If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
: "Skywise" wrote in message ... No. I am trying to focus on one specific point but you keep going off on everything else. Here I'm honestly puzzled. What "specific point" are you "focusing on"? Snipola Let's just drop it, shall we? Brian -- http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
"Skywise" wrote in message
... Let's just drop it, shall we? At last, something we can agree on. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
("Skywise" wrote)
Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word? http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/filthywords.html 2nd grade - 1968: "I know a word that starts with "F" and ends in "UCK" - Firetruck" ...and I still got my mouth washed out with soap! I should have known better. Shouting "COX ...trainer" and "COX ...airplane gas" in the backyard, at the top of my lungs, garnered the same results the year before. :-o Montblack |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
"Skywise" wrote in message ... "Montblack" wrote in : ("Skywise" wrote) Why the [#%&*] else would there be reparations if not to punish? There are two regular posters who (sometimes) use the F'enheimer. Maybe that number is now three? Enjoyed the 'heck' out of your post, otherwise. I may talk that way at times in real life (depending on who's listening), but in written text I try to refrain from it's use. However, there are times when I feel it necessary to indulge in such language in order to bring focus to the point. Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word? "We're gonna f*&k you, sheriff...!!" |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
("Matt Barrow" wrote)
Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word? "We're gonna f*&k you, sheriff...!!" :-) Montblack |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Ending slavery without a war was tried in the US and it failed. It worked elsewhere, it would have worked here eventually. Achieving Independence from Great Britain without War would have happened eventually too. Eventually wasn't soon enough--for either. -- FF |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Matt Whiting wrote: Gig 601XL Builder wrote: "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... just as they stole Africans to use as slaves. Matt Actually the Americans bought the slaves. In many cases from Africans. I said Europeans, not Americans. The Americans may have bought them, but they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods." I believe most of the slave traders were European, but I'm sure some enterprising Africans got into the action as well. In Africa the traders were mostly African. A number of Americans sailed the 'slave triangle'. They would take slaves from Africa to the Southern US or (maybe) the Carribean, take cotton, tobacco or mollases to New England, and then take manufactured goods to Africa. -- FF |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Matt Whiting wrote: ... Probably should, but I'm not planning on it. I just don't care that much about what happened 100-300 years ago. I'm more concerned about what will happen in the next 100 years. Remember what the Singer Carlos Santana said: "Those who do not learn from hsitory are doomed to repeat it." Or was that the philospoher George Santayana? -- FF |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Skywise wrote: "Gary Drescher" wrote in : "Skywise" wrote in message ... "Gary Drescher" wrote in : Who is talking about *punitive* reparations? I was, from the very first post I made in this thread. It now appears our whole argument is based on your misreading of my post. No, it's apparently based on your own misreading of your own post. Nothing in your original post referred to *punitive* reparations. Why the **** else would there be reparations if not to punish? To compensate. Specific to this issue, slavery in America pre Civil War, what tangible property is to be returned? What other reason would there be (re slavery) for white people alive today to give *anything* to black people alive today? The only thing taken away from the blacks was their freedom. Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish a sound estimate of just how much money that was. -- FF |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: wrote in message oups.com... You mean like the way the Bill of Rights was not properly ratified? In what way was the Bill of Rights not properly ratified? The "Sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified" argument mostly revolves around differences in punctuation and wording betweenthe extant written records of the Congress and various state legislatures. There are also allegations that some states the US Secretary of State credted with ratification , have no record of having ratified the 16th amendment and/or other irregularities. at the state level, including a failure of the governor to sign the bill for one or more states. Have I got that right? I dscount the 'no evidence argument' as I have no idea how good the record keeping was. The absence of an extant record does not prove the measure did not pass and you would suppose that if a particular state did not pass it, some legislators would have raised the issue. There are no records of THAT, either, are there? Not so much as a persoanl diary entry The 'governor failed to sign argument' is specious because the Constitution of the United States of America (CUSA) specifies that amendments are to be ratified by the state legislatures with no mention of the state governors. The individual States cannot impose additional requirements for amending he Constitution any more than they can change the term of office or impose additional eligibility requiirements for their Senators and Congresmen. So this leaves us with the inconsistant wording and punctuation argument, right? In the case of the Sixteenth amenment, those inconsistencies were so trivial as to not allow for any inconsistency in interpretation, indeed, we have no way of telling how precisely the words spoken on the floor of those legislative bodies agreed with the words recorded and enterred into the records by the clerks. It is a safe bet that pretty much all legislation of that era, and all previous amendments as well as the various copies of the original Constitution had similar inconsistencies particularly when you consider that the promulgation and acceptance of unifrom standards for English spelling, punctuation and grammar in legal and academic circles post-date the Constitution itself. However, even accepting that, the Bill of Rights was exceptional. The Bill of Rights passed by the Congress and submitted to the States for ratification was not a bill of ten amendments, it was one (1) amendment with twelve (12) articles. That amendment was never ratified by the requisite number of states. Some states ratified a shorter version, with only ten articles. That shorter version was accepted and became part of the CUSA. That Bill of Rights, with ten articles was not passed by the Congress, and then ratified requisite number of states. The alleged errors that supposedly invalidate the passage of the SIxteenth Amendment pale by comparison. The people who argue the sixteenth amendment was invalid, (and I note that you are not he person who introduced that notion into this thread) by and large, refuse to discuss this as they are not honest people. Later when more amendments passed the enumeration was changed so that the ten articles of the first amendment became the first ten amendments. That change was also made without ratification by the states, and although it plainly has no bearing on the validity of those or subsequent amendments that change still looms large when compared with the arguments advanced against the validity of the sixteenth amendment. -- FF |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fleet Air Arm Carriers and Squadrons in the Korean War | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 5th 04 02:58 AM |
(OT) TN NG 287th ACR mobilized first since Korean War: | CallsignZippo | Military Aviation | 0 | May 13th 04 06:50 AM |
North and South Korean overviews online. Your comments please !! | Frank Noort | Military Aviation | 0 | May 12th 04 08:40 PM |
US kill loss ratio versus Russian pilots in Korean War? | Rats | Military Aviation | 21 | January 26th 04 08:56 AM |
SOVIET VIEW OF THE KOREAN WAR | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 0 | December 28th 03 05:41 AM |