolerate sin in others as I tolerate it in myself and my family, but do not approve of it.
} RGlenn's philosophy, as far as I } can see, is one of economic libertarianism with a strong } religiously-oriented socially conservative element.
Almost. I really do shudder at the thought of President Pat Robertson, not because he is a bad man, but because he is, IMO, naive, and too demanding about some things I find optional. social standards should never be enforced by law or government, IMO, only through social censure or church discipline.
} BTW, Mike Schneider (atheistic anarcho-capitalist, } quotes Ayn Rand approvingly) isn't a totalitarian } either, though his apparent refusal to harbor any } self-doubts or to allow for any compromise in his } statements is troubling.
Ayn Rand wsnt exactly a nest of self-doubts either. Maybe there is a connection....
} There have been people here which fit your description- } people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one } of the hallmarks of the other side to call their } opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists" } when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been } calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap } of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your } credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all } posts with the latter two words should be banned } from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually) } so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has } a point there...
I disagree. These are useful terms if corresponding values can be shown. When people speak of property rights being outdated, I say that is Marxist. When people want to categorically silence whole groups, I say that is fascist.
Sorry,
RGlenCheek
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
In article <906040200$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "John D."
<U...@forever.com> writes: }HCCRR wrote in message <906003304$15...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>... }}Excuse me? When have I attempted to regulate a damned thing here? } } }Another spin on your part HCCRR, what a joke you make of yourself. Anyone }reading this thread knows that I was making a direct response to Stewarts }comment on Kaa wanting the mam bot to kick out any posts that contained the }words communist or fascists. Wasn't conversing with you.
Except that everybody who has read this newsgroup the last few months, knows that you have repeatedly called me "comrade". As to the context of my question, here is a better unstanding that your comments were in fact directed at all of us.
============================================================ John D.
} }It seems those on the left dislike being called communists more than those }on the right dislike being called fascists...wonder why?
HCCRR
Probably because both are inaccurate statements.
JOHN D. I think it's
}because it hits too close to home. I also find it rather telling that you }leave out the often used terms by the antis like trailer trash, }militianoid,loons...............etc.
HCCRR Those aren't good either and should be used only in the proper context.
JOHN D> But, that aside, what I find most
}interesting is how the anti-militia people want to regulate the content on }the militia news group.
HCCRR Excuse me? When have I attempted to regulate a damned thing here? ============================================================= You were attacking all of us.
}Very disengenoius HCCRR, but then we expect that from you and the other }lefties.
Sounds more like you.
} } } }}} }}}I don't know about you but that sounds like a Communist plot to me. Face }it }}}Stewart, you folks are afraid of freedom. }} }}Bullshit. } } } }Really, I bet you find the term Communist tiresome too, dont you?
I find its misuse by you and others quite tiresome.
}I know Kaa does and Stewart and a few others do. Very uncomfortable term for }you guy's. Good. maybe you will take a closer look at your agenda.
My agenda is not even remotely related to pushing the agenda of Communism.
} } }}For John D's benifit From the Merriam Webster dictionary: }} }}com*mu*nism (noun) } } }More schoolboy bullshit. I'll give you a D- for being able to copy + paste.
You're just unhappy that the rest of the world doesn't agree with your rather elastic definitions.
} } }}[French communisme, from commun common] }} }}First appeared 1840 }} }} 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property }} }}We don't advocate such a doctrine at all. Hell I own private property. } } }Property taxes are used by the States in many places and the States have }become proxies for the Fed.
Property taxes have been around since the Revolution. The states and local governments have not collected them at the order of the federal government. Of course the irony here is that you can't have property taxes without property, a concept utterly impossible in a communist regime.
Don't pay your taxes the State takes your
}property, with the blessings of the Fed.
They did that 200 years ago as well. Do you think Sheriff's auctions are new things?
The Fed taking property in large
}sections. (protected zones) Environmental bullshit dictating the use of ones }"private property".
The fact that there have been abuses is not the same thing as saying this is a communist policy. In fact, I, a person you have refered to as a comrade, am not very happy about these abuses at all. But this is a far cry from the abolition of property property.
BTW, the most popular Communist in the world in rather
}fond of the Eco freaks.
Gorbachev is hardly popular among his former Communist buddies. Or haven't you noticed?
He doesn't want much just wants to control the
}worlds water supply.
He can't control squat. How many votes did he get for president in Russia two years ago?
After all comrade since water and air are "limited"
}resources we must have some central controlling body to make sure it's used }and distributed equally. Gorby and Al Gore are great Buds and they know }what's good for us don"t they? In many places you have to get the states }permission to dig a hole on your own property or fface heavy fines.
I hate to tell you but there have always limits to what you could do on your own property. Especially if it might endanger your neighbors.
} } }} b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all }as }}needed } }SS, Welfare, Subsides, medicare, interstate highway system, Through }regulation, labor, food supply and about everything else you can think of is }controlled through th Fed in some manner or another. }Controll = Ownership.
Control is not ownership. The Communists in the 1920s had big debate about that. Also I might point out that communism failed to produce an interstate highway system, a project in the United States that helped our economy grow.and helped many businesses begin trading accross state lines with greater ease. Not to mention allowing for easier travel for people.
} } }}Not us again. I believe in capitalism. In fact, I have spent my adult }life in }}the private sector. } } }You believe in "capitalism" totally controlled and regulated by the Fed.
Except it is not totally controlled. If it were Bill Gates would already be in jail.
}See above. Or are you saying you're willing to get the Fed regulations the }hell out of our buisness?
Not totally no. That would be reckless. You advocate a form of capitalism that existed in the 19th century when there was no regulation and plenty of abuse and corruption. Hell today the average worker looks like a king compared those of the 19th century.
} }} 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and }}Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. }} }}Which none of us subscribe to at all. } } }Bullshit, push your agenda regardless of the consequences. "legally" }eliminate the bill of rights.
How does my "agenda" eliminate the bill of rights?
Even if it does create dissent the Fed can
}just roast those that want their Freedom. Yeah right, no violence on the }left, they do it for the children......even if it means killing them.
Violence has been used by both left and right in the United States. What "leftist" actions are you talking about?
} } }} b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian }}party controls state-owned means of production } } } }It's called the Fed.
Oh please.
They do it through Regulation, taxes, public education,
}and the redistribution of wealth.
This is your distorted view, a view that no doubt believes being given a speeding ticket is also an example of totalitarian communism.
Education the production line of drones
}for industry. Of course Fed controlled industry. Very Communist.
The Feds doesn't control industry. Regulation is not control. Are you opposed to laws that protect workers and consumers from abuses we saw in the last century? BTW these kinds of laws didn't even exist for the most part in the old Soviet Union. Russia's evironmental policies were God awful as well.
} } }}Certainly not. As political consultant and some campaign manager, I prefer }our }}system of competitive elections and ideas to a system where only one view }can }}legally be held. } } }Congratulations, you are well on your way to creating a police state.
How?
Where
}people are spied on, protected from themseleves
Dare I ask, what are you referring to? Specifics would be nice.
, and are guilty until proven
}innocent.
You mean the same manner you treat those of us who dare to disagree with you?
Yeah, you like a variety of views, as long as it leads to more
}regulation and government control.
Nope. On what basis do you make such a statement?
The Soviets always considered their
}elections to be free and competitive too.
Except theirs weren't free and competitive because there was only one party on the ballot. Before you make a silly comment about a Democratic/Republican monopoly, remember there has always been a two party system since the beginning of the Federal Republic, and is hardly proof of a communist system.
But, guess what, in key positions
}you kept seeing the same names year after year after year. }I like term limits, how about you?
I oppose term limits, because its up to the people to decide whether or not to keep their representatives in office. But the fact I might oppose term limits doesn't prove I am communist either. I know many libertarians who are opposed to term limits.
} }} c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has }}withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably }} }}Yeah, like that ever came close to happening in the good ol' USSR. } } }It will never happen anywhere.
Well, Christians have their version as well.
Not even in the system people like you are
}pushing. You are going to fail, you know that don't you. If there's is }another revolution in this country it will be caused by people like you.
How am I pushing such an agenda?
} }} d : communist systems collectively }} }}Based on previous definitions. } } }Why don't you want to talk about real communism?
Anytime. I spent most of the 1980s studying real communism as practiced in the Soviet Union.
Why is it that you and your
}leftist buddies want the term communist to just go away or only talk about }it in the text book utopian sense. Dictionary definitions.
I don't care if it goes away or not, but I like it used more accurately and fairly. I find your pathetic description of a dictionary definition as being utopian a clear indication that you don't have a leg to stand on to prove to your bizarre definition of what constitutes communism.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 8:50:00 -0500, John D. wrote: } In many places you have to get the states permission to dig a hole on your } own property or fface heavy fines.
[A small snippet of a much longer msg] --------------------------------------------- This is one of those "you can't win" types of problems.
In my state (Mississippi), there is an ongoing "political war" about large hog farms. The people in the areas where there are already these "agri-businesses" have seen their property drop in value and some have had to move because of the stench.
Locally (Warren County), there is a "political war" going on about a very large landfill (or as the opponents says, "a big garbage dump") that a property owner wants to start. The opponents don't want the several hundred garbage trucks going, night and day, down the roads and they don't want the garbage and the bulldozers in their county quiet.
From one viewpoint, the owners of the land who want the hog farms and the garbage dump are just trying to use their land which they honestly bought to make a living.
From another viewpoint, both instances lower the values of the land which others just as honestly acquired and - in both instances - the land "next door - can, potentially, cause health problems.
What to do?
Compromise, usually. Which, of course, leaves no one totally happy and both sides mumbling about "property rights" but "mumbling" beats the heck out of the alternatives.
One of the problems with people who hold "economics" to be a "religion" - whether it be capitalism or socialism - is the "one size fits all" mentality of whichever system these "true believers" are advocating.
Economic "systems" tend to be similar to other "systems". The "purer" it is, the less applicable it is to human beings who generally don't fit - neatly - into anyone's system.
So we can just do the best we can with what we've got.
}Economic "systems" tend to be similar to other "systems". The "purer" it is, }the less applicable it is to human beings who generally don't fit - neatly - }into anyone's system. } }So we can just do the best we can with what we've got. } }Gray
Theses types of problems are sticklers. Why doesn't one side buy out the other side? In the end though if the guy bought the property with no restrictions he should damn well be able to do what he wants with it. Don't get me wrong here I feel sorry for the people who will lose in this deal but they also bought land with no restrictions or bought land close to land with no restrictions. Could make for smarter buyers in the future. Personal responsibility.
} }In article <905814302$5...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, }rglench...@my-dejanews.com wrote: } }}In article <905788218$3...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, }} D...@VVVwintDELLernet.com (Michae+ Schneder) wrote: }}} }}} In article <905758501$1...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Thomas R Beck }}} <beck0...@tc.umn.edu> wrote: }}} }}} }Do not look for these so called }}} }"staunch defenders of the constitution" to giv-- }}} }}} Don't confuse me for one of *them*, Tom. }}} }} }}He wont, Mike. A libertarian athiest } } } *Half* right. At least you're getting warm. }
Am I right that you are a libertarian athiest, or that you wont be confused with one of *them*?
} }}is only half a step away from a hedonistic elitist } } } What is one of those? A man who enjoys life without your approval? }
Oh, gee, I just wish I could enjoy life with my wifes approval! I havent gotten to the point of considering whether anyone needs mine....................................................................... . .................................. ........................................................................... . ....................................................................... ........................................................OK, you may enjoy yourself.
} }}anyway. But who is *them*, Mike? We 'homophobes'? We }}'christians'? We 'rednecks'? } } } "Staunch defenders of the constitution". (Jesus...) }
Oh, you dont want to be confused with staunch defenders of the Constitution? OK, np.
} }}They say that in the moment of truth you discover who can be relied on to }}display courage, and stand for what they beleive in and defend their own. Its }}good to know how quick you are to point the finger at everyone else. Dont }}worry about alienating all of *them*, just make sure the libs dont confuse }}you for one of *them*. } } } Courage is for naught without intelligence to guide it.
And intelligence is for nought without the nerve and resolution to ACT. And no two libertarians can agree on enough to ever find that source of energy and purpose, especially athiests at that! Rudolph, by himself, has done more to get the governments attention than any thousand libertarians!
smil...@mountainet.com (Stewart Millen) wrote: }-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- }On Tue, 15 Sep 98 7:50:00 GMT, Thomas R Beck }<beck0...@tc.umn.edu> (Tom Beck) wrote: }<snip rglenn's and hccrr's comments> }}}}Make no mistake about it, in the highly unlikely event }}}}of R Glenn's type coming to power, there would be a }}}}reign of terror to rival anything this old world has }}}}ever seen. Liberal political thinkers, Jews, non white }}}}people, women and those who walk on the queer side of }}}}life would most certainly would be in for a less than }}}}enjoyable time. Do not look for these so called }}}}"staunch defenders of the constitution" to give rat's }}}}ass about anyone's rights but their's. }I have disagreed with RGlenn many times, and I am probably }just about as far from him on the mainstream political }spectrum as it gets (I'm the person he probably warns }his children against). :) But he's not a totalitarian. If }he and his fellow believers were in power, I would not }approve of *most* of his policies; I would think them }unfair, maybe even oppressive. But a 'reign of terror'? }Nope, not by any reasonable definition.
From this I take it you believe the so called "moderate" elements of the militia/patriot movement would prevail on their more hot headed brethren in the unlikely event of them achieving real power? I don't share that opinion.
} And he does }seem to be mellowing a little about homosexuals (good, }RGlenn. Keep it up). RGlenn's philosophy, as far as I }can see, is one of economic libertarianism with a strong }religiously-oriented socially conservative element.
Exactly my thoughts, which can be seen in a recent post of mine where I question RGlenn about his beliefs.
}BTW, Mike Schneider (atheistic anarcho-capitalist, }quotes Ayn Rand approvingly) isn't a totalitarian }either, though his apparent refusal to harbor any }self-doubts or to allow for any compromise in his }statements is troubling. }There have been people here which fit your description- }people like "Yuridedju" and others. But it's been one }of the hallmarks of the other side to call their }opponents "totalitarians" or "communists" or "fascists" }when they're not (just look at what John D.'s been }calling HCCRR lately). Let's not fall into the trap }of repeating that mistake--all it does is lessen your }credibility. Kaa Byington once had the idea that all }posts with the latter two words should be banned }from MAM by the MAMbot, just because it's (usually) }so meaningless and gets so tiresome. Maybe she has }a point there...
If the entire militai/patriot element were of the nature of RGlenCheek I myself would have few doubts or fears about their purpose. However, it is abundantly clear to me from reading the various postings in this NG, as well as conversations and experiences I have had in actual experience, that a) An element sympathetic to the aims of the so called militias does exist and b) They are violently right wing. I try not to falsely label anyone.
