From: George Kerby on



On 1/4/10 12:37 AM, in article 4b418c91$0$1609$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "Ray
Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:

> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b4152e6$4$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:YIednQYc-aZmvNzWnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.....
>>>
>>> Let's take a more statistically significant sample. The entire country.
>>> Have you compared the crime rate with that of GB?
>>
>> Yes, but the larger the sample, the less significance to the statistic,
>
> Gotta love wingnut rationalizations.
>
>> because there are many things involved in, "the crime rate". You have to ask
>> what is. "a crime", and what significance does the possession of arms have
>> to do with that crime.
>
> Pick a crime like murder.
>
>> A lot of people who die from guns in this country
>> should have died......Their death was a, "good thing", because they were
>> harming, or about to harm, others when they were killed.
>
> So people dying is a good thing.
>
> No wonder you love guns.

LIBERAL DERANGMENT

The American Medical Association, in the New England Journal of
Medicine, summarized liberal derangement as follows:

"FishHead's neurosis (from being abandoned by his progressive parents) is
evident in his ideals and fantasies; in his self-indulgence and exemption
from accountability; in his claims to entitlements; in what he gives and
withholds; and in his protests that nothing done voluntarily is enough to
satisfy Fish-Rot. Most notably, the radical liberal's neurosis is evident in
his extravagant political demands, in his furious protest against economic
freedom, in his arrogant contempt for morality, in his angry defiance of
civility, in his bitter attacks on freedom of association,
in Fish-Head's aggressive assault on individual liberty. And in the final
analysis, the irrationality of the radical liberal is most apparent in his
ruthless use of force to control the lives of others. The radical liberal's
obsession with force against others is the child's solution to developmental
failure in the first six years of life."

From: Ray Fischer on
George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 1/4/10 12:37 AM, in article 4b418c91$0$1609$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "Ray
>Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4b4152e6$4$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:YIednQYc-aZmvNzWnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.....
>>>>
>>>> Let's take a more statistically significant sample. The entire country.
>>>> Have you compared the crime rate with that of GB?
>>>
>>> Yes, but the larger the sample, the less significance to the statistic,
>>
>> Gotta love wingnut rationalizations.
>>
>>> because there are many things involved in, "the crime rate". You have to ask
>>> what is. "a crime", and what significance does the possession of arms have
>>> to do with that crime.
>>
>> Pick a crime like murder.
>>
>>> A lot of people who die from guns in this country
>>> should have died......Their death was a, "good thing", because they were
>>> harming, or about to harm, others when they were killed.
>>
>> So people dying is a good thing.
>>
>> No wonder you love guns.
>
>LIBERAL DERANGMENT

Fascists hate liberalism.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 1/3/10 11:39 PM, in article
>QfudnXuYCYuM4tzWnZ2dnVY3go6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com, "David J. Littleboy"
><davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "krishnananda" <krishna(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill's "Libertarian" Incentive: let me do what I want and if someone
>>> else dares to do something which might possibly affect my pocketbook,
>>> such as become an addict unable to care for children, then let the
>>> government force them into being sterilized. And reverse the charges, so
>>> I-Me-Mine don't have to shell out one pinched penny.
>>>
>>> Some libertarian!
>>
>> No. He's got the libertarian party line down pat. There's nothing
>> un-libertarian about Bill.
>>
>>> Sounds much more like a neo-con republican hypocrite to me.
>>
>> Exactly. Libertarians are neo-con republican hypocrites without the religion
>> and the moralizing. The basic idea of the "philosophy" is that the rich and
>> powerful have the right to use and abuse their wealth and power in any way
>> they want. Read Ayn Rand; really, it's so horrendously bad writing that it's
>> quite entertaining. "Social responsibility" is anathema to libertarians.
>>
>> Libertarianism sounds good for the first two syllables, but it's seriously
>> sick from then on in.
>
>*********LIBERAL DERANGEMENT******************
>
>The American Medical Association, in the New England Journal of
>Medicine, summarized liberal derangement as follows:

Fascists hate liberals like Thomas Jefferson.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b41e38a$0$19483$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:i8ednWkn9sKM5dzWnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:m6s2k514asq0liritcfflrgi3r9h2v478l(a)4ax.com...
>>
>>> Just once, I'd like to see you right on something. I haven't yet.
>>> It's amazing that someone has lived as long as you have and can remain
>>> so universally ignorant and wrong on so many subjects.
>>>
>> You liberals want to see a sales tax replace the income tax, and yet you
>> say that taxing people across the board would be, "regressive". Well
>> consider this. If we had sales taxes, that would be extremely regressive.
>> The very rich would hardly have to pay any taxes at all. They would buy
>> nothing new, (mainly because new stuff is junky and made of plastic) but
>> they would have everything fixed up by skilled laborers. In my case, I
>> would be driving a 50 year old Porsche, completely restored by my
>> favorite mechanics. My house would be filled with the finest used,
>> restored furniture you have ever seen, and my tax burden would be
>> virtually non-existent. My lawyer friends would be making a bundle
>> retrying all the tax laws again in tax courts, because the last 70 years
>> of tax decisions would all be thrown out, and all that stuff would have
>> to be renegotiated again. My only regret would be that I wasn't 20 again
>> to enjoy the stupidity of it all for another 50 years!
>
>
> From your immediately preceding post:
> "weg9 says: If I use more goods and services than you do, then I should
> be
> taxed more. If I don't then I shouldn't be. That would be fair and
> reasonable. Anything else is stealing from those who have just because
> it's
> there to steal."
>
> How is that not the very sales tax you rail against.
> Nah! no inconsistency in that argument.
>
>
> --
> Peter
Using more goods and services refers to government goods and services, not
private enterprise goods and services.....Taxes pay for the army and the
police and fire departments and etc.....These should be available to
everyone equally, and everyone should have to pay the same price for them.

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b41e38a$1$19483$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:as2dnWiqfqQo8tzWnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b416ae0$0$19464$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:kJednYMQlIhj-tzWnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b4161ae$1$19469$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:F8KdnfqlqNUKx9zWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4b4152e6$0$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:z7GdnRM9GNEAstzWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4b412776$0$3003$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lets take a modern example......The possession of child
>>>>>>>>>> pornography. Some states have laws against the possession of
>>>>>>>>>> child pornography. I don't believe in these laws. (I think they
>>>>>>>>>> are unconstitutional) Why? Suppose I am driving down a road in
>>>>>>>>>> the country, and I see a trunk by the side of the road......I
>>>>>>>>>> wonder what's in the trunk, so I stop and inspect it. It is
>>>>>>>>>> locked, and I have no tools with me to open it. So, I put it in
>>>>>>>>>> my trunk and drive it home to open it. On the way home, I have an
>>>>>>>>>> accident, and the police and fire department show up at the scene
>>>>>>>>>> and find the trunk in my trunk, and it has burst open and they
>>>>>>>>>> discover that it is full of photos of child pornography......They
>>>>>>>>>> arrest me and accuse me of possession of CP, when I had no idea
>>>>>>>>>> that was what the trunk contained. I believe creating CP should
>>>>>>>>>> be a crime, but not possessing it. I believe that I should be
>>>>>>>>>> allowed to possess anything I please. This is part of the
>>>>>>>>>> libertarian philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Silly story.
>>>>>>>>> Suppose the trunk had been full of crystal meth/crack
>>>>>>>>> cocaine/heroin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does that constitute an argument to legalise - or even *possess* -
>>>>>>>>> said "pharmaceuticals"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jeff R.
>>>>>>>>> "Honest, Officer! I thought it was icing sugar"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> weg9 says: Yes. It certainly does. As a libertarian, I believe
>>>>>>>> all drugs should be legal anyway. So we are already talking about
>>>>>>>> something that is anti-libertarian to begin with. IOW, we are
>>>>>>>> already halfway liberal with the anti drug laws that are on the
>>>>>>>> books right now, so it is impossible to talk libertarianism when
>>>>>>>> there is already no chance of it on the horizon. In my libertarian
>>>>>>>> world, there would be no laws against, "Making, possessing, using
>>>>>>>> and killing oneself with crystal meth or any other drug, It's my
>>>>>>>> body.....Why would you care what I do with it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Back to the point. I would care because as a humanitarian I would
>>>>>>> have, at a minimum, the obligation to take care of those who you
>>>>>>> could not take care of because of your habit and probably even you.
>>>>>>> IIRC in a prior posting in this discussion you agreed that the
>>>>>>> government should take care of those who need help through no fault
>>>>>>> of their own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People are not held down and forced to ingest harmful drugs. So, if
>>>>>> someone is a drug addict, it is not through, "No fault of their own".
>>>>>> They did it to themselves, and so why would you care? I smoked
>>>>>> cigarettes for 29 years. I don't blame anyone else for this.....I
>>>>>> knew full well that it was harmful to my health. So, it was nobody's
>>>>>> fault but my own. When I spoke of the government helping those who
>>>>>> are incapacitated through no fault of their own, I was talking about
>>>>>> those who are born with defects.....No arms or legs, or blind
>>>>>> etc......Not those who were born perfectly healthy, and choose to
>>>>>> screw themselves up with drugs or alcohol. (or cigarettes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was talking about those dependant on the drug addict.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> I can't help those who are dependent on the drug addict, any more than
>>>> I can help those who suffer for the choices others make on their
>>>> behalf. I am responsible for myself and mine. I am willing to help
>>>> those God screws up, but I am unwilling to help those that other people
>>>> screw up. If the liberals come up with some plan to sterilize and/or
>>>> control the lives of those others, then I might reconsider, but until
>>>> then, I will only help the ones that are harmed by God or fate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Where is your once of humanity. Now you are changing your argument. So
>>> when you said you would help innocents it is not true. What would you do
>>> with the 2 year old child of an addict?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>
>> What the government does right now. Child services takes them away, and
>> puts them in a foster home, while the, "addict" is put in prison. Many of
>> these children, raised by foster parents who could care less about them,
>> end up as criminals themselves, Death row is populated mainly by people
>> who were raised without love. The only difference I would make is that I
>> would provide some incentives for these people to not have children.....I
>> would support their habit if they allowed themselves to be sterilized.
>
>
> Yup! and I have to pay the cost for child protective services. that is
> costing me money because you want to become an addict. Why can't you
> recognize that your addiction is NOT HARMLESS. It is forcing me to pay for
> bringing up your innocent child.
>
> BTW Please explain how one can give knowing consent freely, and without
> full knowledge of al the facts, including the consequences.
>
>
> --
> Peter
So you expect us libertarians to provide you with a perfect world, do you? -
Well, I'm sorry.....We can't do that.....Only a better one than we are in
right now. You are paying for those kids now, and you will probably be
paying for them under libertarianism. but we could provide some incentive to
not have any more children, don't you think?