David T. Hall Jr. wrote:
No, Hitler (Bush) basically told them that Germans (American
Christians) were

superior, gave them someone else to

blame (terrorists)

(deflection) for their problems, and promised

to "fix" it. When you tell people what they want
to hear, it's not hard to gain their support.


You not only bought this bull**** lock, stock and barrel, you inhaled it
faster than Bush did cocaine at Yale.
-
(The rate Congres s here is going in ten yrs we all will have to have
papers to travel around in the US. )

Surely you have to realize just how

exaggeratedly absurd that is.


Surely you don't realize how clueless you are. If you kept up to date on
your own parties activity, you will find the proposal of a national ID
card is not only very real, but a probability,,,all in the name of
protection.

Besides, we already have "papers". It's called

a driver's license.


He said "national".,,all across America, not issued by the state, but
issued by the feds.

(Members in Congress want even more
rigid Patriot Act enactment. I love that, they want the masses to give
up civl liberties and make them feel it is patriotic to do so! Even call
the law the "Patriot Act". )

Well, here's the deal. If we have total freedom

and civil liberties, it becomes next to

impossible to effectively protect us against

outside infiltrators.



Exactly. And this country has always operated that way. Freedon does not
come without its price.

So you have to make a choice.


The choice has already been made. Bush seeks to change it.

Either certain freedoms need to be modified or

.curtailed in order to make our borders more

secure,

make living and travel throughout our

country more difficult for non-citizens, and

obtaining forged documents by hostiles much

tougher, or we have to learn to accept that the
.price of our open freedom might likely be a

large scale terrorist attack.




In the first place, that you attempt but fail to make a lucid connection
between cracking down on "terrorists" and curbing our rights is a highly
laughable offense. People like you actually believe this ****.

You cannot realistically expect to have both

total freedom and total protection.



Correct. This country chose total freedom. Bush is trying to do away
with it.

If you do not want the government taking

steps to protect us from terrorists,


The steps have proved fruitless. We lost rigts and attacks were still
not prevented,



have no right to complain when they attack.


Keeping with that incompetent mindset, if you are not serving in the
war, or have no family there, or have never served, you have no right to
complain about those who do and say the war in Iraq is wrong. Ludicrous.


As long as they use our own laws against us,

we remain vulnerable.



Open border policy and the freedom we enjoy has always made us
vulnerable. That's the price we pay for the freedom we enjoy, it's a
tradeoff risk we take.

Most people are willing to give up some

freedoms in order to gain better security.


Dead wrong. Most people still believe in our founding forefathers
statements and still apply them today. Franklin said "Those who would
sacrifice personal rights in order to obtain temporary security, deserve
neither"

But that does not mean that we are "becoming

.a fascist state". As long as we can continue to

elect our representatives, that will not happen.

GW Bush will not be the president 4 years

from now, and there will be a new leader for

us to blame for all the trouble we're having.



And since you know it's going to be a democrat, you are already speaking
of such blame 3 years away, but still suffer gastronomic pain when the
Bush failures are illustrated.



(IF Americans don't wake up to the big picture it will be to late. In
fact so many things are no win place that it may now be to late. One
more 9/11 event and that may spell the end of most of our civil
liberties. )

I'd rather lose some civil liberties than worry

that my family could be wiped from the planet

.in one fell swoop.


As Franklin said, you deserve neither.


Besides, some people take advantage of

certain civil liberties in order to engage in

activities that are either illegal or immoral.



(snip)

Have at it, David. You're certified.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't... you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

Warmest regards,
John
"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
David T. Hall Jr. wrote:
No, Hitler (Bush) basically told them that Germans (American
Christians) were

superior, gave them someone else to

blame (terrorists)

(deflection) for their problems, and promised

to "fix" it. When you tell people what they want
to hear, it's not hard to gain their support.


You not only bought this bull**** lock, stock and barrel, you inhaled it
faster than Bush did cocaine at Yale.
-
(The rate Congres s here is going in ten yrs we all will have to have
papers to travel around in the US. )

Surely you have to realize just how

exaggeratedly absurd that is.


Surely you don't realize how clueless you are. If you kept up to date on
your own parties activity, you will find the proposal of a national ID
card is not only very real, but a probability,,,all in the name of
protection.

Besides, we already have "papers". It's called

a driver's license.


He said "national".,,all across America, not issued by the state, but
issued by the feds.

(Members in Congress want even more
rigid Patriot Act enactment. I love that, they want the masses to give
up civl liberties and make them feel it is patriotic to do so! Even call
the law the "Patriot Act". )

Well, here's the deal. If we have total freedom

and civil liberties, it becomes next to

impossible to effectively protect us against

outside infiltrators.



Exactly. And this country has always operated that way. Freedon does not
come without its price.

So you have to make a choice.


The choice has already been made. Bush seeks to change it.

Either certain freedoms need to be modified or

.curtailed in order to make our borders more

secure,

make living and travel throughout our

country more difficult for non-citizens, and

obtaining forged documents by hostiles much

tougher, or we have to learn to accept that the
.price of our open freedom might likely be a

large scale terrorist attack.




In the first place, that you attempt but fail to make a lucid connection
between cracking down on "terrorists" and curbing our rights is a highly
laughable offense. People like you actually believe this ****.

You cannot realistically expect to have both

total freedom and total protection.



Correct. This country chose total freedom. Bush is trying to do away
with it.

If you do not want the government taking

steps to protect us from terrorists,


The steps have proved fruitless. We lost rigts and attacks were still
not prevented,



have no right to complain when they attack.


Keeping with that incompetent mindset, if you are not serving in the
war, or have no family there, or have never served, you have no right to
complain about those who do and say the war in Iraq is wrong. Ludicrous.


As long as they use our own laws against us,

we remain vulnerable.



Open border policy and the freedom we enjoy has always made us
vulnerable. That's the price we pay for the freedom we enjoy, it's a
tradeoff risk we take.

Most people are willing to give up some

freedoms in order to gain better security.


Dead wrong. Most people still believe in our founding forefathers
statements and still apply them today. Franklin said "Those who would
sacrifice personal rights in order to obtain temporary security, deserve
neither"

But that does not mean that we are "becoming

.a fascist state". As long as we can continue to

elect our representatives, that will not happen.

GW Bush will not be the president 4 years

from now, and there will be a new leader for

us to blame for all the trouble we're having.



And since you know it's going to be a democrat, you are already speaking
of such blame 3 years away, but still suffer gastronomic pain when the
Bush failures are illustrated.



(IF Americans don't wake up to the big picture it will be to late. In
fact so many things are no win place that it may now be to late. One
more 9/11 event and that may spell the end of most of our civil
liberties. )

I'd rather lose some civil liberties than worry

that my family could be wiped from the planet

.in one fell swoop.


As Franklin said, you deserve neither.


Besides, some people take advantage of

certain civil liberties in order to engage in

activities that are either illegal or immoral.



(snip)

Have at it, David. You're certified.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't...

So you want to create a shadow government? Who in this organization
would be accountable to the people? How would they be chosen? Who
would determine when the government had "overstepped its bounds". How
would this vigilante shadow governmental oversight group institute its
"takeover" of the government? Do you think a bunch of unorganized
citizens with rifles and shotguns would be able to defeat the U.S.
military?


you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

I think the communist party is looking for new recruits......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Dave:

No, gov't flows from the citizens to the gov't--wouldn't create any more
gov't... we need citizens in control of a home militia...

Warmest regards,
John

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to
oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a
need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't...

So you want to create a shadow government? Who in this organization
would be accountable to the people? How would they be chosen? Who
would determine when the government had "overstepped its bounds". How
would this vigilante shadow governmental oversight group institute its
"takeover" of the government? Do you think a bunch of unorganized
citizens with rifles and shotguns would be able to defeat the U.S.
military?


you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something
started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which
swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

I think the communist party is looking for new recruits......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:43:39 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Dave:

No, gov't flows from the citizens to the gov't--wouldn't create any more
gov't... we need citizens in control of a home militia...


Ok, let's run with that. So how do you plan to create a group which
would have enough power to overthrow the "official" government, which
also controls the military?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

That is the crux of the matter, we need to control our politicians
(public servants) they control the military for us--the force would have
to be directed the the servants who are going about with their own
plans--just enough to convince them it is more beneficial for them to
follow the peoples... we did this with a king of england and his powers
once... I would suppose it could be done again... if that need ever
arises...

Warmest regards,
John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dave:

No, gov't flows from the citizens to the gov't--wouldn't create any
more gov't... we need citizens in control of a home militia...

Warmest regards,
John

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to
oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a
need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't...

So you want to create a shadow government? Who in this organization
would be accountable to the people? How would they be chosen? Who
would determine when the government had "overstepped its bounds". How
would this vigilante shadow governmental oversight group institute
its
"takeover" of the government? Do you think a bunch of unorganized
citizens with rifles and shotguns would be able to defeat the U.S.
military?


you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something
started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which
swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

I think the communist party is looking for new recruits......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:55:57 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

That is the crux of the matter, we need to control our politicians
(public servants) they control the military for us--the force would have
to be directed the the servants who are going about with their own
plans--just enough to convince them it is more beneficial for them to
follow the peoples... we did this with a king of england and his powers
once... I would suppose it could be done again... if that need ever
arises...


Be careful what you advocate. It would lead to no less than a civil
war.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

At this point, I doubt "civil war" would define it correctly...
More like us against all the laotians, vietnamese, philippinos,
mexicans, indians, pakis, middle eastereners, etc, etc, etc which our
public servants have given citizenship so we can support their medical,
schools and use of our public facilities...

Warmest regards,
John
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:55:57 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

That is the crux of the matter, we need to control our politicians
(public servants) they control the military for us--the force would
have
to be directed the the servants who are going about with their own
plans--just enough to convince them it is more beneficial for them to
follow the peoples... we did this with a king of england and his
powers
once... I would suppose it could be done again... if that need ever
arises...


Be careful what you advocate. It would lead to no less than a civil
war.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:55:57 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:
That is the crux of the matter, we need to control our politicians
(public servants) they control the military for us--the force would have
to be directed the the servants who are going about with their own
plans--just enough to convince them it is more beneficial for them to
follow the peoples... we did this with a king of england and his powers
once... I would suppose it could be done again... if that need ever
arises...

Be careful what you advocate. It would lead to
no less than a civil war.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ


Which is practically an American birthright, as defined by the entire
concept of the right to assemble State Militias. Such militias were
designed by definition, as a necessary means to overthrow the US
government should that government ever become corrupt.