"X ` Man" wrote in message
...


Since I am fairly well-known "in these here parts" as a liberal and as a
supporter of trade unionism, I doubt the Wall Street protestors will be
breaking down my door.

-----------------------------------------------

That's an interesting comment Harry.

Does that mean that a conservative minded individual of similar personal
economic/financial status, but *not* a strong supporter
of trade unionism may be subject to Wall Street protestors at their door?

I know many "Social Democrats" who are very tight and protective of their
personal wealth, whatever it may be. I also know of
hard core Conservatives who routinely share what extra they may have without
hesitation to help others. I don't think that political
ideology dictates one's sense of responsibility to their fellow man, despite
the current myriad attempts to convince otherwise.

It's a personal, morality based choice .... not a politically derived
directive.

Eisboch

On 10/18/2011 12:52 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:16:06 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:23:23 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:35:40 -0400, X `


I'm only armed and dangerous when little twerps with ponytails try to
break in...

That sounds like the people I see on CNN from the OWS crowd.

You're wrong. First, most of them are educated.

There are plenty of educated people with pony tails, including the
professors who taught them.

Second, there's a lot of people who've been left out of this economy
that used to have a place. Not poor folk, but lower middle, middle
and even upper middle class who can no longer earn a living.

Times are tough for a lot of people but I do not see any solutions
coming from these protestors, nor from the government.
They should be protesting in front of the companies that offshored all
the jobs if they are mad about being out of work.
Maybe they should be protesting all the consumers who choose a cheap
price over a "made in USA" label.
Of course they could go protest the university that sent them out into
the world with a useless degree and a $100,000 student loan bill.

There will never be a shortage of things for liberals to protest about.
Some of them even make a career of it. Jessie Jackson is the first one
that comes to mind, and our hope and change boy could probably be
considered a protestor for hire. Then on the entertainment side you have
Andy Rooney and Rush etc.

On 10/18/2011 2:34 AM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:52:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:16:06 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:23:23 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:35:40 -0400, X `


I'm only armed and dangerous when little twerps with ponytails try to
break in...

That sounds like the people I see on CNN from the OWS crowd.

You're wrong. First, most of them are educated.

There are plenty of educated people with pony tails, including the
professors who taught them.

But not the little freak to which Harry refers.


Second, there's a lot of people who've been left out of this economy
that used to have a place. Not poor folk, but lower middle, middle
and even upper middle class who can no longer earn a living.

Times are tough for a lot of people but I do not see any solutions
coming from these protestors, nor from the government.
They should be protesting in front of the companies that offshored all
the jobs if they are mad about being out of work.
Maybe they should be protesting all the consumers who choose a cheap
price over a "made in USA" label.
Of course they could go protest the university that sent them out into
the world with a useless degree and a $100,000 student loan bill.

They're not there to provide answers but to call attention to the
pain. Those who fail to answer the call will be left to defend
themselves when push comes to shove.

You be talkin bout our own ex-man Harry?

On 10/18/2011 12:52 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:16:06 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:23:23 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:35:40 -0400, X `


I'm only armed and dangerous when little twerps with ponytails try to
break in...

That sounds like the people I see on CNN from the OWS crowd.

You're wrong. First, most of them are educated.

There are plenty of educated people with pony tails, including the
professors who taught them.

Second, there's a lot of people who've been left out of this economy
that used to have a place. Not poor folk, but lower middle, middle
and even upper middle class who can no longer earn a living.

Times are tough for a lot of people but I do not see any solutions
coming from these protestors, nor from the government.
They should be protesting in front of the companies that offshored all
the jobs if they are mad about being out of work.
Maybe they should be protesting all the consumers who choose a cheap
price over a "made in USA" label.
Of course they could go protest the university that sent them out into
the world with a useless degree and a $100,000 student loan bill.

They are a continuation of the Obama/Google "Arab spring". Funny, months
ago Beck said it would spread from the Middle East, to Europe
(specifically Greece) then to NYC, then to other cities in the US. And
to think it all started as another campaign ploy by the WhiteHouse and
the SEIU...

http://tinyurl.com/5umbxkn

On 10/17/2011 11:50 PM, George C. Boater wrote:
Krausie wrote: Since I am fairly well-known "in these here parts"
as ....

___________

Is that a fact, Krausie?

I'll bet you're also known in them there parts as a lying, psychotic,
free loading gas bag.


I wonder what "these here parts" he's referring to.

On 10/18/2011 4:03 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...


Since I am fairly well-known "in these here parts" as a liberal and as a
supporter of trade unionism, I doubt the Wall Street protestors will be
breaking down my door.

-----------------------------------------------

That's an interesting comment Harry.

Does that mean that a conservative minded individual of similar personal
economic/financial status, but *not* a strong supporter
of trade unionism may be subject to Wall Street protestors at their door?

I know many "Social Democrats" who are very tight and protective of
their personal wealth, whatever it may be. I also know of
hard core Conservatives who routinely share what extra they may have
without hesitation to help others. I don't think that political
ideology dictates one's sense of responsibility to their fellow man,
despite the current myriad attempts to convince otherwise.

It's a personal, morality based choice .... not a politically derived
directive.

Eisboch


Harry's a simple person. You fit into one of two categories according to
Harry.
1. You agree with him
2. You are a racist moron

On 10/18/11 4:03 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...


Since I am fairly well-known "in these here parts" as a liberal and as a
supporter of trade unionism, I doubt the Wall Street protestors will be
breaking down my door.

-----------------------------------------------

That's an interesting comment Harry.

Does that mean that a conservative minded individual of similar personal
economic/financial status, but *not* a strong supporter
of trade unionism may be subject to Wall Street protestors at their door?

I know many "Social Democrats" who are very tight and protective of
their personal wealth, whatever it may be. I also know of
hard core Conservatives who routinely share what extra they may have
without hesitation to help others. I don't think that political
ideology dictates one's sense of responsibility to their fellow man,
despite the current myriad attempts to convince otherwise.

It's a personal, morality based choice .... not a politically derived
directive.

Eisboch


I don't read or see much of "hard core Conservatives" engaging in
discussions or activities aimed at fulfilling "one's sense of
responsibility to their fellow man." I won't disagree that in times gone
by, pre-Reagan, many Republicans were involved in activities to help the
less fortunate. Nowadays, not so much.

On Oct 17, 7:52*am, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` *wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` * *wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass. It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles. They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder. Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to
murder you?

On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass. It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles. They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder. Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles. They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder. Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting.
Think about that, big boy.