Stars and Stripes -- symbol of treason and sedition

[Scottish]

Stars and Stripes -- symbol of treason and sedition

Stars and Stripes -- symbol of EVIL IMPERIALISM>
--
Scottish Anti-USA

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies. Sedition is defined as incitement to
commit acts for the purpose of overthrowing one's government. The
American Revolutionaries were guilty of both crimes.
There was no legal right under British law for a colony to secede from
the British Empire. The actions of the American Revolutionaries --
from the Boston Tea Party, to publishing pamphlets calling for
independence, to convening the Continental Congress, to taking up arms
at Lexington and Concord -- were treasonous and seditious. Their flag,
"the Stars and Stripes", therefore, was a symbol of treason and
sedition. Patrick Henry was most candid when he allegedly declared in
his 1765 speech against the Stamp Act: "Caesar had his Brutus --
Charles the First, his Cromwell -- and George the Third -- may profit
by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."
The revolutionaries in 1776 represented a minority of the population
of the thirteen colonies -- perhaps as little as twenty percent. So
much for the American Revolution being a "popular" movement.
In many cases, to insure colonial legislatures enacted the "proper"
laws, the revolutionaries often expelled loyalist members. So much for
the American Revolution being a "democratic" movement.
Often, the revolutionaries simply established their own rival local
governments. This second tactic was styled "dual power" or "double
sovereignty" by the Bolsheviks who successfully employed it during the
Russian Revolution. So much for the American Revolution being a model
for the emergence of "democratic" governments elsewhere.
The revolutionaries rejected the British peace proposals of 1778,
which, in effect, would have conceded most of their demands. Instead,
they pursued their war against the United Kingdom with all its faults
the most democratic government in Europe. To win that war, the
revolutionaries solicited the support of France and Spain -- two of
the most powerful, anti-democratic regimes in Europe. So much for the
American Revolution being a movement motivated by the principle of
"liberty".
After the success of the American Revolution with the political
independence of the United States officially recognized by London,
"the Stars and Stripes" became the symbol for what is now termed
"ethnic cleansing". An estimated one hundred thousand loyalists,
colonists who had been faithful to the British government during the
American Revolution, were forced to flee the new republic.
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

[XXX]

Obviously just some tooth-decayed limey. Guess what, the WINNERS get to
decide if it is treason or sedition, and WE won! (that is one of the many,
many reasons why ours is the greatest country in the world. Because we
kicked limey ASS!).

[m***@cts.com]

Post by XXX
Obviously just some tooth-decayed limey.

Yes. However, at least our precious bodily fluids remain uncontaminated
by the evil that is water fluoridation. Sure, British children -
typically those of the poor - die under anaesthetic every year in
dentists' chairs - but we are totally free of fluoride, except
for those areas which are naturally fluoridated, or have fallen
in thrall to communists. In these benighted regions, IQ is down,
bones are brittle and there is an epidemic of cancer. The top
secret government files that trace this epidemic have been locked
away in a subterranean vault, but we, the people, know the truth!

Post by XXX
Guess what, the WINNERS get to
decide if it is treason or sedition, and WE won! (that is one of the many,
many reasons why ours is the greatest country in the world. Because we
kicked limey ASS!).

So what, we've still got the Empire: Northern Ireland, Pitcairn,
Rockall, Tristan da Cunha, etc...

[James Cameron]

Post by XXX
Guess what, the WINNERS get to
decide if it is treason or sedition, and WE won! (that is one of the many,
many reasons why ours is the greatest country in the world. Because we
kicked limey ASS!).

Greatest country in the world, eh?

Have you counted your skyscrapers lately? Notice any missing?

And that was just the ragheads. Wait until you're fighting us again.

You were conceived by traitors and built by traitors.

[howldog]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:45:39 +0100, James Cameron

Post by James Cameron
Greatest country in the world, eh?
Have you counted your skyscrapers lately? Notice any missing?

now theres a brutal and heartless troll.

if america sucks, you can do your part by taking everything american
invented, designed, or manufactured, and throw it out the window.

oh, the window's probly half American, that has to go too.

so now you got no house, no where to go.

no worries, the boat to Staten Island leaves in a half hour, if you
run you can make it.

Scotland. LOL! you guys are the best at fucking sheep and thats about
it. Get over yourself.

[m***@cts.com]

Post by howldog
now theres a brutal and heartless troll.

Yes.

Post by howldog
if america sucks, you can do your part by taking everything american
invented, designed, or manufactured, and throw it out the window.
oh, the window's probly half American, that has to go too.
so now you got no house, no where to go.
no worries, the boat to Staten Island leaves in a half hour, if you
run you can make it.
Scotland. LOL! you guys are the best at fucking sheep and thats about
it. Get over yourself.

Why respond to a heartless troll by becoming an equally
unloveable racist? That's what he wants. He is going to
drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.
Mock _him_. Tyranny cannot abide laughter.

If you really hate the Scots then throw your TV out the
window (Logie Baird) and your telephone (A G Bell).

[T N Nurse]

Post by howldog
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:45:39 +0100, James Cameron

Post by James Cameron
Greatest country in the world, eh?
Have you counted your skyscrapers lately? Notice any missing?

now theres a brutal and heartless troll.
if america sucks, you can do your part by taking everything american
invented, designed, or manufactured,

Umm.. you may have failed to notice, but most stuff these days
comes from the Far East, not America. Looking around my office,
just about the only thing that's American is an old Tektronics
scope that's been collecting dust for years. Fax? - 19thC British
invention, now made in Japan/Taiwan, phone? - Scotsman residing in
Canada, Light bulb - Englishman, although Edison tried and failed to
steal it as his own after reading Joseph Swan's patent, motor car? -
German, aeroplane? - 19thC Englishman, first manned flight too (183m)
computer? - two Englishmen, one from the 19thC, the other from WW2, now
made in Taiwan/Malaysia/Burma/just-about-anywhere-apart-from-US. You
did invent the hamburger, though but I don't have any in my office.
Hey! I just remembered, I've got an American guitar, well that's two
but not much else.

Post by howldog
and throw it out the window.
oh, the window's probly half American, that has to go too.

More likely, Scandanavian - he's posting from Britain (the clue
is the btinternet.com address) where Scandanavian style double
glazing is very popular. Float glass is a British invention and
plate glass is Belgian. Laminated safety glass is a French invention.

[Murchadh]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:30:58 -0400, howldog

Post by howldog
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:45:39 +0100, James Cameron

Post by James Cameron
Greatest country in the world, eh?
Have you counted your skyscrapers lately? Notice any missing?

now theres a brutal and heartless troll.
if america sucks, you can do your part by taking everything american
invented, designed, or manufactured, and throw it out the window.

He won't be throwing out much.

Now if it was everything Scots have invented,he'd be getting rid of
most of his goods, his education and the principles of democracy,
society, capitalism, personal liberty, rights, etc. that he - and you
- live by.

Scots invented the modern world. It was even mentioned in the
Independence Day celebrations in Washington DC this year. That's why
the Congress created Tartan Day in the US - to commemorate the
Scottish contributions to America's greatness.

As for the twin towers, they were a study in horror. As you get older,
things like that affect you more.


Murchadh

[Allan Connochie]

Post by howldog
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:45:39 +0100, James Cameron

Post by James Cameron
Greatest country in the world, eh?
Have you counted your skyscrapers lately? Notice any missing?

now theres a brutal and heartless troll.
if america sucks, you can do your part by taking everything american
invented, designed, or manufactured, and throw it out the window.
oh, the window's probly half American, that has to go too.
so now you got no house, no where to go.
no worries, the boat to Staten Island leaves in a half hour, if you
run you can make it.
Scotland. LOL! you guys are the best at fucking sheep and thats about
it. Get over yourself.

Both of you are quite frankly stupid idiots. The first poster for making a
comment which is heartless and in the very worst taste; then you for blaming
a whole country for what one poster said. Of course the attack was in the
States and of course most of the dead were Americans but there were hundreds
of non-Americans killed too, including many British. It was a world tragedy
not just an American one. Also if you must slag off Scotland at least get
it right. Highlanders, Borderers and folks from the north-east get the old
leg pulled about sheep shagging. Scotland as a whole though is one of the
most urbanised populations on the planet! What did they teach you at
school?


Allan

[m***@cts.com]

Jesus how old are you?

I am physiologically an adult but my mind has been fluoridated.

The fluoride controversy has been silent for years.

Rubbish! Google...

Fluoride Issues. Aluminum and Fluoride. ... Mind Control Prevention.
Fluoride increases
susceptibility to mind control. Mind Control Waves Destroy Vitamins. ...
Description: Information on the issues surrounding fluoridation.
Category: Society > Issues > Health > Water Treatment > Fluoridation
Aug 19, 2003

http://www.innervoyager.com/floride01.html
Fluoride and mind control.
"At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent
Charles Eliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry,
physiology and pathology, to take chare of the vast Farben chemical plants
in Germany. While there he was told by German chemists of a scheme which
had been worked out by them during the war adopted by Geman General Staff.
This was to control the population in any given area through mass
medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a
prominent place. Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will
in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly
poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain and will thus make
him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him."

And American teeth are more present than before the fluorides were placed in
the drinking water.

I'm not talking about American teeth, and neither was your
friend XXX <***@hotmail.com>. It is true; we Brits have
a high incidence of tooth decay, and our poorest children
may die in the dentist's chair, but - by God - our minds are
free!

If your flaming mutants like Bush, its because of his
sniffing oil, not drinking fluorides that mutated the prick.

Well, Eugene, since you disagree with me, I think you must be at
least a 'Supreme Worthy Master' in the secret fraternity of DSD
"Delta Sigma Delta", the cabal of American Dentists, whose emblem
has a Nazi-style 'Totenkopf' Skull-and-Crossbones on it.

Post by m***@cts.com

Post by XXX
Obviously just some tooth-decayed limey.

Yes. However, at least our precious bodily fluids remain uncontaminated
by the evil that is water fluoridation. Sure, British children -
typically those of the poor - die under anaesthetic every year in
dentists' chairs - but we are totally free of fluoride, except
for those areas which are naturally fluoridated, or have fallen
in thrall to communists. In these benighted regions, IQ is down,
bones are brittle and there is an epidemic of cancer. The top
secret government files that trace this epidemic have been locked
away in a subterranean vault, but we, the people, know the truth!

Post by XXX
Guess what, the WINNERS get to
decide if it is treason or sedition, and WE won! (that is one of the many,
many reasons why ours is the greatest country in the world. Because we
kicked limey ASS!).

So what, we've still got the Empire: Northern Ireland, Pitcairn,
Rockall, Tristan da Cunha, etc...

[Bob]

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies. Sedition is defined as incitement to
commit acts for the purpose of overthrowing one's government. The
American Revolutionaries were guilty of both crimes.
There was no legal right under British law for a colony to secede from
the British Empire. The actions of the American Revolutionaries --
from the Boston Tea Party, to publishing pamphlets calling for
independence, to convening the Continental Congress, to taking up arms
at Lexington and Concord -- were treasonous and seditious. Their flag,
"the Stars and Stripes", therefore, was a symbol of treason and
sedition. Patrick Henry was most candid when he allegedly declared in
his 1765 speech against the Stamp Act: "Caesar had his Brutus --
Charles the First, his Cromwell -- and George the Third -- may profit
by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."
The revolutionaries in 1776 represented a minority of the population
of the thirteen colonies -- perhaps as little as twenty percent. So
much for the American Revolution being a "popular" movement.
In many cases, to insure colonial legislatures enacted the "proper"
laws, the revolutionaries often expelled loyalist members. So much for
the American Revolution being a "democratic" movement.
Often, the revolutionaries simply established their own rival local
governments. This second tactic was styled "dual power" or "double
sovereignty" by the Bolsheviks who successfully employed it during the
Russian Revolution. So much for the American Revolution being a model
for the emergence of "democratic" governments elsewhere.
The revolutionaries rejected the British peace proposals of 1778,
which, in effect, would have conceded most of their demands. Instead,
they pursued their war against the United Kingdom with all its faults
the most democratic government in Europe. To win that war, the
revolutionaries solicited the support of France and Spain -- two of
the most powerful, anti-democratic regimes in Europe. So much for the
American Revolution being a movement motivated by the principle of
"liberty".
After the success of the American Revolution with the political
independence of the United States officially recognized by London,
"the Stars and Stripes" became the symbol for what is now termed
"ethnic cleansing". An estimated one hundred thousand loyalists,
colonists who had been faithful to the British government during the
American Revolution, were forced to flee the new republic.
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

Yep, and the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee American citizens
the right to own regular army weapons sufficient to repeat the process
when our new government becomes tyrannical.

The tyrannical government of course hates that possibility and works to
destroy that right.

Bob

[T N Nurse]

Post by Bob

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies. Sedition is defined as incitement to
commit acts for the purpose of overthrowing one's government. The
American Revolutionaries were guilty of both crimes.
There was no legal right under British law for a colony to secede from
the British Empire. The actions of the American Revolutionaries --
from the Boston Tea Party, to publishing pamphlets calling for
independence, to convening the Continental Congress, to taking up arms
at Lexington and Concord -- were treasonous and seditious. Their flag,
"the Stars and Stripes", therefore, was a symbol of treason and
sedition. Patrick Henry was most candid when he allegedly declared in
his 1765 speech against the Stamp Act: "Caesar had his Brutus --
Charles the First, his Cromwell -- and George the Third -- may profit
by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."
The revolutionaries in 1776 represented a minority of the population
of the thirteen colonies -- perhaps as little as twenty percent. So
much for the American Revolution being a "popular" movement.
In many cases, to insure colonial legislatures enacted the "proper"
laws, the revolutionaries often expelled loyalist members. So much for
the American Revolution being a "democratic" movement.
Often, the revolutionaries simply established their own rival local
governments. This second tactic was styled "dual power" or "double
sovereignty" by the Bolsheviks who successfully employed it during the
Russian Revolution. So much for the American Revolution being a model
for the emergence of "democratic" governments elsewhere.
The revolutionaries rejected the British peace proposals of 1778,
which, in effect, would have conceded most of their demands. Instead,
they pursued their war against the United Kingdom with all its faults
the most democratic government in Europe. To win that war, the
revolutionaries solicited the support of France and Spain -- two of
the most powerful, anti-democratic regimes in Europe. So much for the
American Revolution being a movement motivated by the principle of
"liberty".
After the success of the American Revolution with the political
independence of the United States officially recognized by London,
"the Stars and Stripes" became the symbol for what is now termed
"ethnic cleansing". An estimated one hundred thousand loyalists,
colonists who had been faithful to the British government during the
American Revolution, were forced to flee the new republic.
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

Yep, and the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee American citizens
the right to own regular army weapons sufficient to repeat the process
when our new government becomes tyrannical.
The tyrannical government of course hates that possibility and works to
destroy that right.

They already have. You have no right to nukes, tanks or any of the
weapons that would be needed to take on the army of a modern
tyrrany.

[T N Nurse]

Post by T N Nurse

Post by Bob
Yep, and the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee American citizens
the right to own regular army weapons sufficient to repeat the process
when our new government becomes tyrannical.
The tyrannical government of course hates that possibility and works to
destroy that right.

They already have. You have no right to nukes, tanks or any of the
weapons that would be needed to take on the army of a modern
tyrrany.

Exactly.

So much for the 2nd Ammendment.

BTW: Warren Farrell wants to make all citizen owned guns illegal on his
Farrell for Governor platform web page.
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/gov/inthenews.htm
"Gun Control: I favor close to gun elimination,..."

But how about nukes, RPGs and all the other paraphanalia needed
to take on a modern army? A few handguns hardly matter as the only
thing they do is arm drug dealers and their gangs and they're not
exactly the folks you want to defend liberty and freedom and take on
a tyrannical government, are they? If he's tralking about gun
elimination amongst those people, well, maybe there's some merit
to it, but it doesn't address the real issue - how do overweight,
couch potatoes, their brains fried by an endless procession of
Jerry Springer/When Things Go Wrong video shows deal with a
tyrannical govt?

[Bob]

Post by T N Nurse

Post by T N Nurse

Post by Bob
Yep, and the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee American citizens
the right to own regular army weapons sufficient to repeat the process
when our new government becomes tyrannical.
The tyrannical government of course hates that possibility and works to
destroy that right.

They already have. You have no right to nukes, tanks or any of the
weapons that would be needed to take on the army of a modern
tyrrany.

Exactly.

So much for the 2nd Ammendment.

BTW: Warren Farrell wants to make all citizen owned guns illegal on his
Farrell for Governor platform web page.
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/gov/inthenews.htm
"Gun Control: I favor close to gun elimination,..."

But how about nukes, RPGs and all the other paraphanalia needed
to take on a modern army? A few handguns hardly matter as the only
thing they do is arm drug dealers and their gangs and they're not
exactly the folks you want to defend liberty and freedom and take on
a tyrannical government, are they? If he's tralking about gun
elimination amongst those people, well, maybe there's some merit
to it, but it doesn't address the real issue - how do overweight,
couch potatoes, their brains fried by an endless procession of
Jerry Springer/When Things Go Wrong video shows deal with a
tyrannical govt?

Not the way that Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Franklin did.

Bob

[T N Nurse]

Post by Bob

Post by T N Nurse

Post by T N Nurse

Post by Bob
Yep, and the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee American citizens
the right to own regular army weapons sufficient to repeat the process
when our new government becomes tyrannical.
The tyrannical government of course hates that possibility and works to
destroy that right.

They already have. You have no right to nukes, tanks or any of the
weapons that would be needed to take on the army of a modern
tyrrany.

Exactly.

So much for the 2nd Ammendment.

BTW: Warren Farrell wants to make all citizen owned guns illegal on his
Farrell for Governor platform web page.
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/gov/inthenews.htm
"Gun Control: I favor close to gun elimination,..."

But how about nukes, RPGs and all the other paraphanalia needed
to take on a modern army? A few handguns hardly matter as the only
thing they do is arm drug dealers and their gangs and they're not
exactly the folks you want to defend liberty and freedom and take on
a tyrannical government, are they? If he's tralking about gun
elimination amongst those people, well, maybe there's some merit
to it, but it doesn't address the real issue - how do overweight,
couch potatoes, their brains fried by an endless procession of
Jerry Springer/When Things Go Wrong video shows deal with a
tyrannical govt?

Not the way that Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Franklin did.

Well, they weren't stuck in front of TVs all day and fed a diet
of blooper shows. Anyway, isn't there a slight problem with this
2nd Amendment stuff, namely you have to be a part of a well
regulated militia, you have to be male and the only weapons you
are allowed are those 'suitable for your means' (so who decides?)?

Post by Bob
Bob

[Bob]

Post by T N Nurse
Well, they weren't stuck in front of TVs all day and fed a diet
of blooper shows. Anyway, isn't there a slight problem with this
2nd Amendment stuff, namely you have to be a part of a well
regulated militia, you have to be male and the only weapons you
are allowed are those 'suitable for your means' (so who decides?)?

In the 18th century English usage a "well regulated militia" meant armed
citizens having weapons equivalent to the REGular army. IOW, citizens
armed with REGULAR military arms. That's what it means. Then it meant
muskets, swords, and cannon. Today it would include M1A1 tanks, TOW
missiles, M16s, etc., all the weapons of the REGULAR army.

The point of the 2nd Amendment was to allow future generations to
overthrow a tyrannical government when it became tyrannical. The men
who wrote the 2nd Amendment had recent experience doing just that, and
had known that tyrannical governments such as the British would try to
limit the arms owned by citizens.

All laws that limit citizen ownership of military weapons are illegal
violations of the Constitution enforced by a tyrannical government to
preserve itself.

Bob

[T N Nurse]

Post by Bob

Post by T N Nurse
Well, they weren't stuck in front of TVs all day and fed a diet
of blooper shows. Anyway, isn't there a slight problem with this
2nd Amendment stuff, namely you have to be a part of a well
regulated militia, you have to be male and the only weapons you
are allowed are those 'suitable for your means' (so who decides?)?

In the 18th century English usage a "well regulated militia" meant armed
citizens having weapons equivalent to the REGular army.

It did? I thought it meant civilian militia that was well established,
drilled regulary and had most of the attributes of the regular army
in terms of discipline ie well-regulated, as opposed to an angry
indisciplined mob.

Post by Bob
IOW, citizens
armed with REGULAR military arms. That's what it means. Then it meant
muskets, swords, and cannon. Today it would include M1A1 tanks, TOW
missiles, M16s, etc., all the weapons of the REGULAR army.
The point of the 2nd Amendment was to allow future generations to
overthrow a tyrannical government when it became tyrannical.

Hmmm, I thought the point was overthrow foreign powers attempting
to impose a tyrrany on the people, as had happened with Britain
(perceived as the foreign power) installing a puppet regime and
running the country.

Post by Bob
The men
who wrote the 2nd Amendment had recent experience doing just that, and
had known that tyrannical governments such as the British would try to
limit the arms owned by citizens.

Indeed - a foreign power trying to impose its will and a tyrranical
govt on the US people. No mention of the American's people's choice
of elected govt going off the rails. But then, it has gone off the rails
before and acted tyrranically, yet no one did anything - the Vietnam
draft, for example, was opposed by the vast majority of Americans
yet the dutifully sent their children to the horrors of SE Asia when
faced with being jailed for refusal. Where were all these 2nd
Amendment types then?

Post by Bob
All laws that limit citizen ownership of military weapons are illegal
violations of the Constitution enforced by a tyrannical government to
preserve itself.

To be quite honest, I don't think the American Constitution is worth
the paper its printed on - unless you're a lawyer - noble though it's
intentions probably were. It's well past it's sell-by date and time for
a rewrite.

[Sharon L. Krossa]

Post by T N Nurse
To be quite honest, I don't think the American Constitution is worth
the paper its printed on - unless you're a lawyer - noble though it's
intentions probably were. It's well past it's sell-by date and time for
a rewrite.

And what exactly should it say instead? What would be in this rewrite?

The bulk of the constitution sets out the basic framework of the three
branches of the U.S. government (executive, legislative, judicial) --
are you suggesting the US should junk that and come up with a new system
entirely? If not, then the constitution doesn't need to be rewritten.

Perhaps it's just the amendments you don't like. Okay -- so which ones
do you want to get rid of? Freedom of speech and press? Freedom of
assembly? The right to vote at age 18? Protection against
self-incrimination and double jeapordy? The right to due process?
Freedom of religion? Abolition of Slavery? Rights not to be denied on
account of race or color? Women's right to vote? Limitation of
Presidents to two terms? If you don't want to get rid of a significant
majority of them, then the constitution doesn't need to be rewritten,
only, at most, amended. (Heck, even if you did want to get rid of most
of them, all that's needed is amendments, not a rewrite.)

Unless it is that you want to add lots more to it? Well, what do you
want to add? And why does it require a total rewrite rather than
amending? (And why is what you want to add appropriate for the
constitution rather than just federal law?)

For your convenience, here is a very nice web site with the complete
constitution and amendments (on each page, any text that was affected by
later amendments is linked to the page for that amendment):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html

Obligatory Scottish reference: If Scotland should ever be independent,
what sort of constitution would you want to see it adopt? One of those
ridiculous overly detailed ones that needs constant minor and major
revisions and regular total rewrites, or a framework and fundamental
rights one that needs only occassional amendments? In other words,
pretty much the same questions as above (well, excepting the one about
changing the basic framework of government -- I assume Scotland will
have a somewhat different structure in this regard, though one would
hope it would choose something that will also prove workable for
centuries).

Sharon

[Sally]

Post by Sharon L. Krossa

Post by T N Nurse
To be quite honest, I don't think the American Constitution is worth
the paper its printed on - unless you're a lawyer - noble though it's
intentions probably were. It's well past it's sell-by date and time for
a rewrite.

And what exactly should it say instead? What would be in this rewrite?
The bulk of the constitution sets out the basic framework of the three
branches of the U.S. government (executive, legislative, judicial) --
are you suggesting the US should junk that and come up with a new system
entirely? If not, then the constitution doesn't need to be rewritten.
Perhaps it's just the amendments you don't like. Okay -- so which ones
do you want to get rid of? Freedom of speech and press? Freedom of
assembly? The right to vote at age 18? Protection against
self-incrimination and double jeapordy? The right to due process?
Freedom of religion? Abolition of Slavery? Rights not to be denied on
account of race or color? Women's right to vote? Limitation of
Presidents to two terms? If you don't want to get rid of a significant
majority of them, then the constitution doesn't need to be rewritten,
only, at most, amended. (Heck, even if you did want to get rid of most
of them, all that's needed is amendments, not a rewrite.)
Unless it is that you want to add lots more to it? Well, what do you
want to add? And why does it require a total rewrite rather than
amending? (And why is what you want to add appropriate for the
constitution rather than just federal law?)
For your convenience, here is a very nice web site with the complete
constitution and amendments (on each page, any text that was affected by
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html
Obligatory Scottish reference: If Scotland should ever be independent,
what sort of constitution would you want to see it adopt? One of those
ridiculous overly detailed ones that needs constant minor and major
revisions and regular total rewrites, or a framework and fundamental
rights one that needs only occassional amendments? In other words,
pretty much the same questions as above (well, excepting the one about
changing the basic framework of government -- I assume Scotland will
have a somewhat different structure in this regard, though one would
hope it would choose something that will also prove workable for
centuries).
Sharon

suggest you think what 'well-regulated' may have meant in terms of
English militia or army in the 18th century. The American version
would be exactly the same. well trained? more than likely. The
right to bear arms seems to come from the idea that Americans were
expected to own and use weapons, both as self protection against the
indians, for hunting and lastly to be like the minute men who gathered
at Concord Bridge "and fired the shot heard round the world!"

[Sharon L. Krossa]

Post by Sally

Post by Sharon L. Krossa

Post by T N Nurse
To be quite honest, I don't think the American Constitution is worth
the paper its printed on - unless you're a lawyer - noble though it's
intentions probably were. It's well past it's sell-by date and time for
a rewrite.

And what exactly should it say instead? What would be in this rewrite?
The bulk of the constitution sets out the basic framework of the three
branches of the U.S. government (executive, legislative, judicial) --
are you suggesting the US should junk that and come up with a new system
entirely? If not, then the constitution doesn't need to be rewritten.
Perhaps it's just the amendments you don't like. Okay -- so which ones
do you want to get rid of? Freedom of speech and press? Freedom of
assembly? The right to vote at age 18? Protection against
self-incrimination and double jeapordy? The right to due process?
Freedom of religion? Abolition of Slavery? Rights not to be denied on
account of race or color? Women's right to vote? Limitation of
Presidents to two terms? If you don't want to get rid of a significant
majority of them, then the constitution doesn't need to be rewritten,
only, at most, amended. (Heck, even if you did want to get rid of most
of them, all that's needed is amendments, not a rewrite.)
Unless it is that you want to add lots more to it? Well, what do you
want to add? And why does it require a total rewrite rather than
amending? (And why is what you want to add appropriate for the
constitution rather than just federal law?)
For your convenience, here is a very nice web site with the complete
constitution and amendments (on each page, any text that was affected by
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html
Obligatory Scottish reference: If Scotland should ever be independent,
what sort of constitution would you want to see it adopt? One of those
ridiculous overly detailed ones that needs constant minor and major
revisions and regular total rewrites, or a framework and fundamental
rights one that needs only occassional amendments? In other words,
pretty much the same questions as above (well, excepting the one about
changing the basic framework of government -- I assume Scotland will
have a somewhat different structure in this regard, though one would
hope it would choose something that will also prove workable for
centuries).

suggest you think what 'well-regulated' may have meant in terms of
English militia or army in the 18th century. The American version
would be exactly the same. well trained? more than likely. The
right to bear arms seems to come from the idea that Americans were
expected to own and use weapons, both as self protection against the
indians, for hunting and lastly to be like the minute men who gathered
at Concord Bridge "and fired the shot heard round the world!"

And how does this either support or counter the idea that the U.S.
constitution is in need of a rewrite (the main issue under discussion
above -- the other being a future Scottish constitution)? Whether one
thinks the 2nd amendment wonderful or something that should be
jettisoned, the 2nd amendment is only one tiny part of the U.S.
Constitution.

May I suggest you think about replying to what I actually wrote in a
message when you reply to it? ;-)

Sharon, wondering if maybe the above was intended as a reply to a
different post...

[spammy]

Post by T N Nurse
It did? I thought it meant civilian militia that was well established,
drilled regulary and had most of the attributes of the regular army
in terms of discipline ie well-regulated, as opposed to an angry
indisciplined mob.

No. At the time it was written, well-regulated meant trained at arms.

Post by T N Nurse
Hmmm, I thought the point was overthrow foreign powers attempting
to impose a tyrrany on the people, as had happened with Britain
(perceived as the foreign power) installing a puppet regime and
running the country.

Read the Federalist Papers. Opposing home-grown tyrants was equally
on the writer's minds.

[T N Nurse]

Post by spammy

Post by T N Nurse
It did? I thought it meant civilian militia that was well established,
drilled regulary and had most of the attributes of the regular army
in terms of discipline ie well-regulated, as opposed to an angry
indisciplined mob.

No. At the time it was written, well-regulated meant trained at arms.

At the time it was written, well-regulated meant pretty much
the same as it means today.

[Sharon L. Krossa]

[followups set to soc.culture.scottish, which is where I read this]

Post by Bob

Post by T N Nurse
Well, they weren't stuck in front of TVs all day and fed a diet
of blooper shows. Anyway, isn't there a slight problem with this
2nd Amendment stuff, namely you have to be a part of a well
regulated militia, you have to be male and the only weapons you
are allowed are those 'suitable for your means' (so who decides?)?

In the 18th century English usage a "well regulated militia" meant armed
citizens having weapons equivalent to the REGular army. IOW, citizens
armed with REGULAR military arms. That's what it means.

You know, twisting words to try to fit your desired conclusion never
really works. A well regulated militia means a militia that is
*regulated* well. The word "regulated" in "well regulated militia" does
not have anything to do with the "regular" of "regular army" (which is
"regular" in the sense of normal, usual), it has to do with "regulate"
-- that is, to control or direct by a rule, etc. [Try investing in a
good dictionary -- if you want one that gives historical meanings and
examples, the OED is quite useful.]

If the 2nd amendment really does mean that individual citizens should be
personally armed with the same weaponry as the regular amy (which is
highly debateable), it is _not_ because of the word "regulated" in "well
regulated militia".

(The rabid NRA-types and their ilk have a hard time with the "well
regulated militia" part of the amendment precisely because it is an
indication that the people and their weaponry -- militias -- should be
subject to control by rules. The above poster makes it pretty clear
which part of "regulated" he doesn't understand ;-)

Obligatory Scottish reference: The well regulated militias of late
medieval and early modern Scotland certainly were controlled and
directed by various rules, etc. In early 16th century Scotland, for
example, they were subject to periodic "weaponshaws" -- that is,
everybody had to gather and show the local authorities their weapons.

Sharon

[Bob]

Post by Sharon L. Krossa
[followups set to soc.culture.scottish, which is where I read this]

Post by Bob

Post by T N Nurse
Well, they weren't stuck in front of TVs all day and fed a diet
of blooper shows. Anyway, isn't there a slight problem with this
2nd Amendment stuff, namely you have to be a part of a well
regulated militia, you have to be male and the only weapons you
are allowed are those 'suitable for your means' (so who decides?)?

In the 18th century English usage a "well regulated militia" meant armed
citizens having weapons equivalent to the REGular army. IOW, citizens
armed with REGULAR military arms. That's what it means.

You know, twisting words to try to fit your desired conclusion never
really works. A well regulated militia means a militia that is
*regulated* well. The word "regulated" in "well regulated militia" does
not have anything to do with the "regular" of "regular army" (which is
"regular" in the sense of normal, usual), it has to do with "regulate"
-- that is, to control or direct by a rule, etc. [Try investing in a
good dictionary -- if you want one that gives historical meanings and
examples, the OED is quite useful.]

Since the 2nd Amendment was written in the 18th century you need to use
18th century word meanings to understand what it means.

In the 18th century, the term "Well regulated militia" meant armed
citizens having guns and other weapons equal to the "regular" army.

I have an OED, but it is of little use in understanding 18th century
American English.

Post by Sharon L. Krossa
If the 2nd amendment really does mean that individual citizens should be
personally armed with the same weaponry as the regular amy (which is
highly debateable), it is _not_ because of the word "regulated" in "well
regulated militia".

Yep, that's exactly what it meant in the 18th century when it was
written. "Regulated" meant "made regular," or made to be like the
regulars.

Post by Sharon L. Krossa
(The rabid NRA-types and their ilk have a hard time with the "well
regulated militia" part of the amendment precisely because it is an
indication that the people and their weaponry -- militias -- should be
subject to control by rules. The above poster makes it pretty clear
which part of "regulated" he doesn't understand ;-)

The rabid anti-gun supporters of government oppression and limited
freedom have a hard time with the "well regulated militia" because they
are afraid that armed citizens would overthrow a tyrannical government,
and that ability is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is supposed to
protect. Washington and Jefferson believed in it.

Post by Sharon L. Krossa
Obligatory Scottish reference: The well regulated militias of late
medieval and early modern Scotland certainly were controlled and
directed by various rules, etc. In early 16th century Scotland, for
example, they were subject to periodic "weaponshaws" -- that is,
everybody had to gather and show the local authorities their weapons.
Sharon

The British have frequently tried to limit weapons in the hand of
civilians. Look at gun laws in the UK today. It was a highly
controversial complaint that the early Americans made about British laws
in the 18th century. It hasn't changed much, the government still wants
to take away the people's guns.

Bob

[Sharon L. Krossa]

Post by Bob

Post by Sharon L. Krossa
[followups set to soc.culture.scottish, which is where I read this]

Post by Bob

Post by T N Nurse
Well, they weren't stuck in front of TVs all day and fed a diet
of blooper shows. Anyway, isn't there a slight problem with this
2nd Amendment stuff, namely you have to be a part of a well
regulated militia, you have to be male and the only weapons you
are allowed are those 'suitable for your means' (so who decides?)?

In the 18th century English usage a "well regulated militia" meant armed
citizens having weapons equivalent to the REGular army. IOW, citizens
armed with REGULAR military arms. That's what it means.

You know, twisting words to try to fit your desired conclusion never
really works. A well regulated militia means a militia that is
*regulated* well. The word "regulated" in "well regulated militia" does
not have anything to do with the "regular" of "regular army" (which is
"regular" in the sense of normal, usual), it has to do with "regulate"
-- that is, to control or direct by a rule, etc. [Try investing in a
good dictionary -- if you want one that gives historical meanings and
examples, the OED is quite useful.]

Since the 2nd Amendment was written in the 18th century you need to use
18th century word meanings to understand what it means.

And in the 18th century, "regulate" meant to control or direct by rules,
etc., just as it does modernly. For example, from Article I of the U.S.
Constitution: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes".

Post by Bob
In the 18th century, the term "Well regulated militia" meant armed
citizens having guns and other weapons equal to the "regular" army.

You keep saying that, but repetition won't make it true. "Regulated"
here means controled or directed by rules, etc., just like "regulate" in
Article I of the constitution. It has nothing to do with the "regular"
in "regular army".

Post by Bob
I have an OED, but it is of little use in understanding 18th century
American English.

And so your claims about 18th century American English are based on...
what? Wishful thinking? If you have evidence to show that "regulated" in
18th century American English really meant "made like the 'regular'
army", please produce it. (You might want to note the definition Webster
gave in his specifically American dictionary in 1828: "[a]djusted by
rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or
restrictions.")

BTW, the OED is often useful regarding American English as it includes
examples from American as well as British English.

Post by Bob

Post by Sharon L. Krossa
If the 2nd amendment really does mean that individual citizens should be
personally armed with the same weaponry as the regular amy (which is
highly debateable), it is _not_ because of the word "regulated" in "well
regulated militia".

Yep, that's exactly what it meant in the 18th century when it was
written. "Regulated" meant "made regular," or made to be like the
regulars.

No, "regulated" does not mean "made regular" in the sense you're trying
to claim, and it never has. The word you're confusing it with is
"regularized".

Of course, one meaning of "regular" _is_ "adhering to a rule, etc."
(that is, "made regulated") -- so you could argue that the "regular" of
"regular army" has to do with the regular army adhering to rules. But
that still would mean that the similarity between the well regulated
militia and the regular army is that they are controlled or directed by
rules, which still leaves us with the militia being controlled or
directed by rules and regulations...

[I suppose this also means one could argue that "regulate" does mean
"make regular" in the sense of "regular" meaning "made regulated",
making "regulate" mean "make made regulated"...]

[...snippage...]

Obligatory Scottish content: unsurprisingly, "regulate" has and had the
same meanings in Scots as it has and had in English. Interestingly,
there was a specifically Scottish term in the early 16th century,
"reguleir", which meant "a regulator". (CSD, s.v. reglar)

Sharon

[unknown]

Post by Sharon L. Krossa
[followups set to soc.culture.scottish, which is where I read this]

Post by Bob

Post by T N Nurse
Well, they weren't stuck in front of TVs all day and fed a diet
of blooper shows. Anyway, isn't there a slight problem with this
2nd Amendment stuff, namely you have to be a part of a well
regulated militia, you have to be male and the only weapons you
are allowed are those 'suitable for your means' (so who decides?)?

In the 18th century English usage a "well regulated militia" meant armed
citizens having weapons equivalent to the REGular army. IOW, citizens
armed with REGULAR military arms. That's what it means.

You know, twisting words to try to fit your desired conclusion never
really works. A well regulated militia means a militia that is
*regulated* well. The word "regulated" in "well regulated militia" does
not have anything to do with the "regular" of "regular army" (which is
"regular" in the sense of normal, usual), it has to do with "regulate"
-- that is, to control or direct by a rule, etc. [Try investing in a
good dictionary -- if you want one that gives historical meanings and
examples, the OED is quite useful.]
If the 2nd amendment really does mean that individual citizens should be
personally armed with the same weaponry as the regular amy (which is
highly debateable), it is _not_ because of the word "regulated" in "well
regulated militia".
(The rabid NRA-types and their ilk have a hard time with the "well
regulated militia" part of the amendment precisely because it is an
indication that the people and their weaponry -- militias -- should be
subject to control by rules. The above poster makes it pretty clear
which part of "regulated" he doesn't understand ;-)
Obligatory Scottish reference: The well regulated militias of late
medieval and early modern Scotland certainly were controlled and
directed by various rules, etc. In early 16th century Scotland, for
example, they were subject to periodic "weaponshaws" -- that is,
everybody had to gather and show the local authorities their weapons.

Piss on Scotland!

Post by Sharon L. Krossa
Sharon

Sharon, you are full of shit. Virginia instructed its delegates to
refuse to sign on or ratify the Constitution until the RIGHT OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WAS
CLEARLY STATED IN AN AMENDMENT. Check out the history sweety.

FUCK OFF, FOOLISH GIRL.

[Alan Hardie]

Post by unknown
Sharon, you are full of shit. Virginia instructed its delegates to
refuse to sign on or ratify the Constitution until the RIGHT OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WAS
CLEARLY STATED IN AN AMENDMENT. Check out the history sweety.
FUCK OFF, FOOLISH GIRL.

Well I for one have been warmed to your side of the argument - what
with your insightful views and line in sweet reason. Keep it up wee
man - you may well make converts of us all yet.

[Murchadh]

Post by unknown
Sharon, you are full of shit. Virginia instructed its delegates to
refuse to sign on or ratify the Constitution until the RIGHT OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WAS
CLEARLY STATED IN AN AMENDMENT. Check out the history sweety.
FUCK OFF, FOOLISH GIRL.

You can't fool us, "John Smith" - we know you're President George
Bush. That classy American debating style gives you away every time!

Murchadh

[MacHamish]

Post by Murchadh

Post by unknown
Sharon, you are full of shit. Virginia instructed its delegates to
refuse to sign on or ratify the Constitution until the RIGHT OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WAS
CLEARLY STATED IN AN AMENDMENT. Check out the history sweety.
FUCK OFF, FOOLISH GIRL.

You can't fool us, "John Smith" - we know you're President George
Bush. That classy American debating style gives you away every time!

While I agree that John Smith's debating style is deplorable and
unwarranted, I seem to recall a similar response from you, Merdo. in that
thread you started and later referred to as a "shabby sham". Does your
debating style represent Scotland or Canada?

The evidence can be seen here:

http://tinyurl.com/kxsk


MacHamish Mór

[Murchadh]

Post by MacHamish

Post by Murchadh

Post by unknown
Sharon, you are full of shit. Virginia instructed its delegates to
refuse to sign on or ratify the Constitution until the RIGHT OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WAS
CLEARLY STATED IN AN AMENDMENT. Check out the history sweety.
FUCK OFF, FOOLISH GIRL.

You can't fool us, "John Smith" - we know you're President George
Bush. That classy American debating style gives you away every time!

While I agree that John Smith's debating style is deplorable and
unwarranted, I seem to recall a similar response from you, Merdo. in that
thread you started and later referred to as a "shabby sham". Does your
debating style represent Scotland or Canada?
http://tinyurl.com/kxsk
MacHamish Mór

Oh, oh - did I mention Our Lord Jesus Bush in a derogatory way?

Murchadh

[MacHamish]

Post by Murchadh

Post by MacHamish
While I agree that John Smith's debating style is deplorable and
unwarranted, I seem to recall a similar response from you, Merdo. in that
thread you started and later referred to as a "shabby sham". Does your
debating style represent Scotland or Canada?
http://tinyurl.com/kxsk
MacHamish Mór

Oh, oh - did I mention Our Lord Jesus Bush in a derogatory way?

Hmmm. Merdo attempts yet another diversion.


MacHamish Mór

[James Cameron]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:33:53 +0100, T N Nurse

Post by T N Nurse
But how about nukes, RPGs and all the other paraphanalia needed
to take on a modern army? A few handguns hardly matter as the only
thing they do is arm drug dealers and their gangs and they're not
exactly the folks you want to defend liberty and freedom and take on
a tyrannical government, are they? If he's tralking about gun
elimination amongst those people, well, maybe there's some merit
to it, but it doesn't address the real issue - how do overweight,
couch potatoes, their brains fried by an endless procession of
Jerry Springer/When Things Go Wrong video shows deal with a
tyrannical govt?

They re-elect them, just like us.

[Dave]

Post by T N Nurse

Post by Bob

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies. Sedition is defined as incitement to
commit acts for the purpose of overthrowing one's government. The
American Revolutionaries were guilty of both crimes.
There was no legal right under British law for a colony to secede from
the British Empire. The actions of the American Revolutionaries --
from the Boston Tea Party, to publishing pamphlets calling for
independence, to convening the Continental Congress, to taking up arms
at Lexington and Concord -- were treasonous and seditious. Their flag,
"the Stars and Stripes", therefore, was a symbol of treason and
sedition. Patrick Henry was most candid when he allegedly declared in
his 1765 speech against the Stamp Act: "Caesar had his Brutus --
Charles the First, his Cromwell -- and George the Third -- may profit
by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."
The revolutionaries in 1776 represented a minority of the population
of the thirteen colonies -- perhaps as little as twenty percent. So
much for the American Revolution being a "popular" movement.
In many cases, to insure colonial legislatures enacted the "proper"
laws, the revolutionaries often expelled loyalist members. So much for
the American Revolution being a "democratic" movement.
Often, the revolutionaries simply established their own rival local
governments. This second tactic was styled "dual power" or "double
sovereignty" by the Bolsheviks who successfully employed it during the
Russian Revolution. So much for the American Revolution being a model
for the emergence of "democratic" governments elsewhere.
The revolutionaries rejected the British peace proposals of 1778,
which, in effect, would have conceded most of their demands. Instead,
they pursued their war against the United Kingdom with all its faults
the most democratic government in Europe. To win that war, the
revolutionaries solicited the support of France and Spain -- two of
the most powerful, anti-democratic regimes in Europe. So much for the
American Revolution being a movement motivated by the principle of
"liberty".
After the success of the American Revolution with the political
independence of the United States officially recognized by London,
"the Stars and Stripes" became the symbol for what is now termed
"ethnic cleansing". An estimated one hundred thousand loyalists,
colonists who had been faithful to the British government during the
American Revolution, were forced to flee the new republic.
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

Yep, and the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee American citizens
the right to own regular army weapons sufficient to repeat the process
when our new government becomes tyrannical.
The tyrannical government of course hates that possibility and works to
destroy that right.

They already have. You have no right to nukes, tanks or any of the
weapons that would be needed to take on the army of a modern
tyrrany.

Exactly.
BTW: Warren Farrell wants to make all citizen owned guns illegal on his
Farrell for Governor platform web page.
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/gov/inthenews.htm
"Gun Control: I favor close to gun elimination,..."
Bob

[Dave]

What is this group? There's no other country on this earth who has
contributed more to the welfare of other countries than the USA. We give
billions of dollars away yearly in money, food, clothing, etc. Americans
have fought and died for freedom and democracy throughout the world. People
are leaving Scotland for a better life. Many came to the United States to
fulfill their dreams. Scotland the brave has now moved to the home of the
free and the brave. Socialism doesn't work. Gun control doesn't work -
England and Australia have now one of the highest violent crime rates per
capita of any other modern country in the free world.
You people need to get a life. Quit blaming your social problems on the US.

David Stewart

Post by T N Nurse

Post by Bob

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies. Sedition is defined as incitement to
commit acts for the purpose of overthrowing one's government. The
American Revolutionaries were guilty of both crimes.
There was no legal right under British law for a colony to secede from
the British Empire. The actions of the American Revolutionaries --
from the Boston Tea Party, to publishing pamphlets calling for
independence, to convening the Continental Congress, to taking up arms
at Lexington and Concord -- were treasonous and seditious. Their flag,
"the Stars and Stripes", therefore, was a symbol of treason and
sedition. Patrick Henry was most candid when he allegedly declared in
his 1765 speech against the Stamp Act: "Caesar had his Brutus --
Charles the First, his Cromwell -- and George the Third -- may profit
by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."
The revolutionaries in 1776 represented a minority of the population
of the thirteen colonies -- perhaps as little as twenty percent. So
much for the American Revolution being a "popular" movement.
In many cases, to insure colonial legislatures enacted the "proper"
laws, the revolutionaries often expelled loyalist members. So much for
the American Revolution being a "democratic" movement.
Often, the revolutionaries simply established their own rival local
governments. This second tactic was styled "dual power" or "double
sovereignty" by the Bolsheviks who successfully employed it during the
Russian Revolution. So much for the American Revolution being a model
for the emergence of "democratic" governments elsewhere.
The revolutionaries rejected the British peace proposals of 1778,
which, in effect, would have conceded most of their demands. Instead,
they pursued their war against the United Kingdom with all its faults
the most democratic government in Europe. To win that war, the
revolutionaries solicited the support of France and Spain -- two of
the most powerful, anti-democratic regimes in Europe. So much for the
American Revolution being a movement motivated by the principle of
"liberty".
After the success of the American Revolution with the political
independence of the United States officially recognized by London,
"the Stars and Stripes" became the symbol for what is now termed
"ethnic cleansing". An estimated one hundred thousand loyalists,
colonists who had been faithful to the British government during the
American Revolution, were forced to flee the new republic.
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

Yep, and the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee American citizens
the right to own regular army weapons sufficient to repeat the process
when our new government becomes tyrannical.
The tyrannical government of course hates that possibility and works to
destroy that right.

They already have. You have no right to nukes, tanks or any of the
weapons that would be needed to take on the army of a modern
tyrrany.

Exactly.
BTW: Warren Farrell wants to make all citizen owned guns illegal on his
Farrell for Governor platform web page.
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/gov/inthenews.htm
"Gun Control: I favor close to gun elimination,..."
Bob

[Malcolm]

Post by Dave
What is this group? There's no other country on this earth who has
contributed more to the welfare of other countries than the USA. We give
billions of dollars away yearly in money, food, clothing, etc. Americans
have fought and died for freedom and democracy throughout the world. People
are leaving Scotland for a better life. Many came to the United States to
fulfill their dreams. Scotland the brave has now moved to the home of the
free and the brave. Socialism doesn't work.
Gun control doesn't work -
England and Australia have now one of the highest violent crime rates per
capita of any other modern country in the free world.

Is that right?

On the other hand, the US is way ahead of both in homicide rates:

Homicides/100,000 population (figures from World Bank):

Australia: 1.9
UK: 0.9
USA: 9.4

Post by Dave
You people need to get a life. Quit blaming your social problems on the US.

Well I guess it really depends whether you would rather be a victim of a
crime or dead.

[Dave]

Let's see, live in fear that someone may rob you, beat you up, rape you, or
possibly kill you or a loved one. That's freedom? You need to do some
reading up on the stats. Where guns have been restricted, violent crime goes
up. Why? Criminals don't obey the law and will procure guns and use them on
a society that they know is unarmed. Where guns are unrestricted crime rate
drops. Most of the violent crime stats you read about that occur in the US
are in areas that have strict gun laws. Hmmm. By the way, the "per 100,000"
statistic is often quoted by anti-gun lobbies and is very flawed, because it
doesn't take into account cities of less than 100,000 - the vast majority of
the population of the US. There has only been one study that takes into
account all areas of the United State including cities that are less than
100,000. That study was done by a man named John R. Lott. He wrote a book
after he published his study called "More Guns Less Crime." You need to read
it. He's not a NRA member either. In addition, violent crime rate in England
and Australia have far surpassed the US. They are even higher than those of
New York and DC. Law abiding citizens have been arrested for using guns to
defend themselves from evil doers to the point of getting stiffer sentences
than their assailant. In one case the criminal was paid 500,000 Pounds for
his injuries from being shot. Criminals had broken into this man's house
several times and this time the burglar was armed with a knife. Statistics
are often manipulated to make it look as if honest people are getting shot
all the time, when in fact many of the homicides are a result of gang
violence - a result of broken families where children are raised without
fathers.
You need to get informed and quit joining the emotionalism of leftist
organizations.

David Stewart

Post by Malcolm

Post by Dave
What is this group? There's no other country on this earth who has
contributed more to the welfare of other countries than the USA. We give
billions of dollars away yearly in money, food, clothing, etc. Americans
have fought and died for freedom and democracy throughout the world. People
are leaving Scotland for a better life. Many came to the United States to
fulfill their dreams. Scotland the brave has now moved to the home of the
free and the brave. Socialism doesn't work.
Gun control doesn't work -
England and Australia have now one of the highest violent crime rates per
capita of any other modern country in the free world.

Is that right?
Australia: 1.9
UK: 0.9
USA: 9.4

Post by Dave
You people need to get a life. Quit blaming your social problems on the US.

Well I guess it really depends whether you would rather be a victim of a
crime or dead.
--
Malcolm

[Eugene Kent]

One important point. The jury still hasn't come in with a decision on
America's newest tyrant. (BUSH)
Any way only the wealthy would have recourse to nukes. Those suckers cost
bundles.
Also few American colonists owned canon.

Post by T N Nurse

Post by Bob

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies. Sedition is defined as incitement to
commit acts for the purpose of overthrowing one's government. The
American Revolutionaries were guilty of both crimes.
There was no legal right under British law for a colony to secede from
the British Empire. The actions of the American Revolutionaries --
from the Boston Tea Party, to publishing pamphlets calling for
independence, to convening the Continental Congress, to taking up arms
at Lexington and Concord -- were treasonous and seditious. Their flag,
"the Stars and Stripes", therefore, was a symbol of treason and
sedition. Patrick Henry was most candid when he allegedly declared in
his 1765 speech against the Stamp Act: "Caesar had his Brutus --
Charles the First, his Cromwell -- and George the Third -- may profit
by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."
The revolutionaries in 1776 represented a minority of the population
of the thirteen colonies -- perhaps as little as twenty percent. So
much for the American Revolution being a "popular" movement.
In many cases, to insure colonial legislatures enacted the "proper"
laws, the revolutionaries often expelled loyalist members. So much for
the American Revolution being a "democratic" movement.
Often, the revolutionaries simply established their own rival local
governments. This second tactic was styled "dual power" or "double
sovereignty" by the Bolsheviks who successfully employed it during the
Russian Revolution. So much for the American Revolution being a model
for the emergence of "democratic" governments elsewhere.
The revolutionaries rejected the British peace proposals of 1778,
which, in effect, would have conceded most of their demands. Instead,
they pursued their war against the United Kingdom with all its faults
the most democratic government in Europe. To win that war, the
revolutionaries solicited the support of France and Spain -- two of
the most powerful, anti-democratic regimes in Europe. So much for the
American Revolution being a movement motivated by the principle of
"liberty".
After the success of the American Revolution with the political
independence of the United States officially recognized by London,
"the Stars and Stripes" became the symbol for what is now termed
"ethnic cleansing". An estimated one hundred thousand loyalists,
colonists who had been faithful to the British government during the
American Revolution, were forced to flee the new republic.
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

Yep, and the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee American citizens
the right to own regular army weapons sufficient to repeat the process
when our new government becomes tyrannical.
The tyrannical government of course hates that possibility and works to
destroy that right.

They already have. You have no right to nukes, tanks or any of the
weapons that would be needed to take on the army of a modern
tyrrany.

[The Doctor]

Such is the sybol of republic lovers worldwide.

[Eugene Kent]

And it's interesting that these outdated weapons were sold to the Iraqis
mostly by America and Russia.
With a few thrown in by The United Kingdom.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:05:07 +0100, T N Nurse

Post by T N Nurse

Post by Bob

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies. Sedition is defined as incitement to
commit acts for the purpose of overthrowing one's government. The
American Revolutionaries were guilty of both crimes.

(...)

Post by T N Nurse

Post by Bob
Yep, and the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee American citizens
the right to own regular army weapons sufficient to repeat the process
when our new government becomes tyrannical.
The tyrannical government of course hates that possibility and works to
destroy that right.

They already have. You have no right to nukes, tanks or any of the
weapons that would be needed to take on the army of a modern
tyrrany.

As much as it hurts me to say it, the hard line followers of deposed
dictator Saddam H. are giving the Army of the world's greatest
military power serious trouble with nothing but hand guns, rifles,
RPG's and some old explosives. I think no society on the face of the
earth would want to try to subdue the armed citizens of the US (and
there are plenty of us even with the many firearm restrictions) even
if our military be defeated. Sleep well tonight - the citizens are
standing guard.
--
Gospacho Holstien -- "I smuggled, run guns, toppled governments,
caroused, fucked, fought, foot raced, rode wild horses, swaggered and
generally behaved badly across the length and breadth of four
continents. I have the dust of half a dozen corrupt and coup ready,
crumbling, colonial capitals on the heels of my ostrich skin boots
right now. So don't try to bullshit me!"

[Bob]

Post by Eugene Kent
And it's interesting that these outdated weapons were sold to the Iraqis
mostly by America and Russia.
With a few thrown in by The United Kingdom.

LOL. you leave out the French who were doing a huge weapons business
with Iraq for years.

What do we expect from the deliberately blind.

Bob

[Eugene Kent]

Naw just lazy.
It's the West that supplies most of the arms goodies.
It's like the pet dog that turns on you. As that 500 lb. bomb that made
believers out of the UN Iraqi mission.
Now what the hell was the UN doing in Iraq after Bush told then to get out.
But it is interesting that the WMO and the IMF also left damn quick. Was the
bombing really directed at the UN or was the real target the WMO and the
IMF.

Post by Bob

Post by Eugene Kent
And it's interesting that these outdated weapons were sold to the Iraqis
mostly by America and Russia.
With a few thrown in by The United Kingdom.

LOL. you leave out the French who were doing a huge weapons business
with Iraq for years.
What do we expect from the deliberately blind.
Bob

[Eugene Kent]

Is Scotland really that outdated? Fluoridation! Here in most of America most
people drink fluoridated water with out thinking about. And we never see any
more bodies than usual.laying about.

Post by Bob

Post by Eugene Kent
And it's interesting that these outdated weapons were sold to the Iraqis
mostly by America and Russia.
With a few thrown in by The United Kingdom.

LOL. you leave out the French who were doing a huge weapons business
with Iraq for years.
What do we expect from the deliberately blind.

Watch out, Bob! He is using his water fluoridation-advocate
mind-control techniques on you.

[m***@cts.com]

Post by Eugene Kent
Is Scotland really that outdated? Fluoridation! Here in most of America most
people drink fluoridated water with out thinking about. And we never see any
more bodies than usual.laying about.

I suppose the government comes around with a silent electric
truck and cleans up the streets, just as is done in regions
of the UK with fluoridated water. This is after they've
falsified death certificates at the local hospitals of course.

[Eugene Kent]

As if Brits aren't as guilty. Bull crap.
Most African Americans entered America on English ships. Tho they (Brits)
try to make the excuse it was the Jews who did it.
And I guess Balfour wasn't a ethic cleaner in his remark. "The English
Government looks with favor for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.
Not to mention Kitchner.

Post by Bob

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies. Sedition is defined as incitement to
commit acts for the purpose of overthrowing one's government. The
American Revolutionaries were guilty of both crimes.
There was no legal right under British law for a colony to secede from
the British Empire. The actions of the American Revolutionaries --
from the Boston Tea Party, to publishing pamphlets calling for
independence, to convening the Continental Congress, to taking up arms
at Lexington and Concord -- were treasonous and seditious. Their flag,
"the Stars and Stripes", therefore, was a symbol of treason and
sedition. Patrick Henry was most candid when he allegedly declared in
his 1765 speech against the Stamp Act: "Caesar had his Brutus --
Charles the First, his Cromwell -- and George the Third -- may profit
by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."
The revolutionaries in 1776 represented a minority of the population
of the thirteen colonies -- perhaps as little as twenty percent. So
much for the American Revolution being a "popular" movement.
In many cases, to insure colonial legislatures enacted the "proper"
laws, the revolutionaries often expelled loyalist members. So much for
the American Revolution being a "democratic" movement.
Often, the revolutionaries simply established their own rival local
governments. This second tactic was styled "dual power" or "double
sovereignty" by the Bolsheviks who successfully employed it during the
Russian Revolution. So much for the American Revolution being a model
for the emergence of "democratic" governments elsewhere.
The revolutionaries rejected the British peace proposals of 1778,
which, in effect, would have conceded most of their demands. Instead,
they pursued their war against the United Kingdom with all its faults
the most democratic government in Europe. To win that war, the
revolutionaries solicited the support of France and Spain -- two of
the most powerful, anti-democratic regimes in Europe. So much for the
American Revolution being a movement motivated by the principle of
"liberty".
After the success of the American Revolution with the political
independence of the United States officially recognized by London,
"the Stars and Stripes" became the symbol for what is now termed
"ethnic cleansing". An estimated one hundred thousand loyalists,
colonists who had been faithful to the British government during the
American Revolution, were forced to flee the new republic.
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

Yep, and the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee American citizens
the right to own regular army weapons sufficient to repeat the process
when our new government becomes tyrannical.
The tyrannical government of course hates that possibility and works to
destroy that right.
Bob

[m***@cts.com]

Post by Eugene Kent
As if Brits aren't as guilty. Bull crap.

I am not only guilty but proud of our Imperial Domination. My ancestors
were Enforcers of the British Empire.

Post by Eugene Kent
Most African Americans entered America on English ships.

There would have been a lot more if not for the English ships of the RN.

1815: Britain creates a 'Slave Squadron' of ships to enforce
the anti-slavery laws upon the world's oceans.

1834: Slavery abolished throughout the Empire by Act of Parliament,
West Indian slavers bought out to the tune of 21 million pounds.
Boers bought out to the tune of 1.2 million.

1840: Brazilian slavers interdicted by Royal Navy, US committs to
eradicating the Atlantic Slave trade.

1860: Royal Navy patrols Indian Ocean to interdict Arab slavers.

Post by Eugene Kent
Tho they (Brits)
try to make the excuse it was the Jews who did it.

Never heard of that before. Are you sure it's not just a few
Right Wing and unrepresentative cretins who say that? Know
the ones? Those who try to reflexively blame the Jews for
everything.

Post by Eugene Kent
And I guess Balfour wasn't a ethic cleaner in his remark. "The English
Government looks with favor for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine."

Yeah, so do I.

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

What did Kitchener do? Anything Jake Smith didn't?

[James Cameron]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:45:54 -0400, "Eugene Kent"

Post by Eugene Kent
As if Brits aren't as guilty. Bull crap.

<Sniff> Can't smell a thing.

Post by Eugene Kent
Most African Americans entered America on English ships.

Untrue.

Post by Eugene Kent
Tho they (Brits) try to make the excuse it was the Jews who did it.

You mean jews owned most of the slave ships that traded on the
triangle? That's a historical fact.

Post by Eugene Kent
And I guess Balfour wasn't a ethic cleaner in his remark. "The English
Government looks with favor for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

You're right. He was an ethnic cleanser. It was the fashion in his
day.

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

Kitchener? What about him?

[Rick]

Post by James Cameron
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:45:54 -0400, "Eugene Kent"

Post by Eugene Kent
As if Brits aren't as guilty. Bull crap.

<Sniff> Can't smell a thing.

Post by Eugene Kent
Most African Americans entered America on English ships.

Untrue.

Post by Eugene Kent
Tho they (Brits) try to make the excuse it was the Jews who did it.

You mean jews owned most of the slave ships that traded on the
triangle? That's a historical fact.

Post by Eugene Kent
And I guess Balfour wasn't a ethic cleaner in his remark. "The English
Government looks with favor for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

You're right. He was an ethnic cleanser. It was the fashion in his
day.

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

Kitchener? What about him?

You're not supposed to mention him.

[m***@cts.com]

In soc.culture.british Rick <***@alltel.net> wrote:
(snip)

Post by Rick

Post by James Cameron

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

Kitchener? What about him?

You're not supposed to mention him.

I think that would be very short-sighted. After all, he won
against a guerilla army.

[Rick]

Post by m***@cts.com
(snip)

Post by Rick

Post by James Cameron

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

Kitchener? What about him?

You're not supposed to mention him.

I think that would be very short-sighted. After all, he won
against a guerilla army.
Hey! It wasn't *my* rule.... ;-)

[m***@cts.com]

Post by XXX

Post by m***@cts.com
(snip)

Post by Rick

Post by James Cameron

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

Kitchener? What about him?

You're not supposed to mention him.

I think that would be very short-sighted. After all, he won
against a guerilla army.
Hey! It wasn't *my* rule.... ;-)

Yeah, it was Eugene, wasn't it? Eugene, can we talk about Kitchener?

[Eugene Kent]

But he couldn't save himself from a German torpedo.
Nasty those Germans.

Post by m***@cts.com
(snip)

Post by Rick

Post by James Cameron

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

Kitchener? What about him?

You're not supposed to mention him.

I think that would be very short-sighted. After all, he won
against a guerilla army.
--
Subject: Re: Indian woman dies on husband's pyre

Post by Rick
I am proud to be a member of mommedan parliament.

[m***@cts.com]

Post by Rick

Post by James Cameron

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

Kitchener? What about him?

You're not supposed to mention him.

Can we talk about Bomber Harris instead? He is my hero. I love his
middle-aged Englishman's sneering wah-wah voice, which is the mirror
of my own; his ambition, his ruthlessness, and his resolution. How
unlike modern British leaders who are all desperate to appear as
odourless PC saints.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they
were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At
Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a dozen other places, they put their
rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are
going to reap the whirlwind."

Don't see why not. Nobody said not to mention him. Probably an oversight,
though...

Did you know Harris earned his spurs in Iraq bombing
Saddam's grandad?

[Eugene Kent]

Let's talk about Blair/Bush. Now there is a pair to hide under the covers
from. Booo

Post by Rick

Post by James Cameron

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

Kitchener? What about him?

You're not supposed to mention him.

Can we talk about Bomber Harris instead? He is my hero. I love his
middle-aged Englishman's sneering wah-wah voice, which is the mirror
of my own; his ambition, his ruthlessness, and his resolution. How
unlike modern British leaders who are all desperate to appear as
odourless PC saints.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they
were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At
Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a dozen other places, they put

their

rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they

are

going to reap the whirlwind."

Don't see why not. Nobody said not to mention him. Probably an oversight,
though...

[Malcolm]

Post by Rick

Post by James Cameron

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

Kitchener? What about him?

You're not supposed to mention him.

Can we talk about Bomber Harris instead? He is my hero. I love his
middle-aged Englishman's sneering wah-wah voice, which is the mirror
of my own; his ambition, his ruthlessness, and his resolution. How
unlike modern British leaders who are all desperate to appear as
odourless PC saints.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they
were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At
Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a dozen other places, they put their
rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are
going to reap the whirlwind."

I believe that historical it was the British that bombed the Germans first.

What, before the Germans bombed Poland? Amazing! And rubbish.

But why let facts get into the game.

Precisely, apply it to yourself.

More interesting to color history.
As many Brits like to believe that if America hadn't come to England rescue
it would have still defeated Germany by itself.

Kinda difficult to prove either way.

But hell it put many Yanks to work building Liberty Ships.
But it is a storage bit of business building ships then sending them empty
to England and Russia.

"A storage bit of business"? WTF does that mean?

[Eugene Kent]

Wasn't that Victorian?
As British as Vicky.
Did you ever hear of the Monroe doctrine? That was the bit about Europeans
keep your hands off of South America.
(Kitchner) He was the one who ran about the Sudan making believers out of
them. Also if he hadn't died on a ship torpedoed by the Germans he would had
been the PM instead of Churchill. Maybe the Berlin wall would never have
been built. As I believe he was no fan of Churchill.

Post by James Cameron
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:45:54 -0400, "Eugene Kent"

Post by Eugene Kent
As if Brits aren't as guilty. Bull crap.

<Sniff> Can't smell a thing.

Post by Eugene Kent
Most African Americans entered America on English ships.

Untrue.

Post by Eugene Kent
Tho they (Brits) try to make the excuse it was the Jews who did it.

You mean jews owned most of the slave ships that traded on the
triangle? That's a historical fact.

Post by Eugene Kent
And I guess Balfour wasn't a ethic cleaner in his remark. "The English
Government looks with favor for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

You're right. He was an ethnic cleanser. It was the fashion in his
day.

Post by Eugene Kent
Not to mention Kitchner.

Kitchener? What about him?

[west3551]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:45:03 +0100, James Cameron

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies. Sedition is defined as incitement to
commit acts for the purpose of overthrowing one's government. The
American Revolutionaries were guilty of both crimes.
There was no legal right under British law for a colony to secede from
the British Empire. The actions of the American Revolutionaries --
from the Boston Tea Party, to publishing pamphlets calling for
independence, to convening the Continental Congress, to taking up arms
at Lexington and Concord -- were treasonous and seditious. Their flag,
"the Stars and Stripes", therefore, was a symbol of treason and
sedition. Patrick Henry was most candid when he allegedly declared in
his 1765 speech against the Stamp Act: "Caesar had his Brutus --
Charles the First, his Cromwell -- and George the Third -- may profit
by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."

Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

[James Cameron]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:12:08 GMT, west3551

Post by west3551
Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

I think you should pay less attention to the words of a
devil-worshipper who founded at least two Hellfire Clubs.

[Bob]

Post by James Cameron
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:12:08 GMT, west3551

Post by west3551
Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

I think you should pay less attention to the words of a
devil-worshipper who founded at least two Hellfire Clubs.

Founded? Why that willy old fart. Why don't they have any of those left?

Bob

[James Cameron]

Post by Bob

Post by James Cameron
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:12:08 GMT, west3551

Post by west3551
Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

I think you should pay less attention to the words of a
devil-worshipper who founded at least two Hellfire Clubs.

Founded? Why that willy old fart. Why don't they have any of those left?

Try the Freemasons et al. A lot of shriners have a lot of secrets.

[Bob]

Post by James Cameron

Post by Bob

Post by James Cameron
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:12:08 GMT, west3551

Post by west3551
Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

I think you should pay less attention to the words of a
devil-worshipper who founded at least two Hellfire Clubs.

Founded? Why that willy old fart. Why don't they have any of those left?

Try the Freemasons et al. A lot of shriners have a lot of secrets.

Speaking of which, did you ever read Franklin's book, "Fart Proudly"?

It's a gas.

(I'm not kidding. He really did write the book.)

Bob

[unknown]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:39:27 +0100, James Cameron

Post by James Cameron

Post by Bob

Post by James Cameron
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:12:08 GMT, west3551

Post by west3551
Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

I think you should pay less attention to the words of a
devil-worshipper who founded at least two Hellfire Clubs.

Founded? Why that willy old fart. Why don't they have any of those left?

Try the Freemasons et al. A lot of shriners have a lot of secrets.

If they are "secrets" how do you know about them?

[James Cameron]

Post by James Cameron

Post by west3551
Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

I think you should pay less attention to the words of a
devil-worshipper who founded at least two Hellfire Clubs.

I much prefer the words of an intelligent devil worshiper to those of
a fool such as you.

I believe you would.

[T N Nurse]

Post by m***@cts.com
(snip)

Post by west3551
Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

Hi West3551,
would you tell me more about this "rape"? Was this when we British
locked the American colonist women and children in a church and bur-
ned it down?
Regards,
Max

The negotiations that Franklin had with the British representatives
are well documented. He made sure that they understood EXACTLY where
the colonies stood as far as their refusal to continue on under ANY
degree of authority of the "crown.". He sparred no effort to reach an
agreement but the "crown" would have nothing to do with it. The demand
was that it would maintain governmental control of the colonies. So
old Ben was sent to France where he was well known and respected and
did some negotiations there. You know the rest of the story...

Yes. Bejamin Franklin spent most of his time in France in the port
of Auray/St Goustain - a major wine exporting port at the time, drunk
as a skunk on French wine. He was eventually ordered back to the US.
Quai de Benjamin Franklin in Auray, commemorates old Ben's time amongst
the wine warehouses of that town.

[m***@cts.com]

In soc.culture.british T N Nurse <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
(snip)

Post by T N Nurse
Yes. Bejamin Franklin spent most of his time in France in the port
of Auray/St Goustain - a major wine exporting port at the time, drunk
as a skunk on French wine. He was eventually ordered back to the US.
Quai de Benjamin Franklin in Auray, commemorates old Ben's time amongst
the wine warehouses of that town.

That sounds very British doesn't it? That's just what I
do when I visit France :-)

[Eugene Kent]

He was like Clinton "liked his women" but he got the job done.
The only thing that Georgie boy got from women was venial diseases.

Post by T N Nurse

Post by m***@cts.com
(snip)

Post by west3551
Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

Hi West3551,
would you tell me more about this "rape"? Was this when we British
locked the American colonist women and children in a church and bur-
ned it down?
Regards,
Max

The negotiations that Franklin had with the British representatives
are well documented. He made sure that they understood EXACTLY where
the colonies stood as far as their refusal to continue on under ANY
degree of authority of the "crown.". He sparred no effort to reach an
agreement but the "crown" would have nothing to do with it. The demand
was that it would maintain governmental control of the colonies. So
old Ben was sent to France where he was well known and respected and
did some negotiations there. You know the rest of the story...

Yes. Bejamin Franklin spent most of his time in France in the port
of Auray/St Goustain - a major wine exporting port at the time, drunk
as a skunk on French wine. He was eventually ordered back to the US.
Quai de Benjamin Franklin in Auray, commemorates old Ben's time amongst
the wine warehouses of that town.

[west3551]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:48:48 +0100, T N Nurse

Post by T N Nurse

Post by m***@cts.com
(snip)

Post by west3551
Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

Hi West3551,
would you tell me more about this "rape"? Was this when we British
locked the American colonist women and children in a church and bur-
ned it down?
Regards,
Max

The negotiations that Franklin had with the British representatives
are well documented. He made sure that they understood EXACTLY where
the colonies stood as far as their refusal to continue on under ANY
degree of authority of the "crown.". He sparred no effort to reach an
agreement but the "crown" would have nothing to do with it. The demand
was that it would maintain governmental control of the colonies. So
old Ben was sent to France where he was well known and respected and
did some negotiations there. You know the rest of the story...

Yes. Bejamin Franklin spent most of his time in France in the port
of Auray/St Goustain - a major wine exporting port at the time, drunk
as a skunk on French wine. He was eventually ordered back to the US.
Quai de Benjamin Franklin in Auray, commemorates old Ben's time amongst
the wine warehouses of that town.

Regardless, you still got your limey asses stomped aided in no small
part by old Ben Franklin's powers of persuasion. Proving that even a
man in his cup can prove you to be useless.

[m***@cts.com]

Post by m***@cts.com
(snip)

Post by west3551
Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the British to cease there rape of the
colonies or there would be "Hell To Pay", they didn't listen and there
was....and it all worked out very well, even the British think so. You
don't you agree?

Hi West3551,
would you tell me more about this "rape"? Was this when we British
locked the American colonist women and children in a church and bur-
ned it down?
Regards,
Max

The negotiations that Franklin had with the British representatives
are well documented. He made sure that they understood EXACTLY where
the colonies stood as far as their refusal to continue on under ANY
degree of authority of the "crown.". He sparred no effort to reach an
agreement but the "crown" would have nothing to do with it. The demand
was that it would maintain governmental control of the colonies. So
old Ben was sent to France where he was well known and respected and
did some negotiations there. You know the rest of the story...

THat sounds a bit metaphorical and not at all like the 'Rape of Nanking'.

I don't know the rest of the story: my history teacher detested me.
She used to mock me because of my stilted vocabularly - I think I
have a touch of Aspergers. "Come along Maxwell, give us one of
your big words" she used to say. So I lost interest after the Roman
invasion of Britain was repelled by AK47-wielding dinosaurs in 1066.

[Eugene Kent]

Your logic can be considered correct up to a point.
But when a people decides to throw off a government and form of law that
they consider unjust and its head a tyrant The government and tyrant usually
ends up on the losing end.
Read the preamble of the American constitution. It is very enlightening.
It starts WE THE PEOPLE.
And that statement has rung thru-out the history of mankind.
At times these conflicts can be tragic. As the American Civil war was. Yet
in the end it freed more of mankind.
Understand that WE THE PEOPLE means all people. Not just elites.
And England in no way could be considered a Democracy in that period. The
English People had no right in choosing their own head of State.
And there is still one flaw in the Magna Charter. That the Sovereign of
England must be Protestant and of the Church of England.
The American Constitution corrected that flaw.
"Congress shall make no law concerning religion". This muted the religion
clause in the colony charters and Articles of Confederation of the new US.
Before the enacting of the American Constitution.

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies. Sedition is defined as incitement to
commit acts for the purpose of overthrowing one's government. The
American Revolutionaries were guilty of both crimes.
There was no legal right under British law for a colony to secede from
the British Empire. The actions of the American Revolutionaries --
from the Boston Tea Party, to publishing pamphlets calling for
independence, to convening the Continental Congress, to taking up arms
at Lexington and Concord -- were treasonous and seditious. Their flag,
"the Stars and Stripes", therefore, was a symbol of treason and
sedition. Patrick Henry was most candid when he allegedly declared in
his 1765 speech against the Stamp Act: "Caesar had his Brutus --
Charles the First, his Cromwell -- and George the Third -- may profit
by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."
The revolutionaries in 1776 represented a minority of the population
of the thirteen colonies -- perhaps as little as twenty percent. So
much for the American Revolution being a "popular" movement.
In many cases, to insure colonial legislatures enacted the "proper"
laws, the revolutionaries often expelled loyalist members. So much for
the American Revolution being a "democratic" movement.
Often, the revolutionaries simply established their own rival local
governments. This second tactic was styled "dual power" or "double
sovereignty" by the Bolsheviks who successfully employed it during the
Russian Revolution. So much for the American Revolution being a model
for the emergence of "democratic" governments elsewhere.
The revolutionaries rejected the British peace proposals of 1778,
which, in effect, would have conceded most of their demands. Instead,
they pursued their war against the United Kingdom with all its faults
the most democratic government in Europe. To win that war, the
revolutionaries solicited the support of France and Spain -- two of
the most powerful, anti-democratic regimes in Europe. So much for the
American Revolution being a movement motivated by the principle of
"liberty".
After the success of the American Revolution with the political
independence of the United States officially recognized by London,
"the Stars and Stripes" became the symbol for what is now termed
"ethnic cleansing". An estimated one hundred thousand loyalists,
colonists who had been faithful to the British government during the
American Revolution, were forced to flee the new republic.
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

[Eugene Kent]

The Civil War was not started over slavery but because the Southern States
tried to secede from the US. For a fact at the beginning Lincoln was
pro-slavery.
I believe that the correct title of England is the United Kingdom.
But this is really senseless. Past history is to learn from. Only thing is
that fools at times control governments and try to change it. Like
Bush/Blair. They tried to make people believe that US/Britain is the most
powerful combination and rules the waves. And it has led us into a quagmire
that has become costly both in blood and national wealth. And as yet there
is no light at the end of the tunnel

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:33:23 -0400, "Eugene Kent"

Post by Eugene Kent
Your logic can be considered correct up to a point.

I don't know where to start with you. Are you about 12 years old?

Post by Eugene Kent
But when a people decides to throw off a government and form of law that
they consider unjust and its head a tyrant The government and tyrant usually
ends up on the losing end.

The Confederate States of America didn't win. They weren't the
"tyrant".

Post by Eugene Kent
Read the preamble of the American constitution. It is very enlightening.
It starts WE THE PEOPLE.

I've read it. I also understand it.

Post by Eugene Kent
And that statement has rung thru-out the history of mankind.
At times these conflicts can be tragic. As the American Civil war was. Yet
in the end it freed more of mankind.

Not exactly true.
"Northern whites will protest what about the Civil War? "The Stars
and Stripes" was the flag of freedom. The war was a war to end slavery
and establish racial equality throughout the United States. Really?
In his First Inaugural Address, on March 4, 1861, Lincoln reiterated
his position: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere
with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I
believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to
do so."
On September 11, 1861, Lincoln countermanded General Fremont's order
freeing the slaves in Missouri. Eight months later, on May 19, 1862,
he countermanded General Hunter's order freeing the slaves in Georgia,
Florida, and South Carolina."
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

Post by Eugene Kent
Understand that WE THE PEOPLE means all people. Not just elites.
And England in no way could be considered a Democracy in that period. The
English People had no right in choosing their own head of State.

Tell that to Cromwellians.
BTW, England is only a minor part of Britain but I'm sure you know
that.

Post by Eugene Kent
And there is still one flaw in the Magna Charter. That the Sovereign of
England must be Protestant and of the Church of England.

The Magna Carta was signed long before the world had heard of
Protestantism. Do you know where Runnymede is? A bit of it was given
to America, so it's your land too.
I laid a wreath there on November 11th last year. I met some American
servicemen. Were you one of them?

Post by Eugene Kent
The American Constitution corrected that flaw.

What flaw?

Post by Eugene Kent
"Congress shall make no law concerning religion". This muted the religion
clause in the colony charters and Articles of Confederation of the new US.
Before the enacting of the American Constitution.

Which American Constitution? You've had more fucking Republics than
the French, it's very hard to keep up.

[Angel]

"James Cameron" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in
idiocy snipped

idiot flushed

[James Cameron]

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies.

England was the occupying army. They forced slavery on to the Native
Americans.

Your use of the word "England" demonstrates your ignorance far better
than anything I can say.

[unknown]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 01:34:07 GMT,

Post by James Cameron

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies.

England was the occupying army. They forced slavery on to the Native
Americans.

Your use of the word "England" demonstrates your ignorance far better
than anything I can say.

ALRIGHT ASSHOLE. GREAT FUCKING INBREAD BRITAN!!!!!

Post by James Cameron

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies.

England was the occupying army. They forced slavery on to the Native
Americans.

Your use of the word "England" demonstrates your ignorance far better
than anything I can say.

ALRIGHT ASSHOLE. GREAT FUCKING INBREAD BRITAN!!!!!

"INBREAD" -- OK, SO I FUCKED UP AGAIN. If you realy wont to know" I
dropped out of school in the 7th graed. What the fuck do you expect.

[James Cameron]

Post by James Cameron

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies.

England was the occupying army. They forced slavery on to the Native
Americans.

Your use of the word "England" demonstrates your ignorance far better
than anything I can say.

ALRIGHT ASSHOLE. GREAT FUCKING INBREAD BRITAN!!!!!

^^^^^^^^^
Sliced or unsliced?

Pan or plain?

[MikE]

Post by James Cameron

Post by James Cameron

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies.

England was the occupying army. They forced slavery on to the Native
Americans.

Your use of the word "England" demonstrates your ignorance far better
than anything I can say.

ALRIGHT ASSHOLE. GREAT FUCKING INBREAD BRITAN!!!!!

^^^^^^^^^
Sliced or unsliced?

Pan or plain?

Stick a scone up yer arse.
--
"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book "A World Transformed",


http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html

[James Cameron]

Post by MikE

Post by James Cameron

Post by James Cameron

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies.

England was the occupying army. They forced slavery on to the Native
Americans.

Your use of the word "England" demonstrates your ignorance far better
than anything I can say.

ALRIGHT ASSHOLE. GREAT FUCKING INBREAD BRITAN!!!!!

^^^^^^^^^
Sliced or unsliced?

Pan or plain?

Stick a scone up yer arse.

You're very preoccupied with my anal region. Is your dog on holiday?

[MikE]

Post by James Cameron

Post by MikE

Post by James Cameron

Post by James Cameron

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies.

England was the occupying army. They forced slavery on to the Native
Americans.

Your use of the word "England" demonstrates your ignorance far better
than anything I can say.

ALRIGHT ASSHOLE. GREAT FUCKING INBREAD BRITAN!!!!!

^^^^^^^^^
Sliced or unsliced?

Pan or plain?

Stick a scone up yer arse.

You're very preoccupied with my anal region. Is your dog on holiday?

No, I am. The dog is in the kennel with your wife.
--
"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book "A World Transformed",


http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html

[unknown]

Post by MikE

Post by James Cameron

Post by MikE

Post by James Cameron

Post by James Cameron

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies.

England was the occupying army. They forced slavery on to the Native
Americans.

Your use of the word "England" demonstrates your ignorance far better
than anything I can say.

ALRIGHT ASSHOLE. GREAT FUCKING INBREAD BRITAN!!!!!

^^^^^^^^^
Sliced or unsliced?

Pan or plain?

Stick a scone up yer arse.

You're very preoccupied with my anal region. Is your dog on holiday?

No, I am. The dog is in the kennel with your wife.

BTW - She's such a kind lady too. I know she went out there to feed my
children. Thank her for me won't you...

MikE

[James Cameron]

Post by unknown

Post by MikE

Post by James Cameron

Post by MikE

Post by James Cameron

Post by James Cameron

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies.

England was the occupying army. They forced slavery on to the Native
Americans.

Your use of the word "England" demonstrates your ignorance far better
than anything I can say.

ALRIGHT ASSHOLE. GREAT FUCKING INBREAD BRITAN!!!!!

^^^^^^^^^
Sliced or unsliced?

Pan or plain?

Stick a scone up yer arse.

You're very preoccupied with my anal region. Is your dog on holiday?

No, I am. The dog is in the kennel with your wife.

BTW - She's such a kind lady too. I know she went out there to feed my
children. Thank her for me won't you...

I would do but she's shocked that your sex partner was a real dog, she
thought you meant a bitch. Now that the town knows you're a
homosexual, you won't be able to play the piano at Nancy's Knocking
Shop ever again. You'll have to move to America.

[unknown]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 02:45:32 +0100, James Cameron

Post by James Cameron

Post by unknown

Post by MikE

Post by James Cameron

Post by MikE

Post by James Cameron

Post by James Cameron

Treason is defined as an overt act in violation of the allegiance one
owes his sovereign or state such as levying war against it, or giving
aid or comfort to its enemies.

England was the occupying army. They forced slavery on to the Native
Americans.

Your use of the word "England" demonstrates your ignorance far better
than anything I can say.

ALRIGHT ASSHOLE. GREAT FUCKING INBREAD BRITAN!!!!!

^^^^^^^^^
Sliced or unsliced?

Pan or plain?

Stick a scone up yer arse.

You're very preoccupied with my anal region. Is your dog on holiday?

No, I am. The dog is in the kennel with your wife.

BTW - She's such a kind lady too. I know she went out there to feed my
children. Thank her for me won't you...

I would do but she's shocked that your sex partner was a real dog, she
thought you meant a bitch. Now that the town knows you're a
homosexual, you won't be able to play the piano at Nancy's Knocking
Shop ever again. You'll have to move to America.

Why do you think I keep my children (the little sons of a bitch), and
their "mother" in a kennel? Dog pussy is better than no pussy at all
I always say.

[Elaine Goldberg]

Post by James Cameron
Pan or plain?

Whole wheat or pumpernickel?

Elaine

[Sally]

Post by Elaine Goldberg

Post by James Cameron
Pan or plain?

Whole wheat or pumpernickel?
Elaine

you mean I dropped in a statement that has no relevance? LOL

[Elaine Goldberg]

Post by Sally
you mean I dropped in a statement that
has no relevance? LOL

Is this a 'trick' question?

Elaine

[Sally]

Post by Elaine Goldberg

Post by Sally
you mean I dropped in a statement that
has no relevance? LOL

Is this a 'trick' question?
Elaine

noooo - (on a rising note) I thought I responded to Sharon. You
responded to Sharon and skipped over anything I might have said -
making my statement out of kilter with the rest of the thread. Looks
like I need to smarten up a bit or something! That's all. <G> Sally

[Duke of URL]

Post by Sally
noooo - (on a rising note) I thought I responded to Sharon.

You may have. I've not followed it that closely.

Post by Sally
You responded to Sharon and skipped
over anything I might have said -

I don't believe I've _ever_ responded to Sharon in _any_ thread,
although I usually read her posts with interest.

Post by Sally
making my statement out of kilter with the rest of the thread.

Looks like I need

Post by Sally
to smarten up a bit or something! That's all. <G>

The only thing I wrote in this entire thread was a smart-arse

response

to James Cameron......when I added 'whole wheat or pumpernickel'.
This will teach me to try being funny!
Maybe I ought to 'tend to my knitting' (as the saying goes) or in

our

case 'quilting'! :)

Serves ya right! Stick to rye... or Rye if'n yer going on a liquid
diet...

[Elaine Goldberg]

Post by Duke of URL
Serves ya right! Stick to rye... or Rye if'n
yer going on a liquid diet...

Well, since I'm not overly fond of rye bread, I guess I'll be forced to
stick to the latter.

Thanks for the helpful guidance, Uncle Duke.

Elaine

[MacHamish]

Post by Elaine Goldberg

Post by Duke of URL
Serves ya right! Stick to rye... or Rye if'n
yer going on a liquid diet...

Well, since I'm not overly fond of rye bread, I guess I'll be forced to
stick to the latter.
Thanks for the helpful guidance, Uncle Duke.

All the lads will smile at you when commin' through the rye.

Now I've got that song on my mind. Darnit.

MacHamish Mór