🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2007-06-09 13:52:26 -0400, leroyblue@pillinor.net said:

> 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

Dude, I agree with you.

You want to spew quotes that are over 300 years old? Go ahead.

England was weeks away by ship back then, right now you could be gone 
in a matter of minutes.

But you don't have the firepower or armor to stop them if they really 
want to come and get you.

They know where you live, they know what you read and write on the 
internet and they will be more than prepared when they come for you.

-- 
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in 
England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after 
all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it 
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a 
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist 
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to 
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL 
THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of 
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY 
COUNTRY."
�
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials