🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 01:30:27 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:

>On 2007-06-07 23:09:42 -0400, leroyblue@pillinor.net said:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:00:13 -0500, Rich Corinthian Leather
>> <inexplicable@mysterious.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Testor Grey wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:56:05 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2007-06-04 14:12:35 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:19:33 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2007-06-04 09:03:01 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Liberal buffoons do not have to justify their anger and ignorance. All 
>>>>>>>> they have to do is "feel" that we have lost our rights for it to
>>>>>>>> be valid in their minds...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Geez... You are asking the buffoon to do something he is mentally
>>>>>>>> incapable of doing...
>>>>>>>> Mike Smith
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Even a NeoCon lover like you has to admit that the government has taken 
>>>>>>> a way our right to privacy.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From monitoring our library book checkouts, to tapping our phones and email.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Now tell me there is no such right.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You don't care because you are one of the lemmings who parrot the 
>>>>>>> phrase, " I have nothing to hide."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Its not about hiding anything, its about having the freedom to check 
>>>>>>> out books, and send email and make phone calls without the government 
>>>>>>> spying on us.
>>>>>> You're a fuckin moron, slim.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Name ONE time your library/phone records have been monitored by the
>>>>>> feds.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When one innocent person has been violated, we all are.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Not really.
>>> 
>>> Yes, really. When one person's rights are violated, it sets precedent 
>>> and the "authorities" think they can do it to everyone else!
>> 
>> No they don't. The people are armed and will only take so much -- the
>> Constitution allows that.
>
>And do you REALLY think your weaponry will save your sorry ass if the 
>Gummint wants to take you away?

You ignorant fool!


********************************************************************************
John Hancock
1737-1793

John Hancock

The events leading to the declaration of independence, which have been
rapidly passed in review, in the preceding pages, have brought us to
the more particular notice of those distinguished men, who signed
their names to that instrument, and thus identified themselves with
the glory of this American republic.

If the world has seldom witnessed a train of events of a more novel
and interesting character, than those which led to the declaration of
American independence, it has, perhaps, never seen a body of men,
placed in a more difficult and responsible situation, than were the
signers of that instrument. And certainly, the world has never
witnessed a more brilliant exhibition of political wisdom, or a
brighter example of firmness and courage.

The first instant the American colonies gave promise of future
importance and respectability, the jealousy of Great Britain was
excited, and the counsels of her statesmen were employed to keep them
in humble subjection. This was the object, when royalty grasped at
their charters; when restrictions were laid upon their commerce and
manufactures; when, by taxation, their resources were attempted to be
withdrawn, and the doctrine inculcated, that it was rebellion for them
to think and act for themselves.

It was fortunate for the Americans, that they understood their own
rights, and had the courage to assert them. But even at the time of
the declaration of independence, just ash was the cause of the
colonies, it was doubtful how the contests would terminate. The chance
of eventual success was against them. Less than three millions of
people constituted their population, and these were scattered over a
widely extended territory. They were divided into colonies, which had
no political character, and no other bond of union than common
sufferings, common danger, and common necessities. They had no veteran
army, no navy, no arsenals filled with the munitions of war, and no
fortifications on their extended coast. They had no overflowing
treasuries; but in the outset, were to depend upon loans, taxation,
and voluntary contributions.

Thus circumstanced, could success in such a contest be reasonably
anticipated? Could they hope to compete with the parent country, whose
strength was consolidated by the lapse of centuries, and to whose
wealth and power so many millions contributed? That country directed,
in a great measure, the destinies of Europe: her influence extended to
every quarter of the world. Her armies were trained to the art of war;
her navy rode in triumph on every sea; her statesmen were subtle and
sagacious; her generals skilful and practised. And more than all, her
pride was aroused by the fact, that all Europe was an interested
spectator of the scene, and was urging her forward to vindicate the
policy she had adopted, and the principles which she had advanced.

But what will not union and firmness, valour and patriotism,
accomplish? What will not faith accomplish? The colonies were, indeed,
aware of the crisis at which they had arrived. They saw the precipice
upon which they stood. National existence was at stake. Life, and
liberty, and peace, were at hazard; not only of this generation which
then existed, but of the unnumbered millions which were yet to be
born. To heaven they could, with pious confidence, make their solemn
appeal. They trusted in the arm of HIM, who had planted their fathers
in this distant land, and besought HIM to guide the men, who in his
providence were called to preside over their public councils.

http://www.colonialhall.com/hancock/hancock.php#cooliris