| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#761
|
|||
|
|||
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
No, it doesn't, Prove it! and even if it did, the US is not subject to international law. Wrong again, dickhead. The US is a signatory to those international laws. But the the US isn't very good at sticking to its promises. Only terrorist and terrorist-supporting nations, and they don't deserve to be respected by anyone...and their leadership deserves to be extirpated so the people of those nations can live free. Complete bull****, with the invasion of Honduras being a prime example. You still have no idea what you are talking about. You still insist on being wrong. Mike |
|
#762
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote:
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. It would take you a lot less time to post the link than to keep insisting that you already did. What are you afraid of? Mike |
|
#764
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM: "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? "A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for anything. ============== Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite the fact that it isn't so. How much is a lot of donuts? 1000? Only a nut like you thinks "a lot" means 1000s! Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons, do you, fool? I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of people quickly. ===================== No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault weapons calibers are very intermediate cartridges, designed to wound rather than kill. Oh, great! There are many weapons that have far greater chance of killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill? Sure, even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they "look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute. I'll amend: I know that an assault rifle is designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. |
|
#765
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "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... AHAHAHA! So now it matters which store they bought them at? Heehee. It's fun watching you get so pathetically desperate! 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. |
|
#766
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "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. No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them. Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick. |
|
#767
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "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. No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them. Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick. |
|
#768
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "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. No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them. Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick. |
|
#769
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Focus...focus. I have acknowledged that there was an emphasis on WMDs prior to invasion. A MASSIVE EMPHASIS. 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. Or, for a sane person, there was no evidence that they were there, Bush had other motivations to invade that he didn't want to share, so he said it was about WMD, invaded, and then changed his message later and convinced folks like yourself that WMD was not really what it was all about. 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. The fact that I am not a gun nut does not mean that I think Saddam Hussein was a great guy, or that I don't care about people who suffered under his rule. That doesn't mean I have to accept the complete lie and distortion of the Bush administration about the invasion. I never made the claim that it was not about WMDs, just that it was not only about WMDs. It was said to be - almost exclusively - about WMD at the time of the invasion. 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 No, to be honest, it just clarifies that you are a blind follower. I am aware, however, that you are not alone. You simply don't care that Bush lied to the world and invaded another nation on the basis of said lie. |
|
#770
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 24-Feb-2005, "Wolfgang" wrote: One cannot but believe they'd exist wherever the hell they please. As long as you are working with the Judeo-Christian God, you are stuck with the fact that even among the faithful, there is no story or myth where God exists in the physical world. I'll work with whomever I please. Every contact between God and man in the Bible is by proxy. Your book......not mine. Wolfgang |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Linear Mode
