|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular world). ============================ LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events, and dely that your own health care system isn't working for every Canadian right now! How your position has changed...first it was that people in Canada were dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system isn't working for every Canadian. ====================== LOL You really are a sad little boy, aren't you? Sarcasm goes right over your head as much as facts do, doesn't it? There is no change fool, you're still just as willfully ignorant as ever... There's a huge change, right there for all to see. You are really quite a king weasel! ==================== No fool, there was no change. Especially in your health care system, and particularly in your ignorance. Must be really hard trying to keep up, eh? There was no change in the fact that you cannot back up what you say. Perhaps it has all happened to fast you missed it. You started off saying that Canadians were dying in line waiting for health care. Your new position is that the system isn't working well for every single Canadian. ================= Not is they're dead, eh fool? Since the latter would be true for any system of health care, you've watered down your position to something that is totally without meaning. ================================ No fool, the fact that people die waiting is hardly what I'd call a system that is working for everyone. Again, sarcasm is above your level of comprehension, isn't it? |
Weiser says:
================== BTW, a news story today details admissions made by a Syrian intelligence officer that Syria is deeply involved in the Iraqi insurgency, supplying arms and support, with the express purpose of keeping the US away from Syria. ================ Interesting. I hadn't heard that. Of course, if it is, as you cite, "with the express purpose of keeping the US away from Syria. ", then that sounds like a strategic move in the interests of Syria. Or aren't they supposed to take actions which support their cause? Historically, has the USA never supported freedom fighters? frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... 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? Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal media in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their visual appearance. Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the (specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by "assault weapons?" Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI, and the numbers are actually very small. If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences I'd be interested to see them. Then go look them up. Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or that, they should post them, or a link to them. ================== ROTFLMAO You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were buying assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they killed 1000s of people every year. Seems you failed to ever back up that stupidity, eh? Since I never made that claim, seems you are wrong as usual. ============= ROTFLMAO What a hoot! what part of... "...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..." kamn 2/20/2005 1:41 ....doesn't sound familier to you? Or, are you now claiming that somebody else here is posting fraudulantly using your name? |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn. No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies, male citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and militia kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after services. Because they didn't have a massive amry, navy, air force, marines! We don't have a "massive" standing army in the US. We're not supposed to, precisely so that military coups can be avoided. That's the purpose of the Militia provisions of the Constitution. Are you so stupid that you can't see the difference between a sparse population of people defending a huge amount of territory and the modern day juggernaut that is the US armed forces? Only in degree, not as applied to the philosophical underpinnings of our nation. In fact, a larger standing army actually militates for more and better arms in the hands of the citizenry, since one of the points of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the armed citizenry always greatly outnumber the standing army. There was no armed forces. Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear of the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George Washington? LOL. Yes, with his rowboat, no doubt outfitted with nuclear weapons. Evasion. You said "There was (sic) no armed forces." This is simply wrong. Whether it's a lie or mere ignorance I cannot tell. There were no assault weapons. The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the right. Um. Indeed it does. Um. No it doesn't. Being concerned that without a musket in every barn the US could not be defended has little to do with the ability of some angry husband to take out his wife and her family with an AK-47 he's purchased on the corner after hearing about his pending divorce. Wrong. And there weren't more than 30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours. There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a) suicides and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very small and getting smaller every year. Wow, you must be so proud! The guns are mostly used for people shooting themselves or deliberately shooting someone else! Great! You misconstrue...deliberately I suspect. Guns of every stripe are mostly used to punch holes in paper and tin cans, along with punching holes in game animals. Less than 0.01% of all guns in the US are ever used unlawfully against another human being. And that fraction is continuing to drop every year. FBI crime reports, combined with BATFE gun ownership records prove conclusively that 99.99 percent of guns in the US are never used unlawfully or unsafely. That's an admirable safety record by any metric. Swimming pools and five gallon buckets are more dangerous to children than guns are, by far. Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada. Um. You mean we have more gun-related deaths in Britain, Australia, and Canada?!?!? More than you did before you banned guns. Violent crime in Great Britain, for example, is running rampant. In all three places, violent crime has jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by law-abiding citizens. You see, criminals LIKE gun bans, because it ensures that they can pursue their criminal careers with impunity. Moreover, criminals don't care a fig for gun bans, because it's already illegal for them to possess a firearm with the intent to use it in a crime. So, the inevitable result is that criminals are armed and nobody else but the police is, and the police are never around when you really need one (nor should they be) so more and more people in those countries are being victimized by violent criminals...because they don't have the means to defend themselves, and there is no deterrence to the criminal, who need not fear getting shot and killed by Grandma as he tries to steal her dole check. The opposite is true in the US, where violent crime rates continue the dramatic reductions that began back in the 80s when the trend towards lawful concealed carry started to spread across this country. Where'd you get that loony idea? Well, from the Home Office, actually. You really are a full on nut! Pot, kettle, black. 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. Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly aware of the potentials of firearms. Actually, the constitution has undergone quite a lot of amendments, for example, a black person is now consider equal to a white person in value. At least on paper. The framers obviously had no idea what the USA of 2005 would be like. They didn't know about nuclear weapons. Crack houses. Assault weapons. The genius of the Framers is that they created a system that can both respond to public need while protecting fundamental rights. The problem on America's "crack house" streets is not too many "assault weapons," it's too FEW. A few hundred good, law-abiding citizens resolved to drive crack dealers from their community by force of arms would have things cleaned up in a hurry. Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily convertible" to fully automatic fire. Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made to fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious federal crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic." They were all, at best, semi-automatic. It's good to know (?) that it's not necessary to bother with the conversion to fully automatic in order to commit a mass slaying. True. What really facilitates mass slayings is the lack of legally carried firearms in the hands of law-abiding, responsible (and proficient) citizens. It's much harder to "spray bullets around" when someone is shooting back at you. That's why, for example, no Israeli school has been attacked by terrorists in more than 20 years. Today, Israeli citizens carry fully-automatic military firearms, often issued to them BY the military, which they use to defend themselves against terrorists...pretty effectively too. Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their temper." Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the single common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was the ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more good citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have occurred. Ah yes, if only we all had a gun. Indeed. Then every office argument, domestic disagreement, incorrect tally on a grocery bill, bumper tap in a parking lot, etc could easily turn into a bloodbath and we'd all be happy (?) This is typical hoplophobe rhetoric. You falsely presume that the vast majority of citizens will somehow be driven into insane, killing rages merely because they possess a firearm. Problem is that your tripe is simply not true, as the 40+ states that have authorized lawful concealed carry prove. Anti-gunners like yourself routinely predict "bloodbaths" and "blood running in the gutters" and "dead police officers at routine traffic stops" as a result of lawful concealed carry. Unfortunately for you folks, it simply doesn't happen. People who are likely to use a gun to kill someone over a petty disagreement in an office are unlikely to be dissuaded by gun control laws in the first place, and factually speaking, the only way to stop such things once they've begun is with firearms. Waiting for the police is not an option, as Columbine proved. Thus, it is incumbent on all citizens to provide for their own safety in such situations by carrying their own gun that they can use for self-defense. 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. Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the Jews of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond and you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens killed by firearms since 1776. So your theory is that we simply need to arm every single person in the world and we'll all be safer? You are not just a nut. You are a SCARY nut. Facts are often inconvenient to gun-banners like you, but that doesn't change the facts. That's NOT what the framers had in mind. Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with firearms Haaaaaaaalleeeeeeeloooooya. Halelloya. Hallellooooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ys! but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish, and the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the planet. Hm. Does the average Irish person wish they had more guns around? Probably. Keep in mind that the Irish were disarmed by their generational enemy, the British, who did so specifically so that they could oppress the Irish. I think they are pretty happy to be getting past the days when parts of Ireland were best known as places to get shot. Once again, the problem in Northern Ireland is not too many guns, it's too few guns in the hands of good, law-abiding citizens. I'd bet that if you lived in Belfast, and the kneecappers came busting in YOUR door, that you'd wish fervently that you had an AK-47, as a preference to being nailed to the floor through the knees. They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect themselves was to be armed. You really have no clue about American history, do you? Other than my university degree in History, not much. Your university degree in Ultra-Left-Wing Socialist History? I'd have to agree. Apparently you learned all your history from the NRA sponsored texts. No, I learned it from reading the actual writings of the Framers, who wrote extensively on their intent and purpose, and the Constitution, and the majority of Supreme Court cases touching on the RKBA since the founding of the nation. Your claim to have a degree in history is highly suspect, and if you do have one, you don't deserve it, because you clearly learned nothing about American history during your matriculation. -- 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 KMAN wrote:
You are one of the scariest sounding people I have ever encountered on usenet. I imagine I will read about you one day. The only people who need to be afraid of me are criminals, tyrants and terrorists. If you are one of the above, then you should be afraid...very afraid. And that's the way I like it. 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. My yes, you've certainly made me feel silly. I neglected to put the word phrase "a variation of" in front of "AK-47." It's not even a variation. But you are indeed silly. You don't understand history, technology or law when it comes to firearms in the US. This is, of course, because you are a brainwashed slave of your government, which makes your ignorance entirely understandable. I don't think my government ever speaks on these issues, how are they managing to turn me into a brainwashed slave? See, you've proven my point. You can't even understand what's being done to you. FYI: Why on earth are you presuming to give me information about firearms? You are one of the most grossly ignorant hoplophobes I've ever met, and I know more about firearms than you are even capable of learning in a lilfetime. The AK-47 is currently unavailable to the general public in the U.S., very few were imported into the country and those that did got snatched up by collectors. Yup. And every one of them held legally is registered with the BATFE as a "machine gun." More importantly, of the more than 500,000 legally-owned machine guns in the US, only ONE has ever been used by its legal owner to commit a crime, in the entire history of the Registry since it was imposed in 1934. Again, an enviable safety record. If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the $200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any of our sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood furniture. This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle. You will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from Global Trades. The key being "looks similar." Functionally, the firearm operates no differently if it has look-alike parts installed. -- 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 KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... 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? Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal media in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their visual appearance. Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the (specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by "assault weapons?" Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI, and the numbers are actually very small. If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences I'd be interested to see them. Then go look them up. Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or that, they should post them, or a link to them. IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to substantiate that claim. Only problem is, you can'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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Mark Cook" wrote in message . com... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? I have no idea. I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. I am? Yes, you are. I don't think so. Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the Liberal/Democrat/Socialist machine. How did they manage this? That you don't know proves how effective their brainwashing and propaganda is. I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many people (obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it would reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was "stolen." What they willfully refuse to recognize is that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to stop the recount that had nothing to do with concealing anything, but rather had to do with federal election law and fundamental fairness in voting. As for what might have been "revealed," Democratic operatives and their lackeys in the liberal media have been trying for YEARS to "reveal" some impropriety that proves Bush "stole" the election...and they haven't been able to prove anything. Not to you. To anyone. I challenge you to cite a SINGLE reputable report examining the ballots that has Gore winning. To the contrary, EVERY unofficial "recount" of the ballots, and it's been done several times, proves again and again that Bush won and Gore lost. There's all sorts of interpretations that say Gore won/Bush won. Interpretations don't count. Ballots do. No review of the actual ballots in Florida has ever put Gore ahead. Period. None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about that election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there are many others) contributors to that viewpoint. Well, there it is. Your argument that Bush "stole" the election with the assistances of the "republicans on the Supreme Court" has been factually demolished but you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong, so now you put "stolen" in parentheses and attempt to recast your argument as one of "impressions and interpretations" about the legitimacy of the election. This is dishonest debate. I'm not sure you understand what I am debating. I'm quite certain that you don't. I think I am part of what is probably a very large group of people who think that there was an unacceptable and alarming amount of irregularities in the electoral process that gave Bush a victory in what was obviously an extremely close vote, and that there should have been a full examination of these issues with an official recount. That fact that this did not happen means that the election is forever remembered as the one that Bush stole. That's merely liberal whining and logical fallacy. Even if there were not "full examination" it would not therefore follow that Bush "stole" the election. First, "stole" implies some deliberate action on Bush's part to engage in election fraud. No such evidence exists. Second, if, as you argue, there was no "full examination" of the evidence, it is impossible to conclude that Bush "stole" the election. The absence of evidence is not evidence. One cannot infer from a lack of evidence that either candidate was responsible for the lack of evidence. I could just as reasonably say, had Gore won, that he "stole" the election, and I'd be just as incorrect as you are. Third, there was an "official recount," and the results showed that Bush won the election. There was not an "official recount of the recount" because the United States Supreme Court ruled that the process used by Florida, and ratified by the Florida Supreme Court, was unconstitutional. As to having an "official recount of the recount" including all ballots, the law does not provide for such a recount. But the law DOES mandate that the election be certified within a strict time frame. The purpose of this time frame is to help prevent election fraud and to prevent endless delays of the certification that has the potential of bringing the federal government to a halt because some disgruntled voters disagree with the results of the election. There is no guarantee of a "perfect" election, there is merely a right to vote in a "fair" election. If you screw up your vote, and it isn't counted as a result, that's YOUR problem, not something that impeaches the election. If you're too stupid to properly mark your ballot, again, that's YOUR problem. If you care that much, then you need to take great care and ask for assistance if you're having trouble with the system. The failure in the Florida punch-card system was in not simply having a regulation requiring that a "chad" be completely punched out and removed from the ballot in order for that vote to count. Had they had this simple instruction, there would have been no debate at all. If you screw up your ballot, it's not the election commission's problem. The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters You really think the Democrats are Socialists? Wow. By and large, yes, though many of them aren't far enough left to suit the Socialists. The Democrats are working hard to get far enough left, however, even to suit Castro or Marx. worldwide are simply bereft that their Socialist stooges lost and are trying to whip up anti-Bush sentiment using propaganda because they know that they have no real foundation for their arguments. Fortunately, we don't give a damn what "many others" think about our election. They don't get to vote, so they can pound sand. The funny thing is Bush is going around sucking up to the Europeans like crazy right now. It's kind of embarassing. I agree. I'm disappointed in him. But, he's president, so he gets to make the decisions. Bush won fair and square, both times. Get over it. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and end it? I have no idea who is right or wrong, because we never got to find out. That you have no idea is unsurprising, but not indicative of the surety of the election. -- 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 |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Weiser says: ================ Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary importance in the first place. ================ OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing? After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: " it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!" make up your minds. frtzw906 You acknowledge "before the war, all we heard was: " it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!" Is it possible that you were listening to certain medias that were just quoting each other over and over and not really researching beyond the news wire feed, and ending up with the same story. Not the whole story, just the part they wanted you to hear, and which was the part you now acknowledge you heard. When the decision was made to invade, the media had no reason to overstate the WMD argument, because they had no idea that Bush was lying and no idea that no WMD would be found and in fact I can't remember even one media feature that questioned whether or not Iraq in fact has WMD. But if you care to read the address to the UN prior to the invasion, it's quite clearly stated that it's about WMD. Thanks KMAN for taking the time from your busy schedule of debating with rick and Scott, to comment on my post. The question that I had with Frtzw was regarding what he heard. If he limited himself to only certain sources of info, he would have heard what he acknowledge he heard. That does not mean that there were not other sources of info from which he could have heard additional and more complete info. I recall hearing many programs speaking of the human rights violations against Shiite, Kurds, the Iraq Olympic team, etc. His sadistic sons and the treatment of women, and murder of fellow countrymen. Fly over violation with his radar targeting coalition airplanes. Terrorist training. Threats to kill our president, and generally terrorize the US. That Powell went to the UN and presented a limited case of UN violations is not a surprise to me. The UN was not concerned about human rights violations taking place right under the nose of their inspectors. So as in any court, the arguement is limited to pertinent points of law. However that does not mean that their are not other calls to action that were being made. If you choose to limit yourself to what you want to hear, then I can understand when you say that you only heard certain subjects, by choice. That is different than saying the other subjects were not presented at all, just that you were ignorant of them. Now I know that you are generally a bright person, so I would not characterize you as ignorant, though we all have our blind spots. I would just encourage you to get more of the story, which may mean listening to FOX News. I realize that you may not like what they say, but that is part of being informed. If all you do is listen to the same tripe all the time, from the network news services, that is part of being uninformed. TnT |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada. Absolute bull****. There are _far_ fewer gun deaths in those countries. In fact, there are far fewer murders of any type in those countries. The US has the highest murder rate and highest gun death rate of any western country. Mike |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on swimming pools and Bluegrass laws? You're an idiot. Agriculture wastes most of the water and contributes little to the economy and the guilty are the non-agricultural users. Yeah, right. Mike |
Weiser in reference to the CBC:
================ No, I don't like ultra-leftist liberal propaganda. ==================== And you have evidence of this? Please share with us.... frtzw906 |
n 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Please post the relevant parts of the US and Canadian constitutions that define federal vs state/provincial right and powers and demonstrate your claim that US states have more power. Look it up yourself. It's in the Amendments section. The Canadian constitution has no amendments section. Indeed. However, the US Constitution does. You still haven't proved anything. You still make claims that you are not prepared to support. Citing only the US constitution does not "prove" anything in a comparison with other countries. I live under the government of the United States and no other. You live in a fantasy world that has nothing to do with reality. Of course I can. I just refuse to play into your specious logic. The specious logic is yours - prove your ridiculous claims or admit that US states do not have more power than Canadian Provinces or EU countries. Mike |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
The 2nd Amendment does not require one to be in a militia in order to exercise the RKBA protected by the 2nd Amendment. So I guess that part about "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is the part you've never bothered to read? Mike |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ==================== Why? What do you know about agriculture? Anything? Have you ever grown anything for profit? Have you ever grown anything other than Bluegrass and weeds? Why would you presume, in your ignorance, to dictate to agriculture what it's water needs are? ======================= I have grown nothing but, I never knew that one had to have given birth to a child to become an OBGYN. False analogy. That little bit notwithstanding, as you guessed, I know nothing about agriculture. But the issue at hand is not agricultural but, rather, economic. As you point out, it would be ignorant to me to "dictate to agriculture what it's water needs are". So I don't. And yet you did. You said that agriculture should be reduced by 50% to save water for other uses. I do, however, point out that there are too many cases where industries (and in the initial post, by way of example, I just grabbed agri-busness out of a hat; I could well have picked any number of other industries.) do not pay the full price for the commodities they consume. Why should they? If they can get a discount, why, that's pure capitalistic profit preservation. If I remember correctly, the issue was less about agri-business and more about subsidies to industries. Which you turned to a discussion of water and agriculture. The environmental costs of California's agricultural use of water are nowhere reflected in costs to the firms producing oranges in the desert. That's a subsidy: from the citizens of the USA (it's their water) to the firm. Ah, now it's turned from economics to "environmental costs." Please try to pick one thesis and stick to it. Or, was this your subtext all along. I suspect that it has nothing to do with economics or subsidies, but rather you are using those arguments as stalking horses for your real agenda, which is "environmental costs." I translate that, in the context of RBP, to mean that you want the water to remain in the river and not be diverted for agricultural (or any other) use so that YOU can use it for recreation. So, when, pray tell, do YOU plan to pay the "full price" for the commodity you are consuming: in-channel river water? Are you suggesting that you should be billed by the acre-foot for the water left in the river that you use for recreation? Do you have any idea how much that's going to cost you? Weiser says: ================== So, when all the pools and artificially supported landscaping in California is gone, then you can feel free to talk about rationing agriculture. =============== At this point, I have no desire to be argumentative. I'd be interested, though, if you have these figures, how the total California acreage in lawns compares to total agricultural acreage. Further, what might the gallons/acre comparisons be between lawns/swimming pools versus agricultural fields? I don't know the lawn/pool acreage ratio, but the point is that water used for recreation and aesthetics does not produce anything while the water used for agriculture does. This is not to say that there is not significant conservation to be had in agricultural irrigation methods. There is. But the infrastructure is extremely expensive and maintenance is expensive. Still, one of the subsidies the federal government offers is assistance to farmers who want to install water-saving irrigation systems like sideroll and center-pivot sprinkler systems to replace the admittedly inefficient but very cheap flood irrigation. Weiser says: ====================== In the meantime, I suggest that you begin auditing your eating habits and determine the actual origin of every calorie you consume. Get back to us on how much of it comes from California. ================== Too right, Scott! At this time of year, if it's not from California, it is very likely from Mexico. And I'll be the first to admit that I am the beneficiary of the water-related subsidies we're talking about. So, while I have a chance here in the forum, I'd like to thank the people of California and the USA for taking some jingle out of their jeans and transferring that jingle into mine (and the shareholders of the agri-busnesses). So, as I do my audit, as you suggested, I am well aware of the fact that I am aiding and abetting the destruction of California's water resources. If, on the other hand, the price of Calfornia oranges reflected the "true" cost of production, I might seek out substitute products like BC-grown apples. Cheers, and thanks again for your largesse, Well, I think "destruction" is a strong term to use. Water is a necessity of life, and it's never really "destroyed," even when it's broken down into hydrogen and oxygen, because they recombine to create water again. The fact that you, or other Californians might not be able to use it is of only minor interest. -- 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 |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: If we close the border with Canada, it will be CLOSED. Nobody in, nobody out. You won't be missed. It's your problem, fix it yourself. There is no reason that we should respect and defend the US border if the US refuses to respect anyone elses'. Good fences make good neighbours. Fix your fence, dickhead. Mike |
Weiser says:
===================== Which can be made a no-way street when the costs exceed the benefits. It won't take too many terrorist incursions from Canada to make it worth it to close the border. ================ Again, I think you truly underestimate the magnitude of this trade. Just the dependency of Michigan GM plants on components made in Ontario ensures that GM will use its considerable political clout to keep the trade moving. Now multiply by the clout of Ford, Weyerhaeuser, etc etc.... This border is not closing anytime soon. frtzw906 |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
I believe that the needs of agriculture for water have been well defined by hundreds, even thousands of years of cultivation of crops, and that you have little credibility when it comes to criticising agriculture. Turning desert into farmland is not the same thing as farming in an area that has a natural level of rainfall and water that supports agriculture. Around here, we farm without draining rivers dry. It's you that clearly knows nothing about _real_ agriculture. Mike |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
In all three places, violent crime has jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by law-abiding citizens. Bull**** again. The crime rates in Canada specifically has been falling for decades. The murder rates are falling as well. Your fantasy world is not where the rest of us live. You should take that into acount before making one of your ludicrous rants. Mike |
On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote:
FYI: Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts! :-) Mike |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Nope. Prove it. Don't have to. Innocent till proven guilty. Idiot - you are afraid to address the facts. International law forbids invading any country. End of story. The US does not respect other countries' borders, hence we shouldn't bother respecting theirs. Ibid. Ditto Mike |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
This demonstrates the depth of your misunderstanding. The whole point of our 2nd Amendment and our very system of government is that the government does not "permit" anything. But you keep ignoring the _fact_ that your government and any government can restrict rights. That is a fact. Your government has restricted the rights of blacks, Indians, women and others in the past and still can't muster full freedom for all citizens. As long as you can't guarantee that your government will never change rights, you will never be absolutely free. A few fat men with guns notwithstanding. Mike |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/22/05 12:12 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 2/21/05 10:58 PM: KMAN, I suggested to rick that we take this debate to another level as he alluded to being interested in discussions beyond Canada versus USA comparisons. However, when I asked him for examples of what he deemed to be better systems, he reverted to an adversarial stance. I have to conclude that he actually knows nothing at all about healthcare. What was your first clue? His quick descent into name-calling, or inability to provide sources to back any of his ridiculous claims? ==================== LOL What a hoot!!! I have provided proof. Please point me to the post in which you provided proof that Canadians are dying while in wait lines for care. If you can do so, I will gladly apologize. ===================== Pucker up, fool... Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. Please post a link to the message in which which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. You, on the other hand, rely on chest-thumping, 'mines better than yours' mentality even when i never claimed a system better. that you refuse to see the flaws pointed out by your own sources proves your ideology has far more control than your brain. Could be, but that does nothing to change the fact that an allegation was made and it cannot be substantiated. ================= Yet there are, by many Canadian sources. You are afraid to look into them... Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet. Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. For some reason it is not available on usenet. Please post again. Thanks. If anyone else has seen the message, please repost. Thanks. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular world). ============================ LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events, and dely that your own health care system isn't working for every Canadian right now! How your position has changed...first it was that people in Canada were dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system isn't working for every Canadian. ====================== LOL You really are a sad little boy, aren't you? Sarcasm goes right over your head as much as facts do, doesn't it? There is no change fool, you're still just as willfully ignorant as ever... There's a huge change, right there for all to see. You are really quite a king weasel! ==================== No fool, there was no change. Especially in your health care system, and particularly in your ignorance. Must be really hard trying to keep up, eh? There was no change in the fact that you cannot back up what you say. Perhaps it has all happened to fast you missed it. You started off saying that Canadians were dying in line waiting for health care. Your new position is that the system isn't working well for every single Canadian. ================= Not is they're dead, eh fool? Since the latter would be true for any system of health care, you've watered down your position to something that is totally without meaning. ================================ No fool, the fact that people die waiting is hardly what I'd call a system that is working for everyone. Again, sarcasm is above your level of comprehension, isn't it? Please post a link to any evidence that Canadians are dying in line waiting for health care. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... 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? Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal media in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their visual appearance. Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the (specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by "assault weapons?" Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI, and the numbers are actually very small. If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences I'd be interested to see them. Then go look them up. Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or that, they should post them, or a link to them. ================== ROTFLMAO You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were buying assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they killed 1000s of people every year. Seems you failed to ever back up that stupidity, eh? Since I never made that claim, seems you are wrong as usual. ============= ROTFLMAO What a hoot! what part of... "...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..." kamn 2/20/2005 1:41 ...doesn't sound familier to you? Or, are you now claiming that somebody else here is posting fraudulantly using your name? No look at what you said: "You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were buying assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they killed 1000s of people every year" I remain confident that the Framers did not have in mind that a crack dealer could buy an assault weapon at the store on the corner and spray the park with semi-automatic gunfire. What I did not say was that such incidents aco****ed for 1000s of deaths each year, and thus, you are wrong to attribute that position. Oh, and I see that you are in fact capable of re-posting information. We are all still waiting for your repost of the evidence that Canadians are dying in waiting lines. |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Because even random DNA modification caused by gamma rays should have produced some alternative forms better suited to survival at sea. DNA changes are produced by many things, not just gamma rays. In fact, every fertilized egg is an example of recombination of genetic material that is unique. I've already pointed out that not all changes provide for forms that are better suited. Even if one does, there is no guarantee that that one survives. It's a tough world out there. Which is why evolution is a "theory," not a scientific fact. A theory is a hypothesis backed by an abundance of fact. Get over it. And so there must therefore be some force other than gradual variation which drives evolution. What is it, pray tell? It could be episodic change. No gods required. Get over it. And then there's the change to upright gait... You still insist on proving that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Homo Sapiens has always walked upright. Then the "scientific community" are evading the issue. Bull****. The scientific community bases their science on observation. The religious nut cases base their fantasies on insisting on the existanc of God and then trying to force fit the world to match their fantasies. Any theory of evolution. The only "theory" that you are using to judge the scientific community is one of your own invention. Judge them on a theory that actually exists. Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed. And who, in this discussion, has suggested that? Nice backpedal. You did. To wit: Where in that post did I state that God does not exist? I said that it doesn't _prove_ that God exists. Big difference, twit. Learn to read. Mike |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn. No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies, male citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and militia kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after services. Because they didn't have a massive amry, navy, air force, marines! We don't have a "massive" standing army in the US. We're not supposed to, precisely so that military coups can be avoided. That's the purpose of the Militia provisions of the Constitution. Um. Do you feel that the current standing army is comparable to the minutemen?!?!? It's, uh, kind of big! Are you so stupid that you can't see the difference between a sparse population of people defending a huge amount of territory and the modern day juggernaut that is the US armed forces? Only in degree Like, 1000 degrees? not as applied to the philosophical underpinnings of our nation. In fact, a larger standing army actually militates for more and better arms in the hands of the citizenry, since one of the points of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the armed citizenry always greatly outnumber the standing army. Really! Please post the exact quote that says "the armed citizens of the US should always outnumber the military forces of the government" There was no armed forces. Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear of the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George Washington? LOL. Yes, with his rowboat, no doubt outfitted with nuclear weapons. Evasion. You said "There was (sic) no armed forces." This is simply wrong. Whether it's a lie or mere ignorance I cannot tell. The armed forces of the day were insignificant in comparison to the US army of 2005. It is as irrelevant as saying that a fleet of rowboats is the same as a fleet of nuclear submarines. There were no assault weapons. The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the right. Um. Indeed it does. Um. No it doesn't. Perhaps you don't understand that the usual result of change is...change. Being concerned that without a musket in every barn the US could not be defended has little to do with the ability of some angry husband to take out his wife and her family with an AK-47 he's purchased on the corner after hearing about his pending divorce. Wrong. Why wrong? And there weren't more than 30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours. There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a) suicides and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very small and getting smaller every year. Wow, you must be so proud! The guns are mostly used for people shooting themselves or deliberately shooting someone else! Great! You misconstrue...deliberately I suspect. Guns of every stripe are mostly used to punch holes in paper and tin cans, along with punching holes in game animals. Less than 0.01% of all guns in the US are ever used unlawfully against another human being. And that fraction is continuing to drop every year. And yet more than 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND!!!!) US citizens die every year from them. FBI crime reports, combined with BATFE gun ownership records prove conclusively that 99.99 percent of guns in the US are never used unlawfully or unsafely. Maybe the total number of guns should be reduced so that the .01 does not account for so many deaths! That's an admirable safety record by any metric. Swimming pools and five gallon buckets are more dangerous to children than guns are, by far. Did you have over 30000 swimming deaths last year? FYI, that's a silly argument, since pools are not built to be used to kill people. Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada. Um. You mean we have more gun-related deaths in Britain, Australia, and Canada?!?!? More than you did before you banned guns. Well geezus christ you idiot, we live next to the US!!!!!! But our gun deaths in Canada are MINISCULE compared to the United States. Even in cities that are just minutes away from major US centers. Violent crime in Great Britain, for example, is running rampant. In all three places, violent crime has jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by law-abiding citizens. You see, criminals LIKE gun bans, because it ensures that they can pursue their criminal careers with impunity. Moreover, criminals don't care a fig for gun bans, because it's already illegal for them to possess a firearm with the intent to use it in a crime. Ridiculous. The world is a more violent place, and (thanks in large measure to the US) guns are more readily available. But you don't hear citizens in the UK or Canada looking to have more assault weapons on the street so they will feel safer, because, well, only a nut like you would argue that. The opposite is true in the US, where violent crime rates continue the dramatic reductions that began back in the 80s when the trend towards lawful concealed carry started to spread across this country. Where'd you get that loony idea? Well, from the Home Office, actually. It seems to me like you've had 30000 - 35000 gun deaths every year for about the past 20 years. No? You really are a full on nut! Pot, kettle, black. What's my nutty attitude? That more guns does not create safer communities? Then call me Mr. Planters! 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. Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly aware of the potentials of firearms. Actually, the constitution has undergone quite a lot of amendments, for example, a black person is now consider equal to a white person in value. At least on paper. The framers obviously had no idea what the USA of 2005 would be like. They didn't know about nuclear weapons. Crack houses. Assault weapons. The genius of the Framers is that they created a system that can both respond to public need while protecting fundamental rights. The problem on America's "crack house" streets is not too many "assault weapons," it's too FEW. A few hundred good, law-abiding citizens resolved to drive crack dealers from their community by force of arms would have things cleaned up in a hurry. Yup, and don't worry about the baby that gets shot in the head by accident. Or the house that wasn't really a crack house. Or the anarchy and everyday violence that comes from shooting your gun at whoever is bothering you. Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily convertible" to fully automatic fire. Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made to fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious federal crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic." They were all, at best, semi-automatic. It's good to know (?) that it's not necessary to bother with the conversion to fully automatic in order to commit a mass slaying. True. What really facilitates mass slayings is the lack of legally carried firearms in the hands of law-abiding, responsible (and proficient) citizens. It's much harder to "spray bullets around" when someone is shooting back at you. That's why, for example, no Israeli school has been attacked by terrorists in more than 20 years. Today, Israeli citizens carry fully-automatic military firearms, often issued to them BY the military, which they use to defend themselves against terrorists...pretty effectively too. So if you want to feel safe, you would suggest moving to Israel? Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their temper." Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the single common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was the ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more good citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have occurred. Ah yes, if only we all had a gun. Indeed. Scary that your ideal would not be that no one had a gun. Or wanted to have one. Then every office argument, domestic disagreement, incorrect tally on a grocery bill, bumper tap in a parking lot, etc could easily turn into a bloodbath and we'd all be happy (?) This is typical hoplophobe rhetoric. You falsely presume that the vast majority of citizens will somehow be driven into insane, killing rages merely because they possess a firearm. Problem is that your tripe is simply not true, as the 40+ states that have authorized lawful concealed carry prove. Anti-gunners like yourself routinely predict "bloodbaths" and "blood running in the gutters" and "dead police officers at routine traffic stops" as a result of lawful concealed carry. Unfortunately for you folks, it simply doesn't happen. It doesn't? What are those 30,000 DEATHS PER YEAR all about? Oh, right, they are all suicides? People who are likely to use a gun to kill someone over a petty disagreement in an office are unlikely to be dissuaded by gun control laws in the first place, and factually speaking, the only way to stop such things once they've begun is with firearms. Waiting for the police is not an option, as Columbine proved. Thus, it is incumbent on all citizens to provide for their own safety in such situations by carrying their own gun that they can use for self-defense. Yup. If only all the kids at Columbine had been carrying guns. 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. Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the Jews of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond and you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens killed by firearms since 1776. So your theory is that we simply need to arm every single person in the world and we'll all be safer? You are not just a nut. You are a SCARY nut. Facts are often inconvenient to gun-banners like you, but that doesn't change the facts. Um, there's no facts that indicate more guns = safer society, since you have 30,000+ deaths per year every year. That's NOT what the framers had in mind. Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with firearms Haaaaaaaalleeeeeeeloooooya. Halelloya. Hallellooooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ys! but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish, and the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the planet. Hm. Does the average Irish person wish they had more guns around? Probably. Maybe you should run for head of state there on that platform. Keep in mind that the Irish were disarmed by their generational enemy, the British, who did so specifically so that they could oppress the Irish. Which has little to do with what we are talking about. I think they are pretty happy to be getting past the days when parts of Ireland were best known as places to get shot. Once again, the problem in Northern Ireland is not too many guns, it's too few guns in the hands of good, law-abiding citizens. I'd bet that if you lived in Belfast, and the kneecappers came busting in YOUR door, that you'd wish fervently that you had an AK-47, as a preference to being nailed to the floor through the knees. I'd wish fervently to live in a society where the ideal is not to shoot someone else before they shoot you. They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect themselves was to be armed. You really have no clue about American history, do you? Other than my university degree in History, not much. Your university degree in Ultra-Left-Wing Socialist History? I'd have to agree. It's pretty hard to get a left-wing history degree. Historians tend to be rather dry old conservatives. Apparently you learned all your history from the NRA sponsored texts. No, I learned it from reading the actual writings of the Framers, who wrote extensively on their intent and purpose, and the Constitution, and the majority of Supreme Court cases touching on the RKBA since the founding of the nation. Your claim to have a degree in history is highly suspect I'll be happy to prove it to you if that would be important to you. and if you do have one, you don't deserve it, because you clearly learned nothing about American history during your matriculation. What you mean is that I was not indoctrinated by whatever forces have messed up your own ability to think. |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: "Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything." Sounds pretty derisory to me. That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists. It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools. But then, you can't read very well. Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what "God" is. How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what it is you are setting out to prove? The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist. Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult. Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a realm in which we don't exist. Mike |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: You are one of the scariest sounding people I have ever encountered on usenet. I imagine I will read about you one day. The only people who need to be afraid of me are criminals, tyrants and terrorists. If you are one of the above, then you should be afraid...very afraid. And that's the way I like it. Yes, and you are happy to be the judge, jury, and executioner. And that is why I am sure we will all read about you one day. 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. My yes, you've certainly made me feel silly. I neglected to put the word phrase "a variation of" in front of "AK-47." It's not even a variation. But you are indeed silly. You don't understand history, technology or law when it comes to firearms in the US. This is, of course, because you are a brainwashed slave of your government, which makes your ignorance entirely understandable. I don't think my government ever speaks on these issues, how are they managing to turn me into a brainwashed slave? See, you've proven my point. You can't even understand what's being done to you. Wow, you are so clever...I was brainwashed by a government that never fed me any information. FYI: Why on earth are you presuming to give me information about firearms? You are one of the most grossly ignorant hoplophobes I've ever met, and I know more about firearms than you are even capable of learning in a lilfetime. I'm sure you sleep with one up your ass every night. The AK-47 is currently unavailable to the general public in the U.S., very few were imported into the country and those that did got snatched up by collectors. Yup. And every one of them held legally is registered with the BATFE as a "machine gun." More importantly, of the more than 500,000 legally-owned machine guns in the US, only ONE has ever been used by its legal owner to commit a crime, in the entire history of the Registry since it was imposed in 1934. Again, an enviable safety record. If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the $200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any of our sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood furniture. This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle. You will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from Global Trades. The key being "looks similar." Functionally, the firearm operates no differently if it has look-alike parts installed. Uhuh. And you think it's unreasonable to describe such a firearm as a variation of the AK-47? The whole point to begin with is it is a weapon for killing a lot of people quickly. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... 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? Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal media in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their visual appearance. Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the (specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by "assault weapons?" Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI, and the numbers are actually very small. If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences I'd be interested to see them. Then go look them up. Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or that, they should post them, or a link to them. IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to substantiate that claim. Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They aren't needed for anything but killing a lot of people quickly. |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Well, the context of the question is gone, but The context is what you are trying to avoid. Stop playing word games and stick with the facts. As I recall, average solar flux is 1watt/m2. If we create a solar panel [...] panel under development. Compare that to the yield of using waste agricultural products and secondary crop growth on the same land to produce ethanol. Direct Ethanol Fuel Cells (DEFC) exist and can use the existing gasoline infrastructure without the need to create a new hydrogen infrastructure. There are few examples of proposed H2 technology that make sense. Iceland's commitment comes close, but they have "free" geothermal energy to draw on and are only serving a small population. H2 for a country the size of the US is a pipedream. Mike |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Mark Cook" wrote in message . com... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? I have no idea. I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. I am? Yes, you are. I don't think so. Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the Liberal/Democrat/Socialist machine. How did they manage this? That you don't know proves how effective their brainwashing and propaganda is. LOL. Since they never gave me any information about it, it was a hell of a trick! I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many people (obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it would reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was "stolen." What they willfully refuse to recognize is that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to stop the recount that had nothing to do with concealing anything, but rather had to do with federal election law and fundamental fairness in voting. As for what might have been "revealed," Democratic operatives and their lackeys in the liberal media have been trying for YEARS to "reveal" some impropriety that proves Bush "stole" the election...and they haven't been able to prove anything. Not to you. To anyone. I challenge you to cite a SINGLE reputable report examining the ballots that has Gore winning. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html You could find dozens more if you looked. To the contrary, EVERY unofficial "recount" of the ballots, and it's been done several times, proves again and again that Bush won and Gore lost. There's all sorts of interpretations that say Gore won/Bush won. Interpretations don't count. Ballots do. No review of the actual ballots in Florida has ever put Gore ahead. Period. We'll never know who won. Bush wouldn't let us find out. None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about that election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there are many others) contributors to that viewpoint. Well, there it is. Your argument that Bush "stole" the election with the assistances of the "republicans on the Supreme Court" has been factually demolished but you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong, so now you put "stolen" in parentheses and attempt to recast your argument as one of "impressions and interpretations" about the legitimacy of the election. This is dishonest debate. I'm not sure you understand what I am debating. I'm quite certain that you don't. I think I am part of what is probably a very large group of people who think that there was an unacceptable and alarming amount of irregularities in the electoral process that gave Bush a victory in what was obviously an extremely close vote, and that there should have been a full examination of these issues with an official recount. That fact that this did not happen means that the election is forever remembered as the one that Bush stole. That's merely liberal whining and logical fallacy. Even if there were not "full examination" it would not therefore follow that Bush "stole" the election. The fact that he wasn't intrested in the truth is why people think he stole it. First, "stole" implies some deliberate action on Bush's part to engage in election fraud. No such evidence exists. Some people think it does. Second, if, as you argue, there was no "full examination" of the evidence, it is impossible to conclude that Bush "stole" the election. The absence of evidence is not evidence. One cannot infer from a lack of evidence that either candidate was responsible for the lack of evidence. I could just as reasonably say, had Gore won, that he "stole" the election, and I'd be just as incorrect as you are. If Gore has stopped the recount, I'd be right there saying he stole it. Third, there was an "official recount," and the results showed that Bush won the election. There was not an "official recount of the recount" because the United States Supreme Court ruled that the process used by Florida, and ratified by the Florida Supreme Court, was unconstitutional. LOL. As to having an "official recount of the recount" including all ballots, the law does not provide for such a recount. But the law DOES mandate that the election be certified within a strict time frame. The purpose of this time frame is to help prevent election fraud and to prevent endless delays of the certification that has the potential of bringing the federal government to a halt because some disgruntled voters disagree with the results of the election. There is no guarantee of a "perfect" election, there is merely a right to vote in a "fair" election. If you screw up your vote, and it isn't counted as a result, that's YOUR problem, not something that impeaches the election. If you're too stupid to properly mark your ballot, again, that's YOUR problem. If you care that much, then you need to take great care and ask for assistance if you're having trouble with the system. The failure in the Florida punch-card system was in not simply having a regulation requiring that a "chad" be completely punched out and removed from the ballot in order for that vote to count. Had they had this simple instruction, there would have been no debate at all. If you screw up your ballot, it's not the election commission's problem. The whole thing is a disgrace. From the same president who lectures Europeans about democracy. LOL! The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters You really think the Democrats are Socialists? Wow. By and large, yes, though many of them aren't far enough left to suit the Socialists. The Democrats are working hard to get far enough left, however, even to suit Castro or Marx. What is Socialist about the Democratic party? worldwide are simply bereft that their Socialist stooges lost and are trying to whip up anti-Bush sentiment using propaganda because they know that they have no real foundation for their arguments. Fortunately, we don't give a damn what "many others" think about our election. They don't get to vote, so they can pound sand. The funny thing is Bush is going around sucking up to the Europeans like crazy right now. It's kind of embarassing. I agree. I'm disappointed in him. But, he's president, so he gets to make the decisions. Only because he stole the election. Bush won fair and square, both times. Get over it. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and end it? I have no idea who is right or wrong, because we never got to find out. That you have no idea is unsurprising, but not indicative of the surety of the election. The election was a MESS by any standard. It was never cleaned up, just swept under the rug. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Weiser says: ================ Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary importance in the first place. ================ OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing? After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: " it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!" make up your minds. frtzw906 You acknowledge "before the war, all we heard was: " it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!" Is it possible that you were listening to certain medias that were just quoting each other over and over and not really researching beyond the news wire feed, and ending up with the same story. Not the whole story, just the part they wanted you to hear, and which was the part you now acknowledge you heard. When the decision was made to invade, the media had no reason to overstate the WMD argument, because they had no idea that Bush was lying and no idea that no WMD would be found and in fact I can't remember even one media feature that questioned whether or not Iraq in fact has WMD. But if you care to read the address to the UN prior to the invasion, it's quite clearly stated that it's about WMD. Thanks KMAN for taking the time from your busy schedule of debating with rick and Scott, to comment on my post. The question that I had with Frtzw was regarding what he heard. If he limited himself to only certain sources of info, he would have heard what he acknowledge he heard. That does not mean that there were not other sources of info from which he could have heard additional and more complete info. I recall hearing many programs speaking of the human rights violations against Shiite, Kurds, the Iraq Olympic team, etc. His sadistic sons and the treatment of women, and murder of fellow countrymen. Fly over violation with his radar targeting coalition airplanes. Terrorist training. Threats to kill our president, and generally terrorize the US. That Powell went to the UN and presented a limited case of UN violations is not a surprise to me. The UN was not concerned about human rights violations taking place right under the nose of their inspectors. So as in any court, the arguement is limited to pertinent points of law. However that does not mean that their are not other calls to action that were being made. If you choose to limit yourself to what you want to hear, then I can understand when you say that you only heard certain subjects, by choice. That is different than saying the other subjects were not presented at all, just that you were ignorant of them. Now I know that you are generally a bright person, so I would not characterize you as ignorant, though we all have our blind spots. I would just encourage you to get more of the story, which may mean listening to FOX News. I realize that you may not like what they say, but that is part of being informed. If all you do is listen to the same tripe all the time, from the network news services, that is part of being uninformed. TnT I listened and read EXACTLY what the Bush administration cited as their reasons for invading, and it was, to a massive degree, all about WMD, and only some brainwashed freak who ONLY watches Fox "News" would fall for the sloppy revisionism that has gone on in the days since the WMD disappeared. |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
It's a fact well documented even by the liberal media. They surrendered - it's the "gladly" part that is a fiction. The US media showed huge crowds of cheering Iraqis welcoming the US soldiers. Media in the rest of the world showed the exact same scenes without the tightly cropped view. The "huge" crowds turned out to be dozens of people. Same technique is used in Hollywood to make a few extras look like a mob. US fiction. He did. That he couldn't get his troops to fight for him to the death shows that his style of rule was ineffective at garnering loyalty. If he had them and the Iraqi troops left them alone, then why didn't the yanks find them? They can't be spirited out of the country in an instant and wouldn't likely be hidden by folks that wouldn't support their leader. He had twelve years. Which means he _didn't_ have them to fight with. I ask again. Did he have them to fight with or not? He miscalculated US determination and military power...twice. But got away with it once. That sorta doesn't make your point. That's why we're called a "sovereign nation." There are lots of soveriegn nations. Perhaps the US should remember that. Mike |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: "Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything." Sounds pretty derisory to me. That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists. It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools. But then, you can't read very well. Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what "God" is. How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what it is you are setting out to prove? The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist. Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult. Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a realm in which we don't exist. Mike Unless you are insane. Those who KNOW that "god" exists are quite certain about it and see no problem with promoting their unique personal fantasy as factual reality. |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... Since God exists in a spiritual world A thinking human being can't help but conclude that such Gods as may exist (assuming that any do) probably don't feel constrained by your vapid pronouncements. One cannot but believe they'd exist wherever the hell they please. and we exist in a physical world, Being both expectant and patient, we hope that will change........soon.........for some of us. But, we are willing to wait as long as necessary. there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a realm in which we don't exist. And thus we all see.......and some sympathize with........your problem. Wolfgang |
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most heinous sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable. Which also describes US treatment of prisoners in Iraq. Second, he was facilitating and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated the 9/11 attacks. No one has ever made a credible link between Saddam and 9/11. I imagine you get your news from the CBC, so I wouldn't expect you to have heard anything even reasonably unbiased. I get news from The Economist, a British right-wing news magazine. They reported the same news and then condemned the US for fraud after the results of the invasion were revealed. Third, all the above justifications were repeated by the administration many, many times. That the liberal press refused to publish them is not the administration's fault The first invasion of Iraq was preceded by a huge mass of propaganda that proved to be complete fiction (e.g. nuclear-hardened bunkers filled with Republican Guards just inside the border). Given such a precedent, why should we believe anything the US Administration says? Mike |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:56:14 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote: On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most heinous sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable. Which also describes US treatment of prisoners in Iraq. I've kind of wondered about this. Who thought Abu Ghraib was a good place to continue to keep prisoners? From what I understand, the place had a pretty bad rep even before the US got there. Why not just tear it down? For that matter, why did US generals and others use Saddam's palaces? Having an occupying army billeted in luxury smacks more of "new boss same as the old boss" than it does of any kind of "liberation." Second, he was facilitating and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated the 9/11 attacks. No one has ever made a credible link between Saddam and 9/11. Even George W Bush has said he has seen no evidence to link Saddam and 9/11. I imagine you get your news from the CBC, so I wouldn't expect you to have heard anything even reasonably unbiased. I get news from The Economist, a British right-wing news magazine. They reported the same news and then condemned the US for fraud after the results of the invasion were revealed. Third, all the above justifications were repeated by the administration many, many times. That the liberal press refused to publish them is not the administration's fault The first invasion of Iraq was preceded by a huge mass of propaganda that proved to be complete fiction (e.g. nuclear-hardened bunkers filled with Republican Guards just inside the border). Given such a precedent, why should we believe anything the US Administration says? Lets see if I've got this straight: The same bunch that predicted what would happen to the Peacock Throne in Iran, the same crowd that accurately forewarned folks about the Tet offensive, among other things in Viet Nam, the folks that told all of us about the eventual breakup of the Soviet Union, the crew that provided us with the hard evidence of WMD in Iraq, this gang now wants us to believe they know what is going on in Syria? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Illiterate? Write for FREE help |
Weiser, in reference to frtzw906 says:
==================== And yet you did. You said that agriculture should be reduced by 50% to save water for other uses. ================ Nope. Wasn't me. Perhaps KMAN or michael, but never me. frtzw906 |
Weiser, in reference to the genesis of this part of the thread say:
=============== Which you turned to a discussion of water and agriculture. ====================== Nope. It was ALWAYS about the economics of subsidies, with agri-business standing in as a prime example thereof. frtzw906 |
"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:56:14 GMT, "Michael Daly" wrote: On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most heinous sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable. Which also describes US treatment of prisoners in Iraq. I've kind of wondered about this. Who thought Abu Ghraib was a good place to continue to keep prisoners? From what I understand, the place had a pretty bad rep even before the US got there. Why not just tear it down? The prison existed - much faster than building new. It should be destroyed now that there is time to do it. But since it belongs to the new government it really should be their decision what to do with it. I'm sure the families of anyone that was ever there would like to see it replaced by something else. For that matter, why did US generals and others use Saddam's palaces? Having an occupying army billeted in luxury smacks more of "new boss same as the old boss" than it does of any kind of "liberation." Yes it probably does, but it was a fast moving invading force and they wanted secure command areas and I would assume that the palaces were fortified and built to be easily defended. I wonder what they will do with them now? I suggest Universitys/Schools/librarys something for the public good. Second, he was facilitating and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated the 9/11 attacks. No one has ever made a credible link between Saddam and 9/11. Even George W Bush has said he has seen no evidence to link Saddam and 9/11. I imagine you get your news from the CBC, so I wouldn't expect you to have heard anything even reasonably unbiased. I get news from The Economist, a British right-wing news magazine. They reported the same news and then condemned the US for fraud after the results of the invasion were revealed. Third, all the above justifications were repeated by the administration many, many times. That the liberal press refused to publish them is not the administration's fault The first invasion of Iraq was preceded by a huge mass of propaganda that proved to be complete fiction (e.g. nuclear-hardened bunkers filled with Republican Guards just inside the border). Given such a precedent, why should we believe anything the US Administration says? Lets see if I've got this straight: The same bunch that predicted what would happen to the Peacock Throne in Iran, the same crowd that accurately forewarned folks about the Tet offensive, among other things in Viet Nam, the folks that told all of us about the eventual breakup of the Soviet Union, the crew that provided us with the hard evidence of WMD in Iraq, this gang now wants us to believe they know what is going on in Syria? Inteligence agents and weathermen - don't bet your life on either. But I guess each are right sometime - as I sit watching the snow come down that was supposed to be over by now. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Illiterate? Write for FREE help |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com