|
Here it is-BPL full rollout in Va
Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
CHeck this out... http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN%2FMGArticle%2FWPN_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031771619197&path=!frontpage Good! Somebody had to bite the bullet and do it, let 'er rip. I'm betting that Manassas will become the focal point of the whole issue. It's likely gonna establish whether or not there's any money in it for the service providers, whether or not the interference BPL generates will terminally interfere with critical HF comms and how many of the plugged-in $29.95/month citizen users of BPL in Manassas identities get hacked, yadda, yadda, all of it. For better or worse let the battle begin win lose or draw. I vaguely remember Manassas being the last focal point of a much earlier national debate, something about Lee handing Grant his sword in Manassas . . is there some irony here? w3rv |
Brian Kelly wrote:
Dick Carroll wrote in message ... CHeck this out... http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN%2FMGArticle%2FWPN_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031771619197&path=!frontpage Good! Somebody had to bite the bullet and do it, let 'er rip. I'm betting that Manassas will become the focal point of the whole issue. It's likely gonna establish whether or not there's any money in it for the service providers, whether or not the interference BPL generates will terminally interfere with critical HF comms and how many of the plugged-in $29.95/month citizen users of BPL in Manassas identities get hacked, yadda, yadda, all of it. For better or worse let the battle begin win lose or draw. I vaguely remember Manassas being the last focal point of a much earlier national debate, something about Lee handing Grant his sword in Manassas . . is there some irony here? w3rv There is no irony. Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox courthouse, which is not in Massassas. There is a good summary of the Civil War battles at http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm. N6JPO |
Duane Allen wrote:
... Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox courthouse, which is not in Massassas.... That whole "surrender" business is just Yankee propaganda- completely made-up. Grant had been drinking again, so General Lee got him to agree to a "tie." It was covered up to protect Grant's presidential run so his cronies could get power. Yeeee-HAAA! Dave S. |
David Stinson wrote:
Duane Allen wrote: ... Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox courthouse, which is not in Massassas.... That whole "surrender" business is just Yankee propaganda- completely made-up. Grant had been drinking again, so General Lee got him to agree to a "tie." It was covered up to protect Grant's presidential run so his cronies could get power. Yeeee-HAAA! Dave S. Sorry, I forgot that these posts ended up in both North and South. On a serious off-topic note, does anyone know what is being done to protec the CSA graveyards. Thanks in advance. Duane Allen N6JPO |
Does anyone know if there was any representation from the amateur
community or the ARRL at this City Council meeting or during the "year-long preparation process"? The City Council voted unanimously on Thursday to grant a franchise to Prospect Street Broadband, LLC., bringing a year-long preparation process to fruition Steve |
Duane Allen wrote in message link.net...
Brian Kelly wrote: Dick Carroll wrote in message ... CHeck this out... http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN%2FMGArticle%2FWPN_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031771619197&path=!frontpage Good! Somebody had to bite the bullet and do it, let 'er rip. I'm betting that Manassas will become the focal point of the whole issue. It's likely gonna establish whether or not there's any money in it for the service providers, whether or not the interference BPL generates will terminally interfere with critical HF comms and how many of the plugged-in $29.95/month citizen users of BPL in Manassas identities get hacked, yadda, yadda, all of it. For better or worse let the battle begin win lose or draw. I vaguely remember Manassas being the last focal point of a much earlier national debate, something about Lee handing Grant his sword in Manassas . . is there some irony here? w3rv There is no irony. Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox courthouse, which is not in Massassas. There is a good summary of the Civil War battles at http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm. You're right of course, my memory is a lot more vague than I thought it was. BPL in Manassas is the Third Battle of Bull Run . . will that work for you?? N6JPO |
In article , David Stinson
writes: Duane Allen wrote: ... Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox courthouse, which is not in Massassas.... That whole "surrender" business is just Yankee propaganda- completely made-up. Not completely - bofum *were* at Appomatox,,,, Grant had been drinking again, so General Lee got him to agree to a "tie." It was covered up to protect Grant's presidential run so his cronies could get power. That's not how I heard it! It was explained to me that Grant stole Lee's sword, and Lee was too much of a gentleman to ask for it back. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
In article . net, Duane Allen
writes: On a serious off-topic note, does anyone know what is being done to protec the CSA graveyards. Thanks in advance. I do. The graveyards full of traitorous racist Confederates are being converted to HAZMAT landfill sites and leach fields. You Rebs wanted "states rights" so you could do such lovely things as own slaves. Well, now our society is trashed by the millions of descendants of those "slaves" who want their assets kissed with government support from cradle to grave. Well, I guess it is better than your blue-blood white trash ancestors getting their hands dirty. Of course, now we'll probably have to sit through all the tired old QRM about how the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Right. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
(snip) Well, now our society is trashed by the millions of descendants of those "slaves" who want their assets kissed with government support from cradle to grave. Well, I guess it is better than your blue-blood white trash ancestors getting their hands dirty. Of course, now we'll probably have to sit through all the tired old QRM about how the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Right. Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but I'll avoid an unnecessary repetition of those facts. I'll instead point out that the majority of blacks in this country today are not decendents of American slaves - they, or their ancestors, entered this country in the 150 or so years after slavery was abolished (the majority of those within the last twenty years). Therefore, if you have a complaint, perhaps you should focus on those members of recent administrations who helped ease immigration requirements, not on something that happened many decades ago. Both political parties are responsible - the Democrats want voters and the Republicans want cheap labor for big business. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
I do. The graveyards full of traitorous racist Confederates are being converted to HAZMAT landfill sites and leach fields. ... Excuse me, but has Larry Roll always been this big a boil on the ass of humanity? I seem to remember the slave trader's biggest import business and import site was in a little town called Boston. No, I don't want to discuss it with you, Larry. Waste of time... Other than to say "**** on you, you piece of ****." Thanks. |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article . net, Duane Allen writes: On a serious off-topic note, does anyone know what is being done to protec the CSA graveyards. Thanks in advance. I do. The graveyards full of traitorous racist Confederates are being converted to HAZMAT landfill sites and leach fields. You Rebs wanted "states rights" so you could do such lovely things as own slaves. Well, now our society is trashed by the millions of descendants of those "slaves" who want their assets kissed with government support from cradle to grave. Well, I guess it is better than your blue-blood white trash ancestors getting their hands dirty. Of course, now we'll probably have to sit through all the tired old QRM about how the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Right. 73 de Larry, K3LT No Larry, I won't bother trying to educate you. You know how it is...ya just cain't fix stupid. And you are ONE STUPID FOOL. Dan/W4NTI |
In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: No Larry, I won't bother trying to educate you. You know how it is...ya just cain't fix stupid. |
In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: No Larry, I won't bother trying to educate you. You know how it is...ya just cain't fix stupid. You just hang in there, Dan, we're all looking for replacement parts to FIX you. Fair Radio was out of them, but the search to fix your stupid continues unabated... :-) LHA |
"N8WWM" wrote in message ... In article . net, Dan/W4NTI says... You know how it is...ya just cain't fix stupid. "Cain't" ? You can't even spell, dumbass. You ask wh Your not very bright are you WWM? In fact your downright stupid. Dan/W4NTI |
In article , David Stinson
writes: Larry Roll K3LT wrote: I do. The graveyards full of traitorous racist Confederates are being converted to HAZMAT landfill sites and leach fields. ... Excuse me, but has Larry Roll always been this big a boil on the ass of humanity? He's been doing it longer than the Internet was public...on FIDONET. :-) No, I don't want to discuss it with you, Larry. Waste of time... Other than to say "**** on you, you piece of ****." Thanks. Well said. :-) LHA |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
In article et, "Dwight Stewart" writes: Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but I'll avoid an unnecessary repetition of those facts. I'll instead point out that the majority of blacks in this country today are not decendents of American slaves - they, or their ancestors, entered this country in the 150 or so years after slavery was abolished (the majority of those within the last twenty years). Therefore, if you have a complaint, perhaps you should focus on those members of recent administrations who helped ease immigration requirements, not on something that happened many decades ago. Both political parties are responsible - the Democrats want voters and the Republicans want cheap labor for big business. I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization should be extremely rigid, involving extensive background checks and a requirement that the person immigrating have the means in place to make his/her own living. Eligibility for state or federal "welfare" benefits should also be severely limited. I'd also do away with the law that states that any person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, if the parents, at the time, are *not* U.S. citizens themselves. The children born to non-citizens would be considered to be citizens of the parents' own country of origin. Also, no person who is not a U.S. citizen, by birth or legal naturalization, should be allowed to vote in any local, state, or federal election. Liberal immigration and naturalization policies amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the danger is to U.S. sovreignty. 73 de Larry, K3LT What he said absolutely. |
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but I'll avoid an unnecessary repetition of those facts. I'll instead point out that the majority of blacks in this country today are not decendents of American slaves - they, or their ancestors, entered this country in the 150 or so years after slavery was abolished (the majority of those within the last twenty years). Therefore, if you have a complaint, perhaps you should focus on those members of recent administrations who helped ease immigration requirements, not on something that happened many decades ago. Both political parties are responsible - the Democrats want voters and the Republicans want cheap labor for big business. I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization should be extremely rigid, involving extensive background checks and a requirement that the person immigrating have the means in place to make his/her own living. Eligibility for state or federal "welfare" benefits should also be severely limited. I'd also do away with the law that states that any person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, if the parents, at the time, are *not* U.S. citizens themselves. The children born to non-citizens would be considered to be citizens of the parents' own country of origin. Also, no person who is not a U.S. citizen, by birth or legal naturalization, should be allowed to vote in any local, state, or federal election. Liberal immigration and naturalization policies amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the danger is to U.S. sovreignty. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: I do. The graveyards full of traitorous racist Confederates are being converted to HAZMAT landfill sites and leach fields. You Rebs wanted "states rights" so you could do such lovely things as own slaves. Well, now our society is trashed by the millions of descendants of those "slaves" who want their assets kissed with government support from cradle to grave. Well, I guess it is better than your blue-blood white trash ancestors getting their hands dirty. Of course, now we'll probably have to sit through all the tired old QRM about how the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Right. 73 de Larry, K3LT No Larry, I won't bother trying to educate you. You know how it is...ya just cain't fix stupid. And you are ONE STUPID FOOL. Dan/W4NTI Dan: I see. Well, I guess name-calling, as usual, takes the place of reasoned argument here on rrap. Why am I "stupid?" What did I say that wasn't true? If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery, then why, in it's aftermath, did one of the most famous Confederate Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest, organize the Ku Klux Klan? Oh, yeah, it was all about doing battle against all those nasty 'ole Yankee Carpetbaggers. Right. Which is why they took their frustrations out on black slaves. The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. They all need to be rounded up and "deprogrammed." 73 de Larry, K3LT |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. They all need to be rounded up and "deprogrammed." Now ain't that a piece of work... He rants against intolerance, then suggests that those who disagree with him be "deprogrammed." Typical Democrat. Larry, I take it back. You're not good enough for me to urinate on you. I'll let the dog do it. D.S. |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... In article et, "Dwight Stewart" writes: Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but I'll avoid an unnecessary repetition of those facts. I'll instead point out that the majority of blacks in this country today are not decendents of American slaves - they, or their ancestors, entered this country in the 150 or so years after slavery was abolished (the majority of those within the last twenty years). Therefore, if you have a complaint, perhaps you should focus on those members of recent administrations who helped ease immigration requirements, not on something that happened many decades ago. Both political parties are responsible - the Democrats want voters and the Republicans want cheap labor for big business. I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization should be extremely rigid, involving extensive background checks and a requirement that the person immigrating have the means in place to make his/her own living. And, I believe the immigration laws are appropriate, although there is probably room for improvement in the areas of process and validation procedures. I think there are background checks in place as a matter of policy--they just aren't done or aren't done adequately enough. We can put all the laws and rules into place we want--it is getting them carried out that is the problem. Eligibility for state or federal "welfare" benefits should also be severely limited. State and Federal welfare programs need to be abolished. This would take several years and I don't know the intricacies of the systems so I won't pretend to know how to do it or how long it would take. The only allowance I might be convinced of would be to have some kind of training program for parents of children, with childcare provided through the system. And, who would be providing the childcare? People who have been through the training program and have chosen childcare as their avenue of profession. At any rate, no more welfare, period. I'd also do away with the law that states that any person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, if the parents, at the time, are *not* U.S. citizens themselves. I am in support of any person born here being a US Citizen. There are too many legal, ethical and social issues attached to having it otherwise. The children born to non-citizens would be considered to be citizens of the parents' own country of origin. If your thinking is that parents of children born here are automatically excluded from being deported, you are wrong. Having a child born in the United States does not "save" the mother or father from deportation. It is just that they will be deported *without* their child. This is if the immigration laws haven't changed over the last several years. I say several, because it's been that long since I was politically involved in the US/Central America issue and, at that time, parents were sent back to El Salvador, Guatemala, or wherever--even if they'd had a kid here. The kid stayed and was put into the custody of the state. Also, no person who is not a U.S. citizen, by birth or legal naturalization, should be allowed to vote in any local, state, or federal election. Liberal immigration and naturalization policies amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the danger is to U.S. sovreignty. 73 de Larry, K3LT There is no danger to US sovereignty. It may not be a US you like; but it is no danger of losing its sovereignty. Kim W5TIT |
"David Stinson" wrote in message
... Larry Roll K3LT wrote: The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. They all need to be rounded up and "deprogrammed." Now ain't that a piece of work... He rants against intolerance, then suggests that those who disagree with him be "deprogrammed." Typical Democrat. Larry, I take it back. You're not good enough for me to urinate on you. I'll let the dog do it. D.S. Well, David, next you'll be told by him to explain *where* he's being intolerant and he'll be proclaiming to be one of the most wonderful people he knows....blah, blah, blah. Seems to me a couple of months ago he also posted some message about how "circumstances" in his life were causing him to review his attitude...blah, blah, blah. All having been said before, and all with no merit of evidence... Kim W5TIT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: I do. The graveyards full of traitorous racist Confederates are being converted to HAZMAT landfill sites and leach fields. You Rebs wanted "states rights" so you could do such lovely things as own slaves. Well, now our society is trashed by the millions of descendants of those "slaves" who want their assets kissed with government support from cradle to grave. Well, I guess it is better than your blue-blood white trash ancestors getting their hands dirty. Of course, now we'll probably have to sit through all the tired old QRM about how the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Right. 73 de Larry, K3LT No Larry, I won't bother trying to educate you. You know how it is...ya just cain't fix stupid. And you are ONE STUPID FOOL. Dan/W4NTI Dan: I see. Well, I guess name-calling, as usual, takes the place of reasoned argument here on rrap. You don't think "racist traiterous confederates" is name calling? THen what would you call it? Why am I "stupid?" What did I say that wasn't true? If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery, then why, in it's aftermath, did one of the most famous Confederate Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest, organize the Ku Klux Klan? The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES was because of the north not being willing to grant the south economic freedom, or to give the southern states their RIGHT to determine their own destiny, as was allegedly given to ALL states by the constitution of the United States. The south chose to disolve the relationship with the Union. The election of Lincoln meant this was not to be allowed. The south could not remain in a Union it did not desire to be in. The issue of slavery did not come up until the so-called emancipation speech when the Union finally had won some battles. Even that was a farce, because the ONLY STATES it applied to was "those presently in rebellion against the United States". Which had already left the union and were no longer under the rule of the President of the United States. In otherwords a political scheme. Oh, yeah, it was all about doing battle against all those nasty 'ole Yankee Carpetbaggers. Right. Which is why they took their frustrations out on black slaves. I can see you have no knowledge of what happened at all in the south after the war. Johnson was now president, he allowed the northerners to go south and literally rape the defeated confederacy. Lincoln had no intention of doing this. The northern politicians, out of revenge removed all southern white politicians and appointed blacks. Which, for the most part, were ill prepared for the office they were in. The results was another rape of the white people. This is the root cause to the hate we NOW call racism. As for the idiots running around with what they call the Confederate flag. They don't even know what they are flying. In reality it is the Tennessee BATTLE FLAG that is being degraded as the confederate flag. Their beliefs and ideals are totally alien to the rest of free thinking southerners. You sir, are seriously confused. Dan/W4NTI The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. They all need to be rounded up and "deprogrammed." 73 de Larry, K3LT |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
You sir, are seriously confused. Larry is boundlessly ignorant- He, like most Americans (tragically, including most southerners), has swallowed a long, despicable line of lies, propaganda and swill force-fed to Americans as "history." He, like most northern chauvinists, vomits it back up not because he has any honest moral ground on which to be outraged, but because it gives him the cheap illusion of moral superiority. (mis)Leaders have long regurgitated this filth, because they can use the resulting hateful black racism and baseless white guilt to divide and conquer, manipulating masses of gullible people into giving them money and power. It's worked for a hundred and forty years for the (mis)leaders evil enough to spout it, and against the people foolish enough to believe it. Know what's funny? I remember when my high school in north Louisiana was integrated. It was done by forced bussing. After some initial grumbling, and with occasional exceptions due to racists of BOTH colors, we seemed to get along OK. That wasn't the case in another city. In that city, when forced bussing came, white people turned buses full of black children over and SET THEM ON FIRE. Bet you see that in the liberal-written "history" books, do you? Dig hard and you can find it. And this wasn't 1964; it was 1972. Take a good guess where that was.... Hint: It was far north of Virginia. D.S. |
In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: I do. The graveyards full of traitorous racist Confederates are being converted to HAZMAT landfill sites and leach fields. You Rebs wanted "states rights" so you could do such lovely things as own slaves. Well, now our society is trashed by the millions of descendants of those "slaves" who want their assets kissed with government support from cradle to grave. Well, I guess it is better than your blue-blood white trash ancestors getting their hands dirty. Of course, now we'll probably have to sit through all the tired old QRM about how the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Right. 73 de Larry, K3LT No Larry, I won't bother trying to educate you. You know how it is...ya just cain't fix stupid. And you are ONE STUPID FOOL. Dan/W4NTI Dan: I see. Well, I guess name-calling, as usual, takes the place of reasoned argument here on rrap. You don't think "racist traiterous confederates" is name calling? THen what would you call it? Try "knuckle-dragging CB-plussers" for one... :-) Why am I "stupid?" What did I say that wasn't true? If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery, then why, in it's aftermath, did one of the most famous Confederate Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest, organize the Ku Klux Klan? The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES was because of the north not being willing to grant the south economic freedom, or to give the southern states their RIGHT to determine their own destiny, as was allegedly given to ALL states by the constitution of the United States. The south chose to disolve the relationship with the Union. The election of Lincoln meant this was not to be allowed. The south could not remain in a Union it did not desire to be in. The issue of slavery did not come up until the so-called emancipation speech when the Union finally had won some battles. Even that was a farce, because the ONLY STATES it applied to was "those presently in rebellion against the United States". Which had already left the union and were no longer under the rule of the President of the United States. In otherwords a political scheme. Didn't work out well, Dan. Breaking News: The Confederacy LOST. Oh, yeah, it was all about doing battle against all those nasty 'ole Yankee Carpetbaggers. Right. Which is why they took their frustrations out on black slaves. I can see you have no knowledge of what happened at all in the south after the war. Johnson was now president, he allowed the northerners to go south and literally rape the defeated confederacy. Lincoln had no intention of doing this. The northern politicians, out of revenge removed all southern white politicians and appointed blacks. Which, for the most part, were ill prepared for the office they were in. The results was another rape of the white people. This is the root cause to the hate we NOW call racism. I thought it was all about not wanting to test for morse code? Morse code was first used in 1844. The US Civil War came after that. Is the "root cause" for all the hatred against NCTAs due to the U.S. Civil War? As for the idiots running around with what they call the Confederate flag. They don't even know what they are flying. In reality it is the Tennessee BATTLE FLAG that is being degraded as the confederate flag. Their beliefs and ideals are totally alien to the rest of free thinking southerners. Please, foxhole Dan, don't bring in the Tennessee flag into this. That will bring out a member of the United States Morse Codists (USMC). :-) You sir, are seriously confused. Ahem...aren't you all terribly, seriously, erroneously confused? Subject title is about "BPL full rollout in Va." Broadband over Power Lines. Virginia, state of... There was no radio in 1861-1865. Morse code was used on both sides. Nobody had any "power lines" to have anything broadband on... Hello? Anyone home over there? LHA |
|
In article , JJ
writes: Liberal immigration and naturalization policies amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the danger is to U.S. sovreignty. 73 de Larry, K3LT What he said absolutely. JJ: With the exception of my spelling: It's actually "sovereignty." Apparently, I don't spell as fast as I type. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: Dan: I see. Well, I guess name-calling, as usual, takes the place of reasoned argument here on rrap. You don't think "racist traiterous confederates" is name calling? THen what would you call it? Dan: I'd call it the truth. Why am I "stupid?" What did I say that wasn't true? If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery, then why, in it's aftermath, did one of the most famous Confederate Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest, organize the Ku Klux Klan? The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES was because of the north not being willing to grant the south economic freedom, or to give the southern states their RIGHT to determine their own destiny, as was allegedly given to ALL states by the constitution of the United States. The "economic freedom" the South wanted was the freedom to exploit slaves. The south chose to disolve the relationship with the Union. The election of Lincoln meant this was not to be allowed. The south could not remain in a Union it did not desire to be in. Then why did they bother to ratify the Constitution? The issue of slavery did not come up until the so-called emancipation speech when the Union finally had won some battles. Even that was a farce, because the ONLY STATES it applied to was "those presently in rebellion against the United States". Which had already left the union and were no longer under the rule of the President of the United States. In otherwords a political scheme. Oh, yeah, it was all about doing battle against all those nasty 'ole Yankee Carpetbaggers. Right. Which is why they took their frustrations out on black slaves. I can see you have no knowledge of what happened at all in the south after the war. Johnson was now president, he allowed the northerners to go south and literally rape the defeated confederacy. Lincoln had no intention of doing this. The northern politicians, out of revenge removed all southern white politicians and appointed blacks. Which, for the most part, were ill prepared for the office they were in. The results was another rape of the white people. This is the root cause to the hate we NOW call racism. As for the idiots running around with what they call the Confederate flag. They don't even know what they are flying. In reality it is the Tennessee BATTLE FLAG that is being degraded as the confederate flag. Their beliefs and ideals are totally alien to the rest of free thinking southerners. You sir, are seriously confused. No, I'm just observant. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
You ask wh ??
At least I can complete a sentence.....here is another name for you.....goofball. Dan/W4NTI "N8WWM" wrote in message ... In article . net, Dan/W4NTI says... "N8WWM" wrote in message ... In article . net, Dan/W4NTI says... You know how it is...ya just cain't fix stupid. "Cain't" ? You can't even spell, dumbass. You ask wh Your not very bright are you WWM? In fact your downright stupid. I googled Dan/W4NTI and it's apparent that I'm not as good at calling people names as you are. Dan/W4NTI You ask wh |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
I am in support of any person born here being a US Citizen. There are too many legal, ethical and social issues attached to having it otherwise. How about the Mexican women about to give birth that cross the border into the US just long enough for her child will be born here, thus reaping the benefits of citizenship? Now this child, who's parents have never lived in the US and have never contributed a single thing to the US society, is now eligible for medical care, schooling, and any other welfare out country has to offer. Your hard earned dollars, part of which you pay in taxes, will now help to finance this child who himself will probably never contribute to US society, only take from it. |
"JJ" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: I am in support of any person born here being a US Citizen. There are too many legal, ethical and social issues attached to having it otherwise. How about the Mexican women about to give birth that cross the border into the US just long enough for her child will be born here, thus reaping the benefits of citizenship? Now this child, who's parents have never lived in the US and have never contributed a single thing to the US society, is now eligible for medical care, schooling, and any other welfare out country has to offer. Your hard earned dollars, part of which you pay in taxes, will now help to finance this child who himself will probably never contribute to US society, only take from it. The Texas Twit is a world class liberal. She ran around supporting the hippies, after that was all over. In otherwords, she doesn't think things thru very well. FWIW...I agree with your comments JJ. Dan/W4NTI |
Whoever Leland is, tell him he is right.
And your point is? Dan/W4NTI "N8WWM" wrote in message ... Leland was right, you are an asshole. In article . net, Dan/W4NTI says... You ask wh ?? At least I can complete a sentence.....here is another name for you.....goofball. Dan/W4NTI "N8WWM" wrote in message ... In article . net, Dan/W4NTI says... "N8WWM" wrote in message ... In article . net, Dan/W4NTI says... You know how it is...ya just cain't fix stupid. "Cain't" ? You can't even spell, dumbass. You ask wh Your not very bright are you WWM? In fact your downright stupid. I googled Dan/W4NTI and it's apparent that I'm not as good at calling people names as you are. Dan/W4NTI You ask wh You ask wh |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization should be extremely rigid, involving extensive background checks and a requirement that the person immigrating have the means in place to make his/her own living. Eligibility for state or federal "welfare" benefits should also be severely limited. I'd also do away with the law that states that any person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, if the parents, at the time, are *not* U.S. citizens themselves. The children born to non-citizens would be considered to be citizens of the parents' own country of origin. Also, no person who is not a U.S. citizen, by birth or legal naturalization, should be allowed to vote in any local, state, or federal election. Liberal immigration and naturalization policies amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the danger is to U.S. sovereignty. In the end, the ONLY way to stop illegal immigration is to force employers to exercise restraint over who they hire, with truly serious consequences for those who knowingly hire, or should have known they were hiring, illegal immigrants. As long as jobs better than what is available elsewhere are available and we have a weak enforcement process, illegal immigrants are going to come. Cut off the jobs and you clearly cut off the problem. Employers claim it is not their responsibility to check out potential employees. Nonsense. Employers routinely run checks on everybody else they hire and it is every citizen's responsibility not to contribute to obvious crime. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
And, I believe the immigration laws are appropriate, (snip) We allow more immigrants into this country each year than any other country on Earth, including those countries where most of our immigrants come from. This mass influx is driving wages down and prices up. Our schools are overcrowded. Education costs are going up. Medical costs are going up. Home prices are going up. Land prices are going up. Food prices are going up. Crime continues to go up. Our overall standard of living is going down. At the same time, I don't see a single benefit for the average American. Can you describe one benefit for me or my family, Kim? State and Federal welfare programs need to be abolished. (snip) Why would you want to cut off the parachute put in place to help Americans? If you want to fix welfare, cut off the many thousands of illegal immigrants who are taking benefits from others. Next, get rid of the obvious bums abusing the welfare system. This two steps alone would cut the cost of welfare programs dramatically, yet still provide help for those Americans why really need it. There is no danger to US sovereignty. It may not be a US you like; but it is no danger of losing its sovereignty. (snip) Kim, we've allowed millions of immigrants into this country from areas of the world openly hostile to the United States, with no method to establish their views of this country and its people. After 9-11, this is clearly not safe for Americans. Can you be so sure it is not a threat to our sovereignty? This reminds me of an old joke that is perhaps not that far from the truth; an enemy doesn't have to invade today - they can just fill out immigration papers for their entire army. Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and Hispanics have almost the entire continent of South America. Perhaps you can explain why either group needs to expand to this continent, or why it is so wrong to resist that expansion. Unless we're prepared to spend lots of tourist dollars, they're certainly not rushing to open their doors to us. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
(snip) If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery, then (snip) If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all? Prior to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and Senate, insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery. Slavery was only abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States (which included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in that vote. (snip) why, in it's aftermath, did one of the most famous Confederate Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest, organize the Ku Klux Klan? (snip) When you answer that, perhaps you can also answer why so many Northerners join the KKK. The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip) Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states that profited from the sale of slaves? Or more to answer for than those who used indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early 1900's? Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous century, or in the many centuries before that? (snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. (snip) Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what happened in a past long before they were born. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
W5NET wrote:
Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and Hispanics have almost the entire continent of South America. Perhaps you can explain why either group needs to expand to this continent, or why it is so wrong to resist that expansion. What a sorry-assed load of blatant racist crap! Carried a little farther, yellow people have the entire continent of Asia, white people have almost the entire continent of Europe..... what Indian, Eskimo, or Inuit tribe does Dwight Stewart belong to that gives him a right to be in North America? With kindest warm personal regards, de Hans, K0HB |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om... W5NET wrote: Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and Hispanics have almost the entire continent of South America. Perhaps you can explain why either group needs to expand to this continent, or why it is so wrong to resist that expansion. What a sorry-assed load of blatant racist crap! Carried a little farther, yellow people have the entire continent of Asia, white people have almost the entire continent of Europe..... what Indian, Eskimo, or Inuit tribe does Dwight Stewart belong to that gives him a right to be in North America? With kindest warm personal regards, de Hans, K0HB Firmly seconded! Well said Hans. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: (snip) If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery, then (snip) If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all? Because the states with the most slaves could see that eventually they would either have to face the complete abolition of slavery *or* leave the Union. Prior to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and Senate, insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery. When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states, of which 4 stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state but it did not secede. Slavery was only abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States (which included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in that vote. The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally freed most (but not all) of the slaves. The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip) Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states that profited from the sale of slaves? Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in the North by 1804. In many northern states it was abolished before the Constitution was written. Or more to answer for than those who used indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early 1900's? Where was that done? Indentured servitude is in no way comparable to slavery, btw. Indentured servants *voluntarily* agree to work for a specified period of time, usually as payment for training or a debt. Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous century, or in the many centuries before that? (snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. (snip) Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what happened in a past long before they were born. All depends on what that flag is meant to symbolize. -- Here's what I learned about the War Between the States: First off, it didn't start as a war to end slavery, but rather as a war to keep the Union together. Lincoln's early (1861-1862) writings make it clear his focus *at that time* was on preserving the Union at almost any cost. The Constitution, for all its wisdom, did not have any clear provision for what should be done if one or more state(s) decided that they simply wanted out of the Union at one point or another. When the Constitution was written, there was a fairly even balance between slave and free states. Compromises were reached in order to get the new Union formed as a country rather than a confederation. These were compromises with evil, and they could not last forever. But over time the two parts of the US developed in such radically different ways that the compromises and balance could no longer be maintained. It was clear by 1855 or so that slavery's days were numbered because eventually the abolitionists would reach enough of a political majority to simply outlaw it everywhere. The trend was clear - it was only a matter of time. Revolts like John Brown's and the strengthening abolitionist movement made the moral issue unavoidable, and the Supremes were starting to come around, too. So, given the choice between leaving the Union or abolishing slavery, 15 states tried to leave. Some outside the 15 states said "Let them go", but it was clear to Lincoln and others that if even one state was allowed to secede, the Union would eventually fragment - and those fragments would be ripe for takeover from other countries, many of whom were patiently waiting for the "American experiment" to fail. Once the war began, however, it slowly became clear to Lincoln and many others that what had caused the split in the first place was the idea that a country could proclaim itself "free" and yet allow slavery. It became clear to him that the only way to preserve the Union was to abolish slavery completely. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation and the constitutional amendment. Is any of the above incorrect? What's interesting is that Great Britain, from whom the colonies split on the issue of "all men [sic] are created equal", abolished slavery years before the USA did. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: (snip) If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery, then (snip) If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all? Because the states with the most slaves could see that eventually they would either have to face the complete abolition of slavery *or* leave the Union. Prior to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and Senate, insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery. When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states, of which 4 stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state but it did not secede. Slavery was only abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States (which included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in that vote. The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally freed most (but not all) of the slaves. The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip) Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states that profited from the sale of slaves? Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in the North by 1804. In many northern states it was abolished before the Constitution was written. Or more to answer for than those who used indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early 1900's? Where was that done? Indentured servitude is in no way comparable to slavery, btw. Indentured servants *voluntarily* agree to work for a specified period of time, usually as payment for training or a debt. Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous century, or in the many centuries before that? (snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. (snip) Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what happened in a past long before they were born. All depends on what that flag is meant to symbolize. -- Here's what I learned about the War Between the States: First off, it didn't start as a war to end slavery, but rather as a war to keep the Union together. Lincoln's early (1861-1862) writings make it clear his focus *at that time* was on preserving the Union at almost any cost. The Constitution, for all its wisdom, did not have any clear provision for what should be done if one or more state(s) decided that they simply wanted out of the Union at one point or another. When the Constitution was written, there was a fairly even balance between slave and free states. Compromises were reached in order to get the new Union formed as a country rather than a confederation. These were compromises with evil, and they could not last forever. But over time the two parts of the US developed in such radically different ways that the compromises and balance could no longer be maintained. It was clear by 1855 or so that slavery's days were numbered because eventually the abolitionists would reach enough of a political majority to simply outlaw it everywhere. The trend was clear - it was only a matter of time. Revolts like John Brown's and the strengthening abolitionist movement made the moral issue unavoidable, and the Supremes were starting to come around, too. So, given the choice between leaving the Union or abolishing slavery, 15 states tried to leave. Some outside the 15 states said "Let them go", but it was clear to Lincoln and others that if even one state was allowed to secede, the Union would eventually fragment - and those fragments would be ripe for takeover from other countries, many of whom were patiently waiting for the "American experiment" to fail. Once the war began, however, it slowly became clear to Lincoln and many others that what had caused the split in the first place was the idea that a country could proclaim itself "free" and yet allow slavery. It became clear to him that the only way to preserve the Union was to abolish slavery completely. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation and the constitutional amendment. Is any of the above incorrect? What's interesting is that Great Britain, from whom the colonies split on the issue of "all men [sic] are created equal", abolished slavery years before the USA did. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, Much of what you seem to believe is based on the falsehood that the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed slaves. The proclamation ONLY APPLIED to those states in rebellion against the Union. Unfortunately those same states were not a part of the union at the time the proclamation was issued. Thus the proclamation applied to no one under the authority and/or control of the then fragemented Union. The slavery issue was indeed a major part of the root cause of the war between the states. BUT a major other cause was that of states rights. And whether we would be a republic or a federalist government. The struggle continues to this day. We are called a constitutional government, or a republic, or a democracy. The reality is we are none of , and all of that. The founding fathers NEVER intended for the federal government to have so much authority and control over the states. That was a major reason the Southern states left. Lincoln had NO RIGHT, or authorization to FORCE the South to rejoin the union. The whole war was a major mistake, and to the victors go the spoils, and the ones that write the history. You may ask how, or why, do I say these things? Because I was raised in the North, a world class Yankee state of Ohio. I was educated by the Northerners on this subject. And before I came to Alabama I too believed it hook line and sinker. No longer. The South was right. We all lost that war, look at the mess we have in DC now. Think about it. Dan/W4NTI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com