|
Very Refreshing
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do
what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ |
Very Refreshing
Wayne.B wrote:
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Sounds like we need another POTUS from H. Truman land. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning. She had McCaskill as a guest. Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far more conservative than she is. McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based on partisan lines. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/30/15 7:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning. She had McCaskill as a guest. Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far more conservative than she is. McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based on partisan lines. I understand the politics of Missouri and Kansas, and what a candidate running statewide in those states of the right-wing religiously insane has to do and say to stay elected. We're turning into what the third world used to be. The Keystone pipeline is nothing more than a private enterprise disaster that may be built to move one country's filthy sludge through another country so it may be sold to additional countries. Most Canadians are quite happy that the United States is so willing to serve as its oil sludge sewer. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/30/2015 7:37 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 7:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning. She had McCaskill as a guest. Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far more conservative than she is. McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based on partisan lines. I understand the politics of Missouri and Kansas, and what a candidate running statewide in those states of the right-wing religiously insane has to do and say to stay elected. We're turning into what the third world used to be. The Keystone pipeline is nothing more than a private enterprise disaster that may be built to move one country's filthy sludge through another country so it may be sold to additional countries. Most Canadians are quite happy that the United States is so willing to serve as its oil sludge sewer. Environmental hazards can be found in virtually any project. We worry so much about polution due to oil leaks yet have millions upon millions of miles of paved asphalt roads and highways that have known carcinogenic petroleum hydrocarbons that leech and runoff into the surrounding ground. That doesn't take into account the run off of oil drippings from vehicles traveling on those roads and highways. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/30/15 9:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/30/2015 7:37 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 7:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning. She had McCaskill as a guest. Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far more conservative than she is. McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based on partisan lines. I understand the politics of Missouri and Kansas, and what a candidate running statewide in those states of the right-wing religiously insane has to do and say to stay elected. We're turning into what the third world used to be. The Keystone pipeline is nothing more than a private enterprise disaster that may be built to move one country's filthy sludge through another country so it may be sold to additional countries. Most Canadians are quite happy that the United States is so willing to serve as its oil sludge sewer. Environmental hazards can be found in virtually any project. We worry so much about polution due to oil leaks yet have millions upon millions of miles of paved asphalt roads and highways that have known carcinogenic petroleum hydrocarbons that leech and runoff into the surrounding ground. That doesn't take into account the run off of oil drippings from vehicles traveling on those roads and highways. True, but I don't see the benefits to the United States or to its inhabitants living along the proposed Keystone route. I see the benefits to Canada, I see the benefit$ to the Koch brothers, but I don't see the benefits of allowing Canadian oil sludge to be transported via pipeline through the United States so it can be sold abroad. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/30/2015 9:30 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 9:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/30/2015 7:37 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 7:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning. She had McCaskill as a guest. Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far more conservative than she is. McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based on partisan lines. I understand the politics of Missouri and Kansas, and what a candidate running statewide in those states of the right-wing religiously insane has to do and say to stay elected. We're turning into what the third world used to be. The Keystone pipeline is nothing more than a private enterprise disaster that may be built to move one country's filthy sludge through another country so it may be sold to additional countries. Most Canadians are quite happy that the United States is so willing to serve as its oil sludge sewer. Environmental hazards can be found in virtually any project. We worry so much about polution due to oil leaks yet have millions upon millions of miles of paved asphalt roads and highways that have known carcinogenic petroleum hydrocarbons that leech and runoff into the surrounding ground. That doesn't take into account the run off of oil drippings from vehicles traveling on those roads and highways. True, but I don't see the benefits to the United States or to its inhabitants living along the proposed Keystone route. I see the benefits to Canada, I see the benefit$ to the Koch brothers, but I don't see the benefits of allowing Canadian oil sludge to be transported via pipeline through the United States so it can be sold abroad. It already is and has been for years. To satisfy your objections the whole thing would have to be shut down (which is probably fine with you). The Keystone pipeline project is only one of several phases that have already been built and in use. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/30/15 9:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/30/2015 9:30 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 9:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/30/2015 7:37 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 7:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning. She had McCaskill as a guest. Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far more conservative than she is. McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based on partisan lines. I understand the politics of Missouri and Kansas, and what a candidate running statewide in those states of the right-wing religiously insane has to do and say to stay elected. We're turning into what the third world used to be. The Keystone pipeline is nothing more than a private enterprise disaster that may be built to move one country's filthy sludge through another country so it may be sold to additional countries. Most Canadians are quite happy that the United States is so willing to serve as its oil sludge sewer. Environmental hazards can be found in virtually any project. We worry so much about polution due to oil leaks yet have millions upon millions of miles of paved asphalt roads and highways that have known carcinogenic petroleum hydrocarbons that leech and runoff into the surrounding ground. That doesn't take into account the run off of oil drippings from vehicles traveling on those roads and highways. True, but I don't see the benefits to the United States or to its inhabitants living along the proposed Keystone route. I see the benefits to Canada, I see the benefit$ to the Koch brothers, but I don't see the benefits of allowing Canadian oil sludge to be transported via pipeline through the United States so it can be sold abroad. It already is and has been for years. To satisfy your objections the whole thing would have to be shut down (which is probably fine with you). The Keystone pipeline project is only one of several phases that have already been built and in use. Yes, I know. How does this proposed pipeline benefit the United States and its citizens, aside from the relatively few jobs, mostly short-term, it may provide. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Very Refreshing
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 07:05:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Independents vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based on partisan lines. === What a radical concept! :-) |
Very Refreshing
On 1/30/2015 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 9:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/30/2015 9:30 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 9:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/30/2015 7:37 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 7:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning. She had McCaskill as a guest. Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far more conservative than she is. McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based on partisan lines. I understand the politics of Missouri and Kansas, and what a candidate running statewide in those states of the right-wing religiously insane has to do and say to stay elected. We're turning into what the third world used to be. The Keystone pipeline is nothing more than a private enterprise disaster that may be built to move one country's filthy sludge through another country so it may be sold to additional countries. Most Canadians are quite happy that the United States is so willing to serve as its oil sludge sewer. Environmental hazards can be found in virtually any project. We worry so much about polution due to oil leaks yet have millions upon millions of miles of paved asphalt roads and highways that have known carcinogenic petroleum hydrocarbons that leech and runoff into the surrounding ground. That doesn't take into account the run off of oil drippings from vehicles traveling on those roads and highways. True, but I don't see the benefits to the United States or to its inhabitants living along the proposed Keystone route. I see the benefits to Canada, I see the benefit$ to the Koch brothers, but I don't see the benefits of allowing Canadian oil sludge to be transported via pipeline through the United States so it can be sold abroad. It already is and has been for years. To satisfy your objections the whole thing would have to be shut down (which is probably fine with you). The Keystone pipeline project is only one of several phases that have already been built and in use. Yes, I know. How does this proposed pipeline benefit the United States and its citizens, aside from the relatively few jobs, mostly short-term, it may provide. Refinery jobs, balance of trade. |
Very Refreshing
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:46:02 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: How does this proposed pipeline benefit the United States and its citizens, aside from the relatively few jobs, mostly short-term, it may provide. === Easy. The next time there is a supply crunch, and there will be more, we can keep that Canadian oil right here in the USA. PS, all crude oil is a relatively foul substance. It really doesn't matter all that much where it comes from. |
Very Refreshing
|
Very Refreshing
|
Very Refreshing
On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Very Refreshing
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. Proof? |
Very Refreshing
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning. She had McCaskill as a guest. Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far more conservative than she is. McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based on partisan lines. For a lemming like you that must be breaking news! |
Very Refreshing
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/30/2015 6:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too. Happened catch the re-run of Rachael Maddow's show early this morning. She had McCaskill as a guest. Rachael enthusiastically endorsed McCaskill as a very viable and competent Democratic POTUS potential even though McCaskill is far more conservative than she is. McCaskill is one of the few moderate Democrats who appeals to many Independent voters and she commented on the fact that Independents vote for who they consider to be the best candidates and not based on partisan lines. Sorry, I thought Harry actually posted this! |
Very Refreshing
On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Very Refreshing
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 23:38:02 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do what's right for the country: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/ That pipeline boondoggle will be a flash in the pan. Once the overall construction is completed, there will be very few employees and it will be that much easier to ship oil to anybody but the US. I've lived close to the Colonial Pipeline since it was built in the 1950's... it runs from Texas to New York and has about 500-600 employees scattered through Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. They don't really make an impact on any economy, other than GA, where they are headquartered.... of course, the Keystone stash will go to the headquarters in Canada, not the US. The Colonial pipeline is 5 times as long as the Keystone, so it will probably have about 1/5th the employees... minus the employees at the headquarters. I doubt that there will be over 50 employees, max, spread over 1100 miles..... offset by the economic effects of any oil shipped to any point outside the US. My guess? A net loss to the US..... no matter what political position you hold, Keystone is a bad economic move. Twenty years from now you will be more disppointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. - Mark Twain 1987 23' Grady-White Gulfstream 2005 20' Angler CC 2004 17' G3 CC 1756 Out of Shallotte, NC |
Very Refreshing
On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Very Refreshing
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. |
Very Refreshing
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:35:37 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote: They don't really make an impact on any economy, other than GA, where they are headquartered.... of course, the Keystone stash will go to the headquarters in Canada, not the US. === You're ignoring the jobs and value added in the refineries and port cities, not to mention the enviro benefits of not transporting it by train. Even more important, when middle eastern sources are restricted for one reason or other (and that will happen), we will be much more energy independent than anyone else. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/31/2015 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:35:37 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: They don't really make an impact on any economy, other than GA, where they are headquartered.... of course, the Keystone stash will go to the headquarters in Canada, not the US. === You're ignoring the jobs and value added in the refineries and port cities, not to mention the enviro benefits of not transporting it by train. Even more important, when middle eastern sources are restricted for one reason or other (and that will happen), we will be much more energy independent than anyone else. Yeah, it's not like we can't buy it from the refiners on the coast I guess? ??? |
Very Refreshing
On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Very Refreshing
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:14:23 -0500, KC wrote:
On 1/31/2015 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:35:37 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: They don't really make an impact on any economy, other than GA, where they are headquartered.... of course, the Keystone stash will go to the headquarters in Canada, not the US. === You're ignoring the jobs and value added in the refineries and port cities, not to mention the enviro benefits of not transporting it by train. Even more important, when middle eastern sources are restricted for one reason or other (and that will happen), we will be much more energy independent than anyone else. Yeah, it's not like we can't buy it from the refiners on the coast I guess? ??? === Of course. Too many people have apparently forgotten about the gas shortages of the 70s and 80s after the Saudis turned off the tap. I'd like to think that couldn't happen again but who knows. |
Very Refreshing
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/31/15 4:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. 1. Yup, funny. 2. Not likely. 3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews. How many times have you been shot at while standing up to authority to help the oppressed? Yeah, I thought so. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/31/2015 4:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. Are you thinking of declaring independence sometime soon Wayne? :-) |
Very Refreshing
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 1/31/15 4:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. 1. Yup, funny. 2. Not likely. 3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews. How many times have you been shot at while standing up to authority to help the oppressed? Yeah, I thought so. === I was shot at while in the service of my country but as a draft dodger you wouldn't understand that. |
Very Refreshing
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 1:49:32 PM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/31/15 4:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. 1. Yup, funny. 2. Not likely. 3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews. How many times have you been shot at while standing up to authority to help the oppressed? Yeah, I thought so. -- Proud to be a Liberal. "Many will call me an adventurer - and that I am, only one of a different sort: one of those who risks his skin to prove his platitudes." [Che Guevara] |
Very Refreshing
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/31/15 4:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. 1. Yup, funny. 2. Not likely. 3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews. How many times have you been shot at while standing up to authority to help the oppressed? Yeah, I thought so. Harry, tooting your own horn is unmannerly. Were the owls overlooking those events? -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/31/2015 5:13 PM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 4:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. 1. Yup, funny. 2. Not likely. 3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews. How many times have you been shot at while standing up to authority to help the oppressed? Yeah, I thought so. Harry, tooting your own horn is unmannerly. Were the owls overlooking those events? He wouldn't get shot at so often if he didn't hang out with thieves, thugs, union bosses, and other low life. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Very Refreshing
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 4:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. 1. Yup, funny. 2. Not likely. 3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews. How many times have you been shot at while standing up to authority to help the oppressed? Yeah, I thought so. === I was shot at while in the service of my country but as a draft dodger you wouldn't understand that. Sorry, but I am not a neocon republican like Cheney so I never dodged the draft. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Very Refreshing
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:59:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 1/31/2015 4:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. Are you thinking of declaring independence sometime soon Wayne? :-) === I thought we were all independent as of 1776 or so. :-) |
Very Refreshing
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:21:24 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/31/2015 5:13 PM, Mucho Loco wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 4:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. 1. Yup, funny. 2. Not likely. 3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews. How many times have you been shot at while standing up to authority to help the oppressed? Yeah, I thought so. Harry, tooting your own horn is unmannerly. Were the owls overlooking those events? He wouldn't get shot at so often if he didn't hang out with thieves, thugs, union bosses, and other low life. I've never heard anyone, even my two cop brothers and fellow soldiers, talk about 'the times they've been shot at'. Now we're up to three times. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Very Refreshing
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: 3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews. === Tell us more about this "land reform" in Central America. Does that mean that you were trying to take land away from whom it legally belonged and give it to someone else? That sounds like some kind of Robin Hood adventure to me although it's hard to imagine your fat ass in green tights and carrying a bow and arrow. Sounds like you were ahead of your time and should have waited for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. His little adventure in socialism and seizing the assets of others isn't turning out very well though. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/31/15 6:02 PM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:21:24 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/31/2015 5:13 PM, Mucho Loco wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 4:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 3:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:04:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/31/15 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote: Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression, backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as the Kochs are. No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you. I support most of Bloomberg's efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs. So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist, not a crazed NRA gun nutsie. So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was just compensation? I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in order to retain possession of his firearms. I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby for me. I forgot, you are a democrat. If the government wants to take your stuff, you are more than happy to just give it to them. If our forefathers were like you, you would still be curtseying to the queen. Well, I'm not dumb enough to think I can stand off armed federal law enforcement officers. This isn't the 18th Century and the troops aren't on a supply or reinforcement chain 3000 miles long. I'll let your survivors and those of Wayne let me know what happened. Has to do with me not being an idiot, not with me being a Democrat. === Have you ever heard the saying "Live Free or Die"? This country ws not founded by a bunch of pansy assed eastern liberals. I'll be delighted for you to take on federal authorities with your Mosin Nagent you apparently can't shoot straight and your Ruger Mark III with the dimpled barrel. Please let us know when you are going to do this, so we are sure to tape it on the TV news. Oh...the 18th Century founding fathers? They were eastern and pretty radical and liberal. The *conservative* response would have been to remain under the thumb of the Crown. === Funny stuff Harry. It's a lot more likely that the Feds will be coming after you than after me. And although the founding fathers of this great country may have been radical for their time, they were not afraid of standing up to authority when oppressed. 1. Yup, funny. 2. Not likely. 3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews. How many times have you been shot at while standing up to authority to help the oppressed? Yeah, I thought so. Harry, tooting your own horn is unmannerly. Were the owls overlooking those events? He wouldn't get shot at so often if he didn't hang out with thieves, thugs, union bosses, and other low life. I've never heard anyone, even my two cop brothers and fellow soldiers, talk about 'the times they've been shot at'. Now we're up to three times. It's been three times since the last time, which was in 2003. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Very Refreshing
On 1/31/15 6:03 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: 3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews. === Tell us more about this "land reform" in Central America. Does that mean that you were trying to take land away from whom it legally belonged and give it to someone else? That sounds like some kind of Robin Hood adventure to me although it's hard to imagine your fat ass in green tights and carrying a bow and arrow. Sounds like you were ahead of your time and should have waited for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. His little adventure in socialism and seizing the assets of others isn't turning out very well though. Legally belonged? That's funny. In much of Central America, land was stolen from the indigent people by the oligarchy, aided by the military and sometimes aided by the good old USA, not unlike it was done in this country, eh? -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com