From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #98 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Sunday, March 29 1998 Volume 02 : Number 098 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 00:53:33 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, John Curtis wrote: > > > I don't think that anyone owes you a job. If you think > that providing jobs is so damned easy, try doing it. > > Go start a business and make a payroll, pay the taxes and > obeys the regulations. You might find a little more > sympathy for capitalists and some realistic insight into > what inspires people to move jobs outside the U.S. > > jcurtis Anybody wants to move his factory or whatever to Mexico, Indonesia or wherever, hey, that's ok with me. I just have a little trouble understanding why my blue-collar neighbors and I should pay for a bailout every time something goes wrong and - most especially - why we should have to go get our butts shot at if the locals start making trouble. I supsect Citibank and Intel and the rest would be more careful about deploying assets overseas if they weren't confident that we would always be here to provide bailouts and bodies. bd - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 01:25:58 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: Nice Paul Craig Roberts essay re. Waco - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Washington Times February 28, 1998 Liberals Back On Task THE JACKPOT NEWS WEEKLY By Paul Craig Roberts Creators Syndicate Historically, liberals drew their moral stature from their willingness to hold the high and mighty accountable. Although there have been exceptions, generally speaking, liberals were not willing parties to cover-ups for "the good of the country" or to protect the reputation of law enforcement or a prominent person's reputation. The liberals' insistence on justice often clashed with the conservatives' instinct to protect the public's confidence in the established order. In our own time, as liberals themselves became the established order,their demand for accountability became selective. When conservative instincts and liberal interests coincide, government escapes from accountability. When government feels it is beyond accountability, it does terrible things. Consider Waco, for example. Many ordinary people are still disturbed by the federal government's gratuitous destruction of the Branch Davidian religious sect. How can a warrant to inspect some firearms result in the death of 85 men, women and children? How can we bomb Saddam Hussein in Iraq for harboring banned chemical weapons that the FBI used against women and children in Waco, Texas? Americans never got an answer to that question "Why Waco?" They got a cover-up. People who disputed the government's lies were branded "militia types"and "religious kooks." The affair was on its way down the memory hole when two liberals, Dan and Amy Gifford, found their conscience, pointed the Zolan finger and said: "I accuse." Their accusation is as powerful as the one Emile Zola penned when he accused the French military establishment of intentionally framing Captain Dreyfus for treason. Dreyfus was a goner, but Zola's demand for accountability began a stirring of the conscience that in the end forced the French military establishment to admit its wrongdoing. If the American public still has a moral conscience, the Gifford's documentary movie, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," directed by William Gazecki,will force accountability on the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the FBI, the Department of Justice and the government officials who intentionally lied to Congress and the American People in order to cover their criminal deeds. One thing is certain: The film is not going away. It has been nominated for an Oscar. The film has become a staple at American Civil Liberties Union fund-raisers. It has been shown in movie theaters and received rave reviews from major newspapers. The BBC has acquired broadcast rights for Great Britain. A large percentage of the liberal elite will have watched this film, and unless the government is held accountable for Waco, the elite are going to lose their confidence in the U.S. government. This film is a careful documentary, not a screed. It presents the unadulterated evidence. The evidence - from eyewitnesses including the FBI's own crime scene photographer, from the governments own infrared film (FLIR) footage of the attack on the compound, from impeccable and dispassionate experts, and from government documents makes it clear beyond any doubt that the federal government murdered the Branch Davidians. It was an American Holocaust. Why were they murdered? An explanation that can be inferred from the film is as follows: The FBI exterminated the Davidians and quickly destroyed the evidence of the crime scene in order to cover up a criminal act by another federal agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. A discredited agency, BATF planned the initial attack on the Davidians compound on order to boost its standing with the American public by capturing a "dangerous" weapons cache and rescuing children from alleged sexual abuse by alleged religious perverts. There was no evidence that the Davidians had violated any law. BATF used made-up information to obtain a warrant from a careless magistrate. Instead of knocking on the door and serving the warrant, as required by law, BATF assembled a combat team that shipped out to a U.S. military base for assault training. BATF's publicity agent informed the media prior to the assault and made certain that the TV cameras were in place to film the staged gun-control and child rescue operation. But BATF's armed assault was beaten off with loss of life on both sides. BATF limped away, and the federal government, fearful of the implications of such a terrible abuse of power, killed the Davidians and destroyed the compound in order to avoid acountability for BATF's illegal use of deadly force. The government knew that it could rely on the liberal media's own biases to portray the Davidians as the cause of it all. The film's footage of the congressional hearings make it clear that the Republicans knew what had happened but were too fearful of the implications for "law and order" to take any meaningful action. Afraid of unleashing the criminal in the street, they left in place the criminals in the FBI, BATF, and Department of Justice. This was a serious mistake because it has compromised the Republican's integrity as well as that of federal law enforcement. 1998 The Washington Times - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:27:39 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Harry, Now the fun begins . . . [...] War has never been a friend of liberty. There has never been a war in which the people did not lose power and control over their lives to the State. This applies to both "winners" and "losers". [...] Can't see how that is possible for the Brits, since they got their pants kicked, and we got our Constitution _and_ a Bill of Rights out of it. So, your statement has limited application. [...] Oh, come on now, (ET). Surely you can understand that the indigenous population of Arlington, Gettysburg, or any other cemetary have entirely predictable daily lives? Slaves have pretty predictable daily lives. Prison life is pretty predictable. Concentration camp life is pretty predictable. Submit to oppression and you've got predictability. Turn over control of your life to the State, and life is predictable. [...] Well now, Harry, that is just about the most specious statement you've made yet. I know that _you_ know what _I_ was talking about, and you know that I know that you know that I know. First - and most obviously - dead people don't have a life. Slaves and prisoners have yet to get a life. So, your statement is essentially facetious, and you know that I know that - too. I'm psychotic, I can read minds - especially yours. Moving on, [...] OTOH, liberty by definition is a lack of externally imposed order. Thus the constant cry for a Fuhrer, a strong man, a dictator, to "restore law and order", particularly the "order" part. [...] Harry, you forgot the "El Supremo", El Numero Uno parts. You're getting slow, and forgetful too. [...] The straight-forward solution to achieve predictability, is for those that want it to die. This is within the realm of their own control. And life (such as it is) will be completely predictable for them. [...] Well, Thomas Jefferson spoke of "domestic tranquility", several times, and I'm sure he wasn't talking about a bunch of citizens on qualudes, or tyrants in tights pushing a certain way of life on the rest of us. [...] It is a simple law of human nature that they provide for their wishes, wants, and needs with the least possible effort. Anybody, Capital or Labor, who gets access to the State's mechanisms of coercion will use them to their benefit and to the detriment of those they wish to steal from. Adopting a moral code which embraces creation and exchange of wealth entails significantly more effort than the alternative: the appropriation without compensation of the wealth of others. Denomination of the victim as Capital or Labor makes no difference. [...] Well, yeah. But I have never anticipated that anyone would deprive anoyone else of their just ownership of anything. My beef as I have stated it, is that there are people who have dominated our community of late, who's sole purpose in life is to acquire as much power and wealth as they can. To them it matters not whose life they destroy doing it, or how many people they can make miserable while it happens. If there must be ethics in government and law, then there must also be ethics in the daily business of conducting the business of business. [...] The language used, "demand", tells you from whence it derives and where it's all going: Use of force or compulsion to achieve results. A "free exchange" and "demand" are fundamentally different things. "Demand" implies the use, or the threat of use, of force. [...] And hardly what I said either. Taking things out of context is getting to be a habit with you, Harry. [...] Hardly a Libertarian principle. [...] I couldn't agree more. ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:48:24 CST From: Brad Alpert <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: NRA Silent on Proposed BATF Regs * * READ, DISTRIBUTE, DISSEMINATE WIDELY * * NRA Silent about BATF Regs The enclosed column from Neal Knox discusses BATF's proposed regulations for the Brady Act "instant check." As Knox discloses, these regs, as written, could shut down gun show sales as well as impose significant fees for every firearms transfer. Why has the "Winning Team" been so silent on this? (Remember, it was an ILA deal that got the instant check shoved into the Brady Act in the first place.) The enclosed column will be appearing in Shotgun News. Chris BeHanna wrote and is responsible for everything above this line. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NEAL KNOX REPORT 'Instant Check' Regs Absurd By NEAL KNOX WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 20) -- BATF's proposed regulations for the permanent phase of the Brady Act, which is to go into effect Nov. 30, will substitute an "Instant Check" on all firearms buyers for the present five-working-day waiting period on handgun purchasers. The proposed regulations say the Justice Department will run a records check on every gun buyer -- which can take up to three business days -- even if the state has its own "Instant Check" system. That provision could be used to shut down gun show sales, which are typically held when state offices are closed. An FBI spokesman recently said the fee for the check will be $13 to $16 -- a considerable chunk on a used $50 .22 rifle. One of the cuter proposed regulations is an "optional" request for the buyer's Social Security number -- which supposedly would help the buyer by eliminating rejections due to the computer finding a felon with similar name and birth date. The all-important question of how those Federal records are kept, and whether the "instant check" is used to create a national firearms registration system, isn't addressed in the proposed BATF regulations -- which may be publicly commented on until May 20, 1998. BATF says security of the lists will strictly be up to the Justice Department, which doesn't have BATF's long-standing prohibition against using appropriated funds to maintain a computerized database of gun owners or gun buyers. The law itself prohibits using dealer records to create a national registration system, but the Justice Department has developed devious ways to get around such provisions by encouraging states to set up the registration system, so Federal agencies can "access" local purchaser lists. Despite the Brady Act's prohibitions, every time the Justice computers are checked, a record of the name and reason for the check is kept -- supposedly to prevent abuse of privacy, but destroying gun purchasing privacy. Some local and state agencies have been keeping records of purchasers, such as in Ohio, where every gun buyer checked was being permanently kept with a "B" for Brady -- until the legislature stopped it. BATF says the new regulations don't have to be justified as to effectiveness or usefulness because they don't constitute "a significant regulatory action." Right! By BATF's official estimate, the regulations will "only" affect 10,273,851 firearms purchasers each year, and completion will "only" require 199,357 hours -- at their estimate of 1 1/4 minutes worth of record-keeping and delay. Ridiculous! Comment before May 20 to: Chief, Regulations Division; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; PO Box 50221; Washington, DC 20091-0221; ATTN: Notice No. 857. Don't bother protesting about the checks being extended to rifle and shotgun buyers -- make that protest to your Congressman and Senator, and insist they at least knock out the long gun requirement in the Instant Check law. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'SECOND CINCINNATI' Major issues affecting the future of NRA, including whether the 76-member Board of Directors should be cut to "no more than 24," will be decided on the floor of the members' meeting at Philadelphia June 6. The number of Directors, broader reporting of financial relationships with NRA (opposed by a majority of the Board), and even term limits will be debated as amendments to the Articles of Incorporation, which corporate law says can only be amended at the annual meeting. Although Bylaws Article XVI requires publication of proposed amendments to the corporate charter if received by Dec. 1, the leadership notified three voting members who submitted amendments that they would not be published and couldn't be brought up at Philadelphia. That decision was reversed last week after NRA management was required by a New York court to follow the letter of a bylaw prohibiting their publication of the method of nomination of candidates. (Because NRA subsequently published the names of the obviously petition candidates who challenged publication of the Nominating Committee list, the judge has ordered NRA to "show cause" why it should not be held in contempt of court, and why a new election should not be required.) Given the background of member anger over excessive fundraising letters, concerns for the financial condition of NRA, and dismay over evidence that NRA First Vice President Charlton Heston worked with President Lyndon Johnson to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968, it may be the most lively meeting since the Cincinnati Member Revolt in 1977. - ----- End Neal Knox column ----- 1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen David M. Gross* Robley T. Moore Michael J. Beko* John Guest Larry R. Rankin James A. Church Fred Gustafson Albert C. Ross* William Dominguez Don L. Henry* Frank H. Sawberger Howard J. Fezell* William B. Hunt Thomas L. Seefeldt Daniel B. Fiora Phillip B. Journey* Kim Stolfer Arnold J. Gaunt Michael S. Kindberg* John H. Trentes Fred Griisser Jeff Knox Glen I. Voorhees Jr.* Wesley H. Grogan Jr.* John C. Krull Those with an asterisk have been deliberately targeted to be PURGED as "extremists." What's "extreme" about demanding your rights? Help NRA help you and support these candidates! 2. Visit their web sites for further information: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains candidate statements) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) U.S. mail point-of-contact: Second Amendment Action, 100 Heathwood Drive, Liberty, S.C. 29657 - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:38:30 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, E.J. Totty wrote: > Harry, > > Now the fun begins . . . > > [...] > War has never been a friend of liberty. > There has never been a war in which the > people did not lose power and control over their > lives to the State. > This applies to both "winners" and "losers". > [...] > > Can't see how that is possible for the Brits, > since they got their pants kicked, and we got our > Constitution _and_ a Bill of Rights out of it. > So, your statement has limited application. Uhhh. No. We got the somewhat peaceful application of the Articles of Confederation out of it, and even those restricted the individual freedoms envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The Articles allowed people in one State to economically screw the people in another State with relative impunity, but still moved power from the lower subdivisions of the State (ultimately from the individual) to a broader, more centralized authority. The Constitution was a railroad job to create a powerful central government to enable creditors to collect money from debtors, and facilitate picking the pockets of the populace to pay off Hamilton's speculator buddies' Revolutionary War scrip at face value. The "Bill of Rights" was a sop to get a couple of the former colonies to go along and "placate the masses". The Federalists got what they wanted: strong central governemnt at the expense of republican democracy. The Constitution and Bill of Rights resulted in less individual liberty than people had before it existed, and the Revolutionary War resulted in a restriction of the liberty envisioned by Jefferson, et al. Why else did Shay's Rebellion come to pass? And after the Constitution, why else did the Whiskey Rebellion come to pass? I argue that the results would have probably been far better for individual liberty if the "Revolution in Ideas" had remained just that, and the Colonies had been allowed to peacefully separate from Great Britain instead of engaging in a War. The Revolutionary War just set up a scenario where a bunch of "boys with toys" got a chance to continue with their thuggery, and depredations upon the citizenry, just exchanging the King's Governor's for home-grown ones. (I mean that in only the kindest possible way.) It doesn't matter whether or not it was a "just" war, or a "necessary" war; the end result was a diminishing of individual liberty from what would have been possible without it. What we got was better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick but not as good for individual liberty as it could have been without the violence of the War. As for the Brits, King George still had expenses to pay, without the tax income from the colonies to get it from. Did he cut back on expenses to make ends meet? Are you kidding? He just upped the taxes on the remaining British citizens! The citizens had less "disposable income", which is a codeword for the amount that the State permits you to keep after it steals the limit of what it can get from you without precipitating rebellion. The "subjects" in Britain and the "citizens" in the new "United States" had less of their Time, Talents, and Treasure to exert on their own behalf. Sure sounds like less personal liberty to me. YMMV, depending upon whether your point of view is the pocket-picker, or pocket-pickee. > > > [...] > Oh, come on now, (ET). Surely you can understand This is outrageous. Please don't edit what I say and attribute your edited results to me. What I said was "Oh, come on now, John. Surely you can understand..." I said "John", I meant "John". Another interesting, but somewhat common, logical trick: change what people say to what you wish they had said, and then launch into a strawman argument of your own making. Just another sample of intellectual dishonesty. You're a fine one to be piously accusing others of putting words in people's mouths, or quoting out of context! Do try to keep up and quote fairly. > that the indigenous population of Arlington, Gettysburg, or > any other cemetary have entirely predictable daily lives? > Slaves have pretty predictable daily lives. > Prison life is pretty predictable. > Concentration camp life is pretty predictable. > Submit to oppression and you've got predictability. > Turn over control of your life to the State, and life > is predictable. > [...] > > Well now, Harry, that is just about the most specious > statement you've made yet. > I know that _you_ know what _I_ was talking about, > and you know that I know that you know that I know. > First - and most obviously - dead people don't have > a life. Slaves and prisoners have yet to get a life. > So, your statement is essentially facetious, and > you know that I know that - too. > I'm psychotic, I can read minds - especially yours. As to being psychotic, I will take you at your word. As to the second part, no. What you know about what I know wouldn't fill a thimble. Even so, it would be helpful if you would try to work with the words, not your fantasies. Where there is only a distinction in degree, you fail to establish a distinction in substance. > > Moving on, > [...] > OTOH, liberty by definition is a lack of externally > imposed order. Thus the constant cry for a Fuhrer, a strong > man, a dictator, to "restore law and order", particularly the > "order" part. > [...] > > Harry, you forgot the "El Supremo", El Numero Uno > parts. You're getting slow, and forgetful too. I truly don't have a clue what you're talking about here. So it well deserves forgetting. What was that we were talking about? > > [...] > The straight-forward solution to achieve predictability, > is for those that want it to die. This is within the realm of > their own control. And life (such as it is) will be completely > predictable for them. > [...] > > Well, Thomas Jefferson spoke of "domestic tranquility", > several times, and I'm sure he wasn't talking about a bunch of > citizens on qualudes, or tyrants in tights pushing a certain way > of life on the rest of us. Jefferson also advocated throwing out the Constitution every 20 years and creating a new one. He was not silly enough to believe that the "order" or "predictability" of affairs the year before a Constitutional Convention would be the same the year after. Jefferson was in fact VERY concerned about the possibility of "tyrants in tights" pushing "domestic tranquility" on the citizenry, while Hamilton was fearful of the "citizens on quaaludes" creating chaos in the streets and voting themselves "hits" from the public treasury. Hamilton and the Federalists prevailed, and got the Constitution: the most famous use of the words "domestic tranquility" are in the Preamble to the Constitution, and Hamilton sure as hell wanted the elite few to be in charge of "ensuring domestic tranquility". Jefferson was in Paris and came back startled to find his vision of "domestic tranquility" so perverted, perceived the threat to individual liberty, and became the arch-foe of the Federalists' goals. > > [...] > It is a simple law of human nature that they provide > for their wishes, wants, and needs with the least possible effort. > Anybody, Capital or Labor, who gets access to the State's > mechanisms of coercion will use them to their benefit and to the > detriment of those they wish to steal from. Adopting a moral code > which embraces creation and exchange of wealth entails significantly > more effort than the alternative: the appropriation without > compensation of the wealth of others. Denomination of the victim > as Capital or Labor makes no difference. > [...] > > Well, yeah. But I have never anticipated that anyone > would deprive anoyone else of their just ownership of anything. Hey. Pollyanna. Get out, get around, meet some people. As an egregious and contemporary example, Slick and his Host of Whores have been in DC for nearly 6 years now. Pull your head out of whatever kitty litter you've had it buried in. > My beef as I have stated it, is that there are people > who have dominated our community of late, who's sole purpose in > life is to acquire as much power and wealth as they can. To them > it matters not whose life they destroy doing it, or how many people > they can make miserable while it happens. You will get no argument about this point from me. We agree! Red Letter Day on the calendar! Commemorate another Paid Holiday! Paid by whom? Hell, it doesn't matter. > > If there must be ethics in government and law, then there > must also be ethics in the daily business of conducting the business > of business. Ah, good. I was sure you would give us an example of the true meaning of "specious". > > [...] > The language used, "demand", tells you from whence it > derives and where it's all going: Use of force or compulsion to > achieve results. A "free exchange" and "demand" are fundamentally > different things. "Demand" implies the use, or the threat of use, of force. > [...] > > And hardly what I said either. Taking things out of context > is getting to be a habit with you, Harry. Apparently you deny that you were "demanding". Do you? Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, in spite of claims by the hypocrite to be " taking things out of context". And you can't predict my habits any better than you can read my mind. > > [...] > Hardly a Libertarian principle. > [...] > > I couldn't agree more. > > ET Which says exactly nothing about your degree of agreement. Do try to eschew obfuscation. - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:11:43 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Harry, [...] "I think we all pretty much agree > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." - at > what cost? You seem to be entertaining means and methods > that I don't agree with. When in the entire life of the > nation has daily life been predictable? Oh, come on now, John. Surely you can understand that the indigenous population of Arlington, Gettysburg, or any other cemetary have entirely predictable daily lives? Slaves have pretty predictable daily lives. Prison life is pretty predictable. Concentration camp life is pretty predictable. Submit to oppression and you've got predictability. Turn over control of your life to the State, and life is predictable. [...] The first part of that quote is mine, to wit: "I think we all pretty much agree > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." Then you replied: [...] [...] > Oh, come on now, (ET). Surely you can understand This is outrageous. Please don't edit what I say and attribute your edited results to me. What I said was "Oh, come on now, John. Surely you can understand..." I said "John", I meant "John". [...] And, as I said, Harry, if you're going to eves drop, pay attention. And then there is this little gem: [...] You're a fine one to be piously accusing others of putting words in people's mouths, or quoting out of context! [...] Please, if you would, quailify that last statement with your proof. I'm waiting . . . And, oh yes! This: [...] As to being psychotic, I will take you at your word. As to the second part, no. What you know about what I know wouldn't fill a thimble. [...] My! Such arrogance! Popery even. Do tell, Harry, do you profess absolute knowledge too? [...] Even so, it would be helpful if you would try to work with the words, not your fantasies. Where there is only a distinction in degree, you fail to establish a distinction in substance. [...] Really? [...] Hamilton and the Federalists prevailed, and got the Constitution: the most famous use of the words "domestic tranquility" are in the Preamble to the Constitution, and Hamilton sure as hell wanted the elite few to be in charge of "ensuring domestic tranquility". Jefferson was in Paris and came back startled to find his vision of "domestic tranquility" so perverted, perceived the threat to individual liberty, and became the arch-foe of the Federalists' goals. [...] My point precisely. [...] Hey. Pollyanna. Get out, get around, meet some people. As an egregious and contemporary example, Slick and his Host of Whores have been in DC for nearly 6 years now. Pull your head out of whatever kitty litter you've had it buried in. [...] That was a most undeserved remark. Obviously, you have a real problem treating others to just a modicum of respect. Not once, Harry, did I attack you. The above BullShit is just that, and it stinks as such. If you can't remark in a decently respectable fashion, maybe you shouldn't remark at all. [...] Do try to eschew obfuscation. [...] Yes, please do. ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:45:45 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, E.J. Totty wrote: > Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:11:43 -0700 > From: "E.J. Totty" > Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) > > Harry, > > [...] > "I think we all pretty much agree > > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." - at > > what cost? You seem to be entertaining means and methods > > that I don't agree with. When in the entire life of the > > nation has daily life been predictable? > > Oh, come on now, John. Surely you can understand that the indigenous > population of Arlington, Gettysburg, or any other cemetary have > entirely predictable daily lives? Slaves have pretty predictable daily > lives. Prison life is pretty predictable. Concentration camp life is > pretty predictable. Submit to oppression and you've got > predictability. Turn over control of your life to the State, and life > is predictable. > [...] > > The first part of that quote is mine, to wit: > "I think we all pretty much agree > > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." > > Then you replied: > [...] > [...] > > Oh, come on now, (ET). Surely you can understand > This is outrageous. > Please don't edit what I say and attribute your edited > results to me. What I said was "Oh, come on now, John. > Surely you can understand..." > > I said "John", I meant "John". > [...] > > And, as I said, Harry, if you're going to eves drop, > pay attention. Hell, you can't even pay attention and get it wrong a second time. John, as you quote above, quite clearly said: "When in the entire life of the nation has daily life been predictable?" I answered John's question with examples. Apparently sardonicism is beyond your ken. Sheesh. > > > And then there is this little gem: > [...] > You're a fine one to be piously accusing others of > putting words in people's mouths, or quoting out of context! > [...] > > Please, if you would, quailify that last statement > with your proof. > I'm waiting . . . As to the "quoting out of context", you accused me of it in the very posting I replied to. You have in the recent past, alleged that others put words in your mouth. I neither kept the posting, nor really give a damn about your demand for proof. All in the audience know of it. > > > And, oh yes! This: > [...] > As to being psychotic, I will take you at your word. > As to the second part, no. What you know about what > I know wouldn't fill a thimble. > [...] > > My! Such arrogance! Popery even. > Do tell, Harry, do you profess absolute knowledge too? Oh, no, I never claimed to profess absolute knowledge. In that respect, I'm clearly not in your league. I just simply repeat: "What you know about what I know wouldn't fill a thimble." How you get from that statement to whatever you think is "popery" is clearly beyond my meager knowledge. > > > [...] > Even so, it would be helpful if you would try to work > with the words, not your fantasies. Where there is only a > distinction in degree, you fail to establish a distinction in substance. > [...] > > Really? > > [...] > Hamilton and the Federalists prevailed, and got the > Constitution: the most famous use of the words "domestic > tranquility" are in the Preamble to the Constitution, and > Hamilton sure as hell wanted the elite few to be in charge of > "ensuring domestic tranquility". Jefferson was in > Paris and came back startled to find his vision of "domestic > tranquility" so perverted, perceived the threat to individual liberty, > and became the arch-foe of the Federalists' goals. > [...] > > My point precisely. I doubt it. Precisely. > > [...] > Hey. Pollyanna. Get out, get around, meet some people. > > As an egregious and contemporary example, Slick and his Host of Whores > have been in DC for nearly 6 years now. Pull your head out of whatever > kitty litter you've had it buried in. > [...] > > That was a most undeserved remark. Undeserved? Anybody that reaches adulthood and can seriously say with a straight face, "But I have never anticipated that anyone would deprive anoyone else of their just ownership of anything," as you did, is living proof that the good Lord protects drunks and fools. Do you have liquor on your breath? > Obviously, you have a real problem treating others to > just a modicum of respect. Tolerance you deserve, within limits. Respect you have to earn. Speak as to your own experience and don't generalize. "Others" disagree. You sow what you reap. Don't like it? Tough. Learn to live with it. At some point in this thread, a point which I no longer have, you claimed to be an advocate/adherent of Libertarianism, then embarked within the same posting on emotional arguments/demands for High Tariff and Protectionism, without reconciling the hypocrisy. Somehow, respect for such a contradictory position is beyond my capability to respect. You are either a hypocrite, or you are stringing words together without a clue as to what they mean. If you did not do either of these, then I have mistaken you for someone else, and I sincerely apologize for confusing you with whoever did do that. > > Not once, Harry, did I attack you. Oh? You sure fooled me. > If you can't remark in a decently respectable fashion, maybe you > shouldn't remark at all. said Caiphas. So I have gone from being the omniscient Pope to being a disrespectful Knave? My, my. Life sure is unpredictable, isn't it? I will say what I please. Deal with it, or not, as you please. - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 06:51:20 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Harry, [...] Undeserved? Anybody that reaches adulthood and can seriously say with a straight face, "But I have never anticipated that anyone would deprive anoyone else of their just ownership of anything," as you did, is living proof that the good Lord protects drunks and fools. Do you have liquor on your breath? [...] I can't believe this. I make an honest statement that I (myself) would never anticipate depriving someone else that which is justly theirs, and you have the fucking nerve to make your retort? Where the hell do you get off at? If there are any fools - or drunks, on this list, Harry, quite obviously you occupy both slots. And as far as what anyone else thinks about my comments, let _them_ speak for themselves. So far the "audience" has been quiet. ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 98 14:04:58 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Yet Another Gun Control Poll (Please Vote) (fwd) On Mar 29, David Wisniewski wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Guns in America: Should Americans have the right to keep and bear (concealed) arms? http://www.VOTELINK.COM/test/questions/politics/monday5_vot.html As of 3/29 @ 2:50pm EST Yes: 63% Uncertain: 2% No: 33: Out of 223 votes As Billy C. says, vote early, vote often. - -- David Wisniewski **FOR SALE: EGW 38 Super Caspian IPSC Open w/ 8 mags** davidwiz@erols.com USPSA/IPSC A-28835 http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9884/index.html Dillon Blue Press Articles: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9884/bp_Index.html What is past is prologue [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #98 ************************