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?

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
Let's just drop it, shall we?

At last, something we can agree on.

("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

"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...!!"

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word?

"We're gonna f*&k you, sheriff...!!"


:-)


Montblack

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

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

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

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

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