Wiki info may be incomplete, anonymous cowardice

On 1/3/10 12:01 AM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:

NameHere wrote:
Gary Theilsen

That means your own government is illegal. I believe the "right to bear
arms" should also include nuclear weaponry. If someone else can have one
that automatically gives me the right to have one. If only they weren't so
expensive. No one person is more worthy of defending themselves than any
other person on earth. Why are others any more responsible with a nuclear
bomb than I will be? They aren't. They never will be. To believe someone
else is always more responsible with weapons of mass destruction only
makes
you into a fool.

Long ago I pondered how it would be if every person on earth was given a
nuclear bomb as a birth-present to carry with them to use at any time
during their life. Imagine how much more respectfully everyone would treat
each other their whole lives.

I can counter that argument with just two words:
"Suicide Bombers".

Same he "Muslim Radicals"

"Christian radicals".

Bigot.

"Commie Martyrs High School"

Butthole.

On 2010-01-03 07:49:22 -0800, George Kerby said:




On 1/2/10 9:19 PM, in article ,
"NameHere" wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:34:08 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:


On 1/2/10 4:18 PM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

NameHere wrote:
Gary Theilsen

That means your own government is illegal. I believe the "right to bear
arms" should also include nuclear weaponry. If someone else can have one
that automatically gives me the right to have one. If only they weren't so
expensive. No one person is more worthy of defending themselves than any
other person on earth. Why are others any more responsible with a nuclear
bomb than I will be? They aren't. They never will be. To believe someone
else is always more responsible with weapons of mass destruction only
makes
you into a fool.

Long ago I pondered how it would be if every person on earth was given a
nuclear bomb as a birth-present to carry with them to use at any time
during their life. Imagine how much more respectfully everyone would treat
each other their whole lives.

I can counter that argument with just two words:
"Suicide Bombers".

Same he "Muslim Radicals"

Neither of you have thought this through very well. Things change when
everyone is truly equal. Nobody would have need to be a suicide bomber. Any
faction or portion of society anywhere on the globe that demanded more than
another would be instantly annihilated, by self or by others. The only
genetics left of the human race would be those that would be intelligent
enough to know what not to do, and knew how to treat all others with
respect. Everyone on earth would be choosing their behaviors and beliefs
very carefully if they want themselves and the human race to survive.

I didn't think you'd be able to fully grasp the concept of this. You're not
bright enough. Your kind would be the first to destroy yourselves. Nobody
on earth would shed even one tear. It wouldn't be a loss of any kind, it
would be all gain as far as human genetics are concerned.

There are no robbers nor murderers when everyone around them has a loaded
and ready gun. Unless they themselves want to die. If so, fine. One less
packet of bad genetics walking around, that's all it will amount to.

OTOH, you do not seem to possess enough genetic material to control your
motor skills and repeatedly touch the 'send' button.

There's an App for that: Electroshock Therapy.

Following this thread it has been interesting to note the P&S troll has
been working the crowd using 2 different persona, "NameHere" & "Gary
Theilsen" .

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-01-03 07:56:19 -0800, George Kerby said:




On 1/2/10 9:49 PM, in article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:


"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 1/2/10 4:18 PM, in article ,
"Ray
Fischer" wrote:

NameHere wrote:
Gary Theilsen

That means your own government is illegal. I believe the "right to bear
arms" should also include nuclear weaponry. If someone else can have
one
that automatically gives me the right to have one. If only they weren't
so
expensive. No one person is more worthy of defending themselves than
any
other person on earth. Why are others any more responsible with a
nuclear
bomb than I will be? They aren't. They never will be. To believe
someone
else is always more responsible with weapons of mass destruction only
makes
you into a fool.

Long ago I pondered how it would be if every person on earth was given a
nuclear bomb as a birth-present to carry with them to use at any time
during their life. Imagine how much more respectfully everyone would
treat
each other their whole lives.

I can counter that argument with just two words:
"Suicide Bombers".

Same he "Muslim Radicals"


weg9 says: That's right. The real believers would gladly take out a whole
town in order to get those 72 virgins for the rest of eternity. After all,
they believe that's what Allah really wants them to do......

Bulletin: (just in) "Due to the Westernization of our society, Allah
announced today that the virgin population has been rationed to 36 per
martyr."

Sire! Sire!
The parade of the virgins has been canceled. One is ill, and the other
refuses to march alone. :-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/3/10 10:23 AM, in article
2010010308233738165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2010-01-03 07:49:22 -0800, George Kerby said:




On 1/2/10 9:19 PM, in article ,
"NameHere" wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:34:08 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:


On 1/2/10 4:18 PM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

NameHere wrote:
Gary Theilsen

That means your own government is illegal. I believe the "right to bear
arms" should also include nuclear weaponry. If someone else can have one
that automatically gives me the right to have one. If only they weren't
so
expensive. No one person is more worthy of defending themselves than any
other person on earth. Why are others any more responsible with a
nuclear
bomb than I will be? They aren't. They never will be. To believe someone
else is always more responsible with weapons of mass destruction only
makes
you into a fool.

Long ago I pondered how it would be if every person on earth was given a
nuclear bomb as a birth-present to carry with them to use at any time
during their life. Imagine how much more respectfully everyone would
treat
each other their whole lives.

I can counter that argument with just two words:
"Suicide Bombers".

Same he "Muslim Radicals"

Neither of you have thought this through very well. Things change when
everyone is truly equal. Nobody would have need to be a suicide bomber. Any
faction or portion of society anywhere on the globe that demanded more than
another would be instantly annihilated, by self or by others. The only
genetics left of the human race would be those that would be intelligent
enough to know what not to do, and knew how to treat all others with
respect. Everyone on earth would be choosing their behaviors and beliefs
very carefully if they want themselves and the human race to survive.

I didn't think you'd be able to fully grasp the concept of this. You're not
bright enough. Your kind would be the first to destroy yourselves. Nobody
on earth would shed even one tear. It wouldn't be a loss of any kind, it
would be all gain as far as human genetics are concerned.

There are no robbers nor murderers when everyone around them has a loaded
and ready gun. Unless they themselves want to die. If so, fine. One less
packet of bad genetics walking around, that's all it will amount to.

OTOH, you do not seem to possess enough genetic material to control your
motor skills and repeatedly touch the 'send' button.

There's an App for that: Electroshock Therapy.

Following this thread it has been interesting to note the P&S troll has
been working the crowd using 2 different persona, "NameHere" & "Gary
Theilsen" .

And don't forget, the sock "Bruce"...

Bill Graham wrote:
How
do they know how many children die from second hand smoke?....

Ye Gods! It's called elementary research methodology.

You take a large sample of children who died from smoking related
diseases from heavy smoker and from non smoking households.
If the reasearch (and especially the sampling method) are well-designed
in order to exclude extraneous variables as much as possible (such as
taking all the smoking households from polluted, lower class industrial
cities and the non-smokers from affluent rural areas), the results will
tell you what the risk of a child dying from smoke-related problems in a
(heavy) smoking household is.

This *is* a a far cry from the "statistics" you used in your ludicrous
attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq.

(Mumbles something about people who have opinions on and who criticize
things they have no clue about)

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Having said that, it seems to me that the drug dealer is more guilty than
the guy he seduces into the habit forming, mind killing, drug.
--
Peter

weg9 says: In that case, we should throw our own government into
jail.....They are the biggest drug dealers of all. They collect excessive
taxes on both tobacco and alcohol products, and have all of my life. I
like my imaginary cartoon.....A couple of soldiers on the front lines in a
war......And one says to the other, "Well, that shot was for the average
American, but we can't leave yet......I have to fire this other shot for
the guy who smokes and drinks.....After all, he pays more taxes than
everyone else."


No! the gubbmint is opportunistic.
Your argument reminds me of the time when Britain refused the tax the
earnings of prostitutes because the Oxonian Bishops decided that to do so
would turn the government into pimps. A very high proportion of women put
"prostitute" as their occupation and legally avoided taxation.

No! imposing and collecting taxes is not condoning.
Please, state whether you agree with my assertion that: The [illegal] drug
dealer is more guilty than the guy he seduces into the habit forming, mind
killing, drug.


--
Peter

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...


weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana laws.....I am
in favor of repealing any laws against any and all drugs.....Everyone
should have the right to ingest anything they have the money to pay
for, with or without a doctor's prescription. Why would you want some
doctor to have control over you or your body? He should be paid for
his advice, and not for his power.


That is hardly the position of the classic conservative.



Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the
powers we give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is split
over whether it is a good thing or not......Sorry about that, but it
is not my fault.

My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are
forced to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian world, you
would not be responsible for my health care, and it wouldn't cost you
anything if I broke my head. The law that forces hospitals to care for
anyone who is carried in to them off the street is a liberal
law.....It is not my doing. Today, we have the ability to identify
anyone in a few seconds by scanning their eyeballs, fingerprints or
DNA, or a chip implanted under their skin. We don't have to take care
of people who are here illegally, or who who refuse to buy health
insurance. If you want to take care of these irresponsible people,
then do so, but please don't charge me for it.

"We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to
control people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that?
Would you like to live in Iran, where the government controls
everyone's morality? then go there......I would like to control my own
morality, thanks. If I want to drink or smoke myself to death, than
why would you care? And, be careful.....Pretty soon the senate will
get around to preventing you from doing something that you would like
to do, and stop it by taxing the hell out of it....what will you do
then? Maybe they will decide that pastrami sandwiches or egg crèmes
are bad for you. Anything that most of them don't regularly do, as a
matter of fact.....They don't like to rice motorcycles without their
helmets, so it is easy for them to make a law against it.......I don't
see them making any laws forcing you to wear a helmet on the golf
course......You can get a broken head there, too. I wonder why not? Is
it because golf is an old geezers game, and a lot of them play
it......Oh, no.....That can't be the reason......:^)


You obviously know nothing about golf,

Tiger the Geezer.

--
Peter

weg9 says: I know that I've never seen anyone on a golf course
wearing a helmet.

Not even the workers dong repair work? :-)


And, I am not a "classic conservative". I am not even a conservative. I
am a libertarian.

Your postings have demonstrated your lack of adherence to conservative
principles.

For an interesting read see:

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/LIBERTAR.htm

How consistent is that article with your views?


--
Peter

weg9 says: Yes, the article is quite consistent with my views. But
sometimes it is difficult to decide exactly what the libertarian view
is......If, by exercising some right or other, I inadvertently take away
someone else's right, then perhaps government should have the right to
intervene and not allow my exercise of that right, and it is not always
easy to make those decisions, so some compromise is usually
necessary.......It is an imperfect world, even for us
libertarians.......:^)


That's exactly the idea. When your perceived rights conflict with my
perceived rights, who resolves the issue.

Let's take it one step further. What happens when your perceived rights
necessarily, not inadvertently, conflicts with my perceived rights.


--
Peter

"NameHere" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 19:47:23 -0800, "Bill Graham" wrote:


weg9 says: It would be very difficult to just kill one attacker with a
nuclear bomb. I can carry a S&W model 38 snubby revolver, which is only
accurate at distances of less than 40 feet or so, and protect myself from
one or two people very well, without taking out the whole town of hundreds
or thousands of innocent people. To compare my desire to carry that
revolver
with, "everyone carrying a nuclear weapon" is highly unrealistic. I don't
want the power to wipe out the whole town.......I just want what they used
to call (in the early West) an "equalizer". A hand gun gives and old woman
the same power as a 6 foot 20 year old male. (assuming she takes the time
and trouble to go to a range once in a while and practice with it.)

It's not that simple. Works fine in a town or small city, but not when you
live in a world. Anyone who has a weapon of greater power than you will
always be able to control you with it. The "equalizer" principle only
works
when everyone on earth is truly equal.

Does anyone have any information on that town in Texas USA? I think it
was.
Where a law was made that everyone in that town had to own and carry a
gun.
What are their crime rates compared to the rest of the country or other
countries? I suspect enough time has passed now to provide useful and
credible data.

weg9 says: You don't need the data from that town. You can just compare
the data from those towns where carrying a gun is legal, and those where it
is not, and you will see that carrying a gun reduces the crime rate.
However, the accidental gunshot rate will go up in those towns where more
people "carry".


But this is normal is it not? In towns where everyone drives, the commute
time is lower, but the automobile accident rate is higher.....

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 1/2/10 9:49 PM, in article
,
"Bill Graham" wrote:


"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 1/2/10 4:18 PM, in article ,
"Ray
Fischer" wrote:

NameHere wrote:
Gary Theilsen

That means your own government is illegal. I believe the "right to
bear
arms" should also include nuclear weaponry. If someone else can have
one
that automatically gives me the right to have one. If only they
weren't
so
expensive. No one person is more worthy of defending themselves than
any
other person on earth. Why are others any more responsible with a
nuclear
bomb than I will be? They aren't. They never will be. To believe
someone
else is always more responsible with weapons of mass destruction only
makes
you into a fool.

Long ago I pondered how it would be if every person on earth was given
a
nuclear bomb as a birth-present to carry with them to use at any time
during their life. Imagine how much more respectfully everyone would
treat
each other their whole lives.

I can counter that argument with just two words:
"Suicide Bombers".

Same he "Muslim Radicals"


weg9 says: That's right. The real believers would gladly take out a
whole
town in order to get those 72 virgins for the rest of eternity. After
all,
they believe that's what Allah really wants them to do......

Bulletin: (just in) "Due to the Westernization of our society, Allah
announced today that the virgin population has been rationed to 36 per
martyr."


weg9 says: Argggghhhh! That's terrible! But, come to think of it, at my
age, I would have a problem handling even one virgin anyway, so I guess I
shouldn't bitch......

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Having said that, it seems to me that the drug dealer is more guilty
than the guy he seduces into the habit forming, mind killing, drug.
--
Peter

weg9 says: In that case, we should throw our own government into
jail.....They are the biggest drug dealers of all. They collect excessive
taxes on both tobacco and alcohol products, and have all of my life. I
like my imaginary cartoon.....A couple of soldiers on the front lines in
a war......And one says to the other, "Well, that shot was for the
average American, but we can't leave yet......I have to fire this other
shot for the guy who smokes and drinks.....After all, he pays more taxes
than everyone else."


No! the gubbmint is opportunistic.
Your argument reminds me of the time when Britain refused the tax the
earnings of prostitutes because the Oxonian Bishops decided that to do so
would turn the government into pimps. A very high proportion of women put
"prostitute" as their occupation and legally avoided taxation.

No! imposing and collecting taxes is not condoning.
Please, state whether you agree with my assertion that: The [illegal] drug
dealer is more guilty than the guy he seduces into the habit forming, mind
killing, drug.


--
Peter

weg9 says: My answer: - Equal taxation across the board. It shouldn't
matter how you earn your living. Legal or illegal. If you earn money, it
should be taxed, and at the same rate as everyone else who works and earns
it. If you distill liquor for a living, your customers shouldn't have to pay
any more taxes for your booze than they pay for a glass of water. That
soldier on the front lines doesn't fire any more bullets for the guy that
drinks vodka than he does for the guy who drinks water. The tax laws were
not written to control the morality of the people. They are there to pay for
the costs of government.