Pyotr Filipivich

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Clough
<[email protected]> foisted Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:00:16 GMT on
misc.survivalism , viz:
    >On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:53:30 GMT, pyotr filipivich
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Marijuana manufacture??? blink blink...
    >> It does come from plants.
    >You often read of people busted for growing pot charged with running a
    >'cannabis factory'.
    >I wonder if market gardeners run 'tomato factories' and 'cucumber
    >factories'?

Why not.

Some years ago, friend of mine was trying to get his Dad to by him a
motorcycle. Dad said no, they're expensive and don't grow on trees. Dan
replied "Yes, they come from plants."

If memory serves, his Dad had one on board next time the tanker
returned from Japan. Air Force Load masters, they know what's on board.

--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."

Strabo

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 23 Jul 2004
05:39:45 -0400, we read:

    >Miguel Cruz wrote...
    >>> That's exactly right. Each individual has the right to make that
    >>> determination for themselves... to hold whatever opinion they like. They
    >>> have the right to garner support for that opinion, to express that
    >>> opinion, and to change things to better fit their opinion by any means
    >>> they deem appropriate, be they of the majority OR the minority.
    >>> That's the very *essence* of democracy
    >>
    >> No, that's what we call anarchy.
    >*big sigh*
    >I'm not at all surprised liberals cant wrap their tiny brains around the
    >simple notion of a democracy being based on rights that are applied
    >evenly.
    >If you maintain a democracy by force, and deny the right of force to any
    >class of people, that democracy is a complete falsehood... identical to
    >a state where leaders are voted into power, but certain people are not
    >allowed to vote. The right ot overthrow a democratic government is
    >tantamount to democracy. The two concepts are inseparable...

Wrong.

The origin of democracy, Athens, recognized the vote only by
certain classes.


"The right ot overthrow a democratic government is
tantamount to democracy. The two concepts are inseparable..."

Absurd.

In fact no government controlled by democracy has ever been
overthrown because democracies don't last long enough to
build the necessary resistance. Real democracies simply crumble
from the economic disasters that they bring about.

Just as the united states uses only a limited democratic
process to elect representatives, other societies in other
times have used democracy in different ways.

The European states for example are socialist democracies
which is one reason why they have difficulty understanding
the united states.

Strabo

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 23 Jul
2004 11:33:42 +0100, we read:

    >Following up to Copelandia Cyanescens
    >> The right ot overthrow a democratic government is
    >>tantamount to democracy.
    >a fascinating idea of what democracy is.
    >Representative democracy (true or simple democracy being
    >impractical in a large country) is about choosing government by
    >equal voting, removal is carried out by periodic re election not
    >by overthrowing by force, (except in la la land).

There cannot be a "representative democracy". The words
are antithetical. A democracy requires a direct vote.


One area of confusion may be that of our multiple governments.

Remember that we live in states. The individual's government is
that of the state in which the individual lives. The central
government, which you hear so much about, was put together by
representatives of the states. The central government does not
directly control the citizens of the united states and we do not
directly vote for the people in federal office.


The US has had two revolutions. Our Constitution guarantees
a representative form of government or the physical overthrow of
a usurper or, the dissolution of the Constitution altogether.


    >anarchy
    >noun a state of
    >disorder due to absence or
    >non-recognition of authority or
    >other controlling systems
    >absence of government
    >and absolute freedom of
    >the individual, regarded
    >as a political ideal.

Tim Kroesen

Personally I feel public execution should be brought back.

Prime Time Wednesday; Eight O'clock so it's not on too late for the
kids; merciful deaths in a *deadly* serious tone; without commercial
interruption...

Now back to SPAM disincentives...

Tim K

"devil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
    > On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:17:44 +0000, Tim Kroesen wrote:
    > > Yawn...
    > >
    > > Indeed, why we have prisons and death penalties ;to remove
criminally
    > > defective mentality from the gene pool...
    > I agree. When looking for recreation, indeed nothing beats a public
    > execution. Just look at how it's done in China for instance. Don't
you
    > think they should bring them back in the US too?
    > What about hanging and leaving the corpse there until if falls off by
    > itself? Very entertaining too, isn't it?
    > Wasn't that a favorite passtime of some French king? Was it St Louis
or
    > Louis XI?
    > > "devil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news[email protected]...
    > >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:09:10 -0500, anonymous wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> >>>a gun is primarily a weapon, to insist on tool is sillyness.
    > >> >
    > >> > actually firearms are primarily used for recreation.
    > >> >
    > >> > hunting, target shooting, or "plinking".
    > >>
    > >> Didn't you miss the most recreative of them all? Such as, random
    > > killing
    > >> and the like, for instance?
    > >>

Copelandia Cyanescens

Strabo wrote...
    >>If you maintain a democracy by force, and deny the right of force to any
    >>class of people, that democracy is a complete falsehood... identical to
    >>a state where leaders are voted into power, but certain people are not
    >>allowed to vote. The right ot overthrow a democratic government is
    >>tantamount to democracy. The two concepts are inseparable...
    >
    > Wrong.
    >
    > The origin of democracy, Athens, recognized the vote only by
    > certain classes.

*shrug*

Set your time machine to "wayback", go live in ancient history Athens,
and maybe their version of a democratic society will be relevant...

--
Stupid Political Quote #66

"Prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels would guarantee
homeland insecurity. If you are worried about getting oil from
an unstable Persian Gulf, consider the alternatives: Indonesia,
Nigeria, Uzbekistan."

-- Robert Redford

The Watcher

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:26:03 +0100, "Joseph Hutcheon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

(snip)
    >I doubt that most people would be minded to defend an elected government
    >against violent overthrow at the risk of their lives.

Most folks in the American "colonies" weren't too inclined to defend the legal
government against violent overthrow at the risk of their lives.
(snip)

The Watcher

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:16:58 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <[email protected]> wrote:

(snip)
    >As for getting angrier, I assure you that I am cool as the proverbial
    >cucumber. I am an attorney, a professor of political science, and a
    >paramedic. Therefore, I am well-versed in the legal, political and
    >medical ramifications of firearms possession and use, from frequent
    >first-hand experience and knowledge. Thank you for the opportunity to
    >explain these matters to you. If you have any further questions, I am
    >at your service.

It's already been explained to him several times. He's got a strong case of
denial going.

Gunner

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:23:47 GMT, don'[email protected] (The Watcher)
wrote:

    >On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:45:02 GMT, pyotr filipivich <[email protected]> wrote:
    >(snip)
    >> Prostitute is such an ugly word. "Indentured Comfort woman" sound so
    >>much nicer.
    >> Count me as an AYE.
    >I'm abstaining for now. I'd have to see her first.
    >(snip)

So far..we have 100% of the voters wanting to turn Reids old lady out.

Im sure Reid wont mind as after all..the Majority voted for it.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Gunner

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:06:46 -0700, "gruhn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >> If one believes that the Constitution gives the people the right, it
    >> also means that those same people have to reistablish the new
    >> govenment under the very same Constitution
    >If one believes that the Constition only recognizes existing rights it means
    >that those same people can establish whatever they want as did
Actually not..as its the Constitution that gave them the legitimacy to
revolt. Though I do see your point. One could also say that if the
Contract between People and the Government is broken, than as most
contracts go..its considered null and void and a new contract would
have to be mutually agreed to.

Gunner


    >> Smart fellows the Founders.

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

John P. Mullen

Gunner wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:06:46 -0700, "gruhn" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >> If one believes that the Constitution gives the people the right, it
    > >> also means that those same people have to reistablish the new
    > >> govenment under the very same Constitution
    > >
    > >If one believes that the Constition only recognizes existing rights it means
    > >that those same people can establish whatever they want as did
    > >
    > Actually not..as its the Constitution that gave them the legitimacy to
    > revolt. Though I do see your point. One could also say that if the
    > Contract between People and the Government is broken, than as most
    > contracts go..its considered null and void and a new contract would
    > have to be mutually agreed to.
    >
    > Gunner
    >
    > >> Smart fellows the Founders.
    > >
    >

Well, it doesn't really work that way. If it did, then there would be
at least two countries within the current USA and the US Civil War would
not have occurred.

John Mullen

Blake Loyd

"The Reids" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Following up to The Watcher
    > >>Does not your hallowed constitution hold rights to be self
    > >>evident?

No it doesn't.

    > >
    > >It states that they are, but that doesn't prove that they are either, no.
That's
    > >just another opinion.

No it doesn't. The DoI says, "We hold these truths to be
self-evident..."meaning the signers of the DoI. More than likely, most
Americans hold the same belief, especially in regards to their own rights if
not those of others. But before anyone blathers about the right to own
guns, the DoI doesn't list that as one of the inalienable rights.
    > Right so the constitution is meaningless, its just your opinion
    > and my opinion.

You lack of knowledge is evident. Your faculty to come to a faulty and
illogical conclusion based on scant or erroneous information is shown. Your
illogical assumption proves your opinion to be meaningless.

Loyd

    > --
    > Mike Reid
    > "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
    > Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <--
you can email us@ this site
    > Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a
spamtrap

Gunner

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:32:22 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I agree. When looking for recreation, indeed nothing beats a public
    >execution. Just look at how it's done in China for instance. Don't you
    >think they should bring them back in the US too?
    >What about hanging and leaving the corpse there until if falls off by
    >itself? Very entertaining too, isn't it?
    >
    >Wasn't that a favorite passtime of some French king? Was it St Louis or
    >Louis XI?

Actually it was a rather common practice in England. Along with
drawing and quartering, the Wheel etc.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Blake Loyd

"The Reids" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Following up to Copelandia Cyanescens
    > >Reids: Guns are meant to kill... kill... kill... etc.
    > >
    > >Me: Fine, now tell us why killing is bad.
    > >
    > >Reids: Oh... that doesn't matter.
    > >
    > >If it didn't matter, why the **** were you whining about it?
    > I was not, it was you pro gunners who insisted ad infinitum that
    > guns were not primarily designed to kill. It was just a matter of
    > establishing that simple fact so we could move on.
    > BTW I notice all of you are getting angrier and angrier, don't
    > like the truth do you?

You apparently fail to realize, or you are unwilling to admit, that not all
guns are designed to kill. The fact that a gun can kill is merely as
relevant as the fact that a ball bat can kill, but neither one is capable of
killing on its own. The ball bat is simply a club. A club is a weapon only
if it is used as one. A gun is a weapon only if it is used as one.
Many guns are designed for competitions not for killing. When it comes
down to basics, guns are designed to propel an object. It is only the
intent of the user that determines whether the gun is being used as a weapon
or not. Bats are designed for hitting objects. It is only the intent of the
user that determines whether the bat is being used as a weapon or not.

Loyd

Blake Loyd

"Strabo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In <[email protected]> on Fri, 23 Jul
    > 2004 08:51:27 +0100, we read:
    > >Following up to Strabo
    > >
    > >>>I thought you live in a republic and a democracy.
    > >>>But the preservation of minority rights is a question in a
    > >>>democracy and your right to say a constitution can protect those
    > >>>is a valid one. I suspect the US only differs from elsewhere in
    > >>>the validity and practicality of the armed citizen aspect.
    > >>
    > >>You are using socialist doctrine.
    > >>
    > >>Outside of socialism, there's no such thing as "minority rights"
    > >>because there can be no group rights. Only the individual has
    > >>rights.
    > >
    > >>Either everyone has the same rights (inherent; natural) or there
    > >>are no rights, only grants of privilege from some government.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>Unfortunately, ignorance and socialist intentions have made
    > >>"minority rights" a common term.
    > >
    > >You are nitpicking at terminology. The point is that in a
    > >democracy the majority opinion rules. Your constitution was
    > >claimed by one of you above as being there to protect the
    > >individual rights of the those not in that majority. That is what
    > >people mean by "minority rights". (The individual rights of those
    > >in a minority on an issue).
    > Again, why use the word 'minority'? The Constitution orders
    > government to protect the rights of ALL Americans. It does not
    > say or imply the individual rights of those not in the majority.
    > >>The united states is a constitutional republic. The word
    > >>"democracy" is not even found in the founding documents.
    > >>
    > >>Confusion enters due to the act of individual voting which uses
    > >>"democratic" principles. But all law and policy, state and
    > >>federal, is accomplished by representatives of the individuals
    > >>and not by direct or indirect democracy.
    > >
    > >"Representatives of the individuals". How are those
    > >representatives of the individuals selected?
    > By vote, though they are not bound to act in behalf of
    > their supporters which is where the democratic process ends.
And it is only by those that do vote. Many do not vote by their own choice.
Some are not allowed because of their criminal convictions. Some do not
vote because of their legal status: child, etc. A person can easily be
elected by a minority of the people the person represents.

Loyd

Blake Loyd

"The Reids" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Following up to Stuart Grey
    > >It doesn't follow. Our founders recoginzied that to get a well
functioning
    > >government required an educated population.
    > A well functioning democracy requires an educated population, is
    > that what you meant?

Someone once said something along the lines that democracy was two wolves
and a lamb deciding on what to eat for supper. If you can understand the
concept behind that statement then it should be clear that democracy for all
it is touted to be is inherently a flawed system. The only way for it to be
the perfect system is for the majority of the people, if not all of the
people, involved to be perfect. Basically, that removes the entire
population of the Earth as being suitable members of a democracy.
It should also be clear that referring to a government rather than to a
democracy is the sign of a wiser person than the other way around. Thus,
regardless of the type of government if the government is to be equally
beneficial to all of the populace, the populace should be well educated so
as to understand what the government is doing.

Loyd