On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:47:50 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:39:35 -0400, HK wrote:

jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:25:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Using statements like "your type" is a vain attempt to lump me into a
fictitious group of people that only exists in your mind.

You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.


Betcha he owns and flies a confederate battle flag...

In the den next to an autographed picture of Dale Earnhardt and his
high school diploma.

It's good to see you've developed a close friendship. Congratulations.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

jps wrote:

You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.

When one is so irrational as to assign the country's ills to guns, it
becomes apparent that the real agenda is not the one stated: reducing
crime by banning gun ownership by the citizens.

Guns have suddenly become a major issue for you, Mr. JPS. We've heard
precious little from you since you incorrectly called the presidential
election some years ago. What's changed?

Now that you've finally got your candidate elected, we're to believe
that you've become worried about gun ownership, that you feel your
security is threatened by those who own guns -- not just by criminals
who own and use them them to commit crimes -- but also by responsible
gun owners: you want to disarm them also. To make your argument seem
reasonable, you single out criminal acts involving guns, and then
extrapolate to all gun owners, coyly mentioning 'righties, christians,
and conservatives'. This is revealing since few of the crimes committed
with guns are committed by those who would describe themselves as
'righties, christians, or conservatives'. Could you cite cases? of
course -- those are the very cases you delight to cite in order to
associate criminal acts with 'righties, christians, and conservatives'.
Those are your true target.

Rather, the agenda is control - controlling people and controlling the
population. If the citizens of a country are allowed to own guns, you
may never be able to control them completely. Remember, those citizens
who are 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who own guns: you
believe they are a threat to you also, for you want gun ownership banned
to all, not just those who have committed criminal acts.

Where the agenda under the new leader is the social engineering of the
population, and where a portion of that population (designated as
'righties, christians, and conservatives') are resistive to such social
engineering, and own guns, then the fear becomes that there could
possibly be, at some future time, an armed resistance to tyrannical
leadership. Therefore they must be disarmed. (Why, just listen to the
rising chorus of righty, christian, conservative bloggers, talk shows,
etc., to resist the social engineering and tyranny!)

What better way to remove the perceived threat than by removing all guns
from the citizens under the guise of reducing crime? Do it now while the
true agenda remains hidden. Brilliant!

I don't believe your gun banning proposal is for the purpose of reducing
criminal acts involving guns. It's a façade. You've revealed your true
motive by involving 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who have
never committed crimes, much less a crime with a gun.

Johnson

On Apr 14, 5:51*pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:47:50 -0700, jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:39:35 -0400, HK wrote:

jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:25:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Using statements like "your type" is a vain attempt to lump me into a
fictitious group of people that only exists in your mind.

You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. *Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.

Betcha he owns and flies a confederate battle flag...

In the den *next to an autographed picture of Dale Earnhardt and his
high school diploma.

It's good to see you've developed a close friendship. Congratulations.
--
John H


It's funny that when they read the truth, and it disturbs them, they
circle the wagons and start throwing out imaginary insults. I thought
that was a harry thing, but it appears it's just a weak liberal
tactic. The great liberal experiment failed miserably, and now they
want to try more social engineering and disarmament to control the
damage. No thanks.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:10:50 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.

When one is so irrational as to assign the country's ills to guns, it
becomes apparent that the real agenda is not the one stated: reducing
crime by banning gun ownership by the citizens.

Guns have suddenly become a major issue for you, Mr. JPS. We've heard
precious little from you since you incorrectly called the presidential
election some years ago. What's changed?

Now that you've finally got your candidate elected, we're to believe
that you've become worried about gun ownership, that you feel your
security is threatened by those who own guns -- not just by criminals
who own and use them them to commit crimes -- but also by responsible
gun owners: you want to disarm them also. To make your argument seem
reasonable, you single out criminal acts involving guns, and then
extrapolate to all gun owners, coyly mentioning 'righties, christians,
and conservatives'. This is revealing since few of the crimes committed
with guns are committed by those who would describe themselves as
'righties, christians, or conservatives'. Could you cite cases? of
course -- those are the very cases you delight to cite in order to
associate criminal acts with 'righties, christians, and conservatives'.
Those are your true target.

Rather, the agenda is control - controlling people and controlling the
population. If the citizens of a country are allowed to own guns, you
may never be able to control them completely. Remember, those citizens
who are 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who own guns: you
believe they are a threat to you also, for you want gun ownership banned
to all, not just those who have committed criminal acts.

Where the agenda under the new leader is the social engineering of the
population, and where a portion of that population (designated as
'righties, christians, and conservatives') are resistive to such social
engineering, and own guns, then the fear becomes that there could
possibly be, at some future time, an armed resistance to tyrannical
leadership. Therefore they must be disarmed. (Why, just listen to the
rising chorus of righty, christian, conservative bloggers, talk shows,
etc., to resist the social engineering and tyranny!)

What better way to remove the perceived threat than by removing all guns
from the citizens under the guise of reducing crime? Do it now while the
true agenda remains hidden. Brilliant!

I don't believe your gun banning proposal is for the purpose of reducing
criminal acts involving guns. It's a façade. You've revealed your true
motive by involving 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who have
never committed crimes, much less a crime with a gun.

Johnson


I haven't just become concerned about guns, I've been concerned about
guns, the NRA and lunatics having access to guns for quite some time.
My security isn't threatened and I don't feel a need to arm myself. We
enjoy the highest rate of suicide and murder via firearms in the
world. Does that bring you comfort?

If you've been paying attention to the news, the issue of guns has
thrust itself to the front pages of every newspaper and website in the
country.

Dead cops in CA
Dead cops in PA
Dead immigrants in NY

Are you happy with this situation? Do you think it's going to help
recruit new people to serve as police? Do you think this may cause to
the police to be so on edge that they make mistakes and kill innocent
people?

Do you give a **** about the consequences of having guns in wide
distribution with open outlets in many states where a complete lunatic
could purchase an assault rifle without so much as a piece of ID or
any background check?

How difficult is it for scum bags to go purchase a gaggle of guns in
one of these unregulated states and resell them to crooks, hoodlums,
other scum looking to profit?

The NRA and gun advocates are so short sighted that they cannot see
the trajectory of their victories. For gun manufacturers it's a
brilliant business plan. For the NRA, more members. For the public
at large, a more dangerous world where guns are within easy reach of
even children.

The fools who promoted this situation and stood by while it festered
deserve a good spanking, like foolish children lacking any sense.

armed resistance to tyrannical leadership

This just says it all. Did George Bush bring this on or was it
Obama's election that's fomented this delusional paranoia?

Are you going to cite Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini next?

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:30:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 14, 5:51*pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:47:50 -0700, jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:39:35 -0400, HK wrote:

jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:25:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Using statements like "your type" is a vain attempt to lump me into a
fictitious group of people that only exists in your mind.

You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. *Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.

Betcha he owns and flies a confederate battle flag...

In the den *next to an autographed picture of Dale Earnhardt and his
high school diploma.

It's good to see you've developed a close friendship. Congratulations.
--
John H


It's funny that when they read the truth, and it disturbs them, they
circle the wagons and start throwing out imaginary insults. I thought
that was a harry thing, but it appears it's just a weak liberal
tactic. The great liberal experiment failed miserably, and now they
want to try more social engineering and disarmament to control the
damage. No thanks.

I thought you were "done."

Go back to your den and watch some NASCAR re-runs or maybe log on and
find a teaparty near you so you can be a proper peasant by worshiping
the rich and hating the people they direct you to hate.

Fool.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:32:02 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:10:50 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.

When one is so irrational as to assign the country's ills to guns, it
becomes apparent that the real agenda is not the one stated: reducing
crime by banning gun ownership by the citizens.

Guns have suddenly become a major issue for you, Mr. JPS. We've heard
precious little from you since you incorrectly called the presidential
election some years ago. What's changed?

Now that you've finally got your candidate elected, we're to believe
that you've become worried about gun ownership, that you feel your
security is threatened by those who own guns -- not just by criminals
who own and use them them to commit crimes -- but also by responsible
gun owners: you want to disarm them also. To make your argument seem
reasonable, you single out criminal acts involving guns, and then
extrapolate to all gun owners, coyly mentioning 'righties, christians,
and conservatives'. This is revealing since few of the crimes committed
with guns are committed by those who would describe themselves as
'righties, christians, or conservatives'. Could you cite cases? of
course -- those are the very cases you delight to cite in order to
associate criminal acts with 'righties, christians, and conservatives'.
Those are your true target.

Rather, the agenda is control - controlling people and controlling the
population. If the citizens of a country are allowed to own guns, you
may never be able to control them completely. Remember, those citizens
who are 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who own guns: you
believe they are a threat to you also, for you want gun ownership banned
to all, not just those who have committed criminal acts.

Where the agenda under the new leader is the social engineering of the
population, and where a portion of that population (designated as
'righties, christians, and conservatives') are resistive to such social
engineering, and own guns, then the fear becomes that there could
possibly be, at some future time, an armed resistance to tyrannical
leadership. Therefore they must be disarmed. (Why, just listen to the
rising chorus of righty, christian, conservative bloggers, talk shows,
etc., to resist the social engineering and tyranny!)

What better way to remove the perceived threat than by removing all guns
from the citizens under the guise of reducing crime? Do it now while the
true agenda remains hidden. Brilliant!

I don't believe your gun banning proposal is for the purpose of reducing
criminal acts involving guns. It's a façade. You've revealed your true
motive by involving 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who have
never committed crimes, much less a crime with a gun.

Johnson


I haven't just become concerned about guns, I've been concerned about
guns, the NRA and lunatics having access to guns for quite some time.
My security isn't threatened and I don't feel a need to arm myself. We
enjoy the highest rate of suicide and murder via firearms in the
world. Does that bring you comfort?

If you've been paying attention to the news, the issue of guns has
thrust itself to the front pages of every newspaper and website in the
country.

Dead cops in CA
Dead cops in PA
Dead immigrants in NY

Are you happy with this situation? Do you think it's going to help
recruit new people to serve as police? Do you think this may cause to
the police to be so on edge that they make mistakes and kill innocent
people?

Do you give a **** about the consequences of having guns in wide
distribution with open outlets in many states where a complete lunatic
could purchase an assault rifle without so much as a piece of ID or
any background check?

How difficult is it for scum bags to go purchase a gaggle of guns in
one of these unregulated states and resell them to crooks, hoodlums,
other scum looking to profit?

The NRA and gun advocates are so short sighted that they cannot see
the trajectory of their victories. For gun manufacturers it's a
brilliant business plan. For the NRA, more members. For the public
at large, a more dangerous world where guns are within easy reach of
even children.

The fools who promoted this situation and stood by while it festered
deserve a good spanking, like foolish children lacking any sense.

armed resistance to tyrannical leadership

This just says it all. Did George Bush bring this on or was it
Obama's election that's fomented this delusional paranoia?

Are you going to cite Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini next?

Do you think guns cause more suffering than AIDS? There is an epidemic
in Washington DC right now. I've seen no cries for help with this
problem. Why is that?

You're pathetic, jps. But, you've chosen an appropriate acronym.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:51 pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:47:50 -0700, jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:39:35 -0400, HK wrote:
jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:25:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Using statements like "your type" is a vain attempt to lump me into a
fictitious group of people that only exists in your mind.
You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.
Betcha he owns and flies a confederate battle flag...
In the den next to an autographed picture of Dale Earnhardt and his
high school diploma.
It's good to see you've developed a close friendship. Congratulations.
--
John H


It's funny that when they read the truth, and it disturbs them, they
circle the wagons and start throwing out imaginary insults. I thought
that was a harry thing, but it appears it's just a weak liberal
tactic. The great liberal experiment failed miserably, and now they
want to try more social engineering and disarmament to control the
damage. No thanks.



Wow...two of rec.boats' foremost racists, Herring and Jackoff, together
again at last!


Racism:
--
"John H" wrote in message
...

Please note that Interstate 90 will be closed this weekend across
South Dakota. This closure will allow the Federal Government free
access to haul a 200 ton piece of coal to Mt. Rushmore so that
President Obama can be added to the Presidents on the monument.
--
John H

--

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:20:17 -0400, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:51 pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:47:50 -0700, jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:39:35 -0400, HK wrote:
jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:25:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Using statements like "your type" is a vain attempt to lump me into a
fictitious group of people that only exists in your mind.
You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.
Betcha he owns and flies a confederate battle flag...
In the den next to an autographed picture of Dale Earnhardt and his
high school diploma.
It's good to see you've developed a close friendship. Congratulations.
--
John H


It's funny that when they read the truth, and it disturbs them, they
circle the wagons and start throwing out imaginary insults. I thought
that was a harry thing, but it appears it's just a weak liberal
tactic. The great liberal experiment failed miserably, and now they
want to try more social engineering and disarmament to control the
damage. No thanks.



Wow...two of rec.boats' foremost racists, Herring and Jackoff, together
again at last!

Oh no, we have no idea about their true thoughts.

They post random insights from various points of view to enlighten us.

It's purely by chance that they scream pointy hat.

On Apr 14, 7:48*pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:32:02 -0700, jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:10:50 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. *Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.

When one is so irrational as to assign the country's ills to guns, it
becomes apparent that the real agenda is not the one stated: reducing
crime by banning gun ownership by the citizens.

Guns have suddenly become a major issue for you, Mr. JPS. We've heard
precious little from you since you incorrectly called the presidential
election some years ago. What's changed?

Now that you've finally got your candidate elected, we're to believe
that you've become worried about gun ownership, that you feel your
security is threatened by those who own guns -- not just by criminals
who own and use them them to commit crimes -- but also by responsible
gun owners: you want to disarm them also. To make your argument seem
reasonable, you single out criminal acts involving guns, and then
extrapolate to all gun owners, coyly mentioning 'righties, christians,
and conservatives'. This is revealing since few of the crimes committed
with guns are committed by those who would describe themselves as
'righties, christians, or conservatives'. Could you cite cases? of
course -- those are the very cases you delight to cite in order to
associate criminal acts with 'righties, christians, and conservatives'.
Those are your true target.

Rather, the agenda is control - controlling people and controlling the
population. If the citizens of a country are allowed to own guns, you
may never be able to control them completely. Remember, those citizens
who are 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who own guns: you
believe they are a threat to you also, for you want gun ownership banned
to all, not just those who have committed criminal acts.

Where the agenda under the new leader is the social engineering of the
population, and where a portion of that population (designated as
'righties, christians, and conservatives') are resistive to such social
engineering, and own guns, then the fear becomes that there could
possibly be, at some future time, an armed resistance to tyrannical
leadership. Therefore they must be disarmed. (Why, just listen to the
rising chorus of righty, christian, conservative bloggers, talk shows,
etc., to resist the social engineering and tyranny!)

What better way to remove the perceived threat than by removing all guns
from the citizens under the guise of reducing crime? Do it now while the
true agenda remains hidden. Brilliant!

I don't believe your gun banning proposal is for the purpose of reducing
criminal acts involving guns. It's a façade. You've revealed your true
motive by involving 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who have
never committed crimes, much less a crime with a gun.

Johnson

I haven't just become concerned about guns, I've been concerned about
guns, the NRA and lunatics having access to guns for quite some time.
My security isn't threatened and I don't feel a need to arm myself. We
enjoy the highest rate of suicide and murder via firearms in the
world. *Does that bring you comfort?

If you've been paying attention to the news, the issue of guns has
thrust itself to the front pages of every newspaper and website in the
country.

Dead cops in CA
Dead cops in PA
Dead immigrants in NY

Are you happy with this situation? *Do you think it's going to help
recruit new people to serve as police? *Do you think this may cause to
the police to be so on edge that they make mistakes and kill innocent
people?

Do you give a **** about the consequences of having guns in wide
distribution with open outlets in many states where a complete lunatic
could purchase an assault rifle without so much as a piece of ID or
any background check?

How difficult is it for scum bags to go purchase a gaggle of guns in
one of these unregulated states and resell them to crooks, hoodlums,
other scum looking to profit?

The NRA and gun advocates are so short sighted that they cannot see
the trajectory of their victories. *For gun manufacturers it's a
brilliant business plan. *For the NRA, more members. *For the public
at large, a more dangerous world where guns are within easy reach of
even children.

The fools who promoted this situation and stood by while it festered
deserve a good spanking, like foolish children lacking any sense.

armed resistance to tyrannical leadership

This just says it all. *Did George Bush bring this on or was *it
Obama's election that's fomented this delusional *paranoia?

Are you going to cite Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini next?

Do you think guns cause more suffering than AIDS? There is an epidemic
in Washington DC right now. I've seen no cries for help with this
problem. Why is that?

You're pathetic, jps. But, you've chosen an appropriate acronym.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not." *
Thomas Jefferson

jps is certifiably insane. harold has his own personal nurse.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:31:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 14, 7:48*pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:32:02 -0700, jps wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:10:50 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. *Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.

When one is so irrational as to assign the country's ills to guns, it
becomes apparent that the real agenda is not the one stated: reducing
crime by banning gun ownership by the citizens.

Guns have suddenly become a major issue for you, Mr. JPS. We've heard
precious little from you since you incorrectly called the presidential
election some years ago. What's changed?

Now that you've finally got your candidate elected, we're to believe
that you've become worried about gun ownership, that you feel your
security is threatened by those who own guns -- not just by criminals
who own and use them them to commit crimes -- but also by responsible
gun owners: you want to disarm them also. To make your argument seem
reasonable, you single out criminal acts involving guns, and then
extrapolate to all gun owners, coyly mentioning 'righties, christians,
and conservatives'. This is revealing since few of the crimes committed
with guns are committed by those who would describe themselves as
'righties, christians, or conservatives'. Could you cite cases? of
course -- those are the very cases you delight to cite in order to
associate criminal acts with 'righties, christians, and conservatives'.
Those are your true target.

Rather, the agenda is control - controlling people and controlling the
population. If the citizens of a country are allowed to own guns, you
may never be able to control them completely. Remember, those citizens
who are 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who own guns: you
believe they are a threat to you also, for you want gun ownership banned
to all, not just those who have committed criminal acts.

Where the agenda under the new leader is the social engineering of the
population, and where a portion of that population (designated as
'righties, christians, and conservatives') are resistive to such social
engineering, and own guns, then the fear becomes that there could
possibly be, at some future time, an armed resistance to tyrannical
leadership. Therefore they must be disarmed. (Why, just listen to the
rising chorus of righty, christian, conservative bloggers, talk shows,
etc., to resist the social engineering and tyranny!)

What better way to remove the perceived threat than by removing all guns
from the citizens under the guise of reducing crime? Do it now while the
true agenda remains hidden. Brilliant!

I don't believe your gun banning proposal is for the purpose of reducing
criminal acts involving guns. It's a façade. You've revealed your true
motive by involving 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who have
never committed crimes, much less a crime with a gun.

Johnson

I haven't just become concerned about guns, I've been concerned about
guns, the NRA and lunatics having access to guns for quite some time.
My security isn't threatened and I don't feel a need to arm myself. We
enjoy the highest rate of suicide and murder via firearms in the
world. *Does that bring you comfort?

If you've been paying attention to the news, the issue of guns has
thrust itself to the front pages of every newspaper and website in the
country.

Dead cops in CA
Dead cops in PA
Dead immigrants in NY

Are you happy with this situation? *Do you think it's going to help
recruit new people to serve as police? *Do you think this may cause to
the police to be so on edge that they make mistakes and kill innocent
people?

Do you give a **** about the consequences of having guns in wide
distribution with open outlets in many states where a complete lunatic
could purchase an assault rifle without so much as a piece of ID or
any background check?

How difficult is it for scum bags to go purchase a gaggle of guns in
one of these unregulated states and resell them to crooks, hoodlums,
other scum looking to profit?

The NRA and gun advocates are so short sighted that they cannot see
the trajectory of their victories. *For gun manufacturers it's a
brilliant business plan. *For the NRA, more members. *For the public
at large, a more dangerous world where guns are within easy reach of
even children.

The fools who promoted this situation and stood by while it festered
deserve a good spanking, like foolish children lacking any sense.

armed resistance to tyrannical leadership

This just says it all. *Did George Bush bring this on or was *it
Obama's election that's fomented this delusional *paranoia?

Are you going to cite Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini next?

Do you think guns cause more suffering than AIDS? There is an epidemic
in Washington DC right now. I've seen no cries for help with this
problem. Why is that?

You're pathetic, jps. But, you've chosen an appropriate acronym.
--
John H

jps is certifiably insane. harold has his own personal nurse.

Is that certification based on your personal wealth of expertise?

You're both bigoted white trash.

Given the choice, I'd rather be insane.

Cheers!