"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 9:12 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...


snippage...


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"
==============
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. The only thing 'exposed' was you continued
ignorance on any subject you seem to reply to.





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 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.

It happens.
===================
What corner store did they buy these guns from? Your ignorance
is exposed, again...





http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm

Detroit shooting spree deaths climb

Multiple victims contribute to alarming homicide rate

June 4, 2004

Destiny Payne, 11, lost an eye after her home on Dequindre was
shot up in
April. With her is her mom, Yolanda Richardson. Police say the
suspect
admitted to having the wrong house. His real target was a rival
drug dealer.
Gunmen spraying bullets with high-powered weapons and killing
more than one
person during a single shooting spree are driving up Detroit's
homicide
rate.

Detroit police call it the new gangster mentality. The
haphazard shooters
kill more than one person in an effort to leave no witnesses
behind or to
send messages of dominance without regard to who is in the
bullets' paths.

Such manic gunplay is the latest trend in one of America's most
violent
cities, according to Detroit police, national experts and a
Free Press
analysis of homicide statistics over the past 2 1/2 years.

The numbers show:

* About 60 multiple-victim shootings through May 31 of this
year. In 17
of those cases, more than one person died, compared with seven
such deaths
at this time last year.

* The practice of shooting up homes, cars and yards is
catching children
in the cross fire, contributing to child homicides.

RELATED CONTENT

* HOMICIDE VICTIMS: Those in drug trade are statistic
leaders

* Of the nation's 10 largest cities, Detroit -- ranked
10th --
experienced the greatest increase in homicides in the first
five months of
this year -- in large part, because of multiple-victim
shootings.

But Detroit police say one of the biggest culprits in
multiple-victim
homicides is rival drug dealers.

"There is a drug war in this city. It's not an organized war;
it's a
guerrilla war," said a Detroit homicide detective, who asked
not to be named
because he feared retaliation for speaking without department
permission.
Criminologists say they do not know of any other city that is
experiencing
as many multiple-victim shootings and related homicides as
Detroit.
According to police in the nine other largest cities, such
shootings are
rare.

Detroit homicide detectives call them common.

During a single week in May, there were three multiple-victim
shootings,
killing two people and injuring seven. There were no triple,
quadruple or
quintuple homicides at this time last year. But this year,
there have been.

"You may or may not have the right house. You may or may not
have the right
person. You may or may not have the right person in the right
house,"
Detroit Homicide Lt. William Petersen said of shooters. "It's
just stupid.
There are so many people dying of stupidity out here."

And sometimes, children are the unintended victims.

This year, 11 children 16 and younger have been killed, four
accidentally.In
at least one case, children were injured when a shooter took
aim at the
wrong house.

Last Friday, a 4-year-old was killed when someone shot up her
father's car
as he was putting his children inside. The child's father also
died. A
6-month-old child was not injured. There have been no arrests.

Four children were wounded April 7 when the wrong house was
sprayed with
gunfire.

Yolanda Richardson was making Easter plans with her six
children and an
8-year-old guest at her home in the 17500 block of Dequindre
when the walls
exploded with bullets.

The bullets hit Richardson in the buttocks; they struck
16-year-old Johnnie
and 9-year-old Precious in the foot.

Her daughter Destiny Payne, 11, started running upstairs,
pushing her friend
up with her, Richardson said. Destiny turned around and was hit
once.

She lost her right eye.

Police arrested the alleged shooter, who they say admitted that
he shot up
the wrong house while looking for a rival drug dealer.

At the home, bullet holes remain in a chair and to the right of
the door.

Richardson is looking for a new home, but she can't afford one.
The family
is staying wherever they can find space.

"We were a house full of kids," she said. "Now we are
everywhere."

But officers also deal with the other extreme -- when a shooter
deliberately
targets everyone inside.

On March 1, for example, someone got out of a white Ford Taurus
and opened
fire as he walked up to the home of a reputed drug dealer in
the 9700 block
of Woodlawn. Using an AK47, he fatally shot Kevin Cooper, 33,
Robert Neal,
32, and Dorian Latham, 39, all of Detroit.

Two days later, Toryana Royal, 22, turned himself in to the
12th (Palmer
Park) Precinct. Another suspect, Alfonzo Thomas, 20, is still
on the lam.

5 months, 3 increases

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said she cannot explain why
Detroit has
more multiple-victim shootings than most cities but that she
thinks better
technology could curtail them.

Worthy said she would like to have better ways to track guns
and casings so
her office could better link criminals to crimes. That linkage
could
increase their prison sentences. She said criminals who kill
more than one
person often have committed other crimes.

In the span of five months, the city homicide rate has seen
three surges,
Detroit Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings said. The chief
declined to be
interviewed for this story.

The first uptick was in January, when 18 people were killed in
a six-day
period -- including a triple and three double homicides.The
homicide rate
surged again in mid-February, resulting in a decision by police
brass to
require officers to work 12-hour shifts to help curb the trend.

The rate climbed again throughout much of April, when about 40
people were
killed. In one week in April, there were four multiple-victim
shootings.

James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist, said
there has been
a slight increase in gang-related homicides nationally, led by
Los Angeles
and Chicago. But Detroit is not plagued by organized gangs.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:13 AM:


snip



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

My intent was exactly what I stated, not something you made up.
====================
Yes, spewing your ignorance. That wasn't something I made up.








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.

Sure.

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm
=====================
NAme the corner store they bought their weapons from, fool.
thanks again for displaying your ignorant ideology.

But I'll see your corner gun-marts and raise you a corner gun
rent-a-center, like they have in Toronto.
http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca...globe_jan7.htm




Now where's your link that proves Canadians are dying in wait
lines 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 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?

Uhm. The fact that you can fire a lot of bullets in a short
period of time?
Duh.
===========================
DUH, fool. Thanks again for proving your ignorance. Lots of
non-assault styled weapons can fire 'lots of bullets in a short
period of time', dolt. Thanks again for proving its all about
your ignorant ideology.



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?

Please share them.

As you are aware, thus far you are the only person that can see
them.
====================
As everyone is now aware, you are too stupid to use your
computer, even when told where to look. Like I said before fool,
that you are too afraid to know the facts is no skin off my nose.
I gave you the opportunity to find them yourself, because if I
bring them up, you claim they are biased sources. Whay a hoot
you are. thabnks again for proving your ignorant ideology...

\

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at


snip


======================
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.

Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that
provides evidence
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that
everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not
exist.
==================================
LOL Still pretending, eh fool? I see you are still afraid of
the facts. Keep up the good work in proving your ignorant
ideology.

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?
==================
You just don't like having your idocy challenged. Thanks for
the compliment.



frtzw906

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:00 AM:
Did 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 not simply state the date and time?
====================
The posts were already made. Do your own homework, fool...

Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that
provides evidence
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that
everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not
exist.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:05 AM:

snip

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.

Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that
provides evidence
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that
everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not
exist.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/25/05 1:33 AM:


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

Um. But getting back to what seemed to be a search for an answer to a
question but as usual when dealing with Tinkerntom veers off wildly
just at
the critical precursor to cognitive dissonance...

Tinkerntom. Have you actually read the statements from the president
and the
members of his administration just prior to the invasion of Iraq? If
you
have, it might be time to revisit, because your brain sounds washed.
Read
them again. And then tell me if it was not all about the WMD.

KMAN, sounds to me like you need some aspirin. You apparently read
concilatory tone as cognitive disonance. I had a great time skiing and
came back relaxed, and refreshed. I suppose you might see that as brain
washed, and I say hit me again.

I have acknowledged that there was an emphasis on WMDs prior to
invasion. though my interpretation of the emphasis is the major concern
that they would be deployed on our troops during the invasion. That
seems to be a reasonable concern, considering that it was fairly well
known that he had used them on his own countrymen, and the intelligence
that he still possesed them. In presenting to the UN reasons for
enforcement, His apparent possession of WMDs, was considered a major
violation. The fact that the UN inspectors could not find them, as a
result of his evasionary tactics did nothing to assure the US that he
in fact did not have them.

However there were many other reasons offered for enforcement of UN
sanctions. The UNs lack of guts to enforce their own sanctions only
shows them to be the inept buffoons they are, and if they don't
appreciate the US effort to protect the world from a dangerous tyrant,
it is probably more because they were exposed than any real concerns
for the rights of people anywhere, and obviously not the Iraqies.

Now this sounds very reasonable to me, and I assume to a few others
that voted for the reelection of President Bush. If you do not follow
this line of logic for whatever reason, I can only be glad that the
planning for enforcement and invasion were not left in your able hands.
Though I suspect that you would not have done any worse than the UN in
any enforcement effort, maybe even a little better, and you are not
even a military type. Your worst vision of a military weapon apparently
being an AK-47, and your best understanding of military manuvers being
derived from the war between Charlie Brown and Lucy.

I never made the claim that it was not about WMDs, just that it was not
only about WMDs. WMDs were a major concern, but not the only concern.
Hopefully this clarifies for you my interpretation, derived from many
sources of information, and not just a select few, that supports my
comfort zone for bitching. TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact remains that at the time the
decision to go to war was made, the available evidence supported the
president's decision.



Foresight not being 20-20 does not forgive errors discovered in hindsight.
If our intelligence was wrong, it was our intelligence's fault. And you
might be the only voice crying out that you still think our intelligence was
right.

Do you still believe that we invaded Iraq because we believed that he had
WMDs?? Even Bush has stopped singing that song, you might as well also. The
new reason is because he was a despot and impediment to Freedom and had to
go for the benefit of his people. If we claim we invaded because we thought
he had WMDs, and discovered that he did not, then it makes it our error,
not his crime. If we invaded because he was a despot and had to go, then
we were justified.

So Bush is being very careful to NO LONGER say that he invaded because he
thought SH had WMDs, but that SDs refusal to demonstrate that he had
destroyed his WMDs was in violation of the UN resolutions, and that left him
exposed to severe consequences. Those are not the same statements, as one
points to SHs culpability, the other to our fallability. The problem is that
nowhere does it say 'having your country invaded, your government overthrown
and your cities hammered is the punishment for violating a UN resolution'.
Especially as, while it was happening, we were acting IN LIEU of the UN,
without its support or its blessing.

--riverman

This whole debate sounds like Spinal Tap to me. "It goes to eleven! Its one
louder, innit?"

rick wrote:

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.

Pot, kettle, black...
--
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/

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?

Do you want me to tell you as it is or do you prefer a politically
correct answer? ;-)

Rick Pus is a troll in my book, but so is Last Word Weiser. The
difference between them is not so big, with both telling their prey, in
an attempt at superiority, that they don't get it, that the prey are
fools or whatever. Scott can usually keep his prey dangling a little
longer with semi-coherent retorts and vague arguments, before starting
to call people stupid, ignorant, fools, whatever, whereas Rick seems to
leave out the argumentation part, heading straight for the insults.

Neither of them are very sophisticated when it comes to being trolls,
though.

--
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/