PDA

View Full Version : Warning: do not make numerous references to the Constitution!



goatgirl
06-18-2007, 08:31 PM
This FBI pamphlet may be old news to some of you. It was recently sent to me and I thought it especially interesting in light of one of the members recently desiring many of us to be on FBI’s watch list.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2126

http://www.retakingamerica.com/fbi_flyer_01.html

Some folks on here would defend the Constitution against the government or anybody else who was misrepresenting it. There are probably some members who live alone…are they “lone individuals”? We surely have our Confederate “Rebels.” If you make numerous references to the Constitution you might be a terrorist!!?? :mad:

hanktrent
06-18-2007, 09:09 PM
Oh come on, we all know the types of individuals this pamphlet is talking about. :D The ones that stockpile guns in their bunkers for doomsday, and see black helicopters, and worship some web page that says they don't legally have to pay taxes or get drivers licenses. It's all fun and games, till somebody gets a package from the Unibomber.

I can imagine some of the rants the police hear on traffic stops, when those types really get wound up about the Constitution. It's like the people who rant on forums, when their posts are deleted, that they have a Constitutional right to free speech. All it shows is that they have no clue about the rights the Constitution actually does grant them.

Sure, the pamphlet is a form of profiling, like seeing a Mexican-looking individual in a certain kind of car on a certain highway and thinking he's more apt to be running drugs than a little old lady on a country road in Iowa. Is profiling bad? Well, I dunno. We don't want to turn the country into a place where "driving while black" is a legitimate charge, or the solution to unpopular groups is a Mormon War or a Ruby Ridge. On the other hand, certain types of people are, demographically, more apt to commit certain types of crimes, and it seems silly to deny that. No coincidence that there's always more security at KKK rallies than cancer benefit walks.

What I think is funny is that the pamphlet is so even-handed. No ethnic, racial or religious discrimination there! The KKK is right there beside Black Separatists, the super-religious doomsday cults are there along with the Marxists, the animal rights activists are there alongside the para-military groups who generally hate PETA with a passion.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

tompritchett
06-18-2007, 10:31 PM
Hank, while I agree with you about the flyers, the theme of Goatgirl's post may not be that far off base. About a month or so ago, I came across a report of a welcome respected university professor (if I remember correctly he held the Woodrow Wilson Scholar endowed position at an Ivy League university) who had popped up on the no-fly list because of his written arguments against the war. What makes his inclusion all that more interesting is that he had retired with a U.S. Army Reserves rank of LTC. When he was first informed of his being on the no-fly by the ticket agent, he was defounded as was the agent upon hearing of his credentials. However once he described the articles that he had written, the agent said it all made since, as if such inclusions for public dissent were not all that uncommon. I do not remember where I read the article but, at work, I still have the email that I received from this professor confirming all aspects of the article.

So you see, Goatgirl's original sentiment may not be that far off the mark.

hanktrent
06-19-2007, 08:40 AM
So you see, Goatgirl's original sentiment may not be that far off the mark.

Well, I covered the whole issue of profiling, rightly or wrongly, in my third paragraph. Personally, I think America is now in a paranoid super-patriotic mode that does more harm than good.

The problem with the brochure is that it sounds silly picked apart line by line out of context, but in context, it describes recognizable types of people. For better or worse, we really do think in terms of stereotypes and use them to predict behavior. That's why we all worry about the government agents who would pass out these kinds of brochures to law enforcement personnel. :D

But is there any evidence the pamphlet was used to wrongly target people for investigation? According to the first link, it was never distributed and was soundly criticized, so it's actually an example of how law enforcement officers prevented overly broad profiling.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

tompritchett
06-19-2007, 10:06 AM
The problem with the brochure is that it sounds silly picked apart line by line out of context, but in context, it describes recognizable types of people. For better or worse, we really do think in terms of stereotypes and use them to predict behavior. That's why we all worry about the government agents who would pass out these kinds of brochures to law enforcement personnel.

But is there any evidence the pamphlet was used to wrongly target people for investigation? According to the first link, it was never distributed and was soundly criticized, so it's actually an example of how law enforcement officers prevented overly broad profiling.

In regards to your points concerning the brochures, I actually agree.


Personally, I think America is now in a paranoid super-patriotic mode that does more harm than good.

That was more the point that I was trying to make, especially when it is the government that is fanning the flames and in regards of its powers to act on that paranoia under the Patriot Act.

plankmaker
06-19-2007, 10:24 AM
Better be careful what you say, they may be listening in on the phone or monitoring your internet postings. They are everywhere I tell you, everywhere. Or so I am told, I don't worry about it. However, I do know a producer of foil lined beanies if you are so inclined.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

Graves Mercantile
06-19-2007, 10:29 AM
Are the foil lined beanies authentic? How many stitches do they have?

bob 125th nysvi
06-19-2007, 10:42 AM
stopped and checked THREE times at the Airport in Cleveland trying to make one flight.

I finally asked the last guy (Airline Security) if I looked like somebody they were looking for. He said that wasn't funny and I'd better be careful.

I told him neither was being stopped and searched three times and he'd better detain me so I could sue them properly or let me get on my plane.

He backed off.

We've done lots of stuff that looks silly in hindsight, like updating war plans against Britain until the 1920s.

And if you look at the websites and their owners, they have an agenda. We don't know if what is there is legit, or even if it was circulated at the FBI after it was written. A lot of stuff gets a trial ballon and then shot down.

And then there is more MISINFORMATION on the internet than information.

The unfortunate reality is that domestic terrorists have a common theme, they quote their interpetation of the Constitution to support their irrational actions (something they have in common with Bin Laden who quotes and twists the Quran to support his irrational actions).

A fanatic is a fanatic is a fanatic and they DO operate on a fairly consistant profile.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You think you're government is threatening you and your rights get off you keester and vote. No amount of internet propaganda or guns you hid in your basement is worth a single vote in a general election.

ABout being on the no fly list, Tom I've got a better one for you. A person I know was detained at JFK for 6 hours because his name was on a no fly list. He had just come back from Kuwait where he went to visit his wife who hadn't been home in 8 months because she was working as an interpetor for the Army. His name is that Arabic equivilant of "John Smith", every other guy has it.

We have gone way overboard on the "we can secure ourselves from the terrorist" nonsense. The reality is that you can't stop one determined person who is willing to die for their cause with lists and profiling but this is American, politics by fear, and I suppose if the FBI didn't try some grandstanding pol who sat on his hands and moaned about civil rights and profiling who make a major case out of it AFTER something happened.

We either have our full rights and take our chances (the course I'd prefer) or we surrender some of our rights for the illusion of security.

What is B. Frankilin said: 'A people that give up their rights in favor of security rarely get either.'

bob 125th nysvi
06-19-2007, 10:50 AM
Are the foil lined beanies authentic? How many stitches do they have?

if they are hand pounded foil and it is 7 stiches per inch!

Sgt_Pepper
06-19-2007, 11:29 AM
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

Graves Mercantile
06-19-2007, 11:37 AM
Only if they are hand pounded foil and it is 7 stiches per inch!

But page 666 of the 1862 1/2 regulations state that they must have 8 stitches per inch!

Unless of course you are confederate because they just made do with whatever they could get their hands on. This would explain the enormous number of CW site dug wax paper beanies.

=)~

sbl
06-19-2007, 12:05 PM
"I've said it before and I'll say it again. You think you're (sic) government is threatening you and your rights get off you keester and vote. No amount of internet propaganda or guns you hid in your basement is worth a single vote in a general election."

Some people forget that this is OUR government.

Rob
06-19-2007, 12:18 PM
Tin-foil beanies don't work. Try a Faraday cage.

:rolleyes:

flattop32355
06-19-2007, 12:27 PM
...I suppose if the FBI didn't try, some grandstanding pol who sat on his hands and moaned about civil rights and profiling who make a major case out of it AFTER something happened.

We either have our full rights and take our chances (the course I'd prefer) or we surrender some of our rights for the illusion of security.

One problem is they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. If security gets too tight, they're infringing on our rights, and if something does slip through, then they didn't do enough and should have seen it coming.

Another thing is that much of what we now-days call rights are not necessarily that, beyond being left alone under ordinary circumstances. Some of the same folk who decry the loss of these "rights" are quick to attempt to remove other people's "rights" that they don't particularly like. It spans the political spectrum in those attempts.

Robert A Mosher
06-19-2007, 01:34 PM
Boy, thanks for the warning, you really DO have to be careful these days. You know, I do have a pretty good constitution myself, I mean it's not like I'm as strong as the original USS Constitution - the one nicknamed 'Old Ironsides' that is and not the aircraft carrier the USS Constitution, though of course you must have a pretty good constitution for people to land those jet fighters on your roof! But anyway, my constitution is good enough to stand going up the hill at McDowell and walking back down again. Now the constitution that we had before our current constitution - I think it was called 'the Articles of Confederation?' - with a name like that you would think it would have been the constitution of the Confederate States of America, but no, 'the Articles of Confederation' was the constitution that we had for the United States before we got the current Constitution of the United States - anyway, that first constitution was really pretty bad. Apparently it allowed people to rebel, secede, attack the United States, and even refuse to pay taxes - now that's a pretty bad constitution. But then our ancestors (those of us who had ancestor here then) got together to write a good new constitution with clearly delineated seperation of powers so that the President, the Congress, and the Courts each know what they could do and not do, as well as what the constitution allowed the other branches to do and not do. So, if any of them had any doubts about it they could look at the constitution. And this new Constitution even had a great new idea called the Bill of Rights that guaranteed that we would all be free to exercise the right to worship in our own way, speek freely, assemble together freely etc. - Boy, it sure is a good thing that they got rid of that old constitution and gave us this good new constitution!!

Robert A. Mosher

jda3rd
06-20-2007, 09:47 PM
Back in the 90's, a former FBI agent, who was also a re-enactor, had a list from the higher ups in the Bureau that classified collectors of militaria and civil war re-enactors as part of the "lunatic fringe", though not necessarily as dangerous as survivalists. Civil war re-enactors had the potential to be dangerous because they knew weapons, were relatively well organized, and there were lots of them.

The Dept. of Defense during this time was advised to limit the amount and type of equipment released to the general public as surplus, as a precaution.

Remember, "our government" sanctioned Ruby Ridge.

HighPrvt
06-21-2007, 05:02 AM
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


Sgt. Pepper
in the past I've had posts/ thread deleted, or edited by you allegedly because they were neither CW, or reenacting related. So what gives with this thread?
My thread which was about gun control, and the last time I checked we use guns. Certainly pertained more more to reenacting than this crap??

Rob Weaver
06-21-2007, 05:39 AM
Boy, thanks for the warning, you really DO have to be careful these days. You know, I do have a pretty good constitution myself, I mean it's not like I'm as strong as the original USS Constitution - the one nicknamed 'Old Ironsides' that is and not the aircraft carrier the USS Constitution, though of course you must have a pretty good constitution for people to land those jet fighters on your roof! But anyway, my constitution is good enough to stand going up the hill at McDowell and walking back down again. Now the constitution that we had before our current constitution - I think it was called 'the Articles of Confederation?' - with a name like that you would think it would have been the constitution of the Confederate States of America, but no, 'the Articles of Confederation' was the constitution that we had for the United States before we got the current Constitution of the United States - anyway, that first constitution was really pretty bad. Apparently it allowed people to rebel, secede, attack the United States, and even refuse to pay taxes - now that's a pretty bad constitution. But then our ancestors (those of us who had ancestor here then) got together to write a good new constitution with clearly delineated seperation of powers so that the President, the Congress, and the Courts each know what they could do and not do, as well as what the constitution allowed the other branches to do and not do. So, if any of them had any doubts about it they could look at the constitution. And this new Constitution even had a great new idea called the Bill of Rights that guaranteed that we would all be free to exercise the right to worship in our own way, speek freely, assemble together freely etc. - Boy, it sure is a good thing that they got rid of that old constitution and gave us this good new constitution!!

Robert A. Mosher

LOL - that's histerical! Can I get on the same list now that I've simply quoted you, although my post has virtually nothing to do contextually with what you said? "We must all hang together, gentlemen, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

VA Soldier
06-21-2007, 06:35 AM
People in general are never satisfied.

If its dry, people want it to rain,
If it rains for any lenght of time people wish it was dry
If it is hot people want it to be cold
If it is cold people want it to be hot

Most people will surrender liberties in order to be more secure
Then again, what good does it do to be able to do anything if you
are to scared to do it?

Our Constitution is not perfect, is does not hold all the answers, and it is purposefully vauge in some areas. It doesnt stretch on for hundreds of pages as do the constitutions in some nations that outline each and every right, but generalizes most of the rights we have.

Most aspects of the Constitution have been challenged in the courts at one time or the other, and depending on who is sitting on the bench, those rights have been redefined. Just follow the line from Dredd Scott to Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Ed. or the current hopes that a new conservitive court will overturn Roe v. Wade

We are a Republic, so as has been stated before, our best defense is to be proactive in letting our legislators know how we feel, not just on election day, but any time something comes up we feel strongly about. Though the form letter response we sometimes recieve can be deceiving, most of them actually do read what we send, and, after talking to a few legislators and aides, emailing them is the best way to do so, with most having links on their websites designed to do this.

D A Jackson

goatgirl
06-21-2007, 08:51 AM
Oh come on, we all know the types of individuals this pamphlet is talking about. :D

Perhaps Mr. Trent, the disturbing aspect is not who it might have been intended for, but to whom it could be applied. Though this pamphlet is not a law, it reminds me of: “I am NOT a criminal, stop legislating me into one.”

Mr. Pritchett, whenever I hear of incidents like you related and other things transpiring under “Homeland Security” while our boys are fighting in Iraq, it reminds me of an incident in the War Between the States. A Northern spokesman stated something like, “While we are sending men South and shedding the best blood of the country in the name of liberty, we are losing it here at home.”

Hondo
06-21-2007, 09:52 AM
Pvt. Jackson,
Don't it make you feel good when the politicians who "support" us (until they are elected) go over to the dark side? You know what I mean.


Hondo

bob 125th nysvi
06-21-2007, 12:21 PM
Remember, "our government" sanctioned Ruby Ridge.

much larger artillery much sooner than they did.

The only mistake the government made at Ruby Ridge was to let any of them out alive.

tompritchett
06-21-2007, 05:02 PM
The only mistake the government made at Ruby Ridge was to let any of them out alive.

Excuse me??? Over half of those in the compound were just women and children. Yes, they were all deluded by an extremely chrarismastic leader, but inside their complex they were fairly harmless. Regardless, how does their delusion justify their all being burned to death as you apparently wished that they had been. If you are truely serious in these sentiments, then my opinion of you has severely lowered.

reb64
06-21-2007, 05:42 PM
Excuse me??? Over half of those in the compound were just women and children. Yes, they were all deluded by an extremely chrarismastic leader, but inside their complex they were fairly harmless. Regardless, how does their delusion justify their all being burned to death as you apparently wished that they had been. If you are truely serious in these sentiments, then my opinion of you has severely lowered.

both had terrible endings but the one referred to was ruby ridge where the federals went in over some silly gun charges, like one of us selling a rifle w/o paperwork. the feds killed their dog, that really is personal for me. and women and children. the comment made by the man you replied too should result in banning or therapy.

reb64
06-21-2007, 05:49 PM
.

We have gone way overboard on the "we can secure ourselves from the terrorist" nonsense. '


I remember when the pres was getting slammed for not doing enough to pevent 9/11, now you say hes doing too much. you can't please anyone it seems. the world is moving ever closer to the return. it will get even uglier and darker before then so i don't think we can relax anytime soon.

tompritchett
06-21-2007, 08:16 PM
mixed up branch davidians and ruby ridge

You are correct; I did confuse the two incidences. For more details on the Ruby Ridge Incident go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge.

jda3rd
06-21-2007, 09:24 PM
Both events,Waco and Ruby Ridge, demonstrated Federal law enforcement officers operating from a position of absolute authority, and as is wisely noted, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Both events were excessive, but typified law enforcement on a national level during that period. Both events could and should have been avoided, especially Ruby Ridge. "Our government" did finally pay cash as a settlement for the murder and other heinous abuses of authority it committed, but how can cash make up for the murder by a government sniper of a mother, a US citizen, an innocent, while she was holding her baby in her arms.

I love and respect the Constitution of the United States. I love my country. I respect my government. Do I completely trust my government? No. Do they always operate with the best interest of the common citizen in mind? No. Is it the best game in town? Emphatically YES.

Our thousand year plus tradition of English Common Law is the best system on the planet. The right to trial by jury, by a jury of our peers, in whose eyes we must be innocent until the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise is, as Rumpole would say "The Golden Thread of English justice".

We have constitutional guarantees. Sometimes our government, or those individuals in power, forget that.

Shall I surrender my liberty to obtain security? I think not, for with liberty comes the ability to provide for my own security. If I look to my government for my livelyhood, my homeplace, my security, my healthcare, my education and my childcare, I am in essence enslaved by my government. Then government can be assured of my allegiance, because I won't know any better.

Frank Brower

sbl
06-22-2007, 04:16 AM
Randy Weaver has been turned into some kind of hero/martyr rather than a public nuisance.


Browns say they will either walk free, or die
By KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader Correspondent (New Hampshire)
Tuesday, Jun. 19, 2007

PLAINFIELD – Randy Weaver, the focus of the botched 1992 federal raid in Ruby Ridge, stood with convicted tax resisters Ed and Elaine Brown yesterday in a show of solidarity........


http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Browns+say+they+will+either+ walk+free%2C+or+die&articleId=a02db0e8-8042-474e-8a82-1fb5dc2f6306

bob 125th nysvi
06-24-2007, 06:02 AM
Excuse me??? Over half of those in the compound were just women and children. Yes, they were all deluded by an extremely chrarismastic leader, but inside their complex they were fairly harmless. Regardless, how does their delusion justify their all being burned to death as you apparently wished that they had been. If you are truely serious in these sentiments, then my opinion of you has severely lowered.

and there were millions of women and children in cities we bithefully bombed all over Europe and Asia during several wars.

I have no wish to see innocent people injuried however .....

What is the definition of an "innocent'?

Civilians who choose to follow leaders into a dangerous situation or who are willing to be used by their leaders (ala insurgents in Iraq or the Gaza strip) as human shields move into the role of active combatants (as either camoflage or a psuedo-fortification).

If you can show me someone hurt because they were caught in the crossfire then I will do all I can to help them.

If you show me some hurt because they were foolish enough to make bad decisions or take a risk to support an enemy on the assumption that they were somehow sacrosanct because of their status ......

Then I have no sympathy, they have to live with the consequences of their choice and I prefer to see then get hurt verses anyone on our side.

Sorry if that makes you feel I'm some kind of monsterbut I beleive in the consequences of personal choice and while the children had no choices the adults all did. Including the mothers keeping their children in a dangerous situation instead of sending them out of harms way.

bob 125th nysvi
06-24-2007, 06:17 AM
I remember when the pres was getting slammed for not doing enough to pevent 9/11, now you say hes doing too much. you can't please anyone it seems. the world is moving ever closer to the return. it will get even uglier and darker before then so i don't think we can relax anytime soon.

when I was in the military we were told then that there was no way to stop every terrorist attack that was going to be launched against the USA especially if the terrorists were determined to die.

I'm a little surprised it took them until 2001 to be successful.

The world have always been ugly and dark its just as we invent more and more technology they can reach farther and farther away from their bases.

I do not blame Bush for 9/11 if I blame anyone it is Clinton and soley for the reason he DID NOT take bin Laden into custody from the Sudanese when they had him at the airport in handcuffs begging us to.

And then I can only blame him because it was bin Laden who pulled off 9/11. But sooner or later they were going to get us, it was inevitable.

And sooner or later they will get us again, that is also inevitable.

I'm just not willing to give up rights or seriously change my life based on trying to stop the inevitable.

You can't.

bob 125th nysvi
06-24-2007, 06:33 AM
Randy Weaver has been turned into some kind of hero/martyr rather than a public nuisance.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/11.html

to get an unbiased opinion on the "honest' and "harmless" Randy Weaver.

There is always someone who will cannonize an individual as long as they that individual represents somethign they agree with.

In this case, someone taking an anti-government stance.

reb64
06-24-2007, 07:16 AM
unbiased reports all agree, randy was set up, used and lied to. they approached him and asked him to break the law for money, then tried to use the violation to get him to infiltrate some watched group, then set him up with a wrong court date. I would have armed myself too over his kind of bs. what is anti govt about that? what would you do if camo guys were crawling on your property? too easy to just deliver the correct court date papaers without assaultin his property over nothing.

Rob Weaver
06-24-2007, 11:22 AM
... Um, No relation of mine.

tompritchett
06-24-2007, 07:59 PM
What I find odd is that WV separated in 1863, so therefore Virginia's debt at the time of separation would have included part of her defense against the Union? I can't believe that since it was the U.S. Supreme Court that ordered her to pay the bill.

I will agree that the whole scenario was a major snafu on both sides. The government definitely were overally aggressive in their pursuit of the Weavers thus setting up the events that led to the fatal shoot out while the Weavers were definitely overly paranoid and were over-reacting to the whole situation. While the Marshall's were only doing their jobs, their superiors, who placed them in the situation, cannot escape blame for the resulting tragic loss of life. Nor can the Weavers.

As an aside, I just learned this past Christmas the extremes that DOJ would use during this time period to push criminal investigations. My brother-in-law had worked in the personal staff for a past governor of Kentucky who was being investigated during this general time period for possible sweet-heart deals in awarding state contracts during his administration. First, they tried to use the IRS to find anything that they could use against him as leverage to flip on his former boss. When that failed after at least two attempts, they submitted him to several days of grand jury investigations again in an attempt to get him to roll over on his former boss. When they were unable to get any indictments against my brother-in-law, they then brought my father, who had worked in the administration for this same governor, for intense questioning in an attempt to once again pressure my brother-in-law to flip on the former governor, even though they were fairly certain that my father had not been involved in the contracts and had not done anything illegal in performing his duties. To this day, over a decade later, my brother-in-law has no respect at all for either the FBI or DOJ - and this is from a man who served as an assistant secretary of the U.S. DOT.

Brian Wolle
06-25-2007, 12:52 AM
Look this up and find out why you might need a beanie.

PART 2
Hey! Voting would be great if you could trust the election. After the thief stole his second election, I spoke to some tourists at the high water mark on Cemetery Hill from Ohio who said they tried to vote democrat but after waiting for hours, were told they had to vote somewhere else and that the reverse was true for republican sections. Again, these people were FROM OHIO.

Who safeguards anything when the thieves are in power?

I just know someone is going to tell me I'm full of it.

sbl
06-25-2007, 04:13 AM
Brian,

This is "old news" that nobody seems to know.

See:

"Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff"

Bet this wouldn't have happen during the CW/WBTS. ;-)

sbl
06-25-2007, 04:19 AM
..not the folk group either.

Have you noticed that guys like Randy Weaver and David Koresh are not the the kind of folks you'd want as neighbors or let watch your kids? If I lived back in the 1850s I wouldn't want to be stuck sitting with John Brown on a long train ride.

tompritchett
06-25-2007, 04:26 AM
I spoke to some tourists at the high water mark on Cemetery Hill from Ohio who said they tried to vote democrat but after waiting for hours, were told they had to vote somewhere else and that the reverse was true for republican sections. Again, these people were FROM OHIO.

There have been some articles written suggesting that one of the primary reasons for the DOJ emphasis on voter fraud investigations, an emphasis that apparently does not seem to be supported by hard data indicating any wide-spread or serious problems, is that it tends to turn away (or disenfranchise, depending upon your viewpoint) voters who are more likely to vote Democratic versus Republican. Then you add in the factor that one of the factors cited as grounds for dismissing many of the fired U.S. Attorneys was their failure to pursue voter fraud investigations vigourously enough. All indications that you may not be fully "full of it".

Frenchie
06-25-2007, 07:08 AM
Hey! Voting would be great if you could trust the election. After the thief stole his second election, I spoke to some tourists at the high water mark on Cemetery Hill from Ohio who said they tried to vote democrat but after waiting for hours, were told they had to vote somewhere else and that the reverse was true for republican sections. Again, these people were FROM OHIO.

Who safeguards anything when the thieves are in power?

I just know someone is going to tell me I'm full of it.

I'm a rock-solid Republican and I was told I had to vote somewhere else. That's because I had neglected to change my address with the MVA in time, so it was my fault. I suspect that, or something like it, is usually the situation in cases like that. And besides, I don't pay much attention to anecdotes from people who pass on something they heard happened to their neighbor's second cousin's hairdresser's babysitter.

sbl
06-25-2007, 07:53 AM
How's that workin' out for you? ;)

" And besides, I don't pay much attention to anecdotes from people who pass on something they heard happened to their neighbor's second cousin's hairdresser's babysitter."

Frenchie, like I posted, Google the Conyers Report.

Frenchie
06-25-2007, 08:34 AM
How's that workin' out for you? ;)

Just fine. How's using mockery to make your point working out for you?


Frenchie, like I posted, Google the Conyers Report.

I don't touch Google, I looked it up some time ago with Altavista. I don't put much stock in the report since no one over here got terribly upset over it.


- 30 -

sbl
06-25-2007, 10:20 AM
"Just fine. How's using mockery to make your point working out for you?"

So far so good. It's one of the few weapons left in my quiver. Now Frenchie, I did give you a source for Ohio's GOP polling place jiggery-pokery.

bob 125th nysvi
06-25-2007, 12:17 PM
As an aside, I just learned this past Christmas the extremes that DOJ would use during this time period to push criminal investigations. My brother-in-law had worked in the personal staff for a past governor of Kentucky who was being investigated during this general time period for possible sweet-heart deals in awarding state contracts during his administration. First, they tried to use the IRS to find anything that they could use against him as leverage to flip on his former boss. When that failed after at least two attempts, they submitted him to several days of grand jury investigations again in an attempt to get him to roll over on his former boss. When they were unable to get any indictments against my brother-in-law, they then brought my father, who had worked in the administration for this same governor, for intense questioning in an attempt to once again pressure my brother-in-law to flip on the former governor, even though they were fairly certain that my father had not been involved in the contracts and had not done anything illegal in performing his duties. To this day, over a decade later, my brother-in-law has no respect at all for either the FBI or DOJ - and this is from a man who served as an assistant secretary of the U.S. DOT.

if you had ever lived for any amount of time in NY and seen that there are still remnants of Tammany Hall in this state you might appreciate that sometimes 'over-the-top' is the only way politicians ever get nabbed.

Anybody remember the bruhah just before the last election over the Dem Congressman on the take. The FBI FOUND the bribe money in his congressional office.

Congresses reaction?

Were they worried about someone in the halls of Congress taking bribes? Horrified that they might have a crminal in their ranks?

Nope.

They wanted the whole thing supressed (both Dems and Reps) because the FBI doesn't have the AUTHORITY to search Congressional offices.

Then who in blazes does, some Congressional lackey who's job and pension rides on the goodwill of the Congressmen? Well there's a neutral party for you.

The unfortunate reality is that the Mafia's code of silence is a pale imitation of how far politicians will go to protect one another (unless of course the downfall of another directly benefits them).

Personally I think if a few more of them did some hard time and we held them more accountable for their actions, we'd have better government.

But then there have been a number of senior FBI/DOJ officials who should probably be on that list too.

But what do we expect in country where cheating on your taxes in a national pasttime, we glorify executives who gut companies but drive up the stock value and buy the merchandise of petulant sport stars who could care less about the team, the sport and may not even KNOW there are fans.

bob 125th nysvi
06-25-2007, 12:21 PM
[QUOTE=sblSo far so good. It's one of the few weapons left in my quiver. Now Frenchie, I did give you a source for Ohio's GOP polling place jiggery-pokery.[/QUOTE]

"Gerry-mandering" is a term named for a NY politician way back when (who developed the idea) and instead of being more democratic now we've only allowed them to get worse.

Have you seen the shape of some congressional districts?

Rob Weaver
06-25-2007, 02:36 PM
Elderbridge Gerry was his name. The "Gerrymander" was a cartoon made by adding claws, a beak and wings to the shape of the disctricts turned on its side.

tompritchett
06-25-2007, 02:39 PM
More on "voter fraud". One of the techniques used to combat "voter fraud" is a technique known as voter caging to develop lists of voters whose eligibility to vote are then legally challenged. (See link for more information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list). The only problem - in most cases where the technique has been used, it has been used to challenge large lists of minority voters. Now the funniest part is when the head of the DOJ Civils Rights Division, Assistant Attorney General Alex Acosta, files an unsolicated opinion in an Ohio case where this practise was actually challenged in court during the 2004 election. At issue were approximately the voting credentials of 23,000 mostly African-American voters.

tompritchett
06-25-2007, 02:58 PM
Anybody remember the bruhah just before the last election over the Dem Congressman on the take. The FBI FOUND the bribe money in his congressional office.

Congresses reaction?

Were they worried about someone in the halls of Congress taking bribes? Horrified that they might have a crminal in their ranks?

Nope.

They wanted the whole thing supressed (both Dems and Reps) because the FBI doesn't have the AUTHORITY to search Congressional offices.

Then who in blazes does, some Congressional lackey who's job and pension rides on the goodwill of the Congressmen? Well there's a neutral party for you.

The unfortunate reality is that the Mafia's code of silence is a pale imitation of how far politicians will go to protect one another (unless of course the downfall of another directly benefits them).

Personally I think if a few more of them did some hard time and we held them more accountable for their actions, we'd have better government.

But then there have been a number of senior FBI/DOJ officials who should probably be on that list too.

But what do we expect in country where cheating on your taxes in a national pasttime, we glorify executives who gut companies but drive up the stock value and buy the merchandise of petulant sport stars who could care less about the team, the sport and may not even KNOW there are fans.

Yes, I remember and I agree you with on almost all these points. Unfortunately, both parties have their warts and all three branchs of government have their bad applies. That is why our Founding Fathers set up our Republic the way that they did, especially with the balance of power between the branchs. They knew that power corrupted and they feared any one branch of government being able to dominate the other two. And as much I slam some of the excesses of the more conservative elements of the Republican party, I fear even more many of the more radical and ivory tower ideas and outright selling out and pandering of the more liberal Democrats. To be frank, with the exception of Gov. Richardson of New Mexico, at this time I do not think that the Democrats have anyone on the ballots that I would trust in the White House for the next term. I especially am leary of anyone for whom the majority of his adult life has only been raising money for his next re-election campaign to Congress (no one knows what backroom deals and compromises had to made) or who appears to have a major chip on her/his shoulder and, consequently, would use the power of the White House to exact revenge on perceived enemies.

sbl
06-25-2007, 04:26 PM
Bob,


Jiggery Pokery

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jiggery-pokery

Noun 1. jiggery-pokeryjiggery-pokery - verbal misrepresentation intended to take advantage of you in some way
hanky panky, hocus-pocus, skulduggery, skullduggery, slickness, trickery
deception, misrepresentation, deceit - a misleading falsehood


Yeah, Jiggery Pokery works.

Gerrymander

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990202


"The word gerrymander is a portmanteau from the name of Elbridge Gerry and salamander. Gerry was the governor of Massachusetts when he signed a bill in 1812 to redraw the district boundaries to favor the Democrats and weaken the Federalists, who had better numbers at the voting booth. The shape of the district he formed was likened in appearance to a salamander, and political cartoonists emphasized that appearance to denigrate the Democrats. Gerry did not sponsor the bill in question and was said to have signed it reluctantly, but his name has gone into history as that of a villain."

Interesting that the "Gerrymander" surrounds my home town and others "no shown"

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/5600/5688/gerrymander_1_lg.gif

vamick
06-26-2007, 01:43 PM
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/11.html

to get an unbiased opinion on the "honest' and "harmless" Randy Weaver.

There is always someone who will cannonize an individual as long as they that individual represents somethign they agree with.

In this case, someone taking an anti-government stance.

"**** Pinkerton men!" J James 1878

" **** jakcbooted government thugs" Me 2007

on the other hand YOU can 'cannonize' and plug yer ears and wear yer rosey glasses all you want, but a THUG is a thug and wearing a uniform or hiding behind some alphabet government agency makes him even worse and less of a man in my book...those grand lads who you said should have killed everybody ect ect..may one ady come for you..tho I doubt it.. be careful whom you wish 'killed' and whom the "bell is tolling for"

sbl
06-26-2007, 03:24 PM
"I do not blame Bush for 9/11 if I blame anyone it is Clinton and soley for the reason he DID NOT take bin Laden into custody from the Sudanese when they had him at the airport in handcuffs begging us to."



"Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

There's links to the story with sources and transcripts. You've got the Disney/ABC movie version.

sbl
06-26-2007, 03:28 PM
"**** Pinkerton men!" J James 1878

" **** jakcbooted government thugs" Me 2007

on the other hand YOU can 'cannonize' and plug yer ears and wear yer rosey glasses all you want, but a THUG is a thug and wearing a uniform or hiding behind some alphabet government agency makes him even worse and less of a man in my book...those grand lads who you said should have killed everybody ect ect..may one ady come for you..tho I doubt it.. be careful whom you wish 'killed' and whom the "bell is tolling for"

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:xQ7zRV81AO8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy+G.+Gordon+Liddy%2Bshoot+in+head&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

G. Gordon Liddy (funny, Liddy, and intelligent and interesting guy was a "JBT")

* August 26, 1994 - Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." ... "They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches.

* September 15, 1994 - If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head.

bob 125th nysvi
06-27-2007, 02:00 PM
[QUOTE=sblThere's links to the story with sources and transcripts. You've got the Disney/ABC movie version.[/QUOTE]

Because isn't ABC/Disney on Bill's side?

Gotta love you man you're alot of fun.

bob 125th nysvi
06-27-2007, 02:10 PM
Unfortunately, both parties have their warts and all three branchs of government have their bad applies.

Never was a truer sentiment spoken but we really have no one to blame but our selves we let them get this way. I am always amazed when i talk to people who want to "throw the bums out". Of course once you get past the rhetortic you find out the "bums" turn out to be everybody but the people they vote for and of course they can only vote for their local candidates. Living in NY and screamung that Teddy needs to be throw out is the height of stupidity.


And as much I slam some of the excesses of the more conservative elements of the Republican party, I fear even more many of the more radical and ivory tower ideas and outright selling out and pandering of the more liberal Democrats. To be frank, with the exception of Gov. Richardson of New Mexico, at this time I do not think that the Democrats have anyone on the ballots that I would trust in the White House for the next term..

I'd agree at the moment the next election looks like a choice between who is the least repugnant. Man I'd love an independent McCain/Lieberman ticket (don't care whose on top) just to shake up the status quo.


I especially am leary of anyone for whom the majority of his adult life has only been raising money for his next re-election campaign to Congress (no one knows what backroom deals and compromises had to made).

An excellent argument for term limits. I could never understand how it should only apply to the president. In reality the most powerful single person in government is the speaker of the house. And NOBODY but the other incompetants gets to vote on that one.


or who appears to have a major chip on her/his shoulder and, consequently, would use the power of the White House to exact revenge on perceived enemies.

Or beleives they KNOW the true shining path to the future, zealots/fanatics/paranoids are about as dangerous as a politican can get

bob 125th nysvi
06-27-2007, 02:15 PM
"**** Pinkerton men!" J James 1878

" **** jakcbooted government thugs" Me 2007

on the other hand YOU can 'cannonize' and plug yer ears and wear yer rosey glasses all you want, but a THUG is a thug and wearing a uniform or hiding behind some alphabet government agency makes him even worse and less of a man in my book...those grand lads who you said should have killed everybody ect ect..may one ady come for you..tho I doubt it.. be careful whom you wish 'killed' and whom the "bell is tolling for"

I don't remember cannonizing anybody, but I am certainly sane enough to determine who has most of the blame in any situation.

You know somehow I just don't spend my day 'worrying' about which government agency is going to come get me. See I don't have a warped view of the world/government, generally stay inside the law and use logic on most situations I encounter.

Paranoid delusions just don't fit into that formula

And now for my favorite Thomas Paine quote: To argue with those who have renounced the use of reason is as effective as administring medicine to the dead.

sbl
06-27-2007, 04:58 PM
Because isn't ABC/Disney on Bill's side?


"The Path to 9/11" was an ABC/Disney production. If it was about Gettysburg it would have had Longstreet sleeping with Jenny Wade and Reynolds ignoring Buford.

Gotta love you man you're alot of fun.

Well Thank You Bob, I try to give a laugh and a source or link to what I'm posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11