"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message


snippage...


======================
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.
==========================
Nice strawman fool. You claimed that they went down to the local
gun store and bought AK47s. Kinda figure out finally just how
stupid that makes you look?






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?
===============
Why, is it not your first language? because everything you have
spewed on guns as been the ignorance of the brainwashed. You not
only believe your brainwashed ignorance, you relish it. You have
no desire to know the truth as long as your ignorance means you
don't have to think for yourself.





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?
==================
I'm not. You're just enamored with it. You've heard your
ideologs say it, so it must mean something, eh? You don't have a
clue, but then, that's never stopped you before. Tell me how
many millions of crimes are committed every year with these
so-called assault weapons, fool. You've been caught with your
strawmans pants down around your ankles again, and you just don't
like it.



If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug
related offences I'd be interested to see them.
=================
Still to stupid to research anything yourself I see.

rick says:
==============
I see, anyone with information that desputes your ideology is
bogus. Thanks for the idiot-light warning.
======================

I don't think that's what I said. I said.... watch for it.....
carefully now..... :"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."

In my opinion, knowing from whence an organization's fundng comes, is
critical to establishing what sorts of biases they have. I have no
problem with information that disputes my "ideology" so long as it is
credible. The Fraser Institute is not such an organization. The Fraser
Institute does the bidding of its patrons.

frtzw906

Well since your absolute hatred of Bush has blinded your reason I will stop
answering this thread.

Yes the Republican members of the court stopped the count. It was stopped
because it was wrong not to recount the whole state. Would they have stopped
it if it had been the whole state - probably - and that would have been
wrong. But working with the question before them they were absolutely right
to stop the count. Targeted recounts were not the answer.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

That is not even close to true. The invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Nope.

Prove it.


The
invasion of Honduras was illegal.

Nope.

Prove it.

Mike

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Once mo "Rights" are not granted by the Constitution. Rights exist as an
inherent part of one's humanity, even without the existence of government,
and they cannot be repealed or removed by government on a wholesale basis.

Sophistry.

Your rights may be deemed to exist independent of any government or
document, but in real terms, you cannot enjoy those rights unless
you are permitted to by governments and/or the majority and/or
the tyrants that hold power. Individuals have nothing that can
control this. Only civilizations do.

Mike

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
rick says:
==============
I see, anyone with information that desputes your ideology is
bogus. Thanks for the idiot-light warning.
======================

I don't think that's what I said. I said.... watch for it.....
carefully now..... :"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."

In my opinion, knowing from whence an organization's fundng
comes, is
critical to establishing what sorts of biases they have. I have
no
problem with information that disputes my "ideology" so long as
it is
credible. The Fraser Institute is not such an organization.
==================
LOL According to your ideology. Thanks for the laugh of the
day.



The Fraser
Institute does the bidding of its patrons.
===========================
So, like I said. That means you claim that the information on
the wait times for treatment across Canada are bogus.
I've yet to see you refute their information. Like all ideologs
you just abuse their name hoping that that will be enough to
cloud the information. Nice try, but as usual, the problems a
of wait times are claimed by more that just the Fraser Institue.
I used them because they have the information by type of service
catorized and charted. You can access CBC sites, union sites,
and others and get the information, but it is not as readily
charted for reading. You and kman can continue to pretend that
by abusing the messenger that the data is false, but you and I
really know that the problems exist.




frtzw906

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Which brings money to the US and stimulates the economy.

It cost more to produce than you make by selling and that
stimulates the economy? Never studied economics did you.

Ah, and we finally come to the real agenda...what "other uses" do you have
in mind?

How about letting Californians live without artificial water shortages
caused by agriculture taking the vast majority of what is available.

Mike

rick, do you only read what you want? Did you miss what I said earlier?
Once more.... wait for it...... read carefully now..... I said "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. "

OK, did you get that? Now did you get what I followed up with? My
follow-up was that whereas Canadians may be seeking solutions to the
problems, the American model would be unlikely to be such a solution.
Without even getting into moral or ethical questions (which are very
much a part of the debate), and simply dealing with economics and
questions of systemic efficiency, the American model falls short.

My point has been simple: the American models fails on just too many
counts to be worthy of consideration.

I agree: You have not held up the American model as being flawless.
However, would I be correct in discerning that you'd prefer the
American system over the Canadian system?

frtzw906

On 20-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. You prove nothing,
because you can't. You still don't have a clue about government on
an international level.

which US states have their ***own*** seats in the UN

All 50 US states have seats, through the federal government.

You can't read, can you?

Mike

BCITORGB wrote:

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.

LOL! Considering how the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton who only
admitted to smoking pot and not inhaling and using cigars on not very
attractive girls, I wonder in what they'll do with a president who
admits to using cocaine?

Of course, considering the double standards they use, they'll probably
do nothing. :-(

(2) he might
want to try some of the cafes that are so popular in amsterdam. GRIN

My guess is that he will pass those with his nose high in the air...
while some secret service guy quickly wipes the white powder from his
nose. They usually don't sell cocaine in those cafe's.

Anyway, say "hi" from all of us, will you?

Some of my friends are down there now, I guess their protests could be
considered "sending him some greetings"by the propaganda machine... :-)

"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?' "
======================

Hey kids, get a rich daddy with the right connections and you can get
away with anything (in no particular order): being AWOL during wartime,
warcrimes, torture, hard drug abuse, public drunkenness, financial
mismanagement of big companies as well as the whole nation, wholescale
murder, (including the roughly 8500 deaths of U.S. servicemen as a
direct result of Iraq... far more wounded U.S. soldiers die on their way
to or shortly after arrival to hospitals in Germany than in Iraq itself)
lying, using double standards, mixing church and state, terrorising the
population and what more.

So much for a president giving the right example...

Wilko

--
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/