Could the Press Grow a Spine?

The founders did indeed envision that tyranny, being a natural outgrowth of
consolidated power, would need to be checked by the right to keep and bear
arms.

The second amendment- second only to the first amendment- is indeed 1) the
only practical way to enforce the other nine; and 2) the "reboot button" for
the republic.

It is fascinating to go back and re-read the federalist/anti-federalist
arguments engaged in at the time of our founding. How far have we strayed;
and all of it so predictable. We are currently living the worst fears of
those who opposed a strong central government. Many of the checks and
balances have been tossed, one by one, over the gunwales in order to address
one "unfairness" or the other over the years.

Liberty for Security and all that.

Anyhow, this is not a political forum (gee- sure looks like one) so I'll let
everyone else have the last word.

As if that would stop 'em . . .

Steve Swartz


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Leslie Swartz
writes
The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will roll
up
pretty quickly.

Am I a "radical asshole"? I'm a "gun nut" by UK standards.

Steve, just to clarify, are you advocating the deliberate murder of
anyone who disagrees with your opinion? I'd definitely think that the
Founding Fathers didn't envisage an Argentinean-style "dirty war"
against their own people when they drafted the Constitution.



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:46:22 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes

Any questions?

Yes, but they're quibbles rather than arguments. I'd argue details of
many of those statements while agreeing with them overall.

But, then you've proven yourself to be a rational individual who
offers greater depth to the discussion than simple name calling or
sloganeering.

As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. The hard part is to rise above the pig-wrestling and
listen to the other side's argument, demand that both sides offer fact
and reason, then make objective rather than subjective choices.

Ain't easy.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.

George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH.

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA veteran
like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.

Walt

From: "Leslie Swartz"


1) I am most certainly not calling names (Comrade Art is an appropriate
appellation for him; as a Leninite, he should not be ashamed to be what he
is)

If you don't see that as name calling then I won't press the point.

2) As far as "and such" if you let me know exactly what "and such" is, I'll
respond

The "and such" consists of constantly knocking others like Art because you
disagree with them. It IS possible to hold a debate without being abrasive.

3) The value of my argument should stand alone; oh sorry, I forgot- the
value of a position in this forum is based entirely on pedigree. O.k., I
enlisted in 1978 and am just now cashing it in. I have been in the
newsgroup since 1990 and you could google me up quickly enough.

Your "argument" does stand alone in that it is non constructive and abusive.
The only reason I asked what you have done for your country is because you
offer no solutions. I never said you had to be in the military, there are other
ways to serve.


4) My constructive comment had to do with Art's content-free reply. Are
you attempting to now counter-argue that I was unfair- do you want to claim
that Comrade Art's one liner about "Bush destroyintg the Constitution"
actually had some value?

That wasn't constructive. If you think Art is wrong about that then try to
engage in dialogue. Telling someone they are wrong at the onset of a discussion
along with name calling closes the door. Art and I disagree politically on many
things, but I have never resorted to insults with him.

If so, have at it. If not, why waste the bandwidth.

A little respect goes a long way.

Have a nice day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired.

Steve Swartz

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Leslie Swartz"


So we had to wade through all of that for that little gem, Comrade Art?
Do
a little reading, sport. Start with any report on Waco if you want to
talk
about civil liberties under administration n vs. n-1.

Steve Swartz

OK, steve, I see you calling names and such. Do you have anything
constructive
to offer?

What have YOU done for your country?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: (WalterM140)


Ed Rasimus wrote in message
...
On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.

Arthur Kramer

OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?

Article One.

Commentary on the News Hour last night indicated that since the
Congress is charged with regulation of the armed forces, Bush usurped
that power by trying to dictate how prisoners would be treated.
Ooops.

Really? Try Article 2, section 2:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into
the actual service of the United States

Article 1 section 8 describes funding the military, declaration of war and
making regulations. Those regulations are now called UCMJ.

Tell me how Bush "usurped" that article.

The legal experts they had said that most of the documents released by
the White House dealt with how to twist the law so as to avoid being
charged with felonies. Disgusting.

No, they said what was being suggested didn't violate any law. They twisted
nothing. Sitting on the hood of your car isn't a violation of law, it is also
not twisting the law.

Bush is the worst president -ever- and he has to go.

Gee, that sounds like an absolute. I take it you have compared him to each and
every president in detail?

Walt

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/24/2004 5:28 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.

George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH.

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA veteran
like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.

Walt

Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly bring up
military service are on the Kerry side. Please note how when the other side
brings up Kerry's congressional voting record your side brings up Kerry's
military service and accuse the Bush side of questioning Kerry's patriotism.

Please come up with logical arguments if you can. Examples would be nice.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.

George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH.

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
veteran
like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.


Is he still "highly decorated" if he threw his awards away?

Pete

OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?

Article One.

Commentary on the News Hour last night indicated that since the
Congress is charged with regulation of the armed forces, Bush usurped
that power by trying to dictate how prisoners would be treated.
Ooops.

What part of Commander-in-Chief escapes you?

What part of separation of powers escapes you?

The founding fathers were very concerned about usurpation of power by the
executive branch.

Bush has usurped the Constitution and he has to go.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

What part of separation of powers escapes you?

The founding fathers were very concerned about usurpation of power by the
executive branch.

Bush has usurped the Constitution and he has to go.


Please. The last thing the left wants is Constitutional government.

What part of Commander-in-Chief escapes you? Pick up a book on
Constitutional Law and you'll find that the "regulation of the armed
forces" applies to how the members of the force shall be governed and
treated. This is handled through the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
which is still in force.

This was also discussed by the panel last night on the News Hour.

What the Bush administration wanted was a direct violation of the UCMJ, under
the article covering assault. I don't have a copy of the UCMJ. I believe they
said it was Art. 77.

These legal experts all agreed that they had never seen anything like this
before. One of them said he "almost fell out of his chair" when reading these
documents recently released.

DO note that these actions of the lawyers in the executive branch so incensed
lawyers in the JAG office that they went outside the government and reported
these activities to outsiders, I believe in the New York Bar Association.

Ed, you need to wake up.

Walt