USAF = US Amphetamine Fools

"Jake McGuire" wrote in message
om...
Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..
We are indeed "an experiment in Democracy", but if you examine the
Constitution (which you so freely refer to) you'll see that the
Founding Fathers weren't all that confident in the ability of the
"great unwashed" to govern themselves. Until the 17th Amendment,
ratified in 1913, the Senate was "appointed" by the various state
legislatures--not popularly elected. For the first 126 years of the
Republic, only the House was popularly elected. The Senate, the Prez,
the Judiciary, all were selected by a process that was isolated from
"we the people"--insuring the control of the elites, the Founders
themselves.

While deferring to your expertise in this matter, isn't the opposite
spin of "The founders thought that it was wise to add some inertia
between the sometimes erratic and fickle vote of the populace and the
actual mechanism of power, while still leaving the people in ultimate
control" just as valid?

No, the Founders were far from being of one mind. The Federalists
(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic, with those of
democratic persuasion placing the 3/5 law into the Constitution (democracy
ultimately leads to the opression of the minority) and those of the
republicn (anti-federalists) way of thinking wanting the Bill of Rights.
Later, Jefferson created the Democratic Republican Party and defeated the
Federalists to this day.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the
civilian government itself). Any compliance with the FAR's the
military services mandates is purely at their own discretion.

That's correct. Government agencies do not have to abide by the FAR's.
However a lot of them have written into their regs that they have to
follow certain regs, because it is easier than coming up with their own.
A friend of mine flies for the USDA ADC(Animal Damage Control). He
hunts coyotes from the goverments Piper Cubs. Their regs say they must
follow for hire regs with respect to 100 hour inspections and annuals.
They do not worry about 337's and field approvals for mods to the
aircraft.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

No, the Founders were far from being of one mind.

So far, so good.

The Federalists
(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,

Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
Libertarians are the opposite.

with those of
democratic persuasion placing the 3/5 law into the Constitution (democracy
ultimately leads to the opression of the minority)

The 3/5ths compromise was a black day in America's history, but to
attribute it to a desire to oppress a minority is wrong. It may be
viewed that way in 20th Century, post-civil-rights thinking, but it
was simply a mechanism to deal with the large states/small states
proportional representation question. A "deal with the devil" if you
will, but don't ascribe malicous motives to the action.

and those of the
republicn (anti-federalists)

No "republicn" until after Lincoln. You might want to label them
"Whigs".

way of thinking wanting the Bill of Rights.

The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way)
was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the
document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action,
but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out
what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what
the government "can't" do.

Later, Jefferson created the Democratic Republican Party and defeated the
Federalists to this day.

Duh? You're saying that there is some sort of hybrid "Democratic
Republican" Party? Jefferson's party has a very clear lineage to the
modern Democratic Party (although poor Tom would be aghast at what it
has become.) And, the certainly haven't defeated the Federalists--au
contraire, they have become what they opposed.


John P. Tarver, MS/PE


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

I think you are on to something, Ed.

Whenever I am dealing with Congressional staff, or high ups in USDOT, it is
always a good laugh to compare academia's abstract view of the system and
how things really work. All that America's children are taught in primary
school civics is a big joke. Some universities are capable of giving some
insight, but the majority of such programs are only testimng to see how well
the students can parrot the professor.


Excuse me, John, but how does dealing with Congressional staff or top
level bureaucrats in DOT give you any view at all about academia?

When was the last time you were in a government/civics/political
science calss in "some universities"? Can you provide some basis for
the statement "such programs are only testimng (sic) to see how well
the students can parrot the professor"?

Let me start by stating the obvious, that the reason the professor is
"the professor" is because he or she knows a bit more than the
students. Certainly a university is a place for develping thinking and
reasoning schools, but first the student must be well grounded in the
basics. Then, if they present a rational and well developed argument,
you can be certain that they are rewarded.

Although, come to think of it, you do present a compelling case that
America's citizens do get a sub-standard education. Many of your
statements support this contention.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

No, the Founders were far from being of one mind.

So far, so good.

The Federalists
(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,

Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
Libertarians are the opposite.

No, the Federalists are the same as Libertarians. It is the
anti-Federalists that opposed a strong central government. The Federalist
papers are mostly an anti-federalist product.

with those of
democratic persuasion placing the 3/5 law into the Constitution
(democracy
ultimately leads to the opression of the minority)

The 3/5ths compromise was a black day in America's history, but to
attribute it to a desire to oppress a minority is wrong. It may be
viewed that way in 20th Century, post-civil-rights thinking, but it
was simply a mechanism to deal with the large states/small states
proportional representation question. A "deal with the devil" if you
will, but don't ascribe malicous motives to the action.

I find putting Slavery in the Constitution to be malicious.

and those of the
republicn (anti-federalists)

No "republicn" until after Lincoln. You might want to label them
"Whigs".

No, Jefferson often refered to the anti-Federalists as Republicans and they
were part of Jefferson's original Democratic Republican Party.

way of thinking wanting the Bill of Rights.

The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way)
was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the
document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action,
but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out
what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what
the government "can't" do.

No, the ratification of the Constitution was to be by force of arms, once 7
States had ratified. When 6 States had ratified the Contitution, the State
of Connecticut offered, "this Bill of Rights, or War". The Bill of Rights
was added to the Constitution by threat of violence.

Later, Jefferson created the Democratic Republican Party and defeated the
Federalists to this day.

Duh? You're saying that there is some sort of hybrid "Democratic
Republican" Party?

No, I am only refering to the Democratic Republican Party by its original
name. Those of democratic thinking and those of republican thinking had to
band together to defeat the Federalists.

Jefferson's party has a very clear lineage to the
modern Democratic Party (although poor Tom would be aghast at what it
has become.)

Sure, the name was shortened, later.

And, the certainly haven't defeated the Federalists--au
contraire, they have become what they opposed.

You could use some remedial history courses, Ed.

As with many, Ed confuses anti-Federalists with Federalists.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

I think you are on to something, Ed.

Whenever I am dealing with Congressional staff, or high ups in USDOT, it
is
always a good laugh to compare academia's abstract view of the system and
how things really work. All that America's children are taught in
primary
school civics is a big joke. Some universities are capable of giving
some
insight, but the majority of such programs are only testimng to see how
well
the students can parrot the professor.

Excuse me, John, but how does dealing with Congressional staff or top
level bureaucrats in DOT give you any view at all about academia?

We are ll degreed folks and we know how divergent what is taught in school
is from reality.

When was the last time you were in a government/civics/political
science calss in "some universities"? Can you provide some basis for
the statement "such programs are only testimng (sic) to see how well
the students can parrot the professor"?

I had my political science instruction from a Black radical, but he had
reformed. As with many educated Blacks he was intrigued by my name.

Let me start by stating the obvious, that the reason the professor is
"the professor" is because he or she knows a bit more than the
students. Certainly a university is a place for develping thinking and
reasoning schools, but first the student must be well grounded in the
basics. Then, if they present a rational and well developed argument,
you can be certain that they are rewarded.

Well, actually no. What is taught in school is not the same as reality, but
there is much to be said for the ability to parrot the professor.

Although, come to think of it, you do present a compelling case that
America's citizens do get a sub-standard education. Many of your
statements support this contention.

Ed, how you could be teaching political science without knowing US history
is a mystery to me. There is the possibility that these United States would
just as soon academia be ignorant, as the People might be able to implement
change, were they awaere of reality.

Billy Beck wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote...


No, the Founders were far from being of one mind.

So far, so good.

The Federalists
(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,

Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
Libertarians are the opposite.

No, the Federalists are the same as Libertarians. It is the
anti-Federalists that opposed a strong central government. The
Federalist
papers are mostly an anti-federalist product.

sigh Ed? Help me out he where do you think that puts the
"Brutus" essays published in the New York Journal with the Federalist
essays? How 'bout Melancton Smith in New York, or Patrick Henry in
the Virginia Ratifying convention?

In the case of Beck, there is a substancial history in the political
newsgroups that verifies his cluelessness. In fact, Beck is hated by the
left, right and center, for his posted ignorance.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Billy Beck wrote...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote...


No, the Founders were far from being of one mind.

So far, so good.

The Federalists
(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,

Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
Libertarians are the opposite.

No, the Federalists are the same as Libertarians. It is the
anti-Federalists that opposed a strong central government. The
Federalist papers are mostly an anti-federalist product.

sigh Ed? Help me out he where do you think that puts the
"Brutus" essays published in the New York Journal with the Federalist
essays? How 'bout Melancton Smith in New York, or Patrick Henry in
the Virginia Ratifying convention?

In the case of Beck, there is a substancial history in the political
newsgroups that verifies his cluelessness. In fact, Beck is hated by the
left, right and center, for his posted ignorance.

None of that has anything to do with the *facts* of the
Anti-Federalists, Tarver, about which I know a lot and you obviously
know nothing at all. Nice slide, lad. Do you tap, as well?


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
The Federalists
(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,

Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
Libertarians are the opposite.

No, the Federalists are the same as Libertarians. It is the
anti-Federalists that opposed a strong central government. The Federalist
papers are mostly an anti-federalist product.


With that Orwellian circumlocution I must withdraw from the
discussion. Clearly I've been bested by the Tarver intellect.

Lemme see now, the "librtarians" are like the Federalist in that they
weren't the anti-Federalists who opposed the strong central goverment
but in opposing the strong central government they were akin to the
Federalists, who really wrote the "anti-federalist" papers.....

I've got to get back to school. Things are changing rapidly.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

Ed Rasimus wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The Federalists (librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,

Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
Libertarians are the opposite.

No, the Federalists are the same as Libertarians. It is the
anti-Federalists that opposed a strong central government. The Federalist
papers are mostly an anti-federalist product.

With that Orwellian circumlocution I must withdraw from the
discussion. Clearly I've been bested by the Tarver intellect.

Lemme see now, the "librtarians" are like the Federalist in that they
weren't the anti-Federalists who opposed the strong central goverment
but in opposing the strong central government they were akin to the
Federalists, who really wrote the "anti-federalist" papers.....

Sure.

There is no point arguing with that.

All done, then.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php