Boy, are you gonna hate this.



Zippy the Pinhead <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> On 19 Feb 2004 23:56:25 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >To somehow equate Germany with the US is total insanity.
>
> And yet it is at the core of anti-Americanism.
>
> The screed of the left usually reduces to moral equivalency, moral relativism, radical
> egalitarianism, and when all else fails, "Tu quoque".

Loved that "tu quoque" which was new to me. Here it is for any others that might not know it and are
interested:

1 entry found for tu quoque. tu quo·que ( P ) Pronunciation Key (t kwkw, -kw, ty)
n. A retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior. - [Latin t quoque, you
also : t, you + quoque, also.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000
by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:34:10 GMT, Beastt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > But the main difference between then and now is that the American people
> > > are a great and good people, unlike the Germans prior to WWII. Ed Dolan - Minnesota
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >*sigh* Alas, mirrors are never as accurate as windows.
> >
> >The Germans thought of themselves as great and good people, just trying to strengthen their race.
> >Good or bad lies within actions not self- appraisal. Invading and over-throwing despite the
> >recommendations of an organization which to consider yourself a member of is classified as a war
> >crime. It's not good.
>
> I have the same concern with people trying to be 'great and good' as with officers trying to be
> heros (speaking as a former SSG). It sometimes is necessary, but it is too often a terribly
> inefficient way to get what needs to be done, done.
>
>
> Prefer people, both macro and micro, that see themselves as part of everyone else, and willing to
> do their part to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. Fewer SNAFUs that way.

What you say is OK by me as long as you are not equating the American people with the g.d. French!
The French obviously are not even trying to be great and good. The attempt to be good may not always
succeed, but when you give up on it all together, why ... then you have become like the French.
Truly a fate worse than death itself!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:24:34 -0500, "Freewheeling"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>"My thing against handguns is that I can't honestly say who I would trust to hold one."

>And I can't honestly say who I would trust to have the vote.

One vote in the wrong hands has substantially less serious consequences than one gun in the
wrong hands.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Originally posted by Wolverine
Holy Schemoly guys, Oh how far you have all drifted from your bikes. The topic was about packing heat when riding and yet a topic once again gets turned into a place for some to place their **** for all to see. Lets get back on the bike here.
Topic: riding a bike/packing heat
Good thing, bad thing?
What kind a gun to carry?


Hey! Know what?

I checked and this guy's right! It IS about bikes.

Wow!

Guess I'd better apologize and get myself back on track.

Seriously, thanks for the directional adjustment and the humor with which it was delivered. Much appreciated.

:)
 
Beastt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Wolverine wrote:
> > Holy Schemoly guys, Oh how far you have all drifted from your bikes. The topic was about
> > packing heat when riding and yet a topic once again gets turned into a place for some to place
> > their **** for all to see. Lets get back on the bike here. Topic: riding a bike/packing heat
> > Good thing, bad thing? What kind a gun to carry?

> Hey! Know what?
>
> I checked and this guy's right! It IS about bikes.
>
> Wow!
>
> Guess I'd better apologize and get myself back on track.
>
> Seriously, thanks for the directional adjustment and the humor with which it was delivered. Much
> appreciated.

Sorry to see you go Beastt. We off topic souls will have to soldier on without you.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"One vote in the wrong hands has substantially less serious consequences than one gun in the
wrong hands."

What does that have to do with it, even if I bought the analogy? (And as a matter of fact
Tocqueville wasn't kidding when he talked about the "tyranny of the majority," so the wrong people
having the vote might well have far worse consequences than the wrong people having firearms). The
point is that it isn't my call, nor is it your call whether or not people have the right to bear
arms. Far that matter automobiles are far more dangerous and likely to be abused in a dangerous way,
than firearms.

--
--Scott
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:24:34 -0500, "Freewheeling"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >"My thing against handguns is that I can't honestly say who I would
> >trust to hold one."
>
> >And I can't honestly say who I would trust to have the vote.
>
> One vote in the wrong hands has substantially less serious
> consequences than one gun in the wrong hands.
>
> Guy
> ===
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> "One vote in the wrong hands has substantially less serious consequences than one gun in the
> wrong hands."
>
> What does that have to do with it, even if I bought the analogy? (And as a matter of fact
> Tocqueville wasn't kidding when he talked about the "tyranny of the majority," so the wrong people
> having the vote might well have far worse consequences than the wrong people having firearms). The
> point is that it isn't my call, nor is it your call whether or not people have the right to bear
> arms. Far that matter automobiles are far more dangerous and likely to be abused in a dangerous
> way, than firearms.

When I contemplate how the truly ignorant vote I tremble and fear for the safety and security of
this country. The fatal flaw in democracy is the extreme ignorance and downright stupidity of the
average citizen. I know many folks who take pride in never paying any attention to politics and they
wouldn't be caught dead reading a newspaper or listening to the radio or viewing the TV on any
political discussion. I would like such people never to vote at all. If you do not inform yourself
on the issues, then you have no right to vote in my humble opinion. Really, you are not worthy to
live in a democracy. You are lumpen proletariat and only fit for living in a country like Russia.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 02:42:37 -0500, "Freewheeling"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>"One vote in the wrong hands has substantially less serious consequences than one gun in the wrong
>hands." What does that have to do with it, even if I bought the analogy?

Votes only have power in aggregate.

>(And as a matter of fact Tocqueville wasn't kidding when he talked about the "tyranny of the
>majority,"

Luckily Dubya managed to get away with the tyranny of the minority ;-)

>The point is that it isn't my call, nor is it your call whether or not people have the right to
>bear arms.

But the right to bear arms is very different from the right to bear arms in public, the right to
carry concealed weapons, the right to buy assault weapons and so on. Onw wacknut with an assult
weapon is a serious problem, one wacknut with a vote is not.

>Far that matter automobiles are far more dangerous and likely to be abused in a dangerous way, than
>firearms.

True, but at least they have some utility in an urban context.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On 16 Feb 2004 20:36:23 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:

>I was once surrounded by a herd of peccaries in the mountains of New Mexico. They were cute little
>creatures and I feared them not although they have a fearsome reputation

It's the peccowaries you should fear most, because they can fly.
 
"But the right to bear arms is very different from the right to bear arms in public, the right to
carry concealed weapons, the right to buy assault weapons and so on."

I honestly can't find any legal or philosophical distinctions on the types of arms allowed given
the stance taken by the founders in their various letters, not to mention the Bill of Rights
itself. I could argue that they meant to exclude canon, or what we now call ordinance, and by
extension anything that can't be discriminately aimed. But that principle (called the "don't point
at me" principle) probably would not have excluded automatic weapons. And although one might be
able to cobble together such an argument it could not be based on the single most convincing
distinction between ordinance and firearms: the "don't point at me" principle. That would exclude
not only all exploding shells, but also unexploding shells, trebuchet, etc. (The latter because the
effect of collapsing buildings can't be controlled.) In other words if you can't aim the device at
a single person, and reliably limit the effect to that person, it's excluded from the category of
"arms." And no, overpenetration would not exclude a weapon because overpenetration existed in
colonial times too.

The other relevant principle involves the meaning of "to bear," which means carry without mechanical
assist. And that doesn't exclude automatic weapons either. I think you could argue that the sense of
"carry" in the 18th century follows the "don't point at me" principle in the 20th, and would
therefore rule out RPGs and other ordinance that can now be carried, but could not have been carried
then. But it would not exclude automatic weapons which can be aimed discriminately. You can limit
the area affected by an automatic weapon about as effectively as you could limit the area affected
by an 18th Century muzzle loader.

(By the way, simply because something isn't a right doesn't mean it can't be legalized. There have
been lots of privately owned canon and other ordinance, and the practice was entirely legal.)

Basically what you're saying is that you don't like it. Of course there are differences between
voting and bearing arms. There are differences between speech and voting too. So what?

As far as concealed weapons go, all "shall issue" states require permits and extensive background
checks that vary from 30 to 120 days to carry out. However, having passed such an objective test the
state has no right to arbitarily deny the permit. It must be uniformly applied. States vary widely
in how they deal with open and concealed carry, but this is probably one area that may eventually
become standardized nationally after a period of federalism.

--
--Scott
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 02:42:37 -0500, "Freewheeling"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >"One vote in the wrong hands has substantially less serious
> >consequences than one gun in the wrong hands."
> >What does that have to do with it, even if I bought the analogy?
>
> Votes only have power in aggregate.
>
> >(And as a
> >matter of fact Tocqueville wasn't kidding when he talked about the
"tyranny
> >of the majority,"
>
> Luckily Dubya managed to get away with the tyranny of the minority ;-)
>
> >The point is
> >that it isn't my call, nor is it your call whether or not people have the
> >right to bear arms.
>
> But the right to bear arms is very different from the right to bear
> arms in public, the right to carry concealed weapons, the right to buy
> assault weapons and so on. Onw wacknut with an assult weapon is a
> serious problem, one wacknut with a vote is not.
>
> >Far that matter automobiles are far more dangerous and
> >likely to be abused in a dangerous way, than firearms.
>
> True, but at least they have some utility in an urban context.
>
> Guy
> ===
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"It's the peccowaries you should fear most, because they can fly."

In Iowa they can also ride bicycles.

(And the circle is unbroken.)

--
--Scott
"Zippy the Pinhead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 16 Feb 2004 20:36:23 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >I was once surrounded by a herd of peccaries in the mountains of New
> >Mexico. They were cute little creatures and I feared them not although
> >they have a fearsome reputation
>
> It's the peccowaries you should fear most, because they can fly.
 
Someone - I forget who - pointed out that when the US constitution and its attendant right to bear
arms was drafted, ALL guns were assault weapons. And the founding fathers were rather more concerned
with have an effective militia against marauding members of the brutal and licentious British
soldiery rather than fending off pikeys bent on relieving them of their TV.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
> Whose **** is Tony Blair going to
> have to crawl up:D

As a USA American, I'd feel I should apologize for the actions and attitude of our executive branch
of the government in the way it has abused our friends and allies. Well, more than that... the
Judicial also seems to have forgotten its mandate and is licking the president's boots, the
legislature has kowtowed to fascist right also. They sold us (the voters) out by being afraid to
hold their heads up and stand for what they knew was right, and vote against giving our heritage
away in the Homeland Security Act(s). Some of them have apologized, but what good is that? The
spineless rabble will sell us out again in the next power grab!

I also apologize for posts from Amerikans like Ed Dolan who rightfully shouldn't be in a democratic
republic, but be in a fascist state with a ridgedly controlled social order. I apologize for to the
French for the terribly disrespectful way we have treated them and other nations, over support for
the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. France, as a sovereign power and not a vassel state of the
USA, had a right.. no.. responsibility, to judge for themselves where their duty lies and to follow
that, not the un-elected would-be dictator, the despoiler of the USA, George Bush, the Big Bully.

> But I do notice who supports our foreign policy and who doesn't, and I have a long memory.

Yes, I want our allies to follow us, but only when we are right. Just because we are bigger than
many of them doesn't mean that we have the right to bully and abuse them.

> Many of you Brits aren't any better than the rest of the Europeans when it comes to
> supporting the US,

I see this as sometimes a good thing.

> I attribute that to what remains of your aristocracy (upper classes).

I wonder if Ed would feel this way if he found himself in such a society, but on the bottom, subject
to all the injury and insults the exalted 'upper class' would offer him. Historically, they were a
crushing burden, the heavy 'few' riding on the backs of the masses, taking and taking. Yes, this
kind of society has created might marvels in the world, but they were built with the blood of many.
How many kids starved so that the gentry could have their giant houses, their expanses of lawns,
their endless stables of horses, each of which ate better than the average man? Whose labor tilled
the fields they trampled fox hunting?

> But I am flattered that the rest of the world takes such a great interest in US politics. I guess
> that is because we are the sole remaining super power in the world and that what we do impacts
> everyone else.

'Impacts'. That is a good word. We are the bully on the block. Watch out that we don't impact YOU!
That is why people watch us, so they can try to stay out of our way.

> My only regret is that we don't throw our weight around more than we do.

This is the most short-sighted and selfish opinion I think I'v ever heard. Keep voting republican,
maybe you will have your wish fulfilled.

> By the way, I think Americans like Hemingway who involved themselves in the Spanish Civil War were
> crazy as loons.

Probably. To the unprincipled this must be totally confusing. I mean, why would anybody want to
fight the nice friendly fascists?
 
Dave:

More or less. The term "militia" at the time more or less meant "citizen" (as it still does with the
Swiss, I believe). And there was widespread resistance to having a standing army. But even if we
accept that "militia" meant something like a National Guard, the phrase "well ordered" clearly meant
something more profound than simply "well trained," which would have been enough justification for a
right to bear. It also meant a doctrinal principle along the lines of: "participation in the
responsibility for their own defense." In other words it help to define a relationship with the
state that is non-dependent. The State serves the people, but they also serve themselves. In other
words the term "well ordered" refers to an attitude adjustment that the founders felt essential to a
just society.

My friend, Armed Liberal, talks about this doctrinal principle in terms of the reaction of the
passengers on the fourth 9/11 flight. The conventional wisdom was to sit meekly in your seat and
allow events to unfold, trusting that the crew and authorities would work things out. That principle
no longer applies. We are, literally and philosophically, the last line of defense.

--
--Scott
"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Someone - I forget who - pointed out that when the US constitution and its
> attendant right to bear arms was drafted, ALL guns were assault weapons.
> And the founding fathers were rather more concerned with have an effective
> militia against marauding members of the brutal and licentious British
> soldiery rather than fending off pikeys bent on relieving them of their
TV.
>
> --
>
> Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
> ===========================================================
> Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
> http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
> ===========================================================
 
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Wolverine:
>
> What's the difference? I mean, you know this thread is drifting all over the known universe, yet
> you read it? What's preventing you from getting back to..., etc.? "Help, I've fallen and I can't
> get up."
>
> Just to help keep things on track, though, here's a great thread on HighRoads about the "king of
> mouseguns" (small, pocket-carry handguns). So far the winner is the Kel-Tec 3AT: a .380 caliber
> weapon that weighs in at about half a pound unloaded and sells for less than $300.
>
> http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=810912#post810912
>

I looked at the Kel-Tec 380 about 2 weeks ago, it is identical in size to
my .32. The 32 kicks pretty hard, so that .380 will be a bit tough on the hand. My brother had a
titanium S&W revolver(as mentioned in the conversation you refer to), he sold it after a few
months. The feel of firing it would be similar to having one's hand whacked with a stick. It
would look more like a real gun than the Kel-tec, when confronting a would be assasin on a
bike trail or whatever. I'm curious about the little 32 Berettas in titanium, just cause I
like titanium.

rorschandt
 
Bottom line: You can quibble about precisely *how* it's to be done, but if a liberal society isn't
seeded NOW in the Middle East the seed that will grow there is the one that has already germinated,
sewn by the last *real* Nazi regime in the 1930s and 40s. (Where do you think they got the idea that
the *Protocols* was ripe to be turned into a drama series, anyway?) It is a matter of total conceit
to believe that the crimes in a criminal neighborhood are exclusively the result of the actions of a
small group of criminals, having nothing to do with the milleau that spawned them. Give us a break.

As for Chirac and that crew of cynical criminals who backpeddled away from that nasty business in
the balkans as fast as they could, check out this source for information about the who, what and
how much of the bribes funded by the noble "oil for food" program. Galloway was but the least on
the payroll.

http://www.TastyManatees.com/archives/000473.html

Apologize? Absolutely NOTHING to apologize for. (Although I'm truly sorry, in the biblical sense,
that I just ate a spoonful of hand lotion thinking it was stir fry sauce.)

--
--Scott
"GeoB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Whose **** is Tony Blair going to
> > have to crawl up:D
>
> As a USA American, I'd feel I should apologize for the actions and
> attitude of our executive branch of the government in the way it has
> abused our friends and allies. Well, more than that... the Judicial
> also seems to have forgotten its mandate and is licking the
> president's boots, the legislature has kowtowed to fascist right also.
> They sold us (the voters) out by being afraid to hold their heads up
> and stand for what they knew was right, and vote against giving our
> heritage away in the Homeland Security Act(s). Some of them have
> apologized, but what good is that? The spineless rabble will sell us
> out again in the next power grab!
>
> I also apologize for posts from Amerikans like Ed Dolan who rightfully
> shouldn't be in a democratic republic, but be in a fascist state with
> a ridgedly controlled social order. I apologize for to the French for
> the terribly disrespectful way we have treated them and other nations,
> over support for the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. France, as a
> sovereign power and not a vassel state of the USA, had a right.. no..
> responsibility, to judge for themselves where their duty lies and to
> follow that, not the un-elected would-be dictator, the despoiler of
> the USA, George Bush, the Big Bully.
>
> > But I do notice who supports our foreign policy
> > and who doesn't, and I have a long memory.
>
> Yes, I want our allies to follow us, but only when we are right. Just
> because we are bigger than many of them doesn't mean that we have the
> right to bully and abuse them.
>
> > Many of you Brits aren't any better than the
> > rest of the Europeans when it comes to
> > supporting the US,
>
> I see this as sometimes a good thing.
>
> > I attribute that to what remains of your
> > aristocracy (upper classes).
>
> I wonder if Ed would feel this way if he found himself in such a
> society, but on the bottom, subject to all the injury and insults the
> exalted 'upper class' would offer him. Historically, they were a
> crushing burden, the heavy 'few' riding on the backs of the masses,
> taking and taking. Yes, this kind of society has created might
> marvels in the world, but they were built with the blood of many. How
> many kids starved so that the gentry could have their giant houses,
> their expanses of lawns, their endless stables of horses, each of
> which ate better than the average man? Whose labor tilled the fields
> they trampled fox hunting?
>
> > But I am flattered that the rest of the world takes such a great
> > interest in US politics. I guess that is because we are the sole
> > remaining super power in the world and that what we do impacts
> > everyone else.
>
> 'Impacts'. That is a good word. We are the bully on the block. Watch
> out that we don't impact YOU! That is why people watch us, so they
> can try to stay out of our way.
>
> > My only regret is that we don't throw our weight around
> > more than we do.
>
> This is the most short-sighted and selfish opinion I think I'v ever
> heard. Keep voting republican, maybe you will have your wish
> fulfilled.
>
> > By the way, I think Americans like Hemingway who involved themselves
> > in the Spanish Civil War were crazy as loons.
>
> Probably. To the unprincipled this must be totally confusing. I
> mean, why would anybody want to fight the nice friendly fascists?
 
[email protected] (GeoB) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > Whose **** is Tony Blair going to have to crawl up:D
>
> As a USA American, I'd feel I should apologize for the actions and attitude of our executive
> branch of the government in the way it has abused our friends and allies.

What allies and friends would that be, surely not the g.d. French!

Well, more than that... the Judicial
> also seems to have forgotten its mandate and is licking the president's boots, the legislature has
> kowtowed to fascist right also. They sold us (the voters) out by being afraid to hold their heads
> up and stand for what they knew was right, and vote against giving our heritage away in the
> Homeland Security Act(s). Some of them have apologized, but what good is that? The spineless
> rabble will sell us out again in the next power grab!

GeoB is mad as hell because the Dems have screwed up yet once again with Kerry. Another Mass.
liberal who is going to lose big time, like all Mass. liberals lose.

> I also apologize for posts from Amerikans like Ed Dolan who rightfully shouldn't be in a
> democratic republic, but be in a fascist state with a ridgedly controlled social order.

This country could use some more law and order. Anyone who thinks we have a surplus of it is crazy!

I apologize for to the French for
> the terribly disrespectful way we have treated them and other nations, over support for the
> atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. France, as a sovereign power and not a vassel state of the
> USA, had a right.. no.. responsibility, to judge for themselves where their duty lies and to
> follow that, not the un-elected would-be dictator, the despoiler of the USA, George Bush, the
> Big Bully.

Screw the French all the way to hell and back! They supported Saddam's Iraq because they were in
cahoots with him economically. But you can always depend on the g.d. French to never have any
morality at all. Hell, they don't even know what the word means.

> > But I do notice who supports our foreign policy and who doesn't, and I have a long memory.
>
> Yes, I want our allies to follow us, but only when we are right. Just because we are bigger than
> many of them doesn't mean that we have the right to bully and abuse them.

We have been as right as rain from day one, but what would you know about that. You are a liberal
numbskull of the first rank. And just another reason why we do not want your man Kerry (or was it
Dean) to get anywhere near the White House.

> > Many of you Brits aren't any better than the rest of the Europeans when it comes to supporting
> > the US,
>
> I see this as sometimes a good thing.

No, The Brits have blown it over and over. They still have an upper crust who knows which side to
get on when the chips are down, but the average Brit is as stupid as you are!

> > I attribute that to what remains of your aristocracy (upper classes).
>
> I wonder if Ed would feel this way if he found himself in such a society, but on the bottom,
> subject to all the injury and insults the exalted 'upper class' would offer him. Historically,
> they were a crushing burden, the heavy 'few' riding on the backs of the masses, taking and taking.
> Yes, this kind of society has created might marvels in the world, but they were built with the
> blood of many. How many kids starved so that the gentry could have their giant houses, their
> expanses of lawns, their endless stables of horses, each of which ate better than the average man?
> Whose labor tilled the fields they trampled fox hunting?

The Brits love their aristocracy. Hell, they worship the ground their Queen walks on. As an American
I don't give a damn about the English, not their upper classes and not their lower classes either
and most especially not their g.d. Queen. Please notice that my name is Irish, for Christ's sake!

> > But I am flattered that the rest of the world takes such a great interest in US politics. I
> > guess that is because we are the sole remaining super power in the world and that what we do
> > impacts everyone else.
>
> 'Impacts'. That is a good word. We are the bully on the block. Watch out that we don't impact YOU!
> That is why people watch us, so they can try to stay out of our way.

The US is the sole force for good in the world today. Kipling used to talk about the white man's
burden, but the Brits gave it up. Now the mantel has fallen to the US. You don't suppose anyone else
would do anything about the Islamic terrorist threat to civilization, do you? Or do you? Maybe your
beloved French would take the lead here if they had any guts. But of course first they would have to
acquire some morality.

> > My only regret is that we don't throw our weight around more than we do.
>
> This is the most short-sighted and selfish opinion I think I'v ever heard. Keep voting republican,
> maybe you will have your wish fulfilled.

As long as that g.d Kerry doesn't get any where near the White House I will be satisfied. Bush
should win this election in a walk. The first decent man who has occupied the White House since
Ronald Reagan, another great American who you no doubt have the stupidity to reject.

> > By the way, I think Americans like Hemingway who involved themselves in the Spanish Civil War
> > were crazy as loons.
>
> Probably. To the unprincipled this must be totally confusing. I mean, why would anybody want to
> fight the nice friendly fascists?

Why would anyone want to involve themselves in another country's politics? Hemingway was a fool and
the only shot he ever fired in his life that found it's mark was his last shot. He blew his own
brains out in case you didn't know.

Spain got exactly the kind of government it deserved after its Civil War. Who are you to say
otherwise? Are you a Spaniard?

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Someone - I forget who - pointed out that when the US constitution and its attendant right to bear
> arms was drafted, ALL guns were assault weapons. And the founding fathers were rather more
> concerned with have an effective militia against marauding members of the brutal and licentious
> British soldiery rather than fending off pikeys bent on relieving them of their TV.

Dave, I have never thought that the "militia" had anything to do with an individual's right to bear
arms. But as I have stated repeatedly on this newsgroup, I do not worship the Constitution. It is an
18th century document and always needs to be looked at from that perspective. Sometimes, I think
that an appeal to the Constitution is the last refuge of a scoundrel. But that is why we have a
Supreme Court, to rule on questions of constitutionality in the light of the present day.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... [...]

> Luckily Dubya managed to get away with the tyranny of the minority ;-)

I think "Just zis Guy" is an Englishman, so of course he knows more about how our elections are
conducted than do we Americans. The fact is that Gore lost fair and square, no matter how many times
and how many ways those votes in Florida were counted. Gore always came up the loser. If he had
carried his home state of Tennessee he would have won. But he lost Florida fair and square. The Dems
are just plain stupid to keep on with this non issue.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
[email protected] (GeoB) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[...]

> I also apologize for posts from Amerikans like Ed Dolan who rightfully shouldn't be in a
> democratic republic, but be in a fascist state with a ridgedly controlled social order.

This is because I support President Bush 100% in our War on Terror (of which Iraq is central). GeoB
illustrates perfectly why I do not accord any respect or civility to liberals like him. They need
always to be treated with the contempt they so richly deserve. I regard them as treasonous bastards.
They have been on the wrong side of history ever since the conclusion of WWII. They are essentially
anti-American and will bend over back wards to get the view of our enemies. They hate America and
they hate Americans. But I have got their number I will not let go.

Kerry, like GeoB, has also been on the wrong side of history for his 20 years that he spent in the
Senate. That is why he will be defeated. I am coming to the conclusion that the sooner the Dems go
out of existence as a political party in this country the better. I am more than prepared to drive a
wooden stake through their rotten hearts.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 

Similar threads