← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JoseyWales
Thread ID: 19584 | Posts: 34 | Started: 2005-08-12
2005-08-12 04:29 | User Profile
[url]http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/05/08/11/whlborder.asp[/url]
"I've heard the old stories," says Joe Johnson, Ralph Johnson's grandson, as he drives down New Mexico Highway 9, which essentially parallels the Mexican border. "I think it's worse now."
The 160-section Johnson Ranch is a cow-calf operation that shares eight miles of border with Mexico.
"We've lived here on the border all our lives," Johnson says. "Here in the last two years, the violence has just been escalating."
...
"Close to 500-plus illegal aliens cross our ranch every single day," Johnson says.
2005-08-12 13:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JoseyWales][url="http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/05/08/11/whlborder.asp"]http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/05/08/11/whlborder.asp[/url][/QUOTE] can someone say target practice?
2005-08-12 13:39 | User Profile
B.B.:can someone say target practice?
Actually, you hit on a good idea.
If ranchers would turn border property into either private hunting land or shooting ranges, it may make the aliens reconsider the risk.
Another option may be to turn border land into ordinance testing ranges for the Nat'l Guard or local militia.
2005-08-12 15:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Another option may be to turn border land into ordinance testing ranges for the Nat'l Guard or local militia.[/QUOTE] CWR,
I'm not even sure that would work. Sometime ago I saw some film footage taken by a military photographer on one of the aeriall bombardment ranges in Arizona. These ranges are marked as such. One of the films showed some illegals running through one range as a fighterbomber dropped its bombs. Unfortunately, the bombs were dummies, but, I bet the illegals needed a new change of drawers after that incident. The military has had alot of problems with illegals trespassing. In another one a truckload of illegals ran some M.P.s off the road by playing "chicken" with them.
Fence the border off and post notices that illegals crossing that border are subject to being shot.
2005-08-12 15:20 | User Profile
I'm not even sure that would work.
Not even with depleted uranium scattered all around?
2005-08-12 15:24 | User Profile
Nah, too slow and the stuff can get into the water table. I'd rather round up all those antipersonel mines and concentina wire left over from the removal of the Iron Curtain and put them to good use over here on the border.
2005-08-12 16:09 | User Profile
Again, set up illegal state work camps where they would serve a longer period of time the more times that they are cough like 2 week, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and so on.......and then kick them across the border again.
But of course this is only "I wish" because it wont happen.
2005-08-12 16:44 | User Profile
Sert: Nah, too slow and the stuff can get into the water table.
So, it's okay for your buddies in the USA Army to spread D.U. in Iraq, but not okay for Texas, becasue it might get into the ground water. Think it might get into the ground water in Iraq, too? (I know, this is off-topic)
(How many generations of Iraqis will suffer birth defects because of USA Empire "foreign policy", enforced by the USA Army?)
2005-08-12 16:45 | User Profile
P: set up illegal state work camps
Those are reserved for white Americans who protest illegal aliens.
2005-08-12 20:52 | User Profile
CWR,
I think the use of D.P. should be banned period. You might have asked me this instead of assuming that I approve of the use of this round. By the way, it not only is dangerous to the local, it is also dangerous to G.I.s as well, not that you would care.
2005-08-12 21:18 | User Profile
"You might have asked me this instead of assuming that I approve of the use of this round."
I did not assume you approve of the use of D.U.. I'm pleased to read that you don't. Nor am I trying to "get your goat". But perhaps your military experience has blinded you to the "big picture". The elitists, the Bush's, the Klintoons, the Kissingers believe the military is at their disposal to advance their agenda. And their NWO agenda is clearly anti-American. Kissinger even called soldiers "dumb animals" or something like that. Why obey those who use you and mock you? They are the traitors, not you men.
Those in the Army have a duty to uphold the Constitution, not some NWO agenda.
That will require disobeying immoral, illegal, criminal and unConstitutional orders. I don't see too many in the Army doing that. They just go and hope not to get killed, then they plan on getting the promised college education.
Sert: Is there any validity to the following?:
In an effort to stop the Bush administration in its tracks, sources say Byrnes was about to lead a coup against the hawks in the military and executive branch determined to lead America into a global conflict, leading to devastating ramifications for the country, as well as financial and social chaos.
Rumors inside the military say that a growing faction of discontented high-ranking officers are attempting internally to try and stop the Bush administrationââ¬â¢s imminent plans for war with Iran in an effort to avert global war.
Although the exact number of high-ranking military involved is undetermined, sources have disclosed it appears to be evenly split between pro Bush and anti Bush factions.
2005-08-12 21:34 | User Profile
CWR,
I bet I have a far better handle on what is going on than you do and you are not going to lecture me about "duty" and the meaning of the oath I swore allegiance to, not when you haven't spent one day in uniform.
As far as the corrupt antics of the govt. and the bankers are concerned I've only been following this since 1971. Try reading the things I wrote in "Neocon Watch" for starters. Here, I'll help you. [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29[/url]
Keep it up.
2005-08-13 01:23 | User Profile
"I bet I have a far better handle on what is going on than you do..."
Possibly in some areas....in others, I doubt it.
"......not when you haven't spent one day in uniform."
And what makes you think wearing a uniform qualifies a person? What virtue is there in wearing a uniform for a gov't which refuses to stay in its God given limits?
2005-08-13 11:52 | User Profile
It certainly qualifies me over you after the dumb comment you made above to me. I wouldn't make that to others, for most of our posters are thoughtful, intelligent people. You, on the other hand, seem to want to be some sort of a crude modern day version of Edmund Ruffin. If the South were to become independent one day it would be despite people like you, not because of you. If I didn't know any better I'd swear you were a S.P.L.C. plant.
Years ago I was part of a group of folks who tried to prevent the political whores and the Chamber of Commerce types from changing the state flag. What I remember the most about this was the way the media would ignore some of the folks we had who could present our side well, the Charley Reese types and instead would try to find the most belligerent, "ignorant redneck peckerwood" they could find. I suspect you are one of those types the media would spot right off the bat and go running to, based on these exchanges we've had.
2005-08-13 13:02 | User Profile
If I didn't know any better I'd swear you were a S.P.L.C. plant.
Not in any way shape or form. Never have worked for the gov't, been in the military or anything like that.
seem to want to be some sort of a crude modern day version of Edmund Ruffin.
Never heard of Ruffin until a few months ago. All I know about him is from a one paragraph bio on an obsure website. Notice you seem to know more about him than I do.
instead would try to find the most belligerent, "ignorant redneck peckerwood" they could find.
The media has asked me for an interview at events. I refuse interviews unless they pay me $500.00 in certified check or cash. They then say, "We don't pay for interviews.". And I tell them, "Liars".
Why should I not get a cut of their profits? If they are going to make money off of interviews by selling filtered news, why shouldn't the interviewee get a cut? I'm not interested in helping communist fishwraps make money at my expense. I'm not going to help them. Make them pay.
BTW, you still have not provided a sound moral basis for supporting an illegitimate, rouge gov't by putting on a uniform and using WMD against innocent citisens. Nor have you provide proof that one in uniform is superior to one not in uniform, other than the uniform has an M16 and brute, thug force.
2005-08-13 13:12 | User Profile
Sert, this is none of my business, but I don't think CWRW meant any harm. He seems to have told you some things that you're already painfully aware of, and maybe that sounded condescending to you. From my third party perspective, though, it didn't seem intentional.
Sadly, I must agree completely with the following:
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]The elitists, the Bush's, the Klintoons, the Kissingers believe the military is at their disposal to advance their agenda. And their NWO agenda is clearly anti-American. Kissinger even called soldiers "dumb animals" or something like that. Why obey those who use you and mock you? They are the traitors, not you men.
Those in the Army have a duty to uphold the Constitution, not some NWO agenda.
That will require disobeying immoral, illegal, criminal and unConstitutional orders. I don't see too many in the Army doing that. They just go and hope not to get killed, then they plan on getting the promised college education.[/QUOTE]I can certainly understand how people get fooled into joining the current military. When I was in high school, the Naval Academy and West Point both sent me letters inviting me to apply; I was flattered and damn near did apply. In the end, my realization that I would have to put some of my strong interests on hold for a while to go to either school (e.g., guitar) was all that stopped me. At that age (16 or 17), I had never even heard of issues like Israeli control of US foreign policy, and the Constitution was little more than an abstraction.
So while I've never been a gullible person, I came close to being suckered simply by virtue of my youth and lack of awareness of certain political issues. Many others do fall into the trap; in today's political climate, that makes them unwitting servants of ZOG.
Who's to blame? Well, the leaders of this nation, of course, as well as more mature members of the general public for their stupidity. I don't blame the soldiers as much, since they're typically quite young and naive as I once was.
On the other hand, there's only a certain amount of sympathy I can have for people who are doing what's wrong, regardless of why they're doing it. If, for example, US soldiers are ever fooled into attempting to confiscate US citizens' weapons, I won't merely be speaking out against them; I'll be sniping at them myself until they kill me. Let's hope it never comes to that. Right now, there's still a (very slim) chance to turn US politics around and get the military back on the right side of things. I think we're seeing the beginning of a backlash against the neocons, though I fear it might be much milder than it ought to be, and another terrorist attack might reset the pendulum in the neocons' favor.
2005-08-13 13:20 | User Profile
Sert: It's quite obvious you are more intested in attacking the messenger than the issues, on this thread.
I'd like to see you defend the use of the Army in USA "foriegn policy". And the legality of preemptive strikes against countries who are no threat to the USA. While the Southern border is wide open, except for New Mexico, which Gov. Richardson says he is going to close with Nat'l Guard (at last, a proper use of the military?). The USA Army is to DEFEND the country, not agress against others for reasons which are not declared.
2005-08-13 17:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]On the other hand, there's only a certain amount of sympathy I can have for people who are doing what's wrong, regardless of why they're doing it. If, for example, US soldiers are ever fooled into attempting to confiscate US citizens' weapons, [COLOR=Red][I]I won't merely be speaking out against them; I'll be sniping at them myself until they kill me[/I][/COLOR]. Let's hope it never comes to that. Right now, there's still a (very slim) chance to turn US politics around and get the military back on the right side of things. I think we're seeing the beginning of a backlash against the neocons, though I fear it might be much milder than it ought to be, and another terrorist attack might reset the pendulum in the neocons' favor.[/QUOTE]Another internet warrior!!! Does he wear a kevlar helmet and camouflage fatigues when he goes to the typewriter? So many profess to know so much about rifles and tactics except what to do if somebody else has a weapon.
2005-08-13 18:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Another internet warrior!!! Does he wear a kevlar helmet and camouflage fatigues when he goes to the typewriter? So many profess to know so much about rifles and tactics except what to do if somebody else has a weapon.[/QUOTE]Yeah, yeah, we've heard all that from you before, troll.
Go crawl back under your bridge, Dick. :rolleyes:
2005-08-13 18:56 | User Profile
Sert, this is none of my business, but I don't think CWRW meant any harm. He seems to have told you some things that you're already painfully aware of, and maybe that sounded condescending to you. From my third party perspective, though, it didn't seem intentional.
Angler,
I wished you had stayed out of this. Since you have done otherwise, I'll address what you have written.
In the case of "CWR" I will point out that he started this mess with me awhile back and if he keeps it up I will finish it. I don't suffer fools gladly nor do I have much use for fanatics, whether they be religious, ideological, or economical. This guy doesn't know the first thing about me and sees fit to accuse me of positions I don't hold, as you should know.
If CWR thinks this is the time for massive resistance I suggest that he join that military he seems to hold in such contempt and practice what he preaches. Let him lead the troops, seeing how he has such a great understanding of this. It doesn't work that way in the real world. (see below) Shoot, he may have forgotten, but most of the senior commanders of Confederate forces were former members of the U.S. Army. He might as well get the combat experience instead of pretending that he is holding himself in reserve for the revolution.
Now, to the other things you bring up. I happen to agree with you about the part of the oath to the Constitution trumping that to a man. "Lawful orders" are to be obeyed, not illegal orders. The US has never had a case of invoking this part of the oath. That may change soon, if what Giraldi wrote in the American Conservative is correct. If they do decide to do this, they'll do it to their own schedule and we'll be that last to know.
I've heard all sorts of rumors about the relief of Gen. Byrnes. Unfortunately, the sources they come from I regard with suspect. One of the sources has backed off his intitial claim about this being a possible coup. If there is anything to this, I believe that he possibly may have been disgusted with the planning of an attack on Iran with conventional airpower and "mininukes" and had decided to go public about this. We simply don't have enough information. If this is the case, I hope he shows moral courage and goes public about this.
On the other hand, there's only a certain amount of sympathy I can have for people who are doing what's wrong, regardless of why they're doing it. If, for example, US soldiers are ever fooled into attempting to confiscate US citizens' weapons, I won't merely be speaking out against them; I'll be sniping at them myself until they kill me. Let's hope it never comes to that.
Right now, there's still a (very slim) chance to turn US politics around and get the military back on the right side of things. I think we're seeing the beginning of a backlash against the neocons, though I fear it might be much milder than it ought to be, and another terrorist attack might reset the pendulum in the neocons' favor.
Angler, do you remember back in 1994 some officer did a survey on troop reaction to being ordered to do certain things under marshal law, like gun confiscation and firing on civilians? I do. At the time the callers on "talk radio" were raising hell about this, for after all, Bill Clinton is president and we can't trust him now, can we! I note the same type of people seem to think that this is alright now that we have "Conservative, Christian, and Republican" George Bush in office. Fortunately, these folks are a minority.
Anyway, the overwhelming majority said they wouldn't have anything to do with setting up a dictatorship. I also know from my own first hand experience that most of my comrades and I thought the same way. I don't think that those beliefs have changed over the years since I was active and reserve for the reason the bulk of the forces are from the same background I am from. My own belief is that if Bush and his gang of criminals were to try to establish some type of dictatorship they would be resisted not only by a majority of the public at large, but most of the Armed Forces as well. We'll see in due course.
I hope this answers things for you.
2005-08-13 20:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Angler,
I wished you had stayed out of this. Since you have done otherwise, I'll address what you have written.
In the case of "CWR" I will point out that he started this mess with me awhile back and if he keeps it up I will finish it. I don't suffer fools gladly nor do I have much use for fanatics, whether they be religious, ideological, or economical. This guy doesn't know the first thing about me and sees fit to accuse me of positions I don't hold, as you should know. Okay. Sorry about that. I just thought I was seeing a simple misunderstanding and wanted to gingerly intervene. I didn't know you guys had a "history." Very well then, I shall butt right back out.
BTW: Yes, I do realize that you don't hold those positions he stated.
If CWR thinks this is the time for massive resistance I suggest that he join that military he seems to hold in such contempt and practice what he preaches. Let him lead the troops, seeing how he has such a great understanding of this. It doesn't work that way in the real world. (see below) Shoot, he may have forgotten, but most of the senior commanders of Confederate forces were former members of the U.S. Army. He might as well get the combat experience instead of pretending that he is holding himself in reserve for the revolution. Well, I'll let him speak for himself regarding that. But I personally would hate to get combat experience at the cost of participating in an Imperial war like that currently going on in Iraq. Even if I just had to push a button and launch missiles from the safety of a ship a couple miles from shore, I could never live with the guilt. In fact, I'd refuse to do it. But that would be easier for me than for other people, seeing as I have no one "back home" depending on my career financially.
Now, to the other things you bring up. I happen to agree with you about the part of the oath to the Constitution trumping that to a man. "Lawful orders" are to be obeyed, not illegal orders. The US has never had a case of invoking this part of the oath. That may change soon, if what Giraldi wrote in the American Conservative is correct. If they do decide to do this, they'll do it to their own schedule and we'll be that last to know. There's never been a case of someone challenging orders as illegal? I'm not sure I follow you here.
I've heard all sorts of rumors about the relief of Gen. Byrnes. Unfortunately, the sources they come from I regard with suspect. One of the sources has backed off his intitial claim about this being a possible coup. If there is anything to this, I believe that he possibly may have been disgusted with the planning of an attack on Iran with conventional airpower and "mininukes" and had decided to go public about this. We simply don't have enough information. If this is the case, I hope he shows moral courage and goes public about this. I heard a rumor about that, too. If it's true, then damn, that guy's a hero if he follows through on his resistance to that insanity.
Angler, do you remember back in 1994 some officer did a survey on troop reaction to being ordered to do certain things under marshal law, like gun confiscation and firing on civilians? I do. At the time the callers on "talk radio" were raising hell about this, for after all, Bill Clinton is president and we can't trust him now, can we! I note the same type of people seem to think that this is alright now that we have "Conservative, Christian, and Republican" George Bush in office. Fortunately, these folks are a minority.
Anyway, the overwhelming majority said they wouldn't have anything to do with setting up a dictatorship. I also know from my own first hand experience that most of my comrades and I thought the same way. I don't think that those beliefs have changed over the years since I was active and reserve for the reason the bulk of the forces are from the same background I am from. My own belief is that if Bush and his gang of criminals were to try to establish some type of dictatorship they would be resisted not only by a majority of the public at large, but most of the Armed Forces as well. We'll see in due course.
I hope this answers things for you.[/QUOTE]I do remember that poll, and I was pretty glad to see the results. But I still fear that members of the military, like the population in general, are easily manipulated by propaganda. If the government ever wanted to sic the military on us, we wouldn't be "US citizens" anymore -- we'd be "homegrown terrorists" or "domestic enemies of the Constitution." Even now I believe the government claims the right to hold US citizens without trial as "enemy combatants," and I don't hear a lot of complaining from the military about that sort of thing (not publicly, at least). Little by little, things are changing. It seems that the "War on Terror" justifies everything now. Even trashing what's left of the Constitution.
Anyway, I hope you're right about the military, because we already know that the other servants of the government -- from federal agents to many local cops -- have no qualms at all about doing whatever they're told to US citizens, whether Constitutional or not.
2005-08-13 22:08 | User Profile
Angler,
No problem and I apologize if the way I started that post to you sounded unduly harsh. I went back and edited it at the time you were reading it.
What I meant was invoking the Constitution against an administration with the intent of regarding orders coming from that administration as illegal. I think we are very close to this scenario. It depends on what the lunatics in D.C. do. If they try to do this I hope that the chiefs or their subordinates say "not only no, but, hell, no." I wouldn't obey an order like that and despite the corruption we have today I have to believe that there are folks who when confronted with this will act decisively. I hope I'm right on this.
I wonder if this general was the one primarily responsible for past leaks from the Pentagon?
One thing I think we should be aware of that not everyone follows this stuff the way we do or our enemies do on the the otherside. There are alot of other things going on that folks are mad about we don't hear anything out of. Instead, we hear nonsense from the "freepers", hanniots and other assorted nitwits and all of this tends to create an effect much bigger than it really is.
I have a belief that with the addition of all this other crap along with Iraq/Iran this gang is responsible for is added up that the Bush gang will be ultimately thwarted. I don't think they will be able to pull the same trick twice as they did with Iraq.
2005-08-13 23:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Angler,
No problem and I apologize if the way I started that post to you sounded unduly harsh. I went back and edited it at the time you were reading it. Oh, no apology needed -- I could tell you were a bit miffed, but I assumed it because you'd just had an exchange with CWR. I'm still going to butt out, though. :)
What I meant was invoking the Constitution against an administration with the intent of regarding orders coming from that administration as illegal. Actually invoking the Constitution as opposed to some other measure of legality? I see. I'm still surprised to hear that that's never been done before, but better late than never.
I think we are very close to this scenario. It depends on what the lunatics in D.C. do. If they try to do this I hope that the chiefs or their subordinates say "not only no, but, hell, no." I wouldn't obey an order like that and despite the corruption we have today I have to believe that there are folks who when confronted with this will act decisively. I hope I'm right on this. Yeah, I sure hope there are at least a few, and not so few that they become marginalized.
I wonder if this general was the one primarily responsible for past leaks from the Pentagon? That's an interesting thought.
I have a belief that with the addition of all this other crap along with Iraq/Iran this gang is responsible for is added up that the Bush gang will be ultimately thwarted. I don't think they will be able to pull the same trick twice as they did with Iraq.[/QUOTE]They do seem to be overplaying their hand quite a bit. Even all those gullible Joe Sixpacks and Sally Simpletons are starting to come around, albeit slowly. But if there's another 9/11... :eek:
2005-08-14 00:44 | User Profile
It would be nice if all the worlds problems could be fixed so easy, nawwwww the Jews would not allowed it. :argue:
2005-08-14 17:47 | User Profile
Angler: Okay. Sorry about that. I just thought I was seeing a simple misunderstanding and wanted to gingerly intervene. I didn't know you guys had a "history." Very well then, I shall butt right back out.
The "history" only goes back to a recent thread on India ammo. I stated I'd like the USA Army to buy some. Like I'd like the USA Imperial forces to go 100% female, too.
Why? Simply because the North is still an emeny to the South. Proof is evident:
-Reconstruction II is still in progress (destruction of Southern smbols, indoctrination centers)
-Illegal immigtration which effects the South more than anyone else (Texas, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina),
-White genocide of Southerners and Southern Christians.
IMO, anything which will weaken the yankee Empire will improve the South's position in returning to a confederation of sovereign states, as intended by the original Founders.
The yankees operate an illegitimate gov't which doesn't even follow it's own laws. It will use this army against its own citisens.
Southern friends don't let Southern friends join the yankee army.
2005-08-14 18:15 | User Profile
Sert: It is quite obvious you are still bent on attacking a poster, rather than addressing the issues.
IMO, your case is an epitome of what happens to people when they are processed and run thru the military establishment. The military establishment, ever since lincoln, has changed from a necessary defensive organisation to a political tool which obeys orders reguardless of the morality and legality of the orders. It defines a "legal order" as anything that is typed on gov't paper in the prescribed, approved format.
How has this sad state of affairs come about? Thru "training" and intensive indoctrination. Military training is more psychological conditioning than it is physical conditioning. And what is drilled into recruits more than anything, is that the state is the ultimate authority in mans' life. (Look at all the multi-cultural, PC garbage that's taught and drummed into heads which never had a real education.) You are a product, to some degree, of that process.
The state takes recruits and literally gives them a disciplined life, something they lacked before joining. In exchange, the state requires an oath and your soul, for life, to support unquestioning a gov't of the state, by the state and for the state.
Most in the armed forces who died in action since the War of Northern Aggression, died not defending America, but died empowering a centralised socialistic state. They died for a flag and an illegitimate gov't.
And last but not least, there are the monetary benefits. If the South seceded, military veterans may lose their benefits (same reason the EU was defeated in France. The French would have lost their socialistic cash cow). "The love of money is the root of all evil" is a timeless verse which spans all ethnic, religious, and geographic boundaries. (Now please don't skew this into something I'm accusing you of. I don't know your situation, so I can't speak on that. Don't take it personally)
I would like to continue this dicussion, except you have already demonstrated (by turning on your friend, Angler) that you might not be able to take it emotionally. Plus, I have gotten some advice not to waste time on former military who don't get it.
My guess is you will continue to attack me as a poster.
If you don't want me to post on O.D., just say so. I'll go elsewhere if you can't take it.
2005-08-14 18:18 | User Profile
Angler:I'm still going to butt out, though.
Please do.
2005-08-14 20:10 | User Profile
CWRWinger,
God bless ya sir, but you're the Southron version of Leland Gaunt.
2005-08-14 23:32 | User Profile
T.D,
I do believe that CWR and Leland were separated at birth. They are two sides of the same coin.
2005-08-15 00:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]I do believe that CWR and Leland were separated at birth. They are two sides of the same coin.[/QUOTE]
Yes. What makes it even crazier is that in CWR's case, he'd probably be hard pressed to find two men more sympathetic to his cause than you and me.
Go figure.
2005-08-15 00:15 | User Profile
God bless ya sir, but you're the Southron version of Leland Gaunt.
As I've stated before, I'm finding out about people I've not heard about before, by reading O.D..
Just on this thread I've been reintroduced to Edmund Ruffin and now Leland.
"...he'd probably be hard pressed to find two men more sympathetic to his cause than you and me."
Glad to read that. But don't you gentlemen have an oath to the Empire to uphold?
As for being hard pressed, absolutely not. I'm mild mannered and timid compared to some of the fireeaters I associate with. But you won't find these men wasting their time on the internet, much. They are doers, not arm chair warriors like most on the 'net.
2005-08-15 00:23 | User Profile
Sert:
It is quite obvious you are still bent on attacking a poster, rather than addressing the issues.
No, what I am "attacking" is an appalling amount of ignorance displayed by an arrogant and condescending person who seems to think that he is the final word on all things Southern. By the way, how do you feel about Joseph Wheeler serving as one of the commanders during the Spanish American War? (don't bother to answer, I already know)
As far as the Armed Forces go, the only time I get mad at someone is when they take obvious delight in the deaths of U.S. servicemen or wish to see them dead as you have stated elsewhere on this board.
I would like to continue this dicussion, except you have already demonstrated (by turning on your friend, Angler) that you might not be able to take it emotionally. Plus, I have gotten some advice not to waste time on former military who don't get it.
Good, then don't waste my time with the psychobabble you wrote above about something you know absolutely nothing about, nor care to learn anything about.
If you don't want me to post on O.D., just say so. I'll go elsewhere if you can't take it.
Forget about the above, CWR. I'm sending you on a vacation for awhile. Go troll elsewhere.
2005-08-15 21:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]Sert: It is quite obvious you are still bent on attacking a poster, rather than addressing the issues.
The state takes recruits and literally gives them a disciplined life, something they lacked before joining. In exchange, the state requires an oath and your soul, for life, to support unquestioning a gov't of the state, by the state and for the state. [/QUOTE] How many years did you serve in the Army, Navy, Marines, National Guard, Air Force, etc?
What basis in fact rather than rheoric do you have for that assertion?
Curious. I don't want to restart a flame war, I am not going to curse at you, I want to understand what is behind that observation.
Why?
It does not remotely square with my experience.
FWIW: I understand, even if I don't echo, your antipathy for the post Lincoln US government, and its continued inroads into matters that by Constitutional structure ought to be left to the states. There are a number of issues on that score where you and I probably agree strongly.
AE
2005-08-15 22:03 | User Profile
Interesting anecdote.
[QUOTE=Angler] I can certainly understand how people get fooled into joining the current military. When I was in high school, the Naval Academy and West Point both sent me letters inviting me to apply; I was flattered and damn near did apply. In the end, my realization that I would have to put some of my strong interests on hold for a while to go to either school (e.g., guitar) was all that stopped me. . . . and the Constitution was little more than an abstraction.
So while I've never been a gullible person, I came close to being suckered simply by virtue of my youth and lack of awareness of certain political issues. Many others do fall into the trap; in today's political climate, that makes them unwitting servants of ZOG.
[/QUOTE] An old friend of mine retired from the military last year. 24 years. His son was a senior in high school. Had applied to both Naval Academy and Air Force Academy.
I talked to him last month. His son withdrew his letters this past February. I voiced my surprise.
Seems he, and his Mom and Dad, had a long talk about goals, aims and life, and what that meant squared with their Catholic Faith. I think he would have gotten an appointment, he was a sharp kid and a great pitcher, but they threw away a free education (not sure why, GW will be gone in 4 years) as they wanted him to see the other side of life. That officer, or retired officer, had seen enough, and he no longer had trust in our leadership.
It's gonna cost them plenty, but he's going to college elsewhere this year.
AE