Scuba Forum / General / July 2008
Dear John: More "Gun Free Zone" results:
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 17 Jul 2008 03:46 GMT Blagojevich: Chicago May Need National Guard Help Mayor Unaware Of Plan; Welcomes Partnership
POSTED: 1:11 pm CDT July 16, 2008 UPDATED: 7:41 pm CDT July 16, 2008
CHICAGO -- As Governor Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday signed a new law that will put in place tougher penalties for selling guns to minors, he also announced he's got a new idea to help combat the violence that Chicago is experience: he's talking to the Illinois State Police and the National Guard to see if they could help.
"Violent crime in the city of Chicago is out of control," Blagojevich said at the bill signing ceremony. "I'm offering resources of the state to the city to work in a constructive way with Mayor Daley to do everything we can possibly do to help stop this violence," said the governor.
The summer of 2008 will be remembered as especially violent. Blagojevich said there's been a child shot nearly every day since June 26. Bringing in state troopers -- even National Guard helicopters to high-crime areas -- is still very much in the planning stages.
"It might be able to free up some resources that the Chicago police uses for capital needs, to be able, to maybe to, hire more police officers, or possibly ask some to come out of retirement, to put them into these violent zones, hot zones, where, clearly, I think, part of the challenge is that gangbangers outnumber police officers five to one," Blagojevich said.
The governor said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley hasn't asked for help, but Blagojevich said he'll call the mayor once he has some concrete suggestions about what help he can provide. He didn't have many specifics, but he said it's more likely that state police will be brought in than the National Guard.
In fact, Daley's office said the mayor did not know anything about Blagojevich's comments and did not know he was going to make them.
"The mayor welcomes partnerships, not just on this issue but on a variety of issues," said spokeswoman Jody Kawada. "Beyond that, it is difficult to comment because we don't have any facts."
And police department spokeswoman Monique Bond said they learned of the comments after Blagojevich made them as well, and said it was too soon to comment.
But Bond took issue with the governor's contention that crime is "out of control" in Chicago, pointing out that if the current murder rate holds in the city, 2008 may end with fewer than 500 homicides and that it is expected to be one of the least deadly years in the city in the last 40 years.
On Wednesday, Superintendent Jody Weis was grilled by members of a city council committee, who complained both about rising crime and statistics that suggested to them that the police department wasn't doing enough to stop it.
They also come as the governor tries to find support for a massive statewide construction program that would be funded by expanded casino gambling. So far, Daley has refused to go along because he objects to the amount Blagojevich wants to charge Chicago to run a downtown casino.
Blagojevich raised that issue as he discussed the possibility of state aid with Chicago's crime problem.
"We need help in that legislative process and the mayor could be a big help in this in getting the House Democratic leadership to pass that big capital program or versions of it," the governor said.
Blagojevich's offer, whether or not it comes to anything, also puts him in the position of trying to help on an issue dominating the news in Chicago.
Blagojevich said it is far more likely that state troopers would be used than guardsmen. In fact, his office moved quickly after the governor's comments to stress in a news release that Blagojevich was not considering bringing in National Guard troops to the city.
"The only way the National Guard would be involved, if they are involved, is with the use of tactical helicopters that are currently used in narcotics operations," spokesman Lucio Guerrero said in a prepared statement.
Blagojevich had few details, but suggested that one possibility would be to assign state troopers to areas of the city with lower crime rates, freeing Chicago police officers for areas where there is more crime.
"Maybe we can play a role in providing more manpower so that the mayor doesn't have to make that choice between taking a police from, let's say the North Side, and putting that police officer on the street on the South Side," he said.
He also suggested that retired Chicago police officers and state troopers could be hired on a temporary basis to help out during the summer months when the violent crime rate typically climbs.
Blagojevich Signs Tougher Gun Bill
The bill signed Wednesday puts the adult who provides a gun to a minor in the same legal hot water as the minor who uses it to commit a crime.
The bill signed Wednesday means that adults who sell or give guns to minors are eligible for the same sentence as minors convicted of violent crimes -- including murder -- in which they used the weapon.
Before the law was signed, the maximum sentence an adult could get for providing a gun to a minor -- whether it's used in a crime or not -- was seven years.
Senator Kwame Raoul sponsored the bill after a spate of shooting deaths of Chicago school children.
Supporters of the bill said they hope the possibility of a stiffer sentence will make adults think twice about handing over guns to minors.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Scott - 17 Jul 2008 04:13 GMT TOP POSTED ON PURPOSE
Must be that win called "the war on drugs".
> Blagojevich: Chicago May Need National Guard Help > Mayor Unaware Of Plan; Welcomes Partnership [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > Supporters of the bill said they hope the possibility of a stiffer sentence > will make adults think twice about handing over guns to minors. Lee Bell - 17 Jul 2008 12:09 GMT > The summer of 2008 will be remembered as especially violent. Blagojevich > said there's been a child shot nearly every day since June 26. Say it isn't so. How can that be in a city where guns are banned? It must be more propaganda and lies from those rightist radicals.
> Bringing in state troopers -- even National Guard helicopters to > high-crime areas -- is still very much in the planning stages. Excellent idea. Replace the right to keep and bear arms with a police state. The only problem is, potential for a police state is one of the primary reasons the founding fathers wrote the Constitution in the first place. Hmmm. It must be OK, I'm sure those in power know what's best for everyone. Just look how well they've done so far.
> "It might be able to free up some resources that the Chicago police uses > for capital needs, to be able, to maybe to, hire more police officers, or > possibly ask some to come out of retirement, to put them into these > violent zones, hot zones, where, clearly, I think, part of the challenge > is that gangbangers outnumber police officers five to one," Blagojevich > said. OK, that makes some sense. Let's put more armed, law abiding citizens in areas where criminals have taken over. Seems to me I've heard that idea someplace else. Oh yeah, that's what the NRA recommends. Funny, I didn't realize the government of Chicago was pro NRA. Giving the law abiding citizens a badge is an interesting idea, but picking retirees doesn't seem like the best choice to me. Maybe it's a financial thing. My exposing retired cops to ultra violent areas, the mortality rate will bring down retirement fund costs. Not the nicest way to thank officers for their years of service, but I suppose it could work. I wonder who's going to pay all those officers. I'm pretty sure it won't be the gangbangers . . . or maybe it will be.
> But Bond took issue with the governor's contention that crime is "out of > control" in Chicago, pointing out that if the current murder rate holds in > the city, 2008 may end with fewer than 500 homicides and that it is > expected to be one of the least deadly years in the city in the last 40 > years. I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city, is good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem.
> On Wednesday, Superintendent Jody Weis was grilled by members of a city > council committee, who complained both about rising crime and statistics > that suggested to them that the police department wasn't doing enough to > stop it. I have an idea. How about arming the most likely victims, the law abiding citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves. That might work. I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so, what the results were.
> "The only way the National Guard would be involved, if they are involved, > is with the use of tactical helicopters that are currently used in > narcotics operations," spokesman Lucio Guerrero said in a prepared > statement. Interesting, tactical helicopters in downtown Chicago. Interesting way to deal with crime at the street level. I wonder if the buildings will pose a problem.
> Senator Kwame Raoul sponsored the bill after a spate of shooting deaths of > Chicago school children. > > Supporters of the bill said they hope the possibility of a stiffer > sentence will make adults think twice about handing over guns to minors. Something doesn't make much sense here. How can an adult hand a gun over to a minor, in a city where the gun is illegal in the hands of the adult and the minor? Must be a typo. I'm sure, also, that Chicago isn't suggesting that the innocent citizen share equal blame with the violent criminal.
Lee
Greg Mossman - 17 Jul 2008 16:27 GMT > I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city, is > good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem.
> I have an idea. How about arming the most likely victims, the law abiding > citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves. > That might work. I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so, what > the results were. So if the children are being shot, they're the most likely victims, correct? In other words, you want to arm the children.
Good for you, Lee. You've outdone yourself yet again. Congratulations, you earn the Wackiness of the Week award. (WOW, for short)
mat.voss - 17 Jul 2008 17:38 GMT >>I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city, is >>good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Congratulations, you earn the Wackiness of the Week award. (WOW, for > short) This belongs clearly to you, for having Lee arming the children.
Matthias
Greg Mossman - 17 Jul 2008 18:46 GMT > >>I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city, is > >>good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem. (1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children.
> >>I have an idea. How about arming the most likely victims, the law abiding > >>citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves. > >>That might work. I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so, what > >>the results were. (2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.
> > So if the children are being shot, they're the most likely victims, > > correct? In other words, you want to arm the children. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This belongs clearly to you, for having Lee arming the children. (1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children. (2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.
How is that hard for you to grasp even with your limited grasp of the language? If Lee wasn't suggesting arming the victims of gun crime, who was he suggesting be armed? If he meant to arm just adult victims of crime, why does he start his post with a quote about children shot by guns?
It's amazing how much you guys undo any concepts of logic in your stumbling efforts to correct Lee's outlandish statements.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 17 Jul 2008 21:14 GMT On Jul 17, 9:38 am, "mat.voss" <spammat.v...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Greg Mossman wrote: > > On Jul 17, 4:09 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city, > >>is > >>good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem. (1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children.
> >>I have an idea. How about arming the most likely victims, the law > >>abiding > >>citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves. > >>That might work. I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so, > >>what > >>the results were. (2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.
That's not what he said.
> > So if the children are being shot, they're the most likely victims, > > correct? In other words, you want to arm the children. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This belongs clearly to you, for having Lee arming the children. (1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children. (2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.
How is that hard for you to grasp even with your limited grasp of the language? If Lee wasn't suggesting arming the victims of gun crime, who was he suggesting be armed? If he meant to arm just adult victims of crime, why does he start his post with a quote about children shot by guns?
It's amazing how much you guys undo any concepts of logic in your stumbling efforts to correct Lee's outlandish statements.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Greg Mossman - 17 Jul 2008 21:32 GMT On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 9:38 am, "mat.voss" <spammat.v...@gmx.de> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > (2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.
> That's not what he said. So you're saying there's no overlap between the "most likely victims" that Lee wants to arm and the children victims that were cited by Lee as the basis for arming victims? That makes Lee sound even wackier. I mean, why would you arm the people that aren't getting shot? They obviously don't need to be armed.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 17 Jul 2008 21:42 GMT On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > (2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.
> That's not what he said. So you're saying there's no overlap between the "most likely victims" that Lee wants to arm and the children victims that were cited by Lee as the basis for arming victims? That makes Lee sound even wackier. I mean, why would you arm the people that aren't getting shot? They obviously don't need to be armed.
That's not what he said.
That's not what I said.
You're the only one that said it.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
ben bradlee - 17 Jul 2008 22:05 GMT > That's not what he said. > > That's not what I said. > > You're the only one that said it. Yes Doug, it takes a bit of thought to say more than "That's not what he said.", "That's not what I said.", and "You're the only one that said it."
Lee doesn't think children should have guns? Oh come now, how could anyone think something so stupid? Protection knows no age or limits. Everyone needs to be protected. It's WOW to the power of 10! You been in Canada too long to think we real Americans don't need guns - lots of guns, guns, and more guns. Crank up the brain and get with the program Doug. I have faith that you can and will do it. Now spring off that rubber doll and prove me right.
http://stu50guru.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!4701B94559249DAC!278/
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 18 Jul 2008 00:15 GMT >> That's not what he said. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://stu50guru.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!4701B94559249DAC!278/ Oh, look.
It's the Ambassador of Hypocrisy,
Kennybenny.
Who only, what, -yesterday?-
Yesterday!!
Was decrying gun threads, and is now posting in one!
Again, yah?
And insulting all comers, you know what you have to say about that, kennybenny, eh?
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Scott - 18 Jul 2008 01:23 GMT <chainsaw>
Two old ladies layin in bed One rolled over and the other one said Ah gimme some PT Good for you, good for me
(elft droit, elf droit...)
PICK IT UP COCKSUCKER
(not you pops, just fir the LA fags)
Next, for the guys who pay for the freedom others take as a given...
Momma and poppa were layin' in bed, Momma rolled over this is what she said; Ah GIMME ME SOME PT
Ahh yes...
As all Americans and Europeans enjoy and destroy, remember.
There was a day...
"Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands - what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world." - Daniel Webster, 1851
Greg Mossman - 18 Jul 2008 04:49 GMT > "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States > of America and the Republic for which it stands - what has happened once in > six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, > for if the Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the > world." - Daniel Webster, 1851 "Responding to a question from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, Chertoff dismissed any rumor that he is on a list of potential running mates for Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Chertoff quipped that the only list he has for next year is a list of vacations."
ben bradlee - 18 Jul 2008 13:23 GMT > Again, yah? Well, you managed to fall off the rubber doll. That's maybe half way there.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 18 Jul 2008 17:03 GMT >> Again, yah? > > Well, you managed to fall off the rubber doll. That's maybe half way > there.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 18 Jul 2008 17:04 GMT >> Again, yah? > > Well, you managed to fall off the rubber doll. That's maybe half way > there. Oh, hey.
Look.
-Another- off topic gun thread post from the Ambassador of Hypocrisy.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Joe English - 19 Jul 2008 05:21 GMT >> Again, yah? > > Well, you managed to fall off the rubber doll. That's maybe half way there. He got off
you're still on
Joe English - 18 Jul 2008 02:51 GMT >> That's not what he said. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://stu50guru.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!4701B94559249DAC!278/ As usual right on cue - here's kennybenny
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 18 Jul 2008 04:09 GMT >>> That's not what he said. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > As usual right on cue - here's kennybenny He's doing his best as a professional joke butt.
My short, concise and absolutely correct answer was too much for him to grok, so he had to ramble out another apoplectic and meaningless paragraph in response.
Tomorrow, he'll be back to whining about Lee's OT gun posts.
It's astonishing, really, the level of his angst.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Lee Bell - 21 Jul 2008 00:24 GMT > Lee doesn't think children should have guns? Lee does not think that children should have unsupervised access to guns, at least until they have proven their ability to use them responsibly. I had my first firearm when I was 6. It was in my closet and ammunition for it was in my drawer. I was not allowed to shoot it except when supervised until sometime after I was 16. About the time I was legally able to drive a car without direct supervision, I was allowed to take my gun out and shoot it with my friends, all of whom had also been taught to use their guns safely and responsibly. To the best of my knowledge, none of us ever shot anyone or anything we weren't supposed to.
> Oh come now, how could anyone think something so stupid? We often wonder, but you have a long history of showing us that it is, in fact, possible.
> Protection knows no age or limits. Everyone needs to be protected. Apparently you and Greg don't.
Actually, protection of children is not a bad idea. Generally speaking, that's thought to be part of a parent's responsibility, not the childs. Sometime, as a child matures, the responsibility for one's own protection shifts to the individual. The right time for that to happen varies with the individual. Some learn responsibility earlier than others.
You and Greg never have.
Lee
ben bradlee - 21 Jul 2008 13:23 GMT >> Lee doesn't think children should have guns? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You and Greg never have. You missed who posted what in the thread. Your MeToo buddies are the ones that didn't understand what you were talking about. It's not as if your thoughts are complicated so I don't know why they argue.
Greg Mossman - 21 Jul 2008 14:30 GMT > >> Lee doesn't think children should have guns? > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > that didn't understand what you were talking about. It's not as if your > thoughts are complicated so I don't know why they argue. Modern rec.scuba debate:
Lee: "I hate dem brown-skinned Spanish-talking SOBs"
Greg: "See, I told you Lee hates Mexicans"
Popeye: "That's not what Lee said"
Joe: "Lee was talking about alligators, but must not have expressed himself very well"
Matthias: "Vee Nazis vore brown shirts and Lee doesn't hate us, zo Lee cannot be a racist dumkopf"
Scott: "L.A. faggot lawyer, liar, pussy, kill kill kill, more tequila, <snore>"
ben bradlee - 21 Jul 2008 15:57 GMT On Jul 21, 5:23 am, "ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote: Modern rec.scuba debate:
Lee: "I hate dem brown-skinned Spanish-talking SOBs"
Greg: "See, I told you Lee hates Mexicans"
Popeye: "That's not what Lee said"
Joe: "Lee was talking about alligators, but must not have expressed himself very well"
Matthias: "Vee Nazis vore brown shirts and Lee doesn't hate us, zo Lee cannot be a racist dumkopf"
Scott: "L.A. faggot lawyer, liar, pussy, kill kill kill, more tequila, <snore>"
LOL
You've summarized succinctly the essence of numerous rec.scuba threads.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 21 Jul 2008 16:54 GMT > On Jul 21, 5:23 am, "ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote: > Modern rec.scuba debate: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You've summarized succinctly the essence of numerous rec.scuba threads. He sure did.
Since that's not what Lee said.
And he forgot:
Kennybenny: "Why oh why do I cry? Because I don't even know my own name"
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Lee Bell - 22 Jul 2008 00:12 GMT > Lee: "I hate dem brown-skinned Spanish-talking SOBs" > > Greg: "See, I told you Lee hates Mexicans" Liar
> Popeye: "That's not what Lee said" Truth
> Joe: "Lee was talking about alligators, but must not have expressed > himself very well" Liar
> Matthias: "Vee Nazis vore brown shirts and Lee doesn't hate us, zo > Lee cannot be a racist dumkopf" Liar
> Scott: "L.A. faggot lawyer, liar, pussy, kill kill kill, more > tequila, <snore>" Liar
> You've summarized succinctly the essence of numerous rec.scuba threads. Fool
ben bradlee - 22 Jul 2008 12:11 GMT > Fool Unbelievable.
Lee Bell - 22 Jul 2008 13:02 GMT >> Fool > > Unbelievable. Not at all. It's quite widely known.
Joe English - 22 Jul 2008 00:58 GMT > On Jul 21, 5:23 am, "ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote: > Modern rec.scuba debate: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You've summarized succinctly the essence of numerous rec.scuba threads. he forgot you - but there maybe go reason for that
Joe English - 22 Jul 2008 00:56 GMT >>>> Lee doesn't think children should have guns? >>> Lee does not think that children should have unsupervised access to guns, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Scott: "L.A. faggot lawyer, liar, pussy, kill kill kill, more > tequila, <snore>" I think you have misquoted - but caught the gist of the arguments - :-)
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 22 Jul 2008 18:02 GMT > > "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Scott: "L.A. faggot lawyer, liar, pussy, kill kill kill, more > tequila, <snore>" ROTFL. Quintessence of rec.scuba
Janusz
Lee Bell - 21 Jul 2008 14:46 GMT > You missed who posted what in the thread. Your MeToo buddies are the ones > that didn't understand what you were talking about. It's not as if your > thoughts are complicated so I don't know why they argue. I don't know that they have argued, or what their arguments were. I didn't even come close to reading all the BS that followed the original few posts. Contrary to your opinion, very few of us are Me Too buddies. We hold the opinions we do specifically because we are not sheep, blindly following anyone.
If I attributed something to you that you did not write, you have my apology.
Lee
mat.voss - 17 Jul 2008 23:46 GMT > On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I mean, why would you arm the people that aren't getting shot? They > obviously don't need to be armed. Lee said children are being shot. He did not state that they were the most likely victims, or that they would outnumber other victims. So your suggestion is not based on facts, but on assumptions. As we know, assumptions are the mother of fuckups.
Matthias
Greg Mossman - 18 Jul 2008 00:42 GMT > > On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > So your suggestion is not based on facts, but on assumptions. As we > know, assumptions are the mother of fuckups. So why then did Lee mention the children if children have nothing to do with his argument that we should arm the victims? Was he just rambling? That I can believe.
mat.voss - 18 Jul 2008 10:13 GMT >>>On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >>><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > do with his argument that we should arm the victims? Was he just > rambling? That I can believe. The shot children aren't victims anymore. Parents are. Arm the parents. Read Leviticus.
Matthias
dechucka - 22 Jul 2008 03:53 GMT >>>>On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >>>><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > The shot children aren't victims anymore. Parents are. Arm the parents. > Read Leviticus. So if someone kills you you aren't the victim. Interesting theory.
BTW what about the wounded ones?
mat.voss - 22 Jul 2008 11:38 GMT >>>>>On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >>>>><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > BTW what about the wounded ones? They have learnt a lesson.
Matthias
dechucka - 22 Jul 2008 13:45 GMT >>>>>>On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >>>>>><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > They have learnt a lesson. don't live in a gun riddled society?
btw can the wounded kids be armed
> Matthias Joe English - 18 Jul 2008 02:50 GMT >>>> I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city, is >>>> good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > It's amazing how much you guys undo any concepts of logic in your > stumbling efforts to correct Lee's outlandish statements. Leave it to a lawyer to completely misinterpret, then reinterpret what Lee said
Greg Mossman - 18 Jul 2008 04:47 GMT > >>>> I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city, is > >>>> good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Leave it to a lawyer to completely misinterpret, then reinterpret what > Lee said- Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children without arming them?
Joerg Hahn - 18 Jul 2008 17:27 GMT > Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument > that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children > without arming them? Not at all. They cited the newspaper: "Blagojevich said there's been a child shot nearly every day"
Then Lee wrote: How about arming the most likely victims, the law abiding citizens...
I don`t see your assumptions neither follow your "logic".
Joerg
 Signature Fotos Ägypten Feb.2007 http://www.notabstieg.de/egypt-2-2007/index.html
http://www.grabmalkultur.de
Greg Mossman - 18 Jul 2008 17:58 GMT > > Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument > > that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I don`t see your assumptions neither follow your "logic". Again, what's logical about using shot children as the example of "the law abiding citizen" victims who should be armed then not even arming them?
Besides, how do we even know that all these shot children were law abiding citizens? Some of them could have been illegals. Some of them could have been criminals.
It was obviously a very poor example on Lee's part, we can agree on that.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 18 Jul 2008 19:05 GMT On Jul 18, 9:27 am, Joerg Hahn <d...@notabstieg.de> wrote:
> Greg Mossman wrote: > > Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I don`t see your assumptions neither follow your "logic". Again, what's logical about using shot children as the example of "the law abiding citizen" victims who should be armed then not even arming them?
Besides, how do we even know that all these shot children were law abiding citizens? Some of them could have been illegals. Some of them could have been criminals.
It was obviously a very poor example on Lee's part, we can agree on that.
It would have been.
If that had been what he said.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Joe English - 19 Jul 2008 05:22 GMT >>> Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument >>> that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It was obviously a very poor example on Lee's part, we can agree on > that. And exactly why he did not state arm the children
Greg Mossman - 19 Jul 2008 14:53 GMT > >>> Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument > >>> that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > And exactly why he did not state arm the children So you also agree that Lee's logic is horrible?
Let's review what Lee wrote, since it seems to be causing all of you some confusion:
> I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city, is > good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem.
> I have an idea. How about arming the most likely victims, the law abiding > citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves. > That might work. I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so, what > the results were. OK. Once again, reaaaalll slllooooow.
Lee says there is a problem, a problem of a child shot every day.
"Yep, that's a problem." -- Lee Bell
Do you, Joe English, solemnly agree that's what Lee said? Does Popeye so agree?
In the next paragraph, Lee has an idea.
"I have an idea" -- Lee Bell
How about arming the most likely victims? That's what Lee proposes in response to the problem of the children getting shot. See, his lead- up of "I have an idea" is his way of saying that he has a response to the problem (that problem of the children getting shot), and his response is "how about arming the most likely victims?".
Are we clear so far? Joe? Popeye? Is that what Lee said?
Now Lee further defines his "most likely victims" as "the law abiding citizens", so I believe the disconnect here is that you and Popeye believe that regardless of all the buildup of the shot children, and the fact that Lee has proposed the arming to deal with the problem of the shot children, that Lee's response of arming the law abiding citizens is somehow exclusive of the children. That, of course, makes no sense. Why would Lee identify the shot children as the problem and then identify arming a group of people that has nothing to do with the children as the solution to the problem of shot children unless he's gone totally off the deep end?
If we make the assumption, however, as I did, that Lee hasn't gone completely catatonic yet and wouldn't propose a solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem, then the only possibly interpretation of Lee's rambling is that he proposes to arm the children. Very simple. So simple, I bet even a jury of your peers could understand it. In court, I would even draw pretty diagrams.
To recap, you have exactly two ways of reading Lee's ramblings. (1) Lee proposes arming as a response to shot children, i.e. arming the children; or (2) Lee proposes arming someone else as a response to shot children, which is a solution that doesn't have anything to do with the problem and is just as nutty as (1). Take your pick.
Joe English - 19 Jul 2008 15:15 GMT >>>>> Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument >>>>> that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Do you, Joe English, solemnly agree that's what Lee said? Does Popeye > so agree? um, er, well, hmm. Maybe
> In the next paragraph, Lee has an idea. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Are we clear so far? Joe? Popeye? Is that what Lee said? um, er, well, hmmmmm. maybe
> Now Lee further defines his "most likely victims" as "the law abiding > citizens", so I believe the disconnect here is that you and Popeye [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > children as the solution to the problem of shot children unless he's > gone totally off the deep end? Did Lee say arm the children??? I think he said the most likely victims. I don't jump to the conclusion that Lee meant children. He could of said it a little more clearly, but never did he say that only children were likely victims. I thought it would be harder to confuse someone of your vast knowledge and education. It appears on that point I am mistaken.
> If we make the assumption, however, as I did, that Lee hasn't gone > completely catatonic yet and wouldn't propose a solution that has [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > shot children, which is a solution that doesn't have anything to do > with the problem and is just as nutty as (1). Take your pick. Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 19 Jul 2008 17:10 GMT On Jul 18, 9:22 pm, Joe English <joe2aengl...@wisperhome.com> wrote:
> Greg Mossman wrote: > > On Jul 18, 9:27 am, Joerg Hahn <d...@notabstieg.de> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > And exactly why he did not state arm the children So you also agree that Lee's logic is horrible?
That's not what he said.
Let's review what Lee wrote, since it seems to be causing all of you some confusion:
> I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city, is > good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem. That's what he said, alright.
> I have an idea. How about arming the most likely victims, the law abiding > citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves. > That might work. I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so, > what > the results were. He said that, too.
It's nice that you've exampled them here as the two diferent statements that they are.
You confusion comes later when you try to illogically join them, and project the blame onto Lee.
But you're not fooling anyone except kennybenny.
OK. Once again, reaaaalll slllooooow.
Lee says there is a problem, a problem of a child shot every day.
"Yep, that's a problem." -- Lee Bell
Do you, Joe English, solemnly agree that's what Lee said? Does Popeye so agree?
So far, youbetcha.
In the next paragraph, Lee has an idea.
"I have an idea" -- Lee Bell
He has an idea, yeppers.
How about arming the most likely victims? That's what Lee proposes in response to the problem of the children getting shot.
Question: How come there's no quote for this, like all your previous examples?
Isn't that curious?
See, his lead- up of "I have an idea" is his way of saying that he has a response to the problem (that problem of the children getting shot), and his response is "how about arming the most likely victims?".
Then how come there's no quote for it?
Are we clear so far? Joe? Popeye? Is that what Lee said?
The stuff in quotes, sure.
The conclusions that you erronously draw from that, no.
Now Lee further defines his "most likely victims" as "the law abiding citizens", so I believe the disconnect here is that you and Popeye believe that regardless of all the buildup of the shot children, and the fact that Lee has proposed the arming to deal with the problem of the shot children, that Lee's response of arming the law abiding citizens is somehow exclusive of the children.
Exactly.
I knew you'd come around to that at some point.
That, of course, makes no sense. Why would Lee identify the shot children as the problem and then identify arming a group of people that has nothing to do with the children as the solution to the problem of shot children unless he's gone totally off the deep end?
Because the conversation is not specifically about shot children, but about several facets of gun control related to Chicago.
To be specific, the conversation is about the need for National Guard in the streets, where they practice the form of gun control that you've long advocated here.
If we make the assumption, however, as I did, that Lee hasn't gone completely catatonic yet and wouldn't propose a solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem, then the only possibly interpretation of Lee's rambling is that he proposes to arm the children. Very simple. So simple, I bet even a jury of your peers could understand it. In court, I would even draw pretty diagrams.
To recap, you have exactly two ways of reading Lee's ramblings. (1) Lee proposes arming as a response to shot children, i.e. arming the children; or (2) Lee proposes arming someone else as a response to shot children, which is a solution that doesn't have anything to do with the problem and is just as nutty as (1). Take your pick.
But that's not what he said.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
ben bradlee - 19 Jul 2008 22:17 GMT > "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message > But you're not fooling anyone except ... I agree with Doug. Lee talks out his a.s. There is no sure way to know what Lee is saying in any of his post. When Doug says "But that's not what he said," he is probably correct. Lee didn't have an original thought. He copied some sh.t from someplace without reading it or randomly pounded some sh.t and posted it to rec.scuba. It's happened a thousand times already. Doug knows Lee real well; they're best buddies. When Doug tells you Lee can't string two thoughts together you should believe him. I do.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 20 Jul 2008 00:01 GMT >> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message >> But you're not fooling anyone except ... > > I agree with Doug. I know this concept is tough for you, boy, but:
That's not what I said.
But we can all see why you and Greg think so much alike.
>Lee talks out his a.s. There is no sure way to know what Lee is saying in >any of his post. When Doug says "But that's not what he said," he is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Lee real well; they're best buddies. When Doug tells you Lee can't string >two thoughts together you should believe him. I do. This, however, is -exactly- what you said:
"I just wonder why you post such demeaning garbage. I've said it before so it should come as no surprise that your snipes and insults toward people you don't know do more harm to you than anybody else." -Kennybenny
Just perfect for the Ambassador of Hypocrisy.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
ben bradlee - 20 Jul 2008 13:55 GMT >>> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message >>> But you're not fooling anyone except ... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's not what I said. Old 20% Doug you missed it again: That's what I said.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 20 Jul 2008 15:13 GMT > "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
>>>> But you're not fooling anyone except ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Old 20% Doug you missed it again: That's what I said. No you didn't.
No I didn't.
But.
20% or more of your posting recently is in the gun threads you squeal and wail about, while you make your scurrilous personal attacks.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
ben bradlee - 20 Jul 2008 15:53 GMT > "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message > No ... > > No ... > > But. I'm proud of you Doug. With 50% more effort you'll be at 30%.
Joe English - 20 Jul 2008 05:14 GMT >> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message >> But you're not fooling anyone except ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Doug knows Lee real well; they're best buddies. When Doug tells you Lee > can't string two thoughts together you should believe him. I do. and here's Benny..............
mat.voss - 19 Jul 2008 18:05 GMT >>>>>Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument >>>>>that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > So you also agree that Lee's logic is horrible? I think it's time you'd dump your Turing machine.
> Let's review what Lee wrote, since it seems to be causing all of you > some confusion: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > children. Very simple. So simple, I bet even a jury of your peers > could understand it. In court, I would even draw pretty diagrams. While everybody else would quite clearly understand the nonsense of arming shot children. Except in some Voodoo scenarios. Return of the undead or something. Though I don't think these would need arms. Just their own arms would do.
> To recap, you have exactly two ways of reading Lee's ramblings. (1) > Lee proposes arming as a response to shot children, i.e. arming the > children; or (2) Lee proposes arming someone else as a response to > shot children, which is a solution that doesn't have anything to do > with the problem and is just as nutty as (1). Take your pick. What about arming parents.
Matthias
Greg Mossman - 19 Jul 2008 18:28 GMT > > To recap, you have exactly two ways of reading Lee's ramblings. (1) > > Lee proposes arming as a response to shot children, i.e. arming the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What about arming parents. Parents do enough harm to their kids as it is. Now you want them shooting the brats?
It's bad enough now that the kids are armed.
"An Ark-La-Tex family is grieving over their four-year-old child's death after they say he shot himself. 'He'll always be missed, always, because that was our baby,' said Yvonne Morrison. A backpack for the first day of pre-school, a bicycle rolled through dusty driveways, and toy trucks smashed together during play time - all triggers for instant memories of four-year-old Alexander Morrison who deputies say accidentally shot himself in the head inside his grandparent's kitchen."
"Alexander's grandmother Lettice was pulling clothes off the line outside her Natchitoches Parish home. 'All the sudden I heard a pop and I said oh Lord I hope that child didn't get that pistol,' she said."
"The most recent statistics available show the number of children and teens in America killed by guns in 2005 would fill 120 public school classrooms of 25 students each."
Maybe we should arm the grandparents? Oh, wait...
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 19 Jul 2008 18:34 GMT On Jul 19, 10:05 am, "mat.voss" <spammat.v...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > To recap, you have exactly two ways of reading Lee's ramblings. (1) > > Lee proposes arming as a response to shot children, i.e. arming the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What about arming parents. Parents do enough harm to their kids as it is. Now you want them shooting the brats?
It's bad enough now that the kids are armed.
"An Ark-La-Tex family is grieving over their four-year-old child's death after they say he shot himself. 'He'll always be missed, always, because that was our baby,' said Yvonne Morrison. A backpack for the first day of pre-school, a bicycle rolled through dusty driveways, and toy trucks smashed together during play time - all triggers for instant memories of four-year-old Alexander Morrison who deputies say accidentally shot himself in the head inside his grandparent's kitchen."
"Alexander's grandmother Lettice was pulling clothes off the line outside her Natchitoches Parish home. 'All the sudden I heard a pop and I said oh Lord I hope that child didn't get that pistol,' she said."
"The most recent statistics available show the number of children and teens in America killed by guns in 2005 would fill 120 public school classrooms of 25 students each."
Then back out the drug-related deaths, and you couldn't fill a one-room schoolhouse.
Maybe we should arm the grandparents? Oh, wait...
Why don't we prosecute them for manslaughter?
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Grumman-581 - 19 Jul 2008 18:55 GMT Greg Mossman <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in news:777c767c-3238-482e-b157- 4d27368ba7dc@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
> It's bad enough now that the kids are armed. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Maybe we should arm the grandparents? Oh, wait... http://arklatexhomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=23921
Does it really surprise anyone that this family is black?
If they had been Anglo, I'm sure Greg would have been making some comments about inbred trailer trash white rednecks or something and how they deserved it...
Obviously he was just imitating the gang banger rap crap 'artists' that this screwed up culture seems to want to hold to such a high regard...
Darwinism in action...
I suspect his mother has a couple of spares... Notice that I said 'mother', not 'parents'... She probably doesn't even know who the father was or if she does, he's probably in jail or something... Something definitely wrong with that culture...
 Signature See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 19 Jul 2008 19:41 GMT > Darwinism in action... > > I suspect his mother has a couple of spares... Another reason I don't read these while driving. :-)
>Notice that I said > 'mother', not 'parents'... She probably doesn't even know who the father > was or if she does, he's probably in jail or something... Something > definitely wrong with that culture...
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
mat.voss - 19 Jul 2008 20:52 GMT > Greg Mossman <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in news:777c767c-3238-482e-b157- > 4d27368ba7dc@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Darwinism in action... Greg is deploring the decease of one would be strawberry picker.
Matthias
Grumman-581 - 19 Jul 2008 22:00 GMT "mat.voss" <spammat.voss@gmx.de> wrote in news:g5tgmv$3vk$02$2@news.t- online.com:
> Greg is deploring the decease of one would be strawberry picker. More like one more potential client for his friends in the public defender's office...
 Signature See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.
mat.voss - 19 Jul 2008 20:50 GMT >>>To recap, you have exactly two ways of reading Lee's ramblings. (1) >>>Lee proposes arming as a response to shot children, i.e. arming the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Parents do enough harm to their kids as it is. Now you want them > shooting the brats? I am wondering, somehow conderned, where this kind of logic will get you. Is there a name for it yet?
Matthias
Joerg Hahn - 21 Jul 2008 08:59 GMT > I am wondering, somehow conderned, where this kind of logic will get > you. Is there a name for it yet? Lawyer?
LG
Joerg
 Signature Fotos Ägypten Feb.2007 http://www.notabstieg.de/egypt-2-2007/index.html
http://www.grabmalkultur.de
Rod - 19 Jul 2008 20:13 GMT >> > Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument >> > that the victims should be armed. =A0How would you arm 500 dead childre= [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >It was obviously a very poor example on Lee's part, we can agree on >that. Well you have to admit shooting children hones the shootes skills, they are smaller and generally faster on their feet, making them more dificult to get you limit on.
Dennis (Icarus) - 20 Jul 2008 01:35 GMT <snip>
> Well you have to admit shooting children hones the shootes skills, > they are smaller and generally faster on their feet, making them more > dificult to get you limit on. from Full Metal Jacket: Joker: Did yopu ever shoot women, and children? Gunner: sure! Joker: How can you shoot women and children? Gunner: Easy! you just don't lead 'em as much!
Dennis
Cam in Toronto - 19 Jul 2008 15:55 GMT > Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument > that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children > without arming them? You can't arm the dead children. It might be possible to booby trap them but even that won't be effective.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 19 Jul 2008 16:28 GMT >> Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument >> that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children >> without arming them? > > You can't arm the dead children. It might be possible to booby trap > them but even that won't be effective. <cough>
What's up, Cam? :-)
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Greg Mossman - 19 Jul 2008 16:58 GMT > > Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument > > that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children > > without arming them? > > You can't arm the dead children. It might be possible to booby trap > them but even that won't be effective. True, I misspoke. The example was of 500 children shot. Presumably, some of them aren't dead and can still be armed or else Lee wouldn't have suggested arming them. He's not that kooky.
Joe English - 20 Jul 2008 05:08 GMT >>> Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument >>> that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > some of them aren't dead and can still be armed or else Lee wouldn't > have suggested arming them. He's not that kooky. You misspoke?????
Maybe Lee did too???
Not to his logic but how he expressed it???
Greg Mossman - 20 Jul 2008 05:59 GMT > >>> Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument > >>> that the victims should be armed. How would you arm 500 dead children [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Maybe Lee did too??? Maybe he did. Why doesn't he admit it then?
> Not to his logic but how he expressed it??? Or why he expressed it? After all, that's my point.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 20 Jul 2008 10:06 GMT On Jul 19, 9:08 pm, Joe English <joe2aengl...@wisperhome.com> wrote:
> Greg Mossman wrote: > > On Jul 19, 7:55 am, Cam in Toronto <cam.b...@beer.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Maybe Lee did too??? Maybe he did. Why doesn't he admit it then?
> Not to his logic but how he expressed it??? Or why he expressed it? After all, that's my point.
But that's not what he expressed.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Rod - 18 Jul 2008 13:45 GMT >> >>I think I see the problem. =A0A child shot every day, in a gun free cit= >y, is [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >It's amazing how much you guys undo any concepts of logic in your >stumbling efforts to correct Lee's outlandish statements. So Greg, with your logic you can fool all of the people all of the time ? You sound more like a lawyer every day
Lee Bell - 21 Jul 2008 00:17 GMT Greg Mossman wrote:
>> So if the children are being shot, they're the most likely victims, >> correct? In other words, you want to arm the children. Obviosly not my intent, but now that you mention it, why not. It can't possibly do them any more harm than your solution has. After all, dead's about as bad as it gets . . . at least most of us think it is.
Lee
ben bradlee - 21 Jul 2008 13:08 GMT > Greg Mossman wrote: > >>> In other words, you want to arm the children. > > ...why not. The MeToos will be so disappointed.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 21 Jul 2008 14:58 GMT >> Greg Mossman wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The MeToos will be so disappointed. Only in your delusional mind, as usual.
That wasn't what he said, before.
 Signature Popeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com
Joe English - 22 Jul 2008 00:55 GMT >> Greg Mossman wrote: >> >>>> In other words, you want to arm the children. >> ...why not. > > The MeToos will be so disappointed. I really don't think you'll be disappointed< ben, you are more of a me2 than any poster I have seen
While Greg, and I will never totally agree on certain issue at least he thinks for himself and as a lawyer always finds some way to twist words and statements to his side of the argument/
Dillon Pyron - 22 Jul 2008 03:09 GMT [Default] Thus spake "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com>:
>Blagojevich: Chicago May Need National Guard Help >Mayor Unaware Of Plan; Welcomes Partnership [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >experience: he's talking to the Illinois State Police and the National Guard >to see if they could help. I'm not sure exactly how this works, but I will ask one question.
posse comitatus?
>"Violent crime in the city of Chicago is out of control," Blagojevich said >at the bill signing ceremony. "I'm offering resources of the state to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The summer of 2008 will be remembered as especially violent. Blagojevich >said there's been a child shot nearly every day since June 26. I wonder how many of these "children" were 17, 18 and 19 year old gang members. I wonder how many kids died of poisoning, falls or drowning over the same period.
> Bringing in >state troopers -- even National Guard helicopters to high-crime areas -- is >still very much in the planning stages. As the article points out, early enough that my friend the mayor was flumoxed and blindsided. I hate the rat bastard, but I have to commiserate with him on this stupid move.
|
|
|