 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / January 2008Huck Finn
I watched Meet the Press today a couple of times. The best one had Steve Martin as guest. I also saw Tim Russet interview Huckabee and later Obama. I suspect quite a few GOPers contribute here regularly so I have just one question for youse guys. Why is it that Democrats come across as thoughtful and intelligent while Republicans appear to be borderline retarded. Especially with regard to religion, abortion, evolution, common sense sh.t. Is it not embarrassing sometimes to be a Republican ? Is it not embarrassing > sometimes to be a Republican ? More so to be a liberal democrat.  Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > Is it not embarrassing > > > sometimes to be a Republican ? > > More so to be a liberal democrat. Especially when one considers that the Democrats are represented here by the like of "Carl" and the other hoplophobic cowards > Why is it that Democrats come across as thoughtful and intelligent while > Republicans appear to be borderline retarded. Especially with regard to > religion, abortion, evolution, common sense sh.t. Is it not embarrassing > sometimes to be a Republican ? There is a difference between "thoughtful and intelligent" and "clueless and naive"... Apparently, you can't tell the difference... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. >> Why is it that Democrats come across as thoughtful and intelligent while >> Republicans appear to be borderline retarded. Especially with regard to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There is a difference between "thoughtful and intelligent" and "clueless > and naive"... Apparently, you can't tell the difference... What a moronic comment. Are you Republican by any chance ? Forget that, just answer 2 questions, truthfully, if it doesn't embarrass you: Are you pro-choice ? Do you believe in evolution ? This will tell us if you're "thoughtful and intelligent" or "clueless and naive". > What a moronic comment. And your mother dresses you funny... Now that introductions are out of the way....... > Are you Republican by any chance ? Yes, although they tend to be a bit too liberal for my taste... > Forget that, just answer 2 questions, truthfully, if it doesn't embarrass > you: > > Are you pro-choice ? Of course... Not only do I believe in pre-natal abortions, but I fully support post-natal abortions... At least up until 18 or so... Parents need to be able to determine that they made a mistake and be able to cut their losses... Most of the wimpy leftist liberals out there only believe in pre-natal abortions... > Do you believe in evolution ? Yes... But I believe that we have been cheating natural selection a bit too much thanks to the leftists and their nanny state... > This will tell us if you're "thoughtful and intelligent" or "clueless > and naive". Obviously, I'm "thoughtful and intelligent"... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. > Is it not embarrassing sometimes to be a Republican ? Double U - No, I don't think so. > I watched Meet the Press today a couple of times. > The best one had Steve Martin as guest. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > religion, abortion, evolution, common sense sh.t. Is it not embarrassing > sometimes to be a Republican ? The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is who they want to give your money to. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. > > I watched Meet the Press today a couple of times. > > The best one had Steve Martin as guest. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Democrats want to raise taxes and spend more money. Republicans want to cut taxes and spend more money. Dennis On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:35:05 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> > I watched Meet the Press today a couple of times. >> > The best one had Steve Martin as guest. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Democrats want to raise taxes and spend more money. >Republicans want to cut taxes and spend more money. So which team is being more logical? JF > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:35:05 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > JF 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Under one plan, you get more money per person from a smaller number of people. Under the other, you get less per person but the costs are spread out over a larger population. Either way, they're taking money away from their constituents to give it to someone else. Obviously, for government to run, that has to happen to some degree, but this is ridiculous. >6 of one, half a dozen of the other. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >someone else. Obviously, for government to run, that has to happen to some >degree, but this is ridiculous. So is following a party line, at least when the parties are all bent. JF > > > I watched Meet the Press today a couple of times. > > > The best one had Steve Martin as guest. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Dennis Democrats want to raise taxes/Republicans want to cut taxes is all just smoke and mirrors. The plain and simple truth is that the only substantial difference between the two major parties is the benficiary of their government funded coddling. > > > > I watched Meet the Press today a couple of times. > > > > The best one had Steve Martin as guest. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > The plain and simple truth is that the only substantial difference between > the two major parties is the benficiary of their government funded coddling. Economically, to be sure. But there are some differences on the "social" platforms as well, abortion being just one example. On Dec 31, 2:51 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gamil.com> wrote: >> Democrats want to raise taxes/Republicans want to cut taxes is all just >> smoke and mirrors. >> The plain and simple truth is that the only substantial difference between >> the two major parties is the benficiary of their government funded coddling. > Economically, to be sure. But there are some differences on the > "social" platforms as well, abortion being just one example. Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of us in some way is the economic one. Abortions only affect a small portion of the population one way or the other. Most of the "social" platforms are the same way. These issues seem very important to those that are directly affected (in the case of abortion, those people who would choose to have an abortion) as well as some vocal groups of people (religious nutters), but the issue doesn't really affect most of us. > On Dec 31, 2:51 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gamil.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > abortion) as well as some vocal groups of people (religious nutters), but > the issue doesn't really affect most of us. Don't be so sure. Abortion rights can affect sex habits. I'd hate for the women of America to become less promiscuous simply by overturning Roe v. Wade. Likewise, Democrats have a much more pro-environment platform. Clean air and water benefit a large spectrum of the population. Democrats are more illegal-immigrant friendly, another area that affects a vast majority of the population who rely on heavily illegal- immigrant "subsidized" agricultural products and construction projects. Universal health care is another biggie. There are millions of Americans without adequate health coverage, lacking basic preventative care that could stave off much more serious illness in the future (that would eventually be treated at a high cost to the taxpayers). That's a pretty large spectrum of the population. The differences between the parties are vast. If the only issue you care about is lower taxes, then you'll probably vote Republican no matter what the Democrats can do for our country. Fortunately for a lot of Americans, there's more to life than worrying about taxes. > Don't be so sure. Abortion rights can affect sex habits. I'd hate > for the women of America to become less promiscuous simply by > overturning Roe v. Wade. Well, I can say that overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't have any affect on my sex life, so it's a non-issue to me. > Likewise, Democrats have a much more pro-environment platform. Clean > air and water benefit a large spectrum of the population. > Democrats are more illegal-immigrant friendly, another area that > affects a vast majority of the population who rely on heavily illegal- > immigrant "subsidized" agricultural products and construction > projects. > Universal health care is another biggie. There are millions of > Americans without adequate health coverage, lacking basic preventative > care that could stave off much more serious illness in the future > (that would eventually be treated at a high cost to the taxpayers). > That's a pretty large spectrum of the population. It sounds to me like those three points are all ways that the democrats want to take the tazpayers money and give it to someone else along with arguments that the republicans don't want to give the money to those same consittuents. How is that different from what I said? > The differences between the parties are vast. If the only issue you > care about is lower taxes, then you'll probably vote Republican no > matter what the Democrats can do for our country. Fortunately for a > lot of Americans, there's more to life than worrying about taxes. No, the differences aren't that vast. The primary objective of most of the politicians (as far as I've been able to tell) is to increase their coffers and further their political career. While I appreciate having less of my own money taken away from me, I also recognize that the government hasn't curbed their spending which means that either the government is getting more money from other folks to make up the difference, I'm going to have to go back and make up the difference later anyway, or they will have to curb their spending dramatically at a later date. Since the last is option is unlikely to occur, and the second is the most probable of the two remaining, lower taxes isn't necessarily all that great either. I hate tax and spend politicians, no matter which clothing (rep/dem/other) they are wearing. > Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of us > in > some way is the economic one. Second amendment rights affect us all, one way or another. > > Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of us > > in > > some way is the economic one. > > Second amendment rights affect us all, one way or another. Simply not true. Except when I'm reading rec.scuba, I hardly ever think about the second amendment. gc >>>Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of us >>>in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > gc Thank God, for that >> > Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of >> > us [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > gc We know. That doesn't mean it affects you any less. It just means that like many of your kind, you just choose not to think about it. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Jan 2, 11:17 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> Second amendment rights affect us all, one way or another. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That doesn't mean it affects you any less. Nor does it affect me any more. > It just means that like many of your kind, you just choose not to think > about it. This post shows remarkably good reading comprehension on your part, Dougie. That's exactly what I said. Not sure what "my kind" is, but I'm sure your bigotry has me completely (and completely inaccurately) stereotyped. That also doesn't affect me. gc > On Jan 2, 11:17 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Nor does it affect me any more. Funny, just a short time ago you were crying about how your neighbors' guns being stolen "made us all less safe", yet you say the possible consequences of the decision going radically either way won't affect you? Real deep thinker, eh? >> It just means that like many of your kind, you just choose not to think >> about it. > > This post shows remarkably good reading comprehension on your part, > Dougie. That's exactly what I said. This post doesn't do the same for you, because that's not at all what you said. You been hanging out with Futile too much. > Not sure what "my kind" is, but > I'm sure your bigotry has me completely (and completely inaccurately) > stereotyped. That also doesn't affect me. I'm the least bigoted person to walk the earth since Jesus. I hold you accountable for what you say here, and point out your hypocrisies, but you don't rate the effort of me "stereotyping" you in any way. That's just your narcissism. > gc SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Jan 3, 11:17 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message <snip to the good part> > I'm the least bigoted person to walk the earth since Jesus. Now you compare yourself to Jesus. You come out with this gem and I'm laughing so hard here that my stomach hurts. You're always good for the entertainment factor. > I'm the least bigoted person to walk the earth since Jesus. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's just your narcissism. Narcissus would be jealous; He never had the option of slacks. > Second amendment rights affect us all, one way or another. Yeah right. If you couldn't own a room full of guns or buy as many as you can afford at the Saturday morning flea market we'd all be affected ? Are you retarded ? >> Second amendment rights affect us all, one way or another. > Yeah right. > If you couldn't own a room full of guns or buy as many as you can afford > at the Saturday morning flea market we'd all be affected ? Are you > retarded ? Nope. Patriotic, but not retarded. Apparently you're not so fortunate. > > Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of us > > in > > some way is the economic one. > > Second amendment rights affect us all, one way or another. No candidate seriously has second amendment rights removal as a part of their platform, so that's pretty irrelevant. >>> Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of > us [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No candidate seriously has second amendment rights removal as a part of > their platform, so that's pretty irrelevant. How long do you think it will be before that forms a major part of a candidate's platform ? Now, don't get excited. I don't mean a gun ban. Just maybe, let's say, something along the lines of common sense. I think another generation or two will do it. Gun ownership and use will become a privilege, not a right. Like driving a car. Or, something the Grummeister might understand, flying a plane. Anyway, don't worry boys, you'll be long gone before anyone has to hang up their holsters. Won't be long though. Bet on it. Let your grandkids collect. > How long do you think it will be before that forms a major part of a > candidate's platform ? Now, don't get excited. I don't mean a gun ban. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you'll be long gone before anyone has to hang up their holsters. Won't > be long though. Bet on it. Let your grandkids collect. As I've said before, I consider travel a right, not a privilege... Although I have a pilot's license, I only did it that way because I didn't really want to push my luck with regards to Darwin... Although it is possible to teach yourself how to fly, the learning curve is a bit steep and the learning process can be rather painful if you don't do it right... As long as I'm going to have to pay someone to teach me how to do it, I might as well add a piece of paper saying that I'm certified (vs certifiable <grin>)... The FAA has a couple of rules with regards to medicals and BFRs, but I figure I should go get a medical checkup every couple of years anyway so that doesn't mean much to me... With regards to BFRs, I use that as an excuse to go get some advanced training... If I ever get to the point where I can't pass my medical, I'll still fly... Same with driving... f.ck 'em... What's the point in growing old if you can't be a cantankerous old fart? So, why do you keep morphing nyms? From looking at the NNTP headers, it's pretty fuckin' obvious that you are posting under multiple nyms... Having an identity crisis this week? Have a couple of beers, it'll be alright... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. > As I've said before, I consider travel a right, not a privilege... I saw a guy argue that in court in NC. He was there for DUI and driving with no license. He refused to enter the bar and "join with the court" because the flag next to the judge had orange fringe. The judge sent him to jail for contempt. > I saw a guy argue that in court in NC. He was there for DUI and driving > with no license. He refused to enter the bar and "join with the court" > because the flag next to the judge had orange fringe. The judge sent him > to jail for contempt. Did he have something against the color orange or just against fringe? Maybe he just didn't like the Denver Broncos? SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. > > I saw a guy argue that in court in NC. He was there for DUI and driving > > with no license. He refused to enter the bar and "join with the court" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Maybe he just didn't like the Denver Broncos? The guy made a pretty long speech before he was hauled off. He said that the flag with the orange fringe is an Admiralty flag, and that by joining with the court he would be subjecting himself to Admiralty law and giving up the protection of the Constitution. He claimed that the bar under the Admiralty flag was a sovereign place and not part of the US. He also claimed that because some Federal law says that travel is a right, he did not need a drivers license, and since he did not give up his right under the law by joining with the state and getting a license, he was not subject to the state's traffic laws. > The guy made a pretty long speech before he was hauled off. He said that > the flag with the orange fringe is an Admiralty flag, and that by [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > his right under the law by joining with the state and getting a license, > he was not subject to the state's traffic laws. I like the way this guy thinks! SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. > > > I saw a guy argue that in court in NC. He was there for DUI and driving > > > with no license. He refused to enter the bar and "join with the court" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > his right under the law by joining with the state and getting a license, > he was not subject to the state's traffic laws. It all boils down to commerce. Hence the Bar. > As I've said before, I consider travel a right, not a privilege... I consider you an idiot. > Although I have a pilot's license, I only did it that way because I didn't > really want to push my luck with regards to Darwin... For some reason Darwin has missed you. > Although it is > possible to teach yourself how to fly, the learning curve is a bit steep > and the learning process can be rather painful if you don't do it right... You're a bigger idiot. > As long as I'm going to have to pay someone to teach me how to do it, I > might as well add a piece of paper saying that I'm certified (vs > certifiable <grin>)... The FAA has a couple of rules with regards to > medicals and BFRs, but I figure I should go get a medical checkup every > couple of years anyway so that doesn't mean much to me... With regards to > BFRs, I use that as an excuse to go get some advanced training... > If I > ever get to the point where I can't pass my medical, I'll still fly... No you won't. > Same with driving... f.ck 'em... > What's the point in growing old if you > can't be a cantankerous old fart ? If for some reason you've been allowed to breed, I feel sorry for you children. > So, why do you keep morphing nyms? From looking at the NNTP headers, it's > pretty fuckin' obvious that you are posting under multiple nyms... Having > an identity crisis this week? Have a couple of beers, it'll be alright... Had a couple, I'm cool. > I consider you an idiot. And your mother dresses you funny... I thought we had already gone through this part... > For some reason Darwin has missed you. I've always said that Darwin tended to be asleep when I was doing things... > You're a bigger idiot. And your mother dresses you even funnier than I originally thought... > No you won't. Of course you don't have balls enough to put your money where your mouth is... I own my own plane and as such, I'm not going to let some stinkin' little piece of paper tell me whether I can fly it or not... > If for some reason you've been allowed to breed, I feel sorry for you > children. Well, at least I'm breeding... With respect to you, I guess I have to take pity on your neighbor's dog... > Had a couple, I'm cool. But still nym-shifting, huh? Oh well... Your nym-shifting is not as anonymous with aioe.org as you would like to believe... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. >> As I've said before, I consider travel a right, not a privilege... > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > If for some reason you've been allowed to breed, I feel sorry for you > children. If we had more like Grumman - this would be a much more polite country - too bad we can't say the same for you >> So, why do you keep morphing nyms? From looking at the NNTP headers, >> it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Had a couple, I'm cool. >>>> Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you'll be long gone before anyone has to hang up their holsters. Won't > be long though. Bet on it. Let your grandkids collect. Are you related to JOF??? Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > Are you related to JOF??? I think so. Somehow through Popeye. >> Are you related to JOF??? > > I think so. Somehow through Popeye. That ould not be possible >>> Are you related to JOF??? >> >> I think so. Somehow through Popeye. > >That ould not be possible We're brothers. Can't you see the likeness? JF >>>>Are you related to JOF??? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > JF I guess I am going to have to look a little harder! >>>>>Are you related to JOF??? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I guess I am going to have to look a little harder! Portly, bald, argumentative, beer drinkin', beef chompin', most comfortable in jeans & teeshirts a.sholes. How much more brethrenly could we be? JF > Portly, bald, argumentative, beer drinkin', beef chompin', most > comfortable in jeans & teeshirts a.sholes. How much more brethrenly > could we be? > > JF You forgot the tattoos. > > Portly, bald, argumentative, beer drinkin', beef chompin', most > > comfortable in jeans & teeshirts a.sholes. How much more brethrenly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You forgot the tattoos. Ah. Well, that's were the divergence starts. Unless I somehow end up in a wasp concentration camp, this lilywhite skin will ne'er be marked by the inky needle. JF > > > Portly, bald, argumentative, beer drinkin', beef chompin', most > > > comfortable in jeans & teeshirts a.sholes. How much more brethrenly [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > JF You're just lacking in adequate peer pressure, John. Now that both my children have gotten tattoos, they are pressuring me to do the same. I can't resist forever... But your comment reminds me of one of the ways I pissed off a former boss. Our office was having a retreat and doing one of those "team- building/ice breaker exercises" that required everyone to tell the whole group something we were proud of that nobody else in the room knew. We heard lots of tearjerkers and some funny stories, and I was getting stumped, wanting to say something original. Finally it came my turn, and I blurted out, "I'm proud of the fact that I don't have any tattoos." My boss, who had several visible decorations on his arms, was not amused... > > > > Portly, bald, argumentative, beer drinkin', beef chompin', most > > > > comfortable in jeans & teeshirts a.sholes. How much more brethrenly [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Nothing wrong with no tattoos. The kids nowadays want tattoos to prove their "individuality" except they all get the same kinds of tattoos and in the same body places. How silly is that ? George Cathcart <george.cathcart@gmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :You're just lacking in adequate peer pressure, John. Now that both my :children have gotten tattoos, they are pressuring me to do the same. I :can't resist forever... Tell them that it will disqualify you as a blood donor. Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. > George Cathcart <george.cathcart@gmail.com> pounded away at his > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tell them that it will disqualify you as a blood donor. Resist forever. Tell them that life marks you up enough all on its own. But if that doesn't work, make sure that they don't get a tattoo of strawberries that will end up looking like watermelons in a few years. > > George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his > > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But if that doesn't work, make sure that they don't get a tattoo of > strawberries that will end up looking like watermelons in a few years. Actually, at this point, I could get a watermelon and try to make it look like a strawberry! Good idea! gc > > > George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> pounded away at his > > > keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Good idea! LOL, not a half bad plan at all, now that you mention it. >>>>>>Are you related to JOF??? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > JF do ya like guns or afraid of em? > do ya like guns or afraid of em? "ya" "em" and your name is English ? Yup, like 'em. Nope, not afraid of 'em. It's the wackos that own 'em and carry 'em and pretend they know how to handle 'em that make me nervous. > > do ya like guns or afraid of em? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's the wackos that own 'em and carry 'em and pretend they know how to > handle 'em that make me nervous. You're a liar. A cheap liar. > >>> Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of > > us [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Just maybe, let's say, something along the lines of common sense. I > think another generation or two will do it. No less than 50 years. Probably not less than 100. >> How long do you think it will be before that forms a major part of a >> candidate's platform ? Now, don't get excited. I don't mean a gun ban. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Probably not less than 100. Closer to 50 than 100. It's coming. >>> How long do you think it will be before that forms a major part of a >>> candidate's platform ? Now, don't get excited. I don't mean a gun ban. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Closer to 50 than 100. > It's coming. Well, it's certainly not coming by any given standard today. And you're certainly planning on a Utopian future. I'd say a few more terrorist acts, with a couple famines, plagues and a world-wide economic depression or two might f.ck up your plan pretty good. What if Jeb gets elected? :-) Or wait'll Israel and Iran nuke the Gulf. That oughta get things going. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 >>>> Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you'll be long gone before anyone has to hang up their holsters. Won't > be long though. Bet on it. Let your grandkids collect. Common sense - have you been around for the last 40 years with all the stupid gun legislation has passed as a concession of legal gun owners? Punish those - severely - that use a gun irresponsibly - just as we try to do with car misuse > >>> Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of > > us [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > candidate's platform ? Now, don't get excited. I don't mean a gun ban. > Just maybe, let's say, something along the lines of common sense. I Feel free to explain what you think is missing in our current set of laws. :-) > think another generation or two will do it. Gun ownership and use will > become a privilege, not a right. Like driving a car. Or, something the You mean like, say, having to get a permit to carry concealed? > Grummeister might understand, flying a plane. Anyway, don't worry boys, > you'll be long gone before anyone has to hang up their holsters. Won't > be long though. Bet on it. Let your grandkids collect. Dennis Hi "Carl" > >>> Granted, but the only issue that directly affects the vast majority of > > us [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you'll be long gone before anyone has to hang up their holsters. Won't > be long though. Bet on it. Let your grandkids collect. >> Second amendment rights affect us all, one way or another. > No candidate seriously has second amendment rights removal as a part of > their platform, so that's pretty irrelevant. You need to look just a bit deeper . . . or just ask Greg. >>> Second amendment rights affect us all, one way or another. > >> No candidate seriously has second amendment rights removal as a part of >> their platform, so that's pretty irrelevant. > > You need to look just a bit deeper . . . or just ask Greg. Another point- If the Supreme Court goes our way on the RKBAs, there's gonna be a shitload of gun law challenges too. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > If the Supreme Court goes our way on the RKBAs, there's gonna be a > shitload of gun law challenges too. One thing about The Supremes -- they seem to be able to manage to go through a lot of effort just to accomplish nothing... Hopefully, they'll have the balls (and brains) to realize that the 2nd Amendment truly means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. > Another point- > > If the Supreme Court goes our way on the RKBAs, there's gonna be a > shitload of gun law challenges too. You got that right. >> Another point- >> >> If the Supreme Court goes our way on the RKBAs, there's gonna be a >> shitload of gun law challenges too. > >You got that right. Yeehaw! Or is that heehaw? JF >>> Another point- >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > JF It's just like you to criticize any legitimate debate on gun control. You certainly lack the sac to participate in any. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 >>> Another point- >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > JF is it musk you huskies or husk you muskies? >>>I watched Meet the Press today a couple of times. >>>The best one had Steve Martin as guest. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Dennis seems like the common denominator is spend my money - OUR MONEY! > >>>I watched Meet the Press today a couple of times. > >>>The best one had Steve Martin as guest. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > seems like the common denominator is spend my money - OUR MONEY! Which is, of course, why I'd liek to keep it. I wonder if Dave Ramsey could be talked into running.....? Dennis >> Why is it that Democrats come across as thoughtful and intelligent while >> Republicans appear to be borderline retarded. Because all Democrats have going for them is their sound and flash? Because Republicans spend their time actually doing something? Because you're not competent to judge? You think Hillary is thoughtful and intelligent? You think a middle aged Islamic is a good choice for President? > Especially with regard to religion, abortion, evolution, common sense > sh.t. You think religion, abortion and evoluation are simple common sense issues? Perhaps it's you that's simple. > Is it not embarrassing sometimes to be a Republican ? Doesn't seem to be. As it happens, I'm registered as a Democrat. I find that really embarassing, particularly when I get all their really stupid lies in political spam. Lee > >> Why is it that Democrats come across as thoughtful and intelligent while > >> Republicans appear to be borderline retarded. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Lee Speaking of which, if I tell teh Republicans to take me off of their lists, will they stop calling me for donations? The last time they called I just said "I'd send you money, but it's obvious that the Republicans are perfectly willingto spend money they don't have, so I don't really see the point. Why don't you just spend the money you don't have like our Republican government has for the last five years?" >Speaking of which, if I tell teh Republicans to take me off of their lists, >will they stop calling me for donations? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I don't really see the point. Why don't you just spend the money you don't >have like our Republican government has for the last five years?" Jeez. You guys are taking all the fun out of cheering for the Democrats. But it definitely raises the question "Why in hell are y'all so Republican?" JF > Jeez. You guys are taking all the fun out of cheering for the Democrats. > But it definitely raises the question "Why in hell are y'all so > Republican?" Lesser of the multiple evils, I guess... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. >> Jeez. You guys are taking all the fun out of cheering for the Democrats. >> But it definitely raises the question "Why in hell are y'all so >> Republican?" > >Lesser of the multiple evils, I guess... Why not look for alternatives? JF > Why not look for alternatives? Because then your vote might get wasted and if enough of them get wasted, we end up with the greater of the multiple evils in office... That's how Billy-Boy got elected... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. >> Why not look for alternatives? > > Because then your vote might get wasted and if enough of them get wasted, > we end up with the greater of the multiple evils in office... That's how > Billy-Boy got elected... And how did Georgie-Boy get elected ? At least Billy got the votes. > And how did Georgie-Boy get elected ? At least Billy got the votes. Actually Ross Perot screwed over the election for the Republicans... Without him, Bush (Sr) would have won... Personally, I tend to favor a system where the winner must have over 50% of the popular vote and we have runoff elections if the vote gets split such that no single candidate can get over 50%... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. On Dec 31, 7:27 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-rec-sc...@spambob.net> wrote: > > And how did Georgie-Boy get elected ? At least Billy got the votes. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > runoff elections if the vote gets split such that no single candidate can > get over 50%... Should be real interesting if Bloomberg joins the fracas and sets up Hillary for the majority. Of course Dubya never would have won without Nader's help. Funny how that works. > Should be real interesting if Bloomberg joins the fracas and sets up > Hillary for the majority. Bloomberg is even more liberal than Rudy... I would think that he would steal votes away from Hillary... > Of course Dubya never would have won without Nader's help. Funny how > that works. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Nader didn't steal many votes away from Bush... <grin> SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. On Jan 1, 7:46 am, Grumman-581 <grumman581-rec-sc...@spambob.net> wrote: > > Should be real interesting if Bloomberg joins the fracas and sets up > > Hillary for the majority. > > Bloomberg is even more liberal than Rudy... I would think that he would > steal votes away from Hillary... If it ends up being Hillary vs. Rudy, maybe. A three-way NYer battle would be more interesting than a Mets-Yankees World Series. But if it's Huckabee vs. Hillary, say? Sane Republicans would have to make the choice between Hillary and a religious nutter. Bloomberg would be the obvious middle ground. > If it ends up being Hillary vs. Rudy, maybe. A three-way NYer battle > would be more interesting than a Mets-Yankees World Series. But if it's > Huckabee vs. Hillary, say? Sane Republicans would have to make the choice > between Hillary and a religious nutter. Bloomberg would be the obvious > middle ground. Huckabee is from Arkansas... As such, he's guilty by association... Romney is from Massachusetts -- also guilty by association... To 'ell with their religious views, I can't get past their other socialistic leanings... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. > And how did Georgie-Boy get elected ? He ran against an even worse choice, Kerry. -> And how did Georgie-Boy get elected ? lee: you delete the header that tells us who you were replying to. - -He ran against an even worse choice, Kerry. - - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > -> And how did Georgie-Boy get elected ? > -He ran against an even worse choice, Kerry. - > you delete the header that tells us who you were replying to.> - I was responding to the statement above rather than to anybody in particular. Lee > >Speaking of which, if I tell teh Republicans to take me off of their lists, > >will they stop calling me for donations? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Democrats. But it definitely raises the question "Why in hell are > y'all so Republican?" I'm a conservative, which is what Republicans used to be. Dennis On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:23:51 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> >Speaking of which, if I tell teh Republicans to take me off of their >lists, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >I'm a conservative, which is what Republicans used to be. Then isn't it time to find representation that actually represents you? JF > Then isn't it time to find representation that actually represents you? On *this* planet? SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:23:51 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Then isn't it time to find representation that actually represents > you? Fortunately we have an election coming up in 2008. Dennis |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.