"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.mises.org/story/1111



Just what would you like to me to glean from this heartwarming tale of
life in the modern USA?

Cheers
Marty


He's a f*cking troll, that's what.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




And you can't keep your f*cking mouth shut, can you?

Know why? Because your anger has won out again. You can't control your
outbursts, your need impulsively blurt out your nonsense.

You have some strong impulsive and compulsion control problems. That is why
I will always win. Even if you don't respond, I know you read everyone of my
posts and then you sit there, stew and fester. The anger builds and
eventually the promise you make to your self to ignore me is broken. You
must blurt out, you must respond - in anger!

Because you can't help yourself, nobody else can. The best anyone can do is
suffer your outbursts, rage and try to ignore them or work around them. No
one feels sorry for you, they just wish you would go away.

Someone like you should not own a gun, and probably can't legally because of
some past action. I certainly believe that people with strong anger issues
should not own a gun or have access to a gun. It is not worth the risk of
having some looney going about shooting up a mall, ferry boat, power boat,
kayakers, trolls, Master Mariners, Korean War Veterans or even their own
therapist. Flashbacks, anger issues, intense emotionally driven actions,
paranoia, feelings of persecution, extreme intolerance, not working well
with others are all signs of extreme risk to society. People like that
should be forced to undergo therapy in the least, probably live in a halfway
house environment and locked up for good if the problems persist.

Please, please take your chill pills! All of them at once! I'll send
flowers!!

wrote in message
...

If autocratic government is a liberal ideal, why is the greatest threat
to democracy always from the right? The left has a history of
overthrowing kings, and tyrants. The right, a history of overthrowing
democracies. I've looked, but I have only been able to find 3
democracies that were overthrown by leftists, but well over 100 that were
overthrown by the right. Why is that?


Right and left are subjective to the person deciding the direction.

Hitler and Bush are both considered right wing by you, aren't they?

There is no difference between the right or left. They both want to control
other people's lives where they have no business. One side wants mob rule,
the other rule by dictator.

Whatever happened to people running their own lives?

Democracy is simply mob rule, 51% rule the other 49%. Democracy does not
guarantee freedom nor protect it.

Only Constitutional Republics can do that and only if their constitution
works on the principles that the power is derived from the people and the
constitution is an enumeration of powers delegated to the government by the
people. Powers not delegated are retained by the people. Constitutions are
used to limit governments, expand and protect individual freedoms in a non
contradictory manner.

Anything more is less freedom.

Mitchell Ryan

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:41:33 -0700, Robert Musgine wrote:


Hitler and Bush are both considered right wing by you, aren't they?

Hitler? Yes. Bush? I'm not sure what he is. He sure isn't fiscally
conservative, nor do his actions belie small government, rule of law,
abiding by the Constitution, etc.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:41:33 -0700, Robert Musgine wrote:


Hitler and Bush are both considered right wing by you, aren't they?

Hitler? Yes. Bush? I'm not sure what he is. He sure isn't fiscally
conservative, nor do his actions belie small government, rule of law,
abiding by the Constitution, etc.

Hitler was a socialist. So what makes him right wing?

Is Stalin right wing too?

Is Franco right wing?

Is Trotsky right wing?

Castro?

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:53:09 -0500, Marty said:

I will however read the question back for you "Are you saying that you
think that the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment
is the same thing as "the people"? Or put another way, that the American
citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED militia." ".

The answer to that question is no. I am saying precisely what I said at the
outset. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thankyou, for a clear answer.

So, to rephrase, in case you have a reading comprehension problem, are
"A well regulated militia" and "The people", synonymous, in this context?

No comprehension problem. Now you're not asking me what I was saying. You're
asking your own question. The answer to that question is that I don't know.
I may know if and when the Supremes take the case and decide. So far I don't
believe they've spoken definitively on the question.

I guess I'll have to allow you that position, which I percieve as being
highly influenced by your legal training. Would you care to proffer an
opinion instead? In your opinion, does the Second Amendment extend the
right to own weapons to all citizens? If so why doesn't it (or perhaps
it does) extend the right to own 155mm Howitzers to drug dealers?

Cheers
Marty
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:11:17 -0500, said:

When are you going to treat us to an account of your recent cruise to Nantucket,
or wherever it was you were planning to go?

Actually, I had a report half prepared, and got busy with other things.

Didn't get as far as I had wished as a result of a number of things,
including weather and the need to go back for some engine repairs rather
than heading up to Buzzards Bay. Went to New London, Block for a couple of
days, Sakonnet, Tiverton (for the repair), back to New London (decided not
to try the Pine Island Channel in the dark) and back to Saybrook.


You have the little Yanmar one-lunger in that thing?

Cheers
Marty

"Axel Merckx" wrote in message
...
Hey man, cut they guy some slack. Everyone knows I'm a whippy dippy
ding dong but no need to rub it in. Geesh!

Axel

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:06:40 -0700, Robert Musgine wrote:


Hitler was a socialist. So what makes him right wing?

No, he was a fascist. Just as there is nothing democratic about the
Democratic People' Republic of Korea, there is nothing socialist about
the National Socialist Party. In socialism, property and wealth are
communally controlled. That didn't happen in Nazi Germany. He was a
fascist. His rise was based on Nationalism and racism.

Is Stalin right wing too?

Just another autocratic, totalitarian, SOB. The former Soviet Union was
an elitist dictatorship.

Is Franco right wing?

Fascist, and that means right wing.

Is Trotsky right wing?

Definitely a leftist.

Castro?

I would say he's a leftist. A dictator, no doubt, but more benevolent
than most.

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:28:26 -0600, JimC said:


I don't question that that's what you said. But you didn't answer my
question.


I answered the question you asked, and did it rather precisely and
unambiguously. You asked what I was saying, and I told you.

I didn't answer the question you _thought_ you had asked--whether I intended
by my statement to be understood as asserting an entirely different
proposition. I then answered that question by saying no, I didn't intend my
statement to be understood as asserting anything more than its explicit
contents.
I asked the following question:
Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."

You didn't answer the question. Instead, you merely stated that Larry
Tribe doesn't think the Amendment should be so limited. - That may or
may not be true (and, in fact, the overwhelming majority of appeals
cases interpreting the Amendment since Miller hold that there must be a
"reasonable relation" between rights under the Amendment and a militia
of some form). Nevertheless, please don't tell me that you answered the
question I asked. Because it simply isn't true.

Jim

Dave wrote:

As a matter of policy (a very different thing from Constitutional dictates),
while I'm persuaded that private citizens should not be permitted to own
atomic bombs or Howitzers, I think a good case can be made that private and
relatively unrestricted ownership rifles, shotguns and probably at least
some types of hand guns, should be permissible.

But of course this is coming from a city guy who grew up in a rural area and
owned his first gun at age 11.

I think that's a perfectly sensible attitude. Now if we could somehow
persuade the folks that think nothing less than and outright ban will
do, and on the other hand convince the Wyatt Earp wanna bees that for
the safety of themselves and society there really ought to be some
restrictions.

If you want to see how not to do it, just have look at the monumental
waste created by our (Canadian that is) Governments gun registry.

Cheers
Marty