From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u8gqc5l7il84ngon0dds4uduspj0j7opop(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:11:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some
>>minor
>>discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your
>>point....Savageduck
>>does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than
>>specifics,
>
> The devil is in the details. Although, claiming that US unemployment
> is at 20% or thinking that "vigilante" is an antonym for "looter" is
> hardly a petty detail. You and Bill Graham share a propensity for
> bungling the specifics.

I never said either one of those things....The unemployment is currently at
9.8% nationally, although here in Oregon it is closer to 12% A vigilante is
an unlicensed policeman.


>
>>and I don't argue when you correct my specifics. But I can see the
>>difference between minor specifics and my general logic.
>
> Oddly enough, this could very well be the defense that one of those
> political commentators like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,
> or Sean Hannity would use when caught out. They might completely
> twist and spin the truth, but would claim that their general logic is
> correct even if their specifics are not.
>
>>Please point out
>>where my general logic has been wrong, and I will change my thinking
>>instantly.
>
> I would not expect you to. You have a strong bias against the US and
> a disdain for the US military. You have deep-seated misconceptions
> about the American public.

I believe in the basic intelligence of the, "American public". I mistrust
the government, and with good cause.....So what? I believe that Obama should
give the 40 K troops to the generals fighting the war in Afghanistan. They
know what they need. He does not.
>
> Pointing out your errors or misapprehensions isn't going to change
> your thinking. And, frankly, attempting to enlighten you isn't a game
> worth the candle.
>
Certainly your attempting to enlighten me isn't worth anything.....You don't
know enough to enlighten anybody. You are a liberal.....Enough said.

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:VKOdnW4Z4tES81DXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:q64pc5t7s86hgmsd2dctahb8ghgpi7vl72(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>
>>>I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same
>>>pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different
>>>scene.
>>>
>>>I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there
>>>were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to
>>>keep the peace and get supplies for people.
>>
>> I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes"
>> would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to
>> describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would
>> be as negative as a description using "looters".
>
> Not necessarily. "Vigilantes" implies a group of citizens that "take the
> law into their own hands," to use the common phrase. Sometimes that is the
> necessary and proper thing to do.
>
> Do you know where and when the term got started?
>
> In the mid-19th century, San Francisco, then a relatively small town, was
> much troubled by crime and violence. Honest men and women were attacked
> and robbed, businesses were too, streets and homes were unsafe, and the
> local judges and peace officers were worse than useless -- basically the
> local law was in cahoots with the criminals.
>
> Eventually the local citizens got fed up with this and formed what they
> called a "vigilance committee." (This of course is where "vigilante" comes
> from.) One day the committee rounded up a number of the most notorious
> crooks, including some of the local "law" I believe, gave them a speedy
> trial and hanged them.
>
> The effect on San Francisco was salutory. Criminals and corrupt law
> officers alike fled the city post haste, and it became (for a while) a
> peaceful, law-abiding and orderly town.
>
> As I recollect, the citizens of San Francisco had to do that twice, and on
> one occasion federal troops were called in to protect the corrupt local
> law, with mixed results.
>
> These very interesting and even instructive events are extensively covered
> in the book "The Barbary Coast," by Herbert Asbury, published in 1933 --
> about five years after his better known book, "Gangs of New York." The
> latter of course was what the silly movie of that title with Leonardo
> DiCaprio was supposedly based on -- though to even suggest that there's
> any similarity between the book and the movie should be made a criminal
> offense. Both books are an excellent read and may still be available -- I
> have facsimile reprints of both, haven't read them for many years but must
> do so again soon.
>
>>
>>>In other words gang warfare but the very subtle differences in the words
>>>portrayed one group as criminals and the other as upholding the law
>>
>> The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes
>> operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of
>> "vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation.
>
> It has that meaning and connotation for you, because of the way it is
> generally used and because you presumably don't know how the term
> originated.. But when there is no law organization doing the job the law
> is supposed to do, and peaceful, honest citizens are being attacked,
> robbed and worse -- as obviously was the case in New Orleans -- then the
> vigilante in one form or another becomes necessary. What else can people
> do to protect themselves? Remember that in New Orleans during Katrina,
> many of the police fled the city (two of them stole a police cruiser and
> were arrested in Texas) and the mayor fled also. Whatever police remained
> seem to have been absolutely useless.
>
>
Long before Katrina, the New Orleans Police Department was well known for
its corruption......

From: tony cooper on
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:03:32 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:u8gqc5l7il84ngon0dds4uduspj0j7opop(a)4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:11:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some
>>>minor
>>>discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your
>>>point....Savageduck
>>>does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than
>>>specifics,
>>
>> The devil is in the details. Although, claiming that US unemployment
>> is at 20% or thinking that "vigilante" is an antonym for "looter" is
>> hardly a petty detail. You and Bill Graham share a propensity for
>> bungling the specifics.
>
>I never said either one of those things....The unemployment is currently at
>9.8% nationally, although here in Oregon it is closer to 12% A vigilante is
>an unlicensed policeman.

I erred, Bill, and I apologize. So much of Chris's comments were in
the post that I thought I was replying to Chris. You did not say
those things. Your bungles have been in other areas. More of your
bungles are in today's posts.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9fvsc5945sja04s80rqo2r4mcobr2mlig9(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:03:32 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:u8gqc5l7il84ngon0dds4uduspj0j7opop(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:11:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some
>>>>minor
>>>>discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your
>>>>point....Savageduck
>>>>does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than
>>>>specifics,
>>>
>>> The devil is in the details. Although, claiming that US unemployment
>>> is at 20% or thinking that "vigilante" is an antonym for "looter" is
>>> hardly a petty detail. You and Bill Graham share a propensity for
>>> bungling the specifics.
>>
>>I never said either one of those things....The unemployment is currently
>>at
>>9.8% nationally, although here in Oregon it is closer to 12% A vigilante
>>is
>>an unlicensed policeman.
>
> I erred, Bill, and I apologize. So much of Chris's comments were in
> the post that I thought I was replying to Chris. You did not say
> those things. Your bungles have been in other areas. More of your
> bungles are in today's posts.
>
Look. there are many ways to insult me. But confusing me with Chris is
unpardonable.....:^)

From: Bob Larter on
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> SMS wrote:
>>>>> Bob Larter wrote:
>
>>>>>> Don't you think it's kind of hypocritical that on the one hand
>>>>>> right-wingers oppose abortion, calling it murder, and yet on the other
>>>>>> hand, they support the death penalty?
>>>>> Actually no. With abortion I can at least understand their opposition,
>>>>> even if I don't agree with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> At what number of weeks in the pregnancy would you say that abortion is
>>>>> no longer acceptable? Clearly few people would support it at 38 weeks.
>>>>> What about 27 weeks?
>>>> Given that my son was born at 26 weeks, & is now a perfectly healthy 8
>>>> year old, abortions as late as that do bother me a lot.
>>> Less than 1% of all abortions occur in the 3rd trimester and those few
>>> are almost always done for medical need.
>> In such cases, I don't have a problem with them.
>
> How generous of you to grant a woman a choice with her pregnancy.

It's not a matter of me 'granting' anything, it's just that late-term
abortions bother me. I don't question the right of a woman to have one.

>>>> That said, I
>>>> still believe that the woman's right to choose trumps the rights of the
>>>> foetus.
>>>>
>>>>> While their opposition to RU486 is pretty
>>>>> ridiculous, at least you can see where they are coming from in opposing
>>>>> abortion after the fetus is more than a few weeks old.
>>>> My personal dividing line is at the point where the foetus is viable
>>>> outside the womb. Currently, I think that's around 24 weeks.
>>> Only if you have a million dollars to spend on medical care. A more
>>> practical limit of viability would be around 33 weeks.
>> Not so. Here in Australia, where we have free, universal healthcare, my
>> son's birth & followup treatments didn't cost his mother or I a single cent.
>
> Somebody has to pay for it. 24-week preemies are VERY expensive and
> lifelong medical problems are a near certainty.

Nonetheless, his birth cost me nothing more than what I already
contribute to the Medicare system in taxes.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------