BoatBanter.com - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/27823-re-bill-moyers-environment-politics-christian-fundamentalists.html)

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message

snip..

In terms of ability to kill more people more quickly, it is
definitely more
dangerous than any bolt action. You won't find too many drug dealers
sporting a Field King LOL!
=================
LOL Thanks again for the proof of your stupidity. Why bring up bolt
actions? Besides, many people can fire bolt actions very very
quickly. My question was what makes the AK knockoff any more dangerous
that other weapons of the type?

I doubt it.
====================
You doubt what? I asked a question, but I doubt that you can answer, as
that would require some knowledge.
Again, tell us what makes the ak knockoff more dangerous than other.

I'm sure there are lots of others as dangerous or more dangerous.
======================
Then why the spew on only assault weapons for the last few days, fool?
Agenda?

Because assault weapons are an obvious and logical starting point in getting
rid of weapons that serve no useful purpose but to kill people.

All you are focusing on are visual aspects of a gun, the operation is
not any different that many other weapons.

It is different than any type of weapon where a lot of ammunition can't
be fired quickly.
=================
Now you ignorance is really taking over, isn't it? There are many other
weapons not on the assault weaopn list that you like to spew about that
fire just as fast, and just as many projectiles.

I didn't say otherwise. Look again.
====================
I have, you only want to rant about the cause of the day that your
ideology demands.

I'm not ranting at all.

Again you porvw that you can't think for yourself, but rely on
ignorance and sensationalism for your ideology.

No idea what you are babbling about.
====================
Of course not, that would require some thoughts of your own, and your
brainwashing doesn't allow for that, does it?

If you mean someone brainwashed me into thinking that 30000+ people dying
every year from guns is not a good thing, you are right.

But at least I am not a liar and a coward like you.
======================
LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since you are
the one afraid to look up the data I have already presented, and told you
where to look.

You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

You are a liar and a coward.

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

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.

Nothing wrong with killing a lot of people quickly, if they need killing.

And there you have it, Scott Weiser, future mass murderer.

A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:

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?

Because US Intelligence wanted to use it's reputation as one of the methods
of breaking the prisoner's ability to resist questioning.

For that matter, why did US generals and others use Saddam's palaces?

Why shouldn't they? They were unoccupied, which meant that US troops did not
have to either build new buildings or displace residents from their homes,
and they were fortified (heavily) which provided security against insurgent
attack...and they were the access points for the vast network of underground
bunkers and tunnels, so it was necessary to occupy them if for no other
reason than to prevent the insurgents from getting into the tunnels.

And if our soldiers got to bathe in gold-plated tubs and sleep on silk
sheets, well, so what? To the victors go the spoils, and they deserved every
bit of the luxury after what they accomplished.

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."

Do you really think that the Iraqi people are so stupid that they can't
differentiate US liberators from Saddam Hussein? That sounds somewhat
elitist, if not racist, to me.

Besides, most of that "luxury" had been thoroughly bombed beforehand.

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.

And yet there is a link. You just haven't heard about it because the liberal
press has been concealing it. Go read some back issues of Soldier of
Fortune. They reported on the links shortly after the war started.

--
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 BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
=========
Terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations are not "freedom fighters."
=============

depends whose ox is being gored...

Nope.

a rose by any other name....

Nope.

six of one - one half dozen of another

Nope.

who is writing the history books?

The winners, which will be us.

The fact that you cannot distinguish between terrorists (and the nations
which support them) who deliberately target civilians in a calculated
attempt to instill terror from soldiers (including "freedom fighters")
engaging other soldiers in a war is reprehensible.

--
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:

What's to stop an accused crack dealer from buying an assault rifle at the
shop on the corner and shooting a witness?

Well, a couple of things: First, there's the background check prior to
purchase and second, and most importantly, there's the likelyhood that the
witness will himself be armed and capable of defending himself. Third, there
may be other armed citizens around who can likewise take down the crack
dealer.

Then there's the fact that he'll probably be in jail and won't be able to
even attempt to buy a gun.

But, sometimes that happens, though quite rarely. Most crack dealers are
crack dealers, not murderers. These days, a lot of them don't even carry
guns, because the penalties for dealing crack while in possession of a gun
are positively draconian...and should be.

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.

Utopian nonsense.

How about if that "one person" is a child-molester/murderer just about to
slit the throat of a little boy he's just finished raping? Is it okay to
shoot him with an "assault weapon?"

How about if that "one person" is about to slit YOUR throat? Would you be
hoping someone might kill him before he finishes, or is your dedication to
non-violence deep enough that you would rather be brutally and painfully
murdered rather than have your attacker killed by someone with a gun?

How about if it's your wife, or your child?

How deep is your belief?

I've never met anybody who didn't have a limit somewhere that would provoke
them to use deadly force to defend someone dear to them.

Are you the first?

Somehow I doubt it.
--
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 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?

Going? No, not "going." Past-tense would be appropriate however.

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

You've obviously never listened to the CBC.

Wrong. That's *why* I characterize it as I do.

Once again, you use
your fantasies to create something to criticize. Try dealing
with reality.

The fact that you can't figure out the political slant of the CBC is
unsurprising. Ultra-leftist liberals are incapable of distinguishing
propaganda from fact, it's in their DNA.
--
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 riverman wrote:

"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.

Of course it does. If we were required to have 100% accurate information
before acting, nothing would ever get done.

If our intelligence was wrong, it was our intelligence's fault.

Or, it was just a matter of not being able to get more conclusive evidence
and having to operate on what we knew at the time.

And you
might be the only voice crying out that you still think our intelligence was
right.

I didn't say it was right, I said the president made a decision based on the
best available intelligence. It's his authority to make such decisions.

Do you still believe that we invaded Iraq because we believed that he had
WMDs??

No, we KNEW he had used them in the past, and therefore he necessarily HAD
them, and we KNEW that he was refusing UN inspections to confirm that he had
properly disposed of them, and we had EVIDENCE that he still had both WMD's
and production facilities. We invaded for those and numerous other reasons.

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.

It's not a "new" reason, it was one of the reasons all along.

If we claim we invaded because we thought
he had WMDs, and discovered that he did not, then it makes it our error,

Not necessarily.

not his crime.

One of his crimes was developing, stockpiling and deploying WMD's. The other
crime was failing to cooperate fully with the UN in proving to our
satisfaction that he had disposed of those stockpiles.

Absent his full and unfettered cooperation, and in the face of massive
evidence of cover-ups and shell-game movements of suspected WMD's during the
12 years he was supposed to be cooperating, the president concluded that he
was concealing WMD's and that the circumstances constituted violation of the
terms of the cease fire and were one more brick on the load justifying our
invasion.

If we invaded because he was a despot and had to go, then
we were justified.

We did.

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.

Indeed.

Those are not the same statements, as one
points to SHs culpability, the other to our fallability.

No, in both cases it points to his culpability. What Bush says now is
consistent with what he said before the war. He said that our best
intelligence estimates indicated that Saddam had, and was concealing WMD's.
The fact that he failed to comply with UN inspections was part of the
evidence upon which Bush reached this conclusion. An innocent national
leader would not deliberately obstruct UN inspections that would prove his
innocence. "Guilty knowledge" and acts that conceal the truth are compelling
evidence of harmful intent.

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'.

Excuse me? Saddam was warned many, many times that EXACTLY that would happen
if he failed to comply with the UN mandates. He was warned too many times,
in fact. He should have gotten one warning: "Comply with the UN inspections
or face destruction." Ten minutes after he obstructed any UN inspector, the
cruise missiles should have been launched.

Especially as, while it was happening, we were acting IN LIEU of the UN,
without its support or its blessing.

Screw the UN. We don't need its support or its blessing, much less its
permission. The incompetence of the UN in enforcing the cease fire agreement
is what caused the necessity for the US to act unilaterally. We waited
twelve years for the UN to do its job, and it refused. So we did it.

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Canada might reach absolute numerical parity in gun deaths with the US in a
few years, but it'll take a long time because there are so few Canadians,
comparatively speaking.

You really can't read, can you? The _rate_ in Canada is far, far lower
than in the US. It will never be equal, since no other western country
is as violent as the US.

You're wrong. I strongly suspect that the violent crime rate will exceed the
US's quite soon. GB's has in just a few years.

What's of interest is the increase in the per-capita RATE of violent crime,

And that rate is much, much lower outside the US.

But where is it *going?* Besides, you're wrong. The violent crime rate in GB
is now higher than the US.

Pay more attention,
dickhead.

To you? I think not.

--
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