From: J�rgen Exner on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>Somebody who hasn't the confidence to think for himself. I call these
>people, "liberals."

I see, another one of your home-made definitions, just like socialism.
In reality liberalism requires A LOT of thinking (and therefore
information) because by the very defintion of the word "liberal" you are
liberated(!) from and thus cannot just regurgitate preconceived ideas or
propaganda from any political mainstream movement.

>They are afraid of many things.

Maybe. I don't know. But they are certainly not afraid of thinking for
themself.

>That's why they are so
>quick to give up their freedoms for the "security" of letting their
>government make all their choices for them.

I'm happy that the government decreed that all all cars should drive on
the right (left in some countries) side of the road and took away that
choice from me. I'm also quite happy that the government took away my
neighbours choice of stealing my car or companies choice of selling
dangerous good like lead-based paint or deadly electrical appliances,
not to mention the choice of airlines when and how to maintain their
fleet.
Would you really prefer those things to be left to the choice of the
individuals?

jue
From: Ray Fischer on
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.

So by your logic, guns should be treated like cars and subject to the
same licensing requirements.

>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.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4abab752$0$12715$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:iKWdnQ9MwO97LyfXnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Yes. I am amused, however by those who won't carry, based on
>>> statistics that show them that society would be better off without
>>> guns. What kind of person would allow statistics to control his/her
>>> individual choices?
>>
>> Somebody who understands the concept of the tragedy of the commons.
>>
>>
>Somebody who hasn't the confidence to think for himself. I call these
>people, "liberals." They are afraid of many things.

Afraid of liberals.
Afraid of communists.
Afraid of Democrats.
Afraid of socialism.
Afraid of laws.
Afraid of Arabs.
Afraid of Iraqis.
Afraid of politicians.
Afraid of "criminals".

Sound familar?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Bill Graham on

"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:naglb51lkntth18h7ok0lf79l6434ucc66(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:20:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4ab9f518$0$1653$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>> John A. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:19:45 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>
>>>>> I am just trying to get converts to my cause. I want everyone to take
>>>>> his/her streets back by putting fake and/or garage sale plates on
>>>>> their
>>>>> automobiles or motor vehicles when they park, so their parking tickets
>>>>> will go to never-never land as did mine for years and years. The
>>>>> streets
>>>>> belong to the people!! - Take them back!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, you can continue to be a woos, and pay your liberal government for
>>>>> stealing your streets from you and renting them back to you.
>>>>
>>>> You are quite mad.
>>>
>>> Fake plates may work once or twice, but what happens in some cities in
>>> California is if you have too many outstanding tickets on a specific
>>> plate
>>> number they will impound your car regardless of who the plate is
>>> registered to. So you'd have to keep switching plates since they record
>>> the plate numbers. Also you have to be careful about garage sale plates
>>> as
>>> they are often stolen plates since in California the plate stays with
>>> the
>>> car for the life of the car (unless your plates are stolen or lost then
>>> you get new plates but the old plates are listed as missing in the
>>> database and can't be used). The old plate could have outstanding
>>> tickets
>>> on it as well. If they do impound your vehicle they have no way of
>>> contacting you if the plates are fake, so you're stuck trying to figure
>>> out where you car is, then proving that it's yours.
>>>
>>> While out of state plates used to be a pretty safe bet, now the
>>> computers
>>> of many states are tied together, and the vehicle that the plate is
>>> assigned to may show up on the officers computer in the car, and if it's
>>> not the proper vehicle you'll be in a lot more trouble than just a $50
>>> parking ticket. It's just another bad idea by a communist that's trying
>>> to
>>> undermine the U.S..
>>>
>>> Advocating illegal activity is something that Bill and other Republicans
>>> may support, but in reality it contributes to higher taxes when people
>>> don't pay their fair share. All the sales tax evasion by buying out of
>>> state drives up taxes for everyone else and hurts small business (not
>>> that
>>> Republicans have ever cared about small businesses!).
>>
>>You have a funny definition of, "fair". but I should have expected
>>that.....You are a liberal. Did it ever occur to you that sales taxes are
>>not fair? They do represent double taxation, you know. Just how many times
>>are you willing to let yourself be taxed on the same income? Have you ever
>>heard of a "tea party"? Let's face it. You liberals are idiots. I have had
>>to put up with your insanity all of my life. Today, I have found a way to
>>live without your idiocy, but I still love to argue with you guys on this
>>forum, just to remind myself that this world is full of illogic.
>
> The original tea party was about taxation *without representation*. DC
> residents are about the only US citizens who have that justification
> for a modern "tea party".

A dollars worth of taxation with 10 cents worth of representation is
taxation without representation.

From: Bill Graham on

"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6hglb5hviho28j1rf35tptuaiko0ms0l98(a)4ax.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>Somebody who hasn't the confidence to think for himself. I call these
>>people, "liberals."
>
> I see, another one of your home-made definitions, just like socialism.
> In reality liberalism requires A LOT of thinking (and therefore
> information) because by the very defintion of the word "liberal" you are
> liberated(!) from and thus cannot just regurgitate preconceived ideas or
> propaganda from any political mainstream movement.
>
>>They are afraid of many things.
>
> Maybe. I don't know. But they are certainly not afraid of thinking for
> themself.
>
>>That's why they are so
>>quick to give up their freedoms for the "security" of letting their
>>government make all their choices for them.
>
> I'm happy that the government decreed that all all cars should drive on
> the right (left in some countries) side of the road and took away that
> choice from me. I'm also quite happy that the government took away my
> neighbours choice of stealing my car or companies choice of selling
> dangerous good like lead-based paint or deadly electrical appliances,
> not to mention the choice of airlines when and how to maintain their
> fleet.
> Would you really prefer those things to be left to the choice of the
> individuals?
>
> jue

There is no reason why private corporations couldn't do some or all of it.
But those aren't in the same category as deciding many other things for
individuals. I would like to buy and choose my own education, in the field
of my choice. I would also like to decide just what percentage of my income
should go toward housing, transportation, etc. And, what percentage of my
income should go toward, food, clothing and health care. There are some that
want to live in cheap houses, but like to drive expensive cars.....So why
should the government decide this for them?