Why do the socialist gun loons complain about the cost of guns/ammo..do they expect it for free like their cheese check?

[Too_Many_Tools]

Stupid damn gun loons whining and bitching about the cost of guns and
ammo.

Damn socialists...they think they should get it for free...just like a
cheese check.

Freedom isn't free...that is why you pay taxes.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 31, 10:07 am, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
> On 3/31/2013 3:20 AM, Bob Dobbs wrote:

> > Could it be that many of them are on the dole and feel a display of braggadocio
> > in groups like this will mask their shame, yet are still impacted by the costs
> > of the fetishes (gunz-n-ammo) to portray the illusion?
> > A good example is the sickly 'gummer' and his bloviating napoleon complex.
>
> An interesting theory.  Many of them are major blowhards, of course, but
> I and others have often sensed the personal inadequacy and failure
> behind that.  My only question is whether or not they are still actually
> able to feel shame anymore.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It is a known fact that many gun loons own guns to compensate for
their personal inadequacies...especially in the bedroom.

TMT

[Jeff M]

On 3/31/2013 2:50 PM, Denny wrote:
> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Mar 31, 10:07=A0am, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2013 3:20 AM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>>>> Stupid damn gun loons whining and bitching about the cost of guns
>>>>> and ammo.
>>>
>>>>> Damn socialists...they think they should get it for free...just like
>>>>> a cheese check.
>>>
>>>>> Freedom isn't free...that is why you pay taxes.
>>>
>>>>> Laugh..laugh..laugh..
>>>
>>>>> TMT
>>>
>>>> Could it be that many of them are on the dole and feel a display of

>>>> bra=

>> ggadocio
>>>> in groups like this will mask their shame, yet are still impacted by

>>>> th=

>> e costs
>>>> of the fetishes (gunz-n-ammo) to portray the illusion?
>>>> A good example is the sickly 'gummer' and his bloviating napoleon

>>>> compl=
>> ex.
>>>
>>> An interesting theory. =A0Many of them are major blowhards, of course,
>>> bu=

>> t
>>> I and others have often sensed the personal inadequacy and failure

>>> behind that. =A0My only question is whether or not they are still
>>> actuall=

>> y
>>> able to feel shame anymore.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> It is a known fact that many gun loons own guns to compensate for
>> their personal inadequacies...especially in the bedroom.
>>
>> TMT
>

> It's a standard cultural stereotype. A small man hiding behind a large gun.


Yep. But let's remember it only applies to a, ahem, tiny minority of
gun owners, although the type is heavily, albeit idiotically,
overrepresented here. The vast majority of gun owners, being normal,
decent people, don't suffer from their insecurities and inadequacies,
and have no objection to reasonable measures like universal background
checks.

[Gunner Asch]

On 31 Mar 2013 19:50:43 GMT, dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:

>Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Mar 31, 10:07=A0am, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>> > On 3/31/2013 3:20 AM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>> > >> Stupid damn gun loons whining and bitching about the cost of guns
>> > >> and ammo.
>> >
>> > >> Damn socialists...they think they should get it for free...just like
>> > >> a cheese check.
>> >
>> > >> Freedom isn't free...that is why you pay taxes.
>> >
>> > >> Laugh..laugh..laugh..
>> >
>> > >> TMT
>> >
>> > > Could it be that many of them are on the dole and feel a display of

>> > > bra=

>> ggadocio
>> > > in groups like this will mask their shame, yet are still impacted by

>> > > th=

>> e costs
>> > > of the fetishes (gunz-n-ammo) to portray the illusion?
>> > > A good example is the sickly 'gummer' and his bloviating napoleon

>> > > compl=
>> ex.
>> >
>> > An interesting theory. =A0Many of them are major blowhards, of course,
>> > bu=

>> t
>> > I and others have often sensed the personal inadequacy and failure

>> > behind that. =A0My only question is whether or not they are still
>> > actuall=

>> y
>> > able to feel shame anymore.- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> It is a known fact that many gun loons own guns to compensate for
>> their personal inadequacies...especially in the bedroom.
>>
>> TMT
>

>It's a standard cultural stereotype. A small man hiding behind a large gun.

Its a Liberal Sterotype formed and brought forth as one of their usual
ploys to demonize and diminish real people they hate.

Im 225lbs, 6'3" tall with a 46" chest, a 18" neck and can pick up a VW
engine and put it on a work bench. Yet I carry a rather small gun in
size.

So the Leftwing stereotype is simply a construct used for propaganda
purposes and has no bearing on reality.
Like most of the Leftwings "standard models"


Gunner

[Make Clint s day: Change his Depends.]

On 3/31/2013 3:10 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> Stupid damn gun loons whining and bitching about the cost of guns and
> ammo.
>

Capitalism at it's best ! You know all these gun dealers
are hoarding ammo and guns to drive up the prices .. and their
scared little minions just can't wait to feel patriotic and pay !

[RD Sandman]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in
news:m6udndJG9-BOAsXM...@giganews.com:

I have no problem with a universal background check although I don't
think it will solve as many problems as the boosters of them think.
What I am against is the movement of those background checks being
morphed into a registration database as Schumer appears to be going for.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

If you take out the murders, Washington has
a very low crime rate!

[RD Sandman]

dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote in
news:20130331181720.686$g...@newsreader.com:

> yes that's true, but the normals don't hang out in these newsgroups.
>

From either side.

[Gunner Asch]

On 31 Mar 2013 23:23:05 GMT, dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:

>Well most stereotypes are true or mostly true. There's just enough of them
>to be a significant group, mostly.

Not so. Many stereotypes are constructions. Archie Bunker was a
perfect example of Leftwing Stereotypical construction. As was the
fat kid his stereoptypical daughter married.

Leftwingers use Fantasy and declare it to be "stereotypical" and give
the same definitions you used.

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

>yes that's true, but the normals don't hang out in these newsgroups.

define "the Normals" if you would be so kind.

[Gunner Asch]

Its good to know you are on the List.

<VBG>

Gunner

[Jeff M]

On 3/31/2013 4:58 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in

[snip]

>>>> It is a known fact that many gun loons own guns to compensate for
>>>> their personal inadequacies...especially in the bedroom.
>>>>
>>>> TMT
>>>
>>> It's a standard cultural stereotype. A small man hiding behind a
>>> large gun.
>>
>> Yep. But let's remember it only applies to a, ahem, tiny minority of
>> gun owners, although the type is heavily, albeit idiotically,
>> overrepresented here. The vast majority of gun owners, being normal,
>> decent people, don't suffer from their insecurities and inadequacies,
>> and have no objection to reasonable measures like universal background
>> checks.
>>
> I have no problem with a universal background check although I don't
> think it will solve as many problems as the boosters of them think.
> What I am against is the movement of those background checks being
> morphed into a registration database as Schumer appears to be going for.

Yep, gun control regulation, as with so many other things, is best done
in a calm and deliberative manner, based on as much scientific evidence,
data and public input as possible. However, thanks largely, but not
entirely, to the Regressives and their corporate handlers, that cannot
happen now. Instead, they've injected as much misinformation,
propaganda, hysteria, partisanship and fear into the public as they
possibly can, and they already have blocked much scientific research
into the subject, all while generating a tidy profit for themselves. If
bad laws are the result, they should, but never will, blame themselves
first.

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 31, 4:58 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote innews:m6udndJG9-BOAsXM...@giganews.com:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/31/2013 2:50 PM, Denny wrote:

> a very low crime rate!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So tell us what the difference is between a database for background
checks and a registration database.

Hint..there is no difference.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 31, 6:48 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2013 23:23:05 GMT, dzweib...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 31 Mar 2013 19:50:43 GMT, dzweib...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:

> Gunner- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Wrong...I currently know a conservative who is damn near EXACTLY an
Archie Bunker type.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 31, 4:01 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2013 19:50:43 GMT, dzweib...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> Gunner- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Bullshit..no you can't.

If so prove it..post the picture of you holding the engine.

You can get it over your 66" beer belly.
TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 31, 4:33 pm, "Make Clint s day: Change his Depends."

I know they are..I have seen some of the back rooms...they are FULL of
merchandise.

The dealers put out just enough to feed the panic.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

There is no list...it never existed.

Death and taxes...and they are both waiting for you Gummer.

TMT

[Jeff M]

Gunner is a cardiac cripple. It would be unsafe for him to attempt
this. His self description above is, of course, complete bullshit.
Anyone who's seen the pictures Gunner posted of himself knows that.

[RD Sandman]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:SZ-
dnXbyo5BwU8XMn...@giganews.com:

Hmmmm, do you feel that the liberals are above all this and have never
produced misinformation, fear, hysteria, propaganda, etc.. and have
always relied on scientific evidence in a calm and deliberative
manner,....particularly as it applies to guns?

If
> bad laws are the result, they should, but never will, blame themselves
> first.
>
>

Now, while much of that you said is true and applies to both sides of the
aisle, just what part of what I said do you think was misinformation,
hysteria and fear?

[Jeff M]

I know you know how to read perfectly well. Did I write anything of the
kind? Did you not notice I was referring specifically to "gun control
regulation" happening "now"?

The usual gun grabbers seem to have wisely decided to stay fairly quiet
this time. I think they must have realized that the Firearms industry
and its lobbyists were losing their already tenuous grip on reality,
engaging in a massive overreach, and badly misreading public attitudes,
and would soon begin to shoot themselves in the foot, as it were.

They may be right. More people than ever seem to be getting wise to
what the NRA is really all about and just how effectively many of the
more vociferous anti-regulation types serve as walking posters for more,
not less, gun control.

[Gunner Asch]

On 01 Apr 2013 00:48:57 GMT, dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:

>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Non-cripples, non-paranoids. Educated, non-poor. Follds with a good grasp
>of reality. Non-haters. you know, boring people.


Oh..then you werent talking about the Leftwing Democrats then. They
are hardly.."normal"

And as is obvious..those sorts of "abnormals" are here everyday.

Gunner

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 31, 7:53 pm, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
> On 3/31/2013 7:32 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:SZ-

> > dnXbyo5BwU8XMnZ2dnUVZ_uedn...@giganews.com:

> not less, gun control.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...you noticed that too.

Yes...the gun loons are so busy their own grave they don't notice it
is them who are throwing dirt in their faces.

TMT

[RD Sandman]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in

news:iMCdnTDZTtMYR8XM...@giganews.com:

Which both sides appear to be producing BS about. ;)

> The usual gun grabbers seem to have wisely decided to stay fairly quiet
> this time. I think they must have realized that the Firearms industry
> and its lobbyists were losing their already tenuous grip on reality,
> engaging in a massive overreach, and badly misreading public attitudes,
> and would soon begin to shoot themselves in the foot, as it were.
>
> They may be right. More people than ever seem to be getting wise to
> what the NRA is really all about and just how effectively many of the
> more vociferous anti-regulation types serve as walking posters for
more,
> not less, gun control.

True.

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 31, 8:09 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote innews:iMCdnTDZTtMYR8XM...@giganews.com:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/31/2013 7:32 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:SZ-

> >> dnXbyo5BwU8XMnZ2dnUVZ_uedn...@giganews.com:

> a very low crime rate!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Both sides?

The side for tougher gun control has 20 dead 1st graders on their
side.

Yours?

You got nothing.

TMT

[Tom Gardner]

What scientific research has bee blocked?

[Tom Gardner]

On 3/31/2013 8:48 PM, Denny wrote:
> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Non-cripples, non-paranoids. Educated, non-poor. Follds with a good grasp
> of reality. Non-haters. you know, boring people.
>

Are educated people more intelligent than non-educated people? What ARE
educated people? HS? 2-year degree? $-year degree? Post grad degree? PhD?

[Gunner Asch]

I certainly hope he is not going to be trotting out those with a
Liberal Arts Degree...something like Womans Studies or Elizibethean
Literature of the 18 Century.

Stuff that gets you a comfy job at the drive up window where one is
required to ask "would you like fries with that?"

People who go to college and get that kind of degree...certainly arent
"intelligent". They are simply "easily trained"

Like..say... pot bellied pigs.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Tom Gardner" <Mars@Tacks> wrote in message
news:mZudnXG9QKsEjMTM...@giganews.com...

Most likely the research he imagines would prove that gun-control works
Too bad that even the CDC, known for having produced reports biased in favor
of gun-control, had to come out and admit that there is NO DATA supporting
the claim that gun-control works

[SaPeIsMa]

"Tom Gardner" <Mars@Tacks> wrote in message

news:5YSdnTPiHJtwj8TM...@giganews.com...

> educated people? HS? 2-year degree? 4-year degree? Post grad
> degree? PhD?

I know quite a few people with Masters and PhDs, who are complete
ignoramuses, an all areas other than their fields of specialty
Quite a few of them are also unable to think their way out of a paper bag
open at both ends.
These days, going to school for a long time, means only that you went to
school for a long time. Particularly when it comes to some of the "softer"
fields of knowledge.

[Jeff M]

You're leaping to an unfounded confusion. Also, the CDC is often
accused of various biases, not just against guns. Invariably, these
accusations originate from those with the most to lose from what CDC
research reveals, and are never substantiated.

But these allegations aren't meant for the scientific community, who can
easily spot BS accusations, they are intended solely for the eagerly
gullible party faithful who want and need to believe.

Of course, we are treated now to the hypocritical spectacle of the same
side that prevented the CDC from researching the question in the first
place crowing about the CDC having "NO DATA." Well, duh. You told 'em
they couldn't gather any, most likely because you are afraid of what you
imagine the research will prove about people like you, guns and violence.

*****
Gun control 101: Why is Obama pushing for new gun research?
A key part of President Obama's plan to rein in gun violence is his push
to kick-start fresh gun-control-related research by federal agencies.
Republicans have blocked such research in the past.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / January 19, 2013

WASHINGTON
This week President Obama outlined a sweeping package of proposed
changes to America�s gun laws, including a federal ban on the
manufacture and sale of new assault weapons and an expansion of
background checks on firearm purchasers. But proponents of gun control
say one of the most important pieces of the plan may be a smaller,
less-noticed move: Mr. Obama�s attempt to end a 15-year ban on federal
research into guns and violence.

For years, some members of Congress have effectively blocked the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal agencies from
conducting such research due to concerns about pro-gun control bias. On
Wednesday, Obama said he�d use the powers of the presidency to change
that situation.

�While year after year those who oppose even modest gun safety measures
have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes
of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go
ahead and study the best ways to reduce it.... We don�t benefit from
ignorance,� said Obama.

Here are some basic questions and answers about the research issue:

What's stopping the government from studying guns and violence?

In 1996 some conservative members of Congress mounted an effort to
eliminate the CDC�s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
because they believed some researchers were cheerleaders for the
anti-gun movement. In the end, they took the $2.6 million this center
had spent on gun research the previous year, and earmarked it for
brain-injury research. In addition, Congress added language to the CDC
appropriation saying �none of the funds made available for injury
prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
may be used to advocate or promote gun control.�

It�s unclear exactly what sorts of things this phrase prohibits. But no
federal employee was willing to risk their career to find out, according
to a December Journal of the American Medical Association article.
Several years later, Congress made the language applicable to the
Department of Health and Human Services, as well.

�Even today, 17 years after this legislative action, the CDC�s website
lacks specific links to information about preventing firearm-related
violence,� says the article by Arthur Kellermann and Frederick Rivara.

Generally speaking, gun-rights organizations oppose treating firearms as
a public-health issue, as opposed to a constitutional right.

What don't we know?

This congressional prohibition did not end the study of guns in America,
of course. The federal government does not fund all of the nation�s
social research. In addition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, continue to
estimate statistics such as the percentage of homicides committed with
firearms.

�None of the existing sources of statistics provide either
comprehensive, timely, or accurate data with which to assess
definitively whether there is a causal connection between firearms and
violence,� writes CRS�s William Krouse.

Other researchers say that right now the US has little information on
basic gun topics, such as how many people own what sorts of guns in what
cities and states. There is not much good information on the correlation
of gun ownership to homicide rates, or what percentage of guns used in
crimes were obtained legally, and if not, where they came from.

�Without improvements in this situation, the substantive questions in
the field about the role of guns in suicide, homicide and other crimes,
and accidental injury are likely to continue to be debated on the basis
of conflicting empirical findings,� concluded an in-depth 2005 National
Research Council study of the state of firearms and violence data.

What did Obama do on this subject?

On Wednesday, Obama vowed to end the �freeze� on gun-violence research.
Among other things, he issued a presidential memorandum directing CDC
and other US scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and
prevention of such crimes.

Obama said he based this move on a legal analysis that the existing
appropriations language does not block wide-ranging investigations.

�The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for gun
violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the
greatest potential public health impact,� reads a fact sheet on the
president�s gun plan.

Obama also called on Congress to appropriate $10 million to CDC for
further work, including an effort to better understand the relationship
between video games, media images, and violence. And he asked for
another $20 million to expand the National Violent Death Reporting
System, which collects anonymous data on the nature of firearms used in
murders or suicides, to all 50 states from its current 18.

Will Obama's moves work?

His call for the CDC to dive into research is simply a legal analysis
that it is all right for them to do so under current law. That is within
his power to order, though it remains to be seen how eagerly CDC will
take up the banner, and whether pro-gun groups will file suit to try and
stop it.

As to his calls for Congress to direct more cash to this area, good
luck. It is possible that members will see this as a less controversial
alternative to more sweeping measures such as the proposed
assault-weapons ban. It is also possible that the current tight fiscal
environment will allow Capitol Hill to shuffle the suggestions aside.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0119/Gun-control-101-Why-is-Obama-pushing-for-new-gun-research

[What DID a Frothy Mixture of Shit do to be associated with Santorum ?]

On 3/31/2013 7:22 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>> Capitalism at it's best ! You know all these gun dealers
>> are hoarding ammo and guns to drive up the prices .. and their
>> scared little minions just can't wait to feel patriotic and pay !
>
> I know they are..I have seen some of the back rooms...they are FULL of
> merchandise.
>
> The dealers put out just enough to feed the panic.
>
> TMT
>

And they increase the price and fear level at every opportunity !


boo





--
---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/Sf9PJCiSbLI/AAAAAAAANYI/wzO53XgcCrM/s400/cry_baby.jpg

SAVE AMERICA!!

Spay or neuter
your Republican!!

[Jim Wilkins]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kjc8fu$vio$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Tom Gardner" <Mars@Tacks> wrote in message
>>>
>>

>> What scientific research has bee blocked?
>
> Most likely the research he imagines would prove that gun-control
> works
> Too bad that even the CDC, known for having produced reports biased
> in favor of gun-control, had to come out and admit that there is NO
> DATA supporting the claim that gun-control works

It's rumored there was a 'research project' that tried to prove that
gun owners are more likely to be involved in road rage incidents, but
it was halted when the data showed instead that the bigger contributor
was liberals' overblown, hair-trigger sense of injustice causing then
to be passive-aggressive, like blocking traffic.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:48:03 -0700
typed in misc.survivalism the following:

>
>>>
>>> So the Leftwing stereotype is simply a construct used for propaganda
>>> purposes and has no bearing on reality.
>>> Like most of the Leftwings "standard models"
>>>

>>> Gunner
>>
>>Well most stereotypes are true or mostly true. There's just enough of them
>>to be a significant group, mostly.
>
>Not so. Many stereotypes are constructions. Archie Bunker was a
>perfect example of Leftwing Stereotypical construction. As was the
>fat kid his stereoptypical daughter married.

Da funny thing is - Archie doesn't seem so cartoonish any more.
Now Meathead... reminds me of an Alan Sherman song warring you again
the liverwurst, which "has been there since October first, and today
is the twenty third of May."

>
>Leftwingers use Fantasy and declare it to be "stereotypical" and give
>the same definitions you used.

Projections.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:48:51 -0700

typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>

>>> Yep. But let's remember it only applies to a, ahem, tiny minority of
>>> gun owners, although the type is heavily, albeit idiotically,
>>> overrepresented here. The vast majority of gun owners, being normal,
>>> decent people, don't suffer from their insecurities and inadequacies,
>>> and have no objection to reasonable measures like universal background
>>> checks.
>>
>>yes that's true, but the normals don't hang out in these newsgroups.
>
>define "the Normals" if you would be so kind.

One sigma either side of mu. You bring the cow.

In other words, the lefties look for those who fit their preferred
pattern, and regard them as the new "normal".

[RD Sandman]

Tom Gardner <Mars@Tacks> wrote in

news:mZudnXG9QKsEjMTM...@giganews.com:

He is probably talking about funds to CDC for gun control research being
cut.

[RD Sandman]

dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote in
news:20130401014313.776$E...@newsreader.com:

> Anyone who seeks out an education is more intelligent than one who
> doesn't.

Bullshit. More interested in getting educated but not necessarily more
intelligent.

Any parent who sacrifices to educate his children is more
> intelligent that one who doesn't,

Wrong again. They may be smarter about preparing their children for the
future but that isn't the same as being more intelligent.

so there is a strong DNA factor
> there. As we all know, intelligence is an inherited trait.

Yes, but a college education isn't.

[Too_Many_Tools]

And yet you have NO DATA showing that it won't

And we see that every shooting death was caused by a gun.

TMT

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA195BD17E...@216.196.121.131...

Na, because that wasn't scientific research.....it was more like political
propaganda.

Which would explain why the funding was cut.

They clearly had more than they needed for scientific research.

:-)

[Jeff M]

There's that familiar airy wave of the wrist again, trying to dismiss
science because they fear that it will disprove their non-reality based
ideological beliefs. Their kind always whines about alleged but never
proven bias, or about some other extrinsic BS excuse, yet it is clearly
the truthful results of unfettered scientific research itself that they
hate and fear the most.

Now, if they thought the results were going to go their way, they'd
unquestionably be all for it, and demanding more of the same. But
that's how they roll, truth and facts are of no importance to them, but,
being the regressive extremists that they are, and all that matters is
their dogma, which must be protected from any intrusion of truth or fact
at all costs.

> Which would explain why the funding was cut.

The funding was cut at the behest of the firearms industry by their
obedient Republican servants in Congress, because they feared where
accurate scientific evidence regarding firearms violence might lead. It
was and is politically motivated censorship and suppression, nothing more.

[Tom Gardner]

Liberals imagine facts in most of their arguments.

[Tom Gardner]

His mind is very fertile...it's full of..."fertilizer".

[Tom Gardner]

Pot-bellied pigs are tasty, liberals aren't...too slimy.

[Tom Gardner]

On 4/1/2013 1:43 AM, Denny wrote:

> Anyone who seeks out an education is more intelligent than one who doesn't.

> Any parent who sacrifices to educate his children is more intelligent that

> one who doesn't, so there is a strong DNA factor there. As we all know,

> intelligence is an inherited trait.
>

Define "education".

[Ed Huntress]

No it wasn't. You can go to PubMed Central and read the pre-1996
studies. There was no propaganda. There was just a lot of facts that
made the NRA squirm.

>
>Which would explain why the funding was cut.

The funding was cut because the NRA demanded that it be cut. They were
infuriated by a 1993 study that showed that a gun in the home
multiplied the risk of one family member shooting another by three
times.

What that really means is open to question and debate, but the point
is the NRA didn't want it spread around, so they got the wording they
wanted into the CDC budget, and a cut, which shut down all research on
gun safety.

It was as if the automobile industry shut down all NHSA research on
automobile safety, except the NRA was much better at it.

>
>They clearly had more than they needed for scientific research.
>
>:-)

How the hell would you know?

--
Ed Huntress

[Jeff M]

This was already posted, in this thread, earlier today. But I know how
hard you Regressives work at avoiding reality, so I'll post it again for
you slower ones.

The CDC is often accused of various biases, not just against guns.

Invariably, these accusations originate from those with the most to lose
from what CDC research reveals, and are never substantiated.

But these allegations aren't meant for the scientific community, who can

easily spot BS accusations v. legitimate science, they are intended

solely for the eagerly gullible party faithful who want and need to believe.

Of course, we are treated now to the hypocritical spectacle of the same
side that prevented the CDC from researching the question in the first
place crowing about the CDC having "NO DATA." Well, duh. You told 'em
they couldn't gather any, most likely because you are afraid of what you
imagine the research will prove about people like you, guns and violence.

*****
Gun control 101: Why is Obama pushing for new gun research?
A key part of President Obama's plan to rein in gun violence is his push
to kick-start fresh gun-control-related research by federal agencies.
Republicans have blocked such research in the past.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / January 19, 2013

WASHINGTON
This week President Obama outlined a sweeping package of proposed

changes to America’s gun laws, including a federal ban on the

manufacture and sale of new assault weapons and an expansion of
background checks on firearm purchasers. But proponents of gun control
say one of the most important pieces of the plan may be a smaller,

less-noticed move: Mr. Obama’s attempt to end a 15-year ban on federal

research into guns and violence.

For years, some members of Congress have effectively blocked the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal agencies from
conducting such research due to concerns about pro-gun control bias. On

Wednesday, Obama said he’d use the powers of the presidency to change
that situation.

“While year after year those who oppose even modest gun safety measures

have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes
of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go

ahead and study the best ways to reduce it.... We don’t benefit from
ignorance,” said Obama.

Here are some basic questions and answers about the research issue:

What's stopping the government from studying guns and violence?

In 1996 some conservative members of Congress mounted an effort to

eliminate the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

because they believed some researchers were cheerleaders for the
anti-gun movement. In the end, they took the $2.6 million this center
had spent on gun research the previous year, and earmarked it for
brain-injury research. In addition, Congress added language to the CDC

appropriation saying “none of the funds made available for injury

prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

It’s unclear exactly what sorts of things this phrase prohibits. But no

federal employee was willing to risk their career to find out, according
to a December Journal of the American Medical Association article.
Several years later, Congress made the language applicable to the
Department of Health and Human Services, as well.

“Even today, 17 years after this legislative action, the CDC’s website

lacks specific links to information about preventing firearm-related

violence,” says the article by Arthur Kellermann and Frederick Rivara.

Generally speaking, gun-rights organizations oppose treating firearms as
a public-health issue, as opposed to a constitutional right.

What don't we know?

This congressional prohibition did not end the study of guns in America,

of course. The federal government does not fund all of the nation’s

social research. In addition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, continue to
estimate statistics such as the percentage of homicides committed with
firearms.

“None of the existing sources of statistics provide either

comprehensive, timely, or accurate data with which to assess
definitively whether there is a causal connection between firearms and

violence,” writes CRS’s William Krouse.

Other researchers say that right now the US has little information on
basic gun topics, such as how many people own what sorts of guns in what
cities and states. There is not much good information on the correlation
of gun ownership to homicide rates, or what percentage of guns used in
crimes were obtained legally, and if not, where they came from.

“Without improvements in this situation, the substantive questions in

the field about the role of guns in suicide, homicide and other crimes,
and accidental injury are likely to continue to be debated on the basis

of conflicting empirical findings,” concluded an in-depth 2005 National

Research Council study of the state of firearms and violence data.

What did Obama do on this subject?

On Wednesday, Obama vowed to end the “freeze” on gun-violence research.

Among other things, he issued a presidential memorandum directing CDC
and other US scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and
prevention of such crimes.

Obama said he based this move on a legal analysis that the existing
appropriations language does not block wide-ranging investigations.

“The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for gun

violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the

greatest potential public health impact,” reads a fact sheet on the
president’s gun plan.

[Too_Many_Tools]

> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The NRA always squirms...snakes always do.

TMT

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 23:33:22 -0400, "Scout"

They had 55 unique and individual studies in fact. And none of them
came up with any relationship to gun availabilty and crime.

None of them.

Gunner

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:49:17 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That wasn't what they were studying, so that whole assertion is just a
red herring.

I'm sure you read all 55 studies to confirm what you're saying...<g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Dan]

Runner couldn't read or understand any of the studies...

Dan

[Dan]

Republicans are such good projectionists!

Dan

[Tom Gardner]

> look it up.
>

You don't know? That there's your problem with your arguments.

[RD Sandman]

Tom Gardner <Mars@Tacks> wrote in

news:kpadnYVlXt22ysfM...@giganews.com:

Actually, what the CDC said was that there was no current study that
showed any causal effect from gun control laws on violent crime in either
direction. That more study was needed.

[Gunner Asch]

A lie on the posters part.

>>
>> I'm sure you read all 55 studies to confirm what you're saying...<g>
>>
>Runner couldn't read or understand any of the studies...
>
>Dan

And yet another lie along with a transference and diversion.

You Far Leftwing Extremist Fringe Kooks are simply stupid..<VBG>

Particularly when its so easy to prove.

Its clear that they are desperately sending in their second string in
a vain attempt to cover and hide that large series of studies:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/16/the-problem-with-the-public-health-resea

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-cdc-study-into-gun-violence-that.html

etc etc

Now lets get to the CDC itself, shall we?

http://www.mainwashed.com/2013/02/2009-cdc-study-found-no-evidence-that.html

2009 CDC Study Found No Evidence That Gun Laws Reduce Violence
In Barack Obama's list of 23 executive actions to prevent gun
violence, number 14 said that he would direct the Center for Desease
Control (CDC) to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
Apparently he didn't realize that the CDC already did a similar study
in 2009, in which they did not have sufficient evidence that showed
that gun laws did anything to prevent gun violence.

From CBS News:

Centers for Disease Control
A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws —
including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons —
found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.

The review was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

...Since then, the task force reviewed 51 published studies about
the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws
included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring
felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm
registration. None of the studies were done by the federal government.

In every case, a CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to
determine effectiveness."


Here is a direct quote from the summary of the report:

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services
(the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a
systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness
of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes,
suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated:
bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm
acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm
registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed
weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws
for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task
Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of
any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent
outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness
should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report
briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task
Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future
research.


I wonder what Obama expects the CDC to find in their new study? What
do you think they will find? Let us know in the comments.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-576422.html

And the CDC study itself

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/

http://rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html

Not even a good try there, you blovating shithead.

<VBG>

Now was there anything else you wished to shit out?

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

Danny is mentally ill. Note the projection, denial and diversion in
his single sentence?

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

Yet they had 51 gun studies that they drew on, including a number of
long term studies.

All of which failed to prove their case.

[Gunner Asch]

Indeed it is.

The poor bastard equates propaganda with "education"

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

>"I wasn't talking to you, and I don't like you."
>movie "You ought to be in Pictures"

Poor Denny boi...waving his arms and stamping his widdle
feet....pitiful...really pitiful.

Gunner

[Jeff M]

On 4/2/2013 1:24 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
[snip]

> boi

Oops! Busted!

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:20:47 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

You phony, lying s.o.b. You didn't even look at them You have no idea
what you're talking about. And you call ME a lair.

Here's a brief list of your crap:

1) "They" was not the CDC. "They" was the independent Task Force on
Community Preventive Services, and the study was authored by nine
people, only two of whom were CDC staffers. There were 22 other
advisors, mostly from hospitals and other medical organizations. The
CDC did not endorse the report.

2) The "55 unique and individual studies" actually was 36 studies, the
remainder being databases from government and industry.

3) Of the 36, two were published by CDC: One was just a statistical
report on deaths in the United States; the other was actually a
summary of a preliminary version of the Task Force's report.

4) The studies were conducted, for the most part, to examine
statistical relationships between gun prevalence and patterns of gun
injuries. Many of them found a strong positive correlation. Surprise!
They were not specifically trying to tie guns to crime, with a couple
of exceptions. But the NRA doesn't want anyone to hear about that. In
fact, today, they proposed having a lot more guns in schools.

Get off your lazy ass and find out what you're talking about, Gunner.
And find out what a "lie" is. You'll recognize it, I'm sure, since
it's something you do so often.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:22:31 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Oh, tell us about those 51 studies, please.

There weren't 51 studies.

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:nd8ml85u9vn54kja4...@4ax.com:

What case was that? There were studies that purported to show that gun
control laws tended to reduce violent crime and there were studies that
purported to show that gun control laws actually increased violent crime.
None of them could show a causal effect so the overall was a wash on
causality.

--

Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,

And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 15:32:48 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>>>Actually, what the CDC said was that there was no current study that
>>>showed any causal effect from gun control laws on violent crime in
>>>either direction. That more study was needed.
>>
>> Yet they had 51 gun studies that they drew on, including a number of
>> long term studies.
>>
>> All of which failed to prove their case.
>
>What case was that? There were studies that purported to show that gun
>control laws tended to reduce violent crime and there were studies that
>purported to show that gun control laws actually increased violent crime.
>None of them could show a causal effect so the overall was a wash on
>causality.

Yet the CDC claimed that guns were a net negative and had been doing
so for quite a number of years and were one of the major backings for
gun control advocates.

And the majority of those studies showed that gun control laws
increased crime.

So it was hardly a wash. Which is why the CDC tiptoed around the
majority of the findings and claimed there wasnt enough evidence one
way or another..yet had for years..claimed guns caused crime.

Its called "covering their ass"

Gunner

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:iehml8dh4h3hq2ssr...@4ax.com:

Bottom line is that their statement and the one from the National Academy
of Sciences bot say essentially the same thing. There is no current
evidence that gun control laws have any effect on violent crime in either
direction.

I have a spreadsheet that compares state homicide rates with the ratings
on gun control for that state from the Brady bunch. For the years 2006 -
2010 that is the same thing my spreadsheet shows. No correlation much
less any causality.

[John Q. Public]

On 3/31/2013 5:58 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in

> news:m6udndJG9-BOAsXM...@giganews.com:

>>>> It is a known fact that many gun loons own guns to compensate for
>>>> their personal inadequacies...especially in the bedroom.
>>>>
>>>> TMT
>>>
>>> It's a standard cultural stereotype. A small man hiding behind a
>>> large gun.
>>
>>
>> Yep. But let's remember it only applies to a, ahem, tiny minority of
>> gun owners, although the type is heavily, albeit idiotically,
>> overrepresented here. The vast majority of gun owners, being normal,
>> decent people, don't suffer from their insecurities and inadequacies,
>> and have no objection to reasonable measures like universal background
>> checks.
>>
>>
>
> I have no problem with a universal background check although I don't
> think it will solve as many problems as the boosters of them think.
> What I am against is the movement of those background checks being
> morphed into a registration database as Schumer appears to be going for.
>

Of course he will go for it. Guns have become the perfect political divider
and an effective camouflage and diversion for a rapidly tanking economy.
Schumer and his cohorts can't lose.

1. *It is not possible to require 'universal background checks' on private
legal transactions without dispensing with the right to private
property.*

2. *It is not possible to require 'universal background checks' on
private gun
transactions without creating a universal database of sellers and
buyers.*

This issue plays into the hands of the United Nations and other
globalist elites.

Dispense with privacy - How to become under Communist or Fascist rule in
one easy step.

Yes, you will have a problem with 'universal background checks.'

[Dan]

Nope, none at all.

The fact that you need to make stuff up every time you post is
instructive, tho.

Dan

[Dan]

Runner can't even keep his own catalog of lies straight! 55 becomes 51,
12 million becomes 10 million, extra rights becomes nothing.

Dan

[Ed Huntress]

He just makes it up as he goes along, or quotes whatever he trips over
on the Web.

Notice he links to a CBS News story; one of his favorites among the
mainstream media. d8-)

Read the Forbes story he links to if you get a chance. It's a laugher.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

<VBG>

And now he is using denial and transference.

<VBG>

Got to feel sorry for the Leftwingers. Dumber than dog shit and
crazier than a bag of dead rats.

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:51:04 -0700, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:

12 million? Extra Rights? What are you babbling about now?

That I made a mistake is clear, on the number of studies. I remembered
55, but it was actually 51. Indeed.

Yet you toss in more of your mentally ill expressive buffoonery and
batshit crazy stuff.

You are off your meds again..arent you?

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On 02 Apr 2013 22:54:30 GMT, dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:

>> >> >>
>> >> >> Define "education".
>> >> >
>> >> > look it up.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You don't know? That there's your problem with your arguments.
>> >
>> >"I wasn't talking to you, and I don't like you."
>> >movie "You ought to be in Pictures"
>>
>> Poor Denny boi...waving his arms and stamping his widdle
>> feet....pitiful...really pitiful.
>>
>> Gunner
>

>I AM talking to you, and I don't like you either.

So when can I expect to need to fire up the backhoe?

You have my address, so bring it on.

Now...do you want a northern exposure or a southern one?

Gunner

[Tom Gardner]

They usually run away about now...when they get cornered.

[Tom Gardner]

Why the preferential treatment?

[Tom Gardner]

Seems so. How would HE know the difference?

[Tom Gardner]

On 4/2/2013 10:57 AM, Dan wrote:
> On 4/1/2013 8:57 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

>> On 4/1/2013 11:16 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>> "Tom Gardner" <Mars@Tacks> wrote in message
>>> news:mZudnXG9QKsEjMTM...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 3/31/2013 8:03 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, gun control regulation, as with so many other things, is best
>>>>> done
>>>>> in a calm and deliberative manner, based on as much scientific
>>>>> evidence,
>>>>> data and public input as possible. However, thanks largely, but not
>>>>> entirely, to the Regressives and their corporate handlers, that cannot
>>>>> happen now. Instead, they've injected as much misinformation,
>>>>> propaganda, hysteria, partisanship and fear into the public as they
>>>>> possibly can, and they already have blocked much scientific research
>>>>> into the subject, all while generating a tidy profit for
>>>>> themselves. If
>>>>> bad laws are the result, they should, but never will, blame themselves
>>>>> first.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What scientific research has bee blocked?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most likely the research he imagines would prove that gun-control works
>>> Too bad that even the CDC, known for having produced reports biased in
>>> favor of gun-control, had to come out and admit that there is NO DATA
>>> supporting the claim that gun-control works
>>
>> Liberals imagine facts in most of their arguments.
>

> Republicans are such good projectionists!
>
> Dan

I'm a registered Democrat, have been for 40+ years. It's you fringe
leftists liars that I can't stand.

[Tom Gardner]

What, do you think your posts go away? Or, don't you understand or
remember what you write? Silly libtard!

[Tom Gardner]

You fuckin' piece of shit! You misspelled a word 2 weeks ago! Can't
you get ANYTHING right!

[Tom Gardner]

Notice a budding bro-mance developing? How cool!

[Gunner Asch]

Im a registered Democrat as well. And I concur with Tom.

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

ROFLMAO!!!

[Gunner Asch]

Respect for the dead.

[Ed Huntress]

Tom, do yourself a favor before you get roped in by Gunner the Phony,
and read the short piece he links to above:

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-cdc-study-into-gun-violence-that.html

Gunner never reads his own "cites," and that one is a bullseye.

And did you read the Task Force summary, or did you just give it a pat
on the head?

--
Ed Huntress

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:08:29 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 02 Apr 2013 22:54:30 GMT, dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Define "education".
>>> >> >
>>> >> > look it up.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> You don't know? That there's your problem with your arguments.
>>> >
>>> >"I wasn't talking to you, and I don't like you."
>>> >movie "You ought to be in Pictures"
>>>
>>> Poor Denny boi...waving his arms and stamping his widdle
>>> feet....pitiful...really pitiful.
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>>I AM talking to you, and I don't like you either.
>
>So when can I expect to need to fire up the backhoe?

Gunner is a pathetic clown and does not have a backhoe. His hundreds
of offers to bury his tormentors are merely some of the thousands of
manifestations of him being a pathologically lying sociopath. In his
mind he's accomplished and fearsome. In reality he's a deadbeat living
in a shithole and wasting his life posting laughable threats.

Click here if you want to read a few examples of Gunner's hilarious
lies.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/1ab3b4e079047311

[RD Sandman]

"John Q. Public" <J...@flashmail.com> wrote in
news:i9I6t.258943$O52....@newsfe10.iad:

I didn't say I wouldn't. I said I didn't. See the difference in tense?
Did you also read the second sentence in that paragraph?

[Michael A. Terrell]

Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> Yet the CDC claimed that guns were a net negative and had been doing
> so for quite a number of years and were one of the major backings for
> gun control advocates.
>
> And the majority of those studies showed that gun control laws
> increased crime.
>
> So it was hardly a wash. Which is why the CDC tiptoed around the
> majority of the findings and claimed there wasnt enough evidence one
> way or another..yet had for years..claimed guns caused crime.
>
> Its called "covering their ass"

That must be one HUGE diaper!

--

Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :(

[Dan]

Obviously, Since I can read and remember, I do a better job than you...

But, when the BEST you can do is namecalling, not much is expected of you.

Dan

[Dan]

Runner, posting under two different names is shameful. Sadder still is
that you cannot even remember what either of your personalities writes
from day to day.

Dan

[Dan]

Yep, Runner appears to be romancing himself here! First a Runner
cowardly post, then an empty fawning followup from "Tom."

Sad, but funny.

Dan

Dan

[Jeff M]

On 4/4/2013 9:05 PM, Denny wrote:
[snip]

>> Runner, posting under two different names is shameful. Sadder still is
>> that you cannot even remember what either of your personalities writes
>> from day to day.
>>
>> Dan
>

> Huh? I didn't get that. What's his other handle?

I've read some claiming either "Tom Gardner" or "Ray Keller" are Gunner
sockpuppets. Personally, I've noticed "pyotr filipivich" frequently
behaving awfully sycophantically toward Gunner.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:12:29 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
wrote:

After about 13 years here, I think not. Gardner is smarter than Gunner
can pretend to be, and Keller is dumber than Gunner would allow
himself to appear. Filipivich is a parrot with a different kind of
nasty streak. He loves playing the pettiest of child's games, which
tend to bore Gunner a lot faster. Filipivich is closer to Terrell in
that regard.

So I don't think they're the same people. In fact, I've talked with
Gardner on the phone, and he ain't Gunner.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

Tom Gardner isn't Mark Wieber. Tom Gardner is the owner of Ohio Bush
company and is as clueless as they come when it comes to knowing how
to run a business or how to market his business. Needless to say he
didn't start Ohio Bush but rather inherited it. Doubt that comes as
any surprise to you. Here is Tom Gardner in all his glory:

http://www.neme-s.org/Oshkosh_2007/Ohio_Brush/DSC02543.JPG

"Personally, I've noticed "pyotr filipivich" frequently behaving
awfully sycophantically toward Gunner."

LOL. That's one way to put it.

[Jeff M]

I really didn't think so, but I've seen the claim made at least a few
times by others. I agree with your analysis.