The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Ray Fischer on 24 Sep 2009 13:19 mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4abadfd6$0$1621$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>> >>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>news:4aba62df$0$1606$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against carrying >>>>>guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only >>>>>the >>>>>criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up. >>>> >>>> But that makes the illogical assumption that guns will continue to be >>>> freely available even when illegal. Everybody knows that that is >>>> nonsense. There would be vastly fewer guns and thus fewer people >>>> killed by guns. >>>> >>>>>Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is beyond >>>>>me, >>>> >>>> Why you rightards canot simply look at the facts is bizarre. We see >>>> that countries that have gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths. >>>> It's not rocket science, but when you worship a cult then logic is the >>>> first casualty. >>>> >>>Following this logic we should ban cars and put everyone on bicycles. >> >> Since I mentioned nothing about banning anything it's obvious that >> you're a prime example of rightard dislogic. Note also that the rate >> of deaths with automobiles is vastly lower AND automobile ownership >> and use is highly regulated. > > Did I say you mentioned banning guns? You brought up the subject of bans. I did not. >In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: > >Now cars: 42,708 durning the same year ( from >http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811173.PDF) And notice that the people using cars is vastly higher than the number of people using guns. The difference is probably 1000:1. >Looks to me that more people were *killed* buy cars But the RATE is much, much, lower. >So what does this prove? That you're badly undereducated. >>>You are right ray this isn't rocket science and here's why. >>>The following is taken from >>>http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk >> >> And there's another example of rightard "thinking": If it's on a web >> site then it must be true. >> >Spin spin spin Lie, lie, lie. It's what you rightards do. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: mikey4 on 24 Sep 2009 13:52 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4abbaa24$0$1666$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >> >>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>news:4abadfd6$0$1621$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>>> >>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>news:4aba62df$0$1606$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against >>>>>>carrying >>>>>>guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only >>>>>>the >>>>>>criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up. >>>>> >>>>> But that makes the illogical assumption that guns will continue to be >>>>> freely available even when illegal. Everybody knows that that is >>>>> nonsense. There would be vastly fewer guns and thus fewer people >>>>> killed by guns. >>>>> >>>>>>Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is >>>>>>beyond >>>>>>me, >>>>> >>>>> Why you rightards canot simply look at the facts is bizarre. We see >>>>> that countries that have gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths. >>>>> It's not rocket science, but when you worship a cult then logic is the >>>>> first casualty. >>>>> >>>>Following this logic we should ban cars and put everyone on bicycles. >>> >>> Since I mentioned nothing about banning anything it's obvious that >>> you're a prime example of rightard dislogic. Note also that the rate >>> of deaths with automobiles is vastly lower AND automobile ownership >>> and use is highly regulated. >> >> Did I say you mentioned banning guns? > > You brought up the subject of bans. I did not. Thats what I said........DUH ! > >>In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: >> >>Now cars: 42,708 durning the same year ( from >>http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811173.PDF) > > And notice that the people using cars is vastly higher And according to you " automobile ownership and use is highly regulated. >>Looks to me that more people were *killed* buy cars > > But the RATE is much, much, lower. > >>So what does this prove? > > That you're badly undereducated. Ok ray, you said earlier on that "guns will continue to be freely available even when illegal. Everybody knows that that is nonsense. " Which is a lie. >>>>You are right ray this isn't rocket science and here's why. >>>>The following is taken from >>>>http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk >>> >>> And there's another example of rightard "thinking": If it's on a web >>> site then it must be true. >>> >>Spin spin spin > > Lie, lie, lie. It's what you rightards do. > > -- Wrong ray, it is leftwingers like yourself who are into name calling, etc.
From: frank on 24 Sep 2009 23:00 On Sep 24, 10:13 am, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: > "Allen" <all...(a)austin.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:qamdne8YxOx_GibXnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > > > > SMS wrote: > >> steph...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >>> But massive deficit spending did affect all of this. You can't spend > >>> BILLIONS on a war and at the same time LOWER taxes. You blame the dem > >>> for "Tax and spend" but ignore the effects of "Tax rebate but spend a > >>> lot more". That is EXACTLY what Regan AND both Bush's did. > > >> Well to be fair, George H.W. Bush did have to clean up the mess Reagan > >> made with the S&L's, and he did agree to a tax increase to reduce deficit > >> spending slightly. And no doubt this was behind his loss for re-election. > >> George H.W. Bush also correctly called Reaganomics, "voo-doo economics.." > > >>> And where exactly do you think we borrowed this money to go to war while > >>> lowering taxes came from? > > >> The deficits run up by the tax cuts for the wealthy exceed the cost of > >> the health care proposals. > > >> People complain a lot about George W. Bush because not only was his > >> presidency a failure in terms of domestic and foreign policy, but he also > >> was personally unpopular, and not well-spoken. Reagan was more dangerous > >> because his policy failures were not as well understood or publicized > >> because he was personally very popular. It's only in the past couple of > >> years that everyone is beginning to realize the damage Reagan wrought. > > Thank you for that well-stated post, SMS. I find it difficult to believe > > the number of people in the US who can't understand what a mess Reagan > > made. Well, not actually Reagan himself, who was really just a puppet who > > wasn't smart enough, but the handlers and backers who got him nominated > > for and elected to a position that he was not capable of handling. Bush > > Sr's biggest mistake was in not recognizing and reversing policy of the > > previous eight years. > > Allen > > What I find so sad is that while a president is blamed for a the financial > mess congress and the senate skate by. The president appoints thousands of people in his Adminisration. Virtually all the big decision makers are SES (Senior Executive Service - the super grades in the GS system). But that's the US system. Reagan was pretty much groomed by the Hoover Institute which is not part of the Stanford U. but near the campus. Dirty little secret is they had their hands in a lot of his decisions. The pupper master so to speak. There are others in California. Some are degree granting institutions.
From: George Kerby on 25 Sep 2009 09:55 If you keep that up, Father, you're going to hair in your palm. On 9/25/09 7:08 AM, in article Xns9C9152C79CBC6FatherGuido(a)202.177.16.121, "Father Guido Sarducci" <don(a)novello.com> wrote: > In message > news:60bf736f-1583-4f12-9be2-e06bea9014f9(a)d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, > frank <dhssresearcher(a)netscape.net> said: > > PLONK > >> On Sep 24, 10:13�am, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>> "Allen" <all...(a)austin.rr.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:qamdne8YxOx_GibXnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> >>> >>>> SMS wrote: >>>>> steph...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>>>> But massive deficit spending did affect all of this. You can't >>>>>> spend BILLIONS on a war and at the same time LOWER taxes. You >>>>>> blame the dem for "Tax and spend" but ignore the effects of "Tax >>>>>> rebate but spend a lot more". That is EXACTLY what Regan AND both >>>>>> Bush's did. >>> >>>>> Well to be fair, George H.W. Bush did have to clean up the mess >>>>> Reagan made with the S&L's, and he did agree to a tax increase to >>>>> reduce defi >> cit >>>>> spending slightly. And no doubt this was behind his loss for >>>>> re-electi >> on. >>>>> George H.W. Bush also correctly called Reaganomics, "voo-doo >>>>> economics >> ." >>> >>>>>> And where exactly do you think we borrowed this money to go to war >>>>>> wh >> ile >>>>>> lowering taxes came from? >>> >>>>> The deficits run up by the tax cuts for the wealthy exceed the cost >>>>> of the health care proposals. >>> >>>>> People complain a lot about George W. Bush because not only was his >>>>> presidency a failure in terms of domestic and foreign policy, but >>>>> he a >> lso >>>>> was personally unpopular, and not well-spoken. Reagan was more >>>>> dangero >> us >>>>> because his policy failures were not as well understood or >>>>> publicized because he was personally very popular. It's only in the >>>>> past couple o >> f >>>>> years that everyone is beginning to realize the damage Reagan >>>>> wrought. >>>> Thank you for that well-stated post, SMS. I find it difficult to >>>> believ >> e >>>> the number of people in the US who can't understand what a mess >>>> Reagan made. Well, not actually Reagan himself, who was really just >>>> a puppet w >> ho >>>> wasn't smart enough, but the handlers and backers who got him >>>> nominated for and elected to a position that he was not capable of >>>> handling. Bush Sr's biggest mistake was in not recognizing and >>>> reversing policy of the previous eight years. >>>> Allen >>> >>> What I find so sad is that while a president is blamed for a the >>> financia >> l >>> mess congress and the senate skate by. >> >> The president appoints thousands of people in his Adminisration. >> Virtually all the big decision makers are SES (Senior Executive >> Service - the super grades in the GS system). But that's the US >> system. >> >> Reagan was pretty much groomed by the Hoover Institute which is not >> part of the Stanford U. but near the campus. Dirty little secret is >> they had their hands in a lot of his decisions. The pupper master so >> to speak. >> >> There are others in California. Some are degree granting institutions. >> >
From: Neil Harrington on 26 Sep 2009 11:28
Chris Malcolm wrote: > In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against >> carrying guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, >> and so only the criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will >> go up. When you allow everyone to carry guns, some percentage of the >> honest people will do so, and this is bad news for the criminals, >> and the crime rates will go down. Or. at least, the criminals will >> go elsewhere. > >> Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is >> beyond me, but they can't, and haven't been able to for all of my >> life. > > It's the evidence, Bill. What those stupid liberals consider is the > evidence. What the stupid fools don't realise is that if you take > facts seriously you might have to change your mind about some > things. That's why if you know you're right it's so important to > ignore facts. But liberals are too stupid to realise that. All the evidence and facts are on the pro-gun side of the argument, Chris. You don't realize this because you're in the UK, which apparently over the last century has suffered an epidemic of some astonishingly irrational form of anti-gun psychoneurosis. It wasn't always this way. Before 1920, Englishmen had the same rights to gun ownership that Americans did (and to a considerable degree still do, though our rights have been somewhat whittled away since the Gun Control Act of 1968). And your country up until that time was quite peaceful, law-abiding and orderly, from most accounts. Compare with what you've got now, after decades of ever more repressive gun control laws and what seems to be the growing British view that any form of effective self-defense may itself be a crime. There's a very interesting and informative book about all this dealing specifically with your country, which I wholeheartedly recommend to you. It's "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" by Joyce Lee Malcolm. If your local library doesn't have it, Amazon does, and I assume Amazon UK as well. |