From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-23 23:52:02 -0700, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:

> 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?

All correct with the exception of "Afraid of criminals" as he is a self
professed criminal. (That is unless he is afraid of himself.)
--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: D. Peter Maus on
On 9/24/09 02:04 , Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> news:naglb51lkntth18h7ok0lf79l6434ucc66(a)4ax.com...
>
>> 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".
>



The original tea party was a tax protest only in part. There
were other issues. Not the least of which that there was growing
resistance to the blanket acceptance of Parliament's jurisdiction in
the Colonies. Further, that the Tea Act preferrentially benefited
the East India Company, and it's registered consignees in the
colonies, by lowering the price of East India tea to below the
prices of other teas. Putting non-East India purveyors at a
competitive disadvantage, most of whom were smugglers, true, as well
as legitimate non-East India registered consignees.

So, though taxation-without-representation was a significant
issue, the bigger issues were that the Tea Act and the Townsend
Program were created by a government in which they were not directly
represented to create a competitive advantage for a privately owned
company through the tax code, and a complex system of rebates of
duty, creating obstacles to freedom of choice by manipulating price
of commodities through Governmental action. Which Govermental action
restricted legitimate competition in business, favoring East India
merchants, threatening the survival of legitimate and non-legitimate
merchants alike.

So sensitive was this issue, that the East India company
attempted to have the taxes paid and rebates collected in London,
out of sight of the colonists.


Government putting it's fingers into business....hmmm...some
things never change.


In that light, while DC residents may be the only US citizens
who have justification for a taxation without representation
protest, everyone in the US has a legitimate, and historic,
justification for a tea party.
From: mikey4 on

"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?

In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of
total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional
shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total
deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths).

Now cars: 42,708 durning the same year ( from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811173.PDF)
How many people commited suicide buy car ?
Looks to me that more people were *killed* buy cars which by your admission
are "highly regulated".
So what does this prove? It only proves that in the end, laws and
regulations do not prevent death by automobile any more then they prevent
people of offing themselves with a hand gun.

>>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
I guess you didn't read the link, if you had you would have seen the artical
came from the NY Times.














From: Allen on
SMS wrote:
> stephe_k(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
From: mikey4 on

"Allen" <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qamdne8YxOx_GibXnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> SMS wrote:
>> stephe_k(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.