wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:41:59 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The "government" wasn't out of control. Perhaps a small group of people
at
most.

The government, in this case, was BATF and FBI HRT and those people
were clearly out of control.They were confusing themselves with
something they saw in a Rambo movie. The only response they were
capable of was a military assault when the proper response was two
guys in a white Crown Vic and wrinkled suits. This peaked in Waco but
it really didn't get proper scrutiny until that picture showed an
agent pointing a machine gun at Elian Gonzoles.


Come on... the agent wasn't point at the kid. This is just so much hokum.
In
both RR and Waco, there were lots and lots of guns on the premises.

--


The point was, why did the government think he needed an HK MP5 to
handle a simple child custody case?
Florida "Children and Families" people take kids out of gang hangouts
and other places that are a lot more likely to have armed residents
than these people and they do it without SWAT teams.


In Ruby Ridge Weaver got along fairly well with local law enforcement
and if the local guy said BATF wants to see you, he probably would
have just come into town. They never even tried. The same was true of
David Koresh. He had three BATF licenses that generated most of his
revenue. He had good reason to protect them and he had lots of
reasons to talk to ATF. They never asked either.
If nothing else Koresh was in town fairly frequently, they could have
just grabbed him on the street. The cops just had that Rambo thing and
they all thought the SWAT team was the answer to every situation.
That ended up being a military assault with Army tanks that should
have been settled on the phone.
I knew we were in trouble when the TV show SWAT came on the air in the
70s.
Shortly after that every little gang of cops needed a SWAT team and
they all started wearing "tactical" ninja suits instead of their
regular uniforms. The 80s drug war really made that bloom.The fact
that the government surplused thousands of M-16s after the Vietnam war
and gave them away to the cops didn't help.
There is no more inappropriate gun for a cop that I can imagine.
I admit, if you really need to kill every mo fo in the room the MP5 is
good when used with frangible ammo but the M-16 is as likely to kill a
guy in the next county as the guy you are "spraying and praying" on.
We had precisely that kind of thing happen shortly after the local
cops here got their M-16s. They dropped rounds into downtown Ft Myers
from the range a mile and a half away. Luckily nobody was killed. They
did have to close the range.


Sounds like you have a lot invested in this. I think they were both wackos
and probably thought they were above the law. Certainly Koresh thought he
was the 2nd Coming. In any case, it wasn't the "government" that killed
them. It was a small group of people.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:23:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Sounds like you have a lot invested in this. I think they were both wackos
and probably thought they were above the law. Certainly Koresh thought he
was the 2nd Coming. In any case, it wasn't the "government" that killed
them. It was a small group of people.


It is always a small group of people but the government as a whole has
to enable them


It can, but it doesn't have to do so. Who is the "government" in your mind?
The president? Congress?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:53:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:23:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Sounds like you have a lot invested in this. I think they were both
wackos
and probably thought they were above the law. Certainly Koresh thought
he
was the 2nd Coming. In any case, it wasn't the "government" that killed
them. It was a small group of people.


It is always a small group of people but the government as a whole has
to enable them


It can, but it doesn't have to do so. Who is the "government" in your
mind?
The president? Congress?


The justice department and treasury reports to the president.
It is clear where the buck stops.
I am not even sure why BATF or INS has a SWAT team. Shouldn't the FBI
be our federal cops?
I suppose you know there are dozens of agencies with their own Federal
Agents. I have a friend who is a cop for the department of
agriculture.
"Drop the soy beans and step away from the harvester scumbag!"


Heh.. but officer it's soy and beans, not soy beans, and don't call me Harv!
....

Well, the President reports to the people and is held in check (in theory)
by the Congress and the courts. Most of those in the Justice dept. are
career employees, so most don't tend to be political appointments. Do you
really trust the FBI? I sure don't, at least not implicitly.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:53:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:23:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Sounds like you have a lot invested in this. I think they were both
wackos
and probably thought they were above the law. Certainly Koresh thought
he
was the 2nd Coming. In any case, it wasn't the "government" that killed
them. It was a small group of people.

It is always a small group of people but the government as a whole has
to enable them

It can, but it doesn't have to do so. Who is the "government" in your
mind?
The president? Congress?

The justice department and treasury reports to the president.
It is clear where the buck stops.
I am not even sure why BATF or INS has a SWAT team. Shouldn't the FBI
be our federal cops?
I suppose you know there are dozens of agencies with their own Federal
Agents. I have a friend who is a cop for the department of
agriculture.
"Drop the soy beans and step away from the harvester scumbag!"


Heh.. but officer it's soy and beans, not soy beans, and don't call me Harv!
...

Well, the President reports to the people and is held in check (in theory)
by the Congress and the courts. Most of those in the Justice dept. are
career employees, so most don't tend to be political appointments. Do you
really trust the FBI? I sure don't, at least not implicitly.



The FBI is a corrupt institution. That has been proven any number of times.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:18:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

The FBI is a corrupt institution. That has been proven any number of
times.

Once they got Hoover out of there and actually started following the
laws about appointing directors, that should have changed.


They're not so much corrupt as complacent. While I haven't had any
involvement, colleagues of mine have. Perhaps things have chanced in the
last couple of years, but I kind of doubt it. The basic story was that
unless they were handed something on silver platter or what happened was so
obvious that a deaf mute would have heard or saw it, they didn't do much.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:18:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

The FBI is a corrupt institution. That has been proven any number of times.

Once they got Hoover out of there and actually started following the
laws about appointing directors, that should have changed.

It didn't.

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:18:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

The FBI is a corrupt institution. That has been proven any number of
times.
Once they got Hoover out of there and actually started following the
laws about appointing directors, that should have changed.


They're not so much corrupt as complacent. While I haven't had any
involvement, colleagues of mine have. Perhaps things have chanced in the
last couple of years, but I kind of doubt it. The basic story was that
unless they were handed something on silver platter or what happened was so
obvious that a deaf mute would have heard or saw it, they didn't do much.

Lack of leadership discipline and direction? Obama promises to fix the
problem. We'll be OK.

--

I get so upset by these spoofers, that I think I am going to make more
crossposts between rec.boats and numerous unrelated newsgroups, because
at least that is not detrimental to rec.boats. This group needs some
new blood, and that is always a good way to get some new posters who
enjoy boating as much as i do.

On Dec 28, 5:54*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:59:03 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:22*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.

BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve

Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?

Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.

I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.

Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative. If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.

So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--

John H

Here you go, are you going to apologize now? I'm guessing not, Harry
on the unhinged left side doesn't either. Notice, "according to
Loogy"? Where did I state that?

"Hey, they set a precedent. There's good ones and bad ones. According
to Loogy, they should all be emulated just 'cause they're precedents."

I said this:

*"Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is
doing it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
*precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate."

Your name isn't mentioned. You're making up ****, just like Harry.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm done. You are a lying sack of ****. I don't like liars. You were
talking about ME, and everyone here knows that. Have a nice life,
lying asshole.

Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 28, 5:54 pm, John H wrote:


I'm done. You are a lying sack of ****. I don't like liars. You were
talking about ME, and everyone here knows that. Have a nice life,
lying asshole.


You're just now finding out herring is a lying sack of ****? Hehehe.

There are other members of that club here with whom you converse:
Scotty, flajim, DK, "mike" and at least a half dozen other righties.
They're all the same.

In article 12ac39d9-d9c4-4800-8865-624c1026f069
@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 28, 5:54*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:59:03 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:22*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.

BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve

Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?

Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.

I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.

Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative. If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.

So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--

John H

Here you go, are you going to apologize now? I'm guessing not, Harry
on the unhinged left side doesn't either. Notice, "according to
Loogy"? Where did I state that?

"Hey, they set a precedent. There's good ones and bad ones. According
to Loogy, they should all be emulated just 'cause they're precedents."

I said this:

*"Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is
doing it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
*precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate."

Your name isn't mentioned. You're making up ****, just like Harry.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm done. You are a lying sack of ****. I don't like liars. You were
talking about ME, and everyone here knows that. Have a nice life,
lying asshole.

Seriously, several times here you have asked someone to "prove Global
Warming didn't have anything to do with..." That is asking us to "prove
a negative"... Now, back to my usual poking and prodding you!