Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

MILITARY QUALITY CONTROL AND RANT...Re: [Enfield] RE seat on eBay

Expand Messages
  • Zach Georgopoulos
    ... Spoken like a true fascist! ... the ... top. ... Putting aside your clear misunderstanding of the goals of Italian fascism (rooted in the efforts of
    Message 1 of 21 , Oct 1, 2003
      --- In royalenfield@yahoogroups.com, "justins7" <justins7@y...> wrote:
      > (This should be the last of these non-bullet-related rants.)

      Spoken like a true fascist!

      > It IS a fascist administration in the original, Mussolini sense of
      the
      > word. That is, the point when government unites with the military,
      > media and corporations in a way that strengthens the power of the
      top.
      > Suspension of constitutinal rights, etc...

      Putting aside your clear misunderstanding of the goals of Italian
      fascism (rooted in the efforts of Syndicalists, who argued for a
      coordination and collaboration of all the productive forces of a
      nation via the intervention of the state -- much to the _detriment_
      of the captains of industry), one small difference should be
      considered: Bush will be re-elected, or not, next year. Mussolini,
      like other dictators, was "Il Duce" for life. Our system doesn't
      lend itself to fascism, because the wrongdoings of one president can
      be undone by the next (or by the legislature, or the courts, for that
      matter). People on the left are always quick to cavalierly throw
      about epithets like "fascist" when it comes to describing the right;
      but call someone on the a "communist" and you will be labeled a red-
      baiter or McCarthyite in return; call someone a fascist, that's
      enough to convict, because there's apparently no such thing as
      a "fascist-baiter."

      In short -- grow up! Bush is no more a fascist than Clinton was a
      communist.

      > Let's get back to talking about bikes.

      Oh, but this is so much more fun!
    • Chris Janes
      ... wrote: snip ... Very very true but....... the other side (no matter what side your on) just won t get it!!!!!!! Your really better off
      Message 2 of 21 , Oct 1, 2003
        --- In royalenfield@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Georgopoulos"
        <zachgeo@m...> wrote:
        snip

        > In short -- grow up! Bush is no more a fascist than Clinton was a
        > communist.

        Very very true but....... the other side (no matter what side your on)
        just won't get it!!!!!!!
        Your really better off trying to kickstart your bullet with the
        sparkplug wire off.
        CJ
      • Stephen watson
        who do we shoot ... Signed confused ... Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search [Non-text portions of this message have been
        Message 3 of 21 , Oct 1, 2003
          who do we shoot ...

          Signed confused

          :


          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Chris Janes
          ... It dosent matter, just squeeze until it get s too hot to hold on to. When you get done blame it on the other side(again it dosen t matter what side your
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 1, 2003
            --- In royalenfield@yahoogroups.com, Stephen watson
            <basilwatson1@y...> wrote:
            > who do we shoot ...
            >
            > Signed confused

            It dosent matter, just squeeze until it get's too hot to hold on to.
            When you get done blame it on the other side(again it dosen't matter
            what side your on).
            Boy, you can tell it's starting to get cold outside again eh? LOL.
            CJ
          • Stephen watson
            The wife does that already ....Then cries foul...when it goes off ... Still confused but happy ... It dosent matter, just squeeze until it get s too hot to
            Message 5 of 21 , Oct 1, 2003
              The wife does that already ....Then cries foul...when it goes off ...

              Still confused but happy


              Chris Janes <cjanes@...> wrote:
              --- In royalenfield@yahoogroups.com, Stephen watson
              <basilwatson1@y...> wrote:
              > who do we shoot ...
              >
              > Signed confused

              It dosent matter, just squeeze until it get's too hot to hold on to.
              When you get done blame it on the other side(again it dosen't matter
              what side your on).
              Boy, you can tell it's starting to get cold outside again eh? LOL.
              CJ




              Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

              Your personal settings are at:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/royalenfield
              Our old messages are at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/royalenfield/messages
              To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
              royalenfield-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              ---------------------------------
              Do you Yahoo!?
              The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • justins7
              The real point is not in labels, tis true. Certain elements are strikingly similar, in a post-modern sort of way. 1. The collusion of government and media.
              Message 6 of 21 , Oct 2, 2003
                The real point is not in labels, 'tis true.
                Certain elements are strikingly similar, in a post-modern sort of way.

                1. The collusion of government and media. Fox news, as an obvious
                example, employs many former administration people, etc. A Chairman of
                the FCC is Colin Powell's son, etc, etc...

                2. The collusion of military and business. Who needs to site the
                mountain of examples?

                3. The control of courts: to a lesser degree, but look at Guantanamo
                Bay, and terrrorist "suspects" incarcerated without a trial.

                Call it Colonialism, Bulletism, Enfieldism, whatever, but the idiots
                who point fingers at nomenclature, or spelling just have no real argument.

                They are alarming conditions that DO have presidence in previous -isms.
              • Tracy Prier
                Tried it...yesterday as it happens :( Damn those senior moments are coming thick and fast! Tracy
                Message 7 of 21 , Oct 2, 2003
                  Tried it...yesterday as it happens :( Damn those "senior" moments
                  are coming thick and fast!

                  Tracy

                  > Your really better off trying to kickstart your bullet with the
                  > sparkplug wire off.
                  > CJ
                • Zach Georgopoulos
                  ... way. I don t know why I can t just stay away from these arguments. ... of ... That s nepotism -- been around a long, long time... ... That s the Military
                  Message 8 of 21 , Oct 2, 2003
                    --- In royalenfield@yahoogroups.com, "justins7" <justins7@y...> wrote:
                    > The real point is not in labels, 'tis true.
                    > Certain elements are strikingly similar, in a post-modern sort of
                    way.

                    I don't know why I can't just stay away from these arguments.
                    Nothing personal, Justin, I'm just compelled to respond:
                    >
                    > 1. The collusion of government and media. Fox news, as an obvious
                    > example, employs many former administration people, etc. A Chairman
                    of
                    > the FCC is Colin Powell's son, etc, etc...

                    That's nepotism -- been around a long, long time...

                    > 2. The collusion of military and business. Who needs to site the
                    > mountain of examples?

                    That's the "Military Industrial Complex." A term coined by an
                    outgoing President Eisenhower, if I recall my history, to criticize
                    the _Democrats_, who in those days were considered _hawks_, and their
                    zeal for military spending. In particular, he was criticizing the
                    Kennedy campaign's incompetent allegations that we had a "missile
                    gap" with the Soviet Union because we hadn't spent enough on defense
                    during Eisenhower's administration. Ike told it like it was -- Demo
                    politicians were in the back pocket of the Military Industrial
                    Complex, that our military power was "Awesome," and that the U.S.
                    public shouldn't be fooled by irresponsible hacks like Kennedy.
                    Alas, they didn't listen to him, even though it was one of the best
                    presidential speeches ever. Regardless -- again, nothing new here.
                    Now its just the Republicans who have taken over the role of the
                    hawks and who are in the back pocket of the MIC. Largely because,
                    some time in the '60s, they inherited the Southern "Dixiecarats" as
                    constituents.

                    > 3. The control of courts: to a lesser degree, but look at Guantanamo
                    > Bay, and terrrorist "suspects" incarcerated without a trial.

                    Of the three examples, this is the only one that might be considered
                    new and alarming. Of course, there have been petty drug pushers
                    rotting away in Texas prisons for the last 20 years without trial, so
                    maybe it's not so new -- just on the Federal government level. On
                    the other hand, the reason that they are being incarcerated in
                    Guantanamo is to keep them _out_ of the jurisdiction of the federal
                    courts -- e.g., this is actually proof that the administration does
                    _not_ trust the courts to agree with it on this one. As a lawyer, I
                    share your concern on this one big time. But it's not proof of
                    control of the courts by the administration, but rather of the
                    administration's attempt to strip the court of its authority. Our
                    independent judiciary is still sound -- more so than the republic,
                    perhaps...

                    > Call it Colonialism, Bulletism, Enfieldism, whatever, but the idiots
                    > who point fingers at nomenclature, or spelling just have no real
                    argument.

                    Yes they do -- IT AIN'T FASCISM, so don't call it that! Think before
                    you speak, would be another way of putting it.
                  • Charles Warner
                    Zach, I appreciate the fact that you ALWAYS provide a well thought-out response to the issues at hand. I don t always agree with you (but more often than
                    Message 9 of 21 , Oct 3, 2003
                      Zach,

                      I appreciate the fact that you ALWAYS provide a well thought-out response to the issues at hand. I don't always agree with you (but more often than not), but you always present a valid argument, without commiting so many of the fallacies that others sometimes resort to (sometimes without even knowing). But then again, your training and experiance as a (sucessful, I bet) lawyer has you,undoubtedly, well versed in the fine art of logic. I'm a high-school Geometry teacher and I'm constantly reminding my students that "words mean things", and I teach a section on logic. They are always coming to me with examples of fallacious (sp?) arguments from advertising, politics, friends, and sometimes their teacher and parents.

                      Chuck in Arizona

                      Zach Georgopoulos <zachgeo@...> wrote:
                      --- In royalenfield@yahoogroups.com, "justins7" <justins7@y...> wrote:
                      > The real point is not in labels, 'tis true.
                      > Certain elements are strikingly similar, in a post-modern sort of
                      way.

                      I don't know why I can't just stay away from these arguments.
                      Nothing personal, Justin, I'm just compelled to respond:
                      >
                      > 1. The collusion of government and media. Fox news, as an obvious
                      > example, employs many former administration people, etc. A Chairman
                      of
                      > the FCC is Colin Powell's son, etc, etc...

                      That's nepotism -- been around a long, long time...

                      > 2. The collusion of military and business. Who needs to site the
                      > mountain of examples?

                      That's the "Military Industrial Complex." A term coined by an
                      outgoing President Eisenhower, if I recall my history, to criticize
                      the _Democrats_, who in those days were considered _hawks_, and their
                      zeal for military spending. In particular, he was criticizing the
                      Kennedy campaign's incompetent allegations that we had a "missile
                      gap" with the Soviet Union because we hadn't spent enough on defense
                      during Eisenhower's administration. Ike told it like it was -- Demo
                      politicians were in the back pocket of the Military Industrial
                      Complex, that our military power was "Awesome," and that the U.S.
                      public shouldn't be fooled by irresponsible hacks like Kennedy.
                      Alas, they didn't listen to him, even though it was one of the best
                      presidential speeches ever. Regardless -- again, nothing new here.
                      Now its just the Republicans who have taken over the role of the
                      hawks and who are in the back pocket of the MIC. Largely because,
                      some time in the '60s, they inherited the Southern "Dixiecarats" as
                      constituents.

                      > 3. The control of courts: to a lesser degree, but look at Guantanamo
                      > Bay, and terrrorist "suspects" incarcerated without a trial.

                      Of the three examples, this is the only one that might be considered
                      new and alarming. Of course, there have been petty drug pushers
                      rotting away in Texas prisons for the last 20 years without trial, so
                      maybe it's not so new -- just on the Federal government level. On
                      the other hand, the reason that they are being incarcerated in
                      Guantanamo is to keep them _out_ of the jurisdiction of the federal
                      courts -- e.g., this is actually proof that the administration does
                      _not_ trust the courts to agree with it on this one. As a lawyer, I
                      share your concern on this one big time. But it's not proof of
                      control of the courts by the administration, but rather of the
                      administration's attempt to strip the court of its authority. Our
                      independent judiciary is still sound -- more so than the republic,
                      perhaps...

                      > Call it Colonialism, Bulletism, Enfieldism, whatever, but the idiots
                      > who point fingers at nomenclature, or spelling just have no real
                      argument.

                      Yes they do -- IT AIN'T FASCISM, so don't call it that! Think before
                      you speak, would be another way of putting it.


                      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

                      Your personal settings are at:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/royalenfield
                      Our old messages are at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/royalenfield/messages
                      To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
                      royalenfield-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                      ---------------------------------
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Sean Moran
                      ... response to the issues at hand. I don t always agree with you (but more often than not), but you always present a valid argument, without commiting so
                      Message 10 of 21 , Oct 3, 2003
                        --- In royalenfield@yahoogroups.com, Charles Warner <azwarner@y...>
                        wrote:
                        > Zach,
                        >
                        > I appreciate the fact that you ALWAYS provide a well thought-out
                        response to the issues at hand. I don't always agree with you (but
                        more often than not), but you always present a valid argument,
                        without commiting so many of the fallacies that others sometimes
                        resort to (sometimes without even knowing). But then again, your
                        training and experiance as a (sucessful, I bet) lawyer has
                        you,undoubtedly, well versed in the fine art of logic. I'm a high-
                        school Geometry teacher and I'm constantly reminding my students
                        that "words mean things", and I teach a section on logic. They are
                        always coming to me with examples of fallacious (sp?) arguments from
                        advertising, politics, friends, and sometimes their teacher and
                        parents.
                        >
                        > Chuck in Arizona
                        >
                        > Zach Georgopoulos <zachgeo@m...> wrote:
                        > --- In royalenfield@yahoogroups.com, "justins7" <justins7@y...>
                        wrote:
                        > > The real point is not in labels, 'tis true.
                        > > Certain elements are strikingly similar, in a post-modern sort of
                        > way.
                        >
                        > I don't know why I can't just stay away from these arguments.
                        > Nothing personal, Justin, I'm just compelled to respond:
                        > >
                        > > 1. The collusion of government and media. Fox news, as an obvious
                        > > example, employs many former administration people, etc. A
                        Chairman
                        > of
                        > > the FCC is Colin Powell's son, etc, etc...
                        >
                        > That's nepotism -- been around a long, long time...
                        >
                        > > 2. The collusion of military and business. Who needs to site the
                        > > mountain of examples?
                        >
                        > That's the "Military Industrial Complex." A term coined by an
                        > outgoing President Eisenhower, if I recall my history, to criticize
                        > the _Democrats_, who in those days were considered _hawks_, and
                        their
                        > zeal for military spending. In particular, he was criticizing the
                        > Kennedy campaign's incompetent allegations that we had a "missile
                        > gap" with the Soviet Union because we hadn't spent enough on
                        defense
                        > during Eisenhower's administration. Ike told it like it was --
                        Demo
                        > politicians were in the back pocket of the Military Industrial
                        > Complex, that our military power was "Awesome," and that the U.S.
                        > public shouldn't be fooled by irresponsible hacks like Kennedy.
                        > Alas, they didn't listen to him, even though it was one of the best
                        > presidential speeches ever. Regardless -- again, nothing new here.
                        > Now its just the Republicans who have taken over the role of the
                        > hawks and who are in the back pocket of the MIC. Largely because,
                        > some time in the '60s, they inherited the Southern "Dixiecarats" as
                        > constituents.
                        >
                        > > 3. The control of courts: to a lesser degree, but look at
                        Guantanamo
                        > > Bay, and terrrorist "suspects" incarcerated without a trial.
                        >
                        > Of the three examples, this is the only one that might be
                        considered
                        > new and alarming. Of course, there have been petty drug pushers
                        > rotting away in Texas prisons for the last 20 years without trial,
                        so
                        > maybe it's not so new -- just on the Federal government level. On
                        > the other hand, the reason that they are being incarcerated in
                        > Guantanamo is to keep them _out_ of the jurisdiction of the federal
                        > courts -- e.g., this is actually proof that the administration does
                        > _not_ trust the courts to agree with it on this one. As a lawyer,
                        I
                        > share your concern on this one big time. But it's not proof of
                        > control of the courts by the administration, but rather of the
                        > administration's attempt to strip the court of its authority. Our
                        > independent judiciary is still sound -- more so than the republic,
                        > perhaps...
                        >
                        > > Call it Colonialism, Bulletism, Enfieldism, whatever, but the
                        idiots
                        > > who point fingers at nomenclature, or spelling just have no real
                        > argument.
                        >
                        > Yes they do -- IT AIN'T FASCISM, so don't call it that! Think
                        before
                        > you speak, would be another way of putting it.
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                        >
                        > Your personal settings are at:
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/royalenfield
                        > Our old messages are at:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/royalenfield/messages
                        > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
                        > royalenfield-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                        Service.
                        >
                        >
                        > ---------------------------------
                        > Do you Yahoo!?
                        > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Sean Moran
                        Keep on subject....Royal Enfield...
                        Message 11 of 21 , Oct 3, 2003
                          Keep on subject....Royal Enfield...
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.