On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 09:40:11 -0700, Stuart Grey
<stuart.grey@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms, one of the most clearly defined rights 
of the people in the constitution, has been eliminated.

Not so. Some places its been infringed, most places its still very
much in operation. 

The federal ban on military type assult rifles has just expired, hasn't 
it? That federal ban was an infringement upon the very type of weapon 
that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect. Because it was never 
ruled unconstitutional, the only way the people can reassert this right 
is probably by force of arms against their own government. I don't like 
their chances.

And how can you argue that because some states infringe upon the right 
to keep and bear, that the constitutional prohibition against all levels 
of the government from infringing upon it the right has not be 
eliminated by the government as a whole?

Because the Federal Ban was allowed to expire. That in itself is a
clear indication that the once rising tide against the Second has been
deemed a failure. Not to mention the various recent legal
determinations that the Second is an individual right.  The only ones
challenging it still are the same ones that promoted it long before
..and even they understand that promotion of gun control costs them
elections. 

Mind you, the USC is very clear on the issue of explosives. No, the 
right to keep and bear is a fiction. You are limited to small, inferior 
arms at best.

How so? Except in very few states...one may indeed purchase
explosives, and full auto weapons.  I suspect that if there were more
interest in them the NFA would fall before long.

IN our last election, a man known to have belonged to a communst party 
affiliated group, VVAW, and to have met with the enemy during a time of 
war, a felony, not only has not been prosecuted but ran for president; 
and the traitor pulled in almost half of the vote and came within one 
state of winning.

True.  But he didnt win..and the People continue to return to the
Right.

He didn't win by a small margin, even when the people were told he was a 
damned traitor to the country. Even when they knew of his communist ties 
via the VVAW.  That IS amazing.

But he did lose. And the Left, who promoted this buffoon..is
continuing to decline in power. Once proud adherints to the Democratic
Party are leaving in droves.

I expect Hillary Clinton, aided by the left wing media who are running 
her Gena Davis propaganda show, will easily be elected in 2008.

I dont.   

Our right to own property was just declared subserviant to the will of 
the government, just like in other communist countries.

I suspect that will change very shortly

Not with the type of Supreme court justices that Bush is making; a 
couple of surprise packages so far. I expect that the surprise is on us.

You are a pessimest. I am a optimistic pragmatist. Only time will tell
which of us is right.

Even Reagan appointed a couple of leftist liars to the court. Bush cut a 
deal with the Democrats, plain and simple. Not at all how Clinton cut a 
deal with the Republicans in the last part of his administration.

True indeed.

Now, tell me, how is that moving to the left? You really don't believe 
that Bush is a right wing conservative, do you?

Nope..he is a moderate

Bush is to the left of center. He's a RINO, like McCain and Specter.

I disagree. I stand by my claim he is a moderate.

1) Bush has pissed on the idea of a federal system of government with 
his "no child left behind" act.

How so?  Do you know what NCLB really is?

It is a gross, unconstitutional infrigement upon the power of the 
states. No where in the constitution is the federal government to make 
any law regarding education. It is a pure state power; states need not 
even HAVE a public education system, so the federal power to dictate to 
states that they have to give parents and option to send their kids to a 
different public school is bogus on its face!

Yes and?  You would have to blow up the entire structure to change it.
NCLB is a good first start. Vouchers will be the next step.

First, the state can't even make this law. The constitution doesn't 
empower them.

Secondly, the state has no obligation to even HAVE a public school. 
Thus, the federal government setting the standards for state public 
schools is absurd.

Quite true.  So what Practical resolution to a situation that has been
in effect for well over 100 yrs do you propose?

2) Bush has appointed two stealth judges to the SCOTUS. All you know 
about them is that the left wing APPROVES of them. The surprise is on us.

Given that the crys of outrage from the Left are nearly as loud as the
cries of outrage from the Right..Id have to say your blanket statement
is fatally flawed.

Yes and? 

I'm saying Bush is left wing, and the US is sliding to the left.

Two appointees with left wing indications. One did pro-bono pro-abortion 
work, the other was supporting Al Gore.

No problem, huh? This seriously changes the balance of the court. One 
swing justice and one conservative justice with two left wing justices. 
Game over, the left now owns the show.

I disagree with your basic premise.  You are convinced that Roberts
and Meirs are leftists. I disagree strongly and belive that both are
solid constructionists.

Q.E.D. The court has just gone left. You might as well use the 
constitution for toilet paper, for all the support you'll get from the 
Supreme court to defend it.

3) Bush refuses to win the Iraq war by killing the enemy by methods in 
accordance with the GC and Hague conventions of war. Instead, he 
stupidly exposes our military people to unnecessary risk.

Our opinons differ here.

Is there any doubt that if all the terrorist were DEAD, that the war in 
Iraq would be over? That is an objective fact.

True. And how do you propose to get them all dead?

Another objective fact is that the terrorist exist in the Sunni Arab 
regions of Iraq, which is terrorist held.

Yes.

Another objective fact is that the GCs allow us to bomb the enemy in 
enemy defended cities. Tough luck on the civilians sympathetic to the 
terrorist combatants.

Yet, Bush refuses to use our superior firepower end the war, and our 
good people are dying instead.

Yep. Indeed. On the otherhand..the world still recoils in horror when
Dresden is mentioned.

You can't state the objective facts or the reasons why your opinion 
differs from what I think is logical and obvious.

You are a pessimist with what I consider fatally flawed basic
assumptions. I hold different basic assumptions than yours. Shrug.

So, your opinion is noted, but I disregard it as irrational until you 
can explain why.

4) Bush REFUSES to defend our boarders, and has invited a flood of 
leftist Mexicans into our country.

Nice spin. Not particularly true..but true enough for me to agree.

What is untrue about it?

Because 
1. Bush hasnt invited illegals into the US. He on the other hand, has
done little to stop it.
2. Most Mexicans are NOT leftists. They are simple camposinos.

3. The sole thing we can agree with is that Bush has done little to
stop the flow.

Bush not only did not shut down the boarders, there are now more illegal 
aliens flooding into the US than there are legal immigrants.

How do you propose shutting down the borders? Be specifc. Use as much
white space as you need.

Bush open spoke well of the benefits of illegal aliens. Bush disparaged 
the Minutemen for defending the boarder. Bush advocated a guest worker 
program. Bush went to Mexico and spoke to Fox, who has a major issue 
with his sending Illegal aliens to the U.S.. The two came away in 
agreement. HELLO! Bush sold us out.

Again..fatal flaws in your basic assumption and interetation.

Again, I don't see what you can possibly consider to be untrue.

The left says the same thing about those who do not share their world
view.

Moving to the right? No sir. That is a fiction. Don't fall for it.

oooook..your opinon is noted.  Disagreed with..but noted none the
less.

Disagreement without reason is noted, but not respected.

Because I dont write books on the subject..my views and why I believe
as I do are well established.

Just listen to the wailing and crying from the Left..does that sound
like the noise made by folks happy with the situation?   If it wernt
moving Right..they would be happy as pigs in shit. At present..they
are about two degrees away from slitting their own bellies.

IT doesn't follow that because they wail, that they are not getting what 
they want. The leftist are spoiled brats.

Frankly..yes, they are worse than spoiled brats..but from my point of
view..they finally are getting what they deserve. A sound ass kicking.

Do recall the wailling of the french revolutionaries as they sent the 
last of their adversaries to have their heads looped off. Your logic 
would have us believe that the french nobles were thinking that they 
were winning even as the blade slid down towards their neck.

Blink blink?  Huh?  The Left ARE the nobles who are being shortened.

So its not surprising that things are a bit "interesting".  The demise
of the Left, which started with the implosion of the USSR, and
crumbling its way down to the Liberal Ideology.

Leftist idealism is such that they STILL will take the country communist 
and try again. To their way of thinking, the wealth produced by a free 
society was a distraction to the communist worker, and that communism 
can only work when the last capitalist has been shot and burried.

As you may have noticed..the People caught on to that, finally..and
teh Left no longer wins elections because of it. Soon they will be
unable to do anything other than weep.

The left? The Republicans are the left, the Democrats are the communist.

There is no right wing on the ballot.

Opinon again noted.

Again, you give no objective facts, yet you disagree.

Ive stated my reasons, many times.

I've given many objective facts to support my position, a few being:

1) NO left wing infrigements upon our rights have been reversed.

Cites?

2) Existing leftist judges negated the federal government respect for 
private property.

True in one aspect. I belive that will change shortly as the trend to
the Right continues.

3) No defense of our borders, which is what the pro-Diversity leftist 
want. May as well start singing the International.

Oddly enough..the increase in funding of the BP and so forth refute
your claims. However..I agree that we need far far more.

4) The appointment of more leftist judges.

Which ones are those?

5) The Republicans have REFUSED to win the war, and instead have been 
using Iraq to grind down the military and has sent recruitment rates 
into the toilet. (NO one wants to be cannon fooder when the war can 
easily be won.)

Easily be won. Care to explain to me, the other readers and the JCS
how that may be acomplished?

6) Republican violation of the constitution i.e. No child Left behind. 
Republicans are suppose to be FOR the constitution and PRO-State powers, 
not against them.

NCLB is a pragmatic first step. You are most certainly aware that
simply tearing down the educational system is pie in the sky fantasy
at this point in time, are you not?  You must be a Large L
libertarian.   They tend to have such grandious dreams..which is why
no one votes for them.

And you disagree, give no reason, and refuse to admit the objective 
evidence that indicates a continued slide to the left?

Your interpretation of objective facts is skewed (in my opinion) badly
by your bias and pre conceived notions.  I view the same facts and get
a far different view than yours.  One of us is more biased than the
other.  Which of us is correct? You, me? Neither?

You're not very convincing. I may respect you gunner, but I never let 
authority get in the way of my own thinking. The objective evidence 
indicates you're wrong.

From your interpretation.   And what does authority have to do with
any thing?

< snip >

We all are aware of Kerry. We are also aware that the People rejected
him.

Barely. Had Bush been a little more to the center, Kerry would have won.

If Bush had been a little more to the center..they would have been
siamese twins.

Considering Kerry's communist ties via the VVAW and his visit with the 
enemy communist during war time, and that he has the most far left 
voting record in the U.S. Senate, even to the left of Ted Kennedy, you 
seem to have just admitted my claim that Bush was a leftist and the 
Democrats are communist.

Indeed, that was my error in communication. Not what I was intending.
I intended to indicate that Bush is Very centrist.  

WE got the leftist and not the out and out communist. I find no victory 
in that.

Again..opinon noted.

No reasons, however.

If you ask questions..I will respond. 

Gunner

Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work."  Steven M. Barry