OT Bush wins ... Dims lose ...America wins...

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

I object to *my* rights and freedoms being eroded, and I can tell you
very
exactly what they a my rights as a gun owner.

So, you challenge me to explain what rights are being eroded, and your
challenge is -- specifying one of your rights that is being eroded?
That's
good. I guess you actually agree with me, then?

You've deleted the part where I said this has been happening over the last
40 years, has nothing to do with the Bush administration and in fact Bush is
a defender of the Second Amendment.


This isn't something that's happening under the Bush administration
though;

If you think they don't want to take away your guns, you're kidding
yourself. They just don't want to take them away *yet*. The *ONLY*
difference between the two "sides" we are told we're supposed to choose
between is the order in which they want to deprive us of our rights.

Bush, Cheney and that sort of people don't want to deprive us of our gun
rights at all. Those who do are all on the opposite side.



The Bush crowd just thinks it'll work better to start with other ones,
first, is all. I never thought they'd leap right for Habeas Corpus,
though, but hell if they didn't, and with some success, too -- one of
the most fundamental parts of the entire system, and they just decide
it doesn't matter any more.

Privacy ain't nothing to these freedom-hating, anti-American scumbags.
They're going right for the big stuff. No more fooling around.

All that is just nonsense.

Neil

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:52:21 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

And if we get past 'these times being what they are', do you think
that the installed and widely used technology would be deactivated?
Look at the mess the FBI has got itself into, where it repeatedly
minimized its spying activities, only to have its extensive
monitoring activities exposed. It's still actively fighting to make
sure that there's no oversight, saying that we can trust them to do
all of their snooping legally, and can be trusted to police itself.
I believe them, really I do, so help me Rosemary Woods.

Heh. Yes, of course you have a point there, but it's natural for any sort of
plainclothes police service, detective department or whatever, to want the
power to operate as clandestinely as possible. Can this lead to abuses? Of
course. Does that possibility mean that all police organizations should be
stripped of the power to investigate anything covertly and/or by high-tech
means? In my opinion, definitely not.

The only way to ensure that no federal, state and local police organizations
would ever do anything illegal or improper would be to disband them all.
Short of that, you just watch them as best you can, accepting that
inevitably there's always going to be some adversarial nature to the
civilian/police relationship.

But that hasn't been working because there has been no oversight.
The FBI has been responsible for watching itself, and they want
nothing but more of the same. As bad as J. Edgar turned out, for
the first couple of decades he really cleaned up the FBI. The FBI
again needs someone strong to run it, someone that needs to shake up
and straighten out the ones that have a tendency to go break their
own rules, that will be independent enough to resist being a
presidential puppet, and also be able to resist going the J. Edgar
rogue route. I doubt that they'll find that man, unless . . .
didn't I hear somewhere that this Putin guy will be available soon?

g

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:18:21 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

"true affection for ALL the people of our country" my ass. Clinton is a
genuine, certifiable sociopath, and like all sociopaths has no "true
affection" for anyone but himself.

If you believe that, you have no idea what a true sociopath is.

Oh, I assure you that I do. I worked in that field for 30 years, and have
known every variety of sociopath. Clinton is a true sociopath. You believe
him when he says, "Ah feel yore pain"? The only time he feels pain is when
he's squirming under oath, trying to lie and cover himself at the same
time -- or maybe when Hillary throws another lamp at him.

Neil

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:52:21 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

And if we get past 'these times being what they are', do you think
that the installed and widely used technology would be deactivated?
Look at the mess the FBI has got itself into, where it repeatedly
minimized its spying activities, only to have its extensive
monitoring activities exposed. It's still actively fighting to make
sure that there's no oversight, saying that we can trust them to do
all of their snooping legally, and can be trusted to police itself.
I believe them, really I do, so help me Rosemary Woods.

Heh. Yes, of course you have a point there, but it's natural for any sort
of
plainclothes police service, detective department or whatever, to want
the
power to operate as clandestinely as possible. Can this lead to abuses?
Of
course. Does that possibility mean that all police organizations should
be
stripped of the power to investigate anything covertly and/or by
high-tech
means? In my opinion, definitely not.

The only way to ensure that no federal, state and local police
organizations
would ever do anything illegal or improper would be to disband them all.
Short of that, you just watch them as best you can, accepting that
inevitably there's always going to be some adversarial nature to the
civilian/police relationship.

But that hasn't been working because there has been no oversight.
The FBI has been responsible for watching itself, and they want
nothing but more of the same. As bad as J. Edgar turned out, for
the first couple of decades he really cleaned up the FBI.

I don't think he "turned out" so bad either. He was something of a
self-promoter, but who isn't in politics?

Agreed, the FBI has had its excesses, as have other agencies. I really think
that goes with the territory to a considerable degree, even in democracies
and probably far worse in other forms of government.


The FBI
again needs someone strong to run it, someone that needs to shake up
and straighten out the ones that have a tendency to go break their
own rules, that will be independent enough to resist being a
presidential puppet, and also be able to resist going the J. Edgar
rogue route. I doubt that they'll find that man, unless . . .
didn't I hear somewhere that this Putin guy will be available soon?

guffaw!

Well, there's a thought.

Neil

Neil Harrington wrote:

You've deleted the part where I said this has been happening over the last
40 years, has nothing to do with the Bush administration and in fact Bush is
a defender of the Second Amendment.

Your rights are being eroded. You said it yourself. Bush may not be
leading a frontal assault on *that* particular one, but he's not doing
much to help, either. Most of the gun laws that affect you are state
laws, not federal, over which the federal government doesn't have direct
control -- but the Bush regime is doing its best to whittle away states'
rights and consolidate power in the federal government. This *will* hurt
your rights as a gun owner, as well as quite a few others you don't seem
to care much about.

When Hillary "I've never owned a gun but have been followed around by
armed guards for the past 15 years and thus have wonderful perspective on
the gun issue" Clinton is president, you really don't want her to have any
more power over your rights as a gun owner than she already will -- but,
ironically, Bush is paving the way for that scenario as we speak.

The first question you should ask yourself about any law is this: "How can my
enemies use this against me?" Because someday your enemies will be in power.

Bush, Cheney and that sort of people don't want to deprive us of our gun
rights at all. Those who do are all on the opposite side.

That you buy into this illusion of "sides" is part of the problem.

All that is just nonsense.

Tell that to the people sitting in prison with no charges, no access to a
court, and no legal representation.

--
Jeremy |

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
...

Oh I don't know about that. How many people were killed by
drunk drivers last year?

Deliberately? As a planned, terrorist act?

Probably zero.

Neil

Oh so getting drunk and killing someone is OK if it was not
intended?

What comment are you replying to?


I was replying to the following comments as they were copied from
what appears to have been a response from you on 7/1007 at 5:00PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh I don't know about that. How many people were killed by drunk
drivers last year?

Deliberately? As a planned, terrorist act?

Probably zero.

Neil

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right. Now let's restore the context of your original context quoted
above:

There you go. Pay so much attention to an outside threat that the
far more dangerous internal threat gets ignored. Have a neo-con
over for dinner: it might be possible to educate him or her.


It has been a while since someone other than Arab terrorists killed
3000 Americans in an attack.

Oh I don't know about that. How many people were killed by drunk
drivers last year?


The context was about terrorism, and Americans killed *in an attack*.
What has deaths from drunk driving got to do with that? Thousands of
Americans die in falls every year, too. Thousands more from drowning.
About a hundred thousand from bad medical practice. Most if not all
of these could have been avoided, but they are still accidents. For
people up to age 40 or so, accidents are the leading cause of death
in the U.S., and probably most other countries too.

When someone who is drunk comes at me at 60 mph in a car, I consider
that an attack.

When I see all this worry and hate coming out of the 9/11 attack, I
think it is time we take a step back and put things in perspective. If even
10% of the money and effort put into anti terror work was put into
anti-drunk driving efforts we would be far better off. Drunk drivers are a
real and very serious daily treat in our country. Terror attacks are also,
but they represent a far lower risk.





People who drink and drive have made a choice. They have chosen
to risk killing others.

Which has what to do with anything I've said?

I am responsible only for what I write. Any messages you may be
receiving from outer space have nothing to do with me, and I accept
no responsbility for them.

Neil


My point is that people who drink and drive have made a choice
to risk their lives and the lives of innocent others by their
actions just as a terrorist does.

No, not "just as a terrorist does." Virtually all accidents would
have been prevented if only the victims and/or perpetrators had done
something different, but they are still accidents, not deliberate
acts.

All the victims killed killed on 9-11 would have survived if they had
chosen not to get on the plane or had not gone to work that day.



One does it for a cause and the other does it ... well why does
someone drink and drive????

To get home from the bar or party, I would assume. (That was easy.)

Why do they chose to DRIVE DRUNK. You can not drink or you can call a
cab. Why does someone chose to risk their own life and the lives of others.

How often have you driven drunk? I have driven drunk one time in over
40 years of driving. The next day when I realized what I had done (no
accidents or even close calls) I decided I would never drink and drive. No
one is forced to drink and drive. In my mind they are worse than those well
call terrorist.



Neil

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Why do they chose to DRIVE DRUNK. You can not drink or you can call a
cab. Why does someone chose to risk their own life and the lives of
others.


They drive drunk for the same reason people carry on political threads that
go off on tangents concerning drunk driving in newsgroups that are totally
unrelated to those topics.

Poor judgment and lack of self control.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
...

Oh I don't know about that. How many people were killed by
drunk drivers last year?

Deliberately? As a planned, terrorist act?

Probably zero.

Neil

Oh so getting drunk and killing someone is OK if it was not
intended?

What comment are you replying to?


I was replying to the following comments as they were copied from
what appears to have been a response from you on 7/1007 at 5:00PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh I don't know about that. How many people were killed by drunk
drivers last year?

Deliberately? As a planned, terrorist act?

Probably zero.

Neil

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right. Now let's restore the context of your original context quoted
above:

There you go. Pay so much attention to an outside threat that the
far more dangerous internal threat gets ignored. Have a neo-con
over for dinner: it might be possible to educate him or her.


It has been a while since someone other than Arab terrorists killed
3000 Americans in an attack.

Oh I don't know about that. How many people were killed by drunk
drivers last year?


The context was about terrorism, and Americans killed *in an attack*.
What has deaths from drunk driving got to do with that? Thousands of
Americans die in falls every year, too. Thousands more from drowning.
About a hundred thousand from bad medical practice. Most if not all
of these could have been avoided, but they are still accidents. For
people up to age 40 or so, accidents are the leading cause of death
in the U.S., and probably most other countries too.

When someone who is drunk comes at me at 60 mph in a car, I consider
that an attack.

Then you really take things too personally.


When I see all this worry and hate coming out of the 9/11 attack, I
think it is time we take a step back and put things in perspective. If
even 10% of the money and effort put into anti terror work was put into
anti-drunk driving efforts we would be far better off. Drunk drivers are
a real and very serious daily treat in our country. Terror attacks are
also, but they represent a far lower risk.





People who drink and drive have made a choice. They have chosen
to risk killing others.

Which has what to do with anything I've said?

I am responsible only for what I write. Any messages you may be
receiving from outer space have nothing to do with me, and I accept
no responsbility for them.

Neil


My point is that people who drink and drive have made a choice
to risk their lives and the lives of innocent others by their
actions just as a terrorist does.

No, not "just as a terrorist does." Virtually all accidents would
have been prevented if only the victims and/or perpetrators had done
something different, but they are still accidents, not deliberate
acts.

All the victims killed killed on 9-11 would have survived if they had
chosen not to get on the plane or had not gone to work that day.

That still doesn't make the 9/11 attacks accidents, or comparable to
accidents.




One does it for a cause and the other does it ... well why does
someone drink and drive????

To get home from the bar or party, I would assume. (That was easy.)

Why do they chose to DRIVE DRUNK.

Oh, I doubt "they chose to DRIVE DRUNK," I presume drunk just happened to be
their condition at the time.


You can not drink or you can call a cab. Why does someone chose to risk
their own life and the lives of others.

Being drunk has a way of minimizing those concerns, Joseph. (These are
really easy questions.) Can it be that someone with a fine name like Meehan
has no experience of being drunk?


How often have you driven drunk?

In my long-ago youth, many times. In the last 40 or 50 years, never.


I have driven drunk one time in over 40 years of driving. The next day
when I realized what I had done (no accidents or even close calls) I
decided I would never drink and drive.

Good for you. You are a fine, upstanding fellow with an excellent sense of
responsibility and morality.


No one is forced to drink and drive. In my mind they are worse than those
well call terrorist.

Terrorists intend to murder as many people as possible. I agree that drunk
drivers are bad, but to say they are worse than terrorists is far-fetched to
say the least.

Bad medical treatment kills several times more people every year than drunk
drivers do. So do you regard the doctors responsible for that treatment as
much, much worse than terrorists?

Neil

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

You've deleted the part where I said this has been happening over the
last
40 years, has nothing to do with the Bush administration and in fact Bush
is
a defender of the Second Amendment.

Your rights are being eroded. You said it yourself. Bush may not be
leading a frontal assault on *that* particular one, but he's not doing
much to help, either. Most of the gun laws that affect you are state
laws, not federal, over which the federal government doesn't have direct
control -- but the Bush regime is doing its best to whittle away states'
rights and consolidate power in the federal government. This *will* hurt
your rights as a gun owner, as well as quite a few others you don't seem
to care much about.

I care about constitutional rights, i.e. those actually laid down in the
Constitution -- not invented by activist SCOTUS justices.

States' rights have been whittled away by the political left, not the right.
More strict constructionist justices on the SC -- such as the two nominated
by this Bush -- would help prevent that.


When Hillary "I've never owned a gun but have been followed around by
armed guards for the past 15 years and thus have wonderful perspective on
the gun issue" Clinton is president, you really don't want her to have any
more power over your rights as a gun owner than she already will -- but,
ironically, Bush is paving the way for that scenario as we speak.

I don't see how. Again, a conservative SCOTUS is our best protection against
that.


The first question you should ask yourself about any law is this: "How can
my
enemies use this against me?" Because someday your enemies will be in
power.

Bush, Cheney and that sort of people don't want to deprive us of our gun
rights at all. Those who do are all on the opposite side.

That you buy into this illusion of "sides" is part of the problem.

There *are* sides, as you have tacitly admitted yourself above.


All that is just nonsense.

Tell that to the people sitting in prison with no charges, no access to a
court, and no legal representation.

If you're talking about insurgent fighters taken on the battlefield, men who
tried to murder our soldiers in the Middle East, frankly I don't see why
they should have any rights at all. I think we have treated them better than
they deserve. Traditionally, such partisans -- neither in uniform nor
attached to any regular army -- have been shot or hanged when caught. They
are not entitled to POW status. They are in legal limbo, it seems to me.

If your complaint is that *we* shouldn't hold them as prisoners, then fine,
let's turn them over to selected other countries for imprisonment and
interrogation. (Reportedly we already do that to some extent, and
leftist-"liberals" whine about that too.) I'll bet you dollars to donuts
they'd be begging to get back to Gitmo.

Neil

"BoomBoom" wrote in message
...
David Ruether wrote:

I'm not going to say that I agree with all aspects of so-called
"domestic spying" but a good yardstick of what is sensible is to see
what the ACLU stands for and then go in the other direction.

What the ACLU, or, "American Civil Liberties Union, "stands for"
is the protection of our rights as citizens of the US as enumerated
in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, regardless of the popularity
(*or lack thereof*) of the particulars of the law cases they engage in.

The ACLU protects our rights as US citizens? Show me one case where they
fought to protect a US citizen's rights to bear arms? How about to
practice Christian religion openly without being harassed? The ACLU isn't
about freedom, it's about unabashed liberalism. They only defend
pedophiles, cop-killers, and the vilest forms of speech and exploitation
disguised as art.
Say god-bless you to someone who sneezes and the ACLU accuses you of a
civil rights violation--never mind your freedom of speech and religion.
Want a gun for self defense, a long held traditional American right with
or without the 2nd amendment, don't bother asking the ACLU for help, it's
not a right they care to protect. Want to protect your property from a
local government that wants to take it away to sell to Walmart, don't talk
to the ACLU, they don't want to hear it.
Go sell crazy somewhere else, I'm not buying.

I'm with you, brother.

Where are all these crazies coming from anyway? Are we hosting a Leftist
Looneys convention or something?

Neil