Just a whole.... I dunno.. 'Atlas Shrugged' moment
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, May 8, 2022 14:28
VIEWED: 9920
PAGE 2 of 2
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The founding fathers were...
Absolutely they were. But they were also anarchists. They set up a state that existed as a shell to protect against the encroachment of govt. Unfortunately, it didn't last.
They were also pagan deists who worshipped greek gods and goddesses, and were Masons.
They had no comment on Islam. I think it was Polk who first brought it up, saying that, yes, freedom of religion extended to Islam. That's been official govt. policy for 160 years, unless Obusha has changed it
They weren't terrorists, weren't anarchists, and your understanding of the founding of this government is 100% Pirate News fantasy. Masons? Yeah, so what ? Pagan deists ? Greek gods? No point in even addressing that nonsense.
Or anything else.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rappy, your ignorance of this country's founding rivals Michelle Bachmann's. You should see to that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How was I being uncivil? Cross-communicative, maybe, but not uncivil. If you can point out where the lack of civility is, please be so kind as to do so.
Sig: We were being civil for a while, and there's some things that we are so cross communicative on that it's not worth discussing with each other. I'll end up wasting your time, and you'll end up hating me when all I really want you to do is kill corporations.
AFA who you are "lumped" with... you share much in common with CTS and DT. But you ALL share some things in common with Rappy who professes to be VERY MUCH in favor of "charity" and "family" over "rights" or "government". In that way, you are all very similar. My answer to "charity" "Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor".
I recall you talking about scratching enough food for a large group of people from a fairly small plot of land- nothing bigger than a large suburban backyard IIRC. That plus other things makes me think that you are more geared towards isolating yourself than engaging yourself.
Also, I may point out to all that "family" is hardly "voluntary"? You're born into one. You grow up dependent on, and are at the whim of whatever your parents teach you and choose to give or withhold. In some families you are taught bonds of lifelong fealty and subservience, and breaking those bonds come with grave penalties. That is more control than government wields.
Perhaps the issue is that while I think I know what you are (and I mean CTS, DT and Byte) are AGAINST, I don't know what any of you are FOR. Nobody has yet to come up with a viable response/ option to the current situation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rappy is also very for military... I'm just very uncomfortable being put in that category. You're calling me a neo-con, and that's just not kosher. And you also called me selfish, and you suggested that trying to create a safe house for strangers down on their luck in this money driven system is cowardly.
I just don't want to be pulled into another fight. ._. I've asked you to leave me alone, and I actually HAVE mostly left you alone. So please stop.
You think what you want to about me or what I believe or what I'm trying to do, it doesn't matter to me anymore what you tell other people I believe.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Rappy, your ignorance of this country's founding rivals Michelle Bachmann's. You should see to that.
My knowledge on the founding is far greater than yours, that much is an absolute certainty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hardly. Some were anti-monarchsists, some were deists, some were republicans, some were federalists.
But they were also anarchists.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Rappy is also very for military... I'm just very uncomfortable being put in that category.
Yeah, nothing wrong with being for the troops. And I certainly don't 'loathe' the military, as B.Clinton does.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Rappy, your ignorance of this country's founding rivals Michelle Bachmann's. You should see to that.
My knowledge on the founding is far greater than yours, that much is an absolute certainty.
Why don't you regale us with tales of "the shot heard 'round the world" in New Hampshire, Ms. Bachmann? ;)
The only "absolute certainty" is that you really aren't very bright. You've already established that.
And the founders of this country were the textbook definition of "terrorists".
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:WHO? WHO wants to kill us? The usual "they" and "them,"? How do you distinguish those who really want to kill us from everyone else? Torture? Don't you ever envision torturing a totally innocent person? Or is that just an "ooops/ collateral damage/ totally understandable" kind of moment?
When they already want to kill us, I kinda could care less about their ill will.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Rappy is also very for military... I'm just very uncomfortable being put in that category.
Yeah, nothing wrong with being for the troops. And I certainly don't 'loathe' the military, as B.Clinton does.
I thought you hated all the "parasites" and overpaid public-sector workers? You DO realize you were talking about the military, right?
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:WHO? WHO wants to kill us? The usual "they" and "them,"? How do you distinguish those who really want to kill us from everyone else? Torture? Don't you ever envision torturing a totally innocent person? Or is that just an "ooops/ collateral damage/ totally understandable" kind of moment?
When they already want to kill us, I kinda could care less about their ill will.
In RappyWorld™, there's no such thing as an "innocent" Muslim! We've already established that he thinks they're all evil.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't go, Byte...we value your input! You know how it is here, but it comes and goes, and you know everyone here makes generalizations that, if they thought about them and thought about the facts, wouldn't make. That's just the way it is; we all get "into it" now and again, it's not personal, and it would be a shame to see you leave!
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ummm... no, I don't believe I've thought you were a neocon or ever implied. I don't believe you're an imperialist, so let's just drop that idea, okay?
Rappy is also very for military... I'm just very uncomfortable being put in that category. You're calling me a neo-con, and that's just not kosher. And you also called me selfish, and you suggested that trying to create a safe house for strangers down on their luck in this money driven system is cowardly.
I just don't want to be pulled into another fight. ._. I've asked you to leave me alone, and I actually HAVE mostly left you alone. So please stop.
You think what you want to about me or what I believe or what I'm trying to do, it doesn't matter to me anymore what you tell other people I believe.
I'm not trying to draw you into a fight, but although I think I know where you're coming from- libertarian (not neocon, there's a difference)- and that is where I think you cross over with Rappy perhaps I'm missing an important distinction. If there is one and you care to explain, I'm all ears. And I also don't believe I've been anything but civil, but if I have been uncivil show me where and I will apologize; that was not my intent. Your input is valued and much appreciated; perhaps I'm being overly aggressive in trying to dissect it. If that's the case- "Sorry about that Chief!" (Get Smart)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Don't go, Byte...we value your input! You know how it is here, but it comes and goes, and you know everyone here makes generalizations that, if they thought about them and thought about the facts, wouldn't make. That's just the way it is; we all get "into it" now and again, it's not personal, and it would be a shame to see you leave!
Seconded.
I value Byte's input, even though we often find ourselves... well, if not in direct opposition, not exactly allies either.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And the founders of this country were the textbook definition of "terrorists".
No they weren't. Now you're just being childish and a moron.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I said, you're showing your ignorance again. Same as it ever was...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Aside from being jihadists, how do YOU define "terrorist"?
No they weren't. Now you're just being childish and a moron.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Implied by lumping us with Rappy. Neocon is his defining characteristic.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ummm... no, I don't believe I've thought you were a neocon or ever implied.
Anti-big-government is not the same as pro-right. If DT, Byte, and I have anything in common politically, it is that we are not for either the left nor right. Rappy is squarely on the right.
If you want to keep the conversation civil, just don't lump us in with Rappy. At all. K?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Aside from being jihadists, how do YOU define "terrorist"?
No they weren't. Now you're just being childish and a moron.
He means the FF couldn't be "terrorists" because they weren't brown.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I’ll address that one:
They weren't terroristsQuote:
http://www.trtnational.com/media/colonialterrorists.pdf
Were our Founding Fathers terrorists?
by Dark Acolyte
We view these as acts of heroism. Today they would be viewed as acts of terrorism
1765 - In July, the Sons of Liberty, an underground organization opposed to the Stamp Act, is formed in a number of colonial towns. Its members use violence and intimidation to eventually force all of the British stamp agents to resign and also stop many American merchants from ordering British trade goods.
1765 - August 26, a mob in Boston attacks the home of Thomas Hutchinson, Chief Justice of Massachusetts, as Hutchinson and his family narrowly escape.
1765 - On November 1, most daily business and legal transactions in the colonies cease as the Stamp Act goes into effect with nearly all of the colonists refusing to use the stamps. In New York City, violence breaks out as a mob burns the royal governor in effigy, harasses British troops, then loots houses.
1766 - In August, violence breaks out in New York between British soldiers and armed colonists, including Sons of Liberty members. The violence erupts as a result of the continuing refusal of New York colonists to comply with the Quartering Act.
1770 – Violence erupts in January between members of the Sons of Liberty in New York and 40 British soldiers over the posting of broadsheets by the British. Several men are seriously wounded.
1772 - In June, a British customs schooner, the Gaspee, runs aground off Rhode Island in Narragansett Bay. Colonists from Providence row out to the schooner and attack it, set the British crew ashore, then burn the ship.
December 16, 1773 - The Boston Tea Party occurs as colonial activists disguise themselves as Mohawk Indians then board the ships and dump all 342 containers of tea into the harbor.
On September 17, the Congress declares its opposition to the Coercive Acts, saying they are "not to be obeyed," and also promotes the formation of local militia units.
At dawn on April 19 about 70 armed Massachusetts militiamen stand face to face on Lexington Green with the British advance guard. An unordered 'shot heard around the world' begins the American Revolution. A volley of British rifle fire followed by a charge with bayonets leaves eight Americans dead and ten wounded
April 23, 1775 - The Provincial Congress in Massachusetts orders 13,600 American soldiers to be mobilized. Colonial volunteers from all over New England assemble and head for Boston, then establish camps around the city and begin a year long siege of British-held Boston.
May 10, 1775 - American forces led by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold capture Fort Ticonderoga in New York. The fort contains a much needed supply of military equipment including cannons which are then hauled to Boston by ox teams.
Looking up the rest is up to you.
If a group of people tried any of these things today, they would be squashed. Just look at them, disobeying the government's laws? Meeting and conspiring against the government? Destroying Government wares? Forming armed militias to combat the government?
Of course they were “terrorists”. We just don’t want to view them that way. As the saying goes, “One man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist”. They intimidated citizens. They destroyed property. They killed people—citizens who backed the British included.
This is no peaceful protest like Egypt or like Libya would be if they’d been allowed to be. This is armed resistance, and armed resistance, when not between countries, is viewed as terrorism by many.
We equate "terrorism" as focusing on the public rather than an army. But you can betcha the public that didn't WANT to break free from England was terrorized. What about “violence and intimidation to eventually force all of the British s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, exactly. I want to re-create government, but without the force and taxes. Call it voluntary governance funded by voluntary payments. Without force, the only people who would participate are those who actually support it. Which means, a voluntary governance IS "we the people."
Originally posted by SignyM:
And neither do you. All this talk about "we the people" is just RE-CREATING government, but not calling it a government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
He means the FF couldn't be "terrorists" because they weren't brown.
That's you showing YOUR innate racism, not me.
Skin color has zero to do w/ who is a terrorist. It has to do w/ means and objectives. The FF weren't bombing public places and targeting civilians, but fighting against the British crown.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not a libertarian, either, especially not by the American definition.
What you appear to be thinking of is the Republican party, which tries to combine a lot of viewpoints - pro-military Neo-Cons, fiscal-conservatives, and the "family values" of the theocratic Christian right.
The attempt to draw in the Libertarians is not quite new, as they've tried to do so under the fiscal conservative name for a while, but they haven't been too successful until recently.
In any case, these are things I'm not.
They are, however, things that AURaptor believes - he's pro-military, a fiscal conservative, and while he's agnostic, he appears to believe in "family values."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, two different issues. 1) Knowing what I stand FOR. And 2) whether what I stand FOR is a viable response / option.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Perhaps the issue is that while I think I know what you are (and I mean CTS, DT and Byte) are AGAINST, I don't know what any of you are FOR. Nobody has yet to come up with a viable response/ option to the current situation.
I must have missed something cause I don't know what "current situation" you are speaking of. Something to do with charity? Huh? Last post I saw was a little sermon about how we're all connected. I told you I agreed--yes, we're all connected.
1. What I stand FOR. Voluntarism. Voluntary governance. Voluntary charity. Creative solutions that are restorative rather than retributive. Creative solutions that empower people (think ladder) rather than keep them from falling (safety net). I'd be more than happy to to tell you more about what I stand for. Just ask.
2. Is voluntarism viable? I think so. You don't. What else is new?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not to me. Rappy's DEFINING characteristic is greed. Second to that is fear. It is the individualism in libertarianism that allows free rein to his greed.
Implied by lumping us with Rappy. Neocon is his defining characteristic.
I don't believe you are greedy, although you may be fearful. And what you all IMHO fear is "government" although for different reasons. Rappy, because it inhibits the exercise of his greed (but if it caters to his fear, that's OK!)
CTS, you fear government because you're afraid it will interfere with your personal life. (How IS your boy, BTW?) Also you're just generally worried about stuff, building a Faraday cage in case of solar flare. (Although to be honest, to only way to survive that will be collective, not individual)
DT fears government because... I really don't know why. Sometimes it seems because of the hand-in-glove relationship to big business. He seems to think everything will be OK if only "the government" will leave people alone, failing (I think) to realize that business will continue to get larger and more oppressive even w/o government help. Otherwise, I really don't know why.
BYTE: Again, not sure. Would be nice if the world could go back to more human-scale enterprises? But there are large powers in play; government is only one, nature is another, business is a third. Again, not sure.
Can't seem to get a good grasp of the problem.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ideally? Yes. Real-world? No. There will always be people who are sociopaths, just as there will always be people who are autistic. They will go for the free ride and rob from the system which everyone else has sweated into. There will always be people who will disrespect "the commons". We started out with a relatively egalitarian society where, by dint of hard work and a plot of land one could get by. But just letting things go and assuming "things will work out" is where we got to today. And despite the fact that the number of sociopaths in society is quite small, they really didn't take long to corrupt society!
bCall it voluntary governance funded by voluntary payments. Without force, the only people who would participate are those who actually support it. Which means, a voluntary governance IS "we the people."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perhaps I misunderstood you then, or am overly sensitive.
I'm sorry for reacting the way I did, and jumping to the most negative assumption. You were civil.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Not to me. Rappy's DEFINING characteristic is greed. Second to that is fear. It is the individualism in libertarianism that allows free rein to his greed.
Implied by lumping us with Rappy. Neocon is his defining characteristic.
I love this. You have absolutely zero evidence of this charge, and yet you feel justified in repeating it, over and over. You're doing nothing but projecting onto me characteristics which you deem deplorable, with out one iota of evidence.
Quote:Again, what 'greed' ? This is classic.
I don't believe you are greedy, although you may be fearful. And what you all IMHO fear is "government" although for different reasons. Rappy, because it inhibits the exercise of his greed (but if it caters to his fear, that's OK!)
Quote:
CTS, you fear government because you're afraid it will interfere with your personal life. (How IS your boy, BTW?) Also you're just generally worried about stuff, building a Faraday cage in case of solar flare. (Although to be honest, to only way to survive that will be collective, not individual)
Or, it could be that CTS ( and any rational thinking person ) fears gov't as our founders did. " A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" Gerald Ford, sounding every bit like Thomas Jefferson.
But why do I even bother w/ details... You'll make up just about anything you want to anyways.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Most likely I misunderstand you. Of course, trying to bludgeon or cut an answer out of somebody is NOT the way to reach understanding. Alas, I am most often the one with the truncheon and/ or knife in-hand.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Perhaps I misunderstood you then, or am overly sensitive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, I have a boatload of evidence. But since you disrespect evidence, I have no interest in presenting it to you (again). Just look back to your many posts. Start with the one where you define life as being "owned"; that pretty much says it all.
I love this. You have absolutely zero evidence of this charge, and yet you feel justified in repeating it, over and over. You're doing nothing but projecting onto me characteristics which you deem deplorable, with out one iota of evidence.
Anyway, been fun but back to work. And organizing national "sick out"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So. Coercing civilians doesn’t count, and from the definitions I’ve found, “disregarding the safety of non-combatants” is considered part of terrorism. Also, the "founding fathers" and their followers didn't always fight against the British military, as you can see above. If you could prove that no non-combatants, citizens, members of the public weren’t hurt, coerced, terrorized or killed by those opposing England’s rule of the colonies, you’d have an argument. But you can’t, obviously.
The FF weren't bombing public places and targeting civilians, but fighting against the British military
Our view of terrorism has changed---definitions of wording always do. But our “citizen militias” would have been tried and convicted as terrorists at the time, and their violent actions put them in that category. If the jihadits were doing the things listed above, we'd call them terrorists. Go ahead and ignore it, we all recognize fully your need to, but it doesn’t change what’s true.
Oh, and by the way...Quote:
http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/Ahmad.htm
In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a group of bearded men. After receiving them he spoke to the press. He pointed towards them, I’m sure some of you will recall that moment, and said, “These are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers”. These were the Afghan Mujahiddin. They were at the time, guns in hand, battling the Evil Empire. They were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers!
The moral revulsion that we must feel against terrorism is selective. We are to feel the terror of those groups which are officially disapproved. We are to applaud the terror of those groups of whom officials do approve. Hence, President Reagan, “I am a contra.” He actually said that. We know the contras of Nicaragua were anything, by any definition, but terrorists.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Oh, I have a boatload of evidence. But since you disrespect evidence, I have no interest in presenting it to you (again). Just look back to your many posts. Start with the one where you define life as being "owned"; that pretty much says it all.
I love this. You have absolutely zero evidence of this charge, and yet you feel justified in repeating it, over and over. You're doing nothing but projecting onto me characteristics which you deem deplorable, with out one iota of evidence.
Anyway, been fun but back to work. And organizing national "sick out"
How the hell is that show ME being greedy ?
Sell crazy somewhere else.... please.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While I’m at itQuote:
http://www.hnn.us/articles/915.html
During the American Revolution, the U.S. was militarily weak. It compensated for that weakness at sea by engaging in a very effective form of piracy called privateering. Privateers were denounced by the British in ways that resonate with the denunciation of terrorists that we hear these days. When these Americans were captured by the British, they were not recognized as legitimate prisoners of war but were rather held in special camps [sound familiar?], with reason to expect they would be hanged. After the Revolution, the U.S., as a small-navy nation, continued to cling to this mode of warfare, and refused to abide by international bans of privateering until it became a large-navy power and finally rejected privateering. [So "we" even broke international law]
The U.S. forces at sea were primarily privateers, preying on British commerce. When privateersmen were captured, they were not recognized as prisoners of war, since they were civilians, and civilians of rebellious colonies to boot. They were held indefinitely in special camps, in particular the notorious prison ship Jersey, in the Wallabout Bay off Brooklyn, and in Mill and Forton Prisons in England.Quote:
http://terrorism.about.com/od/originshistory/p/boston_teaparty.htm warfare, involving Indian allies and enemies, was brutal on both sides. Joseph Brant, a/k/a Thayendanegea, was a Mohawk chief who led murderous raids on patriot farmers in New York and Pennsylvania, killing women and children as well as soldiers. Brant was no savage-he was a devout Episcopalian who helped translate the Gospel of Mark into Mohawk--he simply behaved savagely in wartime. George Washington responded by sending Gen. John Sullivan to destroy the Indians' towns, crops and "everything that was to be found." Sullivan, who had the help of friendly Oneidas, laid forty villages to waste.
On the night of December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty, a loosely knit secret organization of American colonists in favor of American independence, illegally boarded three British East India cargo ships in the Boston Harbor and threw 45 tons of tea into the harbor, rather than let the tea be landed. Today, as some have argued, this protest might be considered an act of terrorism, since it was property sabotage designed to bring to wide attention the political objectives of a non-state group, the American colonists. These 150 men, disguised as Mohawk tribe members, boarded the three ships, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver, hacked open all of the 342 tea caskets with axes, and threw it in its entirety into the Boston Harbor.
In the south, guerilla warfare raged between patriots and loyalists. Gen. Nathanael Greene, sent to retrieve the military situation in the Carolinas in 1781, wrote in shock to his wife Caty about what he found there. "The sufferings and distress of the inhabitants beggars [sic] all description. ... they persecute each other with little less than savage fury."
The American Revolution became vicious wherever neither side clearly controlled territory, and fighting fell by default to bands of irregulars. Westchester County, north of British-occupied New York, was another such no-man's land; there the marauders were called cowboys.
http://hnn.us/articles/29745.html:Quote:
A direct descendant of Francis Marion wrote to the Ilankai Tamil Sangam, USA. Francis Marion was a distinguished war-hero in the American Revolutionary war. He was nicknamed the ‘Swamp Fox’ by the British, because of his elusive tactics; they just couldn’t catch him. He wrote:As an American raised on the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence I can't help rooting for the LTTE. If the Tigers are ‘Terrorists’ then so were George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and, of course my Great Great Uncle, Francis Marion (aka The Swamp Fox).”
The government of the United Kingdom,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway, been fun but back to work. And organizing national "sick out"
Keep me updated. I can help spread this through the public sector in Texas. As I've noted elsewhere, it's "illegal" for teachers here to unionize or go on strike, but that doesn't mean they can't organize and all fall sick on the same day. And I have the ear of a few dozen via family connections, and a few dozen more who work for the state in various capacities. Getting all of them to at least pass the word around their immediate circles of influence could help disseminate the message pretty quickly. What's the target date? Social media will be crucial to this, of course. Time for a facebook page yet? A Twitter feed? A FanTrail trail?
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki, it should also be noted that the revolutionaries specifically targeted British officers, using snipers and Kentucky Long Rifles (a new and deadly accurate type of firearm at the time). This was in direct contravention of every rule of war that was in place at the time, whereby officers were NOT to be targeted, but were to be treated as gentlemen.
Whatever the rules were, the Americans had no interest in playing by them.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
“Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.
“The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power." - Bob Chanin, a lawyer for the National Education Association
Yeah, I'm sure folks will be eager to sidle up w/ this crowd.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup...in many respects, guerilla warfare is what won us the war. Now anyone engaging in guerilla warfare is considered a "terrorist".
It's all semantics, and as I showed, "freedom fighters" can become "terrorists" to a government quite easily, depending on the politics of the moment.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Yup...in many respects, guerilla warfare is what won us the war. Now anyone engaging in guerilla warfare is considered a "terrorist".
It's all semantics, and as I showed, "freedom fighters" can become "terrorists" to a government quite easily, depending on the politics of the moment.
Nope, you're wrong. Terrorists attack women, children and 'soft' targets, specifically for a body count, and not for any military significance.
Just bury your petty, false pride, give this one up ,and move on.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Pride" is about those who refuse to accept that our "founding fathers" were terrorists by the definition of the time, and encompassed terrorism even as we define it today. Nowhere is terrorism defined as only attacking 'soft' targets, but it DOES encompass "disregard" for them, of which there is ample evidence, and use of coercion, fear and attacking non-combatants was definitely employed.
You're the one who's "pride" is at stake, apparently, since you have to keep defending that the Revolutionary War did not include terrorism, despite the facts all evidence to the contrary. Me, I love my country but at the same time recognize it wasn't built by saints. Reality...a concept that does not fit with your ideology.
Now I gotta go do some actually constructive things, so I'm signing off. Have fun.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Classic Leftist. Make a ridiculous, baseless accusation, then run away.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not just MY life. I've seen govt hurt and kill people. Injury and death does interfere with personal lives, yes. Ultimately, therein lies my fear of govt.
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS, you fear government because you're afraid it will interfere with your personal life.
My objection to big govt stems from a simple principle: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. I want people to let me be free, as long as I am not hurting anyone else. So I have no problem letting others be free, as long as they are not hurting anyone else. It's not complicated.
Quote:He's doing great. Thank you for asking.
(How IS your boy, BTW?)
Quote:No. We built a Faraday shield because we suspect my boy is EMF sensitive. So the shield was to test the hypothesis that his health would improve if he slept EMF-free every night. (It DID improve, but not enough. So there are other factors involved.) It has nothing to do with the solar flare. But I've told you this before.
Also you're just generally worried about stuff, building a Faraday cage in case of solar flare.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Classic Leftist. Make a ridiculous, baseless accusation, then run away.
I *knew* you were a lefty at heart!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Been on and off the board, so I caught part of the solar flare/ Faraday cage discussion but not the part about your son's health issue. But you just said he's doing OK so the issues must not be very serious then?
No. We built a Faraday shield because we suspect my boy is EMF sensitive. So the shield was to test the hypothesis that his health would improve if he slept EMF-free every night. (It DID improve, but not enough. So there are other factors involved.) It has nothing to do with the solar flare. But I've told you this before.
BTW- peeps have slept under wildly shifting magnetic fields since time immemorial, so NOT being in a magnetic field would be unusual. Prolly not an approach I would try. In fact, it seemed as if our daughter's seizure control would IMPROVE after an MRI. Seems as if sitting in a high magnetic field interrupts the seizure process.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Classic Raptor. Make ricidiculous accusations rather than deal with the FACTS. Classic authoritarian follower response.
Classic Leftist. Make a ridiculous, baseless accusation, then run away.
Now, if you had any actual reasoning that negated the facts I presented, or even an argument, it would be worth paying attention. As it is, not so much. Just denial and attack.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, let's review. We have one person accuse me of being greedy, with nothing to make that case, and then another accuse me of something else, after unilaterally leaving the discussion behind to start up a brand new, pointless one, all on her own.
Kids, don't do drugs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Plenty to make the case, just not wanting to spend the time to dig it up. BTW- you wouldn't call it "greedy" you'd call it "keeping the money I earned".
So, let's review. We have one person accuse me of being greedy, with nothing to make that case
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Boy, your attempts to twist things sure are falling flat lately. You’re losing whatever touch you had. I didn’t leave any discussion nor did I “start” anything. Someone else remarked about the founding fathers being terrorists---you denied it, I showed that they were considered terrorists and some still do consider them that. Then you went off on some tangent and made it personal:
after unilaterally leaving the discussion behind to start up a brand new, pointless one, all on her ownQuote:
It wasn’t even a good try, given anyone can read the actual statements, as well as see why I left the discussion.
Just bury your petty, false pride, give this one up ,and move on..... Classic Leftist. Make a ridiculous, baseless accusation, then run away.
You’re not doing so good, Raptor, maybe you need to take a break or something. Your desperate need for attention is showing too obviously and, like Sig, there's no reason for me to keep feeding it. Tho' I would choose other terminology for what you do/are/say; I'd call it "selfish" rather than "greedy". Your egocentric belief that everyone has equal opportunity and those who don't make it should be left to suffer shows it.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Plenty to make the case, just not wanting to spend the time to dig it up. BTW- you wouldn't call it "greedy" you'd call it "keeping the money I earned".
So, let's review. We have one person accuse me of being greedy, with nothing to make that case
Well, I'm glad you attempted to define what 'greedy' is, since that was going to be my next question. And what's wrong with keeping the money you earned ? Seriously ?
And if I tell you that I donate ( give away ) what I can, does that even matter? Or am I now 'boasting' ? It's a no win scenario with you, huh ? I don't give, I'm greedy. I DO give, I'm bragging, or some such nonsense.
Now, when it comes to the Gov't TAKING my money, or your money, that's where things can and SHOULD get ugly.
But you don't want to deal with any of that. No, you're content with making lame ass claims about me being 'greedy', while dodging any and all attempts to make your case.
Seriously, why DO I bother with any of you ? You're so brain locked in attacking and vilifying those who you deem are against you, you literally can't see reason. Not even if you were waist deep in it, would you have a clue.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, gosh, how I WISH you wouldn't bother with us. Consider us all helpless cases, leave us to stew in our own juices, PLEASE!
How much of this thread have you jacked into being all about you? I'm happy for you, given you need the attention so desperately, but really, you should find others of similar mind who you can regale with how useless this bunch is, and give up on us. ...please!
Or get a REAL life. Now there's an idea. Or not. After all, the internet is so perfect for puffing out your chest, being ugly as hell and getting others to notice you, all with no responsibility whatsoever. Why should anyone take that from you?
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Seriously, why DO I bother with any of you ? You're so brain locked in attacking and vilifying those who you deem are against you, you literally can't see reason.
Yeah, we always seem to go around calling others "moron" and "retard" when they disagree with us.
Oh, wait. That would be you. So much for vilifying and attacking. You call others childish when they engage in such personal attacks, but it really is all you ever do. It's all you've got, all you are, all you've ever been. And not a particularly bright one.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just checked it out, out of curiosity. In this case at least, it's Raptor who caused the bold to carry on through the thread. There are two "open bold" commands and only one "close bold". May be because of the multiple quotes. Just checking...maybe those who are causing this can check their posts to be sure there are sufficient "close" commands. Not that I expect PN to, that would be dreaming.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Seriously, why DO I bother with any of you ? You're so brain locked in attacking and vilifying those who you deem are against you, you literally can't see reason.
Yeah, we always seem to go around calling others "moron" and "retard" when they disagree with us.
Oh, wait. That would be you. So much for vilifying and attacking. You call others childish when they engage in such personal attacks, but it really is all you ever do. It's all you've got, all you are, all you've ever been. And not a particularly bright one.
I use moron , where it applies. Rarely , if ever do I resort to 'retard ' as an ad hominem.
Still to date, no apologies from those who have called me 'greedy'. Or any examples which support that baseless charge.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You'll have to wait your turn rappy. On my list of 1000 things to do, you're fairly near the bottom. No apologies from me I stand by what I said.
Well, its true.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm lost. What does this thread have to do with 'Altas Shrugged'? Am I missing an inside joke?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You'll have to wait your turn rappy. On my list of 1000 things to do, you're fairly near the bottom. No apologies from me I stand by what I said.
Well, its true.
You stand by what you said, with out any evidence, what so ever.
How am I not surprised ?
Leave it to a leftists to make baseless accusations and petty, childish ad hominem attacks when they can't debate facts of ideas.
It always comes down to "... screw you! You're a racist, homophobe, greedy, narrow minded, nazi and a hate monger! So there! "
I seriously doubt that you have 1000 things better than to try to recover your dignity and honor, but then again, you are... you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Impressions:
I respect you Signe and I do think that a decent chunk of people who work public sector jobs like teachers etc. are good folk who care about others and work hard and their jobs are important. There are certainly trashy government employees too, but its not fair to say they're all good or all bad.
I'm totally pro public education, you know why? Because I probably wouldn't have been educated properly if there wasn't. The only reason I was educated properly is because there are laws that state that _public schools must educate all children, disabilities or not. I'm visually impaired so I needed things beyond what other kids needed, braille, equippment etc. If we didn't have laws about it then school probably wouldn't have taken me and gave me the education that I deserve as a human being in America. I like pretending about the olden days, playing about it, dressing up in costume etc. But I'd never want society to go backwards like that. I'd be uneducated and because of my mental health challenges I probably would have been burnt at the stake when I was like 14 or so. So having an ideal standard of living that compares to the mid 19th century (the time mentioned as everyone having a fine education before schools were public), no thanks.
I agree with the majority here that government can be a pain in the arse and that they have too much power in certain areas. But I would never support us not having a government or living in villages in isolation. My friends read this book about the world suddenly changing, catastrophe etc. Everyone ended up banding into tribes (a fun thing to read about) and fighting over territory and land etc. There was no more government in a national sense, but that vacuum was quickly filled by chieftains and such and the whole country side turned into a system where there was lots of fighting etc. Very interesting book, I love stories like that.
The point is though that if government was abolished there would be a power vacuum and someone would try to fill it. People are invariably selfish and power hungry, some of us are more of followers than others, some of us tend to be nicer than others, some of us rise to leadership, but inherrantly humanity is problematic and anyone who thinks we're "basically good and the only reason we're bad is because of government or corporations" is naive.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Have you read the book?
I'm lost. What does this thread have to do with 'Altas Shrugged'? Am I missing an inside joke?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, today I cooked lunch and dinner for the family (before I left for work), blocked out the kind of database we have and the revisions we need for our intern programmer, met with a vendor and scientist to talk about their FTIR analyzer (which we tested at our site on our produced hydrogen)... what we found and where we would like to go from there, set and and listened in (when I could) a training session on GC MS FID analysis for some of our less-experienced analysts in preparation for them to take over their very own instruments, review quality control charts (which I had requested) for our new and old Karl Fischer titrators, answered several technical telephone questions; and (mostly) I parsed through a couple hundred of analytical reports before coming home and going over a week's worth of mail (looking for an insurance reimbursement check but found a couple of other important things along the way) and spending some quality time with my family. I missed gym. Tomorrow looks equally busy. In fact, that's the forecast for the next couple of years or so as I move through taxes, finalizing our special needs trust, finding an appropriate therapy for our dd, re-balancing our portfolio, completing our home and yard renovation for eventual sale in preparation for retirement, and (of course) keeping up with my job. I hope you can now realize why you are rather far down on the list of things to do.
I seriously doubt that you have 1000 things better {to do}
So gosh, I'm sorry you lead such an impoverished life that you can't imagine having 1000 things to do other than BUY! SELL! But that's your problem, not mine. I hope you fix it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thomas Piketty Is Right Out of Ayn Rand’s Nightmare
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thomas-piketty-ayn-rand-atlas-shrugged-fe
rris-economist-collectivism-11649969023
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME