Army Begins Draft...
Pat Hines
Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
By Lee Hockstader
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 29, 2003; Page A01
Chief Warrant Officer Ronald Eagle, an expert on enemy targeting, served 20
years in the military -- 10 years of active duty in the Air Force, another 10 in
the West Virginia National Guard. Then he decided enough was enough. He owned a
promising new aircraft-maintenance business, and it needed his attention. His
retirement date was set for last February.
Staff Sgt. Justin Fontaine, a generator mechanic, enrolled in the Massachusetts
National Guard out of high school and served nearly nine years. In preparation
for his exit date last March, he turned in his field gear -- his rucksack and
web belt, his uniforms and canteen.
Staff Sgt. Peter G. Costas, an interrogator in an intelligence unit, joined the
Army Reserve in 1991, extended his enlistment in 1999 and then re-upped for
three years in 2000. Costas, a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Texas, was due to
retire from the reserves in last May.
According to their contracts, expectations and desires, all three soldiers
should have been civilians by now. But Fontaine and Costas are currently serving
in Iraq, and Eagle has just been deployed. On their Army paychecks, the
expiration date of their military service is now listed sometime after 2030 --
the payroll computer's way of saying, "Who knows?"
The three are among thousands of soldiers forbidden to leave military service
under the Army's "stop-loss" orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops,
through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its
burgeoning overseas missions.
"It reflects the fact that the military is too small, which nobody wants to
admit," said Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, a leading military
sociologist.
To the Pentagon, stop-loss orders are a finger in the dike -- a tool to halt the
hemorrhage of personnel, and maximize cohesion and experience, for units in the
field in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Through a series of stop-loss orders,
the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than
40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who
were eligible to leave the service this year. Hundreds more in the Air Force,
Navy and Marines were briefly blocked from retiring or departing the military at
some point this year.
By prohibiting soldiers and officers from leaving the service at retirement or
the expiration of their contracts, military leaders have breached the Army's
manpower limit of 480,000 troops, a ceiling set by Congress. In testimony before
the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army
chief of staff, disclosed that the number of active-duty soldiers has crept over
the congressionally authorized maximum by 20,000 and now registered 500,000 as a
result of stop-loss orders. Several lawmakers questioned the legality of
exceeding the limit by so much.
"Our goal is, we want to have units that are stabilized all the way down from
the lowest squad up through the headquarters elements," said Brig. Gen. Howard
B. Bromberg, director of enlisted personnel management in the Army's Human
Resources Command. "Stop-loss allows us to do that. When a unit deploys, it
deploys, trains and does its missions with the same soldiers."
In a recent profile of an Army infantry battalion deployed in Kuwait and on its
way to Iraq, the commander, Lt. Col. Karl Reed, told the Army Times he could
have lost a quarter of his unit in the coming year had it not been for the
stop-loss order. "And that means a new 25 percent," Reed told the Army Times. "I
would have had to train them and prepare them to go on the line. Given where we
are, it will be a 24-hour combat operation; therefore it's very difficult to
bring new folks in and integrate them."
To many of the soldiers whose retirements and departures are on ice, however,
stop-loss is an inconvenience, a hardship and, in some cases, a personal
disaster. Some are resigned to fulfilling what they consider their patriotic
duty. Others are livid, insisting they have fallen victim to a policy that
amounts to an unannounced, unheralded draft.
READ THE REST:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36979-2003Dec28?language=printer
Looks like it's time to start up an underground railroad for guys whose
enlistments are up, but can't get out. It's also obvious that Bush doesn't
understand the 13th Amendment.
Pat Hines
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
What's this have to do with a draft?
Note: It's not the Army that does the drafting in any event.
Please try to keep your story straight.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Mongo Jones
>In news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51 Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>
>What's this have to do with a draft?
>
Probably as much as it has to do with talk.politics.guns.
Morton Davis
"Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9461621A8D9...@209.98.13.60...
> In news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51 Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>
> What's this have to do with a draft?
>
> Note: It's not the Army that does the drafting in any event.
>
> Please try to keep your story straight.
>
Pat's number one problem is that he's not typing his posts with his toes
while hanging by his thumbs in a prison cell.
-*MORT*-
Mongo Jones
I don't think Hines should be in prison, but the guy who gave him
internet access should be roughed up.
Outdoors Magazine
Those of us that have served knew this possibility when we signed on. Want
to put it in perspective? Rent the Band of Brothers series and watch it in
its entirety some time.
Makes for sensational news ... but not news to anyone that paid attention at
their swearing-in.
As John Wayne used to say, life is hard ... it's even harder when your
stupid. The service is hard ... no doubt ... but no one forced them to
enlist or take the oath. And if you read the story it never said the CWO
did not understand the why behind the need, only the journalist implied it.
As for the reservists, any of them that signed on to just to "play army" on
the weekends for the extra paycheck, well, they are getting a rude awakening
indeed. Refer back to John Wayne's words of wisdom.
To all veterans that proudly serve their country in spite of the sacrifices
and hardships, thank you.
--
James Ehlers
LT, USN separated
Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net
"Pat Hines" <fas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51...
Jim Alder
> Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
> Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
That's not a draft.
--
In federal court on charges of impersonating a U.S. Marshal,
Donald Sebastian, 54, was ordered by Magistrate David Perelman to
read aloud a pledge the judge wrote for him: "I promise that I
won't do anything stupid. If I do anything stupid, I'll likely end
up in pretrial detention." Sebastian, in real life a dog trainer
in Middleburg Heights, Ohio, was arrested after making a traffic
stop and, when things got out of control, calling for police
backup. Police found he had a badge, uniform, and other marshal
paraphernalia. Sebastian couldn't really work as a federal agent
since he has been arrested 29 times in the last 20 years, and has
convictions for gun offenses. He acted as a marshal as his "way of
giving back to the community," he told police. Perelman resorted
to the "don't be stupid" pledge after declaring the government's
case against Sebastian was weak. "If I can't lock him up, I'll
embarrass him," he said. (Cleveland Plain Dealer)
Chris Morton
says...
>
>Mr. Hines,
>Those of us that have served knew this possibility when we signed on. Want
>to put it in perspective? Rent the Band of Brothers series and watch it in
>its entirety some time.
>
>Makes for sensational news ... but not news to anyone that paid attention at
>their swearing-in.
>
>As John Wayne used to say, life is hard ... it's even harder when your
>stupid. The service is hard ... no doubt ... but no one forced them to
>enlist or take the oath. And if you read the story it never said the CWO
>did not understand the why behind the need, only the journalist implied it.
>
>As for the reservists, any of them that signed on to just to "play army" on
>the weekends for the extra paycheck, well, they are getting a rude awakening
>indeed. Refer back to John Wayne's words of wisdom.
>
>To all veterans that proudly serve their country in spite of the sacrifices
>and hardships, thank you.
While I generally agree, many people signed up for specific periods of time and
made plans based on their contracts. Were the roles reversed, the odds of you
getting out early (with full benefits) for your convenience are slim. The truth
is that the military isn't above not holding up its end of bargains. A case in
point is the Ohio Army National Guardsmen who enlisted on the understanding that
they would get tuition assistance in Ohio universities. For reasons not germane
here, the money ran out. The OH ARNG was actually surprised when people wanted
out because their contracts had been violated by the Guard. If you want people
to risk their lives, the least you can do is be true to your word.
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Chris Morton
says...
I think Pat means well, but he's just totally obsessed with the nearly invisibly
distant fringe of Libertarianism. The whole Lincoln as Stalin thing is risible.
He just gets laughed at and he doesn't even seem to realize it. It's a shame.
Randy Sweeney
"Pat Hines" <fas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51...
> Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
> Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
>
> By Lee Hockstader
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Monday, December 29, 2003; Page A01
>
> Chief Warrant Officer Ronald Eagle, an expert on enemy targeting, served
20
> years in the military -- 10 years of active duty in the Air Force, another
10 in
> the West Virginia National Guard. Then he decided enough was enough. He
owned a
> promising new aircraft-maintenance business, and it needed his attention.
His
> retirement date was set for last February.
>
> Staff Sgt. Justin Fontaine, a generator mechanic, enrolled in the
Massachusetts
> National Guard out of high school and served nearly nine years. In
preparation
> for his exit date last March, he turned in his field gear -- his rucksack
and
> web belt, his uniforms and canteen.
> According to their contracts, expectations and desires, all three soldiers
> should have been civilians by now. But Fontaine and Costas are currently
serving
> in Iraq, and Eagle has just been deployed. On their Army paychecks, the
> expiration date of their military service is now listed sometime after
2030 --
> the payroll computer's way of saying, "Who knows?"
And now perhaps people will stop pretending the National Guard is the
militia.
When you enlist in the Army, you are really in the Army - for as long as the
Army wants.
Randy Sweeney
"Mongo Jones" <mongo-jo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:d5308d9997ad19fe...@news.teranews.com...
Actually it does tie in.
Many of the anti-gun rights people believe that the National Guard is the
militia and thus "justifies" disarming every citizen not enlisted in the NG.
Perhaps it will be clearer now that the NG is the Army and not the militia.
Gray Ghost
news:lKSdnY0NdON...@comcast.com:
"Every National Guard man who takes the oath takes it with the
understanding that he is part of the regular army and subject to the same
obligations that may be imposed on the regular army." 86 Congressional
Record 9985 (August 7, 1940)
Frank
Bill Smith
>When you enlist in the Army, you are really in the Army - for as long as the
>Army wants.
>
Technically, an enlistment is for a specified period of time, but
there is an awful lot of small print.
An officers commission, OTOH, is for as long as they want you.
Bill Smith
Mongo Jones
I guess he sees us all as potential converts, waiting to be shown the
light. Too bad he's picked the wrong forum.
Mongo Jones
>
>"Mongo Jones" <mongo-jo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:d5308d9997ad19fe...@news.teranews.com...
>> >In talk.politics.guns Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51 Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>> >
>> >What's this have to do with a draft?
>> >
>>
>> Probably as much as it has to do with talk.politics.guns.
>
>Actually it does tie in.
>
>Many of the anti-gun rights people believe that the National Guard is the
>militia and thus "justifies" disarming every citizen not enlisted in the NG.
I didn't see his original post- did he make that observation?
Outdoors Magazine
of the officers appointed over me ..." the needs of the nation ... etc.
Most people who serve to serve understand this ... those that sign up for
the free college tuition, well ... One way to help out would be for more
Americans to offer their service to the country :) I know, crazy.
--
James Ehlers
LT, USN separated
Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net
"Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bss9e...@drn.newsguy.com...
Chris Morton
says...
>
>There is always the catch phrase that goes something like "obey the orders
The needs of the nation didn't require OH Guardsmen to serve in peacetime
without the college benefits they were promised IN WRITING. In fact those who
wished to be, were released from their contracts, as was correct, since they
were defrauded.
What if the Guard had decided to stop paying them? Would they be obligated to
serve then?
Morton Davis
> In article <yHlIb.9025$Vv2.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Outdoors
Magazine
> says...
> >
> >There is always the catch phrase that goes something like "obey the
orders
>
> The needs of the nation didn't require OH Guardsmen to serve in peacetime
> without the college benefits they were promised IN WRITING. In fact those
who
> wished to be, were released from their contracts, as was correct, since
they
> were defrauded.
>
> What if the Guard had decided to stop paying them? Would they be
obligated to
> serve then?
>
>
My younger brother joined the army in the 70s. They promised him MP training
in writing. They discovered a vision problem which they thought could be
corrected with surgery. The army's doctors nixed it. By that time, my
brother had had more than enough of the army. They offered him a different
MOS, he told them no and they had to let him out.
*MORT*-
John P.
> According to their contracts...
The military can keep them as long as they want if it is deemed
operationally necessary. Happens all the time under all types of conditions.
It doesn't matter if the military has a million new recruits, it matters
that the C.O. of your unit decides he needs you there or not.
> "It reflects the fact that the military is too small, which nobody wants
to
> admit," said Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, a leading military
> sociologist.
It's not too small. It would be if too many people left. If you don't let
them leave, it's not too small.
> To many of the soldiers whose retirements and departures are on ice,
however,
> stop-loss is an inconvenience, a hardship and, in some cases, a personal
> disaster. Some are resigned to fulfilling what they consider their
patriotic
> duty. Others are livid, insisting they have fallen victim to a policy that
> amounts to an unannounced, unheralded draft.
Resigned to fulfilling their duty? Unannounced? They need only have read the
contract they were signing to see that it clearly stated they could be kept
beyond their EAOS.
John P.
> While I generally agree, many people signed up for specific periods of
time and
> made plans based on their contracts.
A) Why would you make plans after signing a contract that clearly states you
may be kept for an indefinite period after the end of that contract?
B) Some National Guard and Reserve enlistees signed on to get a free ride to
college. Their plan was to take the free ride without having to give more
than a weekend per month and two weeks per year. They believed they would
never be called up for active duty. They were rudely awakened when they
learned they actually had to abide by the contracts they signed.
> Were the roles reversed, the odds of you getting out early (with full
benefits) for your
> convenience are slim.
There is nothing in the contract you signed giving that option. In spite of
that, the military *can* (and does) provide harship discharges for those who
need it. As for getting out with full benefits, that ONLY happens after 20
years (and the way VA benefits have eroded, it's hardly a reason to stay)
> The truth is that the military isn't above not holding up its end of
bargains.
It has been my experience that the military is exactly what you get when you
sign the contract.
> A case in point is the Ohio Army National Guardsmen who enlisted on the
understanding
> that they would get tuition assistance in Ohio universities. For reasons
not germane
> here, the money ran out. The OH ARNG was actually surprised when people
wanted
> out because their contracts had been violated by the Guard.
I'd be willing to bet the state college program was something sponsored by
the Ohio VA and had noting to do with the ARNG. I'd further bet that there
was nothing in any contract they signed stating that this benefit was
offered.
Pat Hines
> Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51:
>
>
>>Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>>Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
>
>
> That's not a draft.
>
It has the same effect as a draft, involuntary servitude. Further, most of
these men signed up to defend America, and know full well that they aren't being
used for that task in Iraq. Additionally, it shows the increasing desparation
of the Bush Regime in that they have too few soldiers to do the job the Bush
Regime wants done.
The job of defending America is taking backseat to those that want
international hegemony of a large part of the globe and to make the middle east
safe for Israel as Sharon sees fit.
The US government needs to bring all military personnel home NOW.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
> In article <a6ddef3a1dc5c28c...@news.teranews.com>, Mongo Jones
> says...
>
>>>In talk.politics.guns "Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9461621A8D9...@209.98.13.60...
>>>
>>>>In news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51 Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>>>>
>>>>What's this have to do with a draft?
>>>>
>>>>Note: It's not the Army that does the drafting in any event.
>>>>
>>>>Please try to keep your story straight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Pat's number one problem is that he's not typing his posts with his toes
>>>while hanging by his thumbs in a prison cell.
>>
>>I don't think Hines should be in prison, but the guy who gave him
>>internet access should be roughed up.
>
>
> I think Pat means well, but he's just totally obsessed with the nearly invisibly
> distant fringe of Libertarianism.
No, main stream libertarianism, Chris. Take a look at one of the main
libertarian news sites on the internet: http://www.lewrockwell.com/
And their Lincoln Archive: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
> The whole Lincoln as Stalin thing is risible.
It's Lincoln as Lenin, the one milion deaths Lincoln brought about adjusted for
today's US population, would be the deaths of 6 million people, putting him
right towards the top of 19th century murderers.
> He just gets laughed at and he doesn't even seem to realize it. It's a shame.
Fools and village idiots laught at a great many things, funny isn't required.
Take a look at the evidence for Lincoln's depravity sometime, it's there for
all to see.
Pat Hines
GimmeFuel
> There is always the catch phrase that goes something like "obey the orders
> of the officers appointed over me ..." the needs of the nation ... etc.
The officers appointed over you are not above the law. If a soldier signed
a contract stating he would be released on a specific date, to not release
him on that date is breach of contract, plain and simple.
--
1911 > 911
John Husvar
Anyone considering enlisting for military service would be well advised
to read the enlistment contract thoroughly. It has several conditions
under which an enlistment may be extended unilaterally by the military
and an enlisted soldier has no recourse. Officers get an even worse
deal: If the government chooses, it can recall a commissioned officer
almost on his deathbed.:)
When I enlisted in the Marine Corps, I made it a point to read the
contract, and it _is_ a contract. It's a contract very favorable to the
government. One's enlistment date is meaningless for predicting a
discharge date: One may be discharged or have the enlistment extended
entirely at "the convenience of the service."
I, who intended to make the Marine Corps a career, was denied completing
my enlistment because my blood pressure was high on three consecutive
examinations and this was during the Vietnam war, which, I submit, would
raise anyone's blood pressure. :)
I was so enraged I wept, which only sealed the decision as I was then
deemed excessively emotional. (Being emotional didn't seem to hurt
performance in the field as some number of VC could attest -- if able:
Dead, you know.)
Enlistment is an open-ended agreement and all the open ends favor the
government.
--
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece.
One should rather skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- "WOW! WHAT A RIDE!"
Morton Davis
"John Husvar" <jhu...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:t9AIb.33338$T2.2...@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
When it comes to the military, you're never really out. If they need you for
something - they'll come get you.
-*MORT*-
Outdoors Magazine
--
James Ehlers
Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net
"Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bssv6...@drn.newsguy.com...
Chris Morton
says...
>
>I am not familiar with the OH Guard situation.
Well actually now you are.
Do you think that Guardsmen induced to enlist under false premises have a duty
to serve?
Do you think that Guardsmen should have to continue to serve if the state
decided to stop paying them?
Chris Morton
>It's Lincoln as Lenin, the one milion deaths Lincoln brought about adjusted for
>today's US population, would be the deaths of 6 million people, putting him
>right towards the top of 19th century murderers.
Lincoln didn't kill enough Southern troops. The war would have ended faster.
As I've said previously, if EVERY Confederate soldier had been killed to free
ONE elderly, tubercular slave, who died the next day, it would have been a
trivial price to pay.
Jim Alder
news:3TtIb.701475$Tr4.1765930@attbi_s03:
> Jim Alder wrote:
>
>> Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51:
>>
>>
>>>Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>>>Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
>>
>> That's not a draft.
>
> It has the same effect as a draft, involuntary servitude.
> Further, most of these men signed up to defend America...
That's right. They signed up. It's not involuntary at all. And
if you look at what they signed, I am almost certain it will say
that their time can be extended in certain circumstances.
> and know full well that
> they aren't being used for that task in Iraq. Additionally,
> it shows the increasing desparation of the Bush Regime in that
> they have too few soldiers to do the job the Bush Regime wants
> done.
The job is being done.Not as fast and not as antiseptically as
the whining left would like, but then nothing Bush does will
satisfy them, or should I say "you"?
> The job of defending America is taking backseat to those
> that want
> international hegemony of a large part of the globe and to
> make the middle east safe for Israel as Sharon sees fit.
Yeah, yeah. World domination! Mwahahahah!!! That's the
Republicans, all right.
> The US government needs to bring all military personnel
> home NOW.
Uh huh. You don't like the war, we get it. And that gives you
the right to warp reality and call voluntary service a draft.
Randy Sweeney
no... but it is a popular view among those looking for a reason to support
disarming their neighbors
Morton Davis
"Randy Sweeney" <rswe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c5WdnVhALrt...@comcast.com...
pesky Constitution just keeps getting in their way.
-*MORT*-
Chris Morton
>Why didn't he offer to buy them all cheaper and simpler.
The South wasn't interested. They wanted free labor, not a one time payment
that wouldn't cover their vastly increased labor costs.
A successful slave revolt would have been more definitive.
Harvey4066
Couldn't, the slaves were not allowed to have guns.
Harvey C. Scobie
Radcliff, KY
Michael Ejercito
Michael
D.A. Tsenuf
"GimmeFuel" <rabidf...@yahoo.com.REMOVEME> wrote in message
news:vv58em9...@corp.supernews.com...
Not if it has a clause that his release might be deferred due to exigent
circumstances.
And guess what.
There IS such a clause.
Steve Hix
GimmeFuel <rabidf...@yahoo.com.REMOVEME> wrote:
Better take another look at the fine print.
Steve Hix
John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2003 07:21:15 -0800, Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <0_tIb.18575$xX.65838@attbi_s02>, Pat Hines says...
> >
> >>It's Lincoln as Lenin, the one milion deaths Lincoln brought about adjusted
> >>for
> >>today's US population, would be the deaths of 6 million people, putting him
> >>right towards the top of 19th century murderers.
> >
> >Lincoln didn't kill enough Southern troops. The war would have ended
> >faster.
> >
> >As I've said previously, if EVERY Confederate soldier had been killed to
> >free
> >ONE elderly, tubercular slave, who died the next day, it would have been a
> >trivial price to pay.
>
> Why didn't he offer to buy them all cheaper and simpler.
No buyers?
Steve Hix
John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Allowed has nothing to do with it. If you just want a revolt you take
> the masters's guns.
Then there is the problem of black troops fighting for the Confederacy...
Chris Morton
>the masters's guns.
It's just too bad that John Brown didn't have a little less motivation and a
little more sense. The people with a REAL stake in the war could have fought
and won it.
John P.
> It's Lincoln as Lenin, the one milion deaths Lincoln brought about
adjusted for
> today's US population, would be the deaths of 6 million people, putting
him
> right towards the top of 19th century murderers.
But you have to adjust 19th century murderers to todays population as well,
so the ratio stays the same.
John P.
> The officers appointed over you are not above the law. If a soldier signed
> a contract stating he would be released on a specific date, to not release
> him on that date is breach of contract, plain and simple.
Except for the fact that the contract clearly indicates that your EAOS may
be changed if deemed necessary by your commanding officer.
John P.
> When it comes to the military, you're never really out. If they need you
for
> something - they'll come get you.
As you might say
Nope.
Depending on when you went in, you sign for some period of obligated
service. When I was in (1981 - 1991), I had signed for 6 years. My initial
enlistment was for 5. Had I gotten out at that point, I would be in the
"inactive reserves" for one more year (during which I could be called back
to active duty). After that 6 years was up, I could not be recalled to
active duty without them changing the law. (Since I completed 10 years
active, I never had an inactive reserve status)
Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal
"Chris Morton" wrote in message news:bsup1...@drn.newsguy.com...
<cut>
> Do you think that Guardsmen should have to continue to serve if the state
> decided to stop paying them?
In a state of "national emergency" I would say yes, they are obligated to
continue in service; otherwise: no.
Without the Guard, there's only one other group the state can call on for
the common defense, and that's ... you got it: the unorganized militia.
Because that is composed of the people (guys like us), it comes already
armed and serves without pay.
Back in the sixties, the lefties used to go on and on about "the people in
arms", not realizing it already existed. When they did come to know it,
that's when they started gun control.
It seems the wrong people are armed.
Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal
> In article <0_tIb.18575$xX.65838@attbi_s02>, Pat Hines says...
>
> >It's Lincoln as Lenin, the one milion deaths Lincoln brought about
adjusted for
> >today's US population, would be the deaths of 6 million people, putting
him
> >right towards the top of 19th century murderers.
>
> Lincoln didn't kill enough Southern troops. The war would have ended
faster.
>
> As I've said previously, if EVERY Confederate soldier had been killed to
free
> ONE elderly, tubercular slave, who died the next day, it would have been a
> trivial price to pay.
The sad truth is that the Civil War started not to free the slaves, but to
hold the union together. It was only after Sharpsburg (Antietam) that
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and even it freed those slaves
only in Southern controlled areas, where (of course) the Union Army could
not enforce this law. The main effect was to have the Europeans re-consider
their support for the Confederacy.
There was, however, no question that should the war end in a Union victory,
slavery would be abolished - and it was.
Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal
"Chris Morton" wrote in message news:bsv4...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <fa46vvoo66stqq7o8...@4ax.com>, John A. Stovall
says...
>
> >Why didn't he offer to buy them all cheaper and simpler.
>
> The South wasn't interested. They wanted free labor, not a one time
payment
> that wouldn't cover their vastly increased labor costs.
>
> A successful slave revolt would have been more definitive.
The only way to absorb a labor cost increase on that scale is to have an
adequate industrial base to begin with, and the South did not. We forget
they were an agricultural society held in thrall to a mythic self-vision of
the landed elite.
A successful slave revolt is the one thing those people feared the most, and
it never happened. The Nat Turner episode is instructive.
Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
news:9oa6vvkt3rdvjaci3...@4ax.com...
> >
> >Couldn't, the slaves were not allowed to have guns.
>
> the masters's guns.
The anti-gun people believe that if you're unarmed, there's nothing you can
do.
Those of us on the other side of the argument say: just give me one gun.
Just one.
Or a good, big knife so I can get one.
Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal
"Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
news:6930a3c6.03123...@posting.google.com...
> Gee, I guess firing at Fort Sumter was not such a good idea.
Kind of like bombing Pearl Harbor: not a good plan at all if you want to be
left alone to do your thing.
Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal
"Morton Davis" wrote in message news:%uEIb.711445$Fm2.616710@attbi_s04...
>
> "Randy Sweeney" wrote in message
> news:c5WdnVhALrt...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Mongo Jones" wrote ...
> > > >Many of the anti-gun rights people believe that the National Guard is
> the
> > > >militia and thus "justifies" disarming every citizen not enlisted in
> the
> > NG.
> > >
> > > I didn't see his original post- did he make that observation?
> >
> > no... but it is a popular view among those looking for a reason to
support
> > disarming their neighbors
> >
> >
> Except the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the militia.
That
> pesky Constitution just keeps getting in their way.
"And who is the militia, sir? Why, it is the people in arms, sir!" I
forget which one of the FFs said this, but I like it.
Randy Sweeney
"Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal" <akl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:I6OdnWR_O9i...@comcast.com...
> Without the Guard, there's only one other group the state can call on for
> the common defense, and that's ... you got it: the unorganized militia.
> Because that is composed of the people (guys like us), it comes already
> armed and serves without pay.
Over half the states have officially organized militias such as the Virginia
Self-Defense Force.
Chris Morton
The problem was that nobody ever tried to establish a properly organized
insurgency in the slave population. John Brown had his heart in the right
place. Too bad his head was up his ass.
Pat Hines
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:26:04 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Chris Morton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <a6ddef3a1dc5c28c...@news.teranews.com>, Mongo Jones
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>In talk.politics.guns "Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:Xns9461621A8D9...@209.98.13.60...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51 Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's this have to do with a draft?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Note: It's not the Army that does the drafting in any event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please try to keep your story straight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Pat's number one problem is that he's not typing his posts with his toes
>>>>>while hanging by his thumbs in a prison cell.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think Hines should be in prison, but the guy who gave him
>>>>internet access should be roughed up.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think Pat means well, but he's just totally obsessed with the nearly invisibly
>>>distant fringe of Libertarianism.
>>
>> No, main stream libertarianism, Chris. Take a look at one of the main
>>libertarian news sites on the internet: http://www.lewrockwell.com/
>>
>> And their Lincoln Archive: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
>>
>>
>>>The whole Lincoln as Stalin thing is risible.
>>
>> It's Lincoln as Lenin, the one milion deaths Lincoln brought about adjusted for
>>today's US population, would be the deaths of 6 million people, putting him
>>right towards the top of 19th century murderers.
>>
>>
>>>He just gets laughed at and he doesn't even seem to realize it. It's a shame.
>
>
> Now Pat how could you forget this classic essay on the crimes of
> Lincoln?
>
> http://www.lneilsmith.com/abelenin.html
Indeed, this essay was instrumental in many libertarians and paleo-libertarians
reexamining what Lincoln was prior to 1860, and what he did to America after
that time. I view Tom DiLorenzo's book to be an academic expansion of Neil
Smith's idea.
Pat
> *******************************************************
>
> "Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
> fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
> Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
> Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
> weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
> -- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission."
>
> The Atlanta Declaration
> -- L. Neil Smith
> http://www.lneilsmith.com/
Chris Morton
>
>On 31 Dec 2003 14:29:47 -0800, Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <9oa6vvkt3rdvjaci3...@4ax.com>, John A. Stovall says...
>>>
>>>On 31 Dec 2003 19:38:30 GMT, harve...@aol.com (Harvey4066) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>A successful slave revolt would have been more definitive.
>>>>
>>>>Couldn't, the slaves were not allowed to have guns.
>>>>Harvey C. Scobie
>>>>Radcliff, KY
>>>
>>>Allowed has nothing to do with it. If you just want a revolt you take
>>>the masters's guns.
>>
>>It's just too bad that John Brown didn't have a little less motivation and a
>>little more sense. The people with a REAL stake in the war could have fought
>>and won it.
>
>opposed the civil war and penned this:
Better slavery destroyed by the Civil War than not at all.
Chris Morton
>> As I've said previously, if EVERY Confederate soldier had been killed to
>free
>> ONE elderly, tubercular slave, who died the next day, it would have been a
>> trivial price to pay.
>
>The sad truth is that the Civil War started not to free the slaves, but to
>hold the union together. It was only after Sharpsburg (Antietam) that
The motivations for the Civil War were asymmetrical.
The North wanted to preserve the Union.
The South wanted to preserve slavery.
Lincoln didn't want to forcibly abolish slavery before the war started. The
South didn't believe it. Both sides talked past each other until Ft. Sumter.
Pat Hines
> In article <0_tIb.18575$xX.65838@attbi_s02>, Pat Hines says...
>
>
>>It's Lincoln as Lenin, the one milion deaths Lincoln brought about adjusted for
>>today's US population, would be the deaths of 6 million people, putting him
>>right towards the top of 19th century murderers.
>
>
> Lincoln didn't kill enough Southern troops. The war would have ended faster.
>
> As I've said previously, if EVERY Confederate soldier had been killed to free
> ONE elderly, tubercular slave, who died the next day, it would have been a
> trivial price to pay.
That's right up there with the folks that say if the Southerners hadn't brought
slaves into North America, we'd have a white man's country free of the cripes
and bloods.
In short, your idea and the other ideas like yours are crap.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
> In article <fa46vvoo66stqq7o8...@4ax.com>, John A. Stovall says...
>
>
>>Why didn't he offer to buy them all cheaper and simpler.
>
>
> The South wasn't interested. They wanted free labor,
That's not true, labor from chattel slavery is far from free. As a matter of
fact, chattel slavery was far more expensive than seasonal labor, a fact that's
well documented.
> not a one time payment that wouldn't cover their vastly
> increased labor costs.
Chattel slave labor had one benefit and one only, they were a completely
dependable, when compared to seasonal or part-time labor, labor force. They
were always there from one year to the next. However, most economists that have
studied chattel slavery have demonstrated beyond question that slaves were not
as productive as employed labor was, with certain exceptions. Most of those
exception were slaves that were paid wages, most skilled slaves were paid wages.
Brick masons, carpenters, cabinet makers and so forth demanded and received wages.
> A successful slave revolt would have been more definitive.
The economics of chattel slavery spelled its doom years before Lincoln staged
the most costly war in American history.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
Slaves, for the most part, couldn't have rifled firearms or pistols.
Smoothbore's and shotguns were commonly possessed by slaves.
There's another reason that slave revolts were rare, surely someone knows why?
Pat Hines
Chris Morton
Steve Hix says...
In actuality, a TINY "problem".
The number of armed Black Confederate troops was miniscule and for obvious
reasons. Armed Black Southern troops were a far greater threat to the
CONFEDERACY than to the North. To arm someone is to give them autonomy and
recognize their rights, hardly something viewed with favor by the driving forces
of the Confederacy. It makes as much sense as a Jewish Legion of the Waffen SS.
Pat Hines
> On 31 Dec 2003 14:29:47 -0800, Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <9oa6vvkt3rdvjaci3...@4ax.com>, John A. Stovall says...
>>
>>>On 31 Dec 2003 19:38:30 GMT, harve...@aol.com (Harvey4066) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>A successful slave revolt would have been more definitive.
>>>>
>>>>Couldn't, the slaves were not allowed to have guns.
>>>>Harvey C. Scobie
>>>>Radcliff, KY
>>>
>>>Allowed has nothing to do with it. If you just want a revolt you take
>>>the masters's guns.
>>
>>It's just too bad that John Brown didn't have a little less motivation and a
>>little more sense. The people with a REAL stake in the war could have fought
>>and won it.
>
>
> Which is why Lysander Spooner although an out spoken abolishist
> opposed the civil war and penned this:
>
> "On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate
> slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the
> Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to
> do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the
> Union.
>
> The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply
> this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support,
> a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their
> part, makes them traitors and criminals.
>
> No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently
> false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political
> freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be
> established. If it really be established, the number of slaves,
> instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly
> increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not
> want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but
> only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former,
> no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the
> products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him,
> and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their
> pleasure."
>
> http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm
>
> But this was how he would have liberated them.
>
> " 3. Until such new governments shall be instituted, to recognize the
> Slaves as free men, and as being the rightful owners of the property,
> which is now held by their masters, but which would pass to them, if
> justice were done; to justify and assist them in every effort to
> acquire their liberty, and obtain possession, of such property, by
> stratagem or force; to hire them as laborers, pay them their wages,
> and defend them meanwhile against their tyrants; to sell them
> fire-arms and teach them the use of them; to trade with them, buying
> the property they may have taken from their op計ressors, and paying
> them for it; to encourage and assist them to take possession of the
> lands they cultivate, and the crops they produce, and appropriate them
> to their own use; and in every way possible to recognize them as being
> now the rightful owners of the property, which justice, if
> admin虹stered, would give them, in compensation for the injuries they
> have received."
>
> http://www.lysanderspooner.org/abolitionofslavery.htm
>
> You will find the rest of this also of interest.
All precisely why the secession of the southern states would have doomed
slavery faster than had they remained in the Union.
The northern industrials wanted things to work out differently, and didn't care
how many men died granting them their wish.
Remarkably similar to what Bush is engaged in now, with less American deaths,
but many Iraqi deaths.
Pat
> ****************************************************************************
>
> "The anarchists combine a belief in the possibility of a violent
> and sudden transformation of society with a confidence in the
> reasonableness of men and the possibility of human improvement
> and perfection."
>
> _The Anarchists_
> James Joll - 1964
Pat Hines
Firing on Fort Sumter was a self defense action taken in response to acts of
war initiated by the Union. Do you not know the sequence of events surrounding
the Fort Sumter action?
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
The Fort Sumter - Pearl Harbor attack comparison fails for several reasons; the
most important of which were the overt acts of war by the Union that preceded
it, and the fact that Fort Sumter was South Carolina, later Confederate,
territory when the Union troops invaded and occupied it.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
> Pat Hines <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in
> news:3TtIb.701475$Tr4.1765930@attbi_s03:
>
>
>>Jim Alder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>>>>Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
>>>
>>> That's not a draft.
>>
>>It has the same effect as a draft, involuntary servitude.
>>Further, most of these men signed up to defend America...
>
>
> That's right. They signed up. It's not involuntary at all. And
> if you look at what they signed, I am almost certain it will say
> that their time can be extended in certain circumstances.
There is no national emergency.
>>and know full well that
>>they aren't being used for that task in Iraq. Additionally,
>>it shows the increasing desparation of the Bush Regime in that
>>they have too few soldiers to do the job the Bush Regime wants
>>done.
>
>
> The job is being done.Not as fast and not as antiseptically as
> the whining left would like, but then nothing Bush does will
> satisfy them, or should I say "you"?
Bush is as much a leftist as any president in the 20th century, more than
several. Neo-conservatives, those that hold sway in both the White House and
the Pentagon, are leftist at their core.
>>The job of defending America is taking backseat to those
>> that want
>>international hegemony of a large part of the globe and to
>>make the middle east safe for Israel as Sharon sees fit.
>
>
> Yeah, yeah. World domination! Mwahahahah!!! That's the
> Republicans, all right.
Here's the plan of the neo-conservatives, they've never made it a secret.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ This group, headed by Irv and William
Kristol, that's the Bill Kristol seen frequently on Fox News, are the guiding
lights for New American Century. Neo-conservatives to their core.
>> The US government needs to bring all military personnel
>> home NOW.
>
>
> Uh huh. You don't like the war, we get it. And that gives you
> the right to warp reality and call voluntary service a draft.
>
When men are held beyond expiration of their enlistment, without any
identifiable national emergency, that's involuntary servitude, i. e. a military
draft.
Pat Hines
Chris Morton
There was never any "Confederate" territory, only the territory of the United
States of America unlawfully usurped by traitors and insurrectionists.
Chris Morton
The sheer sanguinary brutality with which they were put down.
Chris Morton
>
>Chris Morton wrote:
>
>>In article <fa46vvoo66stqq7o8...@4ax.com>, John A. Stovall says...
>>
>>
>>>Why didn't he offer to buy them all cheaper and simpler.
>>
>>
>> The South wasn't interested. They wanted free labor,
>
> That's not true, labor from chattel slavery is far from free. As a matter of
>fact, chattel slavery was far more expensive than seasonal labor, a fact that's
>well documented.
Labor you don't have to pay, and which can't seek better employment is free
labor.
>> not a one time payment that wouldn't cover their vastly
>> increased labor costs.
>
> Chattel slave labor had one benefit and one only, they were a completely
>dependable, when compared to seasonal or part-time labor, labor force. They
>were always there from one year to the next. However, most economists that have
>studied chattel slavery have demonstrated beyond question that slaves were not
>as productive as employed labor was, with certain exceptions. Most of those
>exception were slaves that were paid wages, most skilled slaves were paid wages.
Sounds like the slave labor that built the V2s. That was ended in a similar
fashion for similar reasons.
>Brick masons, carpenters, cabinet makers and so forth demanded and received
>wages.
>
>> A successful slave revolt would have been more definitive.
>
> The economics of chattel slavery spelled its doom years before Lincoln staged
>the most costly war in American history.
The cost was well worth it. If Lincoln had had competent officers from the
start, he could have killed more Confederates at lesser cost to the Republic.
Chris Morton
That is probably a factual statement.
But they did institute slavery and ultimately payed the price for it.
> In short, your idea and the other ideas like yours are crap.
You're pissing in the wind Pat, and it's blowing back in your face. The
Confederate cause was profoundly morally corrupt and all of the tapdancing in
the world won't change that.
The Confederacy didn't get what it deserved, but close enough for government
work.
Michael Ejercito
Union troops were already in Fort Sumter when South Carolina seceded.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Michael
David Lentz
Chris Morton wrote:
<snip>
> >The only way to absorb a labor cost increase on that scale is to have an
> >adequate industrial base to begin with, and the South did not. We forget
> >they were an agricultural society held in thrall to a mythic self-vision of
> >the landed elite.
> >
> >A successful slave revolt is the one thing those people feared the most, and
> >it never happened. The Nat Turner episode is instructive.
>
> The problem was that nobody ever tried to establish a properly organized
> insurgency in the slave population. John Brown had his heart in the right
> place. Too bad his head was up his ass.
Correction.
It can't be said that nobody every tried to organize a slave
revolt. It can be said the no one succeeded. The problem with
state wide revolts is not lack of arms but lack of
communication. Southerners were no dumb. That is why the went
to great effort to insure that the slaves could never learn to
read and write. The ability to communicate is the ability to
forwent revolution. Without communication, large scale rebellion
is impossible.
David
David Lentz
Chris Morton wrote:
<snip>
> > That's not true, labor from chattel slavery is far from free. As a matter of
> >fact, chattel slavery was far more expensive than seasonal labor, a fact that's
> >well documented.
>
> Labor you don't have to pay, and which can't seek better employment is free
> labor.
That is not true.
All labor has a cost. With a day worker, the cost is his daily
wage. In the case of slave, the cost was paid in kind, food,
housing, health care retirement, and such.
David
David Lentz
Chris Morton wrote:
>
> In article <Ot6dnbRTQuu...@comcast.com>, Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal says...
>
> >> As I've said previously, if EVERY Confederate soldier had been killed to
> >free
> >> ONE elderly, tubercular slave, who died the next day, it would have been a
> >> trivial price to pay.
> >
> >The sad truth is that the Civil War started not to free the slaves, but to
> >hold the union together. It was only after Sharpsburg (Antietam) that
>
> The motivations for the Civil War were asymmetrical.
>
> The North wanted to preserve the Union.
>
> The South wanted to preserve slavery.
>
> Lincoln didn't want to forcibly abolish slavery before the war started. The
> South didn't believe it. Both sides talked past each other until Ft. Sumter.
Overly simplistic.
Some in the North opposed a war to free the slaves. Others
fought for the explicit purpose to free the slaves. It was the
large number of blacks in the federal ranks which mandated the
legal end of slavery.
As to the South, the South may have fought to preserve slavery,
but were none too proud of their institution. Southerners did
not write or a war to preserve slavery. Rather they wrote of
protecting their unique institution, way of life, etc. Slavery
was alluded to but not stated as a cause of the war.
David
David Lentz
Pat Hines wrote:
<snip>
> > Gee, I guess firing at Fort Sumter was not such a good idea.>
> > Michael
>
> Firing on Fort Sumter was a self defense action taken in response to acts of
> war initiated by the Union. Do you not know the sequence of events surrounding
> the Fort Sumter action?
>
> Pat Hines
Fort Sumter posed no threat to the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis
wanted a shooting war and with Sumter he got it. Then so did
Abraham Lincoln.
David
Morton Davis
> In article <_9MIb.18924$I07.52552@attbi_s53>, Pat Hines says...
> >
> >Chris Morton wrote:
> >
> >> In article <0_tIb.18575$xX.65838@attbi_s02>, Pat Hines says...
> >>
> >>
> >>>It's Lincoln as Lenin, the one milion deaths Lincoln brought about
adjusted for
> >>>today's US population, would be the deaths of 6 million people, putting
him
> >>>right towards the top of 19th century murderers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lincoln didn't kill enough Southern troops. The war would have ended
faster.
> >>
> >> As I've said previously, if EVERY Confederate soldier had been killed
to free
> >> ONE elderly, tubercular slave, who died the next day, it would have
been a
> >> trivial price to pay.
> >
> >That's right up there with the folks that say if the Southerners hadn't
brought
> >slaves into North America, we'd have a white man's country free of the
cripes
> >and bloods.
>
> That is probably a factual statement.
>
> But they did institute slavery and ultimately payed the price for it.
>
The full meassure for slavery has yet to be extracteds.
-*MORT*-
D.A. Tsenuf
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eqTIb.99812$JW3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Correction.
There was a VERY successfull slave revolt organized, in Haiti I believe,
about 60 years before the Civil War.
The name Amistad also rings a bell as a successfull one.
Morton Davis
"John A. Stovall" <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:53b8vv00hgt905cf4...@4ax.com...
> On 31 Dec 2003 22:52:26 -0800, meje...@hotmail.com (Michael Ejercito)
> at taking defenseless men (who were not slave owners) from their homes
> at night and murdering them.
>
> He only was able to get five African American to join him at Harper's
> Ferry.
>
> On John Brown and the Pottawatomie Killings
Shouldn't this tgread be renamed and REMOVED to a Civil War newsgroup?
-*MORT*-
Chris Morton
>It is also showing the American Civil war was not based on Freeing the
>Slaves but destroying the power of the States.
The Civil War was based on the South not just preserving, but expanding slavery
at all costs.
Chris Morton
>> The motivations for the Civil War were asymmetrical.
>>
>> The North wanted to preserve the Union.
>>
>> The South wanted to preserve slavery.
>>
>> Lincoln didn't want to forcibly abolish slavery before the war started. The
>> South didn't believe it. Both sides talked past each other until Ft. Sumter.
>
>Overly simplistic.
Hardly.
>Some in the North opposed a war to free the slaves. Others
>fought for the explicit purpose to free the slaves. It was the
>large number of blacks in the federal ranks which mandated the
>legal end of slavery.
We were discussing those at the top actually making the decisions. Lincoln, the
guy calling the shots didn't fight the war to end slavery. He ended slavery [in
the South] to win the war. Had the South not started the war in the first
place, there never would have been so many regiments of Black Federal troops.
>As to the South, the South may have fought to preserve slavery,
>but were none too proud of their institution. Southerners did
Neither were the Germans especially proud of the Holocaust... in public. In
INTERNAL communications however, both were quite enthusiastic about their
"peculiar institutions".
Chris Morton
>John Pottawatomie Brown was a religious psychopath who was good only
>at taking defenseless men (who were not slave owners) from their homes
>at night and murdering them.
So were many of the supporters of slavery.
>He only was able to get five African American to join him at Harper's
>Ferry.
As I've pointed out, he was a poor planner and unrealistic.
Chris Morton
>>>There's another reason that slave revolts were rare, surely someone knows why?
>>
>>The sheer sanguinary brutality with which they were put down.
>
>Chris, go read _Time on the Cross_ and you learn that's just no so.
>It's a serious academic study of the economics of slavery and you'll
>find that the level of brutality was not what you think.
You're changing the subject from slave revolts to slavery in general.
By the way, what level of brutality was indicated?
>You might find this exchange of letters on the topic interesting
>
>http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4503
>
>"In all these American comparisons, and even more important in the
>comparisons between American slaves and Russian serfs in which Kolchin
>is engaged, it is essential to remember that on the American side we
>are dealing in buckets and not in barrels or rivers of blood, as
>indeed we are on the Russian side."
Comparing one violent rape to another justifies neither.
Slavery is slavery.
Trying to minimize, excuse or justify it leaves me similarly unmoved.
One more time: I don't care how many people were killed to end it. It was an
economical investment.
Chris Morton
The cost was comparatively miniscule. Of course you failed to address the issue
of labor turbulence and turnover. Were slaves free to leave their "employment"?
Chris Morton
>
>
>
>Chris Morton wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >The only way to absorb a labor cost increase on that scale is to have an
>> >adequate industrial base to begin with, and the South did not. We forget
>> >they were an agricultural society held in thrall to a mythic self-vision of
>> >the landed elite.
>> >
>> >A successful slave revolt is the one thing those people feared the most, and
>> >it never happened. The Nat Turner episode is instructive.
>>
>> The problem was that nobody ever tried to establish a properly organized
>> insurgency in the slave population. John Brown had his heart in the right
>> place. Too bad his head was up his ass.
>
>Correction.
>
>It can't be said that nobody every tried to organize a slave
>revolt. It can be said the no one succeeded. The problem with
My exact words were: "The problem was that nobody ever tried to establish a
properly organized insurgency in the slave population."
>state wide revolts is not lack of arms but lack of
>communication. Southerners were no dumb. That is why the went
>to great effort to insure that the slaves could never learn to
>read and write. The ability to communicate is the ability to
>forwent revolution. Without communication, large scale rebellion
>is impossible.
Actually, I expect that statewide communications were possible, but absent
proper organization, were either not tried, or not properly implemented.
Wanting to do something and trying to do something, are not the same thing as
actually properly doing it. I invite your attention to the contrasting results
of Gallipoli and Normandy.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder wrote:
>
>> Pat Hines <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in
>> news:3TtIb.701475$Tr4.1765930@attbi_s03:
>>
>>
>>>Jim Alder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>>>>>Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
>>>>
>>>> That's not a draft.
>>>
>>>It has the same effect as a draft, involuntary servitude.
>>>Further, most of these men signed up to defend America...
>>
>>
>> That's right. They signed up. It's not involuntary at
>> all. And
>> if you look at what they signed, I am almost certain it will
>> say that their time can be extended in certain circumstances.
>
> There is no national emergency.
Read a paper, why doncha?
>>>and know full well that
>>>they aren't being used for that task in Iraq. Additionally,
>>>it shows the increasing desparation of the Bush Regime in
>>>that they have too few soldiers to do the job the Bush Regime
>>>wants done.
>>
>>
>> The job is being done.Not as fast and not as
>> antiseptically as
>> the whining left would like, but then nothing Bush does will
>> satisfy them, or should I say "you"?
>
> Bush is as much a leftist as any president in the 20th
> century, more than several.
Sure he is. That's why every Democrat but Miller hates his guts
- it's because he's TOO liberal.
> Neo-conservatives, those that hold sway in both the
> White House and the Pentagon, are leftist at their core.
Oh, spare me that "Neo-con" shit! If ever there was a stupid
mantra adopted by more clueless liberals than the "neo-con" one, I
don't know what it might have been!
>>>The job of defending America is taking backseat to those
>>> that want
>>>international hegemony of a large part of the globe and to
>>>make the middle east safe for Israel as Sharon sees fit.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. World domination! Mwahahahah!!! That's the
>> Republicans, all right.
>
> Here's the plan of the neo-conservatives, they've never
> made it a secret.
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/ This group, headed by Irv
> and William Kristol, that's the Bill Kristol seen frequently
> on Fox News, are the guiding lights for New American Century.
> Neo-conservatives to their core.
>
>>> The US government needs to bring all military personnel
>>> home NOW.
>
>> Uh huh. You don't like the war, we get it. And that gives
>> you the right to warp reality and call voluntary service
>> a draft.
>
> When men are held beyond expiration of their enlistment,
> without any identifiable national emergency, that's
> involuntary servitude, i. e. a military draft.
When people ignore the obvious and redefine words to suit
their purposes, that's liberalism and hypocrisy.
--
In federal court on charges of impersonating a U.S. Marshal,
Donald Sebastian, 54, was ordered by Magistrate David Perelman to
read aloud a pledge the judge wrote for him: "I promise that I
won't do anything stupid. If I do anything stupid, I'll likely end
up in pretrial detention." Sebastian, in real life a dog trainer
in Middleburg Heights, Ohio, was arrested after making a traffic
stop and, when things got out of control, calling for police
backup. Police found he had a badge, uniform, and other marshal
paraphernalia. Sebastian couldn't really work as a federal agent
since he has been arrested 29 times in the last 20 years, and has
convictions for gun offenses. He acted as a marshal as his "way of
giving back to the community," he told police. Perelman resorted
to the "don't be stupid" pledge after declaring the government's
case against Sebastian was weak. "If I can't lock him up, I'll
embarrass him," he said. (Cleveland Plain Dealer)
Chris Morton
says...
>> The problem was that nobody ever tried to establish a properly organized
>> insurgency in the slave population. John Brown had his heart in the right
>> place. Too bad his head was up his ass.
> How did he screw up?
Lack of a revolutionary organization. His expectations of a spontaneous revolt
without a covert military organization were wholely unrealistic.
Pat Hines
> In article <zjMIb.183073$8y1.583987@attbi_s52>, Pat Hines says...
>
>>Harvey4066 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>A successful slave revolt would have been more definitive.
>>>
>>>
>>>Couldn't, the slaves were not allowed to have guns.
>>>Harvey C. Scobie
>>>Radcliff, KY
>>
>> Slaves, for the most part, couldn't have rifled firearms or pistols.
>>Smoothbore's and shotguns were commonly possessed by slaves.
>>
>> There's another reason that slave revolts were rare, surely someone knows why?
>
>
> The sheer sanguinary brutality with which they were put down.
No, Chris, it's the same reason gun owners don't charge over to their
respective state capitals, drag any legislator that votes for gun control out by
their heels, and hang them all from lampposts.
It's why a land owner threatened with eminent domain confiscations don't rise
up and kill every man and women involved with the activity.
And, it's why almost no one grabs a TSA goon at an airport check-in station and
throttles the life out of him.
Think about it.
We all have the tools to accomplish all of the above, gun owners are
particularly well equipped to end their portion of today's slavery, yet
virtually none do, and when one does commit such an action, the rest condemn him
for it.
Think about it for a long time.
Pat
David Lentz
Chris Morton wrote:
<snip>
> >>> That's not true, labor from chattel slavery is far from free. As a
> >>matter of
> >>>fact, chattel slavery was far more expensive than seasonal labor, a fact that's
> >> >well documented.
> >>
> >> Labor you don't have to pay, and which can't seek better employment is free
> >> labor.
> >
> >That is not true.
> >
> >All labor has a cost. With a day worker, the cost is his daily
> >wage. In the case of slave, the cost was paid in kind, food,
> >housing, health care retirement, and such.
>
> The cost was comparatively miniscule. Of course you failed to address the issue
> of labor turbulence and turnover. Were slaves free to leave their "employment"?
I would not characterize chattel slavery as employment.
David
David Lentz
Chris Morton wrote:
<snip>
> >Some in the North opposed a war to free the slaves. Others
> >fought for the explicit purpose to free the slaves. It was the
> >large number of blacks in the federal ranks which mandated the
> >legal end of slavery.
>
> We were discussing those at the top actually making the decisions. Lincoln, the
> guy calling the shots didn't fight the war to end slavery. He ended slavery [in
> the South] to win the war. Had the South not started the war in the first
> place, there never would have been so many regiments of Black Federal troops.
What were Abraham Lincoln's true motivation? I can't say.
Don't think anybody can. Lincoln was a consummate politician.
His actions were political.
David
Randy Sweeney
The Union commander at Fort Sumter had begun moving his heavy cannon from a
seaward facing position to the side facing the center of Charlestown. This
unacceptable threat to the citizens of Charlestown coupled with the union
attempt to reinforce the fort was the proximate cause of the taking of
Sumter
Photographs of the fort taken after its surrender show this relocation of
cannon to be a fact.
Mongo Jones
>
>"Mongo Jones" <mongo-jo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:8f380b4570b82160...@news.teranews.com...
>> >In talk.politics.guns "Randy Sweeney" <rswe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mongo Jones" <mongo-jo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> >news:d5308d9997ad19fe...@news.teranews.com...
>> >> >In talk.politics.guns Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51 Pat Hines
><fas...@comcast.net>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>> >> >
>> >> >What's this have to do with a draft?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Probably as much as it has to do with talk.politics.guns.
>> >
>> >Actually it does tie in.
>> >
>> >Many of the anti-gun rights people believe that the National Guard is the
>> >militia and thus "justifies" disarming every citizen not enlisted in the
>NG.
>>
>> I didn't see his original post- did he make that observation?
>
>no
Well I'm not into mind-reading. If the stupid sonofabitch can't take
the time to tie it in topic-wise, I don't see why _I_ should take the
trouble to do it. Fuck 'im.
Pat Hines
> In article <_9MIb.18924$I07.52552@attbi_s53>, Pat Hines says...
>
>>Chris Morton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <0_tIb.18575$xX.65838@attbi_s02>, Pat Hines says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's Lincoln as Lenin, the one milion deaths Lincoln brought about adjusted for
>>>>today's US population, would be the deaths of 6 million people, putting him
>>>>right towards the top of 19th century murderers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Lincoln didn't kill enough Southern troops. The war would have ended faster.
>>>
>>>As I've said previously, if EVERY Confederate soldier had been killed to free
>>>ONE elderly, tubercular slave, who died the next day, it would have been a
>>>trivial price to pay.
>>
>>That's right up there with the folks that say if the Southerners hadn't brought
>>slaves into North America, we'd have a white man's country free of the cripes
>>and bloods.
>
>
> That is probably a factual statement.
Admitting the obvious, how "white" of you.
> But they did institute slavery and ultimately payed the price for it.
Sorry, no cigar. The "institution" of black chattel slavery in North America
was begun in Massachusetts, 1622 or thereabouts. The vast majority of slaves
were brought into North America by ships based in New England or Britain.
>> In short, your idea and the other ideas like yours are crap.
>
>
> You're pissing in the wind Pat, and it's blowing back in your face.
No, Chris, you're pissing on your own leg and then telling yourself it's raining.
> The Confederate cause was profoundly morally corrupt and all of the tapdancing in
> the world won't change that.
No, the Confederacy fought for freedom, the Union fought for slavery, the
slavery of us all. Your argument is that all should be slaves if some WERE slaves.
> The Confederacy didn't get what it deserved, but close enough for government
> work.
Translation: I don't care if the federal government enslaves us all, as long
as we're "allowed" to be egalitarian slaves.
Your way is that of the tyrant, Chris, none of us will be free to own guns as
long as you advocate government enslavement.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
HINT: Chattel slavery is illegal in America.
It's the other forms of enslavement by government that are the issue today.
All who support the invasion and conquest of Iraq support increasing government
enslavement of Americans.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
> In article <2DMIb.247377$_M.1132176@attbi_s54>, Pat Hines says...
>
>>Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
>>>news:6930a3c6.03123...@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gee, I guess firing at Fort Sumter was not such a good idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>Kind of like bombing Pearl Harbor: not a good plan at all if you want to be
>>>left alone to do your thing.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The Fort Sumter - Pearl Harbor attack comparison fails for several reasons; the
>>most important of which were the overt acts of war by the Union that preceded
>>it, and the fact that Fort Sumter was South Carolina, later Confederate,
>>territory when the Union troops invaded and occupied it.
>
>
> There was never any "Confederate" territory,
Yes, there was a legitimate Confederate States of America. That has been
established by dozens of researchers over the years, and was the primary reason
Jefferson Davis wasn't tried for any crime.
> only the territory of the United States of America
No, the federal government has never owned the states, the states created the
federal government. As Walter Williams recently restated these truths in
"Parting company is an Option", "On March 2, 1861, after seven states had
seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R.
Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State
or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union,
shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence
of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional
amendment to prohibit secession. Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have
been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already
unconstitutional? I'm guessing, no." For his full article go here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031224.shtml
> unlawfully usurped by traitors and insurrectionists.
No, and any serious person in 1860 would have simply regarded you as an
uneducated lout for making such a statement. In order to be a traitor the
Confederacy would have had to have some contractual loyalty to the Union, no
state or person had such an obligation. Further, since the Confederacy
scrupulously avoided invading the Union states for two years, missing several
prime opportunities to take Washington and end the war by conquest,
"insurrectionists" cannot be accurately applied either. Again, that's why
Jefferson Davis was never placed on trial, there was no case.
NEXT! Put your strawman arguments up, I'll just keep on knocking them in the dirt.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
No, there were no Union troops garrisoning Fort Sumter when South Carolina
seceded on December 20, 1860.
The Union Army commander, Major Anderson, moved his garrison from Fort Moultrie
to Fort Sumter in the middle of the night December 25-26, 1860. That's an act
of war.
Further, the troops that had invaded Fort Sumter were allowed to provision
themselves during the time that they were there until the "Star of the West"
incident. No one was starving them out.
The Confederacy gave them from December 26, 1860 to April, 1861 to voluntarily
leave the Fort, with no harm. Further, representatives of the Confederacy were
in Washington, D. C. where they were told repeatedly that the illegal invasion
of Fort Sumter was going to be ended.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
No, only Lincoln wanted war; the Confederacy wanted the Union out of their land.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
> Pat Hines <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in
> news:kLMIb.19105$I07.52885@attbi_s53:
>
>
>>Jim Alder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pat Hines <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in
>>>news:3TtIb.701475$Tr4.1765930@attbi_s03:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jim Alder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>>>>>>Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a draft.
>>>>
>>>>It has the same effect as a draft, involuntary servitude.
>>>>Further, most of these men signed up to defend America...
>>>
>>>
>>> That's right. They signed up. It's not involuntary at
>>> all. And
>>>if you look at what they signed, I am almost certain it will
>>>say that their time can be extended in certain circumstances.
>>
>> There is no national emergency.
>
>
> Read a paper, why doncha?
>
The only national emergency is in the mind's of fools and those in the federal
government seeking additional power; both are having a field day as I right.
>>>>and know full well that
>>>>they aren't being used for that task in Iraq. Additionally,
>>>>it shows the increasing desparation of the Bush Regime in
>>>>that they have too few soldiers to do the job the Bush Regime
>>>>wants done.
>>>
>>>
>>> The job is being done.Not as fast and not as
>>> antiseptically as
>>>the whining left would like, but then nothing Bush does will
>>>satisfy them, or should I say "you"?
>>
>>Bush is as much a leftist as any president in the 20th
>>century, more than several.
>
>
> Sure he is. That's why every Democrat but Miller hates his guts
> - it's because he's TOO liberal.
Indeed, there's a lot of that. But mostly they hate him like one high school
alumni hates those at another high school. Both are virtually the same, just
wear different colored jersey's. That the case with the two largest political
parties. Bush appropriately demonstrated this fact with the signing the law
creating the largest increase in welfare in over 35 years.
>>Neo-conservatives, those that hold sway in both the
>>White House and the Pentagon, are leftist at their core.
>
>
> Oh, spare me that "Neo-con" shit! If ever there was a stupid
> mantra adopted by more clueless liberals than the "neo-con" one, I
> don't know what it might have been!
Better tell the neo-conservative godfather, Irv Kristol that, he's spreading
the word. "The Neoconservative Persuasion" by Irving Kristol
http://www.aei.org/include/pub_print.asp?pubID=19063 Here's the first paragraph:
"Since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s,
neoconservatism has been an intellectual undercurrent that surfaces only
intermittently and one whose meaning is glimpsed only in retrospect. It has
flowered again of late, and President George W. Bush and his administration seem
to be at home in the political environment created by neoconservatism's
renaissance."
Your argument to the contrary fails.
>>>>The job of defending America is taking backseat to those
>>>> that want
>>>>international hegemony of a large part of the globe and to
>>>>make the middle east safe for Israel as Sharon sees fit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, yeah. World domination! Mwahahahah!!! That's the
>>>Republicans, all right.
>>
>>Here's the plan of the neo-conservatives, they've never
>> made it a secret.
>>http://www.newamericancentury.org/ This group, headed by Irv
>>and William Kristol, that's the Bill Kristol seen frequently
>>on Fox News, are the guiding lights for New American Century.
>>Neo-conservatives to their core.
>>
>>
>>>>The US government needs to bring all military personnel
>>>>home NOW.
>>
>>>Uh huh. You don't like the war, we get it. And that gives
>>>you the right to warp reality and call voluntary service
>>>a draft.
>>
>>When men are held beyond expiration of their enlistment,
>>without any identifiable national emergency, that's
>>involuntary servitude, i. e. a military draft.
>
>
> When people ignore the obvious and redefine words to suit
> their purposes, that's liberalism and hypocrisy.
>
No, that's neo-conservatism, a liberal philosophy of which you appear an
unwitting member.
Pat Hines
David Lentz
Randy Sweeney wrote:
<snip>
> > Fort Sumter posed no threat to the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis
> > wanted a shooting war and with Sumter he got it. Then so did
> > Abraham Lincoln.
>
> The Union commander at Fort Sumter had begun moving his heavy cannon from a
> seaward facing position to the side facing the center of Charlestown. This
> unacceptable threat to the citizens of Charlestown coupled with the union
> attempt to reinforce the fort was the proximate cause of the taking of
> Sumter
>
> Photographs of the fort taken after its surrender show this relocation of
> cannon to be a fact.
As I recall, Fort Sumter never returned fire. Jefferson Davis
wanted a shooting war. He got one.
David
David Lentz
Pat Hines wrote:
<snip>
> > Fort Sumter posed no threat to the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis
> > wanted a shooting war and with Sumter he got it. Then so did
> > Abraham Lincoln.
> >
> > David
>
> No, only Lincoln wanted war; the Confederacy wanted the Union out of their land.
The original Confederate states simply were not viable. as the
largest richest slave holding state, Virginia was not part of the
Confederacy. Davis needed a war to secure Virginia's
succession. He got both.
David
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder wrote:
>> Pat Hines <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in
>> news:kLMIb.19105$I07.52885@attbi_s53:
>>
>>
>>>Jim Alder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pat Hines <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in
>>>>news:3TtIb.701475$Tr4.1765930@attbi_s03:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jim Alder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pat Hines <fas...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>news:a19Ib.73872$VB2.150939@attbi_s51:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
>>>>>>>Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not a draft.
>>>>>
>>>>>It has the same effect as a draft, involuntary servitude.
>>>>>Further, most of these men signed up to defend America...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's right. They signed up. It's not involuntary at
>>>> all. And
>>>>if you look at what they signed, I am almost certain it will
>>>>say that their time can be extended in certain
>>>>circumstances.
>>>
>>> There is no national emergency.
>>
>> Read a paper, why doncha?
>>
> The only national emergency is in the mind's of fools and
> those in the federal government seeking additional power;
> both are having a field day as I right.
Yeah, right. There is no war, there is no fighting. Just keep
repeating that to yourself until anything I said is banished from
your mind.
>>>>>and know full well that
>>>>>they aren't being used for that task in Iraq.
>>>>>Additionally, it shows the increasing desparation of the
>>>>>Bush Regime in that they have too few soldiers to do the
>>>>>job the Bush Regime wants done.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The job is being done.Not as fast and not as
>>>> antiseptically as
>>>>the whining left would like, but then nothing Bush does will
>>>>satisfy them, or should I say "you"?
>>>
>>>Bush is as much a leftist as any president in the 20th
>>>century, more than several.
>>
>>
>> Sure he is. That's why every Democrat but Miller hates his
>> guts - it's because he's TOO liberal.
>
> Indeed, there's a lot of that. But mostly they hate him
> like one high school alumni hates those at another high
> school.
No. Liberals hate Bush like one high school student hates the
head cheerleader or the leading quarterback, who in turn couldn't
possibly care less what they think.
> Both are virtually
> the same, just wear different colored jersey's. That the case
> with the two largest political parties. Bush appropriately
> demonstrated this fact with the signing the law creating the
> largest increase in welfare in over 35 years.
>
>>>Neo-conservatives, those that hold sway in both the
>>>White House and the Pentagon, are leftist at their core.
>>
>> Oh, spare me that "Neo-con" shit! If ever there was a
>> stupid mantra adopted by more clueless liberals than
>> the "neo-con" one, I don't know what it might have been!
>
> Better tell the neo-conservative godfather, Irv Kristol
> that, he's spreading
> the word. "The Neoconservative Persuasion" by Irving Kristol
> http://www.aei.org/include/pub_print.asp?pubID=19063 Here's
> the first paragraph: "Since its origin among disillusioned
> liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, neoconservatism has been
> an intellectual undercurrent that surfaces only intermittently
> and one whose meaning is glimpsed only in retrospect. It has
> flowered again of late, and President George W. Bush and his
> administration seem to be at home in the political environment
> created by neoconservatism's renaissance."
>
> Your argument to the contrary fails.
Heh heh. I'll bet you I could waste a few minutes and show you
similar 'statements' from true believers from the American Nazi
party or the World Socialist Website. In fact, I recall hearing
almost the exact sentiments about the previous president and
socialism. I'll bet you took those statements to heart, too,
didn't ya?
>>>>>The job of defending America is taking backseat to those
>>>>> that want
>>>>>international hegemony of a large part of the globe and to
>>>>>make the middle east safe for Israel as Sharon sees fit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, yeah. World domination! Mwahahahah!!! That's the
>>>>Republicans, all right.
>>>
>>>Here's the plan of the neo-conservatives, they've never
>>> made it a secret.
>>>http://www.newamericancentury.org/ This group, headed by Irv
>>>and William Kristol, that's the Bill Kristol seen frequently
>>>on Fox News, are the guiding lights for New American Century.
>>>Neo-conservatives to their core.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The US government needs to bring all military personnel
>>>>>home NOW.
>>>
>>>>Uh huh. You don't like the war, we get it. And that gives
>>>>you the right to warp reality and call voluntary service
>>>>a draft.
>>>
>>> When men are held beyond expiration of their enlistment,
>>> without any identifiable national emergency, that's
>>> involuntary servitude, i. e. a military draft.
>
>> When people ignore the obvious and redefine words to suit
>> their purposes, that's liberalism and hypocrisy.
>
> No, that's neo-conservatism, a liberal philosophy of
> which you appear an unwitting member.
OF COURSE!! Everyone but YOU is a neocon! That's what makes
your life so simple. That's what makes YOU so simple.
Chris Morton
The traitors in the South wanted to preserve slavery. They seceded to that end.
They were militarily crushed to prevent the success of their treachery.
Chris Morton
>The Union Army commander, Major Anderson, moved his garrison from Fort Moultrie
>to Fort Sumter in the middle of the night December 25-26, 1860. That's an act
>of war.
That's obviously impossible. Moving US troops from one part of the United
States to another clearly could NEVER be an act of war.
Chris Morton
>> There was never any "Confederate" territory,
>
> Yes, there was a legitimate Confederate States of America. That has
>been
>established by dozens of researchers over the years, and was the primary reason
>Jefferson Davis wasn't tried for any crime.
An illegal rebellion dedicated to degrading other human beings could never be
legitimate.
Chris Morton
> HINT: Chattel slavery is illegal in America.
As a result of the treasonous insurrection of the South against the US.
>All who support the invasion and conquest of Iraq support increasing government
>enslavement of Americans.
It's ironic that you support the enslavement of Americans and oppose the
liberation of Iraqis.