Boycott Gettysburg
 

Link to photos showing how the battlefield looked before superintendent John
Latschar raped it.
http://users.snip.net/~hart/

We loved Gettysburg: took dozens of week-long trips, spent many thousands of
dollars there, but those days are over thanks to park superintendent John
Latschar. He's ruining the battlefield. He calls it restoration. Desecration
is more descriptive. If we spent another dime we'd be supporting the
destruction. Trees are being ripped out wholesale. The deer have been
slaughtered. Visiting on a Nov. evening is an experience everyone should be
able to enjoy, but he shortened the hours so you'll be ticketed and labeled
criminals. He threw up so many one-way signs that traffic has become a
tourist's nightmare. He likes saying, "The time for comment was during the
planning, not now." Well, Bozo, the public DID and continues to comment, but
you ignore them. Tens of 1000s have voiced their concern, but you act as
though the battlefield is your own private domain. It belongs to the
taxpayers, not an arrogant, government-appointed bureaucrat. Ghost hunters
have been turned away in droves. He said they're in the same category as
drug users. (look it up) What a moron. Not only is the town losing a fortune
toward the local economy, the park is losing thousands of watchful eyes.
Those with evil intent will always gain access at night, as was proven by
the recent vandalism. Closing the park merely keeps honest folks out. John
Latschar has, in affect, given vandals free rein. Attendance is lagging. He
blames everything except his own bumbling. He moans about never having
enough money, yet continues wasting funds on senseless projects that divide
the townspeople and drives others away. It's typical government ineptness.
Looks like John Latschar sits around dreaming up new ways to piss people
off. If he's not shooting the wildlife, cutting down 100s of acres of trees,
or screwing up traffic flow, he'll devise some other dumbass plan. Chances
are he'll eventually move on to another location leaving his mess and debts
behind for someone else. (He's done it before) What's worse than allowing
John Latschar to inflict so much damage to such hallowed ground? Most of you
sit idly by and let it happen without so much as a whimper. Talk is cheap,
holding back spending speaks volumes. We're doing our part. Good bye
Gettysburg. You were our favorite place on Earth until John Latschar raped
you. Now you're just a memory. What a pity and disgrace.

Re: Boycott Gettysburg
 

"Tom" <fake_addy_due_2_spambots@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:392c1$44c90a24$d1cc7c97$12139@snip.allthenews groups.com...
> Link to photos showing how the battlefield looked before superintendent
> John
> Latschar raped it.
> http://users.snip.net/~hart/
>
> We loved Gettysburg: took dozens of week-long trips, spent many thousands
> of
> dollars there, but those days are over thanks to park superintendent John
> Latschar. He's ruining the battlefield. He calls it restoration.
> Desecration
> is more descriptive. If we spent another dime we'd be supporting the
> destruction. Trees are being ripped out wholesale. The deer have been
> slaughtered. Visiting on a Nov. evening is an experience everyone should
> be
> able to enjoy, but he shortened the hours so you'll be ticketed and
> labeled
> criminals. He threw up so many one-way signs that traffic has become a
> tourist's nightmare. He likes saying, "The time for comment was during the
> planning, not now." Well, Bozo, the public DID and continues to comment,
> but
> you ignore them. Tens of 1000s have voiced their concern, but you act as
> though the battlefield is your own private domain. It belongs to the
> taxpayers, not an arrogant, government-appointed bureaucrat. Ghost hunters
> have been turned away in droves. He said they're in the same category as
> drug users. (look it up) What a moron. Not only is the town losing a
> fortune
> toward the local economy, the park is losing thousands of watchful eyes.
> Those with evil intent will always gain access at night, as was proven by
> the recent vandalism. Closing the park merely keeps honest folks out. John
> Latschar has, in affect, given vandals free rein. Attendance is lagging.
> He
> blames everything except his own bumbling. He moans about never having
> enough money, yet continues wasting funds on senseless projects that
> divide
> the townspeople and drives others away. It's typical government ineptness.
> Looks like John Latschar sits around dreaming up new ways to piss people
> off. If he's not shooting the wildlife, cutting down 100s of acres of
> trees,
> or screwing up traffic flow, he'll devise some other dumbass plan. Chances
> are he'll eventually move on to another location leaving his mess and
> debts
> behind for someone else. (He's done it before) What's worse than allowing
> John Latschar to inflict so much damage to such hallowed ground? Most of
> you
> sit idly by and let it happen without so much as a whimper. Talk is cheap,
> holding back spending speaks volumes. We're doing our part. Good bye
> Gettysburg. You were our favorite place on Earth until John Latschar raped
> you. Now you're just a memory. What a pity and disgrace.

I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)

Re: Boycott Gettysburg
 

"Tom" <fake_addy_due_2_spambots@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:392c1$44c90a24$d1cc7c97$12139@snip.allthenews groups.com...
> Link to photos showing how the battlefield looked before superintendent
> John
> Latschar raped it.
> http://users.snip.net/~hart/
>
> We loved Gettysburg: took dozens of week-long trips, spent many thousands
> of
> dollars there, but those days are over thanks to park superintendent John
> Latschar. He's ruining the battlefield. He calls it restoration.
> Desecration
> is more descriptive. If we spent another dime we'd be supporting the
> destruction. Trees are being ripped out wholesale. The deer have been
> slaughtered. Visiting on a Nov. evening is an experience everyone should
> be
> able to enjoy, but he shortened the hours so you'll be ticketed and
> labeled
> criminals. He threw up so many one-way signs that traffic has become a
> tourist's nightmare. He likes saying, "The time for comment was during the
> planning, not now." Well, Bozo, the public DID and continues to comment,
> but
> you ignore them. Tens of 1000s have voiced their concern, but you act as
> though the battlefield is your own private domain. It belongs to the
> taxpayers, not an arrogant, government-appointed bureaucrat. Ghost hunters
> have been turned away in droves. He said they're in the same category as
> drug users. (look it up) What a moron. Not only is the town losing a
> fortune
> toward the local economy, the park is losing thousands of watchful eyes.
> Those with evil intent will always gain access at night, as was proven by
> the recent vandalism. Closing the park merely keeps honest folks out. John
> Latschar has, in affect, given vandals free rein. Attendance is lagging.
> He
> blames everything except his own bumbling. He moans about never having
> enough money, yet continues wasting funds on senseless projects that
> divide
> the townspeople and drives others away. It's typical government ineptness.
> Looks like John Latschar sits around dreaming up new ways to piss people
> off. If he's not shooting the wildlife, cutting down 100s of acres of
> trees,
> or screwing up traffic flow, he'll devise some other dumbass plan. Chances
> are he'll eventually move on to another location leaving his mess and
> debts
> behind for someone else. (He's done it before) What's worse than allowing
> John Latschar to inflict so much damage to such hallowed ground? Most of
> you
> sit idly by and let it happen without so much as a whimper. Talk is cheap,
> holding back spending speaks volumes. We're doing our part. Good bye
> Gettysburg. You were our favorite place on Earth until John Latschar raped
> you. Now you're just a memory. What a pity and disgrace.

I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)

Re: Boycott Gettysburg
 

"Tom" <fake_addy_due_2_spambots@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:392c1$44c90a24$d1cc7c97$12139@snip.allthenews groups.com...
> Link to photos showing how the battlefield looked before superintendent
> John
> Latschar raped it.
> http://users.snip.net/~hart/
>
> We loved Gettysburg: took dozens of week-long trips, spent many thousands
> of
> dollars there, but those days are over thanks to park superintendent John
> Latschar. He's ruining the battlefield. He calls it restoration.
> Desecration
> is more descriptive. If we spent another dime we'd be supporting the
> destruction. Trees are being ripped out wholesale. The deer have been
> slaughtered. Visiting on a Nov. evening is an experience everyone should
> be
> able to enjoy, but he shortened the hours so you'll be ticketed and
> labeled
> criminals. He threw up so many one-way signs that traffic has become a
> tourist's nightmare. He likes saying, "The time for comment was during the
> planning, not now." Well, Bozo, the public DID and continues to comment,
> but
> you ignore them. Tens of 1000s have voiced their concern, but you act as
> though the battlefield is your own private domain. It belongs to the
> taxpayers, not an arrogant, government-appointed bureaucrat. Ghost hunters
> have been turned away in droves. He said they're in the same category as
> drug users. (look it up) What a moron. Not only is the town losing a
> fortune
> toward the local economy, the park is losing thousands of watchful eyes.
> Those with evil intent will always gain access at night, as was proven by
> the recent vandalism. Closing the park merely keeps honest folks out. John
> Latschar has, in affect, given vandals free rein. Attendance is lagging.
> He
> blames everything except his own bumbling. He moans about never having
> enough money, yet continues wasting funds on senseless projects that
> divide
> the townspeople and drives others away. It's typical government ineptness.
> Looks like John Latschar sits around dreaming up new ways to piss people
> off. If he's not shooting the wildlife, cutting down 100s of acres of
> trees,
> or screwing up traffic flow, he'll devise some other dumbass plan. Chances
> are he'll eventually move on to another location leaving his mess and
> debts
> behind for someone else. (He's done it before) What's worse than allowing
> John Latschar to inflict so much damage to such hallowed ground? Most of
> you
> sit idly by and let it happen without so much as a whimper. Talk is cheap,
> holding back spending speaks volumes. We're doing our part. Good bye
> Gettysburg. You were our favorite place on Earth until John Latschar raped
> you. Now you're just a memory. What a pity and disgrace.

I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)

Re: Boycott Gettysburg
 

"Tom" <fake_addy_due_2_spambots@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:392c1$44c90a24$d1cc7c97$12139@snip.allthenews groups.com...
> Link to photos showing how the battlefield looked before superintendent
> John
> Latschar raped it.
> http://users.snip.net/~hart/
>
> We loved Gettysburg: took dozens of week-long trips, spent many thousands
> of
> dollars there, but those days are over thanks to park superintendent John
> Latschar. He's ruining the battlefield. He calls it restoration.
> Desecration
> is more descriptive. If we spent another dime we'd be supporting the
> destruction. Trees are being ripped out wholesale. The deer have been
> slaughtered. Visiting on a Nov. evening is an experience everyone should
> be
> able to enjoy, but he shortened the hours so you'll be ticketed and
> labeled
> criminals. He threw up so many one-way signs that traffic has become a
> tourist's nightmare. He likes saying, "The time for comment was during the
> planning, not now." Well, Bozo, the public DID and continues to comment,
> but
> you ignore them. Tens of 1000s have voiced their concern, but you act as
> though the battlefield is your own private domain. It belongs to the
> taxpayers, not an arrogant, government-appointed bureaucrat. Ghost hunters
> have been turned away in droves. He said they're in the same category as
> drug users. (look it up) What a moron. Not only is the town losing a
> fortune
> toward the local economy, the park is losing thousands of watchful eyes.
> Those with evil intent will always gain access at night, as was proven by
> the recent vandalism. Closing the park merely keeps honest folks out. John
> Latschar has, in affect, given vandals free rein. Attendance is lagging.
> He
> blames everything except his own bumbling. He moans about never having
> enough money, yet continues wasting funds on senseless projects that
> divide
> the townspeople and drives others away. It's typical government ineptness.
> Looks like John Latschar sits around dreaming up new ways to piss people
> off. If he's not shooting the wildlife, cutting down 100s of acres of
> trees,
> or screwing up traffic flow, he'll devise some other dumbass plan. Chances
> are he'll eventually move on to another location leaving his mess and
> debts
> behind for someone else. (He's done it before) What's worse than allowing
> John Latschar to inflict so much damage to such hallowed ground? Most of
> you
> sit idly by and let it happen without so much as a whimper. Talk is cheap,
> holding back spending speaks volumes. We're doing our part. Good bye
> Gettysburg. You were our favorite place on Earth until John Latschar raped
> you. Now you're just a memory. What a pity and disgrace.

I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)

Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
 

"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:B5SdnRy_L-b8QFfZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
> say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
> embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
> than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)
>
For me the interest is the attempt to break free of a government that had
already broken the promises of limited government. Without getting into a
rant, when it comes to casting aside the US Constitution our recent leaders
are amateurs. A little research into James Madison's presidency will provide
insight into why it came to war 50 years later. He left no doubt he was a
Federalist first, and that he despised the compromises he had to make in
getting the Constitution on the table. The southern states were among his
favorite targets.

It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.

BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet sales
tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the Constitution: "No
Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Do you
suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict 140 years ago.

Mike

Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
 

"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:B5SdnRy_L-b8QFfZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
> say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
> embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
> than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)
>
For me the interest is the attempt to break free of a government that had
already broken the promises of limited government. Without getting into a
rant, when it comes to casting aside the US Constitution our recent leaders
are amateurs. A little research into James Madison's presidency will provide
insight into why it came to war 50 years later. He left no doubt he was a
Federalist first, and that he despised the compromises he had to make in
getting the Constitution on the table. The southern states were among his
favorite targets.

It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.

BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet sales
tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the Constitution: "No
Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Do you
suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict 140 years ago.

Mike

Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
 

"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:B5SdnRy_L-b8QFfZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
> say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
> embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
> than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)
>
For me the interest is the attempt to break free of a government that had
already broken the promises of limited government. Without getting into a
rant, when it comes to casting aside the US Constitution our recent leaders
are amateurs. A little research into James Madison's presidency will provide
insight into why it came to war 50 years later. He left no doubt he was a
Federalist first, and that he despised the compromises he had to make in
getting the Constitution on the table. The southern states were among his
favorite targets.

It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.

BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet sales
tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the Constitution: "No
Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Do you
suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict 140 years ago.

Mike

Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
 

"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:B5SdnRy_L-b8QFfZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
> say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
> embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
> than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)
>
For me the interest is the attempt to break free of a government that had
already broken the promises of limited government. Without getting into a
rant, when it comes to casting aside the US Constitution our recent leaders
are amateurs. A little research into James Madison's presidency will provide
insight into why it came to war 50 years later. He left no doubt he was a
Federalist first, and that he despised the compromises he had to make in
getting the Constitution on the table. The southern states were among his
favorite targets.

It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.

BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet sales
tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the Constitution: "No
Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Do you
suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict 140 years ago.

Mike

Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
 

Michael Pardee wrote:
>
> "Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:B5SdnRy_L-b8QFfZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> >
> > I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
> > say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
> > embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
> > than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)
> >
> For me the interest is the attempt to break free of a government that had
> already broken the promises of limited government. Without getting into a
> rant, when it comes to casting aside the US Constitution our recent leaders
> are amateurs. A little research into James Madison's presidency will provide
> insight into why it came to war 50 years later. He left no doubt he was a
> Federalist first, and that he despised the compromises he had to make in
> getting the Constitution on the table. The southern states were among his
> favorite targets.
>
> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>
> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet sales
> tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the Constitution: "No
> Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Do you
> suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict 140 years ago.
>
> Mike



I'm running as a "write in" candidate for Prez... Just think, no more
than six cabinet positions, strong limitation on what the federal
guv'ment can do and cannot do, state rights/responsibilities. All
would be the product of simplification and streamlining.

My conditions: Congress cannot meet for at least five years! I want to
get thangs done...

JT

(The ballot box is under third palm tree on east 6th Street in Austin...)

Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
 

Michael Pardee wrote:
>
> "Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:B5SdnRy_L-b8QFfZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> >
> > I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
> > say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
> > embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
> > than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)
> >
> For me the interest is the attempt to break free of a government that had
> already broken the promises of limited government. Without getting into a
> rant, when it comes to casting aside the US Constitution our recent leaders
> are amateurs. A little research into James Madison's presidency will provide
> insight into why it came to war 50 years later. He left no doubt he was a
> Federalist first, and that he despised the compromises he had to make in
> getting the Constitution on the table. The southern states were among his
> favorite targets.
>
> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>
> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet sales
> tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the Constitution: "No
> Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Do you
> suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict 140 years ago.
>
> Mike



I'm running as a "write in" candidate for Prez... Just think, no more
than six cabinet positions, strong limitation on what the federal
guv'ment can do and cannot do, state rights/responsibilities. All
would be the product of simplification and streamlining.

My conditions: Congress cannot meet for at least five years! I want to
get thangs done...

JT

(The ballot box is under third palm tree on east 6th Street in Austin...)

Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
 

Michael Pardee wrote:
>
> "Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:B5SdnRy_L-b8QFfZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> >
> > I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
> > say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
> > embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
> > than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)
> >
> For me the interest is the attempt to break free of a government that had
> already broken the promises of limited government. Without getting into a
> rant, when it comes to casting aside the US Constitution our recent leaders
> are amateurs. A little research into James Madison's presidency will provide
> insight into why it came to war 50 years later. He left no doubt he was a
> Federalist first, and that he despised the compromises he had to make in
> getting the Constitution on the table. The southern states were among his
> favorite targets.
>
> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>
> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet sales
> tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the Constitution: "No
> Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Do you
> suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict 140 years ago.
>
> Mike



I'm running as a "write in" candidate for Prez... Just think, no more
than six cabinet positions, strong limitation on what the federal
guv'ment can do and cannot do, state rights/responsibilities. All
would be the product of simplification and streamlining.

My conditions: Congress cannot meet for at least five years! I want to
get thangs done...

JT

(The ballot box is under third palm tree on east 6th Street in Austin...)

Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
 

Michael Pardee wrote:
>
> "Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:B5SdnRy_L-b8QFfZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> >
> > I understand your agony here. I live near Gettysburg. It is historical to
> > say the least. What I don't understand is the infatuation over a very
> > embarrassing era in American history. Killing one another off. It's worse
> > than giving your life for another country. (Bush take note)
> >
> For me the interest is the attempt to break free of a government that had
> already broken the promises of limited government. Without getting into a
> rant, when it comes to casting aside the US Constitution our recent leaders
> are amateurs. A little research into James Madison's presidency will provide
> insight into why it came to war 50 years later. He left no doubt he was a
> Federalist first, and that he despised the compromises he had to make in
> getting the Constitution on the table. The southern states were among his
> favorite targets.
>
> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>
> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet sales
> tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the Constitution: "No
> Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Do you
> suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict 140 years ago.
>
> Mike



I'm running as a "write in" candidate for Prez... Just think, no more
than six cabinet positions, strong limitation on what the federal
guv'ment can do and cannot do, state rights/responsibilities. All
would be the product of simplification and streamlining.

My conditions: Congress cannot meet for at least five years! I want to
get thangs done...

JT

(The ballot box is under third palm tree on east 6th Street in Austin...)

Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
 

> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>
> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
> 140 years ago.
>
> Mike
Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this country
refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings aside, we
were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time. In
Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there are
less and less patrons watching.

Re: Boycott Gettysburg - every bit as OT as the original post
 

> It was a revolution, not a civil war, since both sides wore uniforms and
> there was an established revolutionary government. Anyway, the failed bid
> for freedom by a large part of our country remains a warning to those who
> would support the Constitution today; don't fight the Federalists.
>
> BTW (and even more OT) - do you suppose those who support an internet
> sales tax know it is specifically forbidden by Section 9 of the
> Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
> State." Do you suppose they care? That is the importance of the conflict
> 140 years ago.
>
> Mike
Well, I don't want to digress into politics, but most people in this country
refer to it as a "Civil War." The sophistications and reasonings aside, we
were killing each other off. I feel it was an embarrassing time. In
Gettysburg, they re-enact the killing every year and every year there are
less and less patrons watching.