Re: Memorial Day (OT)

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

>C'mon JT, you know me better than that.

No, I don't know you well at all. I used to believe your spiel about
being open-minded and such, but you've (willingly or not) demonstrated
that in terms of your actions (voting) you are pretty reactionary and
all it takes are some typical right-wing tactics to have you come up
with excuses for voting in a way that, if you lived in a swing state,
enables the current administation

Bill C

On May 28, 2:00*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Anyone defending Jane Fonda
> >was exercising their right to free speech, the lawyers who would have
> >been defending her if it had come to that would be doing the most
> >American thing possible, and giving her the rights guaranteed by our
> >Constitution, both of which should be saluted, and celebrated.
>
> And,you said just a day or two agao, making the bar against
> prosecuting treason so high that Buchco can't be touched. *Here's what
> you wrote two days ago. *Note word "only" in first sentence:
>
>
>
> > If Bush and company aren't guilty of treason it's only because the
> >left fought so hard to make it almost impossible to prosecute someone
> >for this, but they did that in self defense since there's no question
> >in my mind Hanoi Jane, at least, was guilty of it along with many
> >others.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

To sound like a candyass here, here's the explanation of that. The bar
was fairly low during the Revolutionary War/1812 period when there was
still an actual danger to the US as a State. The bar slowly rose as
the law became more compassionate. Things likw whipping, the stocks,
etc...were phased out. By ww2 the bar had been raised to where the
people here who actually did support the Nazi regime, such as
Lindbergh, he switched positions after Pearl Harbor, you decide why,
weren't charged, neither were the banking and business folks who did
business with them.
Once the cold war started, and the total mistake that was J. Edgar
Hoover, and scumbag McCarthy went on their little crusades against
anyone who disgareed with them things started to change. After
McCarthy was discredited the bar on treason was effectively raised by
both the folks on the left, and those who believed in justice. The
Kennedy administration again raised the bar, in large part to help
protect the Civil Rights folks who were being accused of treason by
the rightwing scum, and their hero Hoover.
Given the original standard for treason, most of the civil rights
folks would've been shot, along with a shitload of folks McCarthy went
after most likely.
That's where the bar got raised, primarily by the left or in defense
of it, in response to rightwing scumbags. The problem with expanding
people's protections is when you want something different for someone.
The reality is that the folks on the left fought long and hard for
justice, freedom, the rights we ALL were supposed to be guaranteed in
the Constitution, against the conservative mainstream right, and it
was the mainstream right, not just the nutjobs who supported all the
nasty things happening in this country.
Without the patriotism, vision, and sacrifice of those folks on the
left the Country would be a whole lot worse, and much farther, in
practice, from the guarantees in the Constitution.
They had principles they believed in and refused to compromise, no
matter how much they were villified, attacked, and had to suffer for
it. They made this a whole lot better Country.
As I said one drawback was making prosecutions in general, and "anti-
American" in specific much more difficult crimes to prove.
Personally I think it's a good thing, bad point is that it's going to
make it harder to use that to get at Bush. If they could impeach
Clinton for lieing to Congress about meaningless sex they damned well
should be able to, at least, bring a boatload of charges against Bush
for lieing to everyone.
I stand by both statements I made.
Bill C

Bill C

On May 28, 2:03*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >C'mon JT, you know me better than that.
>
> No, I don't know you well at all. I used to believe your spiel about
> being open-minded and such, but you've (willingly or not) demonstrated
> that in terms of your actions (voting) you are pretty reactionary and
> all it takes are some typical right-wing tactics to have you come up
> with excuses for voting in a way that, if you lived in a swing state,
> enables the current administation

My beliefs are excuses, and reactionary while those you agree with are
considered and thoughtful? I may disagree with you on your positions,
that's what makes the world go round, but I'm not about to question
your integrity, and the process of how you came to your opinions. Life
would be a lot easier without principles wouldn't it?
Bill C

SLAVE of THE STATE

On May 27, 6:59*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

Re "treason"
> Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
> here. *

By saying that, you imply there is such a thing as a constitution.
Curious.

I hope your search for tenure proves less difficult than your search
for the constitution.

> As you know, there was never a declaration of war
> during the Vietnam "War." *

You might like your warmongers to win, but they didn't win that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

Bill C

On May 28, 3:57*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> My beliefs are excuses, and reactionary while those you agree with are
> considered and thoughtful? I may disagree with you on your positions,
> that's what makes the world go round, but I'm not about to question
> your integrity, and the process of how you came to your opinions. Life
> would be a lot easier without principles wouldn't it?
> *Bill C

I wanted to paraphrase something Howard said a long time ago, and goes
for me too:
"When you tell me you're either with us, or against us I tend to
react badly to that" My reaction most of the time is, any variation of
flipping them off as it is for Howard.
I'm not with, or against anyone as a general rule, and deeply resent
anyone trying to force that on me, or anyone else for that matter.
That's the favorite tactic of the bullies on the right in particular,
and Bush seems to have really brought that out in what used to be, and
still claims to be the open and tolerant left. Both tents have shrunk
to where only the fanatics fit under them. You can hate on us out here
in the rain, but we were pushed out.
Bill C

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> I may disagree with you on your positions,
>that's what makes the world go round, but I'm not about to question
>your integrity

I'm questioning either your integrity, your emotional balance or your
wits. There is a problem with one of them - we see it in your
comments on Michael Moore, on Reverand Wright etc. You fall for
bogeymen. Not good.

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> I'm not with, or against anyone as a general rule, and deeply resent
>anyone trying to force that on me, or anyone else for that matter.

Then don't go on and on ragging on Bushco if you're not willing to
take action to remove him from office by, at a minimum voting for
someone who might beat him. You started a thread about how you think
the president is committing treason and you vote libertarian or
republican? WTF?

Why bother talking about national politics like that when some lame
anti-liberal arguments mean you're not going to vote against
McCain/Bush no matter what. You're just wasting energy.

Donald Munro

Bill C wrote:
> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out.

Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop.

Bill C

On May 28, 4:08*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > I may disagree with you on your positions,
> >that's what makes the world go round, but I'm not about to question
> >your integrity
>
> I'm questioning either your integrity, your emotional balance or your
> wits. *There is a problem with one of them - we see it in your
> comments on Michael Moore, on Reverand Wright etc. *You fall for
> bogeymen. *Not good.

You're entitled to. I'm not willing to violate my principles just to
get get George Bush. That's what the law is for. I'll work to deal
with it that way. I promised Lafferty that years ago, that's what I
would do and have been doing my best to keep that promise. Where's the
independent investigation and movement for impeachment in Congress led
by the folks who agree with you? Point me to it and I'll support it
right now, even though I think it'd be better to wait until he's out
of office, as is guaranteed in other Countries like France. I've
written to all my Congress critters asking them to, and letting them
know I would support them in impeaching him. Have you? As for Micheal
Moore, or any of the others, right or left, don't twist the facts.
Have enough respect for me, and your case to present it cleanly and
let me decide on it. I'm still wondering how health care is better in
a country where the average person has a hard time even getting
aspirin. I'm also not sure what I've said about Wright that you object
to. I've said that Obama, if he was as close to the Church as he
claimed originally should have known about all this stuff, and I find
it hard to believe he didn't.
I wasn't even a member of my friend Rundy's church, but did help out
occasionally with transporting things and at events, and had a pretty
good idea what they were up to, what the sermon had been that week,
etc...just from talking with a friend about something that was
incredibly important to him. Hard to believe that he wouldn't talk
with others from the Church, just like we talk about races and racing.
Bill C

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> I'm not willing to violate my principles just to
>get get George Bush. That's what the law is for. I'll work to deal
>with it that way.

Riiiiiight. You go on about with free speech problems on college
campuses (a private or state/local government problem mainly) and let
that influence your voting on a national level, whereas the guys your
complaceny in terms of voting let into power at a national are
presiding over major consolidation in mass media.

You claim to care about veterans, but don't stop Bushco/McCain whereas
ultra-liberal Obama has a better record on veterans issues (see recent
Time magazine). But he's a liberal. Reverand Wright!

Your political views are a jumble and your political actions, at least
in terms of national voting, haven't help your principles.

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> As for Micheal
>Moore, or any of the others, right or left, don't twist the facts.
>Have enough respect for me, and your case to present it cleanly and
>let me decide on it.

> I'm still wondering how health care is better in
>a country where the average person has a hard time even getting
>aspirin.

What are you talking about? Oh yeah, you're responding to
Limbaugh-style critique of the Moore health care film by putting an
extreme statement out there and knocknig it down. Great.

That's my fundamental point. There are all these buzzwords/bogeymen
out there and you totally fall for them to avoid voting for people
that are actually doing better against most of the stuff you bitch
about.

That's all it takes to make you poltically impotent as a voter:
PCness at UMass, disrespect for vets in the 70s, Jane Fonda, George
Soros, etc. Michael Moore. Now Rev. Wright. And the true kryptonite -
"liberal." Excuses for inaction.

William Asher

Donald Munro wrote:

> Bill C wrote:
>> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out.
>
> Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop.

Total precipitation increases in a warmer planet. It's a specific humidity
thing. Don't get me started.

--
Bill Asher

SLAVE of THE STATE

On May 28, 4:35*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> >> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out.
>
> > Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop.
>
> Total precipitation increases in a warmer planet. *It's a specific humidity
> thing. *Don't get me started.

If we get you started, then sacrifices must be made. Afternoon
training rides will have to end.

SLAVE of THE STATE

On May 28, 3:13*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:

> ...*if you're not willing to
> take action to remove him from office by, at a minimum voting for
> someone who might beat him. *You started a thread about how you think
> the president is committing treason and you vote libertarian or
> republican? *

lol

Like its Bill's fault that there is no conceivable way to vote for a
democrat and yet be either awake or honest. Democrat politicians need
to change from their anti-constitutional and statist ways if they want
an honest and awake vote. They are their own problem.

"Minimum voting" is a problem. You are a problem.

It is people like you who provoke the question: Does democracy work?