Are Apple Notebooks Made in the USA ?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <mwL%c.1939$%N6.1864@trndny01>,
"Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

> How can your statement be true? We recently had a surplus. That
> means not just no deficit, but no /debt/ as well.

No, it did not mean no debt at all. It meant that we had more money
than what was budgeted to be spent in each of those years. Part of the
budget was debt payment, not debt payoff.

For instance, if you have the following payments in your budget:

Rent: $700
Food: 250
Phone: 25
Gas: 20
Elect: 150
Car pmt: 325
Car ins: 110
Gasoline: 100
VISA 59
Master Cd: 29
Misc: 75
Total: $1818

And your income for that month was $2000, you would have a $182 budget
surplus even though you owed Master Card a thousand bucks, VISA three
thousand bucks, the car loan $5500, the auto insurance, $400, and the
mortgage, $250000.

You could use that surplus to pay down your debt by making an extra $182
payment to any of the loans or credit accounts you have (or splitting it
between two or more of them), or you could use it to buy something that
you didn't budget for.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <mwL%c.1939$%N6.1864@trndny01>, Thomas G. Marshall
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:

> How can your statement be true? We recently had a surplus. That means not
> just no deficit, but no /debt/ as well. Reagan was /before/ the surplus.

You are conflating the terms "national debt" and "deficit spending."
Yes, we were running a budget surplus (as opposed to a deficit) for a
few years. But no, the years of surpluses did not pay off the
debt--not even close--not even to a noticable extent, in fact.

Think of the national debt as an interest-only mortgage. The Reagan
administration built a really big house on borrowed money (the really
big house was the economic "recovery" of the mid 80s) and added a great
deal to the national debt. As I recall, deficits under Carter were
running about $70 to $120 billion annually; under Reagan the deficits
ran from about $200 to 350 billion annually, if memory serves. The
Bushies are hoping to use the same economic strategy as Reagan: borrow
yourself into "prosperity." Deficits are, of course, skyrocketing once
again as a result.

We're still paying the interest on Reagan's contribution to the
national mortgage and have barely touched the principal. Check out a
copy of the federal budget, which should be available on the Treasury's
web site. If they still use the pie chart showing expenditures, you
will be able to locate the amount of the total budget devoted to
interest payments on the national debt. It's not a pretty sight. It
might even drive you to the conclusion that cutting taxes and
increasing spending is not a particularly wise fiscal policy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Thomas G. Marshall coughed up:
> Gnarlodious.com coughed up:
>> Entity Admiral Crunch spoke thus:
>>
>>> Let me get this straight.
>>>
>>> GWBush is responsible for what his GRANDFATHER did.
>>>
>>> LOL...now I've heard everything.
>> Laugh all you want.
>> As we speak the Republicans are running up the biggest national debt
>> ever and our children will be responsible for repaying it. We now pay
>> about $180 BILLION a year ON THE INTEREST for debt incurred by RONALD
>> REAGAN !!
>
>
> How can your statement be true? We recently had a surplus. That
> means not just no deficit, but no /debt/ as well. Reagan was
> /before/ the surplus.
>
> Whether or not a surplus is particularly a good thing, let's keep the
> argument non-simplistic, but please tell me how we have such interest
> incurred by Ronald Regan.

Reagan. Damn spell checker....

>
>
> ...[rip]...

--
"His name was Robert Paulson. His name was Robert Paulson. His name was
Robert Paulson..."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Entity Thomas G. Marshall spoke thus:

> Gnarlodious.com coughed up:
>> Entity Admiral Crunch spoke thus:
>>
>>> Let me get this straight.
>>>
>>> GWBush is responsible for what his GRANDFATHER did.
>>>
>>> LOL...now I've heard everything.
>> Laugh all you want.
>> As we speak the Republicans are running up the biggest national debt
>> ever and our children will be responsible for repaying it. We now pay
>> about $180 BILLION a year ON THE INTEREST for debt incurred by RONALD
>> REAGAN !!
>
> How can your statement be true? We recently had a surplus.
That was a yearly budget surplus, I am talking about the cumulative Federal
debt. It would take some 20 years of Clinton era surplus to pay off the
existing Federal debt.

Unless we devalue the money.

-- Gnarlie
http://Spectrumology.com
Spectrumology is the science of chaos.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:23:33 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:46:09 -0700, domanova
><domanova@domanova.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>As for the social class origins of police officers,
>
>
>oh oh...social class is now mentioned (twice) seems like we have just
>another ignorant elitist in our midst.

Great. An ignorant elitist debating an ignorant redneck. What a
country.

>But we did know that after reading its posts to date.
>
>Gunner
>
>"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
>miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
>demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
>Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <donotusethis-73A5B1.18212208092004@corp.supernews.com>,
Admiral Crunch <donotusethis@itsafakeaddress.edu> wrote:

> > Just like his daddy, he will have to increase taxes because of the
> > fiscal mess he's gotten us into.
>
> You don't think a government can tax its way out of a deficit, so
> you?
>
> Seriously?

I'm just saying that's what he will do, and the reasons he will do it.
I didn't say it would work.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:29:21 -0500, Tim May wrote
(in article <080920041829213832%timcmay@removethis.got.net>):

> Gun control is obviously forbidden the Second Amendment, though the stooges
> in government deny this.

The full wording of the second amendment follows:

==========

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

==========

What so often seemingly ignored is the opening phrase "A well regulated
militia" which seems to suggest that the right is not without constraint, and
that the right is collective and not individual.


-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:53:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <97itj0pcv8abhpar694d61n67lqj151hfq@4ax.com>,
> Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> >> It is time we recognize the great person, the beloved patriot, the layabout, the
>> >> addict, the skank, the gutter sweepings, for what he or she is:
>> >> trash.
>> >
>> >Actually, I recognize you for what you are: garbage. Putrid,
>> >stinking, disease ridden garbage.
>>
>> Other than your curious infatuation with that scumball Kerry, I could
>> get to like you.
>
>Oh, I don't have an infatuation for Kerry. It's that Kerry is the only
>chance to defeat Bush. No matter how bad Kerry might or might not be,
>Bush is much, much, worse.

Chuckle...it appears we are going to remain diametrically opposed. I
have studied Kerry's record ( I do not use feelings for political
decisions) as well as Dubya, and due to my view point and world view,
Bush, while far from perfect and not a Conservative, is still
preferable to that rat bastard Kerry. Shrug.

What are you wearing?



Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <49jvj0lu5vmd12c95fbo4o45vooi7auvlm@4ax.com>,
Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:

> Chuckle...it appears we are going to remain diametrically opposed. I
> have studied Kerry's record ( I do not use feelings for political
> decisions) as well as Dubya, and due to my view point and world view,
> Bush, while far from perfect and not a Conservative, is still
> preferable to that rat bastard Kerry. Shrug.

Nor do I use feelings for political decisions. Bush got us into a war
we never should have been in, without an exit strategy; he's making the
mistakes of Vietnam all over again, thus indicating an inability to
learn from history. He's making a token effort at best towards finding
and capturing bin Laden. His lies makes those of Clinton and Nixon look
insignificant. He has given us the largest deficit in the nation's
history. His record on human and civil rights is abysmal. His record
on the environment is not much better. His record on education is
mediocre at best. And his performance strongly indicates that he is a
puppet of the lumber, energy, HMO, and pharmaceutical industries and of
the religious right. Fortunately for him, those groups aren't at cross
purposes with each other.

> What are you wearing?

You don't want to know.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:48:53 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>> What are you wearing?
>
>You don't want to know.

Battle fatigues with combat boots, an Alice Pack, and a few bands of
..50 for her BAR wrapped around her ;0

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

It would be appreciated if all would not cross-post the discussion in the alt.sys.pc-dell newsgroup anymore. There are more appropriate newsgroups for this dialogue. As the subject relates to an Apple question, not a Dell one, please keep in the MAC newsgroup.

Thank-you

--

Rich/rerat

(RRR News) <message rule>
<<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>



"Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message news:fsrvj01vfvi6rq5pmjnngp24svnpbk5ft1@4ax.com...
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:48:53 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>> What are you wearing?
>
>You don't want to know.

Battle fatigues with combat boots, an Alice Pack, and a few bands of
..50 for her BAR wrapped around her ;0

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <fsrvj01vfvi6rq5pmjnngp24svnpbk5ft1@4ax.com>,
Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> What are you wearing?
> >
> >You don't want to know.
>
> Battle fatigues with combat boots, an Alice Pack, and a few bands of
> .50 for her BAR wrapped around her ;0

Nah, I gave that up when I retired from the army.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 02:31:34 -0400, "RRR_News" <nospam@isp.com> wrote:

>It would be appreciated if all would not cross-post the discussion in the alt.sys.pc-dell newsgroup anymore. There are more appropriate newsgroups for this dialogue. As the subject relates to an Apple question, not a Dell one, please keep in the MAC newsgroup.
>
>Thank-you

Message received.

Roger Wilco

Is there anything else I can do to help you out?
Need dope? Girls?

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:03:54 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <cg7vj054c3ok7h7bgpb9qv9um8djqdgrg3@4ax.com>,
> North <northmt@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Specifics?
>>
>> Gun control
>> Fuel milage reqirements (I like my SUV)
>
>You can have both.

Who wants gun control? Gas milage is nice, but I buy a vehicle for
its mileage, or its utility to me. Sometimes they match, sometimes
not.
>
>> Taxes
>> His voting record proves he caters to the ultra left, the socialist
>> wing of the democrat party.
>> Just look at his voting record, look at the bullshit freedom
>> restricting laws that he's co-sponcered.
>
>Look at Bush's record, and the freedom restricting laws he's proposed
>and signed--and those he's still pushing. Look at the largest deficit
>in US history that he's caused.
>

You didnt address Kerrys Extreme Leftism. You immediately kneejerked
to Bush.
Please address Kerry, then you can bash Bush and We will respond.
>Just like his daddy, he will have to increase taxes because of the
>fiscal mess he's gotten us into.
>
Ah...we are in a war. And btw..the WSJ did a study a couple months ago
that showed adjusted for inflation, actually Clintons deficit was
larger. Shrug.

>He caters to the ultra right and the religious nut case wings of the GOP.

Im a Libertarian. And Buddhist. And Im voting for him. Am I allowed
to do since Im not on the ultra right and religious right?

Btw...on the same tact..you swerved around the fact Kerry caters to
the ultra left and the non religious nut case wings of the Democrats.

Point, set and match.


Gunner


"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:43:07 GMT, Gnarlodious <gnarlodious@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Entity Thomas G. Marshall spoke thus:
>
>> Gnarlodious.com coughed up:
>>> Entity Admiral Crunch spoke thus:
>>>
>>>> Let me get this straight.
>>>>
>>>> GWBush is responsible for what his GRANDFATHER did.
>>>>
>>>> LOL...now I've heard everything.
>>> Laugh all you want.
>>> As we speak the Republicans are running up the biggest national debt
>>> ever and our children will be responsible for repaying it. We now pay
>>> about $180 BILLION a year ON THE INTEREST for debt incurred by RONALD
>>> REAGAN !!
>>
>> How can your statement be true? We recently had a surplus.
>That was a yearly budget surplus, I am talking about the cumulative Federal
>debt. It would take some 20 years of Clinton era surplus to pay off the
>existing Federal debt.
>
>Unless we devalue the money.
>
>-- Gnarlie
>http://Spectrumology.com
>Spectrumology is the science of chaos.
>
Ah..no..according to the Dems and Willy boy..we had a surplus, period.
Btw..we really didnt, it was all smoke and CBO mirrors.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Gunner wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:43:07 GMT, Gnarlodious <gnarlodious@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Entity Thomas G. Marshall spoke thus:
>>
>>
>>>Gnarlodious.com coughed up:
>>>
>>>>Entity Admiral Crunch spoke thus:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Let me get this straight.
>>>>>
>>>>>GWBush is responsible for what his GRANDFATHER did.
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL...now I've heard everything.
>>>>
>>>>Laugh all you want.
>>>>As we speak the Republicans are running up the biggest national debt
>>>>ever and our children will be responsible for repaying it. We now pay
>>>>about $180 BILLION a year ON THE INTEREST for debt incurred by RONALD
>>>>REAGAN !!
>>>
>>>How can your statement be true? We recently had a surplus.
>>
>>That was a yearly budget surplus, I am talking about the cumulative Federal
>>debt. It would take some 20 years of Clinton era surplus to pay off the
>>existing Federal debt.
>>
>>Unless we devalue the money.
>>
>>-- Gnarlie
>>http://Spectrumology.com
>>Spectrumology is the science of chaos.
>>
>
> Ah..no..according to the Dems and Willy boy..we had a surplus, period.
> Btw..we really didnt, it was all smoke and CBO mirrors.

It is a common mistake to confuse these terms.

A surplus occurs when the government takes in more money during a year
than it spends. A deficit is the reverse. The national debt is
essentially the sum of all deficits over the years (less what has been
paid back). Toward the end of the Clinton administration we had a
surplus and actually began paying down the debt.

But we still have a substantial amount of debt remaining, largely from
the Reagan years, and Bush's deficits are adding to it at an alarming rate.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus:

>> Gun control is obviously forbidden the Second Amendment, though the stooges
>> in government deny this.

> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>
> ==========
>
> What so often seemingly ignored is the opening phrase "A well regulated
> militia" which seems to suggest that the right is not without constraint, and
> that the right is collective and not individual.

In fact, the document was written under the assumption that there would be
no standing army. Local people would manage a militia with every citizen
owning a gun, much like the Swiss Army.

So, we have drifted far from the plan, but even so, the people have the
right to form militias and own guns. It's the standing army that's illegal.

--
Gnarlie's virtual Tour de Santa Fe:
http://Gnarlodious.com/SantaFe/Tour.php

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <BD653E7C.595EB%gnarlodious@yahoo.com>, Gnarlodious.com
<gnarlodious@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So, we have drifted far from the plan, but even so, the people have the
> right to form militias and own guns. It's the standing army that's illegal.

The range of misinformation one sees on usenet is simply astonishing.
But at least it is sometimes amusing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:56:22 -0500, Gnarlodious.com wrote
(in article <BD653E7C.595EB%gnarlodious@yahoo.com>):

[commenting on the United States constitution in regards to the military]

> In fact, the document was written under the assumption that there would be no

> standing army. Local people would manage a militia with every citizen owning
> a gun, much like the Swiss Army.
>
> So, we have drifted far from the plan, but even so, the people have the right

> to form militias and own guns. It's the standing army that's illegal.

But there are several mentions in the Constitution as originally adopted of
an Army and a Navy in addition to Militias. An example is the quotation below
taken from Clause 2 of Section 2 of Article II.

====================

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States.

====================


-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:47:29 GMT, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:29:21 -0500, Tim May wrote
>(in article <080920041829213832%timcmay@removethis.got.net>):
>
>> Gun control is obviously forbidden the Second Amendment, though the stooges
>> in government deny this.
>
>The full wording of the second amendment follows:
>
>==========
>
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>
>==========
>
>What so often seemingly ignored is the opening phrase "A well regulated
>militia" which seems to suggest that the right is not without constraint, and
>that the right is collective and not individual.
>
>
>-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

Wrong. Well Regulated in the vernacular in the times meant Well
trained or In Good Order. Regulating a watch means to put it into
proper time keeping order. It has nothing to do with government
regulation or constraint.

Hence your first error fatally flaws the rest of your argument. Notice
the second declaritive part..the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed.

Is this usage of the term "people" different than the same usages
through the rest of the preamble and the rest of the Constitution and
the amendments?

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and
bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated
Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the
world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of
time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person
will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine
proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated
American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and
remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of
something being in proper working order. Something that was
well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only
not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was
precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the
founders wrote it.


Gunner
"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:32:12 -0500, Gunner wrote
(in article <17qvj05st4nbjin2fnajsdihsog5mo808d@4ax.com>):

[commenting on my interpretation of "well-regulated" as used in the second
amendment to the United States Constitution]

> Wrong. Well Regulated in the vernacular in the times meant Well trained or In

> Good Order. Regulating a watch means to put it into proper time keeping
> order. It has nothing to do with government regulation or constraint.
>
> Hence your first error fatally flaws the rest of your argument. Notice the
> second declaritive part..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall

> not be infringed.

Interesting comment! It's off to the books for me for bit.



-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus:

> [commenting on the United States constitution in regards to the military]
>
>> In fact, the document was written under the assumption that there would be no
>
>> standing army. Local people would manage a militia with every citizen owning
>> a gun, much like the Swiss Army.
>>
>> So, we have drifted far from the plan, but even so, the people have the right
>
>> to form militias and own guns. It's the standing army that's illegal.
>
> But there are several mentions in the Constitution as originally adopted of
> an Army and a Navy in addition to Militias. An example is the quotation below
> taken from Clause 2 of Section 2 of Article II.
>
> ====================
>
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
> States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
> Service of the United States.

And "actual service" would have been a time of war, an invasion by a foreign
power. The Army and Navy is what we would compare to the National Guard and
Coast Guard, with the Militia as all citizens.
It was presumed that in a time of peace (no invasion) there would be no need
for an Army or Commander in Chief. The whole idea of a standing army is
unconstitutional, and "defense" now means attacking a nation we have no
borders with.

-- Gnarlie

This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute.
-Georg Lichtenberg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <BD6549C3.595F7%gnarlodious@yahoo.com>,
"Gnarlodious.com" <gnarlodious@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
> > the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
> > called into the actual Service of the United States.
>
> And "actual service" would have been a time of war, an invasion by a
> foreign power.

"Actual service" refers to the milita, not to the army and navy.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.

 

[gunner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 05:09:20 GMT, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:56:22 -0500, Gnarlodious.com wrote
>(in article <BD653E7C.595EB%gnarlodious@yahoo.com>):
>
>[commenting on the United States constitution in regards to the military]
>
>> In fact, the document was written under the assumption that there would be no
>
>> standing army. Local people would manage a militia with every citizen owning
>> a gun, much like the Swiss Army.
>>
>> So, we have drifted far from the plan, but even so, the people have the right
>
>> to form militias and own guns. It's the standing army that's illegal.
>
>But there are several mentions in the Constitution as originally adopted of
>an Army and a Navy in addition to Militias. An example is the quotation below
>taken from Clause 2 of Section 2 of Article II.
>
>====================
>
>The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
>States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
>Service of the United States.
>
>====================
>
>
>-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

The Navy is mandated in the Constitution. A standing army may only
serve (or be funded) for 2 years after its been called up, Then
Congress must vote and authorize another 2 yrs, etc.

The Navy is charged with coastal protection, smuggling prevention etc
etc.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

See Section 8

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In article <thuvj0l9duk7ssi9jqh18uhb188a8hjk5b@4ax.com>,
Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote:

> The Navy is mandated in the Constitution. A standing army may only
> serve (or be funded) for 2 years after its been called up, Then
> Congress must vote and authorize another 2 yrs, etc.

Not quite true. Any appropriation for funding for the Army can not be
for more than two years, but so long as that funding continues every two
years, the army can continue standing without interruption.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.