"Dear Police Officer" an anon article - forwarded

Status
Not open for further replies.

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
No, I didn't write it. I heard it on the radio this AM & it is posted for informational purposes only - and that for discussion.

No implied intent by this post whatsoever & I will publically state my support for the good cops everywhere - everytime.

There is, however, a theme, an underpinning (if you will) regarding the continual stripping away of our rights ...

A fine line has been thought of for many years and more recently, the line is beginning to be drawn, to take form. Those that would attempt to strip the rights from the law-abiding further define that line daily.

Again, I'm not the author, I don't condone violence of any form, nor do I do any thing but post this for purposes of discussion.

Admin/mods, if I've crossed your line, please dump this immediately & notify me via e-mail asap.
http://sierratimes.com/edun032800.htm

"Dear Peace Officer

Editorial By : Author Unknown
Posted:03.28.00

Dear Peace Officer:

I don't want to kill you. I don't even want to wound you. I admire your courage and the commitment you've made to help others, often at the risk of your own life. I hope you won't come for me, because if you do, one of us will die. It may be you. I've done nothing wrong. I don't intend to. But the
government that you serve has passed too many laws. I am sure to accidentally break one, some day. And that same government is systematically destroying the unalienable rights which our Constitution says may not be
infringed - very specifically, my right to keep and bear arms.

I am not some wacko lunatic, but I can no longer stand idly by, while decent people are systematically enslaved by an out-of-control government. I cannot allow a corrupt judiciary to use its power to destroy my rights and my country. That government and that judiciary has begun to use you to arrest
and kill people just like me - people who believe that the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean what they say.

You don't know me, but you see me every day. I may be a businessman, a truck driver, an executive. I could be a housewife or a salesman. But I am armed, as Americans have been for over 250 years, and I am determined to keep the freedoms that only an armed people may retain. With a rifle, I can hit a
man-sized target at 800 yards. At shorter distances, in the blink of an eye, I can hit a head-size target with a handgun. I don't wear a uniform. I don't drive a marked car. I don't wear camouflage. I could be your own secretary, or your barber. I might be the guy who delivers your bottled water, or the
parcel delivery lady. You don't know who I am, or what arms I have, and you never will. I am millions. I am America.

But I know you. I know your uniform, your car, and your work schedule. I know where you work, and where you live. And that is good for you, because not only am I no threat to you, so long as you do the job for which you are hired, I am also prepared to assist you when you are threatened. There
aren't many of me left, you may think, but believe me, there are many, many more than you can imagine. When the chips are down, we are the ones who are truly on your side. On your side, that is, so long as you honor your Oath.

We are on your side if you are one of the majority of peace officers who are not corrupt and who have not sold out to the socialists and communists who will do anything, say anything to destroy the America our fathers and grandfathers bequeathed us. No, I am no threat to you, but your bosses in government don't see it that way. They think that I, and my arms, are a threat to them, and they are planning to send you for me, just as they've sent armed, dangerous officers on select little missions for years, taking out targeted individuals. On their orders, you may succeed in murdering me for my beliefs. Or you may not.

Whether or not you succeed in murdering me, as federal agents murdered Vicki Weaver in Idaho; or as those same federal agents murdered 81 men, women and children at Waco, Texas; there will be others who will rise up in my memory, as I now rise up in honor of the innocent lives taken by the jack-booted
thugs and black-clad imitation ninjas who think it is fun to murder Americans -who have somehow become convinced that it is their job to murder Americans.

I am prepared to die, honoring my sacred Oath as an American, to defend and protect the Constitution of the united States of America. Are you prepared to die to violate the Oath you took? You see, our government is out of control. You know it. You've seen it. But you, like many others, have been
too concerned with your job, your family, and your pension, to say or do anything about it. Deep down, you know I am right. But you think you must follow orders.

Or must you? Are you going to murder me for having the courage to stand up for the country and the principles in which you believe? Are you going to go along with unconscionably illegal, unconstitutional orders, just as the "good" German soldiers followed their orders? Are you going to be a peace officer or a jack-booted thug? There is little difference between a street
outlaw who murders and robs; and a uniformed thug who murders and robs under color of law. The result is the same. Property confiscated, lives ruined, families ripped apart, murder committed, and a free nation destroyed.

Look at history. Look around the world. As we move toward a lawless society, our country moves closer and closer to anarchy and then some form of fascism. Are you going to enforce unconstitutional laws? Are you going to be the private army of fascist dictators masquerading as democratic
representatives? Or are you going to do your part to recapture America? Are you going to keep your eyes and ears open? Will you let me know when the jack-booted thugs in the SWAT teams have targeted me? Will you let your fellow officers know that they are being sold down the river by their corrupt masters? Don't come to kill me. Because I don't want to kill you. If you do come, you may succeed - if you get lucky. But don't count on luck, because it will probably be hard - damned hard. Like millions of other
Americans, I am the son or daughter of a nation of riflemen - citizen-soldiers who have a rich heritage of beating the best the enemy can send against us. We are resourceful. We understand weapons and tactics. You are foolish if you intend to be our enemy. If you don't succeed in the long
run, and you won't, here's what you can expect:

Ambushes of SWAT teams; the wholesale slaughter of all the jack-booted thugs
who have murdered innocent Americans on the orders of their socialist masters; targeted assassinations and kidnappings of anti-Constitution judges; assassinations of anti-American, anti-gun politicians.

By your willingness to be a good little Nazi, you will have unleashed a civil war. It doesn't have to be that way. You can do something about it.

It's easy. Read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights. Although you took an Oath to defend them, you don't see much of them in your training, do you? Today, these documents are considered dangerous by the government, just as King George found them dangerous over 200 years ago. Why do you suppose your leaders lead you to oppose the very rights you swore to protect? Why do they want a disarmed public? You know
the reason. It has nothing to do with controlling crime. It has everything to do with using you to disarm, fine and control your fellow American Citizens.

Don't fall for it. Don't force me to kill you.

(Signed, 100 Million Real Americans)
 

Oleg Volk

Staff Alumnus
I am not sure who concerns me more at this point, folks who'd never lift a finger to defend themselves or even realize the need...or triggerhappies who think they will solve all problems with their rifles.

This particular statement, while meaningful, would in all likelyhood be a very bad PR move. It would antagonize many fance-sitters...in my humble opinion.
 

Donny

New member
WOW!!!

I still say,

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 

LawDog

Staff Emeritus
Remember, the jack-booted thug thing has been done, done again, and over-done.

I'll leave this one open, but if it devolves into a JBT screech-fest, it gets whacked.

LawDog
 

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
No doubt, a bit inflective, to say the least - to all who've posted to date (time) ... I threw this out for discussion (was forwarded to me by a "very close & dear friend" who will go nameless for privacy + the radio spot & it was already on sierra anyway) ....

Again, in no way am I condoning any violence whatsoever and I would very much so hesitate to "take up arms" in the least. "Been there, done that" whole bit personally in "other worlds" & don't care to see any of it happening here. What we do have here is precious beyond recognition & the changes that need be made can (& should) be made within "the system."

I thought the article illustrative in the utmost in that there are those who are (at the least) reasonablably articulate & thoughtful in their own perspective/s who are seriously questioning where this country is headed.

I suspect that this article does bring up visions of "Unintended Consequences" and some of TFL's own threads regarding "if you like the war on grugs, you're gonna love the war on guns"-type threads ....

When the fireams/the rights that you do so enjoy today, become illegal tomorrow, will they be confiscated, will they be rescinded?
Will those laws be enforced at the point of a state-financed gun?

Will you participate in these confiscations?
Or will you stand for our freedoms? Would you forcibly disarm my friend - an 80-year old man who has never harmed any living thing?

I'd leave this discussion to the reader & do hope that it does develop into a real discussion and not a flame war against LEOs (some of my personal fave folks - I was one) or any threats of violence, et al. There is no need for that - none. Period.

After work this afternoon, I had a beer with a gentleman (in his 80's) who is absolutely disgusted with the turn of events in this country today.

His favorite time of life? = The 30's ... you could do anything you'd care to do (full-autos were mail-order & cheap), pretty good prosperity, between wars (who knew then?), personal freedom was at the utmost, crime rate was down, we had heros! There were heros! (not some 10M/yr athelete that was beating his wife on the side & snorting coke while gaining acolades a-plenty at every newsie show).

Back to topic.

There does come a time when every thinking person must ask themselves: to what extent will I follow the laws when those laws do not serve the best interest/s of the society at large. Will my enforcing "these laws" result in further tyranny of the law-abiding, or are they more of an incremental approach that do nothing to curb the criminal element, but do impinge upon the freedoms that we all hold so dear.(?)

The law-abiding do already follow all of the majority of these laws (even without being told to by the sole fact that they already have a moral code and the responsibilities of their actions) - we do not have to be told how to act, nor to have our actions dictated by legal actions. We are already responsible. We are already a moral people.

The criminal element could care less and will never follow any laws - by definition.

Further restrictions on the law-abiding cause the schism - the wedge between those who would curtail us to no end - and to no good result. We are already "the good guys" and no law will, or can, make us better or more moral, for we are already there and in full agreement. And, we are absolutely sick at heart of further restictions on our rights.

From such arguments was born the Tyranny Response Team.

We are already good & moral.

No further legislation would make us moreso.

And, we (speaking soley for myself) take it to heart that "you" (speaking mainly to the "feel-good" politicos) would further attempt to restrict us to that end.

There will come a time when we all must make the choice.

The argument I make - regardless of The Constitution, regardless of if there is a God - I am a sentinent, moral enitity and would NEVER cause harm or inflict force upon another that never inflicted force or caused harm to me or mine.

What restrictions would you place upon me that would curtail that which I already have imposed upon myself?

Will we stand up for our rights? Or will we totally fall into the chasm that awaits?
 

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
Lawdog,

Furthest from my thoughts on this - and I say that with all sincerities.

I would hope that we could be beyond that which you suspect will happen - as do I.

Alas.

I'd personally whack the thread too if this degenerates to that. There's no need for it to go there. I'd hope better & expect less ....

And, I do thank you personally for being "johnny on the spot" & please do monitor closely. I would truly hate to see this "go off" to where it surely shall if we don't police ourselves.

Anyway, can y'all (the mods/admin) dump the fools & still keep the "reasonables" alive? Probably LOL, huh? Would be nice if we could have a rational discussion on this ....

A case in point re this thread ....

What was that one idiot's bill? SB 1099? It would make all handguns NFA-class ....

There's that. All of a sudden, we have millions of law-abiding folks who have owned legally a specific class of firearm - never a problem, never a crime, never - in the law-abidng ownership.

Now it's a law! Now you have to knuckle under. If you don't, you're a criminal by the stroke of a pen.

And to what result?

Are you "the problem?" Were you ever? Will you ever be?

No, no & no.

Time to tell "them" emphatically, "NO!"

Not now, not ever.

And back to the thread.

What will happen? Who will "go there?" Will "we?" Will "you?" (this is not specific to any "class" or occupation, but moreso "The Question.")

Therein lies my greatest fear for this country & its people.

We will have those fine & good people who will finally say that "this has gone too far & "I" will no longer obey these laws."

We will have those who will enforce the laws of the land, even though these laws do not serve those that pay for and expect that laws good for this country are enforced.

Those that are not, should not be.

Therein lies the crux. Therein lies the division.

Therein lies the fate of our country.

I'll leave it up to the "best of the best" in TFL to continue a rational, non-flaming discussion.

A hot-button for sure.

Enter at your own risk.

And here's to all good people everywhere who believe in freedom and personal responsibility.
 

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
6forsure,

I'll take that once & quickly before I hit the rack ...

"JBT"s is an inflamatory verbage that really doesn't belong in this thread. It doesn't do jack (no pun intended) to further this discussion.

There has, at times, been those who would overzealously enforce laws.

I, personally, think that that is a given.

To (maybe) over-qualify, there are those who would also go over the deep end on ANY scenario and over-exert their own "qualifications," whatever, to their own end/s.

Using the "JBT" label in this thread is certain to take this where I'd not like it to go. If you'd like to - start your own thread.

I'd like to keep this on topic and not take it where the "JBT" phrase would.

'Nuff said on that.

I would very muchso appreciate this being absolutely civil and in no way becoming in anyway a flame towards LEO. The good'uns don't deserve it in any aspect.

This MAY (very hard stress on that last word) become a civil discussion ....

Then again, it probably won't ....

We could say that it comes down to that responsibility - we have the ability, but will we use it responsibly?

And that, dear friends, is the crux of the whole matter, isn't it?

Can we wield that overt power and still be civilized?

Which is "worse," The First or The Second?

If we can't control ourselves with the former, I doubt that many would "allow" us the freedom of The 2nd.
 

Gopher a 45

New member
Hmmm,

Sure this type of invective would turn a lot of people off, so I guess you have to decide by yourself at what point what type of resistance is warranted.

Labgrade makes a good point. How many here would submit to treating their Kimber Gold Match like a full-auto FAL? If not, what kind of resistance to such a law would they be willing to embrace? I think that such a law is unlikely, for now, but some of the laws that have recently been foisted on us would have seemed equally ridiculous not too long ago. It only takes one or a few more emotion-soaked shootings to push us the rest of the way down the slippery slope, consequences be damned.

Two things are clear, at least. One, the avenues of peaceful change, three of the "boxes" if you will, are being slowly closed off, one by one, and not just on the gun issue. So's the fourth, for that matter. I'm sure I'll get flames for that but be aware that I'm NOT, repeat NOT advocating violence. However, I'm sure that we can all think of examples of the way that the vote, juries and even the free-speech soap box have been abused and diminished if not outright destroyed. Second, swinging back to firearms, it is apparent that the tide only flows on one direction, that of more laws, regulations, etc. I think that since even when a "good" law is passed, it is either diluted or ignored, ala the FOPA of '86 turning into "Black Monday." Yet at the same time we see a curious enthusiasm to enforce non-violent paperwork violations and the rise of insane garbage like we see going on in California. Is there such a thing as a non-violent gun crime? That's open for debate, but maybe we could all agree to prioritize. :)

We seem to have dug a really deep hole with a shovel but still seem to think that we can use that same shovel to un-dig us out when we really need a frigging ladder.

I have great hopes for the Emerson case and hope that the SC doesn't duck that one as well, which is why this fall's election can have an impact far beyond the Presidency. I haven't lost faith in "the process" not by any means, but realize that the assault on our rights is reaching a fever pitch.

I guess we all, in our own hearts, must realize and be honest with ourselves at what point we would say, "enough!" What then would we do to ensure that enough stayed enough? As I said, that's up to each person, because we may have more/less to lose than the next guy or gal. Once you reach that decision with yourself, either you turn over your guns now, or keep them, peacefully, secure in the knowledge that you would use them to defend your and your children's rights should you perceive them to be in mortal peril.

Off my little soapbox now. It's hard to stand on a box of Tide for so long. ;) I suppose I'm just depressed after nearly 8 years under King William's reign. :p
 

ernest2

New member
I dont understand why you are so afraid of saying JACK BOOTED THUG. The thugs know who they are and revel in their cruelity and
Good, Honest Law Enforcement Officers also know who they are and may dispise JBT as much as some others do.

You act like you are going to church and talking to GOD when you talk about JBT.Shame on them for Wacco and Ruby Ridge and other places,too. I dont think they deserve
the respect you show them.

That said,this is why I really posted.

I dont think we will see another appearance
of Komrade Klintonov's Dark Storm Troopers.

What I think we will see is the low key approach as used in the Peoples Republic of
Kalifornia; where you recieve a letter in the mail asking you to please turn in the below
listed firearms at the police station of your choice before the date so & so.

OH WoW! We are given THe CHOICE of the police station to which we must turn in our expensive firearms to!

How Wonderful!

It must be ok if they give us the choice of turning in our expensive firearms to the police station of our choice!WOW!How POlite!

And then, just to show us how wonderful our police are: If we do not turn in our guns
the Jack Booted Thugs will be real polite and leave all their black kevilar and MP5 Machine guns home and come after us (still in overwelming numbers of 40 to 1) in regular uniform ,with the kevlar armor under their uniform shirts.

How very thoughtfull and polite of them!
It just wants to make me put all my firearms out on the front pourch for them to retreve.

Actually, I hope to have them all sold to other , younger law abiding people so that I do not have to deal with the demeanment of having to have fire arms confiscated from me.

Actually, if they were smart, and they are,
they will offer a fair price so that we will not have to loose face .

Many people who would fight unpaid confiscation would more readly turn in guns
if paid.

They will continue pushing for more and more and will not respect us until we again fight for our rights as our fore fathers did.

The tree of liberity must occasionally be watered by the blood of both patriots and tyrants. BLah,blah,blah,blah.

Actions speak louder than words.
And gun shots speak loudest of all.

And ,being over age for combat,I guess that I will not be hearing any gun shots either, except on TV!

It still makes my blood pressure go out of control!

They drug our childern in school with ratlin
and prosac and indoctorinate them in the socialist way and then wonder why the kids come out all messed up in the head and shoot people.
 

Hal

New member
The 30's???????????
Sounds like maybe a bit too much beer was enjoyed. From my conversations with people that lived in that decade, the 30's just plain sucked.
May I suggest you read this www.nps.gov/fdrm/FDR_1st_Inaugural_Address.htm before saying anything so silly. In 1933, FDR just simply suspended the Constitution, and was lauded for it as the savior of the Nation. JBT's don't always wear uniforms.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited March 29, 2000).]
 

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
Well, re the 30's .... I didn't live then, I had one beer & I was only relating what an oldster told me.

& 6forsure. My appologies re the JBT bit. Quite frankly I hadn't read the entire "letter" till just now. Heard part on the radio, it was forwarded to me by "a reliable," and I posted for discussion. I didn't know the reference was one I had started. Again, sorry for my getting on you about it.

Personally, I'm turned off by the JBT bit as I believe it to be inflamtory - whether or not the personality type exists. I see it akin to a racial slur, in its own way.
But towards a profession rather than race.

As in any grouping of peoples, there are those who act in a fashion which we wished didn't.

To slur a class of peoples by using the broad brush (even if not meant towards all), is beneath us. We should be above that.

Too, there is the fact that certain of a class do exist and we shouldn't shy away from calling it as we see it. Hmmm ...

I get sick of hearing about firearms owners being painted with the broad brush - for things I've nothing to do with. I'm certain LEOs feel the same way when the JBT moniker is used.
 

logansdad

New member
A very thought-provoking thread, to say the least. I grew up in small town USA and have very little doubt that the local LEO's would balk at such an idea as confiscating guns from "Fred the farmer" or anyone else in our small community. I suspect that this is the case in most "rural" areas. But the urban centers are likely a different story. Disarmament has already been accomplished (for the most part) in Chicago, NYC, DC, etc. I doubt that big city cops would have nearly as much reservation about knocking on your door.

Ayoob and others CLAIM that the vast majority of rank and file officers would not support confiscation and would refuse to carry out any such orders. IMO, veteran officers who have been around for a while probably wouldn't follow through, but I'm not so sure about the newbies. Given the (liberal leftist) educational system that most of the younger officers were brought up in, I'm concerned that they do not have the strong feelings regarding liberty and the constitution that we have.

I could be wrong. I'm only 35 and have already told my wife if and when the day came that I was labeled a criminal for simply owning guns, to pack her bags and take the kids to her parent's house. I would not want her to see the outcome. I have no illusions that I could repel an attack by a numerically and technologically superior force, but I would die for my beliefs and hopefully my death not be in vain. Hopefully, the flames of liberty would get fanned and I would enter the martyrdom and not be remembered as just another "gun nut" that the cops had to kill. Maybe some of the newer guys on the force feel the same way.
 

Hard Ball

New member
Note that gun confiscation will have to involve many no-knock raids by law enforce ment and/or the armed forces. It will be clearly unconstitutional and the goverenment which orders it will have become de facto an illegal dictatorship.

As for me, note my signature below

I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enimies domestic or foreign, WHOMSOEVER.

[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited March 29, 2000).]
 

Herodotus

New member
I hope all you people appreciate the gravity of the situation we are currently facing. Common citizens all over America are debating the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. The last time that happened was in the years leading up to the Civil War, on the question of succeesion.
I put the blame squarely on the Clinton administration and its insane pushing of an antigun political agenda in its dying days. This truely is no one's best interest and could have the most serious consequences if fanned to greater extremes.
Pray that Bush is our next president. If it is Gore, pray that he has some decency and at least a little common sense still hidden behind all the image his handlers have laid over him.
 

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
I don't think the Clinton regime started this nonesense, but it has certainly fanned it to furnace levels.

Each previous Administation has its own "closet" stuff to bear.

The gravity cannot be doubted. I'm "in the loop," "a crazy" and you would not believe the stuff I hear.

And it isn't just Second Amendement stuff. It's RICO provisions, Social Security, the rediculous tax burden, no-knock raids (& relateds), federal usurpations of land-use ... it does go on.

The people are fed up & federalized to death & sick at heart.

I do not want this flamed to excessiveness. I'd like for our electeds to hear "the music," take a good listen ....

When those that pass legislation start to return this country to a "for & by the people," only then will we refrain from the "yelling back at'em."

(another plug) stand by for more re Let Freedom Ring! 2000 .... unleashing the dogs early next week.
 

Art Eatman

Staff in Memoriam
The JBT term originated on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives during debate on the Gun Control Act of 1968. It was used by a Democrat from Michican, Congressman John Dingell, in speaking of the BATF. He predicted the behavior so regularly reported on by James Pate in SOF magazine...

Since hardly anybody knows any history, and the media in particular doesn't like the NRA, the source and usage of the term was too little known. Even ex-Pres. Bush, who had been in government at that time, didn't recognize the source of the term!

Dingell is best remembered for his pro-gun stance, and the "Dingell-Johnson" tax on sporting goods which goes into a wildlife trust fund for states' game departments. You may recall that the USF&WS has been ripping off several millions, yearly, from the fund for other uses.

As to the main point of this thread, I have always held that the misdeeds of a few LEOs do not mean we should hate the many--which is what all we gunowners here have been saying about ourselves since this Website began.

FWIW, Art
 

Bud Helms

Senior Member
To begin, this BB is the only place I have ever seen JBT be used to mean LEO's in general, or at least be understood to mean that. A JBT is an abuser of authority. At any level of gov't. Using the term should not offend an LEO. I will continue to use the term when appropriate.

I read with interest:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>... I can no longer stand idly by, while decent people are systematically enslaved by an out-of-control government. I cannot allow a corrupt judiciary to use its power to destroy my rights and my country.[/quote] The operative words here are, "I can no longer stand idly by" and "I cannot allow". They imply, clearly, some action to be taken. Provocative, as in provoke. Make no mistake, the complaints are legitimate, IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I am prepared to die, honoring my sacred Oath as an American, to defend and protect the Constitution of the united States of America. Are you prepared to die to violate the Oath you took?[/quote] What is this Oath? The pledge of Allegiance? A relatively small number of Americans take an oath to "Defend the Constitution of the United States ...". I have some problems with the sweeping assertion that LEOs "... like many others, have been too concerned with your job, your family, and your pension, to say or do anything about it." 'Just ain't so. Too many assumptions here. It infers all LEOs are JBTs and don't care about the same things we do. Bull****!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If you don't succeed in the long run, and you won't, here's what you can expect: Ambushes of SWAT teams; the wholesale slaughter of all the jack-booted thugs who have murdered innocent Americans on the orders of their socialist masters; targeted assassinations and kidnappings of anti-Constitution judges; assassinations of anti-American, anti-gun politicians.[/quote] "If you don't ... and you won't, ..." Not sure? This specific quote takes the entire article out of serious consideration as a statement of the feelings of 100 million real Americans. Real Americans don't threaten, provoke or sensationalize. They just do it. 'Always have. When I read this, I hear, "If he tries that with me, I'll kick his a**!" Braggadocio. Unnecessarily provocative (as in provoke!). "Here, let me tell you what a badass I am!" Please!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Don't force me to kill you.[/quote] PLEASE!

Labgrade, 'Ever read the Port Huron Statement? I don't like "manifestos". They usually presume to speak for a class of citizens. They usually don't. This is no different. It's just some individual's frustration venting.

Grrrrrrrr! The bandwidth is worth more.

[This message has been edited by sensop (edited March 30, 2000).]
 

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
sensop

I agree with some of your assertions. I just posted the darned thing for discussion.

I do think that there is much more this type "conversation" going on in the past couple years ... "taboo talk" that wouldn't have even been considered 10 years ago.

& nope, never read Port Huron Statement. Gotta link or ... ?

Look, I didn't write the thing. I you think I'm out to smoke Smokey, you got me all wrong. Far from it.

I do see this country going right down the toilet; faster & faster daily. I do what I do - verbally, etc. to hopefully help turn this crap around.
 

Bud Helms

Senior Member
I know. I just had to get it out.
smile.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top