Pentagon official: U.S. plane on autopilot at time of collision

April 9, 2001 Web posted at: 8:52 p.m. EDT (0052 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While China on Monday renewed its call for an apology from the United States for the collision between a Chinese fighter jet and a U.S. surveillance plane, a senior Pentagon official tells CNN the U.S. Navy EP-3 plane was on "autopilot" at the time of the collision.

The revelation would seem to contradict the account of a Chinese pilot who said last week that the U.S. plane "suddenly swerved at a wide angle" and hit one of the two fighters, although it's possible the EP-3 might have begun a banking maneuver to correct its course while under the automatic control.

The Pentagon official says it's still unclear whether the plane was turning or flying straight and level. In any event, the Pentagon insists it is the responsibility of the escort planes to stay clear of the plane they are intercepting.

In addition, Pentagon sources say U.S. officials have learned from the detained crew that the Chinese jets were not "flying straight and level" but were performing various dangerous maneuvers.

Pentagon officials would not specify what that maneuvers were.

Last Thursday, the surviving Chinese Pilot Zhao Yu told a Chinese state TV interviewer that the accident was "directly caused by the collision of the U.S. plane veering at a wide angle toward our plane, making it impossible for our plane to avoid it."

He said the U.S. plane "severely violated flying rules."

Pentagon officials are continuing to withhold comment until they can fully debrief the crew, which has now spent eight days on the Chinese island of Hainan.

Apology demanded

With the standoff over the detained Navy spy plane and crew in its second week, China is holding firm to its call for a U.S. apology. One senior Chinese official called the U.S. response in the ongoing standoff "unacceptable."

"Where is the responsibility? I think it's very clear," said Zhu Bangzao, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official traveling Monday with President Jiang Zemin in Argentina. "The pronouncements of the United States are unacceptable to the Chinese people." But President George W. Bush warned that U.S.-China relations could be harmed by a continued standoff over the U.S. plane and its 24-member crew.

'All of us around this table understand diplomacy takes time," he said at the start of his Cabinet meeting. "But there is a point -- the longer it goes -- there's a point at which our relations with China could become damaged."

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said later that any damage that has already occurred was "reversible," including the cancellation of a trip to China by a congressional delegation.

"The president made very clear that it is time for our troops to come home so that our relationship is not damaged," he said.

But diplomats who have experience with China are urging patience.

"The Chinese are negotiating just as they always do when they hold all of the cards," said former U.S. ambassador to China James Sasser. "They're going very slowly, very painstakingly, and drawing it out. Now we're really negotiating over words and a question of semantics."

The Chinese pilot, Wang Wei, ejected from his plane after the collision, and has not been found. The Chinese have held the U.S. crew members since their emergency landing on Hainan Island, calling for an apology from the United States.

Chinese officials said Monday that continued U.S. reconnaissance missions over Hainan Island had an adverse effect on the lives of the island's residents. They said that such flights must stop -- adding, however, that U.S. tourists are welcome on the island.

But another former ambassador to China says it would be a disaster for the United States to apologize for flights it has been making for 50 years.

"If you apologize, you're accepting responsibility which gives the Chinese legal leverage to try to make us back off from the flights," said former U.S. ambassador Winston Lord. "It gives them leverage, financially, making us pay for any damages. It makes a weak signal from the new administration to the Chinese leadership which will come back to haunt us."

Possible sanctions and risks

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan offered Monday to help resolve the standoff. In New York, Annan said the two Security Council powers seemed to be making progress, adding that he hopes "direct discussions" will lead to results.

"If my good offices are needed, I'm always available," he told CNN's Richard Roth.

Joseph Prueher, the current U.S. Ambassador to China, said that negotiations aimed at the release of the Navy crew were ongoing, despite the apparent inflexibility of the two positions.

"We are in dialogue with our counterparts and we hope we're moving a little closer to a solution," he said.

But China's critics in Congress and the Bush administration are pondering possible ways to punish China, including revoking China's favorable trade status with the United States, canceling a planned Bush visit to Beijing in the fall and opposing China's bid to host the 2008 Olympics.

President Bush must also decide later this month what new weapons to sell Taiwan. Before the standoff, several top aides were advocating the sale of destroyers with the state-of-the-art Aegis radar systems.

"The Chinese view of the United States is quite suspicious," warns Bates Gill of the Brookings Institute. "They are not certain of what our strategic intention of them may be and any act that appears to be bullying -- in their terms, hegemonic, unilateralist -- is bound to stir up passions on their nationalist part of the public."

Evidence spy plane being stripped

Pentagon officials on Monday pointed to a new photograph as evidence the Chinese are stripping the eavesdropping aircraft.

The plane and its crew have been detained since making an emergency landing on Hainan Island following a collision with a Chinese fight jet eight days ago.

An aerial photo, taken by a U.S. commercial satellite company Monday morning China time, shows seven trucks parked next the crippled U.S. EP-3 surveillance plane at Lingshui airstrip, according to Pentagon officials who were shown the photo by CNN.

Some in the Pentagon say the photograph buttresses the U.S. claim that the Chinese are removing sensitive hi-tech equipment from the aircraft.

Last week Pentagon sources said that U.S. intelligence reports indicated the Chinese were stripping the plane of equipment, something the Chinese have refused to confirm or deny.

The one-meter-resolution, color satellite image was collected at 9:58 a.m. local time on April 9, 2001 (10:58 p.m. EDT on April 8, 2001) by Space Imaging's IKONOS satellite.

Diplomats meet with crew

U.S. diplomats on Monday met for a fourth time with the crew since the incident. Unlike the third meeting Saturday, when only eight crew members were seen, all 24 were present at the latest 40-minute meeting.

Brig. Gen. Neal Sealock, the U.S. Embassy's military attache, said all the crew were in good health and "high spirits" and described their accommodations as "a hotel environment."

"They are well taken care of," Sealock said after returning to his hotel from the meeting.

Before Monday's meeting, Sealock said the diplomats wanted daily "unfettered access" to the crew, but he made no reference to those comments after the meeting.

Boucher, however, said later from Washington that the diplomats were still pushing for "continued and unfettered access," although, he said, the next meeting "is not yet set."

-- ALREADY DONE HAPPENED (YES IT DID! OVER THERE BY CHINA IT SURE AS HELL DID @ GETTING HYSTERICAL NOW. GETTING VERY HYSTERICAL!!), April 09, 2001

Answers

EVERY GOOD PILOT KNOWS YOU SHOULD GO MANUAL WHEN IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH OTHER AIRCRAFT!!

THE FUCKING AUTOPILOT ADJUSTED ITS COURSE RIGHT OVER THAT CHINESE PLANE!!

APOLOGIZE NOW DUMBYA YOU SORRY SACK!!

-- (RIGHTWING@HYSTERICAL.NUTCASE), April 09, 2001.

hey you dip, why was the chinese pilot swerving all over the place then? This was over international air space, we had better not apologize for this, they owe us one!

-- kiss our ass china! (chinemen@gooks.com), April 09, 2001.

THE CHINESE PLANE WAS NOT SWERVING!!!!!

HE WAS GOING STRAIGHT AHEAD NEXT TO OUR PLANE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE AUTOMATIC PILOT ON OUR PLANE CAUSED THE PLANE TO BANK AND CHOPPED HIM UP!!!

CHOP SUEY!!

-- (DUMBYA SHOULD APOLOGIZE @ IT'S ALL. HIS FAULT!!), April 10, 2001.

Okay.

You're tootling along in your 1990 Caddy, got it on cruise control at something under the speed limit, and you're in the middle lane, where you're supposed to be. This zippy little Mercedes sports car comes up behind you, doing about 90, passes on the left, laughs at you, drops back, passes you on the right, gives you the finger, drops back, then zooms up and cuts right in front of you and suddenly slows down. Your Caddy hits the Mercedes. The Mercedes spins off and disintegrates on a bridge abutment, killing the driver. Your grill and right front quarter panel are gone but you manage to steer safely to the shoulder.

According to your reasoning, Already, you say to the trooper, "I'm sorry for wrecking that car and killing the driver, it was all my fault, how could I have been so stupid, put me in jail, give me the chair."

Do I have that about right?

-- Get (real@you.jerk), April 10, 2001.

Umm. Autopilot huh? I doubt it. All military aircraft have proxsimity radars which tell them when someone is close to them (and exactly how close). I have no doubt that every move was recorded. They would NEVER be on autopilot when they had other aircraft that close. Also, what about satilite monitoring? If a person's face can be recognised from camera's in the sky, don't you think the military monitors all of their aircraft, especially those in the process of spying? If we were blameless, the first thing we would have done was bring out proof that we were not at fault. The silence speaks volumes.

Now not to belabor a point I have been trying to make for over 6 months, but there are certain requirements that are critical to the office of president. Tact, diplomacy, KNOWLEDGE international relations.

Having everything handed to him, excuses made for his actions, and his experience as Governer of Texas, where he got his way most of the time out of manipulation and coersion as opposed to normal political give and take. Basically he rather like a spoiled child who is used to stamping his foot and getting his way. This is dangerous. He doesn't understand that his way of doing things is not the way things are done in the real world. The first thing he did was publicly make demands as if he expected the Chinese to jump and obay him. His keepers don't appear to have as much control over him as they would like us to believe. His actions put us in a very bad position politically. He ran off his mouth, assuming his position would get him what he demanded. Some one needs to get through to him and make him realise that the world doese not surround him and run according to his whims.

We need a real polatition not an unthinking, sober-drunk, spoiled brat grandstanding. All the years he spent drunk, partying, doing all those youthful indescretions, were a waste a real potential president spends learning the important things that MUST be known to run the country.
Basically, his life was wasted until he was forced to quit drinking, and after that, he wasn't learning anything necessary for his present position. Sitting in the office of Governer of Texas, a position of little real training for American political office.

This is a person who sees nothing wrong with making campaign promises he has no intention of keeping, and sees nothing wrong with doing so.

Bush opened his big mouth and fucked up. Gee, anyone see this coming? There isn't much that his cronies and keepers can do in damage control, they don't have control over China's media and political system. The world is laughing at this farce of a president that was installed in office. There is little doubt in the minds of most people in the world that Bill Clinton could have handled this situation quickly and without either side looking like they lost.

The man cannot even make a public statement without using prompters, he looks like he doesn't even know what he is saying, just reading 5 or 6 words off of the monitor at a time like it is some foriegn language.
Today they pulled a picture op, with all his people at a table with Bush saying, I think all of us here understand diplomacy. Um geeze, why bring that up? Could it be a defensive move against those who might mention HE doesn't?

This farce continues, people still continue to go along and act like his even being in office is valid.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 10, 2001.

Cherri,

You're a flamin' moron. Why don't you take a long boat ride to China and personally apologize on the behalf of all of our armed forces members. I'm sure they would appreciate it seeing as you believe anyone in uniform is incompetent, at least if they are American.

Did you grow up in North Korea or what?

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), April 10, 2001.

"Chinee" is to Chinese as "spic" is to Hispanic, Ms. Pseudo-Liberal.

-- Liberals (are@hypo.crites), April 10, 2001.

Whether you like Bush or not, there is no way in hell that the U.S. was at fault in this accident.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 10, 2001.

You're a flamin' moron. Why don't you take a long boat ride to China and personally apologize on the behalf of all of our armed forces members. I'm sure they would appreciate it seeing as you believe anyone in uniform is incompetent, at least if they are American.

-- libs are idiots , How dare you question my patriotism for MY COUNTRY! It is my RIGHT as an AMERICAN to question whatever I wish, it is called freedom of speech and I have EARNED the right to use it! You don't know a Damn thing about me. I not only have a hell of a lot of respect for our troops in uniform, I was one! I joined the military during the Vietnam war, I know more about flying military aircraft then everyone on this forum put together, except one, if he is still here.
Facts are fact and releasing a false statement saying the aircraft was on autopilot means nothing to this administration that have done nothing but lie and use weasel words to profit financially at the expense of American people.

AND Bush is way beneath me when it comes to military service, the jerk was given a position in the military the same way he got everything else, handed to him without his earning it like real American Military Members. And yes, I not only could do what he did in the service, I did, and have no doubt I was better at it then he was. When drug testing was implemented he just didn't bother to show up, took of for a year or two and has lied about it since. I used to teach people like him to fly their freekin airplanes, and more often then not someone like him stood a good chance of killing them self in the damn thing, if there were allowed to continue to fly. And YES, I told them exactly THAT.

My Father spent 21 years in the Air Force, 3 1/2 in a Japanese POW camp for this country and brought me up to be honest, which is why I have such a BIG dislike for the fact that we have such a pathetic excuse for a human being that is running my country at this moment. I feel sorry for him, but he has absolutly no business being where he is.

It disgusts me to see all of the lies, manipulation, and outright corruption that he and his group have used for their own benefit at the expense of those in this country that they are charged with protecting, the children, the infirm and elderly who have spent their lives contributing to building this country to what it is today, just to be treated as if they are scum for receiving social security (which they paid into for 40 + years) and which is not enough for them to survive on.

The last thing I am is a moron, I have the ability to think, which is more than a lot of people do these days (blindly letting others tell them what to think without question).

Did you grow up in North Korea or what?
As a matter of fact I was born in Munich, Germany, where my Father spent his time working on electronic equipment installed for the defense of this country.

I am an AMERICAN, and it is my responsibility as an AMERICAN to do whatever I can to stand against those who put MONEY ahead of the country as a whole.

I have worked with leading members of other countries, it is only common sense to use diplomacy and tact when dealing with people who's cultures are different.

Try reading "The Ugly American", you might learn something.

I will repeat what I said before, if we were blameless, why haven't we brought out the proof. I in no way blame the military members, I personally believe it was the pilots own fault he was killed, the other pilot probably the American aircraft to a safe landing because he was aware of our ability to see what happened.

Where I have a problem is with Bush and his knee jerk reaction, making demands and acting like they had to jump because he said jump. He put the Chinese in a position where they would have lost face to jump at his demands. Self respect does not seem to mean much in this country, but it is very iomportant in most of the rest of the world. Bush does not rule the whole freekin world. He needs to realise that.

The other problem I have is the administrations habit to constantly twist and manipulate the truth. That used to be called lying. They do it out of habit, even when they have no reason to.

As for the Autopilot, this was not mentioned until they talked to our troops. They were probably flying on autopilot and the Chinese pilot invading their proximity caused it to kick off, thus causing the aircraft to bank, which is probably why it hit the other aircraft.
This is not the American's fault as this is a normal characteristic of aircraft, the Chinese pilot had no business being that close to ours. This is one of those common "games" different countries military crafts play with each other, accidents have happened with Russian subs that were playing these kinds of games.

So it is possible that our aircraft actually hit theirs, but it was their fault for being as close as they were.

After what happened with the submarine that killed those Japanese students, we had no business to come out making ANY kind of bullying demands without finding out what the hell happened first. That was Bush's big mistake, acting like the injured party before even knowing who was at fault first.

Had normal diplomatic actions been taken then the representatives of each country could have worked it out quietly without public hard feelings and political problems arising in either country.
By his initial actions, Bush literally forced Chinese President Jiang to respond as he has. He is already on shaky ground in China with the Chinese military being unhappy with the trend towards political diplomacy for the financial benefits of trade being newly dominate over the "military dominance" that historically has been the goal of the country. It is difficult enough to change the way such a big country functions and perceives itself and their place in the world after thousands of years, without having the military pissed of for being treated in such a belittling manner by the leader of any country, much less of America, which isn't held in respect by many in the world anyway because of our attitude of superiority and overwhelming lack of respect for other countries and their cultures. Bush behaved like the stereotypical fat bellied texas sheriff ordering around a common criminal.

No ones likes being treated like that, much less an entire country.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 10, 2001.

BRAVO, Cherri!!!!!

You have my utmost respect. Always will. And thank you.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 10, 2001.

Cherri, did you forget your meds today?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 10, 2001.

I'm still here.

-- Old (time@flying.man), April 10, 2001.

I see Maria came up with the standard infantile response for lack of any intelligent reply.

Maria, did you forget your brain today? Oh, that's right, you don't have one! Naaaa naa naa naa naaaa!!

-- (maria@brain.dead), April 10, 2001.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall any knee-jerk reaction to this incident by President Bush. The U.S. was fully within its rights to request that the plane and the personnel be allowed to leave and/or the U.S. be given access to them. When did this "knee-jerk reaction" take place?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 10, 2001.

Cherri, you truly are an ignorant and hysterical commie bitch. Your insane hatred of Bush and things conservative blinds you to the real world and how it works. You live in some kind of socialist fantasy land. your hypocrisy in screaming about Bushs' lies after defending and making excuses for Klintoon and co. screams your stupid ignorance. Bush hasnt given the communists nuke secrets for money to blow the fuck out of us like your traitorous hero Klintoon has. Funny how that doesnt bother you in the slightest but this spy plane deal has your panties in a knot. Whats a greater threat to your life you fool? chinese nukes pointed at us with American technology and mirv capability or a spy plane with survellance equipment? Your hero already gave the chinese our most sensitive defense secrets so who gives a fuck that they nabbed a spy plane? we wouldnt even be in this fucking mess with china if Klintoon hadnt given them a twenty year jump in the capability to nuke our asses at the push of a button.

You claim to have been in the military, well bullshit girl. No one that served this country and knows the constitution and the principles of freedom that they took an oath to defend would shit all over those upholding it and coddle socialists like you do.

Your hardly what I would consider an American when you put liberal socialism, the chinese and class warfare ahead of the constitution like you do continuously. Your more like an embarrasment and the reason why rogue nations are going to take potshots at us...they see us as nothing but a bunch of weak ninnys yelling for our fair share of this and that from the gummint, all the while putting a known liar, purjurer, adulterer and traitor on a pedastal while shitting on those defending the constitution. Your a disgrace and im sickened you salute the same flag I do.

-- Truthbenown (Upees@shit.com), April 10, 2001.

Your a disgrace and im sickened you salute the same flag I do.

FYI: She doesn't salute it. More recently in her spare time when she's not pissing/crapping on or burning it, she attends communist rallies planing the next community parade to march in so they can protest the American way of life in groups to 'get the word out'.

This peculiar semi private 'hobby' of pissing/crapping/burning the American flag is sometimes done simultaneously and more publicly during parades while marching with her American Communist Party friends. Yes, the same party that endorsed Algore for president.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), April 10, 2001.

"When did this "knee-jerk reaction" take place?"

A chines pilot was lost. Life is very important in Chinese society, and expression of sorrow is an important part of their culture.

Bush ignored this, expressed no sorrow for their loss, and within the first day or two, "demanded" that our plane and crew be returned. Very ignorant, very childish.

He should educate himself before he opens his childish mouth. He is now getting advice from people who have a little more integrity, but he should have listened to them in the first place.

-- (dumbya@very.self-centered), April 10, 2001.

Bravo, Truthbeknown. You echo my sentiments exactly. Cherri is an ignorant commie bitch and I can't stand to read her posts. Thank you for struggling through her latest and taking the time to comment.

-- Richard Jackamo (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 10, 2001.

Life is very important in Chinese society,

Unless you are a protestor in Tinneman Square. Then the PLA gets rid of reporters and their cameras and kills everything that moves.

Typical socialistic thinking by a liberal moron!

Any chance of you going and staying there?

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), April 10, 2001.

It seems to me that the expression of sorrow that seems so darned important would have been forthcoming had the Chinese not detained a plane that made an emergency landing on their soil.

I grow tired of the politically correct assumption that Americans need to be more sensitive to other culture's ways. We're supposed to respect a culture that oppresses its own people?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 10, 2001.

...and expression of sorrow is an important part of their culture.

I can't wait until I hear some sorrow from the PLA for killing all those unarmed college kids in Tinneman Square.

What a dope!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), April 10, 2001.

I'm a Vietnam vet. I saw my friends die in the mud to up hold the American way, including free speech. I left part of my right leg over there to defend a country that's great enough, and big enough, to accomodate all kinds of opinions and beliefs.

It pisses me off to no end to see cowards like "Truthbeknown" and "Ain't" who want to force everyone to have the same opinion and who cover themselves with the flag and invoke myself and other veterans to make their point. All I can say is I hope "Truthbeknown" and "Ain't" never find themselves in a room with a bunch of us vets. We'd kick their butts for spitting on our constitution and make them scream like girls for red-baiting a sister in arms. I don't know if every vet would agree with Cherri, but I can damn sure tell you that no vet out there would let a foul-mouthed bully try to shut her up.

-- Dakto Dan (dakto_dan@class.of.67), April 10, 2001.

Thank you, Dakto Dan. People like Ain't and Truthbeknown (who may both be the same person with two handles, for all I know) like to pretend they honor the sacrifices of those who have served their country. But it is clear to me they are only familiar with the concept from a distance.

Most folks who hang out in this forum soon learn to discount these types of hysterical posters. Their only value is their occasional ability to elicit responses that rise far above their own "contributions".

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 10, 2001.

"All I can say is I hope "Truthbeknown" and "Ain't" never find themselves in a room with a bunch of us vets. We'd kick their butts for spitting on our constitution and make them scream like girls for red-baiting a sister in arms."

I guess with your good leg, huh? Cherri does have the right to her opinion, even when it's completely asinine (it's a "knee-jerk" reaction to ask for our crewmen and women to be returned, huh Cherri??).

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), April 10, 2001.

Dan, you new to this place? Any body can say anything and who gives a shit anyway. If you actually believe that anyone can force their opinion on Cherri, you're pretty stupid yourself. It presupposes that Cherri has a brain. Her rants go on and on, signifying nothing. She dislikes Bush and everything he does. If Bush said nothing, she would complain; if Bush nuked China, she would complain; if Bush picked his nose, she would complain; and if Bush paid her a compliment, she would complain. Yet she praises everything that Clinton does and did. She'd give him a blow job, if he asked.

Now does having lost your body parts in Nam warrant your dislike for Already and Truth..., not at all. Your dislike for these cyberpersonalities is acceptable for no reason (America is a great place!) just as their similar dislike for Cherri is acceptable for no reason at all. But *they* do have a reason. She *is* a moron, twit, fill in whatever word you wish.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 10, 2001.

Little Nipper:

It's cyclical. STUBBORN rashes don't go away if you ignore them, but MOST do.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 10, 2001.

libs are idiots,

Cherri and I don't agree about Bush and she sounds hysterical to ME at times, too. But questioning her patriotism and her military service is uncalled for. It just so happens that I have a snapshot here . .. .

The right to question the gubbmint is something that the Founding Fathers amended into the that Constitution-thingie way back when. Do read it sometime.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 10, 2001.

Thanks for your post Dan.

I wouldn't bother with trash like Maria and libby. They are the type of people who see veterans as a symbol to be used however they like and then shoved back in their wheelchairs when they open their mouths. Vets that can't stand up for themselves are noble and patriotic. Live vets that can complain and contradict the people who would use them so cynically are stupid communists who deserve to be spit on. Not to put too fine a point on it, but to geniuses like these, your sacrifice is only as good as your willingness to accept their party line.

FWIW, some of us appreciate and share your commitment to our country, both right and wrong.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 10, 2001.

Dakto Dan, and others who defend my right to free speech, thank you. Stephen I'm glad you you still had the picture, I don't have a copy on-line. Do you still have the one of me in the cockpit of the B-52?
Maria, *shaking my head* just when I think there is hope for you, you say something that proves me wrong. if Bush picked his nose, she would complain;What do you mean if? and if Bush paid her a compliment, If it was the typical kind I got when stationed in Texas, I would probably slap his face she would complain. Yet she praises everything that Clinton does and did. No I don't and never have. I do dispute the lies that are freely thrown around about him. She'd give him a blow job, if he asked. That was uncalled for, and does nothing but belittle yourself.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 10, 2001.

Thanks, Nipper I appreciate the acknowledgment.

Maria, I'm not new here. I don't like talking about the war so I don't talk about it much but I dislike being used to beat someone else up even less. For your information, I have a terrific reason for disliking Ain't and Truthbeknown. They're cowards. I don't like cowards. Maybe you do, there's no accounting for taste. I would never dream of calling you stupid for coming to their defense. I hope someday you might extend the same courtesy to me.

Tarzan you hit the nail on the head. There's a whole lot of people who love a dead vet but won't give a live one the time of day.

-- Dakto Dan (dakto_dan@class.of.67), April 10, 2001.

Cherri,

Here y' go. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 10, 2001.

You fixed up that picture for her didn't you Stephen? This is what she really looked like.

Since that picture was taken 25+ years ago, I suspect she is now fat and ugly beyond belief.

-- (commie@gal.faq), April 10, 2001.

Great post, Dak To Dan. I am also a veteran, and though I didn't leave any pieces of myself in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, I agree with what you (and certain others) have said regarding vets. OTOH, other posters can kiss my camouflaged ass. Truthbeknown, I'm looking in your direction (among others), you non-veteran cocksucker.

Regarding Maria --

"Dan, you new to this place?"

What if he is?

"Any body can say anything and who gives a shit anyway."

Well, YOU certainly do. You seem to like arguing with others simply for the sake of arguing.

"If you actually believe that anyone can force their opinion on Cherri, you're pretty stupid yourself."

And how stupid would that make people like you and Ain't, who regularly try to force your opinions on others?

"It presupposes that Cherri has a brain. Her rants go on and on, signifying nothing."

There's more meat in her posts than in yours, Maria. Your rants are long on wild emotional claims and short on definitive proof.

"She dislikes Bush and everything he does. If Bush said nothing, she would complain; if Bush nuked China, she would complain; if Bush picked his nose, she would complain; and if Bush paid her a compliment, she would complain. Yet she praises everything that Clinton does and did. She'd give him a blow job, if he asked."

Maria, you dislike Clinton and everything he did. If Clinton said nothing, you complained; if Clinton had nuked China, you would have complained; when Clinton picked his nose, you would complain; and if Clinton had paid you a compliment, you would complain. Yet you praise everything that Bush does and did. You would give him a blow job, if he asked.

Now, Maria, do you see how abjectly STUPID your blanket statements look?

"Now does having lost your body parts in Nam warrant your dislike for Already and Truth..., not at all."

Dan can dislike anyone he pleases for his own reasons.

"Your dislike for these cyberpersonalities is acceptable for no reason (America is a great place!) just as their similar dislike for Cherri is acceptable for no reason at all."

No reason is required. People can dislike anyone they please for whatever reasons they please. Deal with it.

"But *they* do have a reason. She *is* a moron, twit, fill in whatever word you wish."

No. Already and Truth ARE morons, so Dan's got all the reason he needs. You are also a moron, and so I also have reason, though I require no reason to dislike you.

But I don't dislike you, Maria. I pity you.

-- The Real Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 10, 2001.

"When did this "knee-jerk reaction" take place?" A chines pilot was lost. Life is very important in Chinese society, and expression of sorrow is an important part of their culture.

Bush ignored this, expressed no sorrow for their loss, and within the first day or two, "demanded" that our plane and crew be returned. Very ignorant, very childish.

Maybe if the dipshit gook would have known how to fly his plane, he wouldn't have crashed into our plane putting 24 American Lives in danger.

-- china sucks (chinamen@gooks.com), April 10, 2001.

Truthbeknown and Maria,

If I've learned anything from my time on bboards, it's that anytime someone hits on the truth, it makes those uncomfortable with it even more rabid.

Ignore the peanut gallery. They are in a panic because the truth is too uncomfortable for them to deal with.

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 10, 2001.

The Real Already Done,

Lookin right back atcha son through the irons. You sound like army reserve for crimminy sake.

Sorry to see a fellow who says they wore the uniform under fire, run to protect the very people who support the hijacking of the same freedoms and liberties they risked their lives to defend. truly sad if you honestly wore that uniform and saluted the flag these people think represents opression and intolerance.

I know of no one who served before Klintoon became CINC that thinks we did our duty so other people can tell us how to live our lives. they didnt risk their asses so these same bunch of ingrates can legally steal their money and restrict and infringe on there freedoms. What exactly did you swear to defend? Socialists? the president? the people?

Thats right, you swore that oath to protect and defend the constitution, not the people that want it rewritten. Why would you defend the people that seek to do it and our republic harm? How the hell is freedom compatible with socialism and marxism? I got no problem with anyone saying or doing anything until it steps on our rights to pursue our own happiness and infringes on the rights we was born with. The right to free speech does not mean they got a right to force you to give up your liberty in exchange for security son, yet thats what these nimrods like Cherri is doing.

-- Truthbenown (Upees@shit.com), April 10, 2001.

"Thats right, you swore that oath to protect and defend the constitution..."

So, Mr. Truthbeknown, you never said - did you ever swear that oath? And if you did, under what circumstances? Thank you for answering. I just know you'll come clean and answer truthfully.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 10, 2001.

Truthboy,

Actually you can rewrite the Constitution by amending it. Check it out it has been done several times in the past. Because the ability to rewrite the Constitiution is an integral part of this document anyone who swears to uphold and defend the Constitution is swearing to defend the rights of those who might want to change things. Hope this clears things up for you.

Maria,

You still enjoy being a mean-spirited, vindictive bitch don't you? Maybe someday you will grow into a personality that will allow you to find a man that will fill the deep dark empty pit that is your soul with love and light.

Oh well, keep working on it. Don't give up hope. Maybe someday you will be as happy with your life as our friends Patricia and Anita are.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), April 11, 2001.

Well Maria, there you are. This idiot Jack off has spoken, hoping that YOU will find the happiness in life that his ‘friends’ enjoy. Just think, you only need to put on another 200 lbs. and develop a good case of delusional psychosis.

-- Tug (on@this.thug), April 11, 2001.

Richard-

People also get uncomfortable when they get offended. A really good way to offend people is to refer to their veterans as cowards and to tell them they don't actually have the right to criticize the president.

Truthbeknown-

The only people who are trying to tell others how to live their lives are you, Ain't, Maria, and anyone else who thinks the first amendment contains an exception for the president.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

Tarzan, he didn't say she doesn't have the right to critize the President, he said he was sickened by her because of what she says. That's a BIG difference.

Truth, you said: Your hardly what I would consider an American when you put liberal socialism, the chinese and class warfare ahead of the constitution like you do continuously.

Um, Truth. She is oriental - and uneducated. Maybe that helps explain why she has such idiot ideas.

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 11, 2001.

Wow, stupid AND racist. You must be a big hit at parties.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

I think you had better slow down, Tarzan. Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking lately. Your views are ususally right on, but you must be skimming posts in this thread.

Nothing I said was racist. I merely stated facts. She is oriental, haven't you read her posts? (I used to, I don't anymore.) She will probably tell you if you don't believe me. Now, how is it racist to assume a woman with a Chinese (or North Korean?) heritage would have leftist-leanings? I merely stated that is probably part of the reason she is a radical mouth-frothing liberal. The other part is she is uneducated. How is that racist?

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 11, 2001.

Are you assuming Cherri's "oriental" based on her posts?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 11, 2001.

I think it's very unreasonable to assume someone's political leanings because of their race. For instance, all white people don't share the same political viewpoint. Why would you assume that all Asians have the same viewpoint?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

JBT writes:"Because the ability to rewrite the Constitiution is an integral part of this document anyone who swears to uphold and defend the Constitution is swearing to defend the rights of those who might want to change things."

What fucking moronic bullshit! No one takes the oath to defend the rights of those who want to 'change things', that is total liberal bullshit! You dont posess a RIGHT to change the constitution the way you see fit asshole! We take an oath to UPHOLD and DEFEND the constitution...NOT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CHANGE IT! Where do you assholes get this shit from? Do you like have seances with the ghosts of Lenin and Stalin for guidance or what?

To change the constitution requires an amendment process that prescribes a bill be drafted in the Congress, voted on and then passed for ratification by 2/3 of the states. None of the abridgements of free speech, gun rights legislation or all the other usurpations that the gummint has administered has gone through the amendment process...they just done it at the behest of the libeal socialists that cry the mantra of "safety!, security! and for the children!"

In addition, the RIGHTS I was born with (speech, guns, assembly, petition of grievances, security and pursuits of happiness) are IMMUTABLE and INALIENABLE, meaning they are unchangable and permanent. They cannot be changed regardless how many of you fuckheads scream for them to be changed. I'm born with them and no authority of man can deprive me of them unless I surrender them. Go back and reread the constitution and the Dec. Independence without your socialist lenses. The words "Congress shall make no law", "Shall not be infringed" are plain stupid shit.

So when you fucks start spouting bullshit that the constitution is a 'living document' and the oath to protect and uphold is for for the 'rights' of people that want to change it is nothing less than if you were a chinese national coming in here at gunpoint and making a new set of rules. Fuck you and the horse of lenin and marx you rode in on! You people are enemies of the constitution and freedom itself. You think you have the rights to do whatever vile shit you want and then think you got the moral superiority to tell the rest of us that we have to listen and accept your bullshit, how to live our lives, how to raise our children, steal my money, prohibit my free exercize of religion, infringe on my gun rights and so on. You do all this shit without any amendment process to the constitution. You do it by redefining the constitution into what you think it means rather than by what it plainly says, and then petition the politicians to pass laws, ordinances and acts that rob people of their money and bind the immutable rights they were born with.

You somehow think you got a right to my money. That you got a right to free healthcare and free drugs. That you got a right to silence people you disagree with. That you got a right to kick people off their land and forbid them to work it to save some stupid animal. That you got a right to force people to give up their guns. That you got a right to force people to stop smoking, even in their own homes. That you got a right to stop behavior and thought processes you dont approve of. I could go on and on and on. All of these so-called "rights" that liberals, socialists and marxists thing they have are obtained by infringing on and depriving hard working and law abiding Americans of there rights that they were born with.

So, if you shits want to change things then go through the amendment process. You aint got no right to change the rights we were born with just because you think you do. We dont take no oath to defend such a right that doesnt exist.

-- Truthbenown (Upees@shit.com), April 11, 2001.

Tricia, read my post again. I said, "She is oriental, haven't you read her posts?" Translation: She has said she is oriental. By the way, you told me at Poole's that I am a "non-entity" in your life. I wish you would make up your mind and quit acting stupid. (That's a stretch for you, I know.)

>>>I think it's very unreasonable to assume someone's political leanings because of their race.<<<

That's true. But, she has already made her political leanings clear. What is your point? I reiterate: Slow down. You are looking foolish.

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 11, 2001.

Making an exception (and keep your editorial comments to yourself - - people who live in glass houses and all that).

Where did she say she was "oriental"? Sorry, I really did miss this.....

And the name is Patricia, thank you.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 11, 2001.

Richard, you need to come inside and cool off some, the sun has gotten to you.

A person's race is no more indicative of their political leanings than the size of their feet. Taking a single individual and using them as a model for the political views of everyone in whatever group they belong to is ridiculous. That's like saying "All white people are leftist leaning- just look at Hillary Clinton. Her white heritage is the reason she's a frothing at the mouth liberal,"

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

Pat, don't make any exceptions in the future. You really need to pay attention before you engage your fingers; you will look less foolish that way.

Tarzan, more minorities and females are democrats. It is a safe (and in this case obviously accurate) assumption that an uneducated, oriental female would be a frothing liberal. Do you really want to keep arguing about something so futile?

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 11, 2001.

Richard-

Hey, it's your bigotry, you're welcome to it. For the record though, Cherri is actually highly educated. You don't get to be in a position to do the work Cherri did in the military without having a brain in your head. Moreover, as this link shows, Asians are generally more conservative than whites.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

Fine, Dick, as you are so All-Knowing and All-Wise, any particular reason you couldn't answer my direct question?

Again (with reference to your "looking foolish" remark)...people who live in glass houses.....

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 11, 2001.

Didn't want you to miss it...

Political Leaning Ranked by Conservative

Very Somewhat Middle Somewhat Very Cons per ConservatConservative liberal liberal Liberal Korean 36.7% 22.8% 22.8% 17.7% 3.36 Japanese 15.3% 35.0% 31.1% 13.1% 3.8% 2.98 Chinese 9.5% 36.1% 30.2% 19.0% 5.8% 1.84 All 12.0% 30.6% 30.7% 20.6% 5.5% 1.63 Others 10.8% 31.2% 23.7% 28.0% 5.4% 1.26 Filipino 11.7% 20.0% 38.3% 19.2% 10.8% 1.06 Vietnamese 10.0% 28.2% 23.6% 32.7% 5.5% 1.00 Asian Indian 20.0% 47.5% 27.5% 5.0% 0.62

Only Asian Indians consider themselves more liberal than conservative. Vietnamese are equal, despite Republican leaning, Japanese are 2nd most conservative, but among most Democratic.

Source: Republican National Commitee 1992 survey of Asian American adults in California as cited by Statistical Record of Asian Americans table 48 (Gayle Research 1993)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithout.a.net), April 11, 2001.

Political Leaning Ranked by Conservative Very Somewhat Middle Somewhat Very Cons per Conserva Conservative liberal liberal Liberal
Korean 36.7% 22.8% 22.8% 17.7% 3.36
Japanese 15.3% 35.0% 31.1% 13.1% 3.8% 2.98
Chinese 9.5% 36.1% 30.2% 19.0% 5.8% 1.84
All 12.0% 30.6% 30.7% 20.6% 5.5% 1.63
Others 10.8% 31.2% 23.7% 28.0% 5.4% 1.26
Filipino 11.7% 20.0% 38.3% 19.2% 10.8% 1.06
Vietnamese 10.0% 28.2% 23.6% 32.7% 5.5% 1.00
< Asian Indian 20.0% 47.5% 27.5% 5.0% 0.62
Only Asian Indians consider themselves more liberal than conservative. Vietnamese are equal, despite Republican leaning, Japanese are 2nd most conservative, but among most Democratic.
Source: Republican National Commitee 1992 survey of Asian American adults in California as cited by Statistical Record of Asian Americans table 48 (Gayle Research 1993) 1988 Presidential Election Source: Republican National Commitee 1992 survey of Asian American Ranked by Calif Preference for Bush/ Republican President in 1988 Not Vote Bush(R) Dukakis(DR/D Others 37.6% 58.1% 4.3% 13.51 Japanese 16.9% 56.3% 26.8% 2.10 Vietnamese 30.0% 47.3% 22.7% 2.08 Korean 38.0% 41.8% 20.3% 2.06 Chinese 21.1% 52.7% 26.2% 2.01 All 23.2% 50.7% 26.2% 1.94 Filipino 15.8% 55.0% 29.2% 1.88 Asian India 20.0% 23.8% 56.3% 0.42 Summary: Only Asian Indians favored Dukakis, even Japanese favored Bush. Source: National Republican Commitee Survey of Asian American adults in California in 1992 as cited by Statistical Record of Asian Americans table 49 (Gayle Research 1993).

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

This thread is as good as some of Boswell's folksy sayings for providing a laugh.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 11, 2001.

Lone Eagle Consulting is not a credible source, Tarzan. Let's find one we can agree on.

Fat, your original question was, "Are you assuming Cherri's "oriental" based on her posts?"

I guess I have to be patient with the retarded and spell it out for you: S-h-e s-a-i-d i-n h-e-r p-o-s-t-s t-h-a-t s-h-e h-a-s a-n o-r-i- e-n-t-a-l f-a-t-h-e-r. So, "Yes" based on her posts I know she is oriental.

Got it now? How many more times do I have to explain it?

When are you going to exercise that option to quit making exceptions? At what point did you lie about me being a "non-entity?" You are not worth my time anymore except to point out out stupid you are.

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 11, 2001.

Uh, no Dick, my **direct question** was:

"Where did she say she was "oriental"? Sorry, I really did miss this....."

Did you get it that time?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 11, 2001.

Oh and BTW, Dick, that was the FIRST TIME you ALMOST clarified. Now, I ask again for the hard of understanding: Which post was it?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 11, 2001.

Richard-

The stats come from the Republican National Committe, Lone Eagle Consulting just published them on their website.

You really need to slow down and read before you type, otherwise, you'll just end up looking foolish. Again.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

Fatty, maybe you're too fat and lazy to scroll up. That was your original question. It's there in black and white for all to see. Clearly you are too lazy to do your own reading and research. Don't expect me to do it for you. (Just like a lib, ain't it? Always wanting someone else to do the work so they can reap the benefits.)

Tarzan, I just went back and checked that Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 11, 2001.

Wow, what an articulate and original comeback. Calling Patricia "fat" ranks right up there with calling Cherri "oriental". Looks like spring break came late to your neck of the woods.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

FWIW Dick, you never said it was the post on THIS thread, but feel free to continue with your delusions.

You are so typical of a dittohead ..... doesn't really have an argument, reasoning or justification, so just attacks the messenger on a personal basis (AGAIN).

And you genuinely think *I*'m the one who looks foolish? LOL.

I was polite in pointing out what my name is. I continued to be polite until you chose to willfully ignore that, thinking you were being somehow funny or cute or whatever.

You aren't. You're nothing short of rude.

But I suppose that's to be expected of a stereotype. Have a nice life, Dick.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 11, 2001.

My software cut the end of that post off.

Tarzan, I checked and the RNC information you posted can't be accessed from any page I went to. I don't think you would post bogus information, but it needs to be verified. Since I couldn't verify the veracity of your information, I went directly to the RNC website and did not find your information there either. At this point we can either continue to trade insults or agree on a mutually acceptable source. Which is it going to be?

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 11, 2001.

How about the Democratic National Committee? Let's start with females:

DNC

"The net partisanship gender gap became larger as women became slightly less likely than men to identify themselves as Republicans and progressively more likely than men to identify themselves as Democrats."

"The combination of more women voters, more women identifying themselves as Democrats, and more women supporting Democratic candidates in the 1980s signified an important trend in voting that helped set the stage for the Democratic victories of the 1990s."

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 11, 2001.

So the RNC's own statistics aren't good enough for you? LOL!

Okay, Richard. I hate to see a man cry Uncle. If you can produce equally persuasive stats showing that Asians are liberal, I'll take a look at it.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

Just for grins and giggles, here's an Asian American dealing with the same issues you're dealing with.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

The RNC did NOT say that. Read their damn site.

Now, regarding Asians:

DNC

"Nationally, 12% more APA voters voted for Gore in 2000 than Clinton in 1996 and in the presidential election, 55% voted for Al Gore over George W. Bush""

Now, unless you and show me more credible evidence, I rest my case. Cherri is uneducated, (where you got she is highly educated is beyond me. She is NOT.) oriental and female. She falls right into the demographics of most libs. She has shown over and over again she is a frothing liberal.

Case closed.

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 11, 2001.

I've never had anything against you MARIA, but your crack about the bj was very mean spirited.

I outta know, but I admit it. Cherri didnt deserve that.

BTW, I luv how you exited stage right when the forum called you on it.

NOT.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, they did. You see, way back in the stone age, long before the net, people read books and articles on something called "paper". I know this is a tough concept to understand, but believe it or not, there was information before there was the internet.

Now you can stand there all day long, saying black is white and white is black, but the fact of the matter is, according to the RNC's own commissioned research, Asians identify themselves overwhelmingly as conservative.

If, however, you are too ignorant to use a library, I would be happy to direct you to more hyperlinked sites.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

Just as I thought. You don't have any credible links. You think people are just going to take your word on things and you're wrong, Tarzan. I gave you an opportunity to prove yourself with credible links (as I did) and you're not doing that.

I'm going to leave this thread now, Tarzan. I'm going to leave before my admiration for you goes completely out the window.

My statements about Cherri are on record and there's plenty of posts by her on this forum to back up my posts.

Have a good day.

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.com), April 11, 2001.

What's really funny is that this guy hasn't yet figured out that Arthur Hu himself is an extremely conservative Asian-American activist and columnist. Why he would make up research I have no idea. What a dumbass.

-- Jenhau Mai (jenhau_mai@nomail.none), April 11, 2001.

Oh yes, that's it. Leave while you still have some... (chuckle) dignity. ROFLMAOWPIMP!!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

Jenhau, do you mean Hu or the Richard the amazing disappearing racist?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 11, 2001.

Both Tarzan. Hu's slightly to the right of Buchanan and Richard is an idiot. He ignore the fact that Asians voted for Dole last time in greater numbers than Clinton, pretends that research that's not hyperlinked isn't real, and then bows out when you offer him more research. What kind of bullshit tactic is that, declaring victory while you retreat? Stupid moron.

-- Jenhau Mai (jenhau_mai@nomail.none), April 11, 2001.

I'm oriental???? Geeze, I must have really mispelled something for him to "read" that from it. I should be so lucky to have the heritage of orientals, but unfortunatly I do not. Irish, English, Scotish, French, and American Indian-Cherokee to be exact.

Odd though that his "view" of me should be based on the race he believes I am. Well not wrong for an extreme right winger I guess.

But then he may think I post under an annon, which I don't often do.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 12, 2001.

"The Real Already Done, Lookin right back atcha son through the irons. You sound like army reserve for crimminy sake."

Nope. Active duty for 12 years. I took the early out right after the Gulf War. You, however, sound like a non-duty slack-ass civilian.

"Sorry to see a fellow who says they wore the uniform under fire, run to protect the very people who support the hijacking of the same freedoms and liberties they risked their lives to defend."

Horseshit. Nobody here is supporting any "hijacking," and you fail to show where you think it is happening. A thing is not true simply because you rant and claim it is.

"truly sad if you honestly wore that uniform and saluted the flag these people think represents opression and intolerance."

Another error from you, but I am sure I will see more. There is a difference between this COUNTRY and its LEADERS. One can love this COUNTRY while believing that its LEADERS are making mistakes. Unless I miss my guess, you fell into that group over the last eight years, just as I did. Clinton was a fucking mistake, just like Bush is. Neither of those men received my vote.

"I know of no one who served before Klintoon became CINC that thinks we did our duty so other people can tell us how to live our lives."

Untruth, no one is telling you how to live your life. If you disagree, then cut and paste something from this thread to demonstrate it.

"they didnt risk their asses so these same bunch of ingrates can legally steal their money and restrict and infringe on there freedoms."

You have not demonstrated where money is being stolen. You have not demonstrated how rights are being restricted. You have not demonstrated how rights are being infringed.

"What exactly did you swear to defend? Socialists? the president? the people?"

The oath I swore (the same oath all veterans have taken) was to "protect and defend the Constitution and people of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Shitheads like yourself who whine about rights make me wonder how important you think the Constitution really is.

"Thats right, you swore that oath to protect and defend the constitution, not the people that want it rewritten."

I swore to defend the Constitution and ALL the people of the United States. Maybe you swore an oath to "protect all REAL Uhmurricans, who speak only English, who don't eat no Chinky food, and who don't hang out with gay scoutmasters and fat lazy welfare slackers."

"Why would you defend the people that seek to do it and our republic harm?"

You have utterly failed to show how that claim is true.

"How the hell is freedom compatible with socialism and marxism?"

When people speak freely and choose their form of government freely, they run over each other to get AWAY from Socialism and Marxism and INTO our sort of government. Why is that so hard for you to understand? DO you really think that Democracy is so fragile that it can't withstand the sort of bullshit that you claim is happening here?

"I got no problem with anyone saying or doing anything until it steps on our rights to pursue our own happiness and infringes on the rights we was born with."

People are talking here. How are your rights being stepped on or infringed?

"The right to free speech does not mean they got a right to force you to give up your liberty in exchange for security son, yet thats what these nimrods like Cherri is doing."

No. She is not. You have utterly failed to show that. Your saying so doesn't make it so.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 12, 2001.

Wow what a thread! Sorry, you guys think I so mean spirited, LOL. Cherri goes way beyond anything I would say about Clinton. She doesn't recognize any good points about Bush; just continues to bash him based on only her opinion. That's fine, it's her right but she looks like an idiot when she does. I have talked about Clinton's good points too as well as his womanizing. Please point to one post of Cherri's which gives any praise to Bush.

As far as sumer's post on my mean spirited. Sorry, I've offended your sense of fair play or whatever it is. When FS blast someone (I have seen it) and curse, no one calls him on it. I mention the word blow job and people come unglued. Just a little double standard there now isn't there? BTW my power was out yesterday, sorry it look like to you that I bugged out. LOL cyberpersonalities reading something into nothing.

Then there's Tar, "They are the type of people who see veterans as a symbol to be used however they like and then shoved back in their wheelchairs when they open their mouths. Vets that can't stand up for themselves are noble and patriotic. Live vets that can complain and contradict the people who would use them so cynically are stupid communists who deserve to be spit on. Not to put too fine a point on it, but to geniuses like these, your sacrifice is only as good as your willingness to accept their party line. " LOL You fucking moron! What the fuck do you know about me, you fuckin' idiot! Have you ever even seen a fucking vet? Have you ever even talked to a fuckin' POW? You fuckin' idiot. I've served the fuckin' military and know more vets from Nam than you could possibly imagine, you fuckin' idiot! Eat me!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 12, 2001.

You fucking moron! What the fuck do you know about me, you fuckin' idiot! Have you ever even seen a fucking vet? Have you ever even talked to a fuckin' POW? You fuckin' idiot. I've served the fuckin' military and know more vets from Nam than you could possibly imagine, you fuckin' idiot! Eat me!

WOW! Who can argue with such an intelligent, insightful post? Don't you know any other swear words than the "f" word?

Okay, I guess this is expecting a bit much from someone with your mental defects, but here goes:

You chose to lump yourself in with libby, Truthbeknown, and others who, on this very thread, questioned the legitimacy of the service of vets they disagreed with. These people cynically use the bodies of dead veterans to make their points; live ones who object to being used in this way are ridiculed. You made your bed, Maria, and now you must lie in it. As the southern saying goes, "You can't shake the devil's hand and say you were only kidding,"

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 12, 2001.

"questioned the legitimacy of the service of vets they disagreed with." I thought so, you don't know how to read. I didn't question any such service! Show me where I questioned the service of our military, moron.

I supported their view of Cherri as an idiot, period. That they weren't about to "force everyone to have the same opinion " Cherri, has her own mind and her own opinion (as warped as it is). If Dan wants to "kick their butts for spitting on our constitution", have a good time.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 12, 2001.

Read it again, Maria.

You chose to lump yourself in with libby, Truthbeknown, and others who, on this very thread, questioned the legitimacy of the service of vets they disagreed with. These people cynically use the bodies of dead veterans to make their points; live ones who object to being used in this way are ridiculed. You made your bed, Maria, and now you must lie in it. As the southern saying goes, "You can't shake the devil's hand and say you were only kidding,"

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 12, 2001.

Cherri: My guess on the "Asian father" reference was when you posted on how your dad had been a POW in a Japanese prison camp. Maybe he misread it, maybe he thinks race "rubs off" from contact, or maybe it's the "with them long enough, and you're one of them" mentality.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 12, 2001.

"Umm. Autopilot huh? . ." I agree with Cherri's comments here.

"If we were blameless, the first thing we would have done was bring out proof that we were not at fault. The silence speaks volumes." No Cherri. Bringing out proof would be a big mistake from a strategic military standpoint.

"Now not to belabor a point . . . Tact, diplomacy, KNOWLEDGE international relations." Oh please great mind of political nuances, do educate us.

"Having everything handed to him, . . .[more ranting from Cherri's great knowledge of the personality of Bush] . . . if he expected the Chinese to jump and obay him. [such great insight from the all-knowing Cherri] His keepers don't appear to have as much control over him as they would like us to believe. His actions put us in a very bad position politically." I like the insinuation that Bush was at first supposed to be mini-me and now his cabinet can't control him.

"He ran off his mouth . . . the world doese not surround him and run according to his whims." Huh? This type of bashing needs no critique; it speaks for itself.

"We need a real polatition not an unthinking, sober-drunk, spoiled brat grandstanding. . . indescretions, [like Clinton didn't have any of these] . . . Governer of Texas, a position of little real training for American political office." Oh so Gov of Arkansas is great training for political office. My, what a double standard you have, Cherri. This is exactly where Cherri shows how blindly stupid she is when it comes to Bush. The double standard is just so obvious, except of course to those zealots who hate Bush.

"This . . . making campaign promises he has no intention of keeping. . ." Right, like what happened to health care reform and gays in the military? Face it, all politicians do this.

"Bush opened his big mouth and fucked up. . . Bill Clinton could have handled this situation quickly and without either side looking like they lost." Well it now looks like Bush has won and I agree that Clinton would have handled it differently. First it would never have happened with Clinton; Bill would have just sold the intel stuff for campaign donations. [snide remark]

"The man cannot . . . people still continue to go along and act like his even being in office is valid." Like it or not Cherri, his being in office IS valid. But you're entitled to your opinion.

"How dare you question my patriotism for MY COUNTRY! . . . to profit financially at the expense of American people." I don't understand the inner workings of this paragraph. How did we get from Cherri's patriotism [which I never doubted] to profit?

"AND Bush is way beneath me when it comes to military service, . . ." More Bush ranting. Yet I don't doubt her expertise in aircraft design.

"My Father spent 21 years . . . I feel sorry for him [Bush], but he has absolutly no business being where he is." Sorry to disappoint you, but he was elected according to the rules. I believe that you are an honest person, Cherri and you can hold the opinion that Bush isn't. Once again you show a double standard. Clinton wasn't honest.

"It disgusts me . . . receiving social security . . . not enough for them to survive on." Don't you think that there could be a better solution to taxing the American people? I do. I don't trust the gov with my money. I like having control over my own retirement.

"I have worked with leading members of other countries, . . . dealing with people who's cultures are different." And obviously Bush can't do that. Bush doesn't understand what you do in dealing with other cultures. You give him no credit for any sense whatsoever. Your opinion and you're entitled.

"if we were blameless, why haven't we brought out the proof." Something you don't understand about strategic military matters says we don't wave our capabilities and intelligence waved in front of the world.

"Where I have a problem is with Bush and his knee jerk reaction . . . Bush does not rule the whole freekin world. He needs to realise that." Your opinion is that Bush believes that he "rules the world", the clairvoyant Cherri. LOL

"The other problem I have is the administrations habit to constantly twist and manipulate the truth. That used to be called lying." More LOL, Clinton never did this, did he? He never used 'spin'. He never lied. You're showing double standard here, Cherri.

". . . That was Bush's big mistake, acting like the injured party before even knowing who was at fault first." You really believe this don't you? LOL Bush gets reports and briefs all the freakin time. Just because the American public doesn't know, doesn't imply the prez doesn't know. What do you think the military tells him in the briefs?

"Had normal diplomatic actions been taken. . . Bush behaved like the stereotypical fat bellied texas sheriff ordering around a common criminal." Your opinion, you're entitled. I think having the likes of Colin Powell around him in these kinds of situations is a good thing. Tell me that Colin doesn't know about China and I'd say that you're blind.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 12, 2001.

Mister Done Happened,

"You, however, sound like a non-duty slack-ass civilian."

Former duty. Yeah, you can go ahead and classify me as a civvie. Hung up the uniform during Carters term as CINC.

"Nobody here is supporting any "hijacking," and you fail to show where you think it is happening. A thing is not true simply because you rant and claim it is."

Fair enuf, heres my evidence that you wont accept. People that support hacks like Sen Schumer and orgs like handgun control and the UN whos sole aim is to disarm the American people. Go and read their website if you need to. Sarah Brady herself said that for them to realize their vision of a socialist America, the people must be disarmed. If thats not a highjacking of a right we were born with, then you are a blind idiot.

Then theres people that support the goverment going onto peoples private property and telling them what they can or cannot do on it ala all the stupid animal rights, save the wetlands bullshit. Dont know about you, but when the goverment puts a man in jail and fines him for killing a varmint on his own property, Id call that a hijacking of his rights. Go and talk to a fellow rancher out west, and see whether they think there right to private property is respected by the goverment or the enviromentalist socialists that got there meddling hands in everyones business.

"There is a difference between this COUNTRY and its LEADERS. One can love this COUNTRY while believing that its LEADERS are making mistakes."

Glad to hear you say it. It is our duty as vigilant guardians of liberty to distrust and be suspicious of goverment, always. But during Klintoon, we were told that we were unAmerican or unpatriotic extremists for daring to question their leadership. I didnt want Bush either. I wanted Alan Keyes. So much for me being a racist I guess.

"Untruth, no one is telling you how to live your life."

Wanna bet? Your gonna actually sit there and tell us that we are not told how we must live our lives by the left? I hear daily that Im dangerous and greedy for owning a truck or SUV and that I should pay extra money for the privelege of having one. Im told that I must embrace lifestyles I find disgusting or im an intolerant extremist. Im told that I cant smoke where I want to, even in my own house if I got children. Im told I shouldnt eat meat by the animal rights people because they say its murder. Im being told that I will have to pay more money for junk food because its not good for me, so its gonna be taxed higher. Im told that I must replace my air conditioner and refrigerator because the freon is harming the ozone layer (which is bullshit). Im told that people like me should pay reparations for slavery, even though I never owned slaves simply due to my skin color. I could go on sir, but if you dont see the proof that people are telling me how to live my life, then you are willingly blind and stupid.

"You have not demonstrated where money is being stolen."

Prescription drug programs, healthcare programs, welfare programs and every litle special interest program etc, etc. Money stolen from one group of people that work and earn their living to give to another group of people that sit with there hands out, and this is done for nothing more than to get votes. Then the ones sitting with there hands out demand more and more and threaten and extort if they dont get what they want. They call it taxes, but its really nothing more than legalized stealing.

"You have not demonstrated how rights are being restricted. You have not demonstrated how rights are being infringed."

When I cannot purchase and own a firearm that I desire because it is banned by the goverment, that is a restriction on a right I was born with. When I have to be fingerprinted, subjected to a check, pay special punative taxes and have to posess an ID to have and carry a gun, that is an infringement on a right i was born with. I already mentioned private property rights being infringed so I wont rehash that again.

McCain-Feingold would restrict the right to free political speech because it will prohibit any issue ads or material from being aired or distributed sixty days before an election. Do you want me to go on?

"Shitheads like yourself who whine about rights make me wonder how important you think the Constitution really is."

You obviosuly never read or understood the constitution when you took your oath, or you are callous about the rights you were born with that are protected by that document. the fact you piss on people like me that are standing up for their rights and trying to halt the infringements on them claiming im whinning about rights shows your total ignorance.

Gay rights, healthcare rights, prescription drug rights, patients bill of rights, reparation rights and all the other bullshit that people claim are "rights" can not be found in the constitution and you support those whinny and hysterical screams, yet you shit on people like me that are standing up for the rights actually written in the constitution. Your priorities are seriously fucked up boy.

"Why would you defend the people that seek to do it and our republic harm? ... You have utterly failed to show how that claim is true."

Deaf, dumb AND blind. You MUST have been an army grunt.

"When people speak freely and choose their form of government freely, they run over each other to get AWAY from Socialism and Marxism and INTO our sort of government."

OUR form of goverment has been corrupted into a socialist welfare state. America isnt running away from socialism and marxism, the posts on this board and the culture in the country show just the opposite, especially from urban people in the big cities. When people in goverment and the public tell us that the rich dont deserve there money, that they dont pay there fair share, that they are selfish if they want a tax cut, and goverment can take from that group of people to give to others is wealth redistribution. THAT is socialism and marxism. You obviously dont posess the understanding of what socialism and marxism is.

"Why is that so hard for you to understand? DO you really think that Democracy is so fragile that it can't withstand the sort of bullshit that you claim is happening here?"

First of all you stupid shit, we are NOT a democracy. Your constitutional ignorance is painfully loud. We are a Representative Republic. Second of all, we have the example of history to show us that your blind and stupid belief that our Republic is invulnerable to withstand the rot from within is laughable. Im sure many Romans thought like you did before the ceasars took over and corrupted the place into a dictatorship. im sure until the Visigoths rode over the seventh hill that many of them refused to believe thay were finished, destroyed from within. But you go ahead and think America can withstand the division and bullshit rotting her core. Our enemies are counting on that.

"People are talking here. How are your rights being stepped on or infringed?" I just told you how and why. But you wont understand that. youll discount it as some kind of extremist rantings of some selfish redneck nitwit, which is what you braindead imbeciles always do. It goes to show just how little regard and understanding Americans have of there own Republic.

-- Truthbenown (Upees@shit.com), April 12, 2001.

You fucking moron! What the fuck do you know about me, you fuckin' idiot! Have you ever even seen a fucking vet? Have you ever even talked to a fuckin' POW? You fuckin' idiot. I've served the fuckin' military and know more vets from Nam than you could possibly imagine, you fuckin' idiot! Eat me! I was waiting for this, just because Maria and I don't agree on many things these days, does not mean we don't have a few things in common. The BIG one is being a Woman in Servace. She was in the Air Force as I was and we get so irritated by the commonly held assumption that because we are female we probably are not Vets, and more to the point, do not feel and hold our service to our country in the highest esteem.

As I went off bigtime when my patritsm was questioned, I fully expected and understand Maria doing the same. That is the reason for her over use of the "F" work, it is hard to put into words what body language would have gotten across. I think Maria is sadly mistaken in her political beliefs, but I defend her right to verbalize those beliefs. And I will stand next to her in her intense love of her country and her pride in having served it. She is no less patriotic than I am.

And there is one thing about females who have served, we are overly aware of the vets around us, especially those who served in war and are having a difficult time from that experience. We can pick one out in a crowd.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 12, 2001.

If I'm going to do this 10 times I will get this right!!!!

You fucking moron! What the fuck do you know about me, you fuckin' idiot! Have you ever even seen a fucking vet? Have you ever even talked to a fuckin' POW? You fuckin' idiot. I've served the fuckin' military and know more vets from Nam than you could possibly imagine, you fuckin' idiot! Eat me! I was waiting for this, just because Maria and I don't agree on many things these days, does not mean we don't have a few things in common. The BIG one is being a Woman in Servace. She was in the Air Force as I was and we get so irritated by the commonly held assumption that because we are female we probably are not Vets, and more to the point, do not feel and hold our service to our country in the highest esteem.

As I went off bigtime when my patritsm was questioned, I fully expected and understand Maria doing the same. That is the reason for her over use of the "F" work, it is hard to put into words what body language would have gotten across. I think Maria is sadly mistaken in her political beliefs, but I defend her right to verbalize those beliefs. And I will stand next to her in her intense love of her country and her pride in having served it. She is no less patriotic than I am.

And there is one thing about females who have served, we are overly aware of the vets around us, especially those who served in war and are having a difficult time from that experience. We can pick one out in a crowd.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 12, 2001.

"Mister Done Happened,"

Yes?

>>>"You, however, sound like a non-duty slack-ass civilian."

"Former duty. Yeah, you can go ahead and classify me as a civvie. Hung up the uniform during Carters term as CINC."

Good. Now that I know I am talking to a veteran, you won't be able to claim ignorance about certain matters pertaining to military service.

>>>"Nobody here is supporting any "hijacking," and you fail to show where you think it is happening. A thing is not true simply because you rant and claim it is."

"Fair enuf, heres my evidence that you wont accept. People that support hacks like Sen Schumer and orgs like handgun control and the UN whos sole aim is to disarm the American people."

In the first place, Untruth, I can't stand Charles Schumer. I was working in New York City during his last election cycle in 1998, and I decided at the time that he was a total and utter dirtbag. However, people are allowed to vote for whoever they please. Perhaps that point escaped you. I can't stand Schumer, but my discomfort with him -- and yours -- does not compel anyone to vote against him.

Get it, Untruth? You and I don't like him, but he was ELECTED.

Now, then, regarding Handgun Control -- I don't agree with it, but its members and adherents are ALLOWED -- UNDER THE CONSTITUTION -- the freedom to assemble peaceably and the freedom to speak their minds. Perhaps you missed that part in your rants. For all your screeching about how your rights are being trampled on, you sure don't seem to care about whether or not the rights of others get trampled on.

Finally, the UN has a lot of aims other than disarming the American people -- assuming that the UN really does aim to disarm Americans (which you haven't proven).

You spout a lot of invective, but you haven't presented anything to support your claim regarding the UN. And you don't seem to recognize that people who disagree with you have rights, too.

"Go and read their website if you need to. Sarah Brady herself said that for them to realize their vision of a socialist America, the people must be disarmed."

Well, I don't WANT a Socialist America. And Sarah Brady is not an elected representative of any constituency in this country. So it seems to me that Mrs. Brady is expressing a view that you and I do not agree with, but which is nonetheless Constitutionally protected. Are you recommending that her speech be enjoined based solely on its content? That's two Constitutional infringements, Untruth -- prior restraint of speech, and content-based speech restriction. Try again.

"If thats not a highjacking of a right we were born with, then you are a blind idiot."

It is a person using their First Amendment right of free speech to express an unpopular view, and nothing more. If you cannot see that, then you are a totalitarian ass.

"Then theres people that support the goverment going onto peoples private property and telling them what they can or cannot do on it ala all the stupid animal rights, save the wetlands bullshit."

Please explain specifically what upsets you so much about the "stupid animal rights."

Regarding the "save the wetlands bullshit," that has been a problem for some time. There is a growing movement to have land reclassification to wetlands made into a de facto legislative "taking," which would require the government to pay compensation, just as it would if the land were taken for some governmental use. But there is such a thing as eminent domain. Perhaps you should read up on it.

"Dont know about you, but when the goverment puts a man in jail and fines him for killing a varmint on his own property, Id call that a hijacking of his rights."

A man has no absolute right to kill a "varmint" on his own property, especially is his property is in a municipal jurisdiction where firearms discharge is prohibited. Or when the varmint in question is the sort that you would need a hunting license to shoot. Or when the varmint in question is endangered or threatened. There are other possible limitations, too.

Now, since there is no Constitutionally-enshrined right to kill varmints, perhaps you can tell us all what right is being hijacked there.

"Go and talk to a fellow rancher out west, and see whether they think there right to private property is respected by the goverment or the enviromentalist socialists that got there meddling hands in everyones business."

The issue is not what others think. The issue is whether or not you can produce evidence that your rights are being "hijacked." So far, you're not doing a very good job.

>>>"There is a difference between this COUNTRY and its LEADERS. One can love this COUNTRY while believing that its LEADERS are making mistakes."

"Glad to hear you say it. It is our duty as vigilant guardians of liberty to distrust and be suspicious of goverment, always. But during Klintoon, we were told that we were unAmerican or unpatriotic extremists for daring to question their leadership."

And you are calling people Socialists, Communists or just plain Un- American for freely expressing their views. It looks to me like you are sitting right next to Clinton and his cronies. After all, you are using the same tactics you accuse them of using.

"I didnt want Bush either. I wanted Alan Keyes."

I didn't want any of the majority party candidates. I wanted Browne. So much for me being a Commie-symp Liberal.

"So much for me being a racist I guess."

I don't believe I have called you a racist.

>>>"Untruth, no one is telling you how to live your life."

"Wanna bet? Your gonna actually sit there and tell us that we are not told how we must live our lives by the left?"

Are you so threatened by words? When someone speaks, do you really think that automatically is an attack? If so, then you must admit to attacking Clinton and the left.

"I hear daily that Im dangerous and greedy for owning a truck or SUV and that I should pay extra money for the privelege of having one."

I don't think you're dangerous or greedy for that. And as far as paying extra money goes, I think you already are doing so. Trucks can be expensive, as can insurance for them. And you pay extra money every time you pull up to the pump. I don't own a truck or SUV, but I am thinking about getting a used SUV or a lease return SUV. I would probably use it for trips to the grocery or hardware store, and continue to use the old Chevy for regular commutes.

"Im told that I must embrace lifestyles I find disgusting or im an intolerant extremist."

I have a better idea. Why not just leave such people the hell alone? If they aren't breaking laws or being disgusting on your lawn, then why don't you just live and let live?

"Im told that I cant smoke where I want to, even in my own house if I got children."

I am not aware of this. Can you present evidence that you cannot smoke in your own home? And can you present evidence of the claim that you cannot smoke in your house if you have children?

"Im told I shouldnt eat meat by the animal rights people because they say its murder."

I'm told that too, but I don't agree with it. Perhaps you should read the thread entitled "Something For Our Resident Meat-Eaters To Ponder." Vegetarians and vegans who demand that I stop eating meat piss me off, but they have a right to express their views. Just as I have a right to refute and rebut their views. As an aside, Mr. Untruth, the poster named "no reason to eat meat" suffers from the same problem you do -- making wild claims, but not presenting any evidence to support those claims.

The difference between us, Mr. Untruth, seems to be that I know when I am being attacked and when I am not. There also seems to be a key difference in that I can present evidence to support my claims, whereas you seem to have a very hard time doing so. In fact, it seems that you're pissed off simply because a lot of people you disagree with don't seem to like you. So fucking what?

"Im being told that I will have to pay more money for junk food because its not good for me, so its gonna be taxed higher."

Who, what, where, when, why? Please present evidence for this claim.

"Im told that I must replace my air conditioner and refrigerator because the freon is harming the ozone layer (which is bullshit)."

Well, it's not bullshit. However, unless I am mistaken, you don't have to replace the refrigerant or the equipment until they either wear out or stop working. If you have heard otherwise, then please present your evidence.

"Im told that people like me should pay reparations for slavery, even though I never owned slaves simply due to my skin color."

I'm told that, too, even though my family didn't get here until 1906. So how, exactly, does that hijack any of your rights? Some people you don't agree with are demanding money from you, and you don't have to pay a CENT. What's the problem?

"I could go on sir, but if you dont see the proof that people are telling me how to live my life, then you are willingly blind and stupid."

People are expressing their views, which do not oblige you to do as they say (until and unless they get laws passed). If you think that qualifies as 'hijacking of rights,' then you are a pathetic little whiner.

>>>"You have not demonstrated where money is being stolen."

"Prescription drug programs, healthcare programs, welfare programs and every litle special interest program etc, etc."

Ah. Now you have cited WHERE you claim money is being stolen, though you have not demonstrated that is IS BEING stolen. Please continue.

"Money stolen from one group of people that work and earn their living to give to another group of people that sit with there hands out, and this is done for nothing more than to get votes."

Two wild-eyed claims, with no evidence presented for either one. I asked for EVIDENCE, not SUPPOSITION, Mr. Untruth.

"Then the ones sitting with there hands out demand more and more and threaten and extort if they dont get what they want."

Another wild-eyed claim, with no evidence presented. I asked for EVIDENCE, not SUPPOSITION, Mr. Untruth.

"They call it taxes, but its really nothing more than legalized stealing."

Another wild-eyed claim, with no evidence presented. I asked for EVIDENCE, not SUPPOSITION, Mr. Untruth. This is really getting quite tedious. Do you understand what evidence is?

>>>"You have not demonstrated how rights are being restricted. You have not demonstrated how rights are being infringed."

"When I cannot purchase and own a firearm that I desire because it is banned by the goverment, that is a restriction on a right I was born with."

No. That is a restriction on a Constitutional right. For example, you cannot purchase a Thompson submachine gun, no matter how badly you want it. We can continue to examine this point, if you like.

"When I have to be fingerprinted, subjected to a check, pay special punative taxes and have to posess an ID to have and carry a gun, that is an infringement on a right i was born with."

How? If you have the firearm, then how are your rights being infringed? Further, the claimed infringement (assuming you can even prove it exists) would be an infringement on a Constitutional right, not a right you were born with.

"I already mentioned private property rights being infringed so I wont rehash that again."

Yes. Mentioned. Not demonstrated.

"McCain-Feingold would restrict the right to free political speech because it will prohibit any issue ads or material from being aired or distributed sixty days before an election."

It will prohibit large donations from corporations, special interest groups and individuals from drowning out the voices of individual Americans who cannot afford to combat corporate speech with their own. McCain-Feingold enhances free individual political speech in this country, because it prohibits the abusive "soft-money" ads that have become so prevalent during election cycles. McCain-Feingold restricts the political speech of corporations (which shouldn't be able to engage in political speech), special interest groups (which get around political donation limits by sponsoring "issue ads") and the rich, who have the same $1000 donation limit as Americans less well heeled.

You are obviously buying the Rush Limbaugh line on McCain-Feingold.

"Do you want me to go on?"

Yes. You've barely made a start.

>>>"Shitheads like yourself who whine about rights make me wonder how important you think the Constitution really is."

"You obviosuly never read or understood the constitution when you took your oath,"

Actually, mister, my Master's thesis was a comparison and analysis of the USA and CSA Constitutions. So I am a lot more informed about it than you might think, and a lot more informed about it than you are. If you want to compare your knowledge against mine, then bring it on, pal. You will be taken apart like a small-block Chevy in a redneck's back yard.

"or you are callous about the rights you were born with that are protected by that document."

The Framers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us ways to change the Constitution, as well as a court system that interprets the Constitution. They also ensured that the public would have a voice in selecting their lawmakers.

It's real simple, Untruth. One does not retain the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, in accordance with the Supreme Court interpretation of those rights, at the moment of one's birth. You have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, in accordance with Supreme Court interpretation of those rights, AT THE MOMENT YOU EXERCISE THEM. Your birth has nothing to do with the Constitution.

"the fact you piss on people like me that are standing up for their rights"

I am pissing on a ridiculous little whiner who CLAIMS that his rights are being "hijacked," but who can't show me HOW.

"and trying to halt the infringements on them"

You can't halt what you can't FIND, genius.

"claiming im whinning about rights shows your total ignorance."

That's exactly what you are doing. And the ignorant party here is you. You are getting whipped pretty harshly here, ignoramus, and you don't even realize it.

"Gay rights, healthcare rights, prescription drug rights, patients bill of rights, reparation rights and all the other bullshit that people claim are "rights" can not be found in the constitution"

True. But we were talking about YOUR RIGHTS and how you claim they are being "hijacked," not rights that others might claim. Please keep your eye on the ball, Mr. Untruth.

"and you support those whinny and hysterical screams,"

Incorrect. You have not demonstrated how I am supporting any of those "screams," let alone all of them. We were talking about YOUR RIGHTS and how you claim they are being "hijacked," not rights that others might claim. Please keep your eye on the ball, Mr. Untruth.

"yet you shit on people like me that are standing up for the rights actually written in the constitution."

I shit on people like you who scream about how their rights are being "hijacked" but can't demonstrate how. I shit on people like you who shriek about how the "lifestyles" of others constitute "hijacking" of your rights. I shit on people like you who claim that the Constitution is an immutable and unchangeable document, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is a Socialist Pinko Commie-Symp Non-American Deadbeat who shouldn't be allowed to live here.

"Your priorities are seriously fucked up boy."

My priorities are straight and great. Your mind is what's fucked up here. You make claims you can't support, and try to support your claims with MORE unsupportable claims. Pathetic.

>>>"Why would you defend the people that seek to do it and our republic harm? ... You have utterly failed to show how that claim is true."

"Deaf, dumb AND blind. You MUST have been an army grunt."

I was Army. So now Army vets are substandard human beings? What an asshole you are.

In any event, you can't prove your points, and I'M the one who is deaf, dumb and blind? You, sir, are an arrogant asshole who lacks the mental acuity to develop a cogent argument, and the verbal facility to articulate it, once formed.

>>>"When people speak freely and choose their form of government freely, they run over each other to get AWAY from Socialism and Marxism and INTO our sort of government."

"OUR form of goverment has been corrupted into a socialist welfare state."

Unproven. A thing is not true simply because you claim it is.

"America isnt running away from socialism and marxism, the posts on this board and the culture in the country show just the opposite, especially from urban people in the big cities."

Unproven. A thing is not true simply because you claim it is.

"When people in goverment and the public tell us that the rich dont deserve there money, that they dont pay there fair share, that they are selfish if they want a tax cut, and goverment can take from that group of people to give to others is wealth redistribution."

I'm what some people would probably call rich. I deserve my money. I definitely pay my fair share. I am not selfish for wanting a tax cut. Yes, what you describe is wealth redistribution.

"THAT is socialism and marxism."

No, it is neither. It is political demogoguery.

"You obviously dont posess the understanding of what socialism and marxism is."

Actually, I do. You, however, do not. Please explain to me how wealth redistribution can be equated to the Marxian axiom that the workers must control the means of production? And please explain how this can be accurately termed "socialism" when income disparity is so great in the US? Most socialist governments and economies generally evince a much lower difference between lowest and highest income levels.

What you have done, Mr. Untruth, is toss out some political terms that you THINK describe what's going on. Unfortunately for you, however, all you have done is demonstrate for us how you don't even understand what you're talking about.

>>>"Why is that so hard for you to understand? DO you really think that Democracy is so fragile that it can't withstand the sort of bullshit that you claim is happening here?"

"First of all you stupid shit, we are NOT a democracy. Your constitutional ignorance is painfully loud."

Yawn. If this is all you can find on me, then you are whipped before you have started. Your whole post is full of inaccuracies and failures to prove your claims, and you claim I am ignorant? Bring it on, Mr. Untruth. Bring it on.

"We are a Representative Republic."

With a Democratic election system. Missed that part, didn't you?

"Second of all, we have the example of history to show us that your blind and stupid belief that our Republic is invulnerable to withstand the rot from within is laughable."

So you think that our government is weak, and not necessarily stronger than others, or more desirable than others. Right?

"Im sure many Romans thought like you did before the ceasars took over and corrupted the place into a dictatorship."

And this has . . . what . . . to do with modern America?

"im sure until the Visigoths rode over the seventh hill that many of them refused to believe thay were finished, destroyed from within."

Uh huh. And where are the modern Visigoths coming from? The chemtrail planes?

"But you go ahead and think America can withstand the division and bullshit rotting her core. Our enemies are counting on that."

You're a paranoid nutjob, not just a nutjob. Who are the enemies, where are they, and what makes you think that they are enemies? Oh. Wait. Animal rights wackos and Charles Schumer. You said that already. They're going to destroy this country. Uh huh.

>>>"People are talking here. How are your rights being stepped on or infringed?"

"I just told you how and why."

You did neither.

"But you wont understand that."

I am amazed that you claim it deserves understanding.

"youll discount it as some kind of extremist rantings of some selfish redneck nitwit,"

Yes, it is extremist rantings from a person who can neither keep his mind on point nor present evidence of his claims. If you are selfish or a redneck, I don't know. But you are a nitwit.

"which is what you braindead imbeciles always do."

This braindead imbecile is more intelligent than you, and more educated about the Constitution than you. I also have a lot more respect for individual Constitutional rights than you, and can tell when they're being infringed and when they're not. Yours aren't.

"It goes to show just how little regard and understanding Americans have of there own Republic."

And how poor the American educational system is. If it were better, you would have a greater understanding of your own government and Constitution. And you would be able to prove your points.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 13, 2001.

As far as sumer's post on my mean spirited. Sorry, I've offended your sense of fair play or whatever it is. When FS blast someone (I have seen it) and curse, no one calls him on it. I mention the word blow job and people come unglued. Just a little double standard there now isn't there? BTW my power was out yesterday, sorry it look like to you that I bugged out. LOL cyberpersonalities reading something into nothing.

Maria: I dont care what curse words are used, I use them. But what bothered me personally was the crack that she would blow someone. To me that is a low blow, no pun intended. There is no double standard.

I'm sure you would not like another telling you that you give a blow job to ---- take your pick, fill in the blank.

Curse, rant rave scream, but imho, this was no double standard, I shall stick by my post.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 13, 2001.

Consumer. Get back to masterbating with your waterjets. (You wouldn't believe what a disgusting visual that is since we have seen your picture.)

-- (whoosh@whirl.squirt), April 13, 2001.

Ya know? USED to I'd go off for the above comment, but I've got a lil bit thicker skin these days.

But hey, thanks for the suggestion.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 13, 2001.

Well, actually it sounds like a lot of fun :)

Sumer, on the double standard if you objected to FS telling someone to go fuck themselves as much as you objected to me telling Cherri to go blow Clinton, fine. If not, blow it out your ear.

And frankly I could give a shit if some cyber freak told me to fuck myself or blow someone. I have seen those posts directed at me and "blew" them off.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 13, 2001.

Sumer, on the double standard if you objected to FS telling someone to go fuck themselves as much as you objected to me telling Cherri to go blow Clinton, fine. If not, blow it out your ear.

Maria, you stated she would give him a bj IF he asked, you didnt tell her to go blow him.

Blow it out my ear, um, nah, I'll pass.

For just once admit your wrong.? It wont hurt. FWIW, Maria, the jets are fun :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 13, 2001.

"When I cannot purchase and own a firearm that I desire because it is banned by the goverment, that is a restriction on a right I was born with."

"No. That is a restriction on a Constitutional right. For example, you cannot purchase a Thompson submachine gun, no matter how badly you want it. We can continue to examine this point, if you like."

I'd like to interject a point about that as well as make a few other observations if I may.

Any law, ordinance or policy that bans the ability of any American citizen from purchasing, owning, manufacturing or possessing any firearm is an infringement on their Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. There are untold quotes and papers by the Authors and Framers of the Republic that expounded on the issue of arms, which revealed their intent and purpose of the Second Amendment. I'm not going to list or link them here as I've seen them many times on the discussion boards. There are online versions of the Federalist Papers, legislative speeches and letters by Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Paine and others that eloquently defined and expounded on the issue of arms.

The intent was for Americans to possess the power to repell tyranny by force of arms at the hand of government. This meant (at the time it was written) the long rifle and mortar if one could afford the munition. Today that could include machine guns, RPG's and other weapons that give citizens the ability to form an army of milita that supplied itself with arms when called upon. America was never intended to have a standing army, only a militia.

Requiring papers, licenses and exhorbant taxes on firearms, for the sole purpose of regulating and restricting the availablility of firearms to American citizens, is also an infringement on their right to keep and bear arms. If one has to obtain a license to bear a firearm, they are asking for permission from the government to keep and bear a firearm. Government has no power to grant the authority to a right the people already possess. If government can license, tax and restrict the sale, possession and availibility of any firearm, they have asserted the power to take those firearms (and the right) away for not complying with any protocol they set forth. This was clearly the result the Framers wished to avoid with the phrase: "Shall not be infringed".

I think (though I'm not certain) I know where Truthbeknown is coming from. When Already Done Happened says "the claimed infringement (assuming you can even prove it exists) would be an infringement on a Constitutional right, not a right you were born with. he comes from the oft common supposition that the Constitution of the United States grants it's citizens the Rights they possess. This is untrue.

The Founding Fathers from all of their writings were of the distinct belief that their Freedom, Liberty and Rights were bestowed by the Creator. From the Declaration of Independance: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Many an argument with Progressives and Liberals has revealed that they interpret "certain" unalienable rights as only the ones listed in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Their interpretation is wrong. The words "among these" in the Declaration give clear evidence that there were other unalienable rights not listed as well, not just life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. This goes back to Madison opposing the Bill of Rights - which he believed would lead to any rights not listed therein to subjugation by the government. He opined that if they began listing rights that were not to be infringed or tampered, that all of the other rights they considered "birthrights", could be legislated away. Madison thought it impossible to list all of the rights free men were ordained by their Creator with. He said that if they listed a few, they would have to list them all to make sure the government didn't infringe upon them. He was prophetic.

Already Done Happened also stated: If you have the firearm, then how are your rights being infringed?

I would ask Mr. Already Done Happened to talk with the people of California that used to own any of the Semi Auto firearms that were banned on Jan. 1st of this year. Those owners that did not comply with the edict that demanded they be turned in, are now criminals in the eyes of the state government of California, and are subject to fines and jail time for non-compliance. The State of California infringed on their right to keep and bear a firearm they already possessed. The precedent has been set.

For the sake of argument, if this course of action is considered within the Law and the Constitution, then clearly the government - whether it be state or Federal - can declare any and all firearms capable of firing anything larger than .22 LR caliber, illegal. They then can confiscate and impose jail and fines for citizens caught possessing them. The right to keep and bear a firearm then would not be infringed if we use ADH's argument, because you can possess a firearm so long as it is no more powerful than a Ruger 10/22. That, or we can expound ADH's argument to say that all posession of ammunition outside of police or military personnel is illegal. We still can keep and bear a firearm, we cannot have any means of using it as intended. What do you think? It's Constitutional if we go by the letter of the law, but patently an infringement on the meaning and intent of the law.

ADH also stated: "The Framers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us ways to change the Constitution, as well as a court system that interprets the Constitution. "

The latter is Liberal nonsense. The court system (especially the Supreme Court) does NOT interpret the Constitution. Their job is to INTERPRET law and legislation IN THE LIGHT of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all law is supposed to be measured against it. But the still-raging argument of semantics continues as Americans will no doubt do to the Constitution what the rest of mankind has done with the Bible. One book, document, verse and right with ten billion interpretations and denominations all claiming to honor the source.

I wish to make one more point of disagreement. ADH is obviously an intelligent and scholared individual with an interpretation of the Constitution I do not agree with. He says; You have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, in accordance with Supreme Court interpretation of those rights, AT THE MOMENT YOU EXERCISE THEM. Your birth has nothing to do with the Constitution.

By that reckoning, the statement found in the Declaration about the origin of our Rights has been surplanted by the Supreme Court. That means that if the Supreme Court one day interprets the First Amendment of freedom of speech to mean it applies only to those in elected office, that will be the Law of the land and perfectly legal according to ADH's interpretation here.

I'm sorry ADH, your interpretation as stated above is absurd. To say we are not endowed by our Creator with those Rights until we exercize them, and then only upon the approval of the SC in their interpretation of them is to deny we even possess them.

Truthbeknown as stupid, hate-filled and rabid as he is, is correct when stating we are born with the rights we possess. The Constitution exists to limit and restrict the government from interfering and limiting those rights and freedoms. This is because the Rights we possess come from God, they are not granted by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the President or your neighbors. They are endowed to us by our Creator, meaning no law made by man can usurp them - which if you read the Constitution carefully - is very pointed to that fact.

I'm sure all of this will be debunked as nonsense by some, but I at least have spoken my piece.

-- Setting The Record (straight@for.you), April 13, 2001.

>>>"No. That is a restriction on a Constitutional right. For example, you cannot purchase a Thompson submachine gun, no matter how badly you want it. We can continue to examine this point, if you like."

"I'd like to interject a point about that as well as make a few other observations if I may."

By all means. Please do so.

"Any law, ordinance or policy that bans the ability of any American citizen from purchasing, owning, manufacturing or possessing any firearm is an infringement on their Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms."

No. If a municipality passes an ordinance that prohibits the private ownership of certain types of firearms, then the Constitution is not necessarily involved. Congress is the only body that is enjoined by the Constitution from passing laws that infringe the right to bear arms. If some other governmental or corporate body makes such policy, then, depending on the circumstances, there may not be any Constitutional recourse available. Further, if Congress were to amend the Constitution itself, and that amendment restricted the right to bear arms, then there is no Constitutional infringement.

"There are untold quotes and papers by the Authors and Framers of the Republic that expounded on the issue of arms, which revealed their intent and purpose of the Second Amendment. I'm not going to list or link them here as I've seen them many times on the discussion boards. There are online versions of the Federalist Papers, legislative speeches and letters by Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Paine and others that eloquently defined and expounded on the issue of arms."

However, those historical documents -- while they do frame and inform the Constitution -- are not matters of modern policy. There is absolutely no legal weight to any of those documents whatsoever. To be sure, those documents could be considered in some legal proceedings, but those documents ARE NOT LAW. Period.

"The intent was for Americans to possess the power to repell tyranny by force of arms at the hand of government. This meant (at the time it was written) the long rifle and mortar if one could afford the munition. Today that could include machine guns, RPG's and other weapons that give citizens the ability to form an army of milita that supplied itself with arms when called upon."

After World War I, mortars and ammunition could be purchased through mail-order. Thompson submachine guns (I believe they are 45-cal weapons) were likewise available at that time. Congress wisely closed off those loopholes. I understand your line of argument, Setting The Record, but it is a reductio ad absurdium. Your absolutist claim that ANY restriction on ANYONE'S ownership of ANY weapon at all is totally indefensible. If you feel compelled to own five tons of C4 plastic explosive to protect yourself from governmental tyranny, then who's going to protect me from you?

"America was never intended to have a standing army, only a militia."

And for a while, that was true. However, matters have changed. There is no Constitutional obligation to have a militia, rather than a standing army. If you can cite some sort of Constitutional requirement that we NOT have a standing army and/or navy, then please feel free to post it here.

"Requiring papers, licenses and exhorbant taxes on firearms, for the sole purpose of regulating and restricting the availablility of firearms to American citizens, is also an infringement on their right to keep and bear arms."

I disagree. If you are not PREVENTED from owning a firearm, but are instead required to submit papers, secure a license and pay taxes on the firearm, then your rights have not been infringed. I bought a Mossberg .410 pump-action shotgun for my wife's use while I am gone (I travel a great deal for work). Including time for the salesman to explain and demonstrate its use, time to fill out the papers and wait for the instant background check, and time to go to an ATM go get cash, it took no more than 30 minutes to get our shotgun.

What's your problem with 30 minutes?

"If one has to obtain a license to bear a firearm, they are asking for permission from the government to keep and bear a firearm."

I don't personally know anyone who has ever been denied a firearm license. And I have a rather large extended family, and many of my cousins, aunts and uncles are hunters and sport shooters. Not ONCE have I heard them speak of someone they knew who had been denied a firearm license. How many people do you know who have been denied a firearm license? And why were they denied -- assuming you can come up with any examples?

"Government has no power to grant the authority to a right the people already possess."

Of course it does. You have the right to get married, and the government in every state requires marriage licenses. Where's your outrage over that? Convicts aren't allowed to vote. Where's your outrage over that? It's really quite simple, Setting The Record -- government DOES have that power. You don't like it, and it appears to upset you, but government does have that power.

"If government can license, tax and restrict the sale, possession and availibility of any firearm, they have asserted the power to take those firearms (and the right) away for not complying with any protocol they set forth."

No. You have posited a non-sequitur. The government requires you to jump through several hoops before getting a firearm, but you have not presented any evidence whatsoever of this alleged 'asserted power' to take firearms already legally possessed. One does not necessarily follow from the other.

"This was clearly the result the Framers wished to avoid with the phrase: "Shall not be infringed".

Perhaps. But the Framers could not foresee the vast array of weapons manufactured today. I do not think that any Framer would defend a right to own ANY modern weapon that one could afford. Do you?

The Framers also didn't want women to have the vote. Is the 19th Amendment unconstitutional? The Framers also thought that slaves weren't human beings, but not they are legally human beings, and have the vote. Should I enumerate the items that offends in the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

When you fall back on "the Framers intended," you put yourself in a very untenable position. You either open yourself up to attacks on a number of different fronts, or you set yourself up to be called a hypocrite.

"I think (though I'm not certain) I know where Truthbeknown is coming from. When Already Done Happened says "the claimed infringement (assuming you can even prove it exists) would be an infringement on a Constitutional right, not a right you were born with. he comes from the oft common supposition that the Constitution of the United States grants it's citizens the Rights they possess. This is untrue."

No. You get your rights from the Constitution.

"The Founding Fathers from all of their writings were of the distinct belief that their Freedom, Liberty and Rights were bestowed by the Creator."

Irrelevant. Your rights are a matter of law, not of faith and belief. Your belief and faith that your right to bear any arms whatsoever is absolute and immutable will not stand up in any court in this country.

"From the Declaration of Independance: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

I notice that the right to keep and bear arms is not listed in there. Actually, Setting The Record, you have fallen prey to the common misconception that your Constitutional rights are guaranteed to you by some god or other. That is quite simply incorrect. If those rights were granted by a supreme being, then all humans would enjoy them. Manifestly, they do not.

Rights are a matter of law. QED.

"Many an argument with Progressives and Liberals has revealed that they interpret "certain" unalienable rights as only the ones listed in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Their interpretation is wrong."

You are quite correct in this statement. See the Ninth Amendment.

"The words "among these" in the Declaration give clear evidence that there were other unalienable rights not listed as well, not just life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. This goes back to Madison opposing the Bill of Rights - which he believed would lead to any rights not listed therein to subjugation by the government. He opined that if they began listing rights that were not to be infringed or tampered, that all of the other rights they considered "birthrights", could be legislated away."

You might find it interesting to know that there were originally twelve amendments in the Bill of Rights. If you ask nicely, I might tell you what happened to the other two.

"Madison thought it impossible to list all of the rights free men were ordained by their Creator with. He said that if they listed a few, they would have to list them all to make sure the government didn't infringe upon them. He was prophetic."

Not really. The Ninth Amendment sums that matter up quite clearly. However, I notice that many conservatives don't like to discuss the Ninth, because it suggests that there are other rights that aren't enumerated in the Constitution. Bringing up "new" rights that aren't listed in the Constitution is a sure way to upset conservatives.

"Already Done Happened also stated: If you have the firearm, then how are your rights being infringed?"

And I am still asking that question, as you did not answer it.

"I would ask Mr. Already Done Happened to talk with the people of California that used to own any of the Semi Auto firearms that were banned on Jan. 1st of this year. Those owners that did not comply with the edict that demanded they be turned in, are now criminals in the eyes of the state government of California, and are subject to fines and jail time for non-compliance. The State of California infringed on their right to keep and bear a firearm they already possessed. The precedent has been set."

However, Congress passed no law infringing the right to keep and bear arms. As I indicated earlier, other governmental bodies and corporations are not necessarily bound by the Constitution. In any event, I am sure that an ugly court battle is brewing in CA.

"For the sake of argument, if this course of action is considered within the Law and the Constitution, then clearly the government - whether it be state or Federal - can declare any and all firearms capable of firing anything larger than .22 LR caliber, illegal."

Could happen. Don't think it will, though. I would certainly oppose such a push.

"They then can confiscate and impose jail and fines for citizens caught possessing them. The right to keep and bear a firearm then would not be infringed if we use ADH's argument, because you can possess a firearm so long as it is no more powerful than a Ruger 10/22."

You have mischaracterized my position. As I said earlier, I disagree. If you are not PREVENTED from owning a firearm, but are instead required to submit papers, secure a license and pay taxes on the firearm, then your rights have not been infringed.

"That, or we can expound ADH's argument to say that all posession of ammunition outside of police or military personnel is illegal."

No. Again you mischaracterize my position. For someone who claims to be "Setting The Record" straight, you certainly do seem bent on trying to recast my positions to suit you. IMO, it is ridiculous in the extreme to restrict all ammunition. To be sure, I don't think that cop-killer ammo or hollow-points should be available to the public, but restricting ammo would be a de facto restriction of firearms, and therefore unconstitutional.

"ADH also stated: "The Framers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us ways to change the Constitution, as well as a court system that interprets the Constitution. "

"The latter is Liberal nonsense."

Incorrect. Now we shall dance.

"The court system (especially the Supreme Court) does NOT interpret the Constitution."

It most certainly does. SCOTUS, among its other duties, hears cases that impact directly upon Constitutional matters. I can present a long, long list of SCOTUS cases that deal SPECIFICALLY with interpreting the Constitution, and then ruling on a case based on that interpretation.

"Their job is to INTERPRET law and legislation IN THE LIGHT of the Constitution."

That's part of it, yes.

"The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all law is supposed to be measured against it. But the still-raging argument of semantics continues as Americans will no doubt do to the Constitution what the rest of mankind has done with the Bible. One book, document, verse and right with ten billion interpretations and denominations all claiming to honor the source."

Not to be insulting, but as an atheist, I'm not real interested in the bible, or your 'creator-endowed' rights.

"I wish to make one more point of disagreement. ADH is obviously an intelligent and scholared individual with an interpretation of the Constitution I do not agree with. He says; You have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, in accordance with Supreme Court interpretation of those rights, AT THE MOMENT YOU EXERCISE THEM. Your birth has nothing to do with the Constitution."

That's exactly right.

"By that reckoning, the statement found in the Declaration about the origin of our Rights has been surplanted by the Supreme Court. That means that if the Supreme Court one day interprets the First Amendment of freedom of speech to mean it applies only to those in elected office, that will be the Law of the land and perfectly legal according to ADH's interpretation here."

Actually, you're over 200 years too late. What we now know as the First Amendment was originally intended (in early drafts and debates) to apply only to lawmakers. Certain of the Constitutional Convention delegates objected, and so the right was extended to include all citizens.

However, today Senators and Congressmen do enjoy one facet of free speech that the rest of us do not. They enjoy absolute freedom of speech on the floor of the House or Senate. They can say *anything* there. If you'd like to read an interesting case that touches on that right, then I refer you to Hutchinson v. Proxmire.

"I'm sorry ADH, your interpretation as stated above is absurd. To say we are not endowed by our Creator with those Rights until we exercize them, and then only upon the approval of the SC in their interpretation of them is to deny we even possess them."

Wrong. Those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, not by some faceless supernatural deity. No creator endows us with rights, because there is no creator.

I assert that the rights exist and can be exercised SOLELY BECAUSE they exist in our Constitution. No god enters into the matter.

"Truthbeknown as stupid, hate-filled and rabid as he is, is correct when stating we are born with the rights we possess."

No. He is not. You have only the rights guaranteed to you at the instant you exercise them.

"The Constitution exists to limit and restrict the government from interfering and limiting those rights and freedoms."

That's quite true, but it also exists to remind us of those rights and freedoms so that we've got a frame of reference. That way, we don't have to go running to attorneys every time we want to do something.

"This is because the Rights we possess come from God, they are not granted by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the President or your neighbors."

No. The Constitution and the Supreme Court are exactly where they come from. There's no god to endow you with rights, regardless of your protestations.

"They are endowed to us by our Creator,"

Incorrect.

"meaning no law made by man can usurp them - "

Perhaps you should have a word with the Chinese government and tell them that your god is very cross with them. That ought to make them clean up their act, hmm?

"which if you read the Constitution carefully - is very pointed to that fact."

It's not a fact, and it's no guarantee. You can put your faith in your god, if you like, but in a courtroom, I'd rather rely on the Constitution.

"I'm sure all of this will be debunked as nonsense by some,"

Allow me to be the first to debunk you. But I'd also like to congratulate you for keeping your cool. I definitely appreciate that.

"but I at least have spoken my piece."

That you have.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 13, 2001.