Leaving the community

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 06:04:55 GMT, "Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com
wrote:

I am not a fearful paranoid... (redundant - just like the three commas you
have there). I am not crowding arms into my basement. I exercise my right
to bear arms. I would also like to defend myself if it ever comes to that.


nowing you are that armored I'd only throw a grenade in your house if I
want to come after you. Hm, you have to increase your weapons , then.
[...many upgrades later...] everybody has his personal nuke at home ... do
you feel safer now? Do you feel save knowing that Russia, USA and some
other countries are able to launch nukes? Are you happy to know your
neighbor has some riffles at home (and likes to drink more than is good for
him)?

confused?

well ...


#m

--
Buck Fush!

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 04:20:45 GMT, Cecil Chapman wrote:

Oral activity (as well as other practices of straight couples) between
consenting heterosexual or homosexual adults still falls under the sodomy
laws of many states to this day, using aberration and 'non-procreative
activity' as the measure.

Connersville, WI: No man shall shoot of a gun while his female partner is
having a sexual orgasm.
-- http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Part.../shaunlaws.htm

#m
--
Buck Fush!

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, for all of its problems, we've enjoyed
pretty good government ... even when the democrats were in control. :-)
However, the possibility always exists that our government will move to
a point where we must start again.


A democracy (actually a Constitutional Republic) like ours only gets into
situations like we have (and might encounter) if the people allow it.

That is true to a large degree, but it was also true in Europe from
whence our founders fled. However, we do have a lot of "legislation"
now effectively occurring from the bence from judges appointed (not
elected!) for life. This is a lot harder for the people to stop anytime
soon.


Don't blame the Representatives, or Senate, the executives or even the
bureaucracy. NONE of them was put in place by a coup. Rather, blame your
neighbors that vote to allow such practices that are contrary to the supreme
law, or to your ancestors that started taking apart the law and demanding
statist practices over 100 years ago.

I wasn't talking about blaming anyone, I was simply stating the purpose
of the Constitution. It is to protect the people from a government run
amok.


I'll admit that I have a hard time
compehending that myself, but the writers of the Constitution were
keenly aware of this issue!


The put a lot more trustin "the people" than was evidently justified by
today state of affairs.

Well, yes and no. They tried to keep the peoples' involvement somewhat
at arms length. I believe that is why we have a Republic rather than a
true democracy. However, do governmental design is perfect and ours is
degrading already as people will always vote for themselves more money
than they want to put in via taxes. Once you create an entitlement
society, which the "new deal" and the "great society" began, you are on
the path to destruction, even with a government as well designed as ours.


Matt

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:11:44 GMT, "Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com
wrote:

I have an "AK-47" or rather the semi auto version from Romania. It is no
more lethal (in fact less so) than a decent hunting rifle. What people
seem

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to object to is the appearance of it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

very true.
we here tend to say: "the smaller the dick, the bigger the gun"

You can say what you will, I care not. Again, you ignorant gun haters have
no idea what you are talking about - the ak is not a "big gun."



*muahahaha*


#m

(and now you can start call me names *grin*)

I would just rather point out your lack of ability to make a proper
sentence.



--
Buck Fush!

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 06:04:55 GMT, "Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com
wrote:

I am not a fearful paranoid... (redundant - just like the three commas you
have there). I am not crowding arms into my basement. I exercise my
right
to bear arms. I would also like to defend myself if it ever comes to
that.


nowing you are that armored I'd only throw a grenade in your house if I
want to come after you. Hm, you have to increase your weapons , then.
[...many upgrades later...] everybody has his personal nuke at home ... do
you feel safer now? Do you feel save knowing that Russia, USA and some
other countries are able to launch nukes? Are you happy to know your
neighbor has some riffles at home (and likes to drink more than is good
for
him)?


If a person really wants to kill me then that is criminal. If a neighbor of
mine has "riffles" I should certainly think he has been drinking. I feel
safe (not save) knowing that the US has the military ability to thwart any
aggressor, sure. Your logic is baffling. Truly. I did not get up to the
point where everyone has a "personal nuke."

The US and USSR played out a classic arms race. When one has to deal with
evil governments then one has to have a deterrant. Nukes were that
deterrant for both sides. (They of course felt we were evil, and I hope I
don't have to explain whose side was right)


confused?

No, but apparently you are.


well ...


#m

--
Buck Fush!

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:02:24 GMT, "Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com
wrote in ::



(and now you can start call me names *grin*)

I would just rather point out your lack of ability to make a proper
sentence.

And I will just point out that this is a worldwide forum, and for many
English is not their first language.

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
. com

Since Iraq didn't even have a missile delivery system, much less the
'WMD's, I don't even see how they could be viewed as a hostile threat
to the U.S.

I was very careful in not saying they were a threat to the US. I did call
it a "hostile country". With over 1100 US soldiers dead, it's obvious there
are elements there who did not welcome us with open arms.

The hypocrisy I'm trying to point out is; Bush keeps
telling us how we are there to free the Iraqi's from repression
(there is NO doubt, that many dissidents were brutally treated),,,
but what about the mass genocide that is going on RIGHT NOW (and has
been going on for some time) in parts of Africa.

This so-called hypocrisy is a long-standing liberal argument - and applies
to Democrat administrations as much as Republican. It does have a certain
appeal. After all, if we could stop the ethnic cleansing in the former
Yugoslavia, why not in Rwanda? If we deposed a brutal dictator in Panama,
why not Liberia? If we can take over Baghdad, why not Khartoum?

Why aren't we saving them? Could it be that there country has no economic
benefits
to offer us and that,,, after all,, it is "just" black skinned
people dying over there?

If Sudan were a major trading partner with the US or our allies, I have no
doubt we'd be paying much closer attention to the situation there. However,
to say that we went into Iraq "for the oil" is simply specious - and to
suggest they're "'just' black-skinned people dying" is nothing more than a
lame attempt to play on "white guilt".

Yes, it's a sad fact that our geopolitical decisions - like all nations -
are driven by geopolitical concerns like who are our trading partners and
who are our allies.

As for Iraq, I happen to agree with the idea that having a stable republican
(note the small "r") government in place would be a stabilizing influence on
the region. Bush made some really bad arguments for going in - and I was
one of those saying "why now?" when he was making his case. However, we're
there now and we can't just leave it a mess.

In the meantime, if Sudan's situation weighs so heavily on your mind, I'm
sure the subjects of the brutality wouldn't mind your showing up with a
rifle in your hand...

Significant margin? Not quite,,,, 51 to 48 percent is hardly a
national mandate - in fact it reveals a deeply divided country.

Again, I chose my words carefully. A three percent margin isn't a "large"
margin, but is nonetheless "significant" - especially considering this is
the first Presidential election in 16 years where the winner received more
than 50% of the popular vote.

Not to worry,,,, Congress is investigating Halliburton as we
speak.........

hmph

Where were the investigations when Clinton awarded the multi-billion dollar
"no-bid contract" to none other than Haliburton?

Look up the facts on the award, why it was awarded and how they followed the
rules, then tell me what was wrong with that. This lame attempt to link the
award to Cheney's Vice Presidency is a red herring.

Now, if you want to talk about overcharges or other wrongdoing, that's open
for discussion. The award itself was legitimate.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:29:04 -0500, "John T" wrote in
::

I was very careful in not saying they were a threat to the US. I did call
it a "hostile country". With over 1100 US soldiers dead, it's obvious there
are elements there who did not welcome us with open arms.

If the USA is to wage war against all "hostile countries," we will
soon find ourselves bankrupt. Face it, baby Bush chose to exercise
his war powers to avenge the assassination attempt on his father, to
make sure that the anthrax provided Sadam by Rumsfeld during daddy
Bush's reign was neutralized, and to create "war president" status to
assure a Republican victory in the election.

Now we and our progeny can pay for his folly for generations to come.
:-(


Get your head out of the sand, and see this motion pictu
http://www.bushsbrain.com/reviews.htm

Look at: www.dictionary.com

And it's really not a descriptive word anymore; the left has turned it into
an epithet.



"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill Denton" wrote:

The reason most intelligent people don't throw "homophobe" around is
because
they actually know what it means, which you obviously don't. Homophobia
refers to a fear of homosexuals or prejudice toward homosexual.

When did "homophobe" begin to mean "prejudice toward homosexual."
Wouldn't it have originally meant merely (irrational?) fear of
homosexuals? The prejudice part came through common (mis)use of
the word.

--
Bob Noel

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:29:04 -0500, John T wrote:

As for Iraq, I happen to agree with the idea that having a stable republican
(note the small "r") government in place would be a stabilizing influence on
the region.


they haven't had such a thing for how long? 3000 years? and now you truly
believe that they want one? and you believe that they more likely want one
if it is shoved up their asses?

#m

--
Buck Fush!