"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Wilko at

wrote on 2/24/05 11:17 PM:



KMAN wrote:
"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

snip
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.

What message? He didn't post any link to any credible Canadian
reference, either in this thread or any other, I only saw "I
have" a
couple of times.

That would be my view.

But he keeps saying he has posted it, so I am sure there is
just a
misunderstanding.

Has anyone seen rick post any reference (credible or otherwise)
that proves
Canadians are dying waiting in line for health care? If so,
please provide a
link. Thanks.
=================
I realize that learning things contrary to your ideology is hard
for you, but you really should try it sometime. Rather than just
waving your hands and claiming who or who isn't credible, look it
up. But then, you've already proven that that is too much for
you, or to scary for you. maintaining your ignorance appears to
be paramount to your mental well being.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:44 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:00 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage..



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.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

What was the date and time that you last posted it?

It does not seem to be available.

Anyone else see it?
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

Why can't you simply state the date and time that you most
recently made
such a post?
======================
LOL Why can't you simply look it up for yourself? I've given
you hints on where to look. But then, that would require some
thought, and you have proven that independent thought isn't your
thing.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:44 PM:

snip

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"
==============
Yes, I repeated the gist of your previous spew... A spew
that
is
so full of ignorance and idiocy that it only gets the
derision
it
deserves.

Your "gist" include a specific claim that I did not make.
Thus,
your "gist"
was an attempt to deceive that was exposed.
=====================
No, it was not.

Whatever it was, it wasn't truthful. Because, the truth is, I
never said
what you claimed I said.
========================
Your intent was the same...







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.
=======================
No, they didn't have that in mind, and only you belive it or
are
trying to say that that occurs. Crack dealers have no
rights
to
buy arms.

Crack dealers who have not lost their rights to buy arms can
buy them. You
do realize that not every crack dealer ends up being
convicted,
right? Heck,
all they have to do is go down to the corner and buy the
right
weapon to
shoot any witnesses against them!
=====================
LOL Do you make this up as you go, or has your fantasies been
the main part of your life for years now?

What's to stop an accused crack dealer from buying an assault
rifle at the
shop on the corner and shooting a witness?
========================
Tellwhen it has happened. Setting up mythical what-ifs isn't a
discussion of rights.




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.
==================
Yet you keep implying it. How many crack dealers are there,
how
many parks? Adds up to 1000s of people killed in your
fantasy
world of make-believe.

I never said any such thing, nor implied it. If even one
person
is killed
with an assault weapon - a gun that is designed to kill many
people quickly
- that's obviously too many.
=====================
Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you talk
about
spraying in parks.

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it: if more than one
person is killed
with an assault weapon that is one too many.
=======================
Why? Why only these so-called assault weapons? Again, what
makes then so much more dangerous than other weapons?



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.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

What was the date and time of your most recent posting of
this
information?

It does not seem to be available on usenet.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.



Anyone else see it?

It doesn't seem to be available. Why won't you share the date
and time of
yoru most recent post with this information?
======================
What is apparent is your complete ignorance in the use of your
computer. Why are you afraid of the facts?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


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
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of
what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look
for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should
demand
your money back...

Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for
desiring to own an
assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of
not having
them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people
quickly.
========================
Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for
1000s) of people? Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of
what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons,
do you, fool?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:41 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:17 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

FYI:

Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts!
====================
It appears that you and kman have confused yourselves.
What
makes an AK47 knockoff any different that another less
vicious
gun?

Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than
another less
vicious gun (whatever that means)?
==================
Just displaying the ignorance of you and other anti-gun
idiots.
The assualt rifle you keep spewing about works no differently,
and fires a bullet no more powerful than other weapons.

If you mean there are other weapons that are equally capable of
killing, I
am aware, and never said otherwise.
=====================
Really? I'm surprised. Your facination with a certain weapon
because of its looks is quite amusing. Again, what makes the AK
more dangerous than other weapons?

wilko, you warned about some of these characters... i may be wrong,
because i'm new here, but after a constant barrage of rick posts, i was
very happy to see scott back... am i going nuts myself?

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT, I also think it would be interesting to find his opinion of the
large corporate farms (perhaps not in MN, I don't know) that do get
subsidies in any number of ways (water being just one of them). How
does he feel about his hard-earned money going into the pockets of
the
corporate types? And, further, ensuring that guys like me, in Canada,
get to eat cheap oranges that don't come anywhere close to reflecting
the "real" cost of production (if the real cost of water where
factored
into the equation). If he's upset, he deserves to be.

frtzw906

Frtzw, in Mn, there is usually not a problem with too little water,
more likely to much. I doubt whether the Corp farm gets much subsidy
that way. As I understand, he gets to put his hard earned money in his
own pocket, less taxes, so I am not sure that the Corps. get any of
that either. He actually seems to be rather happy with the arrangement
where by he works on their farms, and lives on his free and clear in
the country. As to you eating Ca. oranges that I suppose are being
subsidized by US taxpayers through our Gov. and its water policy,
hopefully they taste good. I know we enjoy them also. TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
wilko, you warned about some of these characters... i may be wrong,
because i'm new here, but after a constant barrage of rick posts, i
was
very happy to see scott back... am i going nuts myself?

frtzw906

I think I warned you as well, and if you notice, I have not tried to
get between him and you and KMAN. I know Kman enjoys a good headache
now and then, and I figured that now with rick was as good a time as
ever. I realize that I have given KMAN a few headaches myself, but I
believe in equal opportunity headaches, and rick's are as good as
anyone elses. I have found our conversation a little more civil, and
not needing any remedial headaches, so have a good nights rest, and
know that Scott will be back tomorrow. TnT

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, I don't like ultra-leftist liberal propaganda.

You've obviously never listened to the CBC. Once again, you use
your fantasies to create something to criticize. Try dealing
with reality.

Mike

KMAN wrote:
"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.

Well I am glad that you excluded me from your rather harsh definition,
in as much as I watch many other programs than Fox. Actually often
watch BBC on PBS, in addition to ABC, NBC, and CBS. I also have well
over 100 internet sites that I check out as far as newspapers from
around the world. Most of them pick up the UP, AP, or Reuters wire
service, so sometimes I find myself reading the same stories
repeatedly, though I am sure even at that I am sure to miss many
interesting articles. That is one reason, I like participating in this
forum for the different perspectives, and especially the supporting
references when offered. That includes yours as well even though we
have had our moments. TnT