The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: mikey4 on 19 Sep 2009 21:25 "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:d1tab5hf131605ho26snc94pnn779hibf2(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:28:54 -0500, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> > wrote: > >> >>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>news:4ab55678$0$1607$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>>> >>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>news:4ab51946$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>>>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Much the same with the latest ACORN scandal, which stunk so badly >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> even Democrats in Congress finally voted to stop funding ACORN. >>>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> never even heard about it from ABC, CBS or NBC, did you? >>>>>>>>> [Nonsense deleted...] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What was shown on tape from a *few* ACORN locations (but where >>>>>>>>> were the reportings of the ones that threw out these imposters?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What makes you think ANY of the ACORN offices did or would do any >>>>>>>>differently from the ones on tape? ACORN is rotten and corrupt to >>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>core. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If that's true then it must also be true of the Republican party >>>>>>> given >>>>>>> the number of Republicans who have been shown to be lying, >>>>>>> philandering hypocrites. >>>>>> >>>>>>Just like the lefttards >>>>> >>>>> Never trust a man who gives online retorts with *no* substance. >>>>> mikey in <h8rvun$1hb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> >>>>> -- >>>>Snip away ray >>> >>> Run away, hypocrite. >>> >>> It's always so easy to argue against you rightards jut by throwing >>> your own words back at you. >>> >>> -- >>ok got it, which post are you referring to? or can't you post the entire >>text here. >> > > The message ID is h8rvun$1hb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org > > If your news reader can't get you to the article using that, try this: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/16c602542978b515/51ec3250dbeab29b?hl=en&q=#51ec3250dbeab29b Thank you John for posting the link, the only part that post that is me is the header.
From: Bill Graham on 19 Sep 2009 21:31 "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:rlsab5hp4ulkcgluj1lcam2u9l95b9re4m(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:00:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> >>"Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:7hk75eF2t5rb9U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> Bill Graham wrote: >>> >>>> Nonsense! - this is an unenforceable law....Nobody knows what I have in >>>> my pocket, and they aren't likely to ever know. I have been carrying a >>>> gun all of my adult life, and I have always refused to get a permit for >>>> it. Why? Because such permits are unconstitutional, and therefore >>>> illegal. I even took one to Europe with me back in the late 1980's. And >>>> carried it all over there, too. Sure, I could have been busted, but it >>>> is >>>> better to be alive and on trial for murder than it is to be dead, while >>>> someone else is on trial for your murder. Or, as someone said once, >>>> "Better the man catches you with it, than the boy catches you without >>>> it." >>> >>> Bill, >>> >>> However much I (very)-(strongly)-(extremely)-(emphatically) disagree >>> with >>> you on almost anything, I still wouldn't be happy if the debate ended >>> because you got arrested for *any* of the several crimes you are >>> *publicly >>> confessing to* on an *international public forum*!!!! >>> >>> Logic isn't your strongest quality, but do try to stay out of jail for a >>> good part of the rest of your life (and, no, you wouldn't be a *martyr* >>> for your "cause"). You might not realize it, but most of you actions and >>> reasonings are quite silly and really not worth it. >>> >>I am 74, and quite healthy, and one of the chief reasons for that is that >>I >>carried a gun for over 50 years. This is a fact, and knowing and telling >>the >>truth has always been one of my strong points....Why would I lie about >>something that is so logical and reasonable, as well as being very >>constitutional? It says right there, in black and white: "The right of the >>people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I know what that >>means, >>and I simply took advantage of it, and I want the whole world to know it. > > So which well-regulated militia are you in, Bill? The militia that specializes in self protection. Besides, the justification for the law is neither necessary, nor important. The law says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The meaning of this is very clear. 1. The people already have the right to keep and bear arms. 2. It is illegal to infringe upon that right. Requiring a license to carry concealed constitutes an infringement on that right, in my opinion.
From: Bill Graham on 19 Sep 2009 21:50 "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:h3uab5tmvimvhids35obejrovgjosp0gfl(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:22:30 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> >>"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >>news:2it9b5haf2k7muslnua4oj9a2kbkkrvjh6(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:05:44 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>news:h916ml$lne$3(a)news.albasani.net... >>>>> mikey4 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> People are pissed because "they" have finely woke up to the fact that >>>>>> the >>>>>> "government" is out of control and has been for a very long time. >>>>> >>>>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving >>>>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do >>>>> NOTHING >>>>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't just >>>>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama had >>>>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right there >>>>> with ya, but that isn't what happened. >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie >>>>I still don't understand about these, "massive tax cuts to the wealthy". >>>>the >>>>last time I checked, the more money you make, the greater percentage you >>>>have to pay, .....that's what the tax tables in the form 1040 tell >>>>me..... >>> >>> The rates were reduced. What's to understand? >> >>THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU HAVE TO >>PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book. When the government >>protects a high income person, does their Army work harder for them? - No. >>but still, they not only pay more in taxes....They pay a GREATER >>PERCENTAGE >>OF THEIR INCOME. What's so hard about that to understand? > > You said you didn't understand the tax cuts. The fact that we have a > graduated rate system has no bearing on whether there were cuts in the > rates in that system. There may be cuts in the rates, but the system still taxes the rich at a greater percentage of their income than those who are poorer than they are, so it is still regressive. Don't you understand that this depresses the incentive to invest money in business and try to become rich? And these small businesses are where most of the employment in this country comes from? Right now, we are looking at unemployment rates that are upwards of 10%. - (They are already over 12% here in Oregon.) It is going to take a long time for this to correct itself, mainly because of the regressive tax system that "sticks it to the rich".
From: Savageduck on 19 Sep 2009 22:20 On 2009-09-19 17:10:27 -0700, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> said: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:00:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> >> "Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:7hk75eF2t5rb9U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> Bill Graham wrote: >>> >>>> Nonsense! - this is an unenforceable law....Nobody knows what I have in >>>> my pocket, and they aren't likely to ever know. I have been carrying a >>>> gun all of my adult life, and I have always refused to get a permit for >>>> it. Why? Because such permits are unconstitutional, and therefore >>>> illegal. I even took one to Europe with me back in the late 1980's. And >>>> carried it all over there, too. Sure, I could have been busted, but it is >>>> better to be alive and on trial for murder than it is to be dead, while >>>> someone else is on trial for your murder. Or, as someone said once, >>>> "Better the man catches you with it, than the boy catches you without >>>> it." >>> >>> Bill, >>> >>> However much I (very)-(strongly)-(extremely)-(emphatically) disagree with >>> you on almost anything, I still wouldn't be happy if the debate ended >>> because you got arrested for *any* of the several crimes you are *publicly >>> confessing to* on an *international public forum*!!!! >>> >>> Logic isn't your strongest quality, but do try to stay out of jail for a >>> good part of the rest of your life (and, no, you wouldn't be a *martyr* >>> for your "cause"). You might not realize it, but most of you actions and >>> reasonings are quite silly and really not worth it. >>> >> I am 74, and quite healthy, and one of the chief reasons for that is that I >> carried a gun for over 50 years. This is a fact, and knowing and telling the >> truth has always been one of my strong points....Why would I lie about >> something that is so logical and reasonable, as well as being very >> constitutional? It says right there, in black and white: "The right of the >> people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I know what that means, >> and I simply took advantage of it, and I want the whole world to know it. > > So which well-regulated militia are you in, Bill? Bill is a member of the least regulated Oregon militia. Regulations! he don't need no stinking regulations! I hope he never gets into an argument on the street with some unwitting potential victim. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: David J. Littleboy on 19 Sep 2009 21:24
"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: >>> >>> Your post does mention "assaulted", not shot dead. >>> Not that assaulted is very good either... >> >>Interesting. That the UK is a "more violent society than the US" seems to >>be >>a right-wing meme on the net. >> >>The murder rate in the US is 6.3 per 100,000 vs. 1.4 in England and Wales. >> >>The murder rate in NYC is 8.6 per 100,000 vs. 2.9 in England and Wales. > > I think you made an error there. You cited two different murder rates > for England and Wales. Seeing as how you were comparing it to a US > city, was it supposed to be London? Oops, right you are. 2.9 is for London. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |