|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: Let's debunk this: First, the term "assault weapon" was coined by the press to describe semi-automatic long-guns that were visually similar to military BATTLE RIFLES or ASSAULT RIFLES. Modern military battle rifles and assault rifles are select-fire, shoulder-fired firearms that can fire semi-automatically or fully-automatically. A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. This is true. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. The "concealability" statement is empty rhetoric. No non-class III rifle legal in the US is less than 26 inches from end to end when in an operable configuration. Hardly "concealable." This is why, contrary to anti-gunner rhetoric, "assault weapons" are not the "weapons of choice" for drug dealers. In fact, rifles of any sort are very rarely used by criminals of any ilk. As for mobility in close combat, this is true. It's also true that folding or collapsible stocks are useful for storage and when carrying the firearm. A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. "Spray-fire" is a rhetorical nullity, and the claim that a pistol grip "facilitates" firing from the hip ignores fundamental human mechanics. It's far easier to fire a Garand or a hunting rifle from the hip than to fire an AR-15 from the hip. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire Not just rapid fire, but at all times. Nothing wrong with stabilizing the firearm, it makes it easier to hit the target and gives the shooter better control over the point of impact, which make it safer. and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. Blatant hogwash and tripe! Only the Terminator can shoot a major-caliber rifle with one hand and expect to even come close to hitting anything by design. A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. Yes, so what? A "barrel shroud" is nothing more than a different sort of stock, the purpose of which in any long gun is to provide a grip for accuracy and protection from burns, which, contrary to this hogwash, can occur after firing just a few rounds. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire. Or during any other sort of fire. Stabilizing the weapon is of primary importance, and anything that facilitates it is good. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. Except, of course, suppressing flash. Hunters and sportsmen do shoot recreationally during low-light periods. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, Complete bull****. A flash suppressor does absolutely NOTHING to reduce the flash signature from IN FRONT of the firearm. It's purpose is to reduce the flash visible to the shooter, to prevent blinding during low-light shooting. an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. Whether it is "necessary" is not up to this twit to decide. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm. Wrong. A "muzzle brake" performs that function, not a flash suppressor, although devices may be designed to provide both functions. Once again, maintaining control is a good thing. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, Er, no, actually, they are threaded to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle brake. That one can thread other objects on the same threads is not the same thing. which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Now here is a complete anti-gun biased falsehood. Silencers have plenty of utility for sportsmen. The major utility is that it reduces the muzzle report, which reduces or eliminates the need for hearing protection. Sound reduction is also useful in eliminating noise pollution and annoyance to neighbors. They are also used frequently when shooting varmints and vermin to avoid scaring them off with the muzzle report. Silencers are illegal Another blatant lie. Silencers are perfectly legal in the US. Anyone who is otherwise qualified to possess a firearm can own one. All you have to do is file the tax paperwork with the BATFE and pay the $200 tax and you can have one. so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. Untrue editorialism. As I said above, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why a person would want a silencer and a barrel threaded to accept it. A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose. Well, unless you get too close to a bear, where it might have some utility. Still, it's a harmless feature. And I do mean harmless. I defy this twit to provide a single example of a civilian crime committed with an "assault weapon" with a fixed bayonet. It's a cosmetic item that poses no danger to the public, but might be useful if the particular arm had to be used by the militia or the military in close combat. ==== I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...that a crack dealer can arm his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to automatic) gunfire. Ignoring for the moment that this almost never happens, he can only "arm his posse" illegally, not from the local "gun shack," which is tightly regulated by the BATFE, and only if he can pass the background check, at which point the idea is that other law-abiding citizens will be similarly armed and able to take out the crack dealer before any harm is done. Yep, that's an important freedom to protect. The important freedom to protect is MY right to have an assault weapon that I can use at need to kill the deranged crack dealer and his posse if and when he decides to shoot up the local park. That, and my right to have an assault weapon so I can defend the Constitution and my fellow citizens against tyranny. In fact, I understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up an AK-47 these days. Wrong. AK-47's are fully-automatic battle rifles that are not available to the general public. So much for this line of crap. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================ Besides, WMDs were not the only, nor even the most persuasive reason for invading Iraq. If you don't know the other compelling reasons that fully justified the invasion, it's because you're being willfully ignorant. ================ Or, because we choose to ignore Faux News where they've conveniently re-written history for the Bush propaganda machine. Those of you who have sipped from the Kool-Aid chalice now parrot this revisionist stuff like some kind of mantra. Hey, don't blame us because you weren't paying attention. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Well, some of them were used on the Kurds in the late eighties, Which were outside the time frame for which the yanks were able to claim there was a problem with WMDs. The latter only apply post 1991. Sez who? and I imagine the rest of them are in Syria or are buried in the desert somewhere. After all, he had 12 years to conceal them. Why would he hide them instead of using them to defend himself? He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because the artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did, they risked nuclear conflict. The obvious nonsense in your claim is that Saddam would rather live in a spider hole than fight back. You misunderstand the command and control systems in Iraq. Saddam suffered the typical fate of dictators. As soon as things began to go badly for him, and his commanders and soldiers saw a probability that the US would prevail, and that Saddam would be driven into hiding, his commanders and his troops abandoned him, stripped off their uniforms, dumped their personal arms and surrendered gladly to US troops. He didn't fight back effectively because no dictator can who rules by terror and intimidation when a liberator with a real chance appears. They didn't exist They existed. He created them. He used them. He refused to permit unfettered inspections and engaged in shell-game moving about of them, and he likely removed them to Syria, along with billions in gold and cash, before the invasion. - he was just an asshole that was tried to pretend they existed to impress the arabs he was trying to influence. Then he made a terrible mistake, didn't he. The US played to this, We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20. just as they are jumping on the bandwagon to play to N. Korea's every claim about nuclear weapons. Are you suggesting that we should NOT take North Korea's claim to have nuclear weapons seriously? How....idiotic of you. It is in the interests of a war monger to make sure that there is always an enemy. We don't have to manufacture enemies, there are plenty of real ones out there, and the only reason YOU get to spout your crap is because the US has for decades maintained the balance of power and peace around the world. I imagine we'll find them eventually. Not likely, since America's given up looking. For now. We've got other things to do. But then, you've never let facts interfere with your opinions. You, on the other hand, wouldn't know a fact if it were shoved up your ass. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're willing to die in the process) If you had the slightest notion of the ratio of rounds fired to soldiers killed amoung trained armies, or of kills per soldier, you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. One kill per fat man? Yeah, right. Hey, one kill per ten fat men would do the trick. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
Michael Daly wrote: On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're willing to die in the process) If you had the slightest notion of the ratio of rounds fired to soldiers killed amoung trained armies, or of kills per soldier, you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. One kill per fat man? Yeah, right. Reminds me of the Japanese: they did have trained soldiers, and their aim was to take out more than one Allied soldier for every one of their own who bit the dust. Although many people will be familiar with kamikaze, the average Japanese soldier also got suicide weapons, for example to sit in a pit with a special mine waiting for a tank to drive over him, or to run at a tank with special pole-mounted antitank explosives. That mentality didn't do them much good against overwhelming firepower... If there was such a thing as organised resistance against the U.S. government, the only chance would be to use terrorist and guerilla tactics, Precisely. and with the widespread terrorisation of the population through the ever tightening grip of the government on society, I don't see that happening. That's because you're a brain-washed peon who couldn't fight back if you wanted to. Of course, there just aren't enough fat men with arms to take on a professional army, Wanna bet? and there's not a snowball's chance in hell to have 50 million of them stand up and fight their own troops. Are you willing to bet YOUR life on it? That would be probably every ablebodied man between age 18 and 40 in the continental U.S., and we're not talking about ablebodied men, are we? :-) Presuming that the majority of the militia would obey the orders of a tyrant, which they wouldn't. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. Where is your source for this? --riverman |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick says: ============= Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. ================ Again, I prefer to look at more meaningful statistics. Let's look at life expectancies. Out of 8 countries (USA, UK, Canada, Germany, Mexico, France, Italy, and Japan) the USA ranks 7th in both men and women's life expectancies. The USA does fare better than Mexico on this measure, however. Since you're comparing, Canada ranks 4th among these nations for women and 2nd place for men. ====================== Again, the response was in reply to his claim that the poor in the US are not getting any meaningful care. Like wilko, you snip out the entire post to try to make it say something that was not being said. The response you have taken as a stand alone statement without context, by dishonestly snipping out the parts you don't like, was solely about his remark the 'poor' people are not taken care of. The reply I gave was perfectly appropriate to his claim as it compared the so-called disadvantaged of the US to the normal Canadian. In this instance, the normal Canadian lost, despite the jingoistic chest thumping you and kman like to engage in. What in hell is going on here, rick?! This is all wrong! The conventional wisdom just screams that the USA should be at the top of the list. Somebody must be ****ing around with the statistics, eh? ================== Some where you must have snipped out the part where I claimed the US system is best. Maybe you could restore that posts for us, eh? frtzw906 ========== |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick says: ================ Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. ================= rick, you wanted to play a statistical game. Here's a tip, next time, before you try that tactic, know what the statistics say in advance (and don't use them if they make you out to be the fool). ==================== Before dishonestly trying to make a post say something that it doesn't, you should annotate your snipping. On healthcare spending: On a per capita basis (1998) USA - $4178 Canada - $2312, Sweden - $1746... Crissakes, rick, this can't be right!!! All that money, and the highly touted privatized medical system to boot, and the USA still can't beat Canada on any meaningful statistics like life expectancy and infant mortality. Playing this game with you, rick, is like Canada playing the USA in hockey: you lose before you've even laced up your skates. rick, I look forward to the next big load of health (Or education. Or crime. etc) statistics you want to bring up. At the risk of mixing my metaphors (hockey to baseball), I feel confident that I'll blast them out of the park as well. ======================= I look forward to an honest post from you, ever. I have never made any claims that the US system is the best. My reply was about a specific claim made by kamn. I made an approriate reply to his claim. Too bad you can't honestly reply to posts on usenet, eh? cheers, frtzw906 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself rick wrote: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM: snippage.. Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why not just admit that? =========== Nice little set-up. You know that hospitals cannot release patirnt info, like names, especially they won't when the system would look bad anyway. So you know that your demand for real names probably will be hard to find. Yet, many groups and angencies, in Canada, claim that these deaths do occur. http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf Places like Canada are the ones that are promoting the differences between the haves and the have-nots. http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Thanks for doing the homework. =============== It's not hard. many canadians are far from satisfied with their health care, and many studies have been made and are being made. It's funny that these guys all protest that anyone stands up for the US, but then spew their own jingoistic chest thumping. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did *understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster and tyranny. The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands" were just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back then too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk) comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that if they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to limit access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug than an unarmed citizenry would be. Wow. You aren't faking are you? You're a full on nut! Pleased to meet you. They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault. Never did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically constructed our system to prevent precisely that. And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted with arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now permit lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is lawful, violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment. Holy sweet fancy moses. The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn. There was no armed forces. There were no assault weapons. And there weren't more than 30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours. If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have interpreted that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple clip semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault weapon and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure they would rethink the whole thing. Total up all the Americans killed in every war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths between 1979 and 1979. That's NOT what the framers had in mind. |
in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:17 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 12:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM: snippage.. Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why not just admit that? =========== Nice little set-up. You know that hospitals cannot release patirnt info, like names, especially they won't when the system would look bad anyway. So you know that your demand for real names probably will be hard to find. Yet, many groups and angencies, in Canada, claim that these deaths do occur. http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf LOL. You think if real people had died in waiting lines the media would not get the story? ======================== So, you don't even believe the people that monitor your health care system now, eh? Places like Canada are the ones that are promoting the differences between the haves and the have-nots. ? http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment. No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. ================== LOL Again, sure. I understand that when he turns into an 'emergency' case he will be right in the door. That you don't see a problem with that says alot about your blindly following what you are being told... Being told by whom? Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Where are you getting that information? ======================= Try getting it yourself. You're the one in canada.... As I suspected. More yakety yak by someone who has no idea. tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. ===================== Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care system for all, and equal for all. I've said no such thing. But a poor person will receive a higher standard of care in Canada than most anywhere else on the planet. ====================== LOL Again, once they are an 'emergency', eh? No. I can leave my house right now and drive to the nearest medical clinic and get excellent care. They will not ask me how much money I make. As to the 'anywhere else on the planet', Canada barely ranks better than the US And yet, ranks better, by whatever standard you are using. and both are in the 30s, from the top of best care. Both have serious problems, and jingoistically pounding your chest about being #30 doesn't really mean anything, does it? This means, logically, at the other end of the scale a very rich person may indeed opt to seek care elsewhere. ================ Again, yes, rather than to wait until they are an 'emergency' case. You have no clue. You are basing your ridiculous views on an isolated situation in Newfoundland. That's like basing my view of US health care on some spot in Alaska. All it manages to do is promote a have vs have-not conflict. ? |
in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/20/05 1:41 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. ================== I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation and bans. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. ==================== You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault weapon"? Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior? Apparently he's the President of the United States of America. He ssems to know what an assault weapon is. ================== LOL Thanks for acknowledging that YOU don't have aclue, eh. ? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-14- d ebate-fact-check_x.htm Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons that expired last month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had been told the bill couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most Republicans opposed extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time it came up for a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only 6 Democrats opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that most of the opposition came from Bush's own party. http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44 Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose. ==== So, along with George Junior, do you now know what an assault weapon is? I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind... ====================== Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing. The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military purposes, not hunting. Are these weapons being purchased and used for military purposes? As I said: ==================== That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is protected by rights. And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his local corner store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has diddly to do with what the framers wanted. that a crack dealer can arm his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to automatic) gunfire. Yep, that's an important freedom to protect. In fact, I understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up an AK-47 these days. ===================== Ignorant spew... You're too hooked on hollywood for your information, aren't you? CASES OF TERRORISTS PURCHASING GUNS IN THE UNITED STATES 1) ELN (NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY) OF COLOMBIA -- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and US Customs have a recent case involving weapons purchased in the US being trafficked to the ELN Guerilla movement in Colombia. The case was started after the Colombian government seized 17 assault weapons (copies of the AK-47) from the ELN guerillas. They requested a trace of the guns from the ATF here in the United States. The guns had been sold to a Walter Macias in 1995 at a Florida gun store, Garcia National. In the initial investigation, officials could not find Walter Macias in the United States, despite the fact that he used a Florida driver's license to purchase the weapons. After a second seizure of weapons in 1997, which were traced back to Walter and Carlos Macias, authorities realized that the Macias family was trafficking in firearms. The ATF Agents checked other gun stores in the area and asked gun store owners to alert them if they heard from the Macias brothers again. One local gun dealer did call and alerted the authorities to an upcoming sale of 30 assault weapons. A co-conspirator to the Macias brothers eventually paid $65,000 in cash for 30 assault weapons and attempted to illegally ship them to Colombia. He was arrested by the ATF here in the United States and the Macias brothers were arrested by authorities in Colombia. ATF officials say this case is not unique and they have seen guns going to the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), the ELN and the paramilitary organizations in Colombia, all of which are on the US terrorism watch list. 2) THE IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY -- Conor Claxton, a self-proclaimed member of the IRA, traveled to Southern Florida several years ago and recruited several other people to purchase handguns for him. He then illegally shipped them to Ireland for use by the Provisional IRA. Claxton's co-conspirators went to gun stores and gun shows and eventually found a private seller to sell them large quantities of hand guns without any background checks or reporting requirements to the ATF. Dozens of the guns reached the IRA before officials became aware of the plot. The British government contacted the US after they seized several of the guns and the ATF realized it had already been watching one of the gun purchasers because of suspicious multiple purchases. The investigation led to the arrest and prosecution of four people in Fort Lauderdale, FL. 3) THE HEZBOLLAH -- ATF agents arrested Ali Boumelhem, 35, in November 2000 and accused him of shipping guns and ammunition to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, allegedly hiding the arms in cargo crates. Federal agents say they watched Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to gun shows to buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was arrested by the FBI's joint terrorism task force, just before he was scheduled to travel to Lebanon, authorities said. He is accused of being a leader in Amal, a Lebanese militia organization, and a sympathizer with Hezbollah. BALLISTIC FINGERPRINTING AND THE SNIPER CASE Police often find shell casings and spent cartridges at crime scenes. The technology now exists to trace those cartridges back to a specific gun, but would require the cooperation of gun manufacturers. The gun makers would have to keep a test fire from each gun made and link that spent cartridge to the serial number of the gun. The unique markings on this cartridge would then be digitized using laser imaging. Then, in a case like the sniper case in Washington, DC, police could trace the cartridge back to a specific gun. When they have a serial number for the gun, they can trace the gun back to the original purchaser and this often provides concrete leads for the criminal investigation. While this is a complicated process, two states, New York and Maryland, already have laws putting this system into practice. The sniper case spurred enormous interest in further developing this process for a nationwide ballistics fingerprinting system. DANNY PEARL AND SHEIK JILANI When Danny Pearl, the WALL STREET JOURNAL reporter, was abducted in Pakistan, he was on his way to try to visit the leader of the Jamaat al Fuqra group, Sheik Mubarak Jilani. Al Fuqra is one of the suspected terrorist groups mentioned in GUN LAND . Pearl was doing research on Richard Reid, the shoe-bomb suspect, and was following a lead that Reid had studied and trained under Jilani at his compound in Lahore, Pakistan. Pearl had gone to the US Embassy to discuss trying to find Jilani in Pakistan and was warned by Embassy officials to not pursue an interview with Jilani by himself. After Pearl's abduction, Jilani himself was arrested in Pakistan but was later released and is not considered to be involved with Pearl's death. Sheik Jilani himself has long-standing connections with the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, and has been linked to another Pakistani terrorist group, Harkat-ul-Mujahidden. Jamaat al Fuqra targeted African-American Muslims in the United States to combat those who they consider enemies ‹ Hindus, Jews, and Muslims who stray from a conservative religious practices. Jilani's motto -- "to purify Islam through violence." Sources: The Associated Press and THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, and others. http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/gunland.html |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. Actually, Clinton won. I think you mean Al Gore. And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W Bush stole. |
|
Weiser says:
============== Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum. ================== What you don't comprehend is that no doctor is required to participate in the national insurance scheme -- all doctors are free. Weiser says: ================= Doctors in the US don't go on strike ================ So, you're predicting that the 50,000 to 100,000 (and growing rapidly) unionized doctors in the USA (can you say HMO?) will never go on strike? Good luck on that one! Weiser, in reference to the USA, says: =============== Nope. They get paid exactly what the consume thinks their services are worth. =================== And you actually believe that, eh? I suspect it's more a case of what the consumer "must" pay, because, while you "talk to free market talk", "walking the walk" is quite another thing. You have yet to explain how/why the free market doesn't respond to such lucrative incomes with a greater supply of doctors. Scott, isn't that the way it's supposed to work? What in hell is wrong with you guys down there, that you can't get the capitalist system to work for you as far as the supply of doctors is concerned? Maybe if you could get these things right, we'd be inclined to follow your example. But, so long as the simple supply-demand thing remains a mystery to you, perhaps we'd best stick to a system that produces better results. When you get the kinks worked out, give us a call. frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
============== He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because the artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did, they risked nuclear conflict. =================== C'mon! Admit it! You're making this up as you go along. Either that, or this is Faux News drivel. Weiser says: ================= We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time. ===================== BULL****! Your intelligence agencies may be good (or not), but other nations do have intelligence agencies as well. How come they were telling a different tale? They agreed with you on Afghanistan. They disagreed on Iraq. And there I was, sitting in a kayak in the Gulf islands, and even I had this figured out. The lie was transparent. frtzw906 frtzw906 |
|
rick, quite your moaning. If something got snipped, why don't you
remind us once more what was so g-d precious about it. Now instead of addressing the issue you whine about peoples' responses. frtzw906 |
rick: once more, instead of whining, remind us about what your precious
post said... please perhaps clarify... if i missed something, humblest apologies... but please, i can't take the whiiiiine anymore. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick, quite your moaning. If something got snipped, why don't you remind us once more what was so g-d precious about it. Now instead of addressing the issue you whine about peoples' responses. ====================== ROTFLMAO I was addressing the isue that kman raised. You, on the other hand didn't like what I said, so had to dishonestly make it look like i was discussiong something else. Too bad your idiocy is too easy to see through. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick: once more, instead of whining, remind us about what your precious post said... please perhaps clarify... if i missed something, humblest apologies... but please, i can't take the whiiiiine anymore. =========================== Where was the whining, idiot? It was you that was whining about something that wasn't said. That you didn't like the truth of the reply I made in relation to the claim that was made isn't my problem. Thanks for showing your ideology trumps rationality. As for your whiiiiiiiiine, have some cheese with it, fool. frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 5:17 PM: snippage... No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. ================== LOL Again, sure. I understand that when he turns into an 'emergency' case he will be right in the door. That you don't see a problem with that says alot about your blindly following what you are being told... Being told by whom? ================== Your ideological mouth pieces. Apparently you can't think for yourself... Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Where are you getting that information? ======================= Try getting it yourself. You're the one in canada.... As I suspected. More yakety yak by someone who has no idea. ========================== LOL Thanks for proving that you are ignorant of computer use. As far as making ignorant claims, there are more than a few that you have never backed up. tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. ===================== Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care system for all, and equal for all. I've said no such thing. But a poor person will receive a higher standard of care in Canada than most anywhere else on the planet. ====================== LOL Again, once they are an 'emergency', eh? No. I can leave my house right now and drive to the nearest medical clinic and get excellent care. They will not ask me how much money I make. ======================= Sure, but they will make you wait for the tests to determine what you mental illness is. That you are trying to deny that there are long wait lists for many treatments needed across Canada is your ideology speaking, not reality. As to the 'anywhere else on the planet', Canada barely ranks better than the US And yet, ranks better, by whatever standard you are using. ================ LOL Where have I ever claimed the US had no problems? You on the other hand are trying to defend the indefenseble. and both are in the 30s, from the top of best care. Both have serious problems, and jingoistically pounding your chest about being #30 doesn't really mean anything, does it? This means, logically, at the other end of the scale a very rich person may indeed opt to seek care elsewhere. ================ Again, yes, rather than to wait until they are an 'emergency' case. You have no clue. ===================== Yes, apparently more than you. You are basing your ridiculous views on an isolated situation in Newfoundland. That's like basing my view of US health care on some spot in Alaska. ===================== Isolated? What a hoot!!! Try some research fool. Start at the Fraser Institute. Surely you've heard of them. They're in Canada. All it manages to do is promote a have vs have-not conflict. ? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM: snippage... I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind... ====================== Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing. The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military purposes, not hunting. Are these weapons being purchased and used for military purposes? As I said: ==================== That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is protected by rights. And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his local corner store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has diddly to do with what the framers wanted. ======================= I see your idiocy still commands your mind. Too bad Psychiatric waiting times for you are even longer... The drug dealer has no protected right to buy any weapons. If fact, is prohibited from just that action. Again, your ideological ignorance is getting in the way of rationality, eh? snip rest of spew... |
in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 10:48 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 5:17 PM: snippage... No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. ================== LOL Again, sure. I understand that when he turns into an 'emergency' case he will be right in the door. That you don't see a problem with that says alot about your blindly following what you are being told... Being told by whom? ================== Your ideological mouth pieces. Apparently you can't think for yourself... What ideological mouthpieces? Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Where are you getting that information? ======================= Try getting it yourself. You're the one in canada.... As I suspected. More yakety yak by someone who has no idea. ========================== LOL Thanks for proving that you are ignorant of computer use. Your statement does not compute. As far as making ignorant claims, there are more than a few that you have never backed up. This is a weasely way of admitting that you can't back up your claim. tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. ===================== Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care system for all, and equal for all. I've said no such thing. But a poor person will receive a higher standard of care in Canada than most anywhere else on the planet. ====================== LOL Again, once they are an 'emergency', eh? No. I can leave my house right now and drive to the nearest medical clinic and get excellent care. They will not ask me how much money I make. ======================= Sure, but they will make you wait for the tests to determine what you mental illness is. That you are trying to deny that there are long wait lists for many treatments needed across Canada is your ideology speaking, not reality. The quality of care varies somewhat particulary (as one might expect) in sparsely populated regions. But the standard of care across the country is excellent. I should know, I use it, and so do my friends and relatives. FYI, I was born in Evanston, Illinois, and I know a fair bit about health care in both countries, with relatives that live in both. Everyone prefers the Canadian system. That is not to say that no one has ever complained about how long they had to wait for an elective procedure, but between the two systems as a whole, it is no contenst. It has nothing to do with ideology. As to the 'anywhere else on the planet', Canada barely ranks better than the US And yet, ranks better, by whatever standard you are using. ================ LOL Where have I ever claimed the US had no problems? You on the other hand are trying to defend the indefenseble. Not at all. So far you have pointed out that certain people looking for a very specific type of scan in a non-emergency situation in Newfoundland are having to wait a long time. This is a far cry from the statements about peopel dying in waiting lines that brought me into this goofy discussion. and both are in the 30s, from the top of best care. Both have serious problems, and jingoistically pounding your chest about being #30 doesn't really mean anything, does it? This means, logically, at the other end of the scale a very rich person may indeed opt to seek care elsewhere. ================ Again, yes, rather than to wait until they are an 'emergency' case. You have no clue. ===================== Yes, apparently more than you. There is no evidence of that. You are basing your ridiculous views on an isolated situation in Newfoundland. That's like basing my view of US health care on some spot in Alaska. ===================== Isolated? What a hoot!!! Try some research fool. Start at the Fraser Institute. Surely you've heard of them. They're in Canada. I know all about the Fraser Institute. LOL. Now perhaps I have at least a partial explanation of where you are getting these crazy ideas. The secondary name for the Fraser Institue is "I wish George W. Bush was the Prime Minister of Canada." Asking what the Fraser Institute thinks about Canadian Health Care is like asking the NRA for objective advice on handguns. Only worse! ROFL All it manages to do is promote a have vs have-not conflict. ? |
in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 10:55 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM: snippage... I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind... ====================== Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing. The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military purposes, not hunting. Are these weapons being purchased and used for military purposes? As I said: ==================== That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is protected by rights. And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his local corner store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has diddly to do with what the framers wanted. ======================= I see your idiocy still commands your mind. Too bad Psychiatric waiting times for you are even longer... The drug dealer has no protected right to buy any weapons. If fact, is prohibited from just that action. Wow! How progressive! Drug dealers are banned from purchasing assault weapons? Does Heston know about this? Surely the Framers would be alarmed! Again, your ideological ignorance Please explain what my "ideological ignorance" would be here. Do you mean that I am lacking in ideology, and therefore my view is not valid, or do you mean that I have an ideology that is ignorant? Assuming the latter, what is my ideology, and why is it ignorant? is getting in the way of rationality, eh? I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns at the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational. |
BCITORGB wrote: rick says: ============= Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. ================ Rather, take a look at more meaningful statistics, like infant mortality. Rank Country Rate 1 Hong Kong 3.2 2 Sweden 3.5 3 Japan 3.6 4 Norway 4.0 5 Finland 4.1 6 Singapore 4.2 7 France 4.6 7 Germany 4.6 9 Denmark 4.7 10 Switzerland 4.8 11 Austria 4.9 12 Australia 5.0 13 Netherlands 5.2 13 Czech Republic 5.2 15 Canada 5.3 15 Italy 5.3 17 Scotland 5.5 17 New Zealand 5.5 19 Belgium 5.6 19 Northern Ireland 5.6 21 England and Wales 5.7 21 Greece 5.7 21 Israel 5.7 21 Spain 5.7 25 Portugal 5.9 26 Ireland 6.2 27 Cuba 7.1 28 UNITED STATES 7.2 29 Slovakia 8.8 30 Kuwait2 9.4 OK, given the wonders of privatized medicine, I'm curious why we don't find the USA at the top of this list. I don't know about Hong Kong, but the next 25 nations all have some form of "nationalized" medicine. What say you, rick? I think that he will happily ignore any facts that get in the way of his rambling... So far I haven't seen anything factual to support his statements, or anything to support any of the other propaganda-believing posters. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"Wilko" wrote in message ... BCITORGB wrote: rick says: ============= Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. ================ Rather, take a look at more meaningful statistics, like infant mortality. Rank Country Rate 1 Hong Kong 3.2 2 Sweden 3.5 3 Japan 3.6 4 Norway 4.0 5 Finland 4.1 6 Singapore 4.2 7 France 4.6 7 Germany 4.6 9 Denmark 4.7 10 Switzerland 4.8 11 Austria 4.9 12 Australia 5.0 13 Netherlands 5.2 13 Czech Republic 5.2 15 Canada 5.3 15 Italy 5.3 17 Scotland 5.5 17 New Zealand 5.5 19 Belgium 5.6 19 Northern Ireland 5.6 21 England and Wales 5.7 21 Greece 5.7 21 Israel 5.7 21 Spain 5.7 25 Portugal 5.9 26 Ireland 6.2 27 Cuba 7.1 28 UNITED STATES 7.2 29 Slovakia 8.8 30 Kuwait2 9.4 OK, given the wonders of privatized medicine, I'm curious why we don't find the USA at the top of this list. I don't know about Hong Kong, but the next 25 nations all have some form of "nationalized" medicine. What say you, rick? I think that he will happily ignore any facts that get in the way of his rambling... So far I haven't seen anything factual to support his statements, or anything to support any of the other propaganda-believing posters. =========================== LOL Nice projection there ideolog. Again, no where have I said the US system is best, or even without any faults. All I did was disabuse the jingoistic chest thumping of kman about the greatness of the Canadian system. As for statistics, I don't see any attributions in the above post either. But then, your propaganda beliefs are just fine without any proof, eh fool? -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 10:48 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 5:17 PM: snippage... No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. ================== LOL Again, sure. I understand that when he turns into an 'emergency' case he will be right in the door. That you don't see a problem with that says alot about your blindly following what you are being told... Being told by whom? ================== Your ideological mouth pieces. Apparently you can't think for yourself... What ideological mouthpieces? ====================== The ones that tell you that the Canadian system has no waiting times, and is the best system. Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Where are you getting that information? ======================= Try getting it yourself. You're the one in canada.... As I suspected. More yakety yak by someone who has no idea. ========================== LOL Thanks for proving that you are ignorant of computer use. Your statement does not compute. ======================= Of course not, not to someone that apparently dosen't know how to use theirs, eh? As far as making ignorant claims, there are more than a few that you have never backed up. This is a weasely way of admitting that you can't back up your claim. ==================== Nopde. Try again fool. I've even given you the hints... tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. ===================== Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care system for all, and equal for all. I've said no such thing. But a poor person will receive a higher standard of care in Canada than most anywhere else on the planet. ====================== LOL Again, once they are an 'emergency', eh? No. I can leave my house right now and drive to the nearest medical clinic and get excellent care. They will not ask me how much money I make. ======================= Sure, but they will make you wait for the tests to determine what you mental illness is. That you are trying to deny that there are long wait lists for many treatments needed across Canada is your ideology speaking, not reality. The quality of care varies somewhat particulary (as one might expect) in sparsely populated regions. But the standard of care across the country is excellent. I should know, I use it, and so do my friends and relatives. FYI, I was born in Evanston, Illinois, and I know a fair bit about health care in both countries, with relatives that live in both. ======================== Wow, how nice. Do you figure that you are the only one with family and friends in both systems? Everyone prefers the Canadian system. That is not to say that no one has ever complained about how long they had to wait for an elective procedure, but between the two systems as a whole, it is no contenst. It has nothing to do with ideology. ========================= Then they must be as brainwashed as you, because many of the ones I know always come back to the US for care. And, in a couple of cases, to give care. As to the 'anywhere else on the planet', Canada barely ranks better than the US And yet, ranks better, by whatever standard you are using. ================ LOL Where have I ever claimed the US had no problems? You on the other hand are trying to defend the indefenseble. Not at all. So far you have pointed out that certain people looking for a very specific type of scan in a non-emergency situation in Newfoundland are having to wait a long time. This is a far cry from the statements about peopel dying in waiting lines that brought me into this goofy discussion. ========================== LOL That you have to fisate on one example says alot about your brainwashing. That you believe that that is the one and only case available to find is a hoot. and both are in the 30s, from the top of best care. Both have serious problems, and jingoistically pounding your chest about being #30 doesn't really mean anything, does it? This means, logically, at the other end of the scale a very rich person may indeed opt to seek care elsewhere. ================ Again, yes, rather than to wait until they are an 'emergency' case. You have no clue. ===================== Yes, apparently more than you. There is no evidence of that. ==================== I've posted real data, from real sites. You seem to be making it up as you go. Come on, provide more than just your say-so that there are no waiting lines for Canadian health-care. You are basing your ridiculous views on an isolated situation in Newfoundland. That's like basing my view of US health care on some spot in Alaska. ===================== Isolated? What a hoot!!! Try some research fool. Start at the Fraser Institute. Surely you've heard of them. They're in Canada. I know all about the Fraser Institute. LOL. Now perhaps I have at least a partial explanation of where you are getting these crazy ideas. The secondary name for the Fraser Institue is "I wish George W. Bush was the Prime Minister of Canada." Asking what the Fraser Institute thinks about Canadian Health Care is like asking the NRA for objective advice on handguns. Only worse! ROFL ==================== They are but one. But nice to see your ideology won't let truth get in your way. Keep trying fool, maybe someday you'll learn something other than your brainwashed opinion. All it manages to do is promote a have vs have-not conflict. ? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 10:55 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM: snippage... I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind... ====================== Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing. The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military purposes, not hunting. Are these weapons being purchased and used for military purposes? As I said: ==================== That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is protected by rights. And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his local corner store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has diddly to do with what the framers wanted. ======================= I see your idiocy still commands your mind. Too bad Psychiatric waiting times for you are even longer... The drug dealer has no protected right to buy any weapons. If fact, is prohibited from just that action. Wow! How progressive! Drug dealers are banned from purchasing assault weapons? Does Heston know about this? Surely the Framers would be alarmed! ====================== LOL Too bad your sarcasm doesn't substitute for reality fool. That you are too stupid, willfully?, to know that the local drug dealer isn't going to be able to walk into a gun store and purchase weapons tells us that you get all your 'data' from holloywood. Nave try, idiot, but you ideology is showing again. Again, your ideological ignorance Please explain what my "ideological ignorance" would be here. Do you mean that I am lacking in ideology, and therefore my view is not valid, or do you mean that I have an ideology that is ignorant? Assuming the latter, what is my ideology, and why is it ignorant? ============================== Because it can belive the ignorant spews you come up with. Nay, not just believe, but relish them. is getting in the way of rationality, eh? I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns at the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational. ======================== Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the corner drug-dealer. |
rick says:
=============== Start at the Fraser Institute. Surely you've heard of them. They're in Canada. ================= Everybody in Canada has heard about those clowns. Before citing them, you'd best find out who funds them. Once you've figured that out, you'll know which butts they're kissing. frtzw906 |
KMAN says:
============== The secondary name for the Fraser Institue is "I wish George W. Bush was the Prime Minister of Canada." Asking what the Fraser Institute thinks about Canadian Health Care is like asking the NRA for objective advice on handguns. Only worse! ROFL =============== Too right, KMAN! That, too, had me ROTFL. frtzw906 |
rick: clearly apologies don't work with you. Are you that angry and
that bitter? You've been on about jingoistic breast-beating etc, so I thought I'd come clean. There are problems with the Canadian healthcare system. There are escalating costs. There are localized shortages. There are areas of inefficiency. And, there is an on-going national dialogue about how to deal with these issues. Some, like the Fraser Institute you seem keen on citing, point to the American model as the one to emulate. Now I suspect Canadians might be persuaded to go this route if it looked like a better system. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case. On most major health metrics (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc etc), the USA does not show well. Then, on measures of cost, the USA does particularly poorly. From an efficiency perspective, the American system thus really sucks -- higher costs get you lower results. Please, rick, why would any sane person (nation) opt for the American system? Oh, yeah, of course, the answer is obvious: rather than wait a couple of days for my MRI, I can get one within the hour. Of course, that trumps everything else! Further, it appears your system can't reconcile prices with quantity (a fundamental for a free economy) -- high prices for doctors has not lead to increased quantity (and subsequent lower prices). This would seem to be a huge flaw that needs ironing out. Scott Weiser seems unable to exlain this. rick, perhaps you're up to the task. Eagerly anticipating your retort, frtzw906 |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 10:55 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM: snippage... I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind... ====================== Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing. The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military purposes, not hunting. Are these weapons being purchased and used for military purposes? As I said: ==================== That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is protected by rights. And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his local corner store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has diddly to do with what the framers wanted. ======================= I see your idiocy still commands your mind. Too bad Psychiatric waiting times for you are even longer... The drug dealer has no protected right to buy any weapons. If fact, is prohibited from just that action. Wow! How progressive! Drug dealers are banned from purchasing assault weapons? Does Heston know about this? Surely the Framers would be alarmed! ====================== LOL Too bad your sarcasm doesn't substitute for reality fool. That you are too stupid, willfully?, to know that the local drug dealer isn't going to be able to walk into a gun store and purchase weapons tells us that you get all your 'data' from holloywood. Nave try, idiot, but you ideology is showing again. LOL. Yeah, I hear drug dealers complaining all the time how hard it is for them to get guns. Again, your ideological ignorance Please explain what my "ideological ignorance" would be here. Do you mean that I am lacking in ideology, and therefore my view is not valid, or do you mean that I have an ideology that is ignorant? Assuming the latter, what is my ideology, and why is it ignorant? ============================== Because it can belive the ignorant spews you come up with. Nay, not just believe, but relish them. Can you try that again in English? is getting in the way of rationality, eh? I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns at the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational. ======================== Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the corner drug-dealer. Why are you offended by the term assault weapons? If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences I'd be interested to see them. |
Wilko says:
================= I think that he will happily ignore any facts that get in the way of his rambling... So far I haven't seen anything factual to support his statements, or anything to support any of the other propaganda-believing posters ================ Yes, I find it curious that there are never any responses to statistics which show the USA in a bad light. One would think there would be outrage. Outrage either because such statistics must be purposefully wrong or, outrage at a theoretically perfect system that can, in fact, be so bad. Nope. Nothing but silence. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Wilko says: ================= I think that he will happily ignore any facts that get in the way of his rambling... So far I haven't seen anything factual to support his statements, or anything to support any of the other propaganda-believing posters ================ Yes, I find it curious that there are never any responses to statistics which show the USA in a bad light. One would think there would be outrage. Outrage either because such statistics must be purposefully wrong or, outrage at a theoretically perfect system that can, in fact, be so bad. ================ Selective projection again, eh? I've never made any claims about the US system being the best, or even good. Guess the problem is that your jingoistic chest thumping isn't any better than that of those you like to bash. Nope. Nothing but silence. ================= Yep, nothing but ignorance from you, as usual... frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick: clearly apologies don't work with you. Are you that angry and that bitter? ================== I never saw any from you that meant anything. The anger and bitterness is all yours it appears. It is you and kman that apparently cannot accept some criticism of anything not American. You've been on about jingoistic breast-beating etc, so I thought I'd come clean. There are problems with the Canadian healthcare system. There are escalating costs. There are localized shortages. There are areas of inefficiency. =============== Then why all the buffery about there being no such thing as long waits? Kman insists that there are not. I would think that your diatribes should be directed at him. But, since he spews the typical anti-US stuff you like to hear he gets a free pass on idiocy, eh? And, there is an on-going national dialogue about how to deal with these issues. Some, like the Fraser Institute you seem keen on citing, point to the American model as the one to emulate. ================= That's news to me. I never sawe any of their people claim that the US system is the madle to shoot for. Now I suspect Canadians might be persuaded to go this route if it looked like a better system. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case. On most major health metrics (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc etc), the USA does not show well. Then, on measures of cost, the USA does particularly poorly. From an efficiency perspective, the American system thus really sucks -- higher costs get you lower results. ===================== That's why so many Canadians are crossing the border for treatment, the high costs and inefficinsies? Please, rick, why would any sane person (nation) opt for the American system? Oh, yeah, of course, the answer is obvious: rather than wait a couple of days for my MRI, I can get one within the hour. Of course, that trumps everything else! =========================== Again, no where in any of my posts have I claimed the US system is best. Again, your chest thumping about being #30 doesn't quite have the ring of greatness kman and you are alluding to. Waiting 2 years for an mri may or may not have an impact on your overall health, but if it detects a problem soon enough it may have saved you. Further, it appears your system can't reconcile prices with quantity (a fundamental for a free economy) -- high prices for doctors has not lead to increased quantity (and subsequent lower prices). This would seem to be a huge flaw that needs ironing out. Scott Weiser seems unable to exlain this. rick, perhaps you're up to the task. ================== Why? I've never stated that that was an intention, nor claimed it was the system to emulate. The problem was that you and kman are pushing a system that you have failed to explain as being a system to emulate, even though you make statements that indicate you think it is. Eagerly anticipating your retort, frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 10:48 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 5:17 PM: snippage... No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. ================== LOL Again, sure. I understand that when he turns into an 'emergency' case he will be right in the door. That you don't see a problem with that says alot about your blindly following what you are being told... Being told by whom? ================== Your ideological mouth pieces. Apparently you can't think for yourself... What ideological mouthpieces? ====================== The ones that tell you that the Canadian system has no waiting times, and is the best system. Who are they? When did they tell me this? ================ You tell me. Or, were you just making up the stuff you claimed about getting in for any test right away? Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Where are you getting that information? ======================= Try getting it yourself. You're the one in canada.... As I suspected. More yakety yak by someone who has no idea. ========================== LOL Thanks for proving that you are ignorant of computer use. Your statement does not compute. ======================= Of course not, not to someone that apparently dosen't know how to use theirs, eh? Logic system failure. ==================== Yes, you have failed at alot of things here. As far as making ignorant claims, there are more than a few that you have never backed up. This is a weasely way of admitting that you can't back up your claim. ==================== Nopde. Try again fool. I've even given you the hints... No hinting necessary weasel. ================= Of couirse not. You knew you were spouting idiocy when you started. You just weren't expecting to be called on your stupidity. tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. ===================== Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care system for all, and equal for all. I've said no such thing. But a poor person will receive a higher standard of care in Canada than most anywhere else on the planet. ====================== LOL Again, once they are an 'emergency', eh? No. I can leave my house right now and drive to the nearest medical clinic and get excellent care. They will not ask me how much money I make. ======================= Sure, but they will make you wait for the tests to determine what you mental illness is. That you are trying to deny that there are long wait lists for many treatments needed across Canada is your ideology speaking, not reality. The quality of care varies somewhat particulary (as one might expect) in sparsely populated regions. But the standard of care across the country is excellent. I should know, I use it, and so do my friends and relatives. FYI, I was born in Evanston, Illinois, and I know a fair bit about health care in both countries, with relatives that live in both. ======================== Wow, how nice. Do you figure that you are the only one with family and friends in both systems? No. Everyone prefers the Canadian system. That is not to say that no one has ever complained about how long they had to wait for an elective procedure, but between the two systems as a whole, it is no contenst. It has nothing to do with ideology. ========================= Then they must be as brainwashed as you, because many of the ones I know always come back to the US for care. And, in a couple of cases, to give care. How many? What are they coming for? Why? ======================= Why do all yours allegedly prefer the canadian system? I've answered one reason right off the bat. No waits. In a couple of cases the treatments needed weren't life threatening, but very painful joint problems. They decided that their wait time, and being dosed with painkillers instead of treatment was medically unsound. As to the 'anywhere else on the planet', Canada barely ranks better than the US And yet, ranks better, by whatever standard you are using. ================ LOL Where have I ever claimed the US had no problems? You on the other hand are trying to defend the indefenseble. Not at all. So far you have pointed out that certain people looking for a very specific type of scan in a non-emergency situation in Newfoundland are having to wait a long time. This is a far cry from the statements about peopel dying in waiting lines that brought me into this goofy discussion. ========================== LOL That you have to fisate on one example says alot about your brainwashing. That you believe that that is the one and only case available to find is a hoot. It was your example. ================ Yes, one example of many. Why do you try to deny the months long wait lists acroos Canada? More chest thumping? and both are in the 30s, from the top of best care. Both have serious problems, and jingoistically pounding your chest about being #30 doesn't really mean anything, does it? This means, logically, at the other end of the scale a very rich person may indeed opt to seek care elsewhere. ================ Again, yes, rather than to wait until they are an 'emergency' case. You have no clue. ===================== Yes, apparently more than you. There is no evidence of that. ==================== I've posted real data, from real sites. Perhaps so, but none to support your argument. ==================== LOL So, the sites I have posted have somehow said that there are no wait times in canada? Man, you do have comprhension problems, don't you? You seem to be making it up as you go. Come on, provide more than just your say-so that there are no waiting lines for Canadian health-care. If you mean that somewhere in a doctor's office or emergency room someone is waiting, I have to agree. But no one is dying in a waiting line. ====================== An assertion that is not backed up by canadian sources. And for many, the decision is not to wait until then, but to go elsewhere for treatment. I went to the doctor just last Monday. I called on Friday. Got an appointment Monday afternoon. Received excellent care. Got a prescription, had it filled that day. What's the problem? ====================== ummm, one example. Somehow I get the feeling that one exmple for youis adequate, but I have to show that every Canadian is waiting for specialized treatment. see your ideology is still in control, rather that rationality. You are basing your ridiculous views on an isolated situation in Newfoundland. That's like basing my view of US health care on some spot in Alaska. ===================== Isolated? What a hoot!!! Try some research fool. Start at the Fraser Institute. Surely you've heard of them. They're in Canada. I know all about the Fraser Institute. LOL. Now perhaps I have at least a partial explanation of where you are getting these crazy ideas. The secondary name for the Fraser Institue is "I wish George W. Bush was the Prime Minister of Canada." Asking what the Fraser Institute thinks about Canadian Health Care is like asking the NRA for objective advice on handguns. Only worse! ROFL ==================== They are but one. But nice to see your ideology won't let truth get in your way. Keep trying fool, maybe someday you'll learn something other than your brainwashed opinion. Heehee. You are so silly. =============== Teehee, and you are still an ignorant buffoon. All it manages to do is promote a have vs have-not conflict. ? |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick says: =============== Start at the Fraser Institute. Surely you've heard of them. They're in Canada. ================= Everybody in Canada has heard about those clowns. Before citing them, you'd best find out who funds them. Once you've figured that out, you'll know which butts they're kissing. ==================== I see, anyone with information that desputes your ideology is bogus. Thanks for the idiot-light warning. frtzw906 |
Wilko, I hear "the" president is just down the road from you today.
This may be a good thing for him. (1) he's not at home while these tapes of him admitting drug use are all over the media. (2) he might want to try some of the cafes that are so popular in amsterdam. GRIN Anyway, say "hi" from all of us, will you? "W" said: ============= "The cocaine thing, let me tell you my strategy on that," Bush said on the tape. "Rather than saying no ... I think it's time for someone to draw the line and look people in the eye and say, you know, 'I'm not going to participate in ugly rumors about me and blame my opponent,' and hold the line. Stand up for a system that will not allow this kind of crap to go on." -- Whooa, what was he on when he said that?! "But you gotta understand, I want to be president, I want to lead. I want to set -- Do you want your little kid to say, 'Hey daddy, President Bush tried marijuana, I think I will?' " ====================== |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com