The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Bill Graham on 19 Sep 2009 04:20 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:ZdednRcmdaTX3CnXnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4ab3366f$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >> Bill Graham wrote: >>> >>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:4ab10bc3$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>>> Bill Graham wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Douglas Johnson" <post(a)classtech.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:bm0la513ptifqd2htorhffbk4a24j9sbtg(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> .....Can I blame the liberals for it? After all, it is a socialist >>>>>>> idea. Can >>>>>>> anyone get food simply by putting their feet on a supermarkets >>>>>>> property? If >>>>>>> so, then would you go for the idea today that food should be >>>>>>> socialized? How >>>>>>> about getting a room for the night by simply setting foot on a >>>>>>> hotel's >>>>>>> property? >>>>>> >>>>>> So you have a heart attack. The paramedics show up. Should they >>>>>> require proof >>>>>> of citizenship or ability to pay before starting CPR? Or before they >>>>>> transport >>>>>> you to the hospital? Should the hospital require it before they >>>>>> treat you? >>>>> >>>>> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us citizens) >>>>> should have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted in us that >>>>> identifies us as US citizens in good standing, and if we are sick, >>>>> then the chip should get us the treatment we need. Today's technology >>>>> is more than adequate to accomplish this. >>>> >>>> Jeez. Ever read 1984? >>>> >>> I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole in >>> "1984". >> >> *whooosh!* > > Where's the "whooosh!," Bob? > > Most of us, adults at least, already carry ID routinely. I can't legally > drive my car without it, can you? I can't legally carry a pistol without > it, either. Of course if you live in Australia or someplace like that you > can't do the latter anyway, but there you are: having to carry ID doesn't > take away a right that I have and you don't whether you carry ID or not. > > Nonsense! - this is an unenforceable law....Nobody knows what I have in my pocket, and they aren't likely to ever know. I have been carrying a gun all of my adult life, and I have always refused to get a permit for it. Why? Because such permits are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. I even took one to Europe with me back in the late 1980's. And carried it all over there, too. Sure, I could have been busted, but it is better to be alive and on trial for murder than it is to be dead, while someone else is on trial for your murder. Or, as someone said once, "Better the man catches you with it, than the boy catches you without it."
From: Bill Graham on 19 Sep 2009 04:22 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:AeGdnVUozZlj2ynXnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message > news:h90e2v$de5$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... >> >> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >> news:PLednSJvrajT6yzXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > >> >>> Much the same with the latest ACORN scandal, which stunk so badly that >>> even Democrats in Congress finally voted to stop funding ACORN. But you >>> never even heard about it from ABC, CBS or NBC, did you? >> [Nonsense deleted...] >> >> What was shown on tape from a *few* ACORN locations (but where >> were the reportings of the ones that threw out these imposters?) > > What makes you think ANY of the ACORN offices did or would do any > differently from the ones on tape? ACORN is rotten and corrupt to the > core. Do you know how many states they're facing criminals charges in for > voter registration fraud? What a perfect organization they are for Obama, > the Chicago machine politician. There's a match made in heaven for you > (well, probably not heaven but it's still a perfect match). > >> was >> disgusting and stupid, but here we have once again the old absolutist >> and uncritical Right approach of the non-thinking "they all must be >> evil", >> and, "let's throw out the baby with the bathwater". >> >>> Here, read all about it from a functional news organization and learn >>> something for a change: >>> >>> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/14/dan-gainor-acorn-media-ignore/ >> >> So THIS is where you get your (false) information from, huh??? LOL, > > Show something in it that you can demonstrate is false. Go ahead, I'll > wait. Take your time. > Yes. They love to put down Fox news, but I see the congress has voted to discontinue ACORN's funding by 85% as a direct result of Fox's efforts....
From: Savageduck on 19 Sep 2009 08:45 On 2009-09-18 23:33:42 -0700, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: > Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >> >> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:h90e2v$de5$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... >>> >>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >>> news:PLednSJvrajT6yzXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> >>> >>>> Much the same with the latest ACORN scandal, which stunk so badly that >>>> even Democrats in Congress finally voted to stop funding ACORN. But you >>>> never even heard about it from ABC, CBS or NBC, did you? >>> [Nonsense deleted...] >>> >>> What was shown on tape from a *few* ACORN locations (but where >>> were the reportings of the ones that threw out these imposters?) >> >> What makes you think ANY of the ACORN offices did or would do any >> differently from the ones on tape? ACORN is rotten and corrupt to the core. > > If that's true then it must also be true of the Republican party given > the number of Republicans who have been shown to be lying, > philandering hypocrites. I think the most interesting thing to come out of the ACORN affair, is how easy it is going to be to identify a Republican pimp in the future. Just look for the skinny white guy wearing a blazer under a faux fur coat in 90 degree heat in San Diego in the Summer. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 19 Sep 2009 08:51 On 2009-09-18 23:51:24 -0700, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> said: > On 19 Sep 2009 06:26:07 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>> "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >>>> I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but my impression was that the >>>> Great Depression is what happened last time the big banks and >>>> companies were allowed to fail. >>>> >>> Banks were not allowed to fail, from >>> http://americanhistory.about.com/od/greatdepression/tp/greatdepression.htm >>> Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured >>> and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. >> >> What's wrong with this picture? mikey says "Banks were not allowed to >> fail" and then provides a cite which says "over 9,000 banks failed". >> >> Stupidity? Insanity? > > Those banks got sent to their room without any supper for failing when > they weren't allowed to. > > Naughty banks! The failed banks were fed to the predator banks, BofA, Wells Fargo, CitiBank, etc. who got those assets at massive discounts. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 19 Sep 2009 09:04
On 2009-09-19 01:20:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:ZdednRcmdaTX3CnXnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4ab3366f$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>> Bill Graham wrote: >>>> >>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:4ab10bc3$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>>>> Bill Graham wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Douglas Johnson" <post(a)classtech.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:bm0la513ptifqd2htorhffbk4a24j9sbtg(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> .....Can I blame the liberals for it? After all, it is a socialist idea. Can >>>>>>>> anyone get food simply by putting their feet on a supermarkets property? If >>>>>>>> so, then would you go for the idea today that food should be socialized? How >>>>>>>> about getting a room for the night by simply setting foot on a hotel's >>>>>>>> property? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you have a heart attack. The paramedics show up. Should they require proof >>>>>>> of citizenship or ability to pay before starting CPR? Or before they transport >>>>>>> you to the hospital? Should the hospital require it before they treat you? >>>>>> >>>>>> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us citizens) >>>>>> should have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted in us that >>>>>> identifies us as US citizens in good standing, and if we are sick, then >>>>>> the chip should get us the treatment we need. Today's technology is >>>>>> more than adequate to accomplish this. >>>>> >>>>> Jeez. Ever read 1984? >>>>> >>>> I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole in "1984". >>> >>> *whooosh!* >> >> Where's the "whooosh!," Bob? >> >> Most of us, adults at least, already carry ID routinely. I can't >> legally drive my car without it, can you? I can't legally carry a >> pistol without it, either. Of course if you live in Australia or >> someplace like that you can't do the latter anyway, but there you are: >> having to carry ID doesn't take away a right that I have and you don't >> whether you carry ID or not. >> >> > Nonsense! - this is an unenforceable law....Nobody knows what I have in > my pocket, and they aren't likely to ever know. I have been carrying a > gun all of my adult life, and I have always refused to get a permit for > it. Why? Because such permits are unconstitutional, and therefore > illegal. I even took one to Europe with me back in the late 1980's. And > carried it all over there, too. Sure, I could have been busted, but it > is better to be alive and on trial for murder than it is to be dead, > while someone else is on trial for your murder. Or, as someone said > once, "Better the man catches you with it, than the boy catches you > without it." No carry permit! OH Bill! Not only are you criminal, you are actually stupid. Even those guys who showed up to the town hall meetings were smart enough to do it within the Law, by not concealing their weapons which were all clearly visible on belts, or slung over a shoulder. One of these days we are going to read about the angry old guy in Oregon who blew away a meter reader. -- Regards, Savageduck |