Palin caught lying again !!!
Cliff
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/perspectives/612138-263/palin-makes-a-few-errors-in-convention.html
"Palin makes a few errors in convention speech � and on Fox"
[
On Fox News Sunday, Palin repeated her false claim that Alaska produces
one-fifth of the nation�s energy:
Palin (Feb. 7): [Alaska is the] largest, most diverse state in the union, 20
percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy coming from our state.
This is far from true, just as it was in 2008 when she claimed the same thing.
Back then we noted that the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed that
Alaska accounted for 3.5 percent of all domestic energy production in 2005, the
most recent figures then available.
Now the figure is even lower. The EIA�s current statistical breakdown shows
Alaska�s energy production made up just under 2.9 percent of the U.S. total in
2007.
]
How stupid can one winger be?
--
Cliff
Gerald Abrahamson
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> How stupid can one winger be?
The center of a black hole is nowhere as dense as a winger
head......
Burled Frau
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:aptjn5tk6lvhb0e78...@4ax.com...
> <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Murderous-Alabama-professor-far-left--84396817.html>
> Murderous Alabama professor 'far-left political extremist who was
> obsessed' with Obama
>
> A few days ago, liberal blogs trumpeted banner headlines about a
> Massachusetts man who was charged with stockpiling weapons. It seems
> he was a Tea Party activist and a Sarah Palin fan. Naturally, this
> confirms the left's suspicion that all conservative activists are
> violent anti-government terrorists.
>
> Well, I wonder what those same bloggers will make of this tidbit in
> today's Boston Herald about Amy Bishop, the Alabama professor who
> recently went on a shooting rampage killing three people:
>
> A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest
> a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was
> "obsessed" with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.
>
> I don't have any reason to believe Bishop's crime was politically
> motivated. However, when a Harvard-educated professor "obsessed" with
> far-left politics goes on a killing spree her politics are considered
> incidental by the same people who think everyone who complains about
> the IRS is an Eric Rudolph in the making. (Oh and for what it's worth,
> Rudolph, McVeigh and others frequently cited by the left aren't
> exactly the right-wing, Christian terrorists they would have you
> believe.)
>
> Bishop's politics are worth pointing out for no other reason than to
> show that the idea there are disproportionate levels violence on the
> right is a self-serving fiction. To that end, I highly recommend Jesse
> Walker's essay from Reason last fall, "The Paranoid Center: How the
> panic over right-wing violence is being used to marginalize peaceful
> dissent."
Typical libtard suicide gone wrong. Again.
F. George McDuffee
<not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
><http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Murderous-Alabama-professor-far-left--84396817.html>
>Murderous Alabama professor 'far-left political extremist who was
>obsessed' with Obama
<snip>
This may well go far deeper than a left/right political split.
While hard data is not available, it appears from media reports
that the level, frequency and "bazarrness"/randomness of violence
is rapidly increasing in the United States. For example
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/15/california.church.shooting/?hpt=Sbin
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/feb/15/151647/shooting-suspect-called-ticking-time-bomb/
This however may be due to better reporting/coverage or better
communications such as the internet. ==>At this point no one
knows, and it appears no one is doing a study.<==
Given the proven phenomena of "droid rage" where some people
taking anabolic steroids display unreasonable and
disproportionate violent behavior, it may well be than some
environmental poison, food contaminent/addative, medical
problems, etc. may be a contributing factor.
It does not seem likely that firearms ownership is a causal
factor, as firearms ownership was even more widespread in the
past. Additionally, many of these physical assaults are now
being committed with weapons other than firearms, such as knives
and axes.
http://www.ajc.com/news/husband-in-walmart-stabbing-305077.html?cxtype=rss_news_128746
http://www.khsltv.com/content/localnews/story/Stabbing-Outside-North-State-Wal-Mart/VrensBcuEUySMad9s5f4jg.cspx
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=11980518
This would appear to be yet another case where huge amounts of
taxpayer funds have been and are being spent and enormous
bureaucracies created/maintained, WITH NO CORRESPONDING PUBLIC
BENEFIT. The CDC [Center for Disease Control] and NIMH [National
Institute for Mental Health] should have been on this apparent
upsurge in violence "like a free range Kansas chicken on a June
bug," first to determine if it is real, and to determine the
causes.
Perpetrators, suspects and victims should be required to provide
blood, urine and hair samples for CDC/NIMH laboratory analysis,
and participate in a preliminary mental/physical health
screening, with follow-up as indicated, including but not limited
to brain CAT/MRI scans and screening for tertiary syphilis.
Criminal sanctions should be in place to insure that the
analysis/diagnosis is competently and timely performed and the
data is not "blown off" by the accountable agencies. There
should be no problems with "civil rights" as long as the
medical/psychological data is not used in criminal prosecution
and is collected only as a function of public health. One
example would be the detection of illegal drugs
contaminated/adultrated with substances such as PCP.
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Burled Frau
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:8bvjn51lh0o7flip7...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:44:00 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
>><http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Murderous-Alabama-professor-far-left--84396817.html>
>>Murderous Alabama professor 'far-left political extremist who was
>>obsessed' with Obama
> <snip>
> This may well go far deeper than a left/right political split.
>
> While hard data is not available, it appears from media reports
> that the level, frequency and "bazarrness"/randomness of violence
> is rapidly increasing in the United States.
There is nothing bizarre or random about it. Curls hit it right on the money
when he was the first to notice it. He stated that while the conservative
right was prone to be creatures of habit and remain mostly the same, the lib
left was evolving. Now we see what they are evolving into. Obsessed with
0bama indeed. That's all.
Patriot Games
Why do DemocRATs always LIE?
Crude Oil Production - Current - Monthly-Thousand Barrels
U.S.: 163,974
Alaska (PADD5): 19,743
Alaska (Offshore): 5,755 Total: 25,498
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_m.htm
15.5%
High Point 1987:
U.S.: 257,844
Alaska (PADD5): 63,325
Alaska (Offshore): 4,469 Total: 67,794
26.3%
Average = 20.9%
Palin said "one-fifth."
20.9% IS one-fifth.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPAK1&f=M
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M_EPC0_FPF_AKSF_1&f=M
Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
U.S. Total 2007: 3,492,744
Alaska Total: 374,204
10.7%
Cliff
>
>That's including 0bama's 57 states, I assume.
Teresa Heinz ("57 Varieties") Kerry.
One can easily understand, considering the moment.
And, IIRC, quickly corrected.
BTW How many States can Palin find?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:53:21 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/perspectives/612138-263/palin-makes-a-few-errors-in-convention.html
>> "Palin makes a few errors in convention speech � and on Fox"
>>[
>>On Fox News Sunday, Palin repeated her false claim that Alaska produces
>>one-fifth of the nation�s energy:
>>Palin (Feb. 7): [Alaska is the] largest, most diverse state in the union, 20
>>percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy coming from our state.
>>This is far from true, just as it was in 2008 when she claimed the same thing.
>>Back then we noted that the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed that
>>Alaska accounted for 3.5 percent of all domestic energy production in 2005, the
>>most recent figures then available.
>>Now the figure is even lower. The EIA�s current statistical breakdown shows
>>Alaska�s energy production made up just under 2.9 percent of the U.S. total in
>>2007.
>>]
>> How stupid can one winger be?
>
>Why do DemocRATs always LIE?
How stupid can one winger be?
Thank you for the free demonstration.
Palin: "20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy coming from our
state."
>
>Crude Oil Production - Current - Monthly-Thousand Barrels
>
>U.S.: 163,974
>Alaska (PADD5): 19,743
>Alaska (Offshore): 5,755 Total: 25,498
>http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_m.htm
>
>15.5%
>
>High Point 1987:
>U.S.: 257,844
>Alaska (PADD5): 63,325
>Alaska (Offshore): 4,469 Total: 67,794
>
>26.3%
>
>Average = 20.9%
>
>Palin said "one-fifth."
>
>20.9% IS one-fifth.
>
>http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M
>
>http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPAK1&f=M
>
>http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M_EPC0_FPF_AKSF_1&f=M
>
>Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
>U.S. Total 2007: 3,492,744
>Alaska Total: 374,204
>
>10.7%
>
>http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_off_s1_a.htm
FREE CLUE: That's oil & gas production, not energy.
Don't feel too bad, Palin is equally ignorant & confused.
AND she claimed the same thing in 2008 & never learned any better.
VERY slow learner !!! Not very bright at all. Genetic problems in the
family?
Perhaps Faux should ask someone from Alaska, such as their
Governor.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Amy Bishop
"she had requested that students with gun permits be allowed to carry their
guns on campus and was turned down."
Cliff
>Alabama
Red State, right?
But I still like Mobile <G>.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>The CDC [Center for Disease Control] and NIMH [National
>Institute for Mental Health] should have been on this apparent
>upsurge in violence "like a free range Kansas chicken on a June
>bug," first to determine if it is real, and to determine the
>causes.
IIRC The rethugs, at the prodding of the NRA, banned such
a few years ago.
--
Cliff
Gray Ghost
news:aiiqn5dq9iuhl606k...@4ax.com:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Pathetic, Cliffie, pathetic.
--
God, guns and guts made America great.
And Janet Napolitano nervous.
Which should tell you all you need to know about Democrats. How can one
restore America to greatness if greatness makes you uncomfortable?
Gray Ghost
news:lnrrn5ttr0oq6d0up...@4ax.com:
> Do you have any substantiated reference for that?
Are you serious?!? It's Cliffie, he doesn't have a substantial reference for
anything.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> news:aiiqn5dq9iuhl606k...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:44:00 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Amy Bishop
>>
>> "she had requested that students with gun permits be allowed to carry
>> their
>> guns on campus and was turned down."
Do you think she was crying out to be stopped and the best way was for
others to have guns too?
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
>Zombywoof <fish...@live.com> wrote in
>news:lnrrn5ttr0oq6d0up...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:10:33 -0500, Cliff
>><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:44:00 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Amy Bishop
>>>
>>> "she had requested that students with gun permits be allowed to carry
>>> their
>>>guns on campus and was turned down."
>>>
>> Do you have any substantiated reference for that?
>
>Are you serious?!? It's Cliffie, he doesn't have a substantial reference for
>anything.
So you keep losing.
Do a search.
Why should I do your homework?
Who did it before?
Who did Palin's?
Who took her exams? The hand puppet?
[
(Glenn Beck) After all, the Fox News host has admitted to having had a cocaine
problem, saying in a 2008 DVD, "I think by 24, I was making about $300,000 a
year, and most of it went directly up my nose."
]
--
Cliff
Cliff
>There is nothing bizarre or random about it. Curls hit it right on the money
>when he was the first to notice it. He stated that while the conservative
>right was prone to be creatures of habit and remain mostly the same, the lib
>left was evolving. Now we see what they are evolving into. Obsessed with
>0bama indeed. That's all.
Instead of guns, lies & wars, eh?
--
Cliff
Patriot Games
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:04:22 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:53:21 -0500, Cliff
>><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/perspectives/612138-263/palin-makes-a-few-errors-in-convention.html
>>> "Palin makes a few errors in convention speech � and on Fox"
>>>[
>>>On Fox News Sunday, Palin repeated her false claim that Alaska produces
>>>one-fifth of the nation�s energy:
>>>Palin (Feb. 7): [Alaska is the] largest, most diverse state in the union, 20
>>>percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy coming from our state.
>>>This is far from true, just as it was in 2008 when she claimed the same thing.
>>>Back then we noted that the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed that
>>>Alaska accounted for 3.5 percent of all domestic energy production in 2005, the
>>>most recent figures then available.
>>>Now the figure is even lower. The EIA�s current statistical breakdown shows
>>>Alaska�s energy production made up just under 2.9 percent of the U.S. total in
>>>2007.
>>>]
>>> How stupid can one winger be?
>>Why do DemocRATs always LIE?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH!!!!
What do YOU think "energy" IS, RETARD?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Burled Frau
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:l670o5lu6bk9hl0to...@4ax.com...
> Varieties of tomato and number of states have very little to do with
> each other. Perhaps leftists see some connection but real people
> don't.
>
> I don't know how many states Palin can find, but 0bama told us there
> were 57. Perhaps he was anticipating annexing Iraq, Iran,
> Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Haiti. Leftists are sneaky and you have to
> watch them at all times.
I think we can all admit that Palin can't find 57 States. This is not
necessarily a bad thing.
Terry
<Pat...@america.com> wrote:
I think the point is that there are other sources of energy. Coal is
the big one. Pointing to oil and gas production and suggesting that
they are the only significant energy sources is disingenuous at best.
Cliff
Energy is energy.
It is not just "oil & gas production".
And much of that goes into plastics & chemeicals anyway
so THAT's not "energy" either.
You never passed grade school science any more than Palin did.
I just gotta stop giving dumb lying idiot wingers free clues !!!
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Varieties of tomato and number of states have very little to do with
>each other. Perhaps leftists see some connection but real people
>don't.
At the time Kerry was clearly on Obama's mind.
Teresa Heinz ("57 Varieties") Kerry is an heir to Heinz.
>I don't know how many states Palin can find, but 0bama told us there
>were 57.
And corrected the slip IIRC.
There is a term for such but I forget it at the moment.
>Perhaps he was anticipating annexing Iraq, Iran,
>Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Haiti. Leftists are sneaky and you have to
>watch them at all times.
"You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda" - bush II.
--
Cliff
Cliff
She may just be able to find bits of Canada by now.
Or not.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Guns - doesn't support the Constitution? Wow, am I surprised!
Free Clue:
Guns are not required by the constitution AND they can be regulated.
BTW, You DO have two arms, right?
>
>Lies - Where did the TARP go;
Ask bushco. It was their program.
I said to nationalize.
>has the Patriot Act been repealed,
Would the rethugs fillibuster?
>is Guantanamo closed?
Getting there.
>Wars - Still in Iraq; still in Afghanistan.
Obama is a centrist.
[
America's military operation in Iraq will be renamed Operation New Dawn on
September 1 - signalling an end of the war for its military.
The Bush-named Operation Iraqi Freedom will end and more than half of 98,000 US
troops now in Iraq will begin to leave Iraq from August.
The Iraqi National Army is to take over security and the 48,000 US troops
remaining will become a reserve force.
....
The memo said: "The request...is approved to take effect 1 September 2010,
coinciding with the change of mission for US forces in Iraq.
"Aligning the name change with the change of mission sends a strong signal
Operation Iraqi Freedom has ended."
]
What would you do?
Palin & McSame promised another 50 to 100 years of war ..... and
the rethugs & wingers ate it up.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>I posted an entire news article. It was made up of entire sentences.
>And they were organized into paragraphs that connected ideas.
Whose "ideas"?
Bully for you & Rush & Faux !!
>When you snip out two words, it's hard to figure out what you are
>replying to and what your point is. I suppose you are trying to duck
>some issue you don't want to address. Leftists.
>
>All I can say is yes, there is a person named Amy Bishop.
Probably several.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:35:31 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:35:35 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>That's including 0bama's 57 states, I assume.
>>>>
>>>> Teresa Heinz ("57 Varieties") Kerry.
>>>> One can easily understand, considering the moment.
>>>> And, IIRC, quickly corrected.
>>>>
>>>> BTW How many States can Palin find?
>>>
>>>Varieties of tomato and number of states have very little to do with
>>>each other. Perhaps leftists see some connection but real people
>>>don't.
>>
>> At the time Kerry was clearly on Obama's mind.
>> Teresa Heinz ("57 Varieties") Kerry is an heir to Heinz.
>
>Damn weak pop-psychology there lad.
Not at all.
It was clear at the time what had happened.
Do I need to explain it again with even smaller words?
>>>I don't know how many states Palin can find, but 0bama told us there
>>>were 57.
>>
>> And corrected the slip IIRC.
>> There is a term for such but I forget it at the moment.
>
>He was exhausted from a long day of campaigning. The point is that he
>said it and your 0bamaDroids didn't state the facts - your crew lied
>and said that he never said it.
Nobody I know of claimed he did not say it.
Except, now, you.
And wingers lie.
--
Cliff
Burled Frau
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:8ko1o5hbn3i34nhcn...@4ax.com...
How many varieties has 0bama turned out to be? Maybe 0bama wanted to bone
the ugly old liberal hag.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Be more specific, they are "all" ugly and old.... even the young ones
look ugly and old under the painted faces.
Their soul is full of hate.
--
Gray Ghost
news:8ko1o5hbn3i34nhcn...@4ax.com:
> At the time Kerry was clearly on Obama's mind.
> Teresa Heinz ("57 Varieties") Kerry is an heir to Heinz.
>
That's you best shot, huh? Wow. I've got to show this one to the dog and see
what he thinks.
He thinks you should go back to licking your balls. He feels it would better
display your innate intelligence.
Don't blame me, that's what the dog said. And Pete the Pit Bull (aka Sluggo)
is never wrong.
RD (The Sandman)
news:j5v1o5lkt8aomrmto...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:24:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:29:59 -0600, "Burled Frau" <ach...@jawol.jah>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>There is nothing bizarre or random about it. Curls hit it right on
>>>>the money when he was the first to notice it. He stated that while
>>>>the conservative right was prone to be creatures of habit and remain
>>>>mostly the same, the lib left was evolving. Now we see what they are
>>>>evolving into. Obsessed with 0bama indeed. That's all.
>>>
>>> Instead of guns, lies & wars, eh?
>>
>>Guns - doesn't support the Constitution? Wow, am I surprised!
>
> Free Clue:
> Guns are not required by the constitution AND they can be regulated.
They already are.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
"Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his
possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist
to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces."
--Joseph T. Chew
RD (The Sandman)
news:c363o5he9d9btaqkh...@4ax.com:
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:24:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>>wrote:
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:29:59 -0600, "Burled Frau"
>>>><ach...@jawol.jah> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>There is nothing bizarre or random about it. Curls hit it right on
>>>>>the money when he was the first to notice it. He stated that while
>>>>>the conservative right was prone to be creatures of habit and
>>>>>remain mostly the same, the lib left was evolving. Now we see what
>>>>>they are evolving into. Obsessed with 0bama indeed. That's all.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of guns, lies & wars, eh?
>>>
>>>Guns - doesn't support the Constitution? Wow, am I surprised!
>>
>> Free Clue:
>> Guns are not required by the constitution AND they can be regulated.
>
> Not "required", you semantic whore. It's a right if you care to
> exercise it. But a right none the less.
>
> Nothing is "required". The Constitution is short list of powers we
> choose to allow to the government. Every other right and power is
> reserved to the people. Where does the Constitution grant the
> government power to regulate guns?
It doesn't.
Patriot Games
Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
Oil and gas production IS energy, ASSHOLE.
> And much of that goes into...
It DOES NOT matter what the electricity is used for, ASSHOLE.
Michael A. Terrell
Patriot Games wrote:
>
> Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
It did at Ft. Greely, but it was decommisioned about 40 years ago.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Cliff
Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>Oil and gas production IS energy, ASSHOLE.
Only part of it is and it's not all of energy, idiot.
You really did want smaller words, right?
Moron has more letters.
>> And much of that goes into...
>
>It DOES NOT matter what the electricity is used for, ASSHOLE.
So just because Palin is clueless & lying and you are confused ...
by about everything I gather ...
--
Cliff
Patriot Games
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>> Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
> It did at Ft. Greely, but it was decommisioned about 40 years ago.
Not exactly... That site was less (if at all) about providing
electricity and more (if not entirely) about enriching uranium.
Patriot Games
Shut down in 1972, ASSHOLE.
>>Oil and gas production IS energy, ASSHOLE.
>>> And much of that goes into...
>>It DOES NOT matter what the electricity is used for, ASSHOLE.
> So just because...
It's always FUN to beat you down in public and urinate on you.
Michael A. Terrell
Where you there? I lived across the street from it. It was a
complete failure in any case. They kept losing the bearings on the
turbine when someone on the Alaskan Power grid would drop one of their
large generators online without warning. It was decommissioned after
several years of trying to solve the problems. They went back to their
Diesel powered generators full time.
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Where does the Constitution grant the
>> government power to regulate guns?
>
>It doesn't.
Define "arms" *in the context of the day*.
Such rights to regulate small-arms was reserved to the
States & local governments.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>>Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
>> Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>
>Shut down in 1972, ASSHOLE.
YOU claimed "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
I pointed out that they indeed had one.
>>>Oil and gas production IS energy, ASSHOLE.
>>>> And much of that goes into...
>>>It DOES NOT matter what the electricity is used for, ASSHOLE.
>> So just because...
>
>It's always FUN to beat you down in public and urinate on you.
While getting the facts all wrong ala Palin.
You were facing upwind in a heavy gale.
--
Cliff
Cliff
It produced 2 MW it looks like. Electrical power.
As "SM-1A operated at a uranium-235 enrichment of 93 percent"
I don't quite see how it would "enrich Uranium"as it was fueled with
very highly enriched Uranium to begin with.
IIRC Most power plants are enriched to the 3 to 5% range, not
to (nearly, I presume) weapons grade.
--
Cliff
Cliff
IIRC He was debating Kerry or similar.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>Be more specific, they are "all" ugly and old.... even the young ones
>look ugly and old under the painted faces.
>
>Their soul is full of hate.
Ann Coulter: "In October 2007, she began dating Andrew Stein, the former
president of the New York City Council, a liberal Democrat."
"At one public lecture she said: "I don't care about anything else: Christ
died for my sins and nothing else matters.""
"Coulter has stated that "I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted
conservative second, and don't you ever forget it.""
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:8ko1o5hbn3i34nhcn...@4ax.com:
>
>> At the time Kerry was clearly on Obama's mind.
>> Teresa Heinz ("57 Varieties") Kerry is an heir to Heinz.
>>
>
>That's you best shot, huh? Wow. I've got to show this one to the dog and see
>what he thinks.
>
>He thinks you should go back to licking your balls. He feels it would better
>display your innate intelligence.
>
>Don't blame me, that's what the dog said. And Pete the Pit Bull (aka Sluggo)
>is never wrong.
Never let facts get in the way.
Othersise you might get something right. Someday ....
--
Cliff
Beam Me Up Scotty
Facetious
Beam Me Up Scotty
Isn't it turned into plutonium by inserting it into a power plant and
controlling the reaction? The USA did it to make Bombs?
--
Patriot Games
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:33:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Patriot Games wrote:
>> >> Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
>> > It did at Ft. Greely, but it was decommisioned about 40 years ago.
>> Not exactly... That site was less (if at all) about providing
>> electricity and more (if not entirely) about enriching uranium.
> Where you there?
Nope.
>I lived across the street from it.
Sure you did.........
>It was a
>complete failure in any case. They kept losing the bearings on the
>turbine when someone on the Alaskan Power grid would drop one of their
>large generators online without warning. It was decommissioned after
>several years of trying to solve the problems. They went back to their
>Diesel powered generators full time.
Patriot Games
Do everyone a favor and STOP pretending you know anything, k?
Weapons-grade uranium IS u-235, dumbass.
"Highly enriched uranium is considered weapons-grade when it has been
enriched to about 90% U-235."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade
That experimental plant was not put there to provide electricity for
the Base's TVs and toasters, it was put there because it was the most
remote place in all of America and they were trying to super-enrich
uranium for weapons....
Duh...
Patriot Games
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:06:31 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>>>Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
>>> Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>>Shut down in 1972, ASSHOLE.
> YOU claimed "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
> I pointed out that they indeed had one.
Alaska has NEVER had a commercial nuclear power plant for generating
electricity.
>>>>Oil and gas production IS energy, ASSHOLE.
>>>>> And much of that goes into...
>>>>It DOES NOT matter what the electricity is used for, ASSHOLE.
>>> So just because...
>>It's always FUN to beat you down in public and urinate on you.
See above, Dunce.
Beam Me Up Scotty
--
RD (The Sandman)
news:re2ao5ddggeku9qgq...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:58:26 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Where does the Constitution grant the
>>> government power to regulate guns?
>>
>>It doesn't.
>
> Define "arms" *in the context of the day*.
We know what it means....what does it mean to you?
> Such rights to regulate small-arms was reserved to the
> States & local governments.
That power has been assumed by states as a police power but it is not
spelled out in the Constitution.
Cliff
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
You think she was trying to crack a funny, eh?
From which end?
--
Cliff
Cliff
You are thinking of a breeder reactor.
This thing started out with 93 percent uranium-235.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235
REAL enriched to begin with, perhaps about like a Navy reactor.
Note that Iran is probaby only trying to enrich to about the 3 to 5% range,
unless for medical or research uses.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:30:29 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:04:36 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:33:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>><mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>> Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
>>>> It did at Ft. Greely, but it was decommisioned about 40 years ago.
>>>Not exactly... That site was less (if at all) about providing
>>>electricity and more (if not entirely) about enriching uranium.
>> It produced 2 MW it looks like. Electrical power.
>> As "SM-1A operated at a uranium-235 enrichment of 93 percent"
>>I don't quite see how it would "enrich Uranium"as it was fueled with
>>very highly enriched Uranium to begin with.
>> IIRC Most power plants are enriched to the 3 to 5% range, not
>>to (nearly, I presume) weapons grade.
>
>Do everyone a favor and STOP pretending you know anything, k?
Like from years study in Physics or jobs at GE Nuclear Energy?
>Weapons-grade uranium IS u-235, dumbass.
Commercial nuclear power plants usually use fuels enriched to
the 3 to 5% range, with U-235 or Plutonium or both. At least for
the BWR designs.
"Weapons-grade" materials are much more highly enriched.
>"Highly enriched uranium is considered weapons-grade when it has been
>enriched to about 90% U-235."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade
"SM-1A operated at a uranium-235 enrichment of 93 percent"
It was not really a commercial nuclear power plant, more of
a high-density military plant.
>That experimental plant was not put there to provide electricity for
>the Base's TVs and toasters, it was put there because it was the most
>remote place in all of America and they were trying to super-enrich
>uranium for weapons....
Gee, so Hanford & Savannah don't exist, eh?
Remind me again of when the US made the first Nuclear & Hydrogen bombs.
>Duh...
Not a breeder reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
"The Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) was a program of the United States Army
to develop small pressurized water and boiling water nuclear power reactors to
generate electrical and space-heating energy primarily at remote, relatively
inaccessible sites. "
"The program began in 1954 and had effectively terminated by about 1977, with
the last class of NPP operators graduating in 1977."
Please demonstrate more winger foolishness & lies about things you clearly
know nothing at all about.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:20:25 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:06:31 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>>>>Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
>>>> Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>>>Shut down in 1972, ASSHOLE.
>> YOU claimed "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
>> I pointed out that they indeed had one.
>
>Alaska has NEVER had a commercial nuclear power plant for generating
>electricity.
You are now changing your claims, after being shown to be dead wrong
& ugly-ignorant.
IOW Trying to lie. As usual.
>>>>>Oil and gas production IS energy, ASSHOLE.
>>>>>> And much of that goes into...
>>>>>It DOES NOT matter what the electricity is used for, ASSHOLE.
>>>> So just because...
>>>It's always FUN to beat you down in public and urinate on you.
>
>See above, Dunce.
To recap:
"Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant" - idiot winger
"Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?- Cliff
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
Not yours.
--
Cliff
Patriot Games
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:18:23 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:30:29 -0500, Cliff
>><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:04:36 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:33:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>><mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>>> Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
>>>>> It did at Ft. Greely, but it was decommisioned about 40 years ago.
>>>>Not exactly... That site was less (if at all) about providing
>>>>electricity and more (if not entirely) about enriching uranium.
>>> It produced 2 MW it looks like. Electrical power.
>>> As "SM-1A operated at a uranium-235 enrichment of 93 percent"
>>>I don't quite see how it would "enrich Uranium"as it was fueled with
>>>very highly enriched Uranium to begin with.
>>> IIRC Most power plants are enriched to the 3 to 5% range, not
>>>to (nearly, I presume) weapons grade.
>>Do everyone a favor and STOP pretending you know anything, k?
> Like from years study in Physics or jobs at GE Nuclear Energy?
You had a science class in high school and maybe you were a janitor or
in food service with GE...
>>Weapons-grade uranium IS u-235, dumbass.
> Commercial nuclear power plants usually use fuels enriched to
>the 3 to 5% range, with U-235 or Plutonium or both. At least for
>the BWR designs.
> "Weapons-grade" materials are much more highly enriched.
You weren't paying attention.
Try again: "SM-1A operated at a uranium-235 enrichment of 93 percent"
NOT 3-5%.
93%
Get it, dummy?
The Ft. Greely reactor ALREADY WAS "weapons-grade".....
>>"Highly enriched uranium is considered weapons-grade when it has been
>>enriched to about 90% U-235."
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade
>>That experimental plant was not put there to provide electricity for
>>the Base's TVs and toasters, it was put there because it was the most
>>remote place in all of America and they were trying to super-enrich
>>uranium for weapons....
> Gee, so Hanford & Savannah don't exist, eh?
Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
> Remind me again of when the US made the first Nuclear & Hydrogen bombs.
Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
>>Duh...
> Not a breeder reactor.
Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
> "The Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) was a program of the United States Army
>to develop small pressurized water and boiling water nuclear power reactors to
>generate electrical and space-heating energy primarily at remote, relatively
>inaccessible sites. "
> "The program began in 1954 and had effectively terminated by about 1977, with
>the last class of NPP operators graduating in 1977."
> Please demonstrate more winger foolishness & lies about things you clearly
>know nothing at all about.
Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
Patriot Games
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:19:44 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:20:25 -0500, Cliff
>><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:06:31 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
>>>>> Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>>>>Shut down in 1972, ASSHOLE.
>>> YOU claimed "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
>>> I pointed out that they indeed had one.
>>Alaska has NEVER had a commercial nuclear power plant for generating
>>electricity.
> You are now changing your claims
Hahahahhaha!!
YOU SAID "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?"
Wrong.
The topic was Palin and Energy and Alaska, NOT ANYTHING ELSE.
There is NO "older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA."
It was DECOMMISSIONED FORTY YEARS AGO.
>>>>>>Oil and gas production IS energy, ASSHOLE.
>>>>>>> And much of that goes into...
>>>>>>It DOES NOT matter what the electricity is used for, ASSHOLE.
>>>>> So just because...
>>>>It's always FUN to beat you down in public and urinate on you.
>>See above, Dunce.
> To recap:
> "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant" - idiot winger
> "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?- Cliff
Learn to like you lies.
They will never go away.
Cliff
"Physics".
>
>Try again: "SM-1A operated at a uranium-235 enrichment of 93 percent"
>
>NOT 3-5%.
>
>93%
>
>Get it, dummy?
I pointed things out.
What part of "military reactor" seemed unclear?
Small with high power density but probably short refueling
cycles.
"Burns" the small quantity of fuel fairly fast at high power outputs.
>
>The Ft. Greely reactor ALREADY WAS "weapons-grade".....
So it was 95% + was it?
>>>"Highly enriched uranium is considered weapons-grade when it has been
>>>enriched to about 90% U-235."
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade
>>>That experimental plant was not put there to provide electricity for
>>>the Base's TVs and toasters, it was put there because it was the most
>>>remote place in all of America and they were trying to super-enrich
>>>uranium for weapons....
>> Gee, so Hanford & Savannah don't exist, eh?
>
>Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
IOW You were caught wrong & lying again.
>
>> Remind me again of when the US made the first Nuclear & Hydrogen bombs.
>
>Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
IOW You were caught wrong & lying again.
>>>Duh...
>> Not a breeder reactor.
>
>Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
IOW You were caught wrong & lying again.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
>> "The Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) was a program of the United States Army
>>to develop small pressurized water and boiling water nuclear power reactors to
>>generate electrical and space-heating energy primarily at remote, relatively
>>inaccessible sites. "
>> "The program began in 1954 and had effectively terminated by about 1977, with
>>the last class of NPP operators graduating in 1977."
>> Please demonstrate more winger foolishness & lies about things you clearly
>>know nothing at all about.
>
>Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
IOW You were caught wrong & lying again.
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:05:15 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:19:44 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:20:25 -0500, Cliff
>>><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:06:31 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
>>>>>> Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>>>>>Shut down in 1972, ASSHOLE.
>>>> YOU claimed "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
>>>> I pointed out that they indeed had one.
>>>Alaska has NEVER had a commercial nuclear power plant for generating
>>>electricity.
>> You are now changing your claims
>
>Hahahahhaha!!
>
>YOU SAID "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?"
Indeed.
>Wrong.
Have you told Alaska & the US Military that a whole reactor vanished
as if it never was?
>The topic was Palin and Energy and Alaska, NOT ANYTHING ELSE.
And you lied about all of it in true winger fashion, just as Palin did.
>There is NO "older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA."
>
>It was DECOMMISSIONED FORTY YEARS AGO.
So it did exist after all, eh?
Make up what little mind you stole.
<Pat...@america.com> wrote: "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
Cliff wrote "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?"
IOW They indeed did have one so your "(yet)" is a lie (for all
that you posted).
>>>>>>>Oil and gas production IS energy, ASSHOLE.
>>>>>>>> And much of that goes into...
>>>>>>>It DOES NOT matter what the electricity is used for, ASSHOLE.
>>>>>> So just because...
>>>>>It's always FUN to beat you down in public and urinate on you.
>>>See above, Dunce.
>> To recap:
>> "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant" - idiot winger
>> "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?- Cliff
>
>Learn to like you lies.
>
>They will never go away.
"Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant" - idiot winger
"Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?- Cliff
HTH
--
Cliff
Patriot Games
Which you know nothing about...
>>Try again: "SM-1A operated at a uranium-235 enrichment of 93 percent"
>>NOT 3-5%.
>>93%
>>Get it, dummy?
>>The Ft. Greely reactor ALREADY WAS "weapons-grade".....
> So it was 95% + was it?
See below, DUMBASS.
>>>>"Highly enriched uranium is considered weapons-grade when it has been
>>>>enriched to about 90% U-235."
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade
See above, DUMBASS.
>>>>That experimental plant was not put there to provide electricity for
>>>>the Base's TVs and toasters, it was put there because it was the most
>>>>remote place in all of America and they were trying to super-enrich
>>>>uranium for weapons....
>>> Gee, so Hanford & Savannah don't exist, eh?
>>Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
> IOW You were caught wrong & lying again.
You're digging your hole deeper, DUMBASS.
Take your spanking like an adult.
>>> Remind me again of when the US made the first Nuclear & Hydrogen bombs.
>>Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
> IOW You were caught wrong & lying again.
You're digging your hole deeper, DUMBASS.
Take your spanking like an adult.
>>>>Duh...
>>> Not a breeder reactor.
>>Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
> IOW You were caught wrong & lying again.
You're digging your hole deeper, DUMBASS.
Take your spanking like an adult.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
>>> "The Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) was a program of the United States Army
>>>to develop small pressurized water and boiling water nuclear power reactors to
>>>generate electrical and space-heating energy primarily at remote, relatively
>>>inaccessible sites. "
>>> "The program began in 1954 and had effectively terminated by about 1977, with
>>>the last class of NPP operators graduating in 1977."
>>> Please demonstrate more winger foolishness & lies about things you clearly
>>>know nothing at all about.
>>Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
> IOW You were caught wrong & lying again.
You're digging your hole deeper, DUMBASS.
Take your spanking like an adult.
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:re2ao5ddggeku9qgq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:58:26 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Where does the Constitution grant the
>>>> government power to regulate guns?
>>>
>>>It doesn't.
>>
>> Define "arms" *in the context of the day*.
>
>We know what it means....what does it mean to you?
You get your own little pocket Nukes, right?
>
>> Such rights to regulate small-arms was reserved to the
>> States & local governments.
>
>That power has been assumed by states as a police power but it is not
>spelled out in the Constitution.
It has no need to be nor need it be a "police power".
[
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people.
]
HTH
--
Cliff
Patriot Games
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:41:49 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:05:15 -0500, Cliff
>><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:19:44 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:20:25 -0500, Cliff
>>>><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:06:31 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet).
>>>>>>> Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>>>>>>Shut down in 1972, ASSHOLE.
>>>>> YOU claimed "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
>>>>> I pointed out that they indeed had one.
>>>>Alaska has NEVER had a commercial nuclear power plant for generating
>>>>electricity.
>>> You are now changing your claims
>>Hahahahhaha!!
>>YOU SAID "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?"
> Indeed.
>>Wrong.
> Have you told Alaska & the US Military that a whole reactor vanished
>as if it never was?
Learn to like your lies.
They will never go away.
>>The topic was Palin and Energy and Alaska, NOT ANYTHING ELSE.
>>There is NO "older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA."
>>It was DECOMMISSIONED FORTY YEARS AGO.
> So it did exist after all, eh?
No, Alaska NEVER had a commercial nuclear plant.
YOU said they did. YOU LIED.
Learn to like your lies.
They will never go away.
> <Pat...@america.com> wrote: "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
> Cliff wrote "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?"
> IOW They indeed did have one so your "(yet)" is a lie (for all
>that you posted).
No, Alaska NEVER had a nuclear plant. A FEDERAL military base HAD one
which DID NOT belong to Alaska..
YOU said they did. YOU LIED.
Learn to like your lies.
They will never go away.
>>>>>>>>Oil and gas production IS energy, ASSHOLE.
>>>>>>>>> And much of that goes into...
>>>>>>>>It DOES NOT matter what the electricity is used for, ASSHOLE.
>>>>>>> So just because...
>>>>>>It's always FUN to beat you down in public and urinate on you.
>>>>See above, Dunce.
>>> To recap:
>>> "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant" - idiot winger
>>> "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?- Cliff
>>Learn to like you lies.
>>They will never go away.
> "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant" - idiot winger
> "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?- Cliff
There is no "older one" at Ft. Greely.
It was decommissioned DECADES ago.
Learn to like your lies.
Cliff
Braindead ignorant winger posted "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
I said "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?"
>
>Learn to like your lies.
Braindead ignorant winger posted "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
I said "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?"
>They will never go away.
Braindead ignorant winger posted "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
I said "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?"
>> <Pat...@america.com> wrote: "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
>> Cliff wrote "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?"
>> IOW They indeed did have one so your "(yet)" is a lie (for all
>>that you posted).
>
>No, Alaska NEVER had a nuclear plant.
Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>A FEDERAL military base HAD one
>which DID NOT belong to Alaska..
Fort Greely moved out of Alaska when, exactly?
Does Pennsylvania own Three Mile Island?
Name one State that owns nuclear power plants.
>YOU said they did.
Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>YOU LIED.
You been smoking or snorting or shooting up good stuff again?
>Learn to like your lies.
Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>They will never go away.
Braindead ignorant winger posted "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
>>>>>>>>>Oil and gas production IS energy, ASSHOLE.
>>>>>>>>>> And much of that goes into...
>>>>>>>>>It DOES NOT matter what the electricity is used for, ASSHOLE.
>>>>>>>> So just because...
>>>>>>>It's always FUN to beat you down in public and urinate on you.
>>>>>See above, Dunce.
>>>> To recap:
>>>> "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant" - idiot winger
>>>> "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?- Cliff
>>>Learn to like you lies.
>>>They will never go away.
>> "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant" - idiot winger
>> "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?- Cliff
>
>There is no "older one" at Ft. Greely.
Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>It was decommissioned DECADES ago.
Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>Learn to like your lies.
Braindead ignorant winger posted "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
>They will never go away.
Braindead ignorant winger posted "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
HTH
--
Cliff
Beam Me Up Scotty
Their population center "Anchorage" is earth quake central. I was
there in the Good Friday quake in 1964. You would need to build the
nuclear plant away from the people in eastern Alaska and then run the
power lines across wilderness.... besides the EPA DNR and National
Parks Department would stop them from building and endangering the wildlife.
--
RD (The Sandman)
news:gdufo59iccd35im8d...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:49:27 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>news:re2ao5ddggeku9qgq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:58:26 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Where does the Constitution grant the
>>>>> government power to regulate guns?
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't.
>>>
>>> Define "arms" *in the context of the day*.
>>
>>We know what it means....what does it mean to you?
>
> You get your own little pocket Nukes, right?
Nope, too hard to care for and feed. Why do you folks always end up
falling back on the nuke canard?
>>> Such rights to regulate small-arms was reserved to the
>>> States & local governments.
>>
>>That power has been assumed by states as a police power but it is not
>>spelled out in the Constitution.
>
> It has no need to be nor need it be a "police power".
>
> [
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
> respectively, or to the people.
>]
Yep, as I said, it was assumed by the states as a police power, but it is
not spelled out in the Constitution.
--
RBnDFW
The Constitution does not grant out any rights.
It merely recognizes God-given rights of all humans, and expressly
limits the right of government to deny or infringe those rights.
At issue now is whether state and local government also has to live
within those limits. That should be decided this year.
Jeff R.
"RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hm9gso$9l9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The Constitution does not grant out any rights.
> It merely recognizes God-given rights of all humans, and expressly limits
> the right of government to deny or infringe those rights.
Ummmm...
What happens if you have no belief in the particular brand of superstition
that creates your "God"?
Who, then, grants these rights?
--
Jeff R.
Patriot Games
There isn't an "older one" at Ft. Greely. It was decommissioned
DECADES ago.
Learn to like your lies.
They will never go away.
>>> <Pat...@america.com> wrote: "Alaska DOES NOT have a nuclear plant (yet)."
>>> Cliff wrote "Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?"
>>> IOW They indeed did have one so your "(yet)" is a lie (for all
>>>that you posted).
>>No, Alaska NEVER had a nuclear plant.
> Like the older one at Fort Greely, ALASKA?
>>A FEDERAL military base HAD one
>>which DID NOT belong to Alaska..
> Fort Greely moved out of Alaska when, exactly?
Ft. Greely does not, NEVER DID, belong to Alaska. It is FEDERAL
property.
Learn to like your lies.
They will never go away.
> Does Pennsylvania own Three Mile Island?
TMI is NOT a military installation.
Learn to like your lies.
They will never go away.
> Name one State that owns nuclear power plants.
Oops! Your attempt to change the subject has FAILED.
RD (The Sandman)
news:hm9gso$9l9$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
True, but the discussion was on powers....or specifically, where did the
states get their power to regulate firearms.
> It merely recognizes God-given rights of all humans, and expressly
> limits the right of government to deny or infringe those rights.
> At issue now is whether state and local government also has to live
> within those limits. That should be decided this year.
Correct. I expect it will be in June when we get the final decision and
it will be 5-4.
RD (The Sandman)
news:4b8847be$0$19545$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
I do. Just send me an Email. ;)
Scout
Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean he doesn't believe in
you. :-)
> Who, then, grants these rights?
Who says they have to be granted. Inherent in the human condition. You can
feel they were imposed by God, Nature, or simply because people will die to
have them, but it really doesn't matter.
SaPeIsMa
"Jeff R." <con...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:4b8847be$0$19545$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
If you don't believe in God, then you can simply state that it's an inate
right that comes with life
End result is the same even though the formulation is world's apart.
But hey, if you morons want to waste time splitting hairs, that's your
problem, not ours.
Seon Ferguson
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:Y5-dnad-U6DpCxXW...@bright.net...
>
> "Jeff R." <con...@this.ng> wrote in message
> news:4b8847be$0$19545$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hm9gso$9l9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> The Constitution does not grant out any rights.
>>> It merely recognizes God-given rights of all humans, and expressly
>>> limits the right of government to deny or infringe those rights.
>>
Rights have to be fought for by the people. They are not given to us by some
supernatural deity. Throughout history humans have had to fight for their
rights and we still are...
Scout
Where exactly do you get the right to fight for your rights?
Seon Ferguson
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:mz2in.57579$G_2....@newsfe15.iad...
Not God, that's for sure. And we don't have a "right" to fight for our
rights. But when the people do decide to rise up and fight for their rights,
right or no right, they get results. I guess in the end it's the people who
have the power and when the majority realises that great things can be
accomplished.
Jeff R.
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:Y5-dnad-U6DpCxXW...@bright.net...
> If you don't believe in God, then you can simply state that it's an inate
> right that comes with life
Don't be silly.
There are no "innate" rights.
You and I have no rights whatsoever - other than those granted by the
society in which we live.
> End result is the same even though the formulation is world's apart.
Rubbish.
Compare USA and N.Korea.
Same end result?
(or is God different there?)
> But hey, if you morons want to waste time splitting hairs, that's your
> problem, not ours.
Yeah - the ultimate question of creation, eternity and existence itself.
"Splitting hairs."
Ha!
--
Jeff R.
Scout
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:mz2in.57579$G_2....@newsfe15.iad...
>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Y5-dnad-U6DpCxXW...@bright.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Jeff R." <con...@this.ng> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b8847be$0$19545$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hm9gso$9l9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Constitution does not grant out any rights.
>>>>>> It merely recognizes God-given rights of all humans, and
>>>>>> expressly limits the right of government to deny or infringe
>>>>>> those rights.
>>>>>
>>> Rights have to be fought for by the people. They are not given to us
>>> by some supernatural deity. Throughout history humans have had to
>>> fight for their rights and we still are...
>>
>> Where exactly do you get the right to fight for your rights?
>>
>>
>>
> Not God, that's for sure.
Really? Care to prove that?
:-)
>And we don't have a "right" to fight for our
> rights.
Ah, so when you said people had to fight for their rights, then you're
really telling us that they didn't have a right to do so. So how were they
able to fight?
>But when the people do decide to rise up and fight for their
> rights, right or no right, they get results.
IOW, it's a right. Otherwise they couldn't do so contrary to the law.
> I guess in the end it's
> the people who have the power and when the majority realises that
> great things can be accomplished.
Yep, and by what right do the people have the power?
Scout
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
> news:Y5-dnad-U6DpCxXW...@bright.net...
>
>> If you don't believe in God, then you can simply state that it's an
>> inate right that comes with life
>
> Don't be silly.
> There are no "innate" rights.
> You and I have no rights whatsoever - other than those granted by the
> society in which we live.
I see, and if a society were to deem that you had no rights, and indeed
wanted to put you to death....then that's ok because no one has any rights
other than those granted by the society that now wants you dead?
RD (The Sandman)
news:nKYhn.36618$K81...@newsfe18.iad:
Well said.....
Seon Ferguson
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Ztbin.21920$Dv7....@newsfe17.iad...
> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:mz2in.57579$G_2....@newsfe15.iad...
>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Y5-dnad-U6DpCxXW...@bright.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jeff R." <con...@this.ng> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b8847be$0$19545$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hm9gso$9l9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Constitution does not grant out any rights.
>>>>>>> It merely recognizes God-given rights of all humans, and
>>>>>>> expressly limits the right of government to deny or infringe
>>>>>>> those rights.
>>>>>>
>>>> Rights have to be fought for by the people. They are not given to us
>>>> by some supernatural deity. Throughout history humans have had to
>>>> fight for their rights and we still are...
>>>
>>> Where exactly do you get the right to fight for your rights?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Not God, that's for sure.
>
> Really? Care to prove that?
>
> :-)
>
Lol no and I can't disprove it.
>>And we don't have a "right" to fight for our
>> rights.
>
> Ah, so when you said people had to fight for their rights, then you're
> really telling us that they didn't have a right to do so. So how were they
> able to fight?
>
>
When the majority of the people decide something is wrong they can effect
change, right or no right.
> >But when the people do decide to rise up and fight for their
>> rights, right or no right, they get results.
>
> IOW, it's a right. Otherwise they couldn't do so contrary to the law.
>
What if they lived in a dictatorship? And all of a sudden 90% of the
population tried to overthrow the dictator? It's not like the dictator could
kill 90% of his population. And I doubt it was "country to the law" at the
time for your founding fathers to start the American revolution.
>> I guess in the end it's
>> the people who have the power and when the majority realises that
>> great things can be accomplished.
>
> Yep, and by what right do the people have the power?
>
>
I don't know *shrugs* the people?
Jeff R.
Yes.
Exactly.
Now you've got it.
That is precisely how it is, and how it has always been.
For evidence, witness the stonings of adulterers and apostates in some
(allied to us!) middle eastern states.
Fortunately, the culture developed by my ancestors is a great deal more
civilised.
--
Jeff R.
Scout
Ok, so we really don't know it's not God for sure.
Anyway, moving on.
>>> And we don't have a "right" to fight for our
>>> rights.
>>
>> Ah, so when you said people had to fight for their rights, then
>> you're really telling us that they didn't have a right to do so. So
>> how were they able to fight?
>>
>>
> When the majority of the people decide something is wrong they can
> effect change, right or no right.
Sorry, but to effect change requires that they have the right to effect that
change. All you're doing is pushing the right that exists further back. For
if the people don't have this right, then they aren't justified in their
actions no matter how many agree with it. So where do rights start if you
feel they aren't inherent?
>>> But when the people do decide to rise up and fight for their
>>> rights, right or no right, they get results.
>>
>> IOW, it's a right. Otherwise they couldn't do so contrary to the law.
>>
> What if they lived in a dictatorship?
What about it?
Are you suggesting their rights change because of their government?
> And all of a sudden 90% of the
> population tried to overthrow the dictator?
They have a right to do that?
Where did that right come from?
> It's not like the
> dictator could kill 90% of his population.
I wouldn't put it past certain ones.
However, we aren't talking about what the dictator would do, but the origin
of rights.
> And I doubt it was
> "country to the law" at the time for your founding fathers to start
> the American revolution.
Perhaps, but they didn't believe that rights weren't something other than
inherent.
>>> I guess in the end it's
>>> the people who have the power and when the majority realises that
>>> great things can be accomplished.
>>
>> Yep, and by what right do the people have the power?
>>
>>
> I don't know *shrugs* the people?
So basically your argument is circular?
After all that simply pushes it back one more step. Who gave the people the
right to give the people the right to have that power?
At some point you're going to need to tell us the origin of this right.
Scout
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:nvbin.7947$mn6....@newsfe07.iad...
>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Y5-dnad-U6DpCxXW...@bright.net...
>>>
>>>> If you don't believe in God, then you can simply state that it's an
>>>> inate right that comes with life
>>>
>>> Don't be silly.
>>> There are no "innate" rights.
>>> You and I have no rights whatsoever - other than those granted by
>>> the society in which we live.
>>
>> I see, and if a society were to deem that you had no rights, and
>> indeed wanted to put you to death....then that's ok because no one
>> has any rights other than those granted by the society that now
>> wants you dead?
>
> Yes.
> Exactly.
> Now you've got it.
So I take it you approve of the holocaust and see absolutely no issues with
the widespread killing of Jews which according to their society had no
rights?
> That is precisely how it is, and how it has always been.
So why is it that so many people object to what you consider a perfectly
reasonable exercise of genecide?
> For evidence, witness the stonings of adulterers and apostates in some
> (allied to us!) middle eastern states.
> Fortunately, the culture developed by my ancestors is a great deal
> more civilised.
Somehow I doubt your ancestors were more civilized, but I'm willing to look
if you're willing to tell me who you think your ancestors were.
Particularly if they had the same attitude about rights as you do.
Jeff R.
> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>> Don't be silly.
>>>> There are no "innate" rights.
>>>> You and I have no rights whatsoever - other than those granted by
>>>> the society in which we live.
>>>
>>> I see, and if a society were to deem that you had no rights, and
>>> indeed wanted to put you to death....then that's ok because no one
>>> has any rights other than those granted by the society that now
>>> wants you dead?
>>
>> Yes.
>> Exactly.
>> Now you've got it.
>
> So I take it you approve of the holocaust and see absolutely no issues
> with the widespread killing of Jews which according to their society had
> no rights?
What?
Where on earth did you get that idea? Can you cite where I even *suggested*
that?
Understanding <> approval.
I don't *approve* of the hot and humid weather that we experience in summer,
but that doesn't have the slightest effect whatsoever on the *reality* of
that weather.
I acknowledge the fact that we have no inherent, innate rights.
My approval is neither stated nor relevant.
>> That is precisely how it is, and how it has always been.
>
> So why is it that so many people object to what you consider a perfectly
> reasonable exercise of genecide?
See above.
Try not to confuse "understanding" with "approval".
>> For evidence, witness the stonings of adulterers and apostates in some
>> (allied to us!) middle eastern states.
>> Fortunately, the culture developed by my ancestors is a great deal
>> more civilised.
>
> Somehow I doubt your ancestors were more civilized, but I'm willing to
> look if you're willing to tell me who you think your ancestors were.
Sigghhhh.
For "ancestors" read: "All the men and woman who were instrumental in the
development of the culture and civilisation that I live in."
(Irrelevent note: My *biological* ancestors have played a very minor, yet
useful, role in that development. Modesty forbids elaboration - which is
irrelevant anyway.)
> Particularly if they had the same attitude about rights as you do.
You rights are granted to you by your culture.
All men are not created equal - they are granted some form of equality by
the local constitution.
No-one has inalienable rights. Not when a short trip by 'plane can
completely obliterate them.
Humans don't have an innate right to life, liberty nor the pursuit if
happiness. The constitution makes some effort to provide those rights,
however.
I'm grateful that our society grants such rights to all - but at least I
realise where they came from.
--
Jeff R.
Seon Ferguson
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0Dgin.51443$qJ.2...@newsfe10.iad...
And we just saved ourselves a one week debate.
>>>> And we don't have a "right" to fight for our
>>>> rights.
>>>
>>> Ah, so when you said people had to fight for their rights, then
>>> you're really telling us that they didn't have a right to do so. So
>>> how were they able to fight?
>>>
>>>
>> When the majority of the people decide something is wrong they can
>> effect change, right or no right.
>
> Sorry, but to effect change requires that they have the right to effect
> that change. All you're doing is pushing the right that exists further
> back. For if the people don't have this right, then they aren't justified
> in their actions no matter how many agree with it. So where do rights
> start if you feel they aren't inherent?
>
I'm not sure, any ideas?
>
>>>> But when the people do decide to rise up and fight for their
>>>> rights, right or no right, they get results.
>>>
>>> IOW, it's a right. Otherwise they couldn't do so contrary to the law.
>>>
>> What if they lived in a dictatorship?
>
> What about it?
>
> Are you suggesting their rights change because of their government?
>
I guess I am. EXCEPT even if someone had no rights to rise up against their
government if enough people joined the revolution then they would allow
change. Plus governments don't have power, they have authority given to them
by we the people.
>
>> And all of a sudden 90% of the
>> population tried to overthrow the dictator?
>
> They have a right to do that?
>
> Where did that right come from?
>
>
>> It's not like the
>> dictator could kill 90% of his population.
>
> I wouldn't put it past certain ones.
>
> However, we aren't talking about what the dictator would do, but the
> origin of rights.
>
Well I know they aren't from God so where do they come from? As I said even
if the people don't have any rights they can still overthrow an oppressive
government. I guess I believe in the rights of the people.
>
>> And I doubt it was
>> "country to the law" at the time for your founding fathers to start
>> the American revolution.
>
> Perhaps, but they didn't believe that rights weren't something other than
> inherent.
>
>
Yeah most of them were deists of some sort who believed everyone had
inherent rights. But if they don't come from God where do they come from and
how do we determine what a right is?
>>>> I guess in the end it's
>>>> the people who have the power and when the majority realises that
>>>> great things can be accomplished.
>>>
>>> Yep, and by what right do the people have the power?
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know *shrugs* the people?
>
> So basically your argument is circular?
>
> After all that simply pushes it back one more step. Who gave the people
> the right to give the people the right to have that power?
>
> At some point you're going to need to tell us the origin of this right.
>
>
And I can't but you do have rights now.
Scout
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:iFgin.1983$NH1....@newsfe14.iad...
>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>>> Don't be silly.
>>>>> There are no "innate" rights.
>>>>> You and I have no rights whatsoever - other than those granted by
>>>>> the society in which we live.
>>>>
>>>> I see, and if a society were to deem that you had no rights, and
>>>> indeed wanted to put you to death....then that's ok because no one
>>>> has any rights other than those granted by the society that now
>>>> wants you dead?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>> Exactly.
>>> Now you've got it.
>>
>> So I take it you approve of the holocaust and see absolutely no
>> issues with the widespread killing of Jews which according to their
>> society had no rights?
>
> What?
> Where on earth did you get that idea? Can you cite where I even
> *suggested* that?
Look above. You know the comment I made that you stated you agreed with
totally.
That's where I get that idea, because thats were you suggested total
approval of such an action.
>
> Understanding <> approval.
I asked if it was ok, and you said "Yes".
So you were asked if you approved and you acknowledged that you did.
> I don't *approve* of the hot and humid weather that we experience in
> summer, but that doesn't have the slightest effect whatsoever on the
> *reality* of that weather.
So if I ask you if you are ok with the hot and humid weather and you answer
"Yes. Exactly.", I'm suppose to take that as something other than approval?
Interesting.
Are you that person that always reverses the meaning of what he says?
> I acknowledge the fact that we have no inherent, innate rights.
> My approval is neither stated nor relevant.
Take that up with the answer you gave. I will simply note that with the
ideal of no inherent, innate rights, then your approval is automatic since
you have no basis for disapproval. I suppose we could consider apathy but
that's simply approval by silence.
>>> That is precisely how it is, and how it has always been.
>>
>> So why is it that so many people object to what you consider a
>> perfectly reasonable exercise of genecide?
>
> See above.
> Try not to confuse "understanding" with "approval".
I will try not to confuse "Yes. Exactly" as a statement of approval when you
are asked if you are ok with such a measure.
Any other words I should reverse the meaning of to understand your meaning,
or are you going to spring them on me as we go?
Scout
Well, they could be inherent, but you seem to find that answer
objectionable. If that isn't the answer, then you need to come up with where
they get this right. Saying you don't know isn't valid since that brings us
right back to the condition you claim is untrue.
>>>>> But when the people do decide to rise up and fight for their
>>>>> rights, right or no right, they get results.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, it's a right. Otherwise they couldn't do so contrary to the
>>>> law.
>>> What if they lived in a dictatorship?
>>
>> What about it?
>>
>> Are you suggesting their rights change because of their government?
>>
> I guess I am. EXCEPT even if someone had no rights to rise up against
> their government if enough people joined the revolution then they
> would allow change.
Ah, so they don't have the right, except that they do.
That's certainly......contradictory....
> Plus governments don't have power, they have
> authority given to them by we the people.
Well, I'm glad to see that government has NO power to enforce it's
authority. No police forces, no military, everyone obeys the law simply
because they want to, and if they don't well, the government has no power to
do anything about it.
I think that with authority must come the power to exercise and enforce that
authority or it's just a hollow shell.
>>> And all of a sudden 90% of the
>>> population tried to overthrow the dictator?
>>
>> They have a right to do that?
>>
>> Where did that right come from?
>>
>>
>>> It's not like the
>>> dictator could kill 90% of his population.
>>
>> I wouldn't put it past certain ones.
>>
>> However, we aren't talking about what the dictator would do, but the
>> origin of rights.
>>
> Well I know they aren't from God so where do they come from?
Really? Proof?
I mean you say you know they aren't. So clearly you can prove that.
I have to wonder if you really have any clue, because first you sugget you
don't know where they come from, but then you tell me that they don't come
from a particular source. So tell me is your argument based on facts and
logic or simply a personal refusal to believe a particular possibility?
> As I
> said even if the people don't have any rights they can still
> overthrow an oppressive government. I guess I believe in the rights
> of the people.
And since you claim such rights are inherent, we are back to the point of
asking you where such a right comes from.
Seon Ferguson
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:JDoin.144548$OX4.1...@newsfe25.iad...
Well in a dictatorship they wouldn't have the right but they still can. So I
guess people everywhere do have that right. But suggesting it is a right is
suggesting it can be taken away.
>> Plus governments don't have power, they have
>> authority given to them by we the people.
>
> Well, I'm glad to see that government has NO power to enforce it's
> authority. No police forces, no military, everyone obeys the law simply
> because they want to, and if they don't well, the government has no power
> to do anything about it.
>
> I think that with authority must come the power to exercise and enforce
> that authority or it's just a hollow shell.
>
>
>
Yes but that power was given to them by we the people.
>
>>>> And all of a sudden 90% of the
>>>> population tried to overthrow the dictator?
>>>
>>> They have a right to do that?
>>>
>>> Where did that right come from?
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's not like the
>>>> dictator could kill 90% of his population.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't put it past certain ones.
>>>
>>> However, we aren't talking about what the dictator would do, but the
>>> origin of rights.
>>>
>> Well I know they aren't from God so where do they come from?
>
> Really? Proof?
>
Where is the proof that God gave us these rights? The burden of proof lies
on those who say that God gave us these rights.
> I mean you say you know they aren't. So clearly you can prove that.
>
> I have to wonder if you really have any clue, because first you sugget you
> don't know where they come from, but then you tell me that they don't come
> from a particular source. So tell me is your argument based on facts and
> logic or simply a personal refusal to believe a particular possibility?
>
I don't have a clue where these rights came from.
>
>> As I
>> said even if the people don't have any rights they can still
>> overthrow an oppressive government. I guess I believe in the rights
>> of the people.
>
> And since you claim such rights are inherent, we are back to the point of
> asking you where such a right comes from.
>
>
>
And I am back at the point of admitting I don't know. There is a lot of
things I don't know.
Jeff R.
No - you misunderstand.
I did not indicate that I "approved of" any such thing.
You asked if I agreed that a society could exist in which I had no right to
live.
I agreed - as indeed it can - though I expressed *no* opinion as to my
approval or otherwise of such a society (actually I did; I implied
disapproval, but that is immaterial.)
*You* made the leap from:
(a) society makes the rules (true)
to
(b) I personally approve of those rules regardless (never stated, but
obviously untrue)
*I* did not.
Fact is, the victims of the holocaust had their "inalienable" rights taken
away from by the Nazis.
(So much for "inalienable.")
You see, the rights they had were granted by the society in which they
lived, and were just as easily stripped from them by the same society.
>>
>> Understanding <> approval.
>
> I asked if it was ok, and you said "Yes".
No - when you asked if it was "OK", my reply ("yes!") simply affirmed that
it was in accordance with the rights granted to the people by the government
of the day.
I didn't make any moral judgments about whether it was right or wrong - just
consistent with the authority, which it was.
Of course it was evil.
>
> So you were asked if you approved and you acknowledged that you did.
>
>
>
>> I don't *approve* of the hot and humid weather that we experience in
>> summer, but that doesn't have the slightest effect whatsoever on the
>> *reality* of that weather.
>
> So if I ask you if you are ok with the hot and humid weather and you
> answer "Yes. Exactly.", I'm suppose to take that as something other than
> approval?
>
> Interesting.
If you ask me: "Are you OK with the existence of the hot weather" I answer
"Yes, of course it exists. I hate it, but it happens." Do you see the
difference. I acknowledge fully the process, without approving of it or
enjoying it. Not much point denying it.
> Are you that person that always reverses the meaning of what he says?
No.
I have been utterly consistent.
You have made leaps of logic where they don't exist.
>
>
>> I acknowledge the fact that we have no inherent, innate rights.
>> My approval is neither stated nor relevant.
>
> Take that up with the answer you gave. I will simply note that with the
> ideal of no inherent, innate rights, then your approval is automatic since
> you have no basis for disapproval. I suppose we could consider apathy but
> that's simply approval by silence.
Why?
There are many things I detest, and many things I love - none of which I
have mentioned here. Does that imply apathy?
I acknowledge that rights are granted to us by our society. They are
neither inherent nor innate.
I don't necessarily agree with the specific application(s) of these rights,
but that is not at issue.
It is you alone who have made that assumption on my part.
>
>>>> That is precisely how it is, and how it has always been.
>>>
>>> So why is it that so many people object to what you consider a
>>> perfectly reasonable exercise of genecide?
I never said anything of the sort. See above.
>>
>> See above.
>> Try not to confuse "understanding" with "approval".
>
> I will try not to confuse "Yes. Exactly" as a statement of approval when
> you are asked if you are ok with such a measure.
Sigghh.
It was a statement of understanding and acknowledgement of the process
(rights come from society), not an endorsement of the consequences
(minorities get gassed). Am I getting through?
>
> Any other words I should reverse the meaning of to understand your
> meaning, or are you going to spring them on me as we go?
Silly comment. Reread above.
--
Jeff R.
Scout
Well, under YOUR theory of what a right is, you certainly could. Indeed
under your theory of rights anything and everything could be taken away.
However, I fail to see how calling it a right makes it something that can be
taken away. Since you seem to find the term 'right' objectionable, exactly
what term do you suggest we use?
Scout
I specifically asked if you approved, and you indicated you did.
> You asked if I agreed that a society could exist in which I had no
> right to live.
No, I asked you if you were ok with such a society.
Now, you can either go back and acknowledge your answer was misleading and
incorrect and adjust it, or we can simply end this discussion due to your
lack of reading comprehension and a refusal to admit you made a mistake.
Your choice.
<snip>