Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DPRK
277 views
Skip to first unread message
Holdit
Apr 4, 2013, 7:31:27 AM4/4/13
to
The latest round of sabre-rattling by the headbangers in Pyongyang seems
to be reaching an unprecedent levels, with talk of missiles being moved
into place on their east coast etc.
Even though this is probably a shakedown for food or dollars, given the
unusual level of brinkmanship and notwithstanding the doubts about North
Korean technological capacity, is it possible that the US may decide
that even one sub-Horishma-sized warhead reaching San Francisco or
Seattle is just too unacceptable to risk - and decide to go to the
mattresses?
Holdit
"Sir Humphrey Appleby: East Yemen, isn't that a democracy?
Sir Richard Wharton: Its full name is the Peoples' Democratic Republic
of East Yemen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Ah I see, so it's a communist dictatorship."
--
"The British always say we Germans have no sense of humour. I don't
think that's funny."
(Henning Wehn)
to be reaching an unprecedent levels, with talk of missiles being moved
into place on their east coast etc.
Even though this is probably a shakedown for food or dollars, given the
unusual level of brinkmanship and notwithstanding the doubts about North
Korean technological capacity, is it possible that the US may decide
that even one sub-Horishma-sized warhead reaching San Francisco or
Seattle is just too unacceptable to risk - and decide to go to the
mattresses?
Holdit
"Sir Humphrey Appleby: East Yemen, isn't that a democracy?
Sir Richard Wharton: Its full name is the Peoples' Democratic Republic
of East Yemen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Ah I see, so it's a communist dictatorship."
--
"The British always say we Germans have no sense of humour. I don't
think that's funny."
(Henning Wehn)
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 4, 2013, 7:53:46 AM4/4/13
to
On 4 apr, 13:31, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
> The latest round of sabre-rattling by the headbangers in Pyongyang seems
> to be reaching an unprecedent levels, with talk of missiles being moved
> into place on their east coast etc.
>
> Even though this is probably a shakedown for food or dollars, given the
> unusual level of brinkmanship and notwithstanding the doubts about North
> Korean technological capacity, is it possible that the US may decide
> that even one sub-Horishma-sized warhead reaching San Francisco or
> Seattle is just too unacceptable to risk - and decide to go to the
> mattresses?
I read the US already deployed an anti-missile destroyer nearby, so
> The latest round of sabre-rattling by the headbangers in Pyongyang seems
> to be reaching an unprecedent levels, with talk of missiles being moved
> into place on their east coast etc.
>
> Even though this is probably a shakedown for food or dollars, given the
> unusual level of brinkmanship and notwithstanding the doubts about North
> Korean technological capacity, is it possible that the US may decide
> that even one sub-Horishma-sized warhead reaching San Francisco or
> Seattle is just too unacceptable to risk - and decide to go to the
> mattresses?
they're covering their bases - literally
Another geo-political factor I'm thinking of - but I could be miles
off because I've not read this anywhere - is that North Korea instead
of being a Chinese asset was fast becoming a commercial and diplomatic
liability and that the Powers that Be in NK realized that they were
quickly becoming irrelevant to Chinese intrests, and without Chinese
support they'd soon be swinging from treetops.
Desperate times calling for desperate measures and all that.
Personally I don't for a minute think the Chinese have signed of on NK
starting a shooting match, but how much longer can they control an
ally who realizes he's not needed, nor wanted anymore.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Message has been deleted
DirkG
Apr 4, 2013, 6:26:00 PM4/4/13
to
On 4/4/2013 7:31 AM, Holdit wrote:
> The latest round of sabre-rattling by the headbangers in Pyongyang seems
> to be reaching an unprecedent levels, with talk of missiles being moved
> into place on their east coast etc.
>
> Even though this is probably a shakedown for food or dollars, given the
> unusual level of brinkmanship and notwithstanding the doubts about North
> Korean technological capacity, is it possible that the US may decide
> that even one sub-Horishma-sized warhead reaching San Francisco or
> Seattle is just too unacceptable to risk - and decide to go to the
> mattresses?
>
> Holdit
>
>
> "Sir Humphrey Appleby: East Yemen, isn't that a democracy?
> Sir Richard Wharton: Its full name is the Peoples' Democratic Republic
> of East Yemen.
> Sir Humphrey Appleby: Ah I see, so it's a communist dictatorship."
>
>
I can see them simply firing off a missile that may not be aimed at a US
> The latest round of sabre-rattling by the headbangers in Pyongyang seems
> to be reaching an unprecedent levels, with talk of missiles being moved
> into place on their east coast etc.
>
> Even though this is probably a shakedown for food or dollars, given the
> unusual level of brinkmanship and notwithstanding the doubts about North
> Korean technological capacity, is it possible that the US may decide
> that even one sub-Horishma-sized warhead reaching San Francisco or
> Seattle is just too unacceptable to risk - and decide to go to the
> mattresses?
>
> Holdit
>
>
> "Sir Humphrey Appleby: East Yemen, isn't that a democracy?
> Sir Richard Wharton: Its full name is the Peoples' Democratic Republic
> of East Yemen.
> Sir Humphrey Appleby: Ah I see, so it's a communist dictatorship."
>
>
or Japanese target, but just to up the ante. If we shoot it, they'll
claim an act of war on us. Of course, we may never know if it was aimed
at a base whether it gets shot down or not.
Dimensional Traveler
Apr 4, 2013, 9:13:45 PM4/4/13
to
cease-fire was over. By the international rules of war the US can start
shooting whenever we feel like it.
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 5, 2013, 2:52:48 AM4/5/13
to
On 5 apr, 03:13, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 4/4/2013 3:26 PM, DirkG wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/4/2013 7:31 AM, Holdit wrote:
> >> The latest round of sabre-rattling by the headbangers in Pyongyang seems
> >> to be reaching an unprecedent levels, with talk of missiles being moved
> >> into place on their east coast etc.
>
> >> Even though this is probably a shakedown for food or dollars, given the
> >> unusual level of brinkmanship and notwithstanding the doubts about North
> >> Korean technological capacity, is it possible that the US may decide
> >> that even one sub-Horishma-sized warhead reaching San Francisco or
> >> Seattle is just too unacceptable to risk - and decide to go to the
> >> mattresses?
>
> >> Holdit
>
> >> "Sir Humphrey Appleby: East Yemen, isn't that a democracy?
> >> Sir Richard Wharton: Its full name is the Peoples' Democratic Republic
> >> of East Yemen.
> >> Sir Humphrey Appleby: Ah I see, so it's a communist dictatorship."
>
> > I can see them simply firing off a missile that may not be aimed at a US
> > or Japanese target, but just to up the ante. If we shoot it, they'll
> > claim an act of war on us. Of course, we may never know if it was aimed
> > at a base whether it gets shot down or not.
>
> North Korea has already declared war when they announced that the
> cease-fire was over. By the international rules of war the US can start
> shooting whenever we feel like it.
Wasn't the Korean War technically not a UN war with lots of nations
> On 4/4/2013 3:26 PM, DirkG wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/4/2013 7:31 AM, Holdit wrote:
> >> The latest round of sabre-rattling by the headbangers in Pyongyang seems
> >> to be reaching an unprecedent levels, with talk of missiles being moved
> >> into place on their east coast etc.
>
> >> Even though this is probably a shakedown for food or dollars, given the
> >> unusual level of brinkmanship and notwithstanding the doubts about North
> >> Korean technological capacity, is it possible that the US may decide
> >> that even one sub-Horishma-sized warhead reaching San Francisco or
> >> Seattle is just too unacceptable to risk - and decide to go to the
> >> mattresses?
>
> >> Holdit
>
> >> "Sir Humphrey Appleby: East Yemen, isn't that a democracy?
> >> Sir Richard Wharton: Its full name is the Peoples' Democratic Republic
> >> of East Yemen.
> >> Sir Humphrey Appleby: Ah I see, so it's a communist dictatorship."
>
> > I can see them simply firing off a missile that may not be aimed at a US
> > or Japanese target, but just to up the ante. If we shoot it, they'll
> > claim an act of war on us. Of course, we may never know if it was aimed
> > at a base whether it gets shot down or not.
>
> North Korea has already declared war when they announced that the
> cease-fire was over. By the international rules of war the US can start
> shooting whenever we feel like it.
involved ? I know we had a battalion over there which got pretty
mauled by the Chinese. So if I get this right we could send in our
dreaded minesweepers right away.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
BasKa
Apr 5, 2013, 3:13:50 AM4/5/13
to
I think you are right Eddy, it was an UN affair and as it ended in a cease fire, there is nominally still a state of war and we can all join this party!
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 5, 2013, 4:04:54 AM4/5/13
to
On 5 apr, 09:13, BasKa <curt...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
> I think you are right Eddy, it was an UN affair and as it ended in a cease fire, there is nominally still a state of war and we can all join this party!
We bring the beer, you guys the buttermilk and vending-machine
> I think you are right Eddy, it was an UN affair and as it ended in a cease fire, there is nominally still a state of war and we can all join this party!
meatballs :)
Don't you have a 3-pounder gun we could loan for the duration ? Our
entire army is a bit busy helping the French re-establish their
African colonial empire.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
BasKa
Apr 5, 2013, 8:13:29 AM4/5/13
to
If a combined Belgian - Dutch battlegroup (including our air farces) will move to SE Asia, the North Koreans will surrender as fast as they can. We just sold our Leopard tanks and still fly our 25 - 30 year old F-16's, so we are a lean and mean fighting machine ;-)
I can bring a few 12-pounder muzzle loaders of 1811 vintage (made in Luik by the way) to the party!
I can bring a few 12-pounder muzzle loaders of 1811 vintage (made in Luik by the way) to the party!
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 5, 2013, 8:34:19 AM4/5/13
to
On 5 apr, 14:13, BasKa <curt...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
> If a combined Belgian - Dutch battlegroup (including our air farces) will move to SE Asia, the North Koreans will surrender as fast as they can. We just sold our Leopard tanks and still fly our 25 - 30 year old F-16's, so we are a lean and mean fighting machine ;-)
Well, both C-130 are busy shuttling supplies to the French in Africa
> If a combined Belgian - Dutch battlegroup (including our air farces) will move to SE Asia, the North Koreans will surrender as fast as they can. We just sold our Leopard tanks and still fly our 25 - 30 year old F-16's, so we are a lean and mean fighting machine ;-)
and even 20 years ago we had to work a month to get 2 F-16 squadrons
in the air out of the 6 available on paper, so this leaves just 3
Seaking helicopters to join the combined attack force - cue Wagner's
Götterdammerung music ! :)
> I can bring a few 12-pounder muzzle loaders of 1811 vintage (made in Luik by the way) to the party!
will impress the NK leadership :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Apr 5, 2013, 11:52:05 AM4/5/13
to
In article <fec5d91b-1fce-4f27-8073-
e3283e...@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > I can bring a few 12-pounder muzzle loaders of 1811 vintage (made in Luik by the way) to the party!
>
> They look and sound mean enough, but I don't think shooting foam balls
> will impress the NK leadership :)
I'd rather be packin' a 12-lbr. that actually *works* than a North
Korean nuclear-tipped rocket.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"What makes an assault weapon an assault weapon? Randomly selected
cosmetic features that look scary to ignorant liberals, but have nothing
material to do with the function of the firearm. If liberals had more
sense, they would be embarrassed."
- Senator Ted Cruz
e3283e...@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > I can bring a few 12-pounder muzzle loaders of 1811 vintage (made in Luik by the way) to the party!
>
> They look and sound mean enough, but I don't think shooting foam balls
> will impress the NK leadership :)
Korean nuclear-tipped rocket.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"What makes an assault weapon an assault weapon? Randomly selected
cosmetic features that look scary to ignorant liberals, but have nothing
material to do with the function of the firearm. If liberals had more
sense, they would be embarrassed."
- Senator Ted Cruz
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 5, 2013, 11:56:26 AM4/5/13
to
On 5 apr, 17:52, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <fec5d91b-1fce-4f27-8073-
> e3283e8dd...@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
reacting" and asking where the WMD's were.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
> In article <fec5d91b-1fce-4f27-8073-
> e3283e8dd...@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > > I can bring a few 12-pounder muzzle loaders of 1811 vintage (made in Luik by the way) to the party!
>
> > They look and sound mean enough, but I don't think shooting foam balls
> > will impress the NK leadership :)
>
> I'd rather be packin' a 12-lbr. that actually *works* than a North
> Korean nuclear-tipped rocket.
If you do that the usual suspect will be bleating about the US "over-
>
> > > I can bring a few 12-pounder muzzle loaders of 1811 vintage (made in Luik by the way) to the party!
>
> > They look and sound mean enough, but I don't think shooting foam balls
> > will impress the NK leadership :)
>
> I'd rather be packin' a 12-lbr. that actually *works* than a North
> Korean nuclear-tipped rocket.
reacting" and asking where the WMD's were.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Apr 5, 2013, 1:21:52 PM4/5/13
to
In article <e62cd9b5-f1fb-4954-9ac9-e8bf525fb067
@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > I'd rather be packin' a 12-lbr. that actually *works* than a North
> > Korean nuclear-tipped rocket.
>
> If you do that the usual suspect will be bleating about the US "over-
> reacting" and asking where the WMD's were.
Nope. They'll keep their mouths shut this time.
Black, leftist president, don'tcha know; same reason you don't hear
anything about "Patriot Act" or "Guantanamo" or "Collateral Damage" or
"Grim Milestone" or "Cindy Sheehan" or any of the other things that Bush
was relentlessly pilloried over and that Obungle gets a total pass on
... even though he's still doing all of it.
No, Obungle could drop a Trident II D-5 right on Pyongyang and the
headline in tomorrow's NY Times would be:
"Obama Responsibly Disposes Of Bush-Era Nuclear Weapon."
@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > I'd rather be packin' a 12-lbr. that actually *works* than a North
> > Korean nuclear-tipped rocket.
>
> If you do that the usual suspect will be bleating about the US "over-
> reacting" and asking where the WMD's were.
Black, leftist president, don'tcha know; same reason you don't hear
anything about "Patriot Act" or "Guantanamo" or "Collateral Damage" or
"Grim Milestone" or "Cindy Sheehan" or any of the other things that Bush
was relentlessly pilloried over and that Obungle gets a total pass on
... even though he's still doing all of it.
No, Obungle could drop a Trident II D-5 right on Pyongyang and the
headline in tomorrow's NY Times would be:
"Obama Responsibly Disposes Of Bush-Era Nuclear Weapon."
dougb
Apr 5, 2013, 6:12:22 PM4/5/13
to
Possibly because this time there actually are, you know, WMDs...
Doug
Doug
Mike Kreuzer
Apr 5, 2013, 6:19:02 PM4/5/13
to
On 6/04/2013 9:12 AM, dougb wrote:
> Possibly because this time there actually are, you know, WMDs...
>
> Doug
>
Exactly. This time around we know the bad guys have tested
> Possibly because this time there actually are, you know, WMDs...
>
> Doug
>
a nuke, have reactors that've produced plutonium, and they straight up
say they've got nukes & they're going to use them. No need to
imagine WMDs, mobile labs, or anything else, they're right there.
And suddenly the great American conservative commentariat turn to water
and it's Obungle this Obungle that. Clear. And. Present. Danger.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Message has been deleted
Giftzwerg
Apr 5, 2013, 7:01:21 PM4/5/13
to
In article <kjnil4$unj$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...
> Exactly. This time around we know the bad guys have tested
> a nuke, have reactors that've produced plutonium, and they straight up
> say they've got nukes & they're going to use them. No need to
> imagine WMDs, mobile labs, or anything else, they're right there.
>
> And suddenly the great American conservative commentariat turn to water
> and it's Obungle this Obungle that. Clear. And. Present. Danger.
So what - *exactly* - should we do?
And I'm not sure what you mean about the "American conservative
commentariat turn to water." Speaking ostensibly as one of those
"conservative commentators," I think Obama should call Kim Jong-PeeWee's
bluff.
Perhaps something along the lines of, "get your little yella pecker hard
and nuke away, if you've got the stones for it; that'll give me the
excuse to put you out of the world's misery forever. In fact, if a nuke
goes off on the territory of *anyone* we remotely like, you're going to
be first under the bag of hammers."
I think you're falling into the trap a lot of people do; just because
American conservatives think Obungle is an empty suit - we do, and he is
- and work tirelessly to thwart his loony, every-bad-leftist-idea-from-
the-last-century agenda, it certainly doesn't mean we're not behind him
100% on the subject of whether or not to fry North Korea if it gets
froggy.
In fact, I'd nuke him *now*. He's got nukes, he's got rockets, he's
threatening directly to use them. On us. And his retaliatory capacity
is nil. I can't think of a better candidate for a preemptive strike.
And, as I said, Obungle could get away with it.
says...
> Exactly. This time around we know the bad guys have tested
> a nuke, have reactors that've produced plutonium, and they straight up
> say they've got nukes & they're going to use them. No need to
> imagine WMDs, mobile labs, or anything else, they're right there.
>
> And suddenly the great American conservative commentariat turn to water
> and it's Obungle this Obungle that. Clear. And. Present. Danger.
And I'm not sure what you mean about the "American conservative
commentariat turn to water." Speaking ostensibly as one of those
"conservative commentators," I think Obama should call Kim Jong-PeeWee's
bluff.
Perhaps something along the lines of, "get your little yella pecker hard
and nuke away, if you've got the stones for it; that'll give me the
excuse to put you out of the world's misery forever. In fact, if a nuke
goes off on the territory of *anyone* we remotely like, you're going to
be first under the bag of hammers."
I think you're falling into the trap a lot of people do; just because
American conservatives think Obungle is an empty suit - we do, and he is
- and work tirelessly to thwart his loony, every-bad-leftist-idea-from-
the-last-century agenda, it certainly doesn't mean we're not behind him
100% on the subject of whether or not to fry North Korea if it gets
froggy.
In fact, I'd nuke him *now*. He's got nukes, he's got rockets, he's
threatening directly to use them. On us. And his retaliatory capacity
is nil. I can't think of a better candidate for a preemptive strike.
And, as I said, Obungle could get away with it.
Mike Kreuzer
Apr 5, 2013, 8:32:23 PM4/5/13
to
That's pretty much my opinion too.
Sigh. This isn't an argument. Yes it is.. <g>
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Vincenzo Beretta
Apr 5, 2013, 9:08:05 PM4/5/13
to
Alas, the only two Italian soldier who know how to shoot straight are currently busy in India, so, not much help from here.
I would send some ships over there anyway only to have a ruckus with TWO unallied nuclear power. It would be a first in the history of the world, IIRC.
I would send some ships over there anyway only to have a ruckus with TWO unallied nuclear power. It would be a first in the history of the world, IIRC.
Vincenzo Beretta
Apr 5, 2013, 9:11:00 PM4/5/13
to
Or, more correctly, pointing out how the obvious owner of WMD wasn't touched because... HE HAD WMD FOR REAL, HOLY SHIT!!! ^^
Giftzwerg
Apr 6, 2013, 7:16:48 AM4/6/13
to
In article <kjnqf4$h01$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...
> > I think you're falling into the trap a lot of people do; just because
> > American conservatives think Obungle is an empty suit - we do, and he is
> > - and work tirelessly to thwart his loony, every-bad-leftist-idea-from-
> > the-last-century agenda, it certainly doesn't mean we're not behind him
> > 100% on the subject of whether or not to fry North Korea if it gets
> > froggy.
> >
> > In fact, I'd nuke him *now*. He's got nukes, he's got rockets, he's
> > threatening directly to use them. On us. And his retaliatory capacity
> > is nil. I can't think of a better candidate for a preemptive strike.
> >
> > And, as I said, Obungle could get away with it.
> >
>
> Then I'd had you precisely and near enough to 100% wrong - apologies.
> That's pretty much my opinion too.
>
> Sigh. This isn't an argument. Yes it is.. <g>
Keep in mind the second Iron Rule of American Politics; 99.6% of all
hypocrisy is on the left.
I can name any number of policies instituted and followed by the Bush
Administration - Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance of terror
suspects, targeted killing of terror suspects, rendition, etc., etc.
that the left - some right here in this group - were shrieking about.
All that ended the moment Obama took office. Suddenly ... silence.
Note that this was not only predicted by yours truly, but was, in fact,
cited openly as one of the (few) true benefits of electing Obama; all of
that "shredding <gasp!> the Constitution" talk ended once Bush wasn't
the guy maintaining the "kill on sight" lists.
Which is why I think Kim Jong-PeeWee might be in more trouble than he
knows. If Obungle starts beating the war drums against North Korea,
there's not going to be the same scalded-cat puling from the left that
Bush got. No Congressional hearings, no marching in the streets against
"warmongering," none of that.
And the right will do what they always do; recognize a threat to the USA
and line up behind *any* president who might need to take action.
says...
> > I think you're falling into the trap a lot of people do; just because
> > American conservatives think Obungle is an empty suit - we do, and he is
> > - and work tirelessly to thwart his loony, every-bad-leftist-idea-from-
> > the-last-century agenda, it certainly doesn't mean we're not behind him
> > 100% on the subject of whether or not to fry North Korea if it gets
> > froggy.
> >
> > In fact, I'd nuke him *now*. He's got nukes, he's got rockets, he's
> > threatening directly to use them. On us. And his retaliatory capacity
> > is nil. I can't think of a better candidate for a preemptive strike.
> >
> > And, as I said, Obungle could get away with it.
> >
>
> Then I'd had you precisely and near enough to 100% wrong - apologies.
> That's pretty much my opinion too.
>
> Sigh. This isn't an argument. Yes it is.. <g>
hypocrisy is on the left.
I can name any number of policies instituted and followed by the Bush
Administration - Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance of terror
suspects, targeted killing of terror suspects, rendition, etc., etc.
that the left - some right here in this group - were shrieking about.
All that ended the moment Obama took office. Suddenly ... silence.
Note that this was not only predicted by yours truly, but was, in fact,
cited openly as one of the (few) true benefits of electing Obama; all of
that "shredding <gasp!> the Constitution" talk ended once Bush wasn't
the guy maintaining the "kill on sight" lists.
Which is why I think Kim Jong-PeeWee might be in more trouble than he
knows. If Obungle starts beating the war drums against North Korea,
there's not going to be the same scalded-cat puling from the left that
Bush got. No Congressional hearings, no marching in the streets against
"warmongering," none of that.
And the right will do what they always do; recognize a threat to the USA
and line up behind *any* president who might need to take action.
Giftzwerg
Apr 6, 2013, 7:39:28 AM4/6/13
to
In article <0bffe04d-d32a-4833...@googlegroups.com>,
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> Or, more correctly, pointing out how the obvious owner of WMD wasn't touched because... HE HAD WMD FOR REAL, HOLY SHIT!!! ^^
Does Kim Jong-PeeWee have nuclear weapons?
There's a lot more to "having nuclear weapons" than setting off some
test device in a cave and owning some big rockets. Even though the
Soviets had tested an atomic bomb in 1949, and had probably the best
missile program in the world at the time ...
... I wonder how long it took them to deploy a *tested* nuclear-tipped
missile that would (a) actually work in a non-test situation, (b)
actually fly to the designated target, and (c) actually explode. Note,
too, that the Soviets were building *squadrons* of rockets against the
almost-certain notion that some unknown percentage of the deployed
weapons would not do (a), (b), and (c).
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> Or, more correctly, pointing out how the obvious owner of WMD wasn't touched because... HE HAD WMD FOR REAL, HOLY SHIT!!! ^^
There's a lot more to "having nuclear weapons" than setting off some
test device in a cave and owning some big rockets. Even though the
Soviets had tested an atomic bomb in 1949, and had probably the best
missile program in the world at the time ...
... I wonder how long it took them to deploy a *tested* nuclear-tipped
missile that would (a) actually work in a non-test situation, (b)
actually fly to the designated target, and (c) actually explode. Note,
too, that the Soviets were building *squadrons* of rockets against the
almost-certain notion that some unknown percentage of the deployed
weapons would not do (a), (b), and (c).
dougb
Apr 6, 2013, 7:41:42 AM4/6/13
to
Can you cite some examples of 'the left' supporting policies like warrantless wiretapping, drone strikes, killing Americans without due process? I suspect that the Republican Party has slid so far to the right, into absolute cuckoo banana land, that people on the left would now encapsulate what once were considered moderate Republicans.
Doug
Doug
Giftzwerg
Apr 6, 2013, 10:02:27 AM4/6/13
to
In article <4240f26e-2ce4-41db...@googlegroups.com>,
douglas...@rogers.com says...
> Can you cite some examples of 'the left' supporting policies like warrantless wiretapping, drone strikes, killing Americans without due process?
I didn't say they "supported" those policies. What I said was that they
almost completely stopped *complaining* about those policies once
Obungle took office.
THEN: "Bush and his cronies should be prosecuted for waterboarding
suspected terrorists!"
NOW: "Obama *killing* suspected terrorists with drone-launched missiles
is perfectly OK - no argument from us."
> I suspect that the Republican Party has slid so far to the right, into
absolute cuckoo banana land, that people on the left would now
encapsulate what once were considered moderate Republicans.
***
<laughter>
Yeah. Whew. John McCain and Mitt Romney were classic examples of fire-
snorting Right Wing Extremists(tm).
douglas...@rogers.com says...
> Can you cite some examples of 'the left' supporting policies like warrantless wiretapping, drone strikes, killing Americans without due process?
almost completely stopped *complaining* about those policies once
Obungle took office.
THEN: "Bush and his cronies should be prosecuted for waterboarding
suspected terrorists!"
NOW: "Obama *killing* suspected terrorists with drone-launched missiles
is perfectly OK - no argument from us."
> I suspect that the Republican Party has slid so far to the right, into
absolute cuckoo banana land, that people on the left would now
encapsulate what once were considered moderate Republicans.
<laughter>
Yeah. Whew. John McCain and Mitt Romney were classic examples of fire-
snorting Right Wing Extremists(tm).
dougb
Apr 6, 2013, 10:42:46 AM4/6/13
to
That would be the Mitt Romney who tacked so far to the right he had to disown HIS health care reform when he was Governor (an idea that had originated with the Heritage Foundation) and which was pretty much what Obama had patterned his health care reforms after? And sorry but anyone who selects Princess Dumbass from Northwoods as a running mate is an individual who needs to be kept far, far away from any decision making chair. Mitt Romney and John McCain as reasonable centrists is a dog that won't hunt, because a reasonable centrist can't win the Republican Primary - for President or any other office). The fact that Republicans couldn't beat a President who by all measures should have been quite beatable in the last election should be a learning opportunity for Republicans, if they have but the wit to do so.
And when you look at the screaming lunatics who populate the House and Senate Republican members (hello there Michelle Bachman, Jim DeMint, Louie Gohmert!), and the Godawful bunch assembled in the State legislatures, it seems like it might be just a matter of time before being a member of the Republican Party might end up being inserted into the next iteration of the DSM of psychiatric disorders.
Doug
And when you look at the screaming lunatics who populate the House and Senate Republican members (hello there Michelle Bachman, Jim DeMint, Louie Gohmert!), and the Godawful bunch assembled in the State legislatures, it seems like it might be just a matter of time before being a member of the Republican Party might end up being inserted into the next iteration of the DSM of psychiatric disorders.
Doug
Giftzwerg
Apr 6, 2013, 11:03:31 AM4/6/13
to
In article <969d247c-0436-4c77...@googlegroups.com>,
douglas...@rogers.com says...
Ah. So now opposing Obamacare makes one a right-wing extremist? You
can't oppose nationalized healthcare without being fitted for a KKK
sheet?
> And sorry but anyone who selects Princess Dumbass from Northwoods as a
running mate is an individual who needs to be kept far, far away from
any decision making chair.
***
Nice try, but a big reason McCain selected Palin was to shore up his
support among American conservatives. That he had to do so pretty much
scuppers the argument that he was already a flaming right-winger.
Not that you were making an "argument" here...
> Mitt Romney and John McCain as reasonable centrists is a dog that
won't hunt, because a reasonable centrist can't win the Republican
Primary - for President or any other office).
***
This bit of nonsense simply shows how far gone you are. By any stretch
of the imagination, both Romney and McCain were center-right candidates
- only from the perspective of the liberal left does any such dog
"hunt."
> The fact that Republicans couldn't beat a President who by all
measures should have been quite beatable in the last election should be
a learning opportunity for Republicans, if they have but the wit to do
so.
***
The best way to beat Obama was to nominate an authentic Conservative,
not "Obama-lite." This, IMO, was the primary reason Obama was elected
and re-elected.
> And when you look at the screaming lunatics who populate the House and
Senate Republican members (hello there Michelle Bachman, Jim DeMint,
Louie Gohmert!), and the Godawful bunch assembled in the State
legislatures, it seems like it might be just a matter of time before
being a member of the Republican Party might end up being inserted into
the next iteration of the DSM of psychiatric disorders.
***
Hmmm. Can you name a single Republican who isn't, in your eyes, a
"screaming right-wing lunatic?"
douglas...@rogers.com says...
>
> That would be the Mitt Romney who tacked so far to the right he had to
disown HIS health care reform when he was Governor (an idea that had
originated with the Heritage Foundation) and which was pretty much what
Obama had patterned his health care reforms after?
***
> That would be the Mitt Romney who tacked so far to the right he had to
disown HIS health care reform when he was Governor (an idea that had
originated with the Heritage Foundation) and which was pretty much what
Obama had patterned his health care reforms after?
Ah. So now opposing Obamacare makes one a right-wing extremist? You
can't oppose nationalized healthcare without being fitted for a KKK
sheet?
> And sorry but anyone who selects Princess Dumbass from Northwoods as a
running mate is an individual who needs to be kept far, far away from
any decision making chair.
Nice try, but a big reason McCain selected Palin was to shore up his
support among American conservatives. That he had to do so pretty much
scuppers the argument that he was already a flaming right-winger.
Not that you were making an "argument" here...
> Mitt Romney and John McCain as reasonable centrists is a dog that
won't hunt, because a reasonable centrist can't win the Republican
Primary - for President or any other office).
This bit of nonsense simply shows how far gone you are. By any stretch
of the imagination, both Romney and McCain were center-right candidates
- only from the perspective of the liberal left does any such dog
"hunt."
> The fact that Republicans couldn't beat a President who by all
measures should have been quite beatable in the last election should be
a learning opportunity for Republicans, if they have but the wit to do
so.
The best way to beat Obama was to nominate an authentic Conservative,
not "Obama-lite." This, IMO, was the primary reason Obama was elected
and re-elected.
> And when you look at the screaming lunatics who populate the House and
Senate Republican members (hello there Michelle Bachman, Jim DeMint,
Louie Gohmert!), and the Godawful bunch assembled in the State
legislatures, it seems like it might be just a matter of time before
being a member of the Republican Party might end up being inserted into
the next iteration of the DSM of psychiatric disorders.
Hmmm. Can you name a single Republican who isn't, in your eyes, a
"screaming right-wing lunatic?"
dougb
Apr 6, 2013, 11:56:33 AM4/6/13
to
Obamacare is a terrific example of what back in 1989 was considered a perfectly reasonable position by a very conservative think tank now being considered 'Socialism' by the Republican Party. They've shifted so far to the right that they're fortunate that the earth isn't flat after all or they'd have fallen off its face some time ago.
And hey, if the Republicans think the reason they lost is because they chose Obama lite as their candidate - well you know the old saying about the defintion of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Interestingly if he hadn't had that odious Republican platform (pretty consistent with where he'd positioned himself in the primaries) Romney likely would have won the election. Well at least before that unfortunate tape of his 47% comments allowed the mask to slip.
So I think Obama lite would have won - the fantastic turnout for Obama was likely driven more by fear of the extremism of the Republicans than affection for Obama. Obama's spent more time reaching over to Republicans than pushing for most of the desired policies of the left. Hell Republicans hate Obama so much that they likely would have held their noses and voted for him and that combined with independents and lukewarm Obama turnout likely would have pushed Romney over the top.
Hmm...non-right wing lunatic Republicans? Susan Collins in the Senate. Sadly most of the formerly moderate Republicans (and that definition changes as the party tacks further to the right) have stepped down from office or, in the example of Richard Lugar, been defeated by more right win challengers. And to be fair some of the politicians may well be afraid of being successfully primaries by more ideological extreme opponents.
Doug
And hey, if the Republicans think the reason they lost is because they chose Obama lite as their candidate - well you know the old saying about the defintion of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Interestingly if he hadn't had that odious Republican platform (pretty consistent with where he'd positioned himself in the primaries) Romney likely would have won the election. Well at least before that unfortunate tape of his 47% comments allowed the mask to slip.
So I think Obama lite would have won - the fantastic turnout for Obama was likely driven more by fear of the extremism of the Republicans than affection for Obama. Obama's spent more time reaching over to Republicans than pushing for most of the desired policies of the left. Hell Republicans hate Obama so much that they likely would have held their noses and voted for him and that combined with independents and lukewarm Obama turnout likely would have pushed Romney over the top.
Hmm...non-right wing lunatic Republicans? Susan Collins in the Senate. Sadly most of the formerly moderate Republicans (and that definition changes as the party tacks further to the right) have stepped down from office or, in the example of Richard Lugar, been defeated by more right win challengers. And to be fair some of the politicians may well be afraid of being successfully primaries by more ideological extreme opponents.
Doug
Giftzwerg
Apr 6, 2013, 12:48:28 PM4/6/13
to
In article <2e7e3ad7-4b74-4616...@googlegroups.com>,
douglas...@rogers.com says...
Cite? I don't know if I recall which "very conservative think tank" so
opined 25 years ago - nor how well this self-styled "think tank"
represented the opinion of mainstream conservatism.
In my recollection, socialized medicine has always been anathema to
American conservatives.
> And hey, if the Republicans think the reason they lost is because they
chose Obama lite as their candidate - well you know the old saying about
the defintion of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results. Interestingly if he hadn't had that
odious Republican platform (pretty consistent with where he'd positioned
himself in the primaries) Romney likely would have won the election.
Well at least before that unfortunate tape of his 47% comments allowed
the mask to slip.
***
I couldn't tell you why the Republicans keep nominating RINOs. I keep
saying it's a bad idea, and they keep losing.
> Hmm...non-right wing lunatic Republicans? Susan Collins in the
Senate.
***
<laughter>
Everyone to the right of *Susan Collins* is a "screaming right-wing
lunatic?"
I hope you realize you just branded Joe Manchin (D-WV), Max Baucus (D-
MT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Mark Pryor (D-AL), Joe
Donnelly (D-IN), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) a a bunch of "screaming
right-wing lunatics."
Fer shit's sake, dude, *Bill Clinton* was more conservative than Susan
Collins.
douglas...@rogers.com says...
>
> Obamacare is a terrific example of what back in 1989 was considered a
perfectly reasonable position by a very conservative think tank now
being considered 'Socialism' by the Republican Party. They've shifted
so far to the right that they're fortunate that the earth isn't flat
after all or they'd have fallen off its face some time ago.
***
> Obamacare is a terrific example of what back in 1989 was considered a
perfectly reasonable position by a very conservative think tank now
being considered 'Socialism' by the Republican Party. They've shifted
so far to the right that they're fortunate that the earth isn't flat
after all or they'd have fallen off its face some time ago.
Cite? I don't know if I recall which "very conservative think tank" so
opined 25 years ago - nor how well this self-styled "think tank"
represented the opinion of mainstream conservatism.
In my recollection, socialized medicine has always been anathema to
American conservatives.
> And hey, if the Republicans think the reason they lost is because they
chose Obama lite as their candidate - well you know the old saying about
the defintion of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results. Interestingly if he hadn't had that
odious Republican platform (pretty consistent with where he'd positioned
himself in the primaries) Romney likely would have won the election.
Well at least before that unfortunate tape of his 47% comments allowed
the mask to slip.
I couldn't tell you why the Republicans keep nominating RINOs. I keep
saying it's a bad idea, and they keep losing.
> Hmm...non-right wing lunatic Republicans? Susan Collins in the
Senate.
<laughter>
Everyone to the right of *Susan Collins* is a "screaming right-wing
lunatic?"
I hope you realize you just branded Joe Manchin (D-WV), Max Baucus (D-
MT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Mark Pryor (D-AL), Joe
Donnelly (D-IN), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) a a bunch of "screaming
right-wing lunatics."
Fer shit's sake, dude, *Bill Clinton* was more conservative than Susan
Collins.
dougb
Apr 6, 2013, 3:01:46 PM4/6/13
to
Heritage Foundation was the think tank - not especially known for its liberal leanings<g>. Not sure how that healthcare plan counts as socialist given the role of the Health Insurance Companies - at least under any definition of socialism that makes sense.
Your point re: Collins is interesting. The Democratic Party does exhibit a broader range of ideology than the Republican party - something that the Republicans have been quite adept at exploiting over the years. Sadly some of the shit for brains financial deregulation was signed into law by Clinton.
Doug
Your point re: Collins is interesting. The Democratic Party does exhibit a broader range of ideology than the Republican party - something that the Republicans have been quite adept at exploiting over the years. Sadly some of the shit for brains financial deregulation was signed into law by Clinton.
Doug
Giftzwerg
Apr 6, 2013, 5:42:08 PM4/6/13
to
In article <77b28672-5d32-4333...@googlegroups.com>,
douglas...@rogers.com says...
> Heritage Foundation was the think tank - not especially known for its
liberal leanings<g>. Not sure how that healthcare plan counts as
socialist given the role of the Health Insurance Companies - at least
under any definition of socialism that makes sense.
IIRC, the Heritage Foundation study dealt *only* with an individual
mandate, and was a direct response to the "free riders" concern raised
by the then just-passed Emergency Medical Treatment act, which mandated
that every emergency room in the country admit *everyone* seeking
treatment, regardless of <other factor>.
So far as I know, the study didn't propose requiring - by force of law -
an individual purchase insurance, it just offered vouchers and tax
breaks as an incentive, and only proposed catastrophic coverage.
Apples and oranges, in my book.
And - lest we forget - opposition to an individual mandate was only one
small part of the conservative objections to Obamacare. By far the
primary objection is the degree to which the government becomes involved
in the process of determining who gets what treatments. That, and the
sheer monstrous size of the legislation, which offered ample opportunity
for liberal judges to expand almost on a whim.
> Your point re: Collins is interesting. The Democratic Party does
exhibit a broader range of ideology than the Republican party -
***
No. It doesn't. The Republican Party, after all, was home for three
decades to my own Senator Jim Jeffords, a flaming liberal who was the
poster-boy for "RINO." From Jeffords - and Lincoln Chaffee, and Michael
Bloomberg, and Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter, and <list goes on> - all
the way to authentic conservatives, the ideological breadth of the
Republican Party is *at least* commensurate with that of the Democrats.
> something that the Republicans have been quite adept at exploiting
over the years. Sadly some of the shit for brains financial deregulation
was signed into law by Clinton.
***
... a center-left politician who also signed welfare reform, worked with
a Republican Congress to end deficit spending, and presided over a
business-friendly environment that led to real prosperity.
douglas...@rogers.com says...
> Heritage Foundation was the think tank - not especially known for its
liberal leanings<g>. Not sure how that healthcare plan counts as
socialist given the role of the Health Insurance Companies - at least
under any definition of socialism that makes sense.
mandate, and was a direct response to the "free riders" concern raised
by the then just-passed Emergency Medical Treatment act, which mandated
that every emergency room in the country admit *everyone* seeking
treatment, regardless of <other factor>.
So far as I know, the study didn't propose requiring - by force of law -
an individual purchase insurance, it just offered vouchers and tax
breaks as an incentive, and only proposed catastrophic coverage.
Apples and oranges, in my book.
And - lest we forget - opposition to an individual mandate was only one
small part of the conservative objections to Obamacare. By far the
primary objection is the degree to which the government becomes involved
in the process of determining who gets what treatments. That, and the
sheer monstrous size of the legislation, which offered ample opportunity
for liberal judges to expand almost on a whim.
> Your point re: Collins is interesting. The Democratic Party does
exhibit a broader range of ideology than the Republican party -
No. It doesn't. The Republican Party, after all, was home for three
decades to my own Senator Jim Jeffords, a flaming liberal who was the
poster-boy for "RINO." From Jeffords - and Lincoln Chaffee, and Michael
Bloomberg, and Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter, and <list goes on> - all
the way to authentic conservatives, the ideological breadth of the
Republican Party is *at least* commensurate with that of the Democrats.
> something that the Republicans have been quite adept at exploiting
over the years. Sadly some of the shit for brains financial deregulation
was signed into law by Clinton.
... a center-left politician who also signed welfare reform, worked with
a Republican Congress to end deficit spending, and presided over a
business-friendly environment that led to real prosperity.
Message has been deleted
Giftzwerg
Apr 7, 2013, 8:12:43 AM4/7/13
to
In article <1292996899386992394.4...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...
> > And the right will do what they always do; recognize a threat to the USA
> > and line up behind *any* president who might need to take action.
>
> So the rotation of the POTUS role is just a good cop/bad cop routine where
> the. GOP president does what must be done and then the Democrats' president
> moves in to soothe the proles with sax playing and town hall meetings...
No. All presidents do what they think must be done. But only
Republicans get screamed at for it in the leftist media.
Even when it's the same exact thing.
ade...@inbox.com says...
> > And the right will do what they always do; recognize a threat to the USA
> > and line up behind *any* president who might need to take action.
>
> the. GOP president does what must be done and then the Democrats' president
> moves in to soothe the proles with sax playing and town hall meetings...
No. All presidents do what they think must be done. But only
Republicans get screamed at for it in the leftist media.
Even when it's the same exact thing.
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 8, 2013, 3:44:54 AM4/8/13
to
On 6 apr, 00:12, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Possibly because this time there actually are, you know, WMDs...
Weird, could have sworn Saddam used nerve gas on his own Kurdish
> Possibly because this time there actually are, you know, WMDs...
population back in 1988, but maybe I'm just confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
... and that's not even going into the countless times gas was used in
the previous Iran-Iraq war.
.. and yes, blood, nerve, mustard and other type of gasses *are*
considered WMD's by the very definition of it in the UN protocols. I
can distinctly remember providing the actual text and links here
before but maybe you missed that.
But after all is said and done here's my most potent argument : you
wouldn't get high odds in Vegas betting on a guy *not* having and
going to use something he had and did use plenty of times before. At
the time only the ideologically inspired ones were the naysayers.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
dougb
Apr 8, 2013, 7:13:43 AM4/8/13
to
Lots of naysayers Eddy that had absolutely no connection with ideology - the weapons indpectors themselves for example. And it's pretty irrelevant what people consider the odds - the only issue of practical import is evidence that he actually had them. Funny that the people who were right are dismissed as ideologues - might want to take a glance in the mirror there Eddy.
It's evident to anybody taking an even cursory glance at the record that the United States and UK presented seriously distorted, and in some cases outright lied, in order to force a war that was quite unneccessary.
Doug
It's evident to anybody taking an even cursory glance at the record that the United States and UK presented seriously distorted, and in some cases outright lied, in order to force a war that was quite unneccessary.
Doug
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 8, 2013, 7:31:31 AM4/8/13
to
On 8 apr, 13:13, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Lots of naysayers Eddy that had absolutely no connection with ideology - the weapons indpectors themselves for example.
Are those the same weapons inspectors that were denied access to
> Lots of naysayers Eddy that had absolutely no connection with ideology - the weapons indpectors themselves for example.
various installations and who's report read "we didn't find anything
in the places we were allowed to inspect" ?
> And it's pretty irrelevant what people consider the odds - the only issue of practical import is evidence that he actually had them.
The fact they've detonated a couple of test-nukes before doesn't seem
to be a convincing reason they have them *now* if you go by the same
reasoning as Saddam & WMD's
The fact they've launched a couple of medium-range rockets is no
conclusive proof they have working rockets *now* - isn't that what
you're saying ?
On top of that, nobody has proven NK has the technology to miniaturize
the nukes into rocket warheads, or the technology to integrate it all
- which incidentally I don't think they have based on the report of a
British professor who visited NK in the not too distant past.
So, by your own logic we shouldn't do squat about NK - which btw is
exactly what I'm saying we should do : send in a couple of trains with
rice - they're hungry again.
> Funny that the people who were right are dismissed as ideologues - might want to take a glance in the mirror there Eddy.
Saddam had WMD's, but that was the least of my concerns. The fact that
he controlled too much of the world's oil reserves was - for better or
worse we've got an oil-based economy and I'll gladly support any war
that keeps the oil flowing uninteruptedly. War for oil your say, sure,
no problem with that here.
Tangentially, that's why I'm so much in favour of nuclear energy and
the possibility it gives us to convert to a liquid hydrogen based
economy : to ween us of this dependence on oil. Cuts down on the wars
a lot as well.
> It's evident to anybody taking an even cursory glance at the record that the United States and UK presented seriously distorted, and in some cases outright lied, in order to force a war that was quite unneccessary.
before as well and was not allowing inspectors onto some sites.
Hindsight is perfect, but at the time *everyone* but the ideologically
inspired thought otherwise. You guys got lucky on a hunch.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Apr 8, 2013, 7:53:58 AM4/8/13
to
In article <9361bf72-9ede-474d-8118-
8efa63...@a3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> But after all is said and done here's my most potent argument : you
> wouldn't get high odds in Vegas betting on a guy *not* having and
> going to use something he had and did use plenty of times before. At
> the time only the ideologically inspired ones were the naysayers.
It also occurs to me to note that there was a *consensus* back in 2002
that Saddam was lousy with WMDs. Quite a wide *consensus*, in fact,
encompassing virtually the whole of the global intelligence community.
Isn't it interesting that some of the same folks who are now telling us
that the *consensus* about global warming is so pervasive that we must
ignore the skeptics and bull ahead with something - anything! - that
might stop carbon emissions ... are the same folks who are now telling
us that we should have ignored the *consensus* about Saddam's WMDs and
listened to the skeptics and done nothing.
Consensus. A fickle term in the hands of ideologues.
8efa63...@a3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> But after all is said and done here's my most potent argument : you
> wouldn't get high odds in Vegas betting on a guy *not* having and
> going to use something he had and did use plenty of times before. At
> the time only the ideologically inspired ones were the naysayers.
that Saddam was lousy with WMDs. Quite a wide *consensus*, in fact,
encompassing virtually the whole of the global intelligence community.
Isn't it interesting that some of the same folks who are now telling us
that the *consensus* about global warming is so pervasive that we must
ignore the skeptics and bull ahead with something - anything! - that
might stop carbon emissions ... are the same folks who are now telling
us that we should have ignored the *consensus* about Saddam's WMDs and
listened to the skeptics and done nothing.
Consensus. A fickle term in the hands of ideologues.
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 8, 2013, 8:31:19 AM4/8/13
to
On 8 apr, 13:53, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Consensus. A fickle term in the hands of ideologues.
Frankly, I rarely give a damn about what the consensus is on anything
>
> Consensus. A fickle term in the hands of ideologues.
really - just give me the facts, I'm a big boy who can draw his own
conclusions from them and doesn't care who else agrees with me.
... and one of the conclusions I'm drawing is that, again, the paper
boardgame world is using the opportunity to make some sales :)
http://shop.strategyandtacticspress.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=MW005
"Drive on Pyongyang, designed by Ty Bomba and Joseph Miranda, is an
updated "what-if" simulation of the fighting that might occur on the
Korean peninsula if the US-led anti-terrorism Coalition launches a
ground war to finally settle with the Pyongyang regime."
Here's a bit worthy of some discussion :
"The game is a two-player wargame of low-to-intermediate complexity
that postulates this might-be war lasting about a month. We believe
that's about the maximum time before the Coalition ground force's
diminishing supplies, coupled with a loss of the domestic political
will necessary to continue the fighting, would bring about a
settlement if victory were not achieved in the field."
A month ? These guys are optimists.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Message has been deleted
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 8, 2013, 10:45:25 AM4/8/13
to
On 8 apr, 16:31, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> Well, you have to concede that it could just take a month if all that
> needed to be done was to hold a vixtory hex at turn 30, assuming 1 day
> turns here...
My comment was based on the observation that all it takes is some
footage of some "poor innocent Republican Guard vehicles" - or
whatever the NK equivalent is - burning on some desert highway for the
bleeding hearts to start calling for a ceasefire ...
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
>
> Well, you have to concede that it could just take a month if all that
> needed to be done was to hold a vixtory hex at turn 30, assuming 1 day
> turns here...
My comment was based on the observation that all it takes is some
footage of some "poor innocent Republican Guard vehicles" - or
whatever the NK equivalent is - burning on some desert highway for the
bleeding hearts to start calling for a ceasefire ...
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Apr 8, 2013, 2:18:02 PM4/8/13
to
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 00:44:54 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6 apr, 00:12, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> Possibly because this time there actually are, you know, WMDs...
>
>Weird, could have sworn Saddam used nerve gas on his own Kurdish
>population back in 1988, but maybe I'm just confused.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
>... and that's not even going into the countless times gas was used in
>the previous Iran-Iraq war.
>
>.. and yes, blood, nerve, mustard and other type of gasses *are*
>considered WMD's by the very definition of it in the UN protocols. I
>can distinctly remember providing the actual text and links here
>before but maybe you missed that.
Well, Britain, Germany and the USA all had those kinds of WMD and used them in 1918 (the USA had the Bari incident in
>On 6 apr, 00:12, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> Possibly because this time there actually are, you know, WMDs...
>
>Weird, could have sworn Saddam used nerve gas on his own Kurdish
>population back in 1988, but maybe I'm just confused.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
>... and that's not even going into the countless times gas was used in
>the previous Iran-Iraq war.
>
>.. and yes, blood, nerve, mustard and other type of gasses *are*
>considered WMD's by the very definition of it in the UN protocols. I
>can distinctly remember providing the actual text and links here
>before but maybe you missed that.
1943) so I suppose by your logic ("they USED to have them once and they used them") we should expect an American
campaign for violent "regime change" there, too.
The USA *claims* to have disposed of all its bio- and chemical weapons, but if you believe that, can I interest you in
buying an Opera House - right on the Harbour, revolutionary design, real cheap?
>
>But after all is said and done here's my most potent argument : you
>wouldn't get high odds in Vegas betting on a guy *not* having and
>going to use something he had and did use plenty of times before. At
>the time only the ideologically inspired ones were the naysayers.
>
>Greetz,
>
>Eddy Sterckx
.
------
When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout.
Giftzwerg
Apr 8, 2013, 2:42:23 PM4/8/13
to
In article <8g16m8prtd0mer3bk...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...
> >.. and yes, blood, nerve, mustard and other type of gasses *are*
> >considered WMD's by the very definition of it in the UN protocols. I
> >can distinctly remember providing the actual text and links here
> >before but maybe you missed that.
>
> Well, Britain, Germany and the USA all had those kinds of WMD and used them in 1918 (the USA had the Bari incident in
> 1943) so I suppose by your logic ("they USED to have them once and they used them") we should expect an American
> campaign for violent "regime change" there, too.
Why? Saddam Hussein wasn't precluded from possessing chemical,
biological, or nuclear weapons by some mysterious property of the
universe, but by an agreement he signed as part of the 1991 cease fire
accords.
> The USA *claims* to have disposed of all its bio- and chemical weapons, but if you believe that, can I interest you in
> buying an Opera House - right on the Harbour, revolutionary design, real cheap?
Why would we not simply toss them out? Chemical and biological weapons
are essentially useless in any conceivable offensive or defensive role -
as amply demonstrated in the First World War. In WW2, both sides
maintained stockpiles of chemical weapons, but they weren't used due to
the pointlessness of such use discovered during WW1.
The only thing they're good for is a terror weapon against a helpless
civilian target, something neither Britain, Germany, nor the USA is all
about these days.
n...@thistime.net says...
> >.. and yes, blood, nerve, mustard and other type of gasses *are*
> >considered WMD's by the very definition of it in the UN protocols. I
> >can distinctly remember providing the actual text and links here
> >before but maybe you missed that.
>
> Well, Britain, Germany and the USA all had those kinds of WMD and used them in 1918 (the USA had the Bari incident in
> 1943) so I suppose by your logic ("they USED to have them once and they used them") we should expect an American
> campaign for violent "regime change" there, too.
biological, or nuclear weapons by some mysterious property of the
universe, but by an agreement he signed as part of the 1991 cease fire
accords.
> The USA *claims* to have disposed of all its bio- and chemical weapons, but if you believe that, can I interest you in
> buying an Opera House - right on the Harbour, revolutionary design, real cheap?
are essentially useless in any conceivable offensive or defensive role -
as amply demonstrated in the First World War. In WW2, both sides
maintained stockpiles of chemical weapons, but they weren't used due to
the pointlessness of such use discovered during WW1.
The only thing they're good for is a terror weapon against a helpless
civilian target, something neither Britain, Germany, nor the USA is all
about these days.
Message has been deleted
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 9, 2013, 3:24:53 AM4/9/13
to
On 8 apr, 20:18, "Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)" <n...@thistime.net>
wrote:
made by Saddam, because his biggest single mistake, apart from
invading Kuwait, was not allowing inspectors into each and every
facility.
So here we have a guy who had them, used them and is now refusing full
access to international inspectors. And he claims to not have them
anymore. At this point all the sane, non-politically motivated people
in the world roll their eyes and go "pull the other one".
> The USA *claims* to have disposed of all its bio- and chemical
weapons, but if you believe that,
Who says I do ? Not for a minute. And neither has Russia and probably
a number of other nations including Britain, France, China, Iran, ...
Not of my concern really. they're either not my enemies or can't touch
me anyway.
Is anyone really worried about the Chinese nuking the West ? Nope,
they're too busy buying the West from under our lazy butts. If they
still have some control over NK the message they're sending that way
is one of peace, not of war.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 00:44:54 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 6 apr, 00:12, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >> Possibly because this time there actually are, you know, WMDs...
>
> >Weird, could have sworn Saddam used nerve gas on his own Kurdish
> >population back in 1988, but maybe I'm just confused.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
> >... and that's not even going into the countless times gas was used in
> >the previous Iran-Iraq war.
>
> >.. and yes, blood, nerve, mustard and other type of gasses *are*
> >considered WMD's by the very definition of it in the UN protocols. I
> >can distinctly remember providing the actual text and links here
> >before but maybe you missed that.
>
> Well, Britain, Germany and the USA all had those kinds of WMD and used them in 1918 (the USA had the Bari incident in
> 1943) so I suppose by your logic ("they USED to have them once and they used them") we should expect an American
> campaign for violent "regime change" there, too.
You totally missed my point. I didn't believe claims to the contrary
> >On 6 apr, 00:12, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >> Possibly because this time there actually are, you know, WMDs...
>
> >Weird, could have sworn Saddam used nerve gas on his own Kurdish
> >population back in 1988, but maybe I'm just confused.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
> >... and that's not even going into the countless times gas was used in
> >the previous Iran-Iraq war.
>
> >.. and yes, blood, nerve, mustard and other type of gasses *are*
> >considered WMD's by the very definition of it in the UN protocols. I
> >can distinctly remember providing the actual text and links here
> >before but maybe you missed that.
>
> Well, Britain, Germany and the USA all had those kinds of WMD and used them in 1918 (the USA had the Bari incident in
> 1943) so I suppose by your logic ("they USED to have them once and they used them") we should expect an American
> campaign for violent "regime change" there, too.
made by Saddam, because his biggest single mistake, apart from
invading Kuwait, was not allowing inspectors into each and every
facility.
So here we have a guy who had them, used them and is now refusing full
access to international inspectors. And he claims to not have them
anymore. At this point all the sane, non-politically motivated people
in the world roll their eyes and go "pull the other one".
> The USA *claims* to have disposed of all its bio- and chemical
weapons, but if you believe that,
a number of other nations including Britain, France, China, Iran, ...
Not of my concern really. they're either not my enemies or can't touch
me anyway.
Is anyone really worried about the Chinese nuking the West ? Nope,
they're too busy buying the West from under our lazy butts. If they
still have some control over NK the message they're sending that way
is one of peace, not of war.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 9, 2013, 3:29:38 AM4/9/13
to
On 9 apr, 05:29, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
> Then this game needs to include a card that shows strewn vehicles that
> means instant loss for the coalition forces. That will turn this game into
> GUBS, with an abrupt game ending condition...
I'm always in favour of games where the end or last turn is somewhat
unpredictable - this to keep armchair generals from throwing
everything into the breech if it's the last turn anyway. And one
mechanism you can use here is cards, but a better one is dice-based
where from a certain turn onwards you roll a die, modified with what
has happened on the board, with an ever increasing likelyhood of the
game ending.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
> means instant loss for the coalition forces. That will turn this game into
> GUBS, with an abrupt game ending condition...
I'm always in favour of games where the end or last turn is somewhat
unpredictable - this to keep armchair generals from throwing
everything into the breech if it's the last turn anyway. And one
mechanism you can use here is cards, but a better one is dice-based
where from a certain turn onwards you roll a die, modified with what
has happened on the board, with an ever increasing likelyhood of the
game ending.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 9, 2013, 3:33:21 AM4/9/13
to
On 8 apr, 14:31, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> http://shop.strategyandtacticspress.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCod...
>
> "Drive on Pyongyang,
Synchronicity - Michael Peck has just written an excellent review of
this game.
To get past the firewall :
Google "Woe to the Imperialists" and click the first link
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
wrote:
>
> http://shop.strategyandtacticspress.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCod...
>
> "Drive on Pyongyang,
Synchronicity - Michael Peck has just written an excellent review of
this game.
To get past the firewall :
Google "Woe to the Imperialists" and click the first link
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Apr 9, 2013, 7:17:30 AM4/9/13
to
In article <3e4cfc32-9006-488d-88cb-392e1b7e55f2
@b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > http://shop.strategyandtacticspress.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCod...
> >
> > "Drive on Pyongyang,
>
> Synchronicity - Michael Peck has just written an excellent review of
> this game.
I like that the victory conditions of the coalition are contingent on
"Media Perception Points," but wonder about the fact that the rules call
for this to go *down* if the DPRK uses atomic weapons. If anything, use
of nuclear weapons by the north would result in a mass shift of public
opinion all right - but even the peaceniks would start saying, "Hey, I
guess we were right to put those mad dogs down."
@b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > http://shop.strategyandtacticspress.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCod...
> >
> > "Drive on Pyongyang,
>
> Synchronicity - Michael Peck has just written an excellent review of
> this game.
"Media Perception Points," but wonder about the fact that the rules call
for this to go *down* if the DPRK uses atomic weapons. If anything, use
of nuclear weapons by the north would result in a mass shift of public
opinion all right - but even the peaceniks would start saying, "Hey, I
guess we were right to put those mad dogs down."
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 9, 2013, 7:32:43 AM4/9/13
to
On 9 apr, 13:17, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I like that the victory conditions of the coalition are contingent on
> "Media Perception Points," but wonder about the fact that the rules call
> for this to go *down* if the DPRK uses atomic weapons. If anything, use
> of nuclear weapons by the north would result in a mass shift of public
> opinion all right - but even the peaceniks would start saying, "Hey, I
> guess we were right to put those mad dogs down."
Got to love and applaud this US mentality of kicking back harder when
> I like that the victory conditions of the coalition are contingent on
> "Media Perception Points," but wonder about the fact that the rules call
> for this to go *down* if the DPRK uses atomic weapons. If anything, use
> of nuclear weapons by the north would result in a mass shift of public
> opinion all right - but even the peaceniks would start saying, "Hey, I
> guess we were right to put those mad dogs down."
getting kicked.
Unfortunately in the world at large, and more specifically spineless
Europe, this is seldom the case
What will happen is a variant on this little piece of history :
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040318&slug=harrop18
"Terrorism fight ill-served by Spain's capitulation
The Madrid bombings have delivered Spain its most terrible hour in
recent times, but not its finest. The election that followed the
vicious attack on Spain's commuter trains appears to have handed al-
Qaida its first victory in changing a Western government.
There's no point in noting that the great majority of Spaniards had
opposed their country's participation in the American-led invasion of
Iraq. Four days before the general election, a comfortable majority
was set to elect the Popular Party successor to Prime Minister Jose
Maria Aznar, anyway. The only thing that changed had been the
terrorism that took 200 lives.
Having been elected under such lamentable circumstances, Socialist
Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero should have made a short and strong
statement that his government would go after the monsters. Instead, he
immediately ticked off the al-Qaida wish list: Spain would distance
itself from the United States. "
-
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
Apr 9, 2013, 8:00:18 AM4/9/13
to
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:03:31 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The best way to beat Obama was to nominate an authentic Conservative,
>not "Obama-lite." This, IMO, was the primary reason Obama was elected
>and re-electe
Of the people actually running in the last election, who do you think
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The best way to beat Obama was to nominate an authentic Conservative,
>not "Obama-lite." This, IMO, was the primary reason Obama was elected
>and re-electe
was an authentic conservative that could have beaten Obama?
The problem with Republicans isn't that they aren't conservative
enough, it's that they seem to go out of their way to piss off any
voter who isn't a straight white male. ... and even there they aren't
doing so hot with the younger crowd.
I don't get the Republicans. Anyone with a basic understanding of math
can see that they're targetting an ever shrinking section of voters.
Not that I particularly care but arguing that they'd be better off if
they just moved more to the right seems delusional.
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 9, 2013, 8:15:47 AM4/9/13
to
On 9 apr, 14:00, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't get the Republicans. Anyone with a basic understanding of math
> can see that they're targetting an ever shrinking section of voters.
> Not that I particularly care but arguing that they'd be better off if
> they just moved more to the right seems delusional.
Agreed. But trying to find a Spanish-speaking bi-sexual black
>
> I don't get the Republicans. Anyone with a basic understanding of math
> can see that they're targetting an ever shrinking section of voters.
> Not that I particularly care but arguing that they'd be better off if
> they just moved more to the right seems delusional.
Republican is a tad hard :)
As an outsider looking in I personally didn't spot much difference
between the candidates of both parties. In our political spectrum,
both would have been center-right candidates.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Apr 9, 2013, 1:42:41 PM4/9/13
to
In article <vv1jUaVp8=owZSehKB2...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >The best way to beat Obama was to nominate an authentic Conservative,
> >not "Obama-lite." This, IMO, was the primary reason Obama was elected
> >and re-electe
>
> Of the people actually running in the last election, who do you think
> was an authentic conservative that could have beaten Obama?
No. Rick Perry came the closest, but he proved so inept on the public
stage that he made George W. Bush look eloquent.
> The problem with Republicans isn't that they aren't conservative
> enough, it's that they seem to go out of their way to piss off any
> voter who isn't a straight white male. ... and even there they aren't
> doing so hot with the younger crowd.
>
> I don't get the Republicans. Anyone with a basic understanding of math
> can see that they're targetting an ever shrinking section of voters.
> Not that I particularly care but arguing that they'd be better off if
> they just moved more to the right seems delusional.
Your theory here is premised on the odd notion that there's only one
"right" - that if I take a right-wing position on, say, borrowing money
from the Chinese to pay for Queen Michelle's Royal Gala Birthday Party
Starring BEYONCE, I must also take a right-wing position on gay
marriage.
That's crazy.
My point is that authentic conservatism is an *economic* outlook, and
that, along with rigorous adherence to the literal word of the
Constitution, should be a the core of any party that fashions itself
"conservative."
All the other stuff is just gas, generally ginned-up by the leftist
media, and conservatives should just ignore it.
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >The best way to beat Obama was to nominate an authentic Conservative,
> >not "Obama-lite." This, IMO, was the primary reason Obama was elected
> >and re-electe
>
> Of the people actually running in the last election, who do you think
> was an authentic conservative that could have beaten Obama?
stage that he made George W. Bush look eloquent.
> The problem with Republicans isn't that they aren't conservative
> enough, it's that they seem to go out of their way to piss off any
> voter who isn't a straight white male. ... and even there they aren't
> doing so hot with the younger crowd.
>
> I don't get the Republicans. Anyone with a basic understanding of math
> can see that they're targetting an ever shrinking section of voters.
> Not that I particularly care but arguing that they'd be better off if
> they just moved more to the right seems delusional.
"right" - that if I take a right-wing position on, say, borrowing money
from the Chinese to pay for Queen Michelle's Royal Gala Birthday Party
Starring BEYONCE, I must also take a right-wing position on gay
marriage.
That's crazy.
My point is that authentic conservatism is an *economic* outlook, and
that, along with rigorous adherence to the literal word of the
Constitution, should be a the core of any party that fashions itself
"conservative."
All the other stuff is just gas, generally ginned-up by the leftist
media, and conservatives should just ignore it.
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Apr 9, 2013, 2:06:01 PM4/9/13
to
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:42:23 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The only thing they're good for is a terror weapon against a helpless
>civilian target, something neither Britain, Germany, nor the USA is all
>about these days.
Thank you for the kind offer, but I'm not interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn.
>The only thing they're good for is a terror weapon against a helpless
>civilian target, something neither Britain, Germany, nor the USA is all
>about these days.
.
.
My girlfriend asked me for a pet spider for her birthday, so I went to our
local pet shop and they were $A50!!!
I thought, "I can get one cheaper off the web."
Giftzwerg
Apr 9, 2013, 2:32:36 PM4/9/13
to
In article <uvl8m85u59vcuer8e...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...
> >The only thing they're good for is a terror weapon against a helpless
> >civilian target, something neither Britain, Germany, nor the USA is all
> >about these days.
>
> Thank you for the kind offer, but I'm not interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn.
I guess a believer in the global warming fairy tale has little problem
believing other children's stories.
n...@thistime.net says...
> >The only thing they're good for is a terror weapon against a helpless
> >civilian target, something neither Britain, Germany, nor the USA is all
> >about these days.
>
> Thank you for the kind offer, but I'm not interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn.
believing other children's stories.
Frank E
Apr 10, 2013, 8:05:41 AM4/10/13
to
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:42:41 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't get the Republicans. Anyone with a basic understanding of math
>> can see that they're targetting an ever shrinking section of voters.
>> Not that I particularly care but arguing that they'd be better off if
>> they just moved more to the right seems delusional.
>
>Your theory here is premised on the odd notion that there's only one
>"right" - that if I take a right-wing position on, say, borrowing money
>from the Chinese to pay for Queen Michelle's Royal Gala Birthday Party
>Starring BEYONCE, I must also take a right-wing position on gay
>marriage.
>
>That's crazy.
Not in this part of the country (the deep south). You'd never get
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't get the Republicans. Anyone with a basic understanding of math
>> can see that they're targetting an ever shrinking section of voters.
>> Not that I particularly care but arguing that they'd be better off if
>> they just moved more to the right seems delusional.
>
>Your theory here is premised on the odd notion that there's only one
>"right" - that if I take a right-wing position on, say, borrowing money
>from the Chinese to pay for Queen Michelle's Royal Gala Birthday Party
>Starring BEYONCE, I must also take a right-wing position on gay
>marriage.
>
>That's crazy.
elected as a Republican if you came out for say, gay marriage. It
probably wouldn't hurt you in a general election but you'd never get
that far.
>My point is that authentic conservatism is an *economic* outlook, and
>that, along with rigorous adherence to the literal word of the
>Constitution, should be a the core of any party that fashions itself
>"conservative."
>
>All the other stuff is just gas, generally ginned-up by the leftist
>media, and conservatives should just ignore it.
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
Apr 10, 2013, 11:31:58 AM4/10/13
to
In article <jFFlURNZNGJvI2...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >Your theory here is premised on the odd notion that there's only one
> >"right" - that if I take a right-wing position on, say, borrowing money
> >from the Chinese to pay for Queen Michelle's Royal Gala Birthday Party
> >Starring BEYONCE, I must also take a right-wing position on gay
> >marriage.
> >
> >That's crazy.
>
> Not in this part of the country (the deep south). You'd never get
> elected as a Republican if you came out for say, gay marriage. It
> probably wouldn't hurt you in a general election but you'd never get
> that far.
But the correct answer to that question is:
"The Constitution of the United States says nothing about marriage at
all. As your president, I'm required to defend the constitution and
execute the laws passed by Congress. Thus the proper venue for
discussing marriage is with your legislators."
> >My point is that authentic conservatism is an *economic* outlook, and
> >that, along with rigorous adherence to the literal word of the
> >Constitution, should be a the core of any party that fashions itself
> >"conservative."
>
> If that party ever comes along, they'll get my vote!
They came along. Two years ago. They call themselves The Tea Party.
> >All the other stuff is just gas, generally ginned-up by the leftist
> >media, and conservatives should just ignore it.
>
> Most repulbicans I know would disagree with that statement.
My point here is that Republicans should control their own narrative
better. For example, the business of letting a stone leftist like
*Candy Crowley* moderate a presidential debate is just stupid. Even
more stupid is allowing media types to moderate *Republican* primary
debates.
The problem is that you get questions like "gay marriage", which no one
gives a rat-fuck about except for gay people, and the media - just last
week, in fact - is continually using it to distract people from
important issues:
"What jobs repor ... HEY! LOOK! GAY MARRIAGE!!!"
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >Your theory here is premised on the odd notion that there's only one
> >"right" - that if I take a right-wing position on, say, borrowing money
> >from the Chinese to pay for Queen Michelle's Royal Gala Birthday Party
> >Starring BEYONCE, I must also take a right-wing position on gay
> >marriage.
> >
> >That's crazy.
>
> Not in this part of the country (the deep south). You'd never get
> elected as a Republican if you came out for say, gay marriage. It
> probably wouldn't hurt you in a general election but you'd never get
> that far.
"The Constitution of the United States says nothing about marriage at
all. As your president, I'm required to defend the constitution and
execute the laws passed by Congress. Thus the proper venue for
discussing marriage is with your legislators."
> >My point is that authentic conservatism is an *economic* outlook, and
> >that, along with rigorous adherence to the literal word of the
> >Constitution, should be a the core of any party that fashions itself
> >"conservative."
>
> If that party ever comes along, they'll get my vote!
> >All the other stuff is just gas, generally ginned-up by the leftist
> >media, and conservatives should just ignore it.
>
> Most repulbicans I know would disagree with that statement.
better. For example, the business of letting a stone leftist like
*Candy Crowley* moderate a presidential debate is just stupid. Even
more stupid is allowing media types to moderate *Republican* primary
debates.
The problem is that you get questions like "gay marriage", which no one
gives a rat-fuck about except for gay people, and the media - just last
week, in fact - is continually using it to distract people from
important issues:
"What jobs repor ... HEY! LOOK! GAY MARRIAGE!!!"
smr
Apr 10, 2013, 1:44:46 PM4/10/13
to
On 4/10/13 10:31 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> The problem is that you get questions like "gay marriage", which no one
> gives a rat-fuck about except for gay people, and the media - just last
> week, in fact - is continually using it to distract people from
> important issues:
>
> "What jobs repor ... HEY! LOOK! GAY MARRIAGE!!!"
How is the media responsible when some GOP troglodyte decides to speak
> The problem is that you get questions like "gay marriage", which no one
> gives a rat-fuck about except for gay people, and the media - just last
> week, in fact - is continually using it to distract people from
> important issues:
>
> "What jobs repor ... HEY! LOOK! GAY MARRIAGE!!!"
out in a remarkably ignorant fashion about gay marriage or decides to
show a completely horrifying lack of knowledge about basic female
biology? Are they forcing words in these idiots' mouths? I think it
certainly _is_ news that Representative A or Candidate B is staggeringly
stupid when it comes to how babies are made, or is backing an incredibly
invasive and discriminatory standard regarding marriage, which is
something the government has no fucking business regulating in the first
place.
--
smr
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 10, 2013, 1:56:16 PM4/10/13
to
The problem is the staggeringly stupid policies on other subjects by
the other end of the political spectrum aren't put into the same
intense spotlight.
I'd rather have a guy who's stupid about how babies are made, then one
who's stupid about how the economy works.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Apr 10, 2013, 2:15:05 PM4/10/13
to
In article <d34b7610-0e89-4065-a2c9-9bb3b0d38d44
@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> The problem is the staggeringly stupid policies on other subjects by
> the other end of the political spectrum aren't put into the same
> intense spotlight.
>
> I'd rather have a guy who's stupid about how babies are made, then one
> who's stupid about how the economy works.
Exactly. Which was my whole point. Conservatives only hurt themselves
when they venture into social issues - particularly since these are
issues that the government never should have a hand in in the first
place.
Overall, my point is that the leftist media is always trying to muddy
the waters, using some minor social issue that virtually no one cares
about to "balance" a titanic issue that *everyone* cares deeply about.
So in debates, the media pretends that "the economy" is an issue of
equal weight with "prayer in schools" or "abortion" or "Christmas
decorations on public buildings." Oh, dear, but there are so *many*
important issues! We must cover them all equally! Someone in Asshole,
Arkansas might actually care about prayer in school!!!
What I would like is an authentic conservative candidate who would see
this red herring for what it is, and answer any of these with:
"You know what? Nobody who's out of work or worried about losing their
job or wondering how to pay the bills next week gives a rip about what I
think about prayer in schools, so I'm ignoring your question. Now, to
return to the epic shitheap of FAIL that is the Obama economy ..."
@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> The problem is the staggeringly stupid policies on other subjects by
> the other end of the political spectrum aren't put into the same
> intense spotlight.
>
> I'd rather have a guy who's stupid about how babies are made, then one
> who's stupid about how the economy works.
when they venture into social issues - particularly since these are
issues that the government never should have a hand in in the first
place.
Overall, my point is that the leftist media is always trying to muddy
the waters, using some minor social issue that virtually no one cares
about to "balance" a titanic issue that *everyone* cares deeply about.
So in debates, the media pretends that "the economy" is an issue of
equal weight with "prayer in schools" or "abortion" or "Christmas
decorations on public buildings." Oh, dear, but there are so *many*
important issues! We must cover them all equally! Someone in Asshole,
Arkansas might actually care about prayer in school!!!
What I would like is an authentic conservative candidate who would see
this red herring for what it is, and answer any of these with:
"You know what? Nobody who's out of work or worried about losing their
job or wondering how to pay the bills next week gives a rip about what I
think about prayer in schools, so I'm ignoring your question. Now, to
return to the epic shitheap of FAIL that is the Obama economy ..."
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 11, 2013, 3:25:11 AM4/11/13
to
On 10 apr, 20:15, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Overall, my point is that the leftist media is always trying to muddy
> the waters, using some minor social issue that virtually no one cares
> about to "balance" a titanic issue that *everyone* cares deeply about.
I think you're being too optimistic here with regard to what people
> Overall, my point is that the leftist media is always trying to muddy
> the waters, using some minor social issue that virtually no one cares
> about to "balance" a titanic issue that *everyone* cares deeply about.
care about or even notice. Most people only start noticing the economy
when it's really, really bad, not when it's just a bit in a slump.
In all other cases they vote for the tallest candidate with the nicest
smile and excutive style grey hair.
The bell curve has a long tail and they all vote.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
Apr 11, 2013, 10:39:09 AM4/11/13
to
On 10-04-2013 19:44, smr wrote:
> stupid when it comes to how babies are made, or is backing an incredibly
> invasive and discriminatory standard regarding marriage, which is
> something the government has no fucking business regulating in the first
> place.
As long as marriage is something that comes with priviledges and/or
> stupid when it comes to how babies are made, or is backing an incredibly
> invasive and discriminatory standard regarding marriage, which is
> something the government has no fucking business regulating in the first
> place.
obligations enforced by the lagal system it IS the governments business
to regulate it.
Marriage should not affect taxation, inheritance etc. if the government
should not regulate it.
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
Apr 11, 2013, 10:49:17 AM4/11/13
to
On 09-04-2013 19:42, Giftzwerg wrote:
> My point is that authentic conservatism is an *economic* outlook, and
> that, along with rigorous adherence to the literal word of the
Whose interpretation of the literal word?
> My point is that authentic conservatism is an *economic* outlook, and
> that, along with rigorous adherence to the literal word of the
We might not all agree.
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 11, 2013, 11:02:15 AM4/11/13
to
"marriage" is a purely contractual thing, whereby you either opt for a
specific contract (prenuptial agreeement) or accept the default
contractual obligations/responsibilities as specified in the law.
There are a number of those regulations that are "de jure" which means
you cannot deviate from them by contract, most of them dealing with
inheritance and child support.
As such same-sex marriages are no different, but even before this
became allowed there was nobody stopping 2 people from signing the
same kind of contract - it was even called "living together contract"
- which for all practical purposes amounted to the exact same thing as
a "marriage contract".
All in all only about half of new couples still officially marry, a
quarter have a contract, the rest just lives together and looking
around me I see no difference in the stability of married couples
versus those that aren't.
I suspect a reason people still officially marry is that it's an
excuse to throw a big party for family and friends :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
Apr 11, 2013, 11:03:33 AM4/11/13
to
On 08-04-2013 20:42, Giftzwerg wrote:
> Why would we not simply toss them out? Chemical and biological weapons
> are essentially useless in any conceivable offensive or defensive role -
> as amply demonstrated in the First World War. In WW2, both sides
> maintained stockpiles of chemical weapons, but they weren't used due to
> the pointlessness of such use discovered during WW1.
The Chemical weapons used in WW1 were only childs play compared to later
> Why would we not simply toss them out? Chemical and biological weapons
> are essentially useless in any conceivable offensive or defensive role -
> as amply demonstrated in the First World War. In WW2, both sides
> maintained stockpiles of chemical weapons, but they weren't used due to
> the pointlessness of such use discovered during WW1.
develoments.
How can you call the effect of covering an airbase in persistent nerve
agents as useless?
Or preceeding an air assault by a blood agent attack a few minutes
before the first troops get to the LZ ?
Have you ever been in level 4 MOPP gear?
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 11, 2013, 11:23:25 AM4/11/13
to
exercises. It wasn't a pleasant experience.
But I think the point here was that whatever you do it harms and
encumbers the attackers just as much as the defenders, and as such
it's not of great military significance, hence it didn't get used in
WWII because there were better and more cost-effective means to get
the same military results.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Apr 11, 2013, 11:53:57 AM4/11/13
to
In article <5166cd70$0$56771$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
ca...@mail.dk says...
> > My point is that authentic conservatism is an *economic* outlook, and
> > that, along with rigorous adherence to the literal word of the
>
> Whose interpretation of the literal word?
The Supreme Court's? Is this a trick question?
> We might not all agree.
... and the framers of the Constitution wisely put this in the hands of
the aforementioned Supreme Court.
ca...@mail.dk says...
> > My point is that authentic conservatism is an *economic* outlook, and
> > that, along with rigorous adherence to the literal word of the
>
> Whose interpretation of the literal word?
> We might not all agree.
the aforementioned Supreme Court.
Giftzwerg
Apr 11, 2013, 11:58:08 AM4/11/13
to
In article <5166d0c7$0$56778$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
ca...@mail.dk says...
> > Why would we not simply toss them out? Chemical and biological weapons
> > are essentially useless in any conceivable offensive or defensive role -
> > as amply demonstrated in the First World War. In WW2, both sides
> > maintained stockpiles of chemical weapons, but they weren't used due to
> > the pointlessness of such use discovered during WW1.
>
> The Chemical weapons used in WW1 were only childs play compared to later
> develoments.
>
> How can you call the effect of covering an airbase in persistent nerve
> agents as useless?
Because the enemy simply responds in kind, and now your own airbase is
useless.
> Or preceeding an air assault by a blood agent attack a few minutes
> before the first troops get to the LZ ?
Same problem.
ca...@mail.dk says...
> > Why would we not simply toss them out? Chemical and biological weapons
> > are essentially useless in any conceivable offensive or defensive role -
> > as amply demonstrated in the First World War. In WW2, both sides
> > maintained stockpiles of chemical weapons, but they weren't used due to
> > the pointlessness of such use discovered during WW1.
>
> The Chemical weapons used in WW1 were only childs play compared to later
> develoments.
>
> How can you call the effect of covering an airbase in persistent nerve
> agents as useless?
useless.
> Or preceeding an air assault by a blood agent attack a few minutes
> before the first troops get to the LZ ?
Big Salad
Apr 11, 2013, 9:20:10 PM4/11/13
to
On 4/11/2013 11:53 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
>> We might not all agree.
> ... and the framers of the Constitution wisely put this in the hands of
> the aforementioned Supreme Court.
One could argue that it was the Supreme Court that put this in the hands
>> We might not all agree.
> ... and the framers of the Constitution wisely put this in the hands of
> the aforementioned Supreme Court.
of the Supreme Court.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Of course, it was their argument that this was the unstated intention of
the framers all along... but then they would say that, wouldn't they?
I think the point is well made when using the phrase "literal word,"
there is opportunity for conflict with supreme court precedent.
Giftzwerg
Apr 12, 2013, 4:43:41 AM4/12/13
to
In article <kk7nh2$vfp$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Big....@hotmail.com
says...
Well, either judicial review is a real power that really exists, or you
might as well not bother with a Constitution, no?
I mean, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion..." Suppose Congress passes a law that
says, "The official religion of the United States is Scientology."
Where does a citizen go to seek redress from a law that conflicts with
the Constitution? The Congress? They just passed the offending law.
The executive branch? Their job is executing laws.
At this point, there's only one more square on the gameboard.
says...
might as well not bother with a Constitution, no?
I mean, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion..." Suppose Congress passes a law that
says, "The official religion of the United States is Scientology."
Where does a citizen go to seek redress from a law that conflicts with
the Constitution? The Congress? They just passed the offending law.
The executive branch? Their job is executing laws.
At this point, there's only one more square on the gameboard.
Big Salad
Apr 12, 2013, 11:13:18 AM4/12/13
to
On 4/12/2013 4:43 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> Well, either judicial review is a real power that really exists, or you
> might as well not bother with a Constitution, no?
I'm more quibbling about the difference between the reality versus the
> Well, either judicial review is a real power that really exists, or you
> might as well not bother with a Constitution, no?
simplistic version we all (in the US) learned in school. The
nearly-exclusive granting of the power of considering Constitutionality
to the Supreme Court, while serving fairly well, was by no means baked
in from the beginning. It evolved though a controversial process.
> I mean, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting
> an establishment of religion..." Suppose Congress passes a law that
> says, "The official religion of the United States is Scientology."
shall not be infringed." Suppose Congress passes a law that says,
"Short-barreled shotguns are illegal," because they are not "ordinary
military equipment." And suppose the Court were to agree.
Does that mean that the Constitutional language becomes (in the extreme)
null and void? Can the Supreme Court re-write the Constitution
willy-nilly because of "Separation of Powers" makes that their job?
If not, if there are limits, how are those limits imposed? Is it
merely self-restraint on behalf of the individual justices that protects
that actual language ratified by the States and people?
> Where does a citizen go to seek redress from a law that conflicts with
> the Constitution? The Congress? They just passed the offending law.
> The executive branch? Their job is executing laws.
>
> At this point, there's only one more square on the gameboard.
Ask the agents of the executive branch to uphold their oaths to support
and defend the Constitution and not arrest you in violation thereof.
Take your case to court, and ask the judge or even the jury to refuse to
convict on the basis of bad law. If at first you don't succeed, appeal.
Go to the polls and try to "throw the bums out," those who violated
their oaths to "support and defend."
Look, I'm not trying to argue that there is a better way out there than
our current hierarchy. It has largely served us well. I simply was
struck by your original suggestion that *legislators* should rigorously
adhere to the literal word of the Constitution. In a situation that
would likely shock many of the originators of the Constitution, there is
today quite a bit of a gap between the "literal word" and the "accepted
interpretation" of the language (I'm thinking, for example, commerce
clause, but one's own interpretation of where SCOTUS got it wrong will
vary).
The answer, assuming all this leads to one, is that society should
remember that within our republic, we all have a duty to support and
defend the Constitution, oath or not. The balancing power of the court
itself must be balanced by the other branches of government and by the
people.
"Whose interpretation" is an interesting question at a time when, in
more than one instance, the accepted meaning of constitutional language
splits the country nearly 50-50. And the "correct" interpretation of
that language is one mere supreme court appointment away from being
flipped 180 degrees.
So, yes, it is kind of a trick question.
Giftzwerg
Apr 12, 2013, 5:39:34 PM4/12/13
to
In article <kk98b4$vmi$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Big....@hotmail.com
says...
> > Well, either judicial review is a real power that really exists, or you
> > might as well not bother with a Constitution, no?
>
> I'm more quibbling about the difference between the reality versus the
> simplistic version we all (in the US) learned in school. The
> nearly-exclusive granting of the power of considering Constitutionality
> to the Supreme Court, while serving fairly well, was by no means baked
> in from the beginning. It evolved though a controversial process.
The counterpoint is that judicial review was already baked it, and the
only new thing in Marbury was the assertion of it by the courts.
> > I mean, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting
> > an establishment of religion..." Suppose Congress passes a law that
> > says, "The official religion of the United States is Scientology."
>
> The Second says that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms
> shall not be infringed." Suppose Congress passes a law that says,
> "Short-barreled shotguns are illegal," because they are not "ordinary
> military equipment." And suppose the Court were to agree.
This has already happened. The NFA of 1934 made automatic weapons
subject to severe restrictions - even though they *were* commonly used
in the military at that point. So were grenades.
> Does that mean that the Constitutional language becomes (in the extreme)
> null and void? Can the Supreme Court re-write the Constitution
> willy-nilly because of "Separation of Powers" makes that their job?
<shrug>
The Congress and the states hold the ultimate power, though, since they
can pass and ratify a Constitutional Amendment that says, for example,
"The several states may pass laws restricting abortion," if it dislikes
Roe v. Wade strongly enough.
> If not, if there are limits, how are those limits imposed? Is it
> merely self-restraint on behalf of the individual justices that protects
> that actual language ratified by the States and people?
As above, though, judicial overreach can be nullified by the amendment
process. And lest we forget, judicial review only concerns *specific*
laws; the states or Congress are free to re-write legislation the court
finds unconstitutional to conform to the ruling; this was, in fact, the
response to the Supreme Court finding that death penalty statues in many
states were invalid. After re-legislating, the penalty was upheld.
> Look, I'm not trying to argue that there is a better way out there than
> our current hierarchy. It has largely served us well. I simply was
> struck by your original suggestion that *legislators* should rigorously
> adhere to the literal word of the Constitution.
Well, no. My point was that *conservatives* should adhere to the
literal word of the Constitution and let the left blabber about "living
documents."
> In a situation that
> would likely shock many of the originators of the Constitution, there is
> today quite a bit of a gap between the "literal word" and the "accepted
> interpretation" of the language (I'm thinking, for example, commerce
> clause, but one's own interpretation of where SCOTUS got it wrong will
> vary).
I agree with you that the commerce clause is the root of many evils.
Indeed, one of my questions for a prospective Supreme Court justice
would be, "give 10 examples of regulations that would *not* be justified
under the commerce clause."
> The answer, assuming all this leads to one, is that society should
> remember that within our republic, we all have a duty to support and
> defend the Constitution, oath or not. The balancing power of the court
> itself must be balanced by the other branches of government and by the
> people.
Agreed.
> "Whose interpretation" is an interesting question at a time when, in
> more than one instance, the accepted meaning of constitutional language
> splits the country nearly 50-50. And the "correct" interpretation of
> that language is one mere supreme court appointment away from being
> flipped 180 degrees.
The nice thing about the Supreme Court, though, is that it doesn't
change with each election cycle, and is more-or-less bound by precedent
established by previous courts. Except in extraordinary circumstances
(Dred Scott comes to mind...) a new court is unwilling to thrash about
in established law.
says...
> > Well, either judicial review is a real power that really exists, or you
> > might as well not bother with a Constitution, no?
>
> I'm more quibbling about the difference between the reality versus the
> simplistic version we all (in the US) learned in school. The
> nearly-exclusive granting of the power of considering Constitutionality
> to the Supreme Court, while serving fairly well, was by no means baked
> in from the beginning. It evolved though a controversial process.
only new thing in Marbury was the assertion of it by the courts.
> > I mean, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting
> > an establishment of religion..." Suppose Congress passes a law that
> > says, "The official religion of the United States is Scientology."
>
> The Second says that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms
> shall not be infringed." Suppose Congress passes a law that says,
> "Short-barreled shotguns are illegal," because they are not "ordinary
> military equipment." And suppose the Court were to agree.
subject to severe restrictions - even though they *were* commonly used
in the military at that point. So were grenades.
> Does that mean that the Constitutional language becomes (in the extreme)
> null and void? Can the Supreme Court re-write the Constitution
> willy-nilly because of "Separation of Powers" makes that their job?
The Congress and the states hold the ultimate power, though, since they
can pass and ratify a Constitutional Amendment that says, for example,
"The several states may pass laws restricting abortion," if it dislikes
Roe v. Wade strongly enough.
> If not, if there are limits, how are those limits imposed? Is it
> merely self-restraint on behalf of the individual justices that protects
> that actual language ratified by the States and people?
process. And lest we forget, judicial review only concerns *specific*
laws; the states or Congress are free to re-write legislation the court
finds unconstitutional to conform to the ruling; this was, in fact, the
response to the Supreme Court finding that death penalty statues in many
states were invalid. After re-legislating, the penalty was upheld.
> Look, I'm not trying to argue that there is a better way out there than
> our current hierarchy. It has largely served us well. I simply was
> struck by your original suggestion that *legislators* should rigorously
> adhere to the literal word of the Constitution.
literal word of the Constitution and let the left blabber about "living
documents."
> In a situation that
> would likely shock many of the originators of the Constitution, there is
> today quite a bit of a gap between the "literal word" and the "accepted
> interpretation" of the language (I'm thinking, for example, commerce
> clause, but one's own interpretation of where SCOTUS got it wrong will
> vary).
Indeed, one of my questions for a prospective Supreme Court justice
would be, "give 10 examples of regulations that would *not* be justified
under the commerce clause."
> The answer, assuming all this leads to one, is that society should
> remember that within our republic, we all have a duty to support and
> defend the Constitution, oath or not. The balancing power of the court
> itself must be balanced by the other branches of government and by the
> people.
> "Whose interpretation" is an interesting question at a time when, in
> more than one instance, the accepted meaning of constitutional language
> splits the country nearly 50-50. And the "correct" interpretation of
> that language is one mere supreme court appointment away from being
> flipped 180 degrees.
change with each election cycle, and is more-or-less bound by precedent
established by previous courts. Except in extraordinary circumstances
(Dred Scott comes to mind...) a new court is unwilling to thrash about
in established law.
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
Apr 16, 2013, 9:37:54 AM4/16/13
to
On 11-04-2013 17:02, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 11 apr, 16:39, Carl Alex Friis Nielsen <c...@mail.dk> wrote:
>> On 10-04-2013 19:44, smr wrote:
>>
>>> stupid when it comes to how babies are made, or is backing an incredibly
>>> invasive and discriminatory standard regarding marriage, which is
>>> something the government has no fucking business regulating in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> As long as marriage is something that comes with priviledges and/or
>> obligations enforced by the lagal system it IS the governments business
>> to regulate it.
>> Marriage should not affect taxation, inheritance etc. if the government
>> should not regulate it.
>
> I don't know how this is dealt with in other countries but over here
> "marriage" is a purely contractual thing, whereby you either opt for a
> specific contract (prenuptial agreeement) or accept the default
> contractual obligations/responsibilities as specified in the law.
> There are a number of those regulations that are "de jure" which means
> you cannot deviate from them by contract, most of them dealing with
> inheritance and child support.
Do you pay taxes on inheritance and gifts over a certain size in Belgium?
> On 11 apr, 16:39, Carl Alex Friis Nielsen <c...@mail.dk> wrote:
>> On 10-04-2013 19:44, smr wrote:
>>
>>> stupid when it comes to how babies are made, or is backing an incredibly
>>> invasive and discriminatory standard regarding marriage, which is
>>> something the government has no fucking business regulating in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> As long as marriage is something that comes with priviledges and/or
>> obligations enforced by the lagal system it IS the governments business
>> to regulate it.
>> Marriage should not affect taxation, inheritance etc. if the government
>> should not regulate it.
>
> I don't know how this is dealt with in other countries but over here
> "marriage" is a purely contractual thing, whereby you either opt for a
> specific contract (prenuptial agreeement) or accept the default
> contractual obligations/responsibilities as specified in the law.
> There are a number of those regulations that are "de jure" which means
> you cannot deviate from them by contract, most of them dealing with
> inheritance and child support.
Here i Denmark you have to pay a tax when inheriting, the rate varying
depending on how close you are related - except between people married
to each other, who can inherit from each other unlimited with no taxes.
And a parent can give only about $15.000 per year to a child before the
child has to report the gift as income for taxation purposes - no such
limit between people married to each other.
So if rich people could marry their children they could save massive
amounts of taxes.
I bet there are lots of restrictions on who may enter that sort oc
contract in Belgium too.
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
Apr 16, 2013, 9:39:44 AM4/16/13
to
On 11-04-2013 17:58, Giftzwerg wrote:
> Because the enemy simply responds in kind, and now your own airbase is
> useless.
Couldnt the same be said for grenades and assault rifles?
> Because the enemy simply responds in kind, and now your own airbase is
> useless.
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
Apr 16, 2013, 11:06:12 AM4/16/13
to
On 11-04-2013 17:23, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> But I think the point here was that whatever you do it harms and
> encumbers the attackers just as much as the defenders, and as such
Not neccesarily - contaminating enemy ground and installations you dont
> But I think the point here was that whatever you do it harms and
> encumbers the attackers just as much as the defenders, and as such
desire to use does not hinder your operations.
And the blood agent attack initiating a landing operation was really
nasty - beside the posibility of causing casualties it would allow the
attacker to land withuot waring MOPP gear before the defenders had a
chance to figure out it was safe to take of theirs.
> it's not of great military significance, hence it didn't get used in
> WWII because there were better and more cost-effective means to get
> the same military results.
of chemical weapons were assumed to be a given fact if the cold war had
ever turned hot.
And just view the trouble the non existing Iraqi chemical weapons caused
the US.
Giftzwerg
Apr 16, 2013, 11:24:36 AM4/16/13
to
In article <516d68e7$0$289$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>, ca...@mail.dk
says...
installations will hinder your operations.
> > it's not of great military significance, hence it didn't get used in
> > WWII because there were better and more cost-effective means to get
> > the same military results.
>
> Chemical weapons were used in the war between Iran and Iraq
... which was only one of a couple of hundred wars, clashes,
insurrections, actions, and other instances of combat since chemical
weapons were used in WW1 and widely found useless.
> and the use
> of chemical weapons were assumed to be a given fact if the cold war had
> ever turned hot.
... and assumption which was never tested.
> And just view the trouble the non existing Iraqi chemical weapons caused
> the US.
When an enemy has already demonstrated his willingness to use chemical
weapons, it's only prudent to make plans to protect our soldiers from
them. It didn't cause any particular problem, nor would it have if he'd
used them in either Gulf War.
I recall an exchange between a "journalist" and one of the generals
briefing the press during the 1991 war:
Reporter: "General, does it worry you that Saddam Hussein has chemical
weapons? Some have called them 'the poor man's nuclear weapons'."
General: "President Bush has the rich man's nuclear weapons."
Reporter: "Rich man's nuclear weapons? What are rich man's nuclear
weapons?"
General: "Nuclear weapons."
says...
>
> On 11-04-2013 17:23, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > But I think the point here was that whatever you do it harms and
> > encumbers the attackers just as much as the defenders, and as such
> Not neccesarily - contaminating enemy ground and installations you dont
> desire to use does not hinder your operations.
... until the enemy responds in kind, and contaminating your ground and
> On 11-04-2013 17:23, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > But I think the point here was that whatever you do it harms and
> > encumbers the attackers just as much as the defenders, and as such
> Not neccesarily - contaminating enemy ground and installations you dont
> desire to use does not hinder your operations.
installations will hinder your operations.
> > it's not of great military significance, hence it didn't get used in
> > WWII because there were better and more cost-effective means to get
> > the same military results.
>
> Chemical weapons were used in the war between Iran and Iraq
insurrections, actions, and other instances of combat since chemical
weapons were used in WW1 and widely found useless.
> and the use
> of chemical weapons were assumed to be a given fact if the cold war had
> ever turned hot.
> And just view the trouble the non existing Iraqi chemical weapons caused
> the US.
weapons, it's only prudent to make plans to protect our soldiers from
them. It didn't cause any particular problem, nor would it have if he'd
used them in either Gulf War.
I recall an exchange between a "journalist" and one of the generals
briefing the press during the 1991 war:
Reporter: "General, does it worry you that Saddam Hussein has chemical
weapons? Some have called them 'the poor man's nuclear weapons'."
General: "President Bush has the rich man's nuclear weapons."
Reporter: "Rich man's nuclear weapons? What are rich man's nuclear
weapons?"
General: "Nuclear weapons."
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 18, 2013, 2:55:57 AM4/18/13
to
On 16 apr, 15:37, Carl Alex Friis Nielsen <c...@mail.dk> wrote:
>
> I bet there are lots of restrictions on who may enter that sort oc
> contract in Belgium too.
The two certainties in life - death & taxes.
>
> I bet there are lots of restrictions on who may enter that sort oc
> contract in Belgium too.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 19, 2013, 10:08:16 AM4/19/13
to
On 18 apr, 08:55, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
involvement of Religion of Piece (tm) adherents
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
wrote:
>
> The two certainties in life - death & taxes.
There's a third one : it involves terrorist attacks and the chances of
> The two certainties in life - death & taxes.
involvement of Religion of Piece (tm) adherents
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Apr 19, 2013, 11:48:16 AM4/19/13
to
In article <fc022509-aa94-45d8-bd9b-649bbb14b9e3@
16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > The two certainties in life - death & taxes.
>
> There's a third one : it involves terrorist attacks and the chances of
> involvement of Religion of Piece (tm) adherents
I note here that, by the end of today, King Barack will be designating
tomorrow as "National Hug A Muzzie Day" now that the Tea Party has once
again been cleared of a vicious terrorist act.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"While Ms. Giffords certainly has my sympathy for the violence she
suffered, it should be noted that being shot in the head by a lunatic
does not give one any special grace to pronounce upon public-policy
questions, nor does it give one moral license to call people 'cowards'
for holding public-policy views at variance with one?s own."
- Kevin Williamson
16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > The two certainties in life - death & taxes.
>
> There's a third one : it involves terrorist attacks and the chances of
> involvement of Religion of Piece (tm) adherents
tomorrow as "National Hug A Muzzie Day" now that the Tea Party has once
again been cleared of a vicious terrorist act.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"While Ms. Giffords certainly has my sympathy for the violence she
suffered, it should be noted that being shot in the head by a lunatic
does not give one any special grace to pronounce upon public-policy
questions, nor does it give one moral license to call people 'cowards'
for holding public-policy views at variance with one?s own."
- Kevin Williamson
smr
Apr 19, 2013, 4:30:09 PM4/19/13
to
Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
of Cordoba.
Whatever.
--
smr
Giftzwerg
Apr 19, 2013, 5:03:17 PM4/19/13
to
In article <u25ncxnlrhwd$.1p8qbm0y...@40tude.net>,
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
Bill Ayres! Bernardine Dohrn! Kathy Boudin! They were totally white
and non-muslim - and then there's Ted Kaczynski!
I have it on good authority that he once dated Sarah Palin. Or Michelle
Bachman. I disremember.
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
and non-muslim - and then there's Ted Kaczynski!
I have it on good authority that he once dated Sarah Palin. Or Michelle
Bachman. I disremember.
smr
Apr 19, 2013, 5:30:43 PM4/19/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:03:17 -0400, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <u25ncxnlrhwd$.1p8qbm0y...@40tude.net>,
> m...@shawnritchie.com says...
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:08:16 -0700 (PDT), eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 apr, 08:55, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The two certainties in life - death & taxes.
>>>
>>> There's a third one : it involves terrorist attacks and the chances of
>>> involvement of Religion of Piece (tm) adherents
>>>
>>> Greetz,
>>>
>>> Eddy Sterckx
>>
>> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
>> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
>> of Cordoba.
>>
>> Whatever.
>
> Bill Ayres! Bernardine Dohrn! Kathy Boudin! They were totally white
> and non-muslim - and then there's Ted Kaczynski!
>
> I have it on good authority that he once dated Sarah Palin. Or Michelle
> Bachman. I disremember.
I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> In article <u25ncxnlrhwd$.1p8qbm0y...@40tude.net>,
> m...@shawnritchie.com says...
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:08:16 -0700 (PDT), eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 apr, 08:55, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The two certainties in life - death & taxes.
>>>
>>> There's a third one : it involves terrorist attacks and the chances of
>>> involvement of Religion of Piece (tm) adherents
>>>
>>> Greetz,
>>>
>>> Eddy Sterckx
>>
>> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
>> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
>> of Cordoba.
>>
>> Whatever.
>
> Bill Ayres! Bernardine Dohrn! Kathy Boudin! They were totally white
> and non-muslim - and then there's Ted Kaczynski!
>
> I have it on good authority that he once dated Sarah Palin. Or Michelle
> Bachman. I disremember.
terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
--
smr
smr
Apr 19, 2013, 5:45:27 PM4/19/13
to
...is easily refutable horseshit. Sorry, forgot to finish out the sentence.
--
smr
Giftzwerg
Apr 19, 2013, 7:36:36 PM4/19/13
to
In article <nvmhlem1kn4x.wku5w28g20ef$.d...@40tude.net>,
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
> >> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
> >> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
> >> of Cordoba.
> >>
> >> Whatever.
> >
> > Bill Ayres! Bernardine Dohrn! Kathy Boudin! They were totally white
> > and non-muslim - and then there's Ted Kaczynski!
> >
> > I have it on good authority that he once dated Sarah Palin. Or Michelle
> > Bachman. I disremember.
>
> I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
Whaddaya mean? Aren't these guys all non-muslims? I'm on your side!!
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
> >> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
> >> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
> >> of Cordoba.
> >>
> >> Whatever.
> >
> > Bill Ayres! Bernardine Dohrn! Kathy Boudin! They were totally white
> > and non-muslim - and then there's Ted Kaczynski!
> >
> > I have it on good authority that he once dated Sarah Palin. Or Michelle
> > Bachman. I disremember.
>
> I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
Giftzwerg
Apr 19, 2013, 7:37:26 PM4/19/13
to
In article <p3m2i5dd90m2$.1lc2m3663jqkz$.d...@40tude.net>,
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
> >> Bill Ayres! Bernardine Dohrn! Kathy Boudin! They were totally white
> >> and non-muslim - and then there's Ted Kaczynski!
> >>
> >> I have it on good authority that he once dated Sarah Palin. Or Michelle
> >> Bachman. I disremember.
> >
> > I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> > terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard...
>
> ...is easily refutable horseshit. Sorry, forgot to finish out the sentence.
The logic works the same, either way.
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
> >> Bill Ayres! Bernardine Dohrn! Kathy Boudin! They were totally white
> >> and non-muslim - and then there's Ted Kaczynski!
> >>
> >> I have it on good authority that he once dated Sarah Palin. Or Michelle
> >> Bachman. I disremember.
> >
> > I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> > terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard...
>
> ...is easily refutable horseshit. Sorry, forgot to finish out the sentence.
smr
Apr 20, 2013, 1:01:16 AM4/20/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:36:36 -0400, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <nvmhlem1kn4x.wku5w28g20ef$.d...@40tude.net>,
> m...@shawnritchie.com says...
>
>>>> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
>>>> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
>>>> of Cordoba.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever.
>>>
>>> Bill Ayres! Bernardine Dohrn! Kathy Boudin! They were totally white
>>> and non-muslim - and then there's Ted Kaczynski!
>>>
>>> I have it on good authority that he once dated Sarah Palin. Or Michelle
>>> Bachman. I disremember.
>>
>> I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
>> terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
>
> Whaddaya mean? Aren't these guys all non-muslims? I'm on your side!!
Yet your later post shows that you indeed did mean to be a dick about this,
> In article <nvmhlem1kn4x.wku5w28g20ef$.d...@40tude.net>,
> m...@shawnritchie.com says...
>
>>>> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
>>>> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
>>>> of Cordoba.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever.
>>>
>>> Bill Ayres! Bernardine Dohrn! Kathy Boudin! They were totally white
>>> and non-muslim - and then there's Ted Kaczynski!
>>>
>>> I have it on good authority that he once dated Sarah Palin. Or Michelle
>>> Bachman. I disremember.
>>
>> I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
>> terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
>
> Whaddaya mean? Aren't these guys all non-muslims? I'm on your side!!
so piss off.
--
smr
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 3:21:52 AM4/22/13
to
On 19 apr, 22:30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
Here's my breakdown of "chance of me getting killed by a terrorist"
IRA, ETA, Gaia, ... : 0.001% - remote chance, but possible.
Darth Vader : well, I did make fun of an ultra-ultra-fat Darth Vader
at a convention once - he looked more like a giant bowling ball - so
in case that guy turns out to become the real one, I'm in trouble :
0.001%
Muslim terrorist, like by one of the half dozen guys *from the town I
live in* who went to Syriah to fight for AQ : 99.998%
I've got a math degrees so I don't give a crap about political
correctness or touchy-feely stuff.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:08:16 -0700 (PDT), eddyster...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 18 apr, 08:55, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> The two certainties in life - death & taxes.
>
> > There's a third one : it involves terrorist attacks and the chances of
> > involvement of Religion of Piece (tm) adherents
>
> > On 18 apr, 08:55, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> The two certainties in life - death & taxes.
>
> > There's a third one : it involves terrorist attacks and the chances of
> > involvement of Religion of Piece (tm) adherents
>
> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
> of Cordoba.
You forgot the Illuminati.
> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
> of Cordoba.
Here's my breakdown of "chance of me getting killed by a terrorist"
IRA, ETA, Gaia, ... : 0.001% - remote chance, but possible.
Darth Vader : well, I did make fun of an ultra-ultra-fat Darth Vader
at a convention once - he looked more like a giant bowling ball - so
in case that guy turns out to become the real one, I'm in trouble :
0.001%
Muslim terrorist, like by one of the half dozen guys *from the town I
live in* who went to Syriah to fight for AQ : 99.998%
I've got a math degrees so I don't give a crap about political
correctness or touchy-feely stuff.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 3:36:21 AM4/22/13
to
On 19 apr, 23:30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
Enough of them are for most people to be able to detect a pattern.
>
> I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
I'm so glad for you that you live in this alternative universe in
which this is not the case.
That, or your failure to see the pattern could be due to a problem
with your long-term memory retention ability. I suggest you consult a
physician.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
Apr 22, 2013, 7:40:03 AM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:21:52 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
>> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
>> of Cordoba.
>
>You forgot the Illuminati.
>
>Here's my breakdown of "chance of me getting killed by a terrorist"
Here's our breakdown in the US when it comes to dying a violent death
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
>> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
>> of Cordoba.
>
>You forgot the Illuminati.
>
>Here's my breakdown of "chance of me getting killed by a terrorist"
over the last 30 years:
Chance of getting killed by a terrorist: 0.3%
Chance of getting blown away by some random asshole on the street:
99.7%.
To fight that .3%, the government is more than willing to trample all
over the rights of it's citizens. To fight the other one, even
instituting a background check before you buy a gun is too hard and
too intrusive.
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 8:13:22 AM4/22/13
to
On 22 apr, 13:40, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:21:52 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
cancer, heart disease or HIV ?
I'm asking because banning cars, cigarettes, burgers and sex might
also improve those statistics.
> To fight that .3%, the government is more than willing to trample all
> over the rights of it's citizens. To fight the other one, even
> instituting a background check before you buy a gun is too hard and
> too intrusive.
I'm not saying you're wrong, what I'm saying is that people do not
really care about gun deaths statistics "because it won't happen to
them", but they do care about getting blown to pieces by a religious
nutjob.
It's maybe not rational, but that's the way it is.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:21:52 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
> >> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
> >> of Cordoba.
>
> >You forgot the Illuminati.
>
> >Here's my breakdown of "chance of me getting killed by a terrorist"
>
> Here's our breakdown in the US when it comes to dying a violent death
> over the last 30 years:
> Chance of getting killed by a terrorist: 0.3%
> Chance of getting blown away by some random asshole on the street:
> 99.7%.
Fair enough - what's the chance of you dying in a traffic accident,
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Ah, yes. Timothy McVeigh, noted Muslim. IRA, the Irish Republican
> >> Allah-worshippers. Those naughty Basques, trying to restore the Caliphate
> >> of Cordoba.
>
> >You forgot the Illuminati.
>
> >Here's my breakdown of "chance of me getting killed by a terrorist"
>
> Here's our breakdown in the US when it comes to dying a violent death
> over the last 30 years:
> Chance of getting killed by a terrorist: 0.3%
> Chance of getting blown away by some random asshole on the street:
> 99.7%.
cancer, heart disease or HIV ?
I'm asking because banning cars, cigarettes, burgers and sex might
also improve those statistics.
> To fight that .3%, the government is more than willing to trample all
> over the rights of it's citizens. To fight the other one, even
> instituting a background check before you buy a gun is too hard and
> too intrusive.
really care about gun deaths statistics "because it won't happen to
them", but they do care about getting blown to pieces by a religious
nutjob.
It's maybe not rational, but that's the way it is.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
smr
Apr 22, 2013, 10:13:28 AM4/22/13
to
In article <45c9a532-952c-4f29-acf4-2173bf6017d4
@cm2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
Then maybe you should avoid using words like "certainty" when making a
point that doesn't involve an absolute. Words have meaning.
--
smr
@cm2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
point that doesn't involve an absolute. Words have meaning.
--
smr
smr
Apr 22, 2013, 10:15:38 AM4/22/13
to
In article <a9d5a7ff-87ab-49b9-881a-
cb5abc...@y12g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
Christian American than I ever am to die of an Islamic terrorist attack.
So why am I supposed to have to fear and strip the rights from and
surrender my OWN rights to fight the Islamic terrorist, but if I so much
as suggest that maybe we keep a close eye on disgruntled white veterans or
maybe try to keep weapons from being bought by folks with diagnosed mental
problems, I'm a traitorous fucktard?
--
smr
cb5abc...@y12g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
>
> On 19 apr, 23:30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> > terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
>
> Enough of them are for most people to be able to detect a pattern.
>
> I'm so glad for you that you live in this alternative universe in
> which this is not the case.
Pfffffffffffft. I'm MUCH more likely to be shot by a white or black
> On 19 apr, 23:30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> > terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
>
> Enough of them are for most people to be able to detect a pattern.
>
> I'm so glad for you that you live in this alternative universe in
> which this is not the case.
Christian American than I ever am to die of an Islamic terrorist attack.
So why am I supposed to have to fear and strip the rights from and
surrender my OWN rights to fight the Islamic terrorist, but if I so much
as suggest that maybe we keep a close eye on disgruntled white veterans or
maybe try to keep weapons from being bought by folks with diagnosed mental
problems, I'm a traitorous fucktard?
--
smr
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 10:30:46 AM4/22/13
to
On 22 apr, 16:13, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> In article <45c9a532-952c-4f29-acf4-2173bf6017d4
> @cm2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <45c9a532-952c-4f29-acf4-2173bf6017d4
nitpicky literal semantic way deaths and taxes are no "certainties"
either.
There's off-shore tax havens and some scientists do not rule out man
may live forever in some not too distant future.
So, technically I'm even 0 for 3 in my "certainties", but I can live
with that as I'm not the one who risks to drown in a river that's
statistically only 2 feet deep.
Words may have a meaning, but reality trumps it every time.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 10:38:42 AM4/22/13
to
On 22 apr, 16:15, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> In article <a9d5a7ff-87ab-49b9-881a-
> cb5abc8ef...@y12g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
That's not the point. The point was that if I get blown to bits *in a
terrorist attack* there's a 99.998% certainty it's by one of them
peace-loving jihadis, though Fat Darth Vader also has me worried a
bit.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
> In article <a9d5a7ff-87ab-49b9-881a-
> cb5abc8ef...@y12g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
>
>
> > On 19 apr, 23:30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> > > terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
>
> > Enough of them are for most people to be able to detect a pattern.
>
> > I'm so glad for you that you live in this alternative universe in
> > which this is not the case.
>
> Pfffffffffffft. I'm MUCH more likely to be shot by a white or black
> Christian American
... and even much more likely to get run over by a car. Same here.
>
>
>
> > On 19 apr, 23:30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that I pointed out that Eddy's "all
> > > terrorist attacks are done by Muslims" canard.
>
> > Enough of them are for most people to be able to detect a pattern.
>
> > I'm so glad for you that you live in this alternative universe in
> > which this is not the case.
>
> Pfffffffffffft. I'm MUCH more likely to be shot by a white or black
> Christian American
That's not the point. The point was that if I get blown to bits *in a
terrorist attack* there's a 99.998% certainty it's by one of them
peace-loving jihadis, though Fat Darth Vader also has me worried a
bit.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
smr
Apr 22, 2013, 11:56:04 AM4/22/13
to
In article <a56ce2f1-f9b1-4ad6-a3c9-788397664ac8
@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
You sure are loose with your "facts", dude:
Number of people dead in America due to being hit by a car: 4,500k/yr
Number of people dead due to a gunshot or gunshots in America: 32,000/yr
So, I'm actually NOT AT ALL more likely to die being hit by a car than I
am being shot down by a gun.
That said, fine, yes, if you do die in a terrorist bombing, it's very,
very likely to be a Muslim that set it off. I'll be rooting for Darth
Vadar, though, so that there's at least an element of humor in your
demise.
--
smr
@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
Number of people dead in America due to being hit by a car: 4,500k/yr
Number of people dead due to a gunshot or gunshots in America: 32,000/yr
So, I'm actually NOT AT ALL more likely to die being hit by a car than I
am being shot down by a gun.
That said, fine, yes, if you do die in a terrorist bombing, it's very,
very likely to be a Muslim that set it off. I'll be rooting for Darth
Vadar, though, so that there's at least an element of humor in your
demise.
--
smr
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 12:16:11 PM4/22/13
to
On 22 apr, 17:56, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
> That said, fine, yes, if you do die in a terrorist bombing, it's very,
> very likely to be a Muslim that set it off.
I'm glad you finally managed to actually read what I wrote.
>
> That said, fine, yes, if you do die in a terrorist bombing, it's very,
> very likely to be a Muslim that set it off.
> I'll be rooting for Darth
> Vadar, though, so that there's at least an element of humor in your
> demise.
It's "Vader" - the Old English word for "Father"
Words have a meaning you know.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Apr 22, 2013, 12:18:31 PM4/22/13
to
In article <hxx1UebxpxoRE+...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> To fight that .3%, the government is more than willing to trample all
> over the rights of it's citizens. To fight the other one, even
> instituting a background check before you buy a gun is too hard and
> too intrusive.
The problems with "background checks" are:
1) First and foremost, they're utterly useless in preventing anything.
Either the potential criminal will a) pass the background check (Jared
Loughner), or b) obtain the firearm illegally (Adam Lanza).
2) As always, the devil's in the details, and the Manchin-Toomey
Amendment - the only provision that had any chance of passing muster -
was a horrific example of the usual legislative jabberwockey:
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968
... that those jealously guarding their 2nd Amendment rights were quite
rightly suspicious about in the extreme. We know from bitter experience
that even simple, clear, obvious language like the 2nd Amendment itself
gets litigated unto death; this monkeyfuck abortion runs to *eight
thousand* words. Plenty of rope for some leftist judge two years from
now to strangle my Constitutional rights with.
3) We already have background checks. I underwent my latest one six
months ago. Thus the people bleating about "you're against simple,
common-sense background checks" are fulla shit. What we're against is
this legislative nightmare expanding background checks.
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> To fight that .3%, the government is more than willing to trample all
> over the rights of it's citizens. To fight the other one, even
> instituting a background check before you buy a gun is too hard and
> too intrusive.
1) First and foremost, they're utterly useless in preventing anything.
Either the potential criminal will a) pass the background check (Jared
Loughner), or b) obtain the firearm illegally (Adam Lanza).
2) As always, the devil's in the details, and the Manchin-Toomey
Amendment - the only provision that had any chance of passing muster -
was a horrific example of the usual legislative jabberwockey:
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968
... that those jealously guarding their 2nd Amendment rights were quite
rightly suspicious about in the extreme. We know from bitter experience
that even simple, clear, obvious language like the 2nd Amendment itself
gets litigated unto death; this monkeyfuck abortion runs to *eight
thousand* words. Plenty of rope for some leftist judge two years from
now to strangle my Constitutional rights with.
3) We already have background checks. I underwent my latest one six
months ago. Thus the people bleating about "you're against simple,
common-sense background checks" are fulla shit. What we're against is
this legislative nightmare expanding background checks.
smr
Apr 22, 2013, 12:21:51 PM4/22/13
to
In article <00af5594-4ed8-40e0-adc1-eb2008ac0304
@b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
Words about FICTIONAL FUCKING THINGS matter for dick, dude.
--
smr
@b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
--
smr
Giftzwerg
Apr 22, 2013, 12:39:31 PM4/22/13
to
In article <f7425268-be8c-4c5b-a606-6a4fc11de045
@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > To fight that .3%, the government is more than willing to trample all
> > over the rights of it's citizens. To fight the other one, even
> > instituting a background check before you buy a gun is too hard and
> > too intrusive.
>
> I'm not saying you're wrong, what I'm saying is that people do not
> really care about gun deaths statistics "because it won't happen to
> them", but they do care about getting blown to pieces by a religious
> nutjob.
This is greatly exacerbated by those trotting out the, "gun death
statistics."
For example, "gun violence" statistics include *suicides* - as though a
person intentionally killing *himself* is interesting to anyone except
the suicide - and accidents, criminals shooting other criminals, and
even *use of firearms in self defense*.
Yet, to hear the Brady Campaign mumble past the facts, the ignorant
onlooker gets the impression that the *total* of gun violence numbers is
comprised only of, "a criminal shot an innocent person."
This last is the only statistic I'm interested in, and my interest
doesn't get much further than, "an *armed* innocent person is in a
position to shoot back."
@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > To fight that .3%, the government is more than willing to trample all
> > over the rights of it's citizens. To fight the other one, even
> > instituting a background check before you buy a gun is too hard and
> > too intrusive.
>
> I'm not saying you're wrong, what I'm saying is that people do not
> really care about gun deaths statistics "because it won't happen to
> them", but they do care about getting blown to pieces by a religious
> nutjob.
statistics."
For example, "gun violence" statistics include *suicides* - as though a
person intentionally killing *himself* is interesting to anyone except
the suicide - and accidents, criminals shooting other criminals, and
even *use of firearms in self defense*.
Yet, to hear the Brady Campaign mumble past the facts, the ignorant
onlooker gets the impression that the *total* of gun violence numbers is
comprised only of, "a criminal shot an innocent person."
This last is the only statistic I'm interested in, and my interest
doesn't get much further than, "an *armed* innocent person is in a
position to shoot back."
eddys...@hotmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 12:45:50 PM4/22/13
to
On 22 apr, 18:21, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> In article <00af5594-4ed8-40e0-adc1-eb2008ac0304
> @b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <00af5594-4ed8-40e0-adc1-eb2008ac0304
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 apr, 17:56, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
> > > That said, fine, yes, if you do die in a terrorist bombing, it's very,
> > > very likely to be a Muslim that set it off.
>
> > I'm glad you finally managed to actually read what I wrote.
>
> > > I'll be rooting for Darth
> > > Vadar, though, so that there's at least an element of humor in your
> > > demise.
>
> > Darth Vad*a*r, is that the ugly brother of the fat one ?
>
> > It's "Vader" - the Old English word for "Father"
>
> > Words have a meaning you know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 apr, 17:56, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
> > > That said, fine, yes, if you do die in a terrorist bombing, it's very,
> > > very likely to be a Muslim that set it off.
>
> > I'm glad you finally managed to actually read what I wrote.
>
> > > I'll be rooting for Darth
> > > Vadar, though, so that there's at least an element of humor in your
> > > demise.
>
> > Darth Vad*a*r, is that the ugly brother of the fat one ?
>
> > It's "Vader" - the Old English word for "Father"
>
> > Words have a meaning you know.
>
>
> Words about FICTIONAL FUCKING THINGS matter for dick, dude.
Must have touched a nerve there.
Tssssk - letting a stupid Ferengi get to you like that - fun and games
man - this ain't reality, this is usenet.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Apr 22, 2013, 12:59:12 PM4/22/13
to
In article <MPG.2bdf0201a...@news.ftupet.com>,
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
> Pfffffffffffft. I'm MUCH more likely to be shot by a white or black
> Christian American than I ever am to die of an Islamic terrorist attack.
> So why am I supposed to have to fear and strip the rights from and
> surrender my OWN rights to fight the Islamic terrorist, but if I so much
> as suggest that maybe we keep a close eye on disgruntled white veterans or
> maybe try to keep weapons from being bought by folks with diagnosed mental
> problems, I'm a traitorous fucktard?
Hmmm. What "rights" - exactly - have you surrendered, and how - exactly
- does your surrender of these rights work only against Islamist
terrorism?
And I'm particularly interested in that business about, "folks with
diagnosed mental problems." Currently, the law forbids someone with a
court-adjudicated mental illness that makes him a danger to others from
purchasing a firearm.
You propose extending that to "folks with diagnosed mental problems?"
What the shit does "diagnosed mental problems" mean? If a guy shows up
at the hospital tonight complaining that he's feeling terribly blue
because the winter has gone on so long, and my wife writes, "Seasonal
Affective Disorder" on the admitting form, and suggests some light-
therapy and exercise might help ... did he just get "diagnosed" with a
"mental problem?"
But that doesn't make you a traitorous fucktard, just a fucktard.
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
> Pfffffffffffft. I'm MUCH more likely to be shot by a white or black
> Christian American than I ever am to die of an Islamic terrorist attack.
> So why am I supposed to have to fear and strip the rights from and
> surrender my OWN rights to fight the Islamic terrorist, but if I so much
> as suggest that maybe we keep a close eye on disgruntled white veterans or
> maybe try to keep weapons from being bought by folks with diagnosed mental
> problems, I'm a traitorous fucktard?
- does your surrender of these rights work only against Islamist
terrorism?
And I'm particularly interested in that business about, "folks with
diagnosed mental problems." Currently, the law forbids someone with a
court-adjudicated mental illness that makes him a danger to others from
purchasing a firearm.
You propose extending that to "folks with diagnosed mental problems?"
What the shit does "diagnosed mental problems" mean? If a guy shows up
at the hospital tonight complaining that he's feeling terribly blue
because the winter has gone on so long, and my wife writes, "Seasonal
Affective Disorder" on the admitting form, and suggests some light-
therapy and exercise might help ... did he just get "diagnosed" with a
"mental problem?"
But that doesn't make you a traitorous fucktard, just a fucktard.
Giftzwerg
Apr 22, 2013, 1:08:52 PM4/22/13
to
In article <MPG.2bdf198bb...@news.ftupet.com>,
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
> You sure are loose with your "facts", dude:
>
> Number of people dead in America due to being hit by a car: 4,500k/yr
"4,500*k*" is 4.5 *million*, you colossal imbecile. According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S.
_by_year
... if you meant *4,500* deaths, it's closer to the *monthly* death
toll.
> Number of people dead due to a gunshot or gunshots in America: 32,000/yr
A figure which includes about 16,000 suicides, a great many accidents,
criminals shooting other criminals, criminals being shot by cops, and
criminals being shot by innocent citizens.
Who's being "loose with the facts," dude?
What I care about as an innocent, law-abiding citizen is my chance of
being shot and killed by a criminal. The other numbers are utterly
irrelevant.
> So, I'm actually NOT AT ALL more likely to die being hit by a car than I
> am being shot down by a gun.
Using your pulled-fresh-from-your-ass nonsense numbers, sure. What
color is the sky in your world, again?
m...@shawnritchie.com says...
> You sure are loose with your "facts", dude:
>
> Number of people dead in America due to being hit by a car: 4,500k/yr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S.
_by_year
... if you meant *4,500* deaths, it's closer to the *monthly* death
toll.
> Number of people dead due to a gunshot or gunshots in America: 32,000/yr
criminals shooting other criminals, criminals being shot by cops, and
criminals being shot by innocent citizens.
Who's being "loose with the facts," dude?
What I care about as an innocent, law-abiding citizen is my chance of
being shot and killed by a criminal. The other numbers are utterly
irrelevant.
> So, I'm actually NOT AT ALL more likely to die being hit by a car than I
> am being shot down by a gun.
color is the sky in your world, again?
smr
Apr 22, 2013, 1:05:24 PM4/22/13
to
In article <b9ea084b-3934-47da-8d9c-
606467...@c7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
It's just the endless "my errors are irrelevant" when you guys fuck up to
every slightest thing (such as a typo about a fucking Star War's
characters name that in no way confused the actual meaning of the thought
expressed) being proof of mortal error in anyone who's opinions you
disagree with. Y'all are fuckin' children most of the time.
--
smr
606467...@c7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
every slightest thing (such as a typo about a fucking Star War's
characters name that in no way confused the actual meaning of the thought
expressed) being proof of mortal error in anyone who's opinions you
disagree with. Y'all are fuckin' children most of the time.
--
smr
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages