From: someone@anywheret.net   
      
   "JimD"  wrote in message news:2017062610092879083-email@nowherecom...   
      
   > I hope you sometime manage to get these recorded and available.   
      
   I've got the living room demos, just me, two keyboards, a microphone and the   
   TC Helicon VoiceLive Play ;)   
   I could always send you that tune (State Of Mind), 'unplugged', sort of,   
   version if you'd like to hear it in a 4 track demo ;)   
   I kind of got a vibe that you might fine the  lyrics of that tune somewhat   
   appropriate considering the situation you were describing ;)   
      
   > Occasional wars are good at sorting out people with attitudes.  Maybe   
   > that's why wars exist, to get the nasty aggressive people out front and   
   > visible so they can ear their earthy rewards for being shitty to people.   
   > In this country intolerance is really on the increase.  Something will   
   > happen, as there's no way this trend can continue an not lead to some   
   > serious violence.   
      
   That's the way it always goes - obnoxious people become more and more   
   intolerant until those doing the suffering because of them finally decide   
   they've had enough and they're not to tolerate *them* anymore! Hence the   
   tune "Taking It Back", as in the last lines:   
      
   we're through putting up with them and that's a fact   
      
   Sic Semper Tyrannis we're taking it back!   
      
   > One thing that is maybe a ray of hope is Trump.   
      
   I'd like to be able to believe that, but I just can't.   
      
   > That last guy, the " community organizer ", seemed all to happy to apply   
   > Alinsky's rule about  going into a community , finding out what issues   
   > upset people, and to quote him directly " rub them raw ".   
      
   Hillary is, or at least was the big Saul Alinsky fan ;)   
   But a good protest song can do the same thing, which is why it's so   
   important to keep writing them!   
      
   > O treated the entire nation as some neighborhood he was trying to forment   
   > unrest in so they could elect a new city council. Stir everyone up, create   
   > problems, then stand back and watch it burn.   
      
   Depends entirely on Specifically WHAT's to be fomented!   
      
   > The basic idea was that if people weren't upset and fighting among   
   > themselves, there was no opportunity to make changes in the governing   
   > structures. A generally happy population with an operatting legal system   
   > is often stable, and so not ripe for radicals to take over.   
      
   But such an Unethical approach only Cheapens the results, IF the 'cause' is   
   also cheap, but somehow, they always forget that.   
   However, on the other hand, if the  cause is a Worthy one, the motivation   
   and encouragement to fight a Worthy fight will be a lot more productive, of   
   Worthy results!   
      
   As for 'radicals' taking over, One of my two favorite books (the  other   
   being George Orwell's 1984), Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, covers that   
   situation in great detail...and of course, it's scary!   
   And remember it's NOT the Revolutionaries who are radical, it's the Tyrants   
   whose Vileness left them no choice but to revolt!!!   
      
   > Luckily, he's out of power now, so maybe the big drive to upset everyone   
   > will abate a bit.   
      
   The historical track record, doesn't support that very well, though it is a   
   pleasant thought and miracles are always possible.   
      
   > Read this morning the Supreme Court is about to rule on some things.  In   
   > the past, that meant, oh boy, here come some more crazy changes in the   
   > law. In case you don't know, or for anyone who's not from here in the US,   
   > our Supreme Court is where the progressives ( liberals, communists, one   
   > world governement types ) get laws made or changed that that would never   
   > be changable thru the legislature.   
      
   Yep, it's a CORRUPT process known as "judicial activism" and "legislating   
   from the bench", which of course are Blatant Violations of our   
   Constitution's Separation Of Powers!!!   
      
   > And no it's not just the court deciding when things are so closely divided   
   > the legislature can't reach a majority. Several recent court rulings (   
   > creating new laws out of thin air ) went against solid majorities of the   
   > populations wishes.   
      
   A very large part of the so-called 'laws' of the De Facto Regime being   
   passed off as 'government' in this country, is made entirely out of thin   
   air - because it couldn't be made Lawfully, because it's UNLAWFUL!!!   
      
   > The Court is how the big powers get changes in the laws that people don't   
   > agree with. Changes that would never be possible thru legitimate   
   > legislative processes. Yes, we have an unelected, unaccountable super   
   > legislative body of 9 " judges " , and they are about to announce their   
   > latest proclamations.   
      
      
   Jim   
      
   That's precisely why the Founders made certain we'd have a Bill Of Rights,   
   which included the Right to have and use the Force necessary to Correct it   
   i.e. the  Second Amendment!!!   
      
   Ouisie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)