When will the line be crossed ?
Cammie Bowman
A question posed to the Militia and Patriots:
Things change so slowly, from day-to-day. An assassination here, an
ATF raid there. A law preventing gun ownership for those convicted of
some misdemeanor here, a federal government mass murder there.
Measures are in motion now, that if left unchecked, will take away
our rights to bear arms, and destroy any hope of a free press.
If the nation rushed into fascism in a matter of days, there is no
doubt that everyone here would ring a call to arms. But when it
happens very gradually, few will have the sense of urgency or
committment. What happens is there begins a "it only happens to
the other guy attitude".
How many of you fall into that category? How many of you are
fat, content and happy, and wouldn't life a finger unless a half
dozen heavily armed agents kicked in your front door and shot
to death a member of your family.
An important question at this point is: "At what point will it become
clear that the federal government has become our enemy rather
than our humble servant?" At what point would Thomas Jefferson
and Samuel Adam's ghosts be on top of the White House screaming
"Rise! All Patriots Stand Now!!!"
Don't assume that the majority of Americans would stand with you.
Americans have shown they are quite happy with Socialism and
quite willing to put up extremely corrupt and illegal activities by
the people in agencies that have, and abuse just much power as
the S.S. or the KBG ever did.
We are being lied to by the major media in a constant barrage
of disinformation and manipulation.
CIA pulls the strings at National Public Radio, and has many,
many of their people working within the major TV networks.
This is not an exaggeration. Anyone in this Usenet Group who
has worked within the "community" can verify this! Just that
the brainwashing job they do on their career agents and
analysts is so effective, few have the balls left to say anything
about it.
So-called "Conspiracy Theory" is often murky truth, under the foot of
a careful and manipulative system. Yes, people out there are dying
for opening their mouths and trying to tell us what has been going
on in this country. There have been many, many conspiracies that
we have a piece of the picture of, but do to big payoffs, murder of
witnesses, and fearful, cowering government employees, it is never
brought to justice.
This is a formula for disaster. If the provocateur action happens that
I expect this coming year, it will be the "Pearl Harbor" against the
Militia. FBI was complicit in the boming of the World Trade Center in
New York. U.S. Military involved in the shootdown of TWA flight 800.
BATF and FBI complicit in the boming of the Federal Building in
Oklahoma City. I suspect FBI and BATF also responsible for the
Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. Some yet unknown agencies and
their contract resources have been working behind the scenes to
snuff witnesses to something that Bill Clinton (and his handlers)
wants very, very much to cover up. That isn't obvious yet, but
I think we will have the picture this year.
I'm not even including the involvement of CIA in murder of John
Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, or the FBI's hit on Martin Luther
King. That's already old news anyway. I believe Americans
will never have the real truth. They either don't care, or don't
have a view beyond the next TV sitcom.
If we don't believe that this country deserves better, then
we deserve no better ourselves.
Broward Horne
Cammie Bowman wrote:
>
> An important question at this point is: "At what point will it become
> clear that the federal government has become our enemy rather
> than our humble servant?" At what point would Thomas Jefferson
That's easy. When the Free Government
Stuff runs out. :)
> Don't assume that the majority of Americans would stand with you.
Trust me. When the free payoffs stop,
the majority of Americans are going to
want a *really* big target. :)
> Americans have shown they are quite happy with Socialism and
But only as long as Free Stuff is flowing. :)
> We are being lied to by the major media in a constant barrage
> of disinformation and manipulation.
So what? The media are only destroying
themselves. The Internet is kicking their
ass, bypassing them, making them irrelevant.
This is a Good thing. ;)
> witnesses, and fearful, cowering government employees, it is never
If all the employees were cowering, I doubt
there would be so many "accidental releases"
of confidential information - like the Gulf War
stuff. :)
> This is a formula for disaster. If the provocateur action happens that
> I expect this coming year, it will be the "Pearl Harbor" against the
> Militia. FBI was complicit in the boming of the World Trade Center in
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if '97 is the
year. Stocks of Free Government Stuff are
running low now. :)
Druid Here
>"Rise! All Patriots Stand Now!!!"
Since the CIA and FBI are aggressively rooting out moles for the KGB,
don't you think we ought to give them time to do just that? Obviously,
they too found things getting fishy. And don't you also think we ought to
wait and see just what the damage has been?
************
Bryan Cowan
In article <851748502$66...@atype.com>, Fed.Cove...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> A question posed to the Militia and Patriots:
>
> Things change so slowly, from day-to-day. An assassination here, an
> ATF raid there. A law preventing gun ownership for those convicted of
> some misdemeanor here, a federal government mass murder there.
>
> Measures are in motion now, that if left unchecked, will take away
> our rights to bear arms, and destroy any hope of a free press.
>
> If the nation rushed into fascism in a matter of days, there is no
> doubt that everyone here would ring a call to arms. But when it
> happens very gradually, few will have the sense of urgency or
> committment. What happens is there begins a "it only happens to
> the other guy attitude".
>
> How many of you fall into that category? How many of you are
> fat, content and happy, and wouldn't life a finger unless a half
> dozen heavily armed agents kicked in your front door and shot
> to death a member of your family.
>
> An important question at this point is: "At what point will it become
> clear that the federal government has become our enemy rather
> than our humble servant?" At what point would Thomas Jefferson
> and Samuel Adam's ghosts be on top of the White House screaming
> "Rise! All Patriots Stand Now!!!"
>
> Don't assume that the majority of Americans would stand with you.
> Americans have shown they are quite happy with Socialism and
> quite willing to put up extremely corrupt and illegal activities by
> the people in agencies that have, and abuse just much power as
> the S.S. or the KBG ever did.
>
> We are being lied to by the major media in a constant barrage
> of disinformation and manipulation.
>
> CIA pulls the strings at National Public Radio, and has many,
> many of their people working within the major TV networks.
> This is not an exaggeration. Anyone in this Usenet Group who
> has worked within the "community" can verify this! Just that
> the brainwashing job they do on their career agents and
> analysts is so effective, few have the balls left to say anything
> about it.
>
> So-called "Conspiracy Theory" is often murky truth, under the foot of
> a careful and manipulative system. Yes, people out there are dying
> for opening their mouths and trying to tell us what has been going
> on in this country. There have been many, many conspiracies that
> we have a piece of the picture of, but do to big payoffs, murder of
> witnesses, and fearful, cowering government employees, it is never
> brought to justice.
>
> This is a formula for disaster. If the provocateur action happens that
> I expect this coming year, it will be the "Pearl Harbor" against the
> Militia. FBI was complicit in the boming of the World Trade Center in
> New York. U.S. Military involved in the shootdown of TWA flight 800.
> BATF and FBI complicit in the boming of the Federal Building in
> Oklahoma City. I suspect FBI and BATF also responsible for the
> Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. Some yet unknown agencies and
> their contract resources have been working behind the scenes to
> snuff witnesses to something that Bill Clinton (and his handlers)
> wants very, very much to cover up. That isn't obvious yet, but
> I think we will have the picture this year.
>
> I'm not even including the involvement of CIA in murder of John
> Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, or the FBI's hit on Martin Luther
> King. That's already old news anyway. I believe Americans
> will never have the real truth. They either don't care, or don't
> have a view beyond the next TV sitcom.
>
> If we don't believe that this country deserves better, then
> we deserve no better ourselves.
The American people are, for the most part, fat, happy, and complacent.
The elite have already implanted the fear of *chaos* into them, and they
will be quite happy to sit by and watch the few thinking Americans left be
rounded up and eliminated in the name of law and order. The elite have
already implanted the idea into the minds of the public that the Patriots
are dangerous terrorists who want to destroy the wonderful technoworld
that Bill Gates has planned for us. The elite are helped along by
encouraging some of the Patriots who are angry but not very vigilant to
bomb buildings and kill people, and then use that as an excuse to
eliminate the whole lot. And the elite will be supported by a brain dead
mob fortified with beer, Big Macs, and football. Orwell was partly wrong;
the coming dictatorship will not be a grim world where people fight to
survive but a glittering material paradise where stores are stocked with
junk food and beer, where technology produces wonders undreamed of a
hundred years ago, where every pleasure will be richly indulged. People
will live in smart houses that take care of themselves, drive smart cars
that drive themselves, work in smart workplaces where the only labor
required will be pushing buttons. Technology will fulfill every vice;
their bellies will never be empty, they will never have to think for
themselves. The flip side of this paradise is that free thought will be
eliminated. The few independent thinkers left will have vanished long ago
and been forgotten; television and radio will blare from every room,
numbing the brain with simple programming produced by the big media
conglomerates. There will be a rich elite, but with full bellies and numb
minds the masses will lose the capacity to question the established order.
The masses will live in a numb haze of football, sitcoms, and junk food,
going along without a care in the world while the elite pull the strings
unchallenged. That is the future of humanity, and from the looks of things
us few thinkers are powerless to stop it.
Jim Kleinschmit
Druid Here (drui...@aol.com) wrote:
:
: >"Rise! All Patriots Stand Now!!!"
:
: Since the CIA and FBI are aggressively rooting out moles for the KGB,
: don't you think we ought to give them time to do just that? Obviously,
: they too found things getting fishy. And don't you also think we ought to
: wait and see just what the damage has been?
:
: ************
:
Sacrificing a few diversionary lambs proves nothing. It shows they have
the power to divert attention and not much else.
:
: ************
--
Joseph T. Adams
Daniel Kuehne (dan...@erols.com) wrote:
[that rights will continue to be slowly encroached, one unpopular
group of people at a time, until none are left]
Yes, that is probably what will happen.
What exactly do you think we can do that will stop this process of
death by small steps?
Most of the answers I've heard so far leave a great deal to be
desired. Most would seem to make the problem worse instead of better.
I will admit that I do not have a perfect answer to that question
myself. There may not be a good answer in the short term. It may be
too late to turn things around without bloodshed.
It is my firm conviction that in the long run, this disease can only
be cured at its roots - namely, by educating ourselves and others as
much as we can concerning our rights and responsibilities as free
Citizens. The rot in our society extends all the way down to the
foundations. Those foundations must be rebuilt before we will ever
have any hope at all of being truly free.
Joe
rar...@aol.com
In article <851955485$12...@atype.com>, Daniel Kuehne <dan...@erols.com>
writes:
>Then they'll take all the guns away from the Republic of Texas activists,
and
>the
>militia will simply say: "Oh my goodness... Who could ever be against
that?
>...Indeed,
>it will be bad for our public image if we take a stand on that issue!"
I hate to say it Daniel, but unlike most other patriot outfits, this one
comes the closest to be in violation of sedition laws since they claim
that they are the legitimate government of Texas. Especially if they
attempt to use force to acheive their aims. Most militia groups have
stated they will not use first strike, the ROT boys haven't been this
clear.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Venom
In article <851955485$12...@atype.com>, Daniel Kuehne <dan...@erols.com> says:
>
>
>GREAT question! I've wondered the same thing myself. As a realist, I'd have to say that
>unfortunately the militia is nothing but a paper tiger. They HAVE done nothing and most
>likely WILL do nothing. WAKE UP militia... the government is NOT going to stage some
>sort of all-out nationwide gun raid, as some of your self-annointed "leaders" have
>foolishly proclaimed. Indeed, they would have to be really STUPID to do this. Maybe they
>ARE that stupid, but I don't think so. More likely than not, they are going to use the
>true and tried "divide and conquor" strategy. It'll happen something like this...
>
<snip>
Well said! I also think that the practice of relying on the so-called
conservatives to turn things around is folly. Case in point is prop 215
in Calif. All of a sudden the conservative voice speaks against STATES
RIGHTS! This type of selective interpretation of the constitution is
no less dangerous than that of the liberal socialists. Freedom is
non negotiable. If we stake our future on the conservatives we will
be slaves none the less.
E. Vigilance
Charles Winters
Oh brave new world! I'm so glad I'm an Alpha.
sheldon sheps
>> the SS. or the KGB ever did.
[snip out Kennedy references]
But why bother? Why do you need to see some sort of a planned
conspiracy? In most conspiracies, someone has to benefit from the
conspiracy to the point that they go to the trouble of forming a
conspiracy.
A classic example is bid-rigging. Someone puts out tenders and
contractors or suppliers submit bids; the lowest bid wins. The
contractors and suppliers want to maximize profits. One solution for
the contractors/suppliers is to examine the tenders and agree in
advance who will get the job and at what price; everyone else bids
higher. Here's some of the conditions that are usually part of
bid-rigging that continues for a period of time:
1. The cost of entering the business must be high. Otherwise anyone
can bid.
2. Production/building costs are similar at a certain size of
business.
3. The number of players in the busines is small.
4. There is the 'correct' range of contracts each year. If there are
only a few, they can't be divided up. If there are too many, it
becomes difficult to manage (sometimes solved by geographical rules).
5. The industry is technologically stable and substitutes are not
easily available.
6. The parties have similar belief systems.
7. The parties can talk to one other.
8. New players must be brought in when they get large enough.
The classic example, cement. Time after time, cement companies around
the world have been caught in bid-rigging.
Similar rules should apply to most conspiracies and explain why the
conspiracy breaks down. You can call the conspiracy the Medillin
Cartel, the Mafia or DeBeers.
But the New World Order with the CFR and the Bilderbergers and the
Trilateral Commission? What about Bill Gates and the Japanese
Ministry of International Trade and the Military-Industrial Complex
and the Christian Coalition and the ACLU and the Masons and the Saudi
Princes and the Rothchilds and the Internet and ....
There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for bad things, or good things,
to happen. Sometimes they happen by chance and sometimes they happen
because groups make small changes in their own area that expand and
change the world.
I'm more concerned about a common set of ideas and thoughts
percolating through the political and economic elite than about any
formal conspiracy. Again
Sheldon
--
Sheldon Sheps
Toronto, Canada
Militia - History and Law FAQ
http://www.sff.net/people/pitman/militia.htm
Randy Solomon
It is those shysters who have usurped our constitutional republic and
altered it into a socialistNWO pawn that are the seditious ones not
those aiming to restore things to the way they were meant to be.
REAL AMERICANS DONT WEAR UN BLUE
rar...@aol.com
In article <852492784$22...@atype.com>, Randy Solomon <afn3...@afn.org>
writes:
Those shysters happen to be the constitutionally elected leaders of this
country. What claims of legitimacy to you possess?
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
SidMeyer
>It is those shysters who have usurped our constitutional republic and
>altered it into a socialistNWO pawn that are the seditious ones not
>those aiming to restore things to the way they were meant to be.
>
> REAL AMERICANS DONT WEAR UN BLUE
Those shysters happen to be the constitutionally elected leaders of this
country. What claims of legitimacy to you possess?
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
Randy S brings up a good point, there are limits imposed to the activites
of the
elected leadership. His legitimacy to raise objections and struggle to
restore
these limits stems from his rights and duty as a citizen of our Republic.
sid
Ezekiel Krahlin
Cammie Bowman <Bow...@Fed.Altered.Mycoplasma> wrote:
> A question posed to the Militia and Patriots:
> Things change so slowly, from day-to-day. An assassination here, an
> ATF raid there. A law preventing gun ownership for those convicted of
> some misdemeanor here, a federal government mass murder there.
> Measures are in motion now, that if left unchecked, will take away
> our rights to bear arms, and destroy any hope of a free press.
> If the nation rushed into fascism in a matter of days, there is no
> doubt that everyone here would ring a call to arms. But when it
> happens very gradually, few will have the sense of urgency or
> committment. What happens is there begins a "it only happens to
> the other guy attitude".
Oh, I have no question that we are headed for a fascist regime...mainly
because it is already here...and has been here for a very long time. As a
gay person, I live in a terrorist society...where the law, in most cases,
still upholds violence, discrimination, persecution, and imprisonment
towards same-sex lovers.
Are there any non-homophobic militias out there, who accept lesbians and
gays as equal citizens? Else...why should I join any militia that
perpetuates its own fascism towards my kind, even though I am a native
citizen?
Perhaps it's time we see the world's first Gay Militia...or, as I prefer
to call it: "Thracian." (Figure out the origin of the word "lesbian",
then you'll figure the rest out. Thracian is a lot more dignified than
"gay," and recalls the warrior class of ancient Greece.) I even propose
calling it The "Blue Rose" Militia...to get away from stereotype colors,
like pink, lavender, etc.
Anyone interested in forming a Thracian militia?
Lew Glendenning
Don't join a militia.
Join the Libertarian Party. If you feel the need to be more prepared:
a) join the NRA. b) Read John Ross's "Unintended Consequences". c) Think
hard.
Lew
--
"Ideology? We don't got no ideology. We don't need no stinkin'
ideology!
We have a Constitution!"
The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the
CONSTITUTION.
Bill K.
During hypnotic regression, Ezekiel Krahlin <e...@wco.com> recalled:
>
>Cammie Bowman <Bow...@Fed.Altered.Mycoplasma> wrote:
>
>
>> A question posed to the Militia and Patriots:
>
>> Things change so slowly, from day-to-day. An assassination here, an
>> ATF raid there. A law preventing gun ownership for those convicted of
>> some misdemeanor here, a federal government mass murder there.
>
>> Measures are in motion now, that if left unchecked, will take away
>> our rights to bear arms, and destroy any hope of a free press.
>
>> If the nation rushed into fascism in a matter of days, there is no
>> doubt that everyone here would ring a call to arms. But when it
>> happens very gradually, few will have the sense of urgency or
>> committment. What happens is there begins a "it only happens to
>> the other guy attitude".
>
>Oh, I have no question that we are headed for a fascist regime...mainly
>because it is already here...and has been here for a very long time. As a
>gay person, I live in a terrorist society...where the law, in most cases,
>still upholds violence, discrimination, persecution, and imprisonment
>towards same-sex lovers.
Don't feel so damn special. If you remove the words "gay" and "same-sex
lovers" and replace them with "harmless weirdos" and "individualists",
you'll have a more accurate appraisal of the situation.
Don't try to be a martyr. The truely persecuted are those who try to live
a life without harming others, and who simply demand the same respect from
those others.
>
>Are there any non-homophobic militias out there, who accept lesbians and
I have never met a "homophobe". I've met lots of folks who are labled as
homophobic by homosexuals, though. It is a label which attempts
(successfully) to remove the truth and replace it with a lie. Those you
would tag "homophobic" are no more afraid (the "phobic" root means "fear")
of homosexuals than they are of live heterosexuals performing sex acts on
stage. They simply find both them unpleasant, immoral, counter-intuitive,
and worthy of avoidance and possible moral and religious condemnation.
Fear does not figure into the response at all. Loathing does, though.
What you should have asked is something like:
"Is there a militia organization friendly toward openly homosexual
members?"
or
"Is it appropriate to discuss personal sexual behaviour publicly within a
militia group?"
>gays as equal citizens? Else...why should I join any militia that
>perpetuates its own fascism towards my kind, even though I am a native
>citizen?
If you define "your kind" as "homosexuals", be gone. You have landed in
the wrong group. If you define "your kind" as individuals who will fight
and possibly die to protect the rights described by the Constitution for
all citizens, regardless of what self-amusement they indulge in so long as
it harms no other, then welcome.
>
>Perhaps it's time we see the world's first Gay Militia...or, as I prefer
Be my guest. I suspect that the vast majority of activist homosexuals are
too enamoured with the idea of massive funding of the homosexual agenda to
call for a reduction in the Federal government.
>to call it: "Thracian." (Figure out the origin of the word "lesbian",
>then you'll figure the rest out. Thracian is a lot more dignified than
>"gay," and recalls the warrior class of ancient Greece.) I even propose
>calling it The "Blue Rose" Militia...to get away from stereotype colors,
>like pink, lavender, etc.
Yeah, whatever.
>
>Anyone interested in forming a Thracian militia?
I think you'd better post what exactly it stands for, and what its
guidelines for dealing with heterosexuals might be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his
liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the
right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights
constantly."- THE LAW, by Frederic Bastiat, Paris, 1850
Mark Pitcavage
In article <853121041$28...@atype.com> xtr10...@xtra.co.nz (Bill K.) writes:
>>
>>Anyone interested in forming a Thracian militia?
>I think you'd better post what exactly it stands for, and what its
>guidelines for dealing with heterosexuals might be.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Dr. Mark Pitcavage
Check It Out: http://www.sff.net/people/pitman
"I shall cheerfully bear the reproach of having descended below the dignity
of history." --Lord Macaulay.
rar...@aol.com
In article <852898685$20...@atype.com>, sidm...@aol.com (SidMeyer)
writes:
The problem is very simple. Nothing in the Constitution mandates just how
a President can use the armed forces of the United States. Nothing, zip,
zilch. This xenophobic attitude is somewhat hilarious especially if one
understands the course of the Revolutionary War. How many Americans in
the Continental Army were under foreign command? Numerous at varying
times after 1778.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Mark Hollingsworth
RE: Gay militia . . .
Every unit is different. I'm not a homosexual, nor is anyone in our unit,
but at the same time we stand up for the rights of everyone to live
their lives as they please. Some of our people are Branch Davidians from
Waco. At that church, there were some homosexuals among the church
members, as well as blacks and Jews and asians. There was no
discrimination there, and there is none in this Militia unit.
I'm tired of Militia members that boast about liberty and then trash Jews
or members of the Church of Scientology, or homosexuals. They are not
consistant in their thinking, yet they don't even know it. I would just
as quickly fight along side a homosexual as I would anyone else.
Ron Cole
Commander, CO 1st Lt. Infantry
http://www.laugesen.com/partisan/home.html
Son of ATF
And they were trained by a Prussian officer.
rar...@aol.com
In article <853385610$50...@atype.com>, Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net> writes:
>> The problem is very simple. Nothing in the Constitution mandates just
how
>> a President can use the armed forces of the United States. Nothing,
zip,
>> zilch. This xenophobic attitude is somewhat hilarious especially if
one
>> understands the course of the Revolutionary War. How many Americans in
>> the Continental Army were under foreign command? Numerous at varying
>> times after 1778.
>>
>> Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
>
>And they were trained by a Prussian officer.
>
>
Not only that he was gay! Ain't that a hoot. The man who put discipline
in the Continental Army was a foreign gay guy.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
SidMeyer
Ragsdale posted:
In article <852898685$20...@atype.com>, sidm...@aol.com (SidMeyer)
writes:
>>It is those shysters who have usurped our constitutional republic and
>>altered it into a socialistNWO pawn that are the seditious ones not
>>those aiming to restore things to the way they were meant to be.
>>
>> REAL AMERICANS DONT WEAR UN BLUE
>
>Those shysters happen to be the constitutionally elected leaders of this
>country. What claims of legitimacy to you possess?
>
>Randy Ragsdale
>^^^^^^^
>
>Randy S brings up a good point, there are limits imposed to the activites
>of the
>elected leadership. His legitimacy to raise objections and struggle to
>restore
>these limits stems from his rights and duty as a citizen of our
Republic.
>
>sid
>
The problem is very simple. Nothing in the Constitution mandates just how
a President can use the armed forces of the United States. Nothing, zip,
zilch. This xenophobic attitude is somewhat hilarious especially if one
understands the course of the Revolutionary War. How many Americans in
the Continental Army were under foreign command? Numerous at varying
times after 1778.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
S: Doesn't the President need a declaration of war to begin fighting a
war? In the time of the FF it was clear that the intent is to prevent the
commitment of US citizens to battle without the consent of their elected
leadership. You are too beligerent, Randy, to maintain objectivity, IMO,
and the is nothing humorous about any of this.
sid
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
SidMeyer
In article <853385610$50...@atype.com>, Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net> writes:
>> The problem is very simple. Nothing in the Constitution mandates just
how
>> a President can use the armed forces of the United States. Nothing,
zip,
>> zilch. This xenophobic attitude is somewhat hilarious especially if
one
>> understands the course of the Revolutionary War. How many Americans in
>> the Continental Army were under foreign command? Numerous at varying
>> times after 1778.
>>
>And they were trained by a Prussian officer.
>
Not only that he was gay! Ain't that a hoot. The man who put discipline
in the Continental Army was a foreign gay guy.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6
But he stayed in the closet where faggots should remain! I bet you really
like that discipline part, too, didn't you Randy?
sid
SidMeyer
Cole posted:
RE: Gay militia . . .
Every unit is different. I'm not a homosexual, nor is anyone in our unit,
but at the same time we stand up for the rights of everyone to live
their lives as they please. Some of our people are Branch Davidians from
Waco. At that church, there were some homosexuals among the church
members, as well as blacks and Jews and asians. There was no
discrimination there, and there is none in this Militia unit.
S: Sodomy is illegal in many states, and there may be many of your members
who find it objectionable once you get one. There are fags in every group
just about. So what? That doesn't make it inocuous. By the term 'faggot' I
mean practicing, sodomizing homosexual or bisexuals of either sex. Anyone
can change fro the better, so do not include former fudge-pounders in my
term.
I'm tired of Militia members that boast about liberty and then trash Jews
or members of the Church of Scientology, or homosexuals. They are not
consistant in their thinking, yet they don't even know it. I would just
as quickly fight along side a homosexual as I would anyone else.
S: Are you comparing being Jewish to being a fag? There is a big
difference between attacking someone for their faith or ancestry versus
criticiswing self destructiv, degenerate, and unsanitary voluntary
behavior. I suppose you want active homosexuals kept in the services too?
If it is so harmless to unit morale and cohesiveness, why then are the
leaders of the military so against it?
sid
rar...@aol.com
In article <853595291$14...@atype.com>, sidm...@aol.com (SidMeyer)
writes:
Once again, Sid you miss the irony completely.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
rar...@aol.com
In article <853592584$14...@atype.com>, sidm...@aol.com (SidMeyer)
writes:
>Ragsdale posted:
>
>In article <852898685$20...@atype.com>, sidm...@aol.com (SidMeyer)
>writes:
>
>>>It is those shysters who have usurped our constitutional republic and
>>>altered it into a socialistNWO pawn that are the seditious ones not
>>>those aiming to restore things to the way they were meant to be.
>>>
>>> REAL AMERICANS DONT WEAR UN BLUE
>>
>>Those shysters happen to be the constitutionally elected leaders of this
>>country. What claims of legitimacy to you possess?
>>
>>Randy Ragsdale
>>^^^^^^^
>>
>>Randy S brings up a good point, there are limits imposed to the
activites
>>of the
>>elected leadership. His legitimacy to raise objections and struggle to
>>restore
>>these limits stems from his rights and duty as a citizen of our
>Republic.
>>
>>sid
>>
>
>The problem is very simple. Nothing in the Constitution mandates just
how
>a President can use the armed forces of the United States. Nothing, zip,
>zilch. This xenophobic attitude is somewhat hilarious especially if one
>understands the course of the Revolutionary War. How many Americans in
>the Continental Army were under foreign command? Numerous at varying
>times after 1778.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>S: Doesn't the President need a declaration of war to begin fighting a
>war? In the time of the FF it was clear that the intent is to prevent the
>commitment of US citizens to battle without the consent of their elected
>leadership. You are too beligerent, Randy, to maintain objectivity, IMO,
>and the is nothing humorous about any of this.
>
>sid
No he doesn't. Thomas Jefferson committed forces against the Barbary
pirates in 1801 without a declaration of war. John Adams waged a quasi
war with the French at sea from 1798-1800 without a declaration of war.
PS I am not belligerent, just a smart ass. Considering some of the
insanity I read in this newsgroup everyday if I don't laugh or make the
occassional humorous retort I would be as nutty as Dave Cinege and other
"serious" types.
>
>
>Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
>
>
>
>
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Mark Hollingsworth
As commander of my unit, I openly welcome anyone who I believe will be an
asset to my team. That includes both blacks and neo-Nazis and gays and
Jews and whoever alike. If anyone at any time for any reason lets their
personal views, religion, or sexual preference upset the team, they will
be thrown out! Depending on the circumstances, they might be shot if we
can't afford to risk a breach of security. Everyone knows that from the
start, and we never bring it up again.
That is how you run a professional team. Period.
Ron Cole
Commander, CO 1st. Lt. Infantry
Homepage - http://www.laugesen.com/partisan/home.html
Gary Hunt
Randy,
The protection of American shipping (Barbary Coast and against the
French) has never been considered war.
Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
rar...@aol.com
Oh really? Let's see, men are sent into harm's way to attack the enemy's
forces, I think that is a war. What do consider the definition of a war,
that we are engaged only with an advanced power and only with infantry?
I left out that during this time period that the United States was also
engaged in a war with the Indian tribes of the Northwest Territory
(1790-1795) that didn't require for many reasons a formal declaration of
war. Nonetheless it is still a war in all it's bloody details.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Herb
Sid is right I will stand proudly when the time comes to
protect liberty but I will never stand to protect Lisense. It is
nonsense to expect me to protect the very things which have been
used by the commies to tear this nation down. And as for the
posting that claims that the German officer who aided Washington
at Valley Forge was a homosexual, I have seen just about everyone
who ever accomplished anything good called a homosexual by the
Queer lobby, including Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary. Just
like the Nazis trying to blame everything on Jews it is wearing
very thin on me to hear my Jewishness equated with sodomites. I
don't appreciate this kind of communistic talk and will not ally
myself with anyone who does so when the scathology strikes the
spinning blades don't step into my camp talking like that or you
might get shot as a spy. Thanks Sid.
Herb
Watcher
JBS
Mark Hollingsworth
>I don't appreciate this kind of communistic talk and will not ally
>myself with anyone who does so when the scathology strikes the
>spinning blades don't step into my camp talking like that or you
>might get shot as a spy.
My talking like someone interested in liberty for all is communism? How
utterly sick. As for my being shot by you . . . just when is that
supposed to happen? You better be pretty quick on the draw, or I'll
wound you, and let one of my minority allies finnish you off.
This kind of talk between between people suffering at the hands of the
same enemy makes you worse than the enemy. My brethren in Waco were
murdered by that enemy because they were different. You USED their
deaths to justify YOUR cause, while condemning those that died by
attacking what we still stand for! Our friend Perry was killed by ATF in
the raid, he was gay, and he fought to his death defending us!!!!
You need to grow up.
Ron Cole
Commander, CO 1st. Lt. Infantry
http://www.laugesen.com/partisan/home.html
SidMeyer
Randy Ragsdale wrote:
>S: Doesn't the President need a declaration of war to begin fighting a
>war? In the time of the FF it was clear that the intent is to prevent the
>commitment of US citizens to battle without the consent of their elected
>leadership. You are too beligerent, Randy, to maintain objectivity, IMO,
>and the is nothing humorous about any of this.
>
>sid
No he doesn't. Thomas Jefferson committed forces against the Barbary
pirates in 1801 without a declaration of war. John Adams waged a quasi
war with the French at sea from 1798-1800 without a declaration of war.
PS I am not belligerent, just a smart ass. Considering some of the
insanity I read in this newsgroup everyday if I don't laugh or make the
occassional humorous retort I would be as nutty as Dave Cinege and other
"serious" types.
Randy Ragsdale
S: The exact line of demarcation in what involves war vrs mere 'police
action' is very ambiguous. I think the War Powers Act limits the president
to 2 days (?) without Congressional approval. But the point is, Randy,
there ARE at some limits to the presidents power to commit troops.
sid
SidMeyer
Randy Ragsdale wrote:
In article <853595291$14...@atype.com>, sidm...@aol.com (SidMeyer)
writes:
>In article <853385610$50...@atype.com>, Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net>
writes:
>
>>> The problem is very simple. Nothing in the Constitution mandates just
>how
>>> a President can use the armed forces of the United States. Nothing,
>zip,
>>> zilch. This xenophobic attitude is somewhat hilarious especially if
>one
>>> understands the course of the Revolutionary War. How many Americans
in
>>> the Continental Army were under foreign command? Numerous at varying
>>> times after 1778.
>>>
>>And they were trained by a Prussian officer.
>>
>Not only that he was gay! Ain't that a hoot. The man who put discipline
>in the Continental Army was a foreign gay guy.
>
>Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
6
>
>But he stayed in the closet where faggots should remain! I bet you really
>like that discipline part, too, didn't you Randy?
>
>sid
Once again, Sid you miss the irony completely.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
S: I see the irony if he truly was homosexual. I don't know if he was, but
as with the stories about Hoover wearing dresses, who knows if they are
true? The fags claim King David from the Old Testament, too, but the poor
guys really can't defend himself, now can he? Some even claim that Jesus
was also! They want to make homosexual behavior seem normal and will claim
anyone who had a close relationship with anyone of the same sex. It is PR.
But just as the possibility that fags may have helped the Revolution does
not purify their behavior, neither does their predominance in the NAzis SA
damn it, but you don't hear much of that these days do you? Poor Ernst is
no longer loved!
sid
rar...@aol.com
In article <853763590$21...@atype.com>, sidm...@aol.com (SidMeyer)
writes:
>>>And they were trained by a Prussian officer.
>>>
>>Not only that he was gay! Ain't that a hoot. The man who put
discipline
>>in the Continental Army was a foreign gay guy.
>>
>>Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^
>6
>>
>>But he stayed in the closet where faggots should remain! I bet you
really
>>like that discipline part, too, didn't you Randy?
>>
>>sid
>
>Once again, Sid you miss the irony completely.
>
>Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
>
>S: I see the irony if he truly was homosexual. I don't know if he was,
but
>as with the stories about Hoover wearing dresses, who knows if they are
>true? The fags claim King David from the Old Testament, too, but the poor
>guys really can't defend himself, now can he? Some even claim that Jesus
>was also! They want to make homosexual behavior seem normal and will
claim
>anyone who had a close relationship with anyone of the same sex. It is
PR.
So.
>
>But just as the possibility that fags may have helped the Revolution does
>not purify their behavior, neither does their predominance in the NAzis
SA
>damn it, but you don't hear much of that these days do you? Poor Ernst is
>no longer loved!
>
>sid
It is not for me to judge whether or not their behavior is bad or not. If
there is a God, and he indeed hates gays, then that will be the judgement.
But for the rest of us slobs here on the blue marble, it is not right to
judge others. If we don't agree with their lifestyle, fine, don't live
it. But don't force your sense of morality down their throats ( no pun
intended).
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
rar...@aol.com
In article <853763583$21...@atype.com>, sidm...@aol.com (SidMeyer)
writes:
Off the top of my head 30 years, with 60 to remove troops. But one of our
sharp law types will have it quickly. Sid, where are those limits? Can
you point them out? I suppose Congress could tell the President pull the
troops out of Bosnia or we will cut off funding, but then that would hurt
the troops more than the President.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Gary Hunt
Randy,
I don't make the rules, I only read history. The protection of
American shipping was never considered a war. As far as that goes, the
battles against Indians were considered to be supression of
insurrection, violation of treaties (enforcing the law of the land) and
other sometimes lame excuses. War is usually declaraed against a
beligerent nation. The Barbary pirates were 'pirates' or privateers,
just like American privateers that preyed on French and British shipping
at various times.
Sorry, but no banana!
SidMeyer
Randy wrote:
It is not for me to judge whether or not their behavior is bad or not. If
there is a God, and he indeed hates gays, then that will be the judgement.
But for the rest of us slobs here on the blue marble, it is not right to
judge others. If we don't agree with their lifestyle, fine, don't live
it. But don't force your sense of morality down their throats ( no pun
intended).
Randy Ragsdale
S: I do not think God hates fags, no more than I hate them. But if even my
own son were to do some things, my love would be limitted.
If we as human beings do things that violate the design of a suystem, we
must accept the consequences of that violation. We don't blame GM for not
allowing an engine to use mollasis instead of oil, we expect people to use
the proper oil or live with the results. The same is true with misuse of
the procreative system, but not only fags misuse it, most of us do. IMO.
Fags just do so more radically.
I think God has an ideal for all of us to strive for, but sometimes it
seems easier to just curse the ideal as unreachable and inhuman.
But He will always love us, and even in the fires of Hell, some will be
redeemed, I do believe.
sid
rar...@aol.com
Actually, the "pirates" were a nation with a bey as the chief of state.
In fact, they declared war on the United States. I would advise you to
research more on that conflict or war.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
rar...@aol.com
In article <853823894$24...@atype.com>, sidm...@aol.com (SidMeyer)
writes:
>Randy wrote:
>
>It is not for me to judge whether or not their behavior is bad or not.
If
>there is a God, and he indeed hates gays, then that will be the
judgement.
> But for the rest of us slobs here on the blue marble, it is not right to
>judge others. If we don't agree with their lifestyle, fine, don't live
>it. But don't force your sense of morality down their throats ( no pun
>intended).
>
>
>
>Randy Ragsdale
>
>S: I do not think God hates fags, no more than I hate them. But if even
my
>own son were to do some things, my love would be limitted.
Even your own son! That's sad.
>If we as human beings do things that violate the design of a suystem, we
>must accept the consequences of that violation. We don't blame GM for not
>allowing an engine to use mollasis instead of oil, we expect people to
use
>the proper oil or live with the results. The same is true with misuse of
>the procreative system, but not only fags misuse it, most of us do. IMO.
>Fags just do so more radically.
But it isn't really a harm? Except in the cases of the communicable
disease.
>I think God has an ideal for all of us to strive for, but sometimes it
>seems easier to just curse the ideal as unreachable and inhuman.
>But He will always love us, and even in the fires of Hell, some will be
>redeemed, I do believe.
>
>sid
The trouble is not everybody would agree with you on that.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
rar...@aol.com
In article <853637619$16...@atype.com>, LVP...@prodigy.com (Mark
Hollingsworth) writes:
>As commander of my unit, I openly welcome anyone who I believe will be an
>asset to my team. That includes both blacks and neo-Nazis and gays and
>Jews and whoever alike. If anyone at any time for any reason lets their
>personal views, religion, or sexual preference upset the team, they will
>be thrown out! Depending on the circumstances, they might be shot if we
>can't afford to risk a breach of security. Everyone knows that from the
>start, and we never bring it up again.
>
>That is how you run a professional team. Period.
>
>
Sounds like a fine terrorist cell to me. The only object you seek is the
destruction of the federal government and you don't care who helps you
acheive it. BTW since your unit is unregulated and unorganized and
therefore a private army, if you did indeed kill somebody for breach of
security I am pretty damn sure you would be charged with murder
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
rar...@aol.com
In article <853715896$19...@atype.com>, Herb <10325...@CompuServe.COM>
writes:
> Sid is right I will stand proudly when the time comes to
>protect liberty but I will never stand to protect Lisense. It is
>nonsense to expect me to protect the very things which have been
>used by the commies to tear this nation down. And as for the
>posting that claims that the German officer who aided Washington
>at Valley Forge was a homosexual, I have seen just about everyone
>who ever accomplished anything good called a homosexual by the
>Queer lobby, including Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary.
Well I am not gay and I said it. So your point is not well taken.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Morgoth
The President can commit forces, I believe in number and time.
After a month or so, the Prez has to get the OK from the
Congress.. And I believe is limited to less than 50,000
personnel. It maybe more time. For Bosnia is not a "war".
It was clarified after Korea/Vietnam and like actions where we
commited ourselves to a war, with out the Congresses OK. After
Vietnam, it was decided to clarify the powers. The War Powers Act
I believe..
Mark Hollingsworth
>Sounds like a fine terrorist cell to me. The only object you seek is
the
>destruction of the federal government and you don't care who helps you
>acheive it. BTW since your unit is unregulated and unorganized and
>therefore a private army, if you did indeed kill somebody for breach of
>security I am pretty damn sure you would be charged with murder.
Freedom fighter or terrorist depends upon your perspective. I'm no
different than anyone else in the movement, except that I'm blunt, and
perhaps more realistic than average because I'm a Branch Davidian and
I've already lost friends. Murder? War is war, it is what it is. I'm
not in this to win a popularity contest or the Nobel Peace Prize.
Ron Cole
Commander, Colorado First Light Infantry
Website: http://www.laugesen.com/partisan/home.html
The Partisan World Web
rar...@aol.com
I believe you are essentially correct. Since Vietnam, Presidents have at
least attempted to get some kind of OK from Congress before embarking on
an extended military expedition. Mainly, because not to do so might
invoke the War Powers Act of 1973 and cause a constitutional crisis while
troops maybe in harm's way.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Gary Hunt
rar...@aol.com wrote:
> Actually, the "pirates" were a nation with a bey as the chief of state.
> In fact, they declared war on the United States. I would advise you to
> research more on that conflict or war.
> Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Randy,
We were not in a declared war. The stated purpose was protection of
American shipping. Which history do you read?
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
Charles Winters
Dear Sid: Liberty, as described by John Locke, consists of tolerance
for the behavior or our neighbor, provided he does us no harm. Its not
simply tolerance for his ancestry or religious belief, but for his
behavior. If he is a b**t-F******g queer, a dope smoking hippy, a satan
worshiping animal sacrificing heathen, what business is it of ours? As
free men, we are welcome to disapprove of him, even denounce him, but
we must not stand in his law abiding way or keep him from fulfilling his
militia duties. I for one, am very opinionated and critical of others,
but I will fight to defend the sacred flame of liberty which guarantees
their right to be sinners etc. - CW
wu...@aol.com
In article <854030981$5...@atype.com>, Morgoth <mor...@nome.net> writes:
>
>The President can commit forces, I believe in number and time.
>After a month or so, the Prez has to get the OK from the
>Congress.. And I believe is limited to less than 50,000
>personnel. It maybe more time. For Bosnia is not a "war".
>
>It was clarified after Korea/Vietnam and like actions where we
>commited ourselves to a war, with out the Congresses OK. After
>Vietnam, it was decided to clarify the powers. The War Powers Act
>I believe..
Look up the law and tell us more.
Mike S. Medintz
Whilst completely naked, SidMeyer said unto us:
>S: That is part of what I am azddressing here: such behavior DOES do us
>harm. By spreading disease,
In rare cases, not as often as the act of driving kills people. I'm still
waiting for you to ban heterosexual conduct and the attendant problem of
overpopulation-the CENTER of all of our other problems.
>creating controvercy, damaging morale,
No, Sid, YOU'RE creating controversy and damaging morale.
>and
>bringing upon us the Judgement of God
God speaks to you personally? We have a word for that around these parts,
but is't long and comes from Latin and isn't very nice.
>S: I don't suggest anyone persecute fags. I do defend the legitimacy of
>anyone who finds them morally objectionable or repulsive. It is no skin
>off my nose if you bring 'em into your circle; but I do not want them in
>mine.
Yeah! No sinners in Sid's church!
--
Mike S. Medintz| KB9ODS/0| http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~medintz
"I gotta get out of bed, get a hammer and a nail,
learn to use my hands."-Indigo Girls
Joseph T. Adams
Mike S. Medintz (med...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu) wrote:
: >S: That is part of what I am azddressing here: such behavior DOES do us
: >harm. By spreading disease,
:
: In rare cases, not as often as the act of driving kills people.
How many people die from diseases transmitted almost solely by
promiscuity (including, but not limited, to AIDS)?
Now how many people die from automobile accidents?
:I'm still
: waiting for you to ban heterosexual conduct and the attendant problem of
: overpopulation-the CENTER of all of our other problems.
What is your definition of "overpopulation"?
What is your evidence that the world, or any part of it, is
"overpopulated"?
Does anyone have any greater right than the individuals involved to
decide whether to conceive children, and, if so, how many?
The myth of "overpopulation" - which is often used to justify abortion
and other forms of genocide - is IMO a bigger threat to the world than
all of the world's corrupt governments combined.
I have much more tolerance even for those who burned 80 men, women and
children at Waco, than for those who would burn and dismember and
otherwise destroy 4,000 unborn children each and every day in this
country, and even more elsewhere. "Overpopulation" is one of their
favorite excuses. It is a rather sorry excuse, IMO, because it does
not even exist.
Joe
mmedi...@aol.com
In article <854471884$24...@atype.com>, j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams)
writes:
>:I'm still
>: waiting for you to ban heterosexual conduct and the attendant problem
of
>: overpopulation-the CENTER of all of our other problems.
>
>What is your definition of "overpopulation"?
Global carrying capacity-variable depending on the per-capita impact of
material lifestyles. (Basically, it's a dependent variable, dependent on
how each person lives in terms of environmental impact and resource
consumption)
The simplest definition of global carrying capacity (IE the one that I'd
use outside of the sci.bio.* hierarchy) is: the number of people who can
be sustained on agricultural practices which are not dependent upon the
use of finite nonrenewable resources (mainly petroleum, other energy
sources figure in this too) or on de-speciation/extinction events in the
absence of non-human causes.
Needless to say, we're well beyond that level, and the oil's gonna run
out.
>What is your evidence that the world, or any part of it, is
>"overpopulated"?
See above. Never mind the declines in air and water quality that tend to
come with increases in population density or material standard of living.
>Does anyone have any greater right than the individuals involved to
>decide whether to conceive children, and, if so, how many?
We're coming pretty close to that point.
>The myth of "overpopulation" - which is often used to justify abortion
>and other forms of genocide - is IMO a bigger threat to the world than
>all of the world's corrupt governments combined.
THe reality of overpopulation is an even greater threat than the myth.
>I have much more tolerance even for those who burned 80 men, women and
>children at Waco, than for those who would burn and dismember and
>otherwise destroy 4,000 unborn children each and every day in this
>country, and even more elsewhere.
Great, it's the famed A-word again.
>"Overpopulation" is one of their
>favorite excuses. It is a rather sorry excuse, IMO, because it does
>not even exist.
Congratulations, Joe. You just apparently over-ruled a couple of profs and
exempted me from having to even attend class for the next month and a
half.
Mike S. Medintz, | KB9ODS | http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~medintz
mmedi...@aol.com | Yes, I'm back on AOL. It's now actually cheaper
med...@ukans.edu |than my school account. Sad but very true.
Dave Cinege
In <854471884$24...@atype.com>, j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) writes:
You are going to lose this one Joe.....in one sentence.
>What is your definition of "overpopulation"?
>
>What is your evidence that the world, or any part of it, is
>"overpopulated"?
>
>Does anyone have any greater right than the individuals involved to
>decide whether to conceive children, and, if so, how many?
>
>The myth of "overpopulation" - which is often used to justify abortion
>and other forms of genocide - is IMO a bigger threat to the world than
>all of the world's corrupt governments combined.
Most forms of natural selection have been done away with and because of
this more people are being born then are dying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave 'Kill a Cop' Cinege (aka Psychopath #3) --- Super Genius at Large
"Shelter me from the powder in the finger......Cover me from the thought
that pulled the trigger..." Neil Young
Libertarian Party 1-800-682-1776 http://www.lp.org/
Joseph T. Adams
mmedi...@aol.com wrote:
: >What is your definition of "overpopulation"?
:
: Global carrying capacity-variable depending on the per-capita impact of
: material lifestyles. (Basically, it's a dependent variable, dependent on
: how each person lives in terms of environmental impact and resource
: consumption)
Human beings produce, on the average, more than they consume. That is
most especially true of those in the industrialized and economically
free parts of the world.
: The simplest definition of global carrying capacity (IE the one that I'd
: use outside of the sci.bio.* hierarchy) is: the number of people who can
: be sustained on agricultural practices which are not dependent upon the
: use of finite nonrenewable resources (mainly petroleum, other energy
: sources figure in this too) or on de-speciation/extinction events in the
: absence of non-human causes.
Most potentially agricultural land is not needed for production of
agricultural goods, and is therefore not used for that purpose.
Agriculture does not depend on the amount of land anyway (ever hear of
hydroponics?)
Fertile land can be created when necessary (ever hear of Holland?)
Energy reserves increase every year. They do not decrease. We will
not run out of energy. When it becomes more expensive, we will simply
learn to use less so that more of our production can be used for other
things. We also will learn to develop more plentiful and therefore
less expensive sources for the energy that we do need.
: Needless to say, we're well beyond that level, and the oil's gonna run
: out.
I don't think you or anyone else I've ever heard has demonstrated
either of those things.
People with no knowledge of basic economics have been predicting that
oil would run out for a long time now. My prediction is that we will
become extinct first. Like all other scarce and limited resources,
the mechanism of price will eventually push the price of oil up to
where other forms of energy become more competitive - especially if,
as I believe, technology will eventually open up newer and less
limited and less expensive sources of energy.
This has not yet happened for one simple reason: oil is not yet
sufficiently scarce. There's more of it than there ever has been, and
per capita use, in the industrialized world where most of it is used,
is decreasing.
: >What is your evidence that the world, or any part of it, is
: >"overpopulated"?
:
: See above. Never mind the declines in air and water quality that tend to
: come with increases in population density or material standard of living.
The air has never been cleaner, as we have learned how to produce most
things (including highway mileage) without polluting.
Water quality sucks, but it always has, and, unlike say 50 years ago
when the world's population was half of what it is now, we now know
how to eliminate major sources of water pollution AND to clean up such
pollution as now exists.
My prediction is that the environment will get CLEANER as the world's
population increases, and that it will become more polluted only as a
consequence of the war that the globalists wish to use to save us from
pollution.
: >Does anyone have any greater right than the individuals involved to
: >decide whether to conceive children, and, if so, how many?
:
: We're coming pretty close to that point.
According to whom?
: >The myth of "overpopulation" - which is often used to justify abortion
: >and other forms of genocide - is IMO a bigger threat to the world than
: >all of the world's corrupt governments combined.
:
: THe reality of overpopulation is an even greater threat than the myth.
No one has demonstrated to me even the slightest possibility that
there is any such thing.
: >I have much more tolerance even for those who burned 80 men, women and
: >children at Waco, than for those who would burn and dismember and
: >otherwise destroy 4,000 unborn children each and every day in this
: >country, and even more elsewhere.
:
: Great, it's the famed A-word again.
:
: >"Overpopulation" is one of their
: >favorite excuses. It is a rather sorry excuse, IMO, because it does
: >not even exist.
:
: Congratulations, Joe. You just apparently over-ruled a couple of profs and
: exempted me from having to even attend class for the next month and a
: half.
Yes, professors are the source of all wisdom and knowledge. NOT!!!
Some of them are among the most closed-minded people who ever lived.
There are entire fields of "science" that are based on ignorance and
fraud. I fear that you may have chosen one of them.
You are intelligent enough to realize your mistake - eventually - but
I fear that you will not be open-minded enough to do so prior to
wasting a significant portion of your life chasing after something
that does not exist.
Joe
Joseph T. Adams
Dave Cinege (dci...@fuckthejunkmailers.org) wrote:
: Most forms of natural selection have been done away with and because of
: this more people are being born then are dying.
And this is a bad thing???
Joe
Reformated H.D.
Hi,
It's my understanding that there wouldn't BE a president, except for the
need to act with the expeditiousness of Royal authority in emergencies concerning
the lives of American citizens in foreign lands.
Ken.
-----------------------------Reply Separator---------------------------------
On 1/20/97 4:33AM, in message <853763583$21...@atype.com>, SidMeyer
mmedi...@aol.com
In article <854545690$28...@atype.com>, j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams)
writes:
>: Most forms of natural selection have been done away with and because of
>: this more people are being born then are dying.
>
>And this is a bad thing???
>
When the political pressures caused by increased population density make
libertarianism an unviable philosophy, then it most decidedly is a bad
thing. When feeding those people increasingly requires the use of a finite
non-renewable resource, then an increase in total population is most
decidedly a bad thing.
It's not that difficult to reduce birth rates, it just takes measures that
the Jesse Helms' of the world don't like-things like more effective birth
control measures than rythmn and withdrawl now, or coercive methods later
if we don't act smart now. Either we can lower the brith rate now, or Mama
Nature is gonna raise our death rate later.
SidMeyer
Mike S. Medintz wrote:
M: When the political pressures caused by increased population density
make
libertarianism an unviable philosophy, then it most decidedly is a bad
thing. When feeding those people increasingly requires the use of a finite
non-renewable resource, then an increase in total population is most
decidedly a bad thing.
S: The very renewable resource used in feeding the worlds population is
something you just don't get Mike. It is the Human mind that creates
resources, and the more minds the more wealth we will have. For instance,
gasoline was not considered a resource till the human mind found a use for
it due to problems created by dense urbanization. Now people like you
bellyache about the scarcity of it, but there are more proven reserves of
petroleum every year.
Doomsayers have been consistently wrong with their predictions and also
consistently ignore contrary data; like the increase of 25% in the
available at market food supplies PER CAPITA in the third world. These
people have never starved due to overpopulation, but only from socialist
control of their food supplies. Notice how Ethiopias food problems have
abated since the Comunists were thrown out! Wow, Momma Nature just got
over her PMS in time, I guess, hugh?
Julian Simon and Hazel Henderson have been consistently right in their
predictions of resource availability and doom gurus like Paul Ehrlich have
been consistently wrong. The Feb 97 issue of 'Wired' covers these two and
their carreers quite interestingly. MAybe you might read it; if you have
maybe you might think about it.
M: It's not that difficult to reduce birth rates, it just takes measures
that
the Jesse Helms' of the world don't like-things like more effective birth
control measures than rythmn and withdrawl now, or coercive methods later
if we don't act smart now.
S: You like what Red China's doing Mike? Weilding forced abortion,
imprisonment, and torture, they have taken these drastic steps you allude
to. And all because of some crack-pot theory that has no fact to back it
up! Ehrlich and his ilk have caused the deaths of more people than the
Nazis in World War II. But that's OK by you I guess, they aren't in your
way anymore. But who will pay for your social security benifits when you
retire, Mike? More illegal immigrants? Or are you going to live on your
Daddy's money?
M: Either we can lower the brith rate now, or Mama
Nature is gonna raise our death rate later.
S: Wrong, Mike. Birth control will do nothing but increase the proportion
of low inteligence to higher intelligence in the general population
because the less educated tend to not use them. Let NAture take it's
course.
Nature is more human-friendly than you think. It is made for us. Where are
the food riots that were supposedly going to sweep the US in the '80's
according to Ehrlich and his cult? Where are the millions of deaths from
starvation and malnutrition in the US? And things are improving world
wide, because education, intelligence, and creativity create more
resources than the human race will EVER use up.
You just can't wait to be put in charge of the 'Who Gets To Live
Committee', eh?
sid
mdeck...@aol.com
I guess Sid has never heard of posse comitatus beliefs or the Christian Identity. If he did, he would understand an individual's feelings about non whites.
This response does not necessarily reflect my beliefs.