greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I have given up trying to save the world. I have come to realize that that I can hardly save myself and family. My neighbors are out of it except to give praise to a false God Who is smart enough to save them all. Forget Jesus Christ, Bill Clinton is the new savior and he will not let bad things happen to the eldery and the needy.

I myself am not without resources to help those that want to be helped but it has to be on their terms not whats right. God help us all when the puzzle don't fit together.

It is not y2k that so much conscerns me its all the extras that come with it that makes me shutter, althought its miscalutions will help the dreaded great depression thats to come in 2001.

Here is my reasons for my thinking.

Too much time have been given to a president that should have been taken out and shot for his treason. Many are waiting to carry out the task.

y2k will give anyone that has spoken words against USA reasons to assure that their country will be perserved. Deaths will be to those that do not honor a country that has sheilded them throught a lifetime.Veterans will raise up and fight again the war to keep them free. Goverment will be like a little old lady of on the block that has made life miserable for the rest of the neighborhood.Her death will be celebrated with joy and entertainment,

When people canno't buy shoes or cloths for their children, and when they realize that they alone are responsible for their own welfare, they will realize that they have been liee to by the dog catcher,

-- J. Wright Gordon (777@aol.com), February 08, 1999


What true patriots and soldiers do we have left to fight for what is right. The younger generation have no want or need of anything. They believe they are indestructible and what is it that they are willing to give their life up for? The WWII, Korean, VietNam warriors are too old to give a rats ass about saving this country. They are just as disgusted as you are. It's every man for himself. After all, isn't that who Clinton is looking out for?

-- Nofool (Nofool@nofool.com), February 08, 1999.

Sorry, sermon time again.

This post triggered several feelings in me that have been touched on in other posts lately. I will try to pull some of those together.

Sermon 109b, Persistence

Y'all have got to be tired of hearing me say NEVER GIVE UP. But I'll keep saying it: NEVER GIVE UP. As long is there is breath in your lungs, a beat in your heart, any life at all, there is HOPE.

NEVER GIVE UP on HOPE. The moment you do you are a slave in one form or another.

Sermon 217c, Duty

There are several who post on this board who I would be happy to stand beside and die. If you know, if you understand, if you believe that human life is endowed with certain inalienable rights then you have a DUTY to struggle. (This is the broad sweeping sermon which doesn't get into the particulars of how each individual should struggle.)

Yes, there are a bunch of old farts out here that are too crippled to stand up to the rigors of combat. (Author is 1st among COFs). But this old fart is going to do all he can to help educate and inspire some of these healthy young folks who are the one who will save this nation or whatever is left in the way of civilization.

I have a DUTY. As I have said elsewhere, many people who were better that me died so that I might have the life I've had. I (we) have a debt to the next generation not to roll over and play dead just cause things get tough as hell.

These things are the essence of being human. This isn't my choice, this is my DUTY.

-- Greybear, who sure isn't anywhere near as eloquent as out founding fathers but just as convinced.

- Dam you Sir, if you are not willing to do your duty. Go lick the boots of your masters for they will feed and shelter any good slave.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 08, 1999.

Greybear - well said!

"preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic..."

that's an oath worth honoring,


-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 09, 1999.


Never took that one. Made ammends for use of the constitutional priveledges last time Wall was in town. Will NOT say was ashamed of past, AM NOT. Have not done anything I'm ashamed of because always did whatever it was WELL. WOULD like to go back and have a talk with me then to see if I can talk some sense into me, but KNOW where THAT would lead. Something about a Dutch mom and an Italian dad.

Having used the constitutional priveledges, am VERY willing to stand and do whatever it is that needs doing to see to it that my newborn grand neice (her mom is 16 and I would LOVE to have had the time- exposure to her to explain why her actions were wrong but..) has the same priveledges.

For me, the constitution enumerates priveledges which require my exercise and my dutiful defense. They are NOT RIGHTS!! As I MUST, at some time do something to insure/exercise/defend them.

Don't anyone be terribly surprised at the signature. None of this is a big departure......

Chuck, a Night Driver

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 09, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.

-Thomas Jefferson --------------------------------------------------------------------- We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honour.

-Thomas Jefferson -------------------------------------------------------------------- Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God.

-Thomas Jefferson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.

-Thomas Paine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- These are times that try men's souls.

-Thomas Paine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A man who will not protect his freedom does not deserve to be free.

-Gen. Douglas MacArthur ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Duty is the sublimest word in the English language.

-Gen. Robert E. Lee ---------------------------------------------------------------------- And last but not least.....

Let us remember that revolutions do not always establish freedom.

-Millard Fillmore ----------------------------------------------------------------------

They said it better than most.



The United States is not a nation of people which in the long run allows itself to be pushed around.

-Dorothy Thompson ----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Deborah (saidbest@usa.free), February 09, 1999.


FWIW, I was a flatfoot during the festivities in SE Asia. That automatically classed me as 3A. But the time I got smart enough to git out of that business Uncle (the Fed not ours) didn't want me anymore.

Each man should be judged on what he is willing to do TODAY.

Interesting idea about going back and arguing with self at much earlier age. I couldn't win either. (Hell, I have enough trouble arguing with myself NOW.)

Congrats on the niece. Dam, I love babies.

-- Greybear

- Got diapers?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 09, 1999.

"The younger generation have no want or need of anything. They believe they are indestructible and what is it that they are willing to give their life up for?"

That is simply not fair. Who do you think is serving in the Military, working in Law Enforcement, etc...? I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a few of them are under 50. If you want to play the blame game, I'm afraid that Y2K, the ozone hole, destruction of the rain forest, and the raiding of social security fall squarely on the shoulders of your generation. Don't blame me for growing up disillusioned in the world that your generation created.

As far as not having a want or need for anything... Lets see, how about a decent public education, job security, medicare when we need it, social security when it is our time to retire, safety in schools...

My only point is, it is pointless to blame or make assumptions about entire generations of people. It's a double edged sword, and as far as entire generations go, yours certainly ain't perfect. Neither is mine, for that matter. I do take offense when you imply that we, as a group, will not stand and fight for this great nation. I have invested a painful amount of what little I earn to make sure that I can help protect my parents and my grandmother if TSHTF. It also weighs heavily on my mind that I may have to lay down my life to help preserve the Constitution for future generations. You're counting us out before the fight.

-- d (d@usedtobedgi.old), February 09, 1999.

Let me suggest that the 80% who think Clinton is doing a good job, who think the trial should end immediately prior to a full presentation of the facts, and who think that even if Clinton is guilty he should not be removed from office...These people are real life Homer Simpsons.

It is terribly sad that so many people are like that. But the good news is...I don't think they will fight to defend the corrupt way of life.

I don't think the Wall Street barons who have arranged for their countrymen to be laid off in favor of new foreign employees will fight to preserve the corrupt way of life. They will offer to pay others to fight for them, but they have already thoroughly alienated those they would wish to hire as mercenaries. People won't risk their lives in military battle for the sake of Wall Streeters.

So who will fight against those who would preserve/reinstate the US Constitution? Few Americans would fight alongside Chinese or Russian soldiers against Americans on US soil.

I think that the Clintonistas' best soldiers would be American feminists and homosexuals.

With the Homer Simpsons staying on the sidelines or quitting when the going gets tough, I don't see an army of feminists and homosexuals to be capable of capturing the USA militarily.

So if we are to see a civil war following a y2k breakdown of society, I see military victory for those who oppose Clinton.

Perhaps the military experts here will disagree.

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), February 09, 1999.

D, I've got to disagree with you. The generation of which I (and I must assume you are as well) are part of, seems to be concerned with little other than easy gratification. I'm not saying that everyone is. I know people who aren't. But the majority IS. The culture IS. Free sex, no-brains entertainment for the lowest common denominator, etcetera.

There are a small minority of people, most of whom are my personal friends (I like this kind of person, therefore go out of my way to be friends with them. I'm a nice guy who is also friends with a shitload of other people), who are aware. Intelligent. Who would be able to function for 24 hours without TV and microwaves.

You seem to think that people are "entitled" to things like social security and jobs. People are entitled to one thing and one thing only, and that is the right to make their own wealth. That is the right to make their own jobs and their own security without being robbed of it in order to feed people who think that they are "entitled" to things they have not produced.


-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), February 09, 1999.

re: Leo... blah blah blah.

Dude, you're turning into Alex P. Keaton by the day. You have too much sympathy for the devil and not enough sympathy for those he hath done over.

-- humpty d (no.6@thevillage.com), February 09, 1999.

If the cities don't make it, hopefully the "country-folk" will.

There is an old saying: "It takes 10 city-slickers to whip a country-boy". Are you guys (and gals) ready for 15 city-slickers surrounding your homestead, each holding a moletaff cocktail (spelling?). At night? In the rain?

If ya'll are serious, better study-up on military strategy. For example, is your house surrounded by trees (cover for attackers), or surrounded by rock (a natural shelter)?

I don't think the National Guard is going to keep everyone locked-up in the cities...

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.com), February 09, 1999.

Yesterday I watched the impeachment hearings. I listened to the House managers plead to the Senate to impeach the President for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. It is my personal opinion that the decision should be quick and easy. It appears that he is guilty. Therefore he must go. He put his own personal interests before his duty to his country. It is my belief that he has dishonored his country.

Yet, if the polls are accurate, most people do not believe that he should be removed from office. I have to admit that I am beginning to lose faith in the American people. Even so, I will not give up. To give up is to fail. We must all do our duty as we see it. Whether our duty is to ourselves, our families, our communities, our country, and/or our God. When my days end, I want to be able to say, " I have done my best".

-- me (justme@aol.com), February 09, 1999.


I must say that I agree with you. The criticism of this younger generation is no different than that said of the same age group one hundred years ago: "The youth of this nation are lazy and without motivation." To that I say, bunk.

This nation and it's youth haven't been tested for a few years. I cerainly hope it is't Y2K that serves up the next test, but if it does, I'm sure that 95% will be up to it.

Keep the faith!


-- Bob Walton (waltonb@kdsi.net), February 09, 1999.

This will not be a normal "war". We don't want you in the front lines "d"! Don't you see what this is all about? It's this feminist granny and gramps that will be in the front lines. Us old fogies from 50-80 may not have the stamina and strength of the young, but old and wise, ain't all bad. We've had our lives and now we come to the point where the health problems start. We're expendable! We want you back there to raise the next generation to be free or else it ain't worth fighting at all!

-- Sue (deco100@aol.com), February 09, 1999.

Or livin' either !

-- Sue (deco100@aol.com), February 09, 1999.

"Once in a while I do worry about the future. I wonder if after this culture war is over that we're engaged in, if an America will survive that's worth fighting to dfend. People won't risk their lives for the UN or over the Dow Jones average, but I wonder in future generations whether there'll be enough vitality left in duty honoring country to excite our children and grandchildren to defend America." --Henry Hyde, closing arguments in the impeachment trial of William Clinton, Feb. 8, 1999.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 09, 1999.

Chuck, Night Driver wrote:

(snip) :For me, the constitution enumerates priveledges which require my :exercise and my dutiful defense. They are NOT RIGHTS!! (snip)

Hold it right there! The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee the enumerated rights. Said rights are God-given and hence unalienable. In other words, you have certain rights that you are born with, carry throughout life, and die with. They are rights , not privileges!!! They are not granted to you by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they are guaranteed by those documents. Neither are they "civil" rights that are supposedly granted by the government... they are natural rights that existed long before the formation of the United States.

To believe otherwise means that you have willingly fastened the shackles of tyranny upon yourself and your posterity.

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 09, 1999.

1) Regardless of what we call them, they HAVE to be EXERCISED/DEFENDED periodically, or they disappear. I was gifted with muscles by my Lord (via the usual biological routes), WHICH need TO BE EXERCISED, or they atrophy and effectively go away. Same with the soi dissant "Inalienable Rights". If we do not exercise them, they will vanish, little by little, until they are as surely gone as the frog is cooked, in the slowly rising temperature water.


-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 09, 1999.


What we call them is every bit as important as exercising them. Privileges can be withdrawn, rights cannot. A lack of understanding is to our enemy's advantage.


-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 09, 1999.

" Privileges can be withdrawn, rights cannot. "

Small comfort to those who were executed in Stalin's purges, who starved in Stalin's collectivization of the Ukraine, who starved and died in Mauthausen, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Maidanek, to the millions of dead during Mao's Great Leap Forward, to the 6,000 men and boys who were marched out of Srebrenica to their graves under the watchful eyes of the Dutch U.N. garrison-- and I haven't even started on the horrors in Ruanda, Angola, Nigeria, the Congo....

Oh yes, dear boy, rights can be withdrawn. And often are. That is, if you count life as an inherent right.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 10, 1999.

Precisely, tom. thanks.


-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 11, 1999.

"The...VietNam warriors are too old to give a rats ass about saving this country." -Nofool Not all of us, Bubba. And watch your mouth when you speak of us.

Apologies to the rest of you, but this is one grunt that is sick and tired of hearing the protected (and/or their progeny) telling us, their protectors, what kind of people we are without ever making an effort to find out.


-- Casual Observer (not@this.time), February 11, 1999.

Chuck & Tom:

You're missing the point: Certainly, governments can kill their citizens, and take away their lives. What I'm saying is that they cannot take away their right to life. Any entity that attempts to do so is acting outside the boundaries of God's law, and is hence an outlaw state. Even if those so marked for death by the state do nothing to help themselves, they still have an unalienable right to life. To have unalienable means that not even the person him/herself can give or sign away those rights.

If you're argument is followed, then all rights can be taken away by the state. Well, not mine. I'll die fighting, and I'll die free, if it comes to that. You can go lick your masters boots.

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 14, 1999.


You're playing with words here. What does it mean to assert a right, if you aren't able to exercise it? "Die free," you say. And then what?

How many people you have watched in their dying? Very few, I think.

The "inalienable" rights you speak of exist only by virtue of a common agreement among citizens, an agreement detailed in the "Bill of Rights." It was a grand invention, a true breakthrough, a new beginning. A thousand years earlier, those "rights" were not even imagined, much less present.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 26, 1999.


"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

"...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." doesn't sound like something a bunch of folks got together and agreed on.

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." DOES sound like something that was agreed to by a bunch of folks.

I think the basic delema here is where is the home of these various rights. My contention is (along with the lads who wrote the stuff above) that these self evident truths preceed, exist before, and have authority over any subsequent Governments...instituted among Men.

The Government is instituted (created, made, and brought into existance) to secure (apprehend, hold, guard) these rights. They are the caretakers of these rights. NOT the owner. NOT the dispenser. NOT the provider.

It really is instructive to re-read the original words.

-- Greybear

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 26, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ