Re: And all the gun controllers kept denying there is a "slippery slope" effect in gun control....

[George Plimpton]

On 10/2/2013 6:42 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:

> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:bp3o49de3vg9mo0ug...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 02:50:46 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA24CA5372...@216.196.121.131:
>>>
>>>> Baxter <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in news:l2euhm$iqp$1
>>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:arnl49p6avl2nqhbp...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Face it. You're full of shit when you whine about not being able
>>>>>> to get a bike for less than $500.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're full of shit when you claim that's what I said.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is pretty damn close to what you claimed. You need to keep
>>>> better track of your puffery.
>>>>
>>> Do I have to tell you too? It is NOT what I said - nor even close.
>>
>> Yeah, it is.
>>
> So Klaus = Sandman.

You fucking idiot. You are stupid beyond description.



> --------------------------------------------------------
> Free Malware - Bugster Virusworks www.buggycode.com
> --------------------------------------------------------

[George Plimpton]

On 10/2/2013 9:01 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Baxter <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in

> news:l2g1dl$vbt$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

>
>> RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in

>> news:XnsA24CA3E18...@216.196.121.131:
>>
>>> Baxter <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in news:l2elr0$nqb$2
>>> @speranza.aioe.org:4500
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, bikes that fall apart, bikes that don't fit your body, etc.
>>>
>>> I thought we were discussing bikes that one could put a basket on and
>>> bring food home from the store, not one where you try to win the Tour
>>> de France.
>>>
>> I was talking reliable transportation - not toys.
>
> No, you weren't. One can find a relible bike for much less than $500.
> Well, maybe you couldn't.

Bugster is 72 years old. That's not that old, but he's certainly not
doing enough bike riding to where he could tell the difference between
bikes costing $500 and $5000.

[George Plimpton]

On 10/2/2013 9:12 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Baxter <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in news:l2h7sq$25d$2

> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in

>> news:bp3o49de3vg9mo0ug...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 02:50:46 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in

>>>> news:XnsA24CA5372...@216.196.121.131:
>>>>
>>>>> Baxter <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in news:l2euhm$iqp$1
>>>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:arnl49p6avl2nqhbp...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Face it. You're full of shit when you whine about not being able
>>>>>>> to get a bike for less than $500.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're full of shit when you claim that's what I said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is pretty damn close to what you claimed. You need to keep
>>>>> better track of your puffery.
>>>>>
>>>> Do I have to tell you too? It is NOT what I said - nor even close.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it is.
>>>
>> So Klaus = Sandman.
>

> Nope...Baxter = Fibber. Is your last name McGee?

Bugster = plagiarist See my reply to his post "The shutdown". He
shamelessly did a copypasta of some bullshit he saw at Daily Kos, and he
didn't attribute it.

[George Plimpton]

On 10/4/2013 7:10 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 09:54:25 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/2013 09:14 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 08:56:56 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/02/2013 10:12 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:50:20 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "JohnMcvie" <Fleetw...@bass.gov> wrote in
>>>>>> news:m1V2u.1395$T65...@fx13.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All modern bikes made today, (that are "decent and reliable"), are
>>>>>>> able to withstand DECADES of abuse, and have a saddle height and angle
>>>>>>> adjustment, as well as the handle bar height and angle adjustments.
>>>>>>> One frame meets all, depending on the adult.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you never got past toy bikes and you don't know a thing about
>>>>>> modern bikes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you're a fucking idiot for thinking a SNAP recipient needs a
>>>>> fitted $500 bike to get to work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A sub $500 bike may be functional, but unless it is a used model
>>>> purchased off e.g. Craigslist and happens to be in good condition and
>>>> the correct frame size, it'll likely not be particularly pleasant to
>>>> ride or reliable.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> Aw. The poor minimum wage worker isn't deriving pleasure from his
>>> commute to Jack In The Box.
>>>
>>> What a shame.
>>>
>>> Beats walking.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure where you're going with this? Are you saying that poor people
>> deserve to suffer?
>
> I'm saying that poor people don't "deserve" $500 bikes when a $100
> bike is more than adequate.
>
> Just like I don't "deserve" a BMW to drive to work when a used Dodge
> Dart will do the same job.
>
> I am, however, free to improve my lot and save money for the BMW.
>
>
>> The point that *I* was trying to make is that a $2-300 department store
>> bicycle is likely a festering POS
>
> Yet millions- MILLIONS- of people ride "department store bikes" every
> fucking day without any ill effects. They're perfectly adequate to get
> to work and back if they're too poor to afford a car.
>
> Golly, I rode a used $5 bike for years and I'm still alive. Imagine
> that.

Some time around 1965 or 1966, I had a three-speed bike that had some
stuff wrong with it; I think my grandfather bought it for me a few years
earlier. I bought two used junkers for $5 or $10 each and cannibalized
them for parts to rebuild the first bike. It lasted for years,
including daily use on a 40-50 subscriber paper route for a couple of years.

Bugster is a 72-year-old bike snob, and it makes no sense at all. There
are numerous multi-geared bikes under $300 on the following link, and
all of them would be an absurd extravagance for Bugster, given his age
and poor fitness.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/sporting-goods/3405201/?ie=UTF8&tag=hamstring-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=390957

[George Plimpton]

[followups vandalism by racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 10/4/2013 7:46 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:

> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:l2mio6$6nc$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:l2mhgf$mon$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>> news:l2m399 $gie$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Baxter" <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:l2kh0j$n25$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in

>>>>> news:flgr49dd0ve6gc8n5...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any single or double speed bike can be backpedaled. It's how you
>>> apply
>>>>>>> the brakes and in the case of double speed change gears.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fixies are single-speed.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.....as usual.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=schwinn+2+speed+hub
>>>
>>> "As a general rule, fixed-gear bicycles are single-speed."
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yesve8
>>
>> Backpedal noted from "are" to "as a general rule".
>>
>> I accept your admission that you were wrong and that 'fixies' aren't
>> always single-speed.
>
> Not really that much of an admission or backpedal when you consider that
> there are exceptions to every rule - and that internal hub gearing is
> pretty new and not generally available.

You *STUPID* decrepit non-biking fat fuck - internally geared hubs have
been available for more than 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hub_gear

>>>>> but you don't backpedal to brake - they use caliper or disc
>>>>> brakes.
>>>>
>>>> Which are more expensive and less reliable.
>>>
>>> Are they less reliable?
>>
>> When's the last time you had the brake handle break on a coaster brake
>> bike?
>>
>> Ever had a cable rust apart on a fixed gear, coaster brake bike?
>>
>> When was the last time a derailer broke on a fixed gear bike?
>>
>> Do the shifters fail to hold on a fixed gear, coaster brake bike?
>>
>> So, yes, they are more reliable. Few parts to break, fewer wear parts,
>> less expensive to buy and less expensive to repair if it should fail.
>
> Yet people who bike to work

You don't know anything about people who bike to work.


>>>> You did say you wanted a reliable bike....right?
>>>>
>>> A Coaster brake only brakes one wheel while Calipers or disc brakes
>>> are on both wheels
>>
>> Yea, and you don't think that means you can't stop?
>>
>> Besides, at this point you're talking performance....NOT reliability.
>>
> We're talking about miles traveled and staying alive.

We're talking about you being a 72-year-old decrepit fat fuck doesn't
ride a bike at all, but who just likes to argue out of sheer
bloody-mindedness.

There used to be another old demented fat fuck in some of these groups
named Lesley Seth Hammond who was exactly the same way. I think he's
dead now. It will be a benefit to humanity when you die soon, too, you
fat pillock.

[George Plimpton]

On 10/5/2013 3:10 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Baxter" <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> news:l2nteo$cmp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.2cb921629...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> In article <4P-dnbSMpc0-_NLP...@brightview.co.uk>, Clive
>>> George <cl...@fsnet.co.uk> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 05/10/2013 01:17, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>> I can't recommend paying more money for less quality to anyone,
>>>>> but especially not to someone for whom the purchase price is
>>>>> painful.
>>>>
>>>> Yup.
>>>>
>>>> Last time I met somebody espousing the same views as the people
>>>> you're arguing with here, I just let them carry on believing it -
>>>> they were 9 or 10 year old kids. "What's the point of spending that
>>>> much money on a bike". No point in mentioning that the bike is older
>>>> than them, and still running well, whereas what they're on will be
>>>> forgotten about in a couple of years.
>>>>
>>> I have no idea where you entered into this Thread, Clive, but the
>>> bicycle issue was about originally about appropriate, economical and
>>> reliable "people-powered" transportation for a non-car-owning person
>>> on state welfare to get to the "low-cost groceries" store and back;
>>> with the bike being capable of safely and efficiently transporting the
>>> groceries they purchased with their "Food Stamps" -- which are now
>>> issued via a SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] Card.
>>>
>>> A certain person <Cough>Leroy_Baxter<Cough> started the "no bikes
>>> under $500 are worth having" red herring diversion.
>>>
>> The rightard figure that the poor ought to be grateful for any piece of
>> junk foisted off on them
>
> Yea, they sort of should be since they are being given something for
> nothing.
>
> And this here is another flaw in the system. That poor people shouldn't
> be grateful of the aid given them because what they are being given
> isn't nice enough.
>
> It's almost as if Baxter here is telling us that poor people on aid
> deserve only the very best.

Although the ACA certainly isn't intended to achieve this, every leftist
posting here on the ACA and a purported "right" to medical care
believes, fervently, that poor people deserve the same quantity and
quality of medical care as Warren Buffett.

[Sancho Panza]

For that matter, so do I.

[George Plimpton]

As long as they can pay for all they obtain out of their own income
and/or insurance - said insurance also paid out of their income - then
so do I. But they don't deserve the same quality of medical care as
anyone else, and as much of it as they would like, if someone else is
forced to pay for it. Buffett can fly to the Mayo Clinic or Scripps
Clinic or any superior provider anywhere at his own expense. Poor
people do not "deserve" Mayo Clinic quality care paid for by the taxpayer.

[Louis Bricano]

On 10/5/2013 8:28 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:

> I've never (permanently, as noted above) bought a new bike in my life
> for myself, and only one for one of my children (and they get passed
> on as the kids grow).
> And the only bike that cost more than that child's bike was my
> recumbent.

That's not a bicycle.

[Gronk]

So, those poor people, here in the Land of the World's Best Medical Care,
should just die if they can't afford it?

[George Plimpton]

Here's what should not happen: they should not receive medical care
paid for by anyone else unless those others choose to pay for it.

[Gronk]

So, some poor guy in Austin Texas needs a kidney transplant, and everyone
has to vote approval? Not the doctors?

AH, I see, you want Death Panels.

The irony meter just broke.

[George Plimpton]

Actually, I think the kidney should go to the highest bidder.

> AH, I see, you want Death Panels.

No, I didn't say anything about anyone voting on who gets a kidney
transplant or any other treatment.

[George Plimpton]

It's amusing that right-wingers hyperventilate about so-called "death
panels". There have always been death panels under all private
insurance schemes.

[George Plimpton]

On 10/7/2013 6:49 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:

> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:l2u0v3$tms$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>>
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

>> news:l2pn9p$1tc$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>> news:l2pcri$hj7$1...@dont-email.me:

>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Baxter" <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:l2pbei$v9m$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:l2oo4o$3nh$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if I'm paying for it, then I don't particularly care if they
>>>>>> consider the ride miserable compared to a top of the line carbon
>>>>>> fiber bike, because frankly I would still consider it a massive
>>>>>> improvement over walking. But hey, I'm willing to go with a $6
>>>>>> pair of sneakers instead of a $120 bike, but I bet you're going to
>>>>>> tell me that they really need a pair of $300 sneakers in order to
>>>>>> be able to walk.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Right - poor people are defective and deserve to be poor, while you
>>>>> are righteous and not-poor. How Calvinist of you
>>>>
>>>> No, they are poor and if I'm supporting them then they need to
>>>> accept what aid they are offered.
>>>
>>> And not better themselves?

Another straw man - no one ever said the poor shouldn't better themselves.


>>
>> I'm all for them bettering themselves. The first step is to get a job
>> and then they can buy whatever they want......once I'm not having to
>> pay for it.
>
> So you're demanding that those kids get jobs instead of educations?

This might not be the "#1 rule of debating a leftist", but it definitely
has to be near the top of the list:

Whenever you're arguing with a leftist and he starts a sentence
with "So, what you're saying is..." or "So you're demanding...",
what follows is *NEVER* an accurate or fair paraphrasing of what
you've actually said. It is *ALWAYS* and *ONLY* a shabby, shitty
little straw man the fuckwitted leftist has slopped together in
order to attack and tear up.


This debate in this thread has *never* been about children and
education. It has only been about bicycles that might be suitable for
poor people, and the extent to which poor people deserve charity.


>>
>>> You want them to accept and be happy with
>>> your castoffs and junk?
>>
>> When I'm the one paying for it....DAMN STRAIGHT!
>
> And that teaches them what?

It teaches them to be appreciative for people trying to help them, and
not to be resentful towards those people.


>>> Why then shouldn't you accept and be happy with
>>> whatever corporations or the government hands off to you?
>>
>> Because I don't have to rely on either to survive.
>>
> Really?!

Probably so. But *you* do.


> And if the corporation cuts your wages in half? You see no
> benefits at all from government?

It is not the proper role for government to take care of people,
particularly when they can only do so by confiscating income and wealth
from others.

There's nothing wrong with charity, but it has to be voluntarily given,
and the recipients never get to dictate the terms of it. When it comes
to charity, the recipients should always be happy with what is given,
because no one is morally obliged to give any.

[George Plimpton]

On 10/7/2013 1:09 PM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:

> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in

> news:qa2659dn98firbbe9...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 19:08:26 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in

>>> news:MPG.2cbcbf25...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> In article <l2ue59$vpc$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, the dumber than a box
>>>> of Oregonian lava rocks VLILLLDM Leroy "The Usenet SPAM'er" Baxter
>>>> <LB...@baxcode.com> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:l2u0v3$tms$1...@dont-email.me:

>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm all for them bettering themselves. The first step is to get a
>>>>>> job and then they can buy whatever they want......once I'm not
>>>>>> having to pay for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're demanding that those kids get jobs instead of educations?
>>>>>

>>>> Leroy demonstrates his projection once again.
>>>
>>> Bullshit! You rightards are demanding that ALL SNAP recipients "get
>>> jobs" - and nearly half of SNAP recipients are kids. If you rightards
>>> are not talking about forcing kids to get jobs, then say so and modify
>>> your demand that 'SNAP recipients should get jobs and get off
>>> assistance'.
>>
>> You're more stupid than I thought if you think the OP mean kids should
>> get jobs.
>>
> Apparently the OP, and you, is too stupid to realize that most SNAP
> recipients are kids, the old, the disabled, or already have jobs.

Prove it.

[Sancho Panza]

With the big difference being that if you did not like one company's
practices you could always go to one of the others from the dozens
available.

[George Plimpton]

That's no difference at all, you idiot. If you're gravely ill while
covered by one firm and they cut you off - refuse to pay for expensive
treatment that won't significantly improve or extend your life - you
can't *go* to another company, you fucking moron.

When right-wingers hyperventilated about death panels as a feature of
either Obamacare or "universal" health care, they pretended that the
panels didn't exist at all outside of government health care. That's
false - they have always existed.

[George Plimpton]

On 10/9/2013 7:01 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:

> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:l338qq
> $6iq$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>>
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

>> news:l2ue59$vpc$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

>>>>
>>>> When I'm the one paying for it....DAMN STRAIGHT!
>>>
>>> And that teaches them what?
>>

>> If you want nice shit, then you need to work for it?
>>
> When did that ever work with your kids?

That works with nearly any kid, as long as the kid's parents instilled
in him a sense of self respect and self reliance. It does not, however,
typically work with the children of leftists, who have been raised with
a sense of entitlement and resentment toward the productive classes.

[George Plimpton]

On 10/9/2013 5:50 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:35:33 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> children of leftists, who have been raised with
>> a sense of entitlement and resentment toward the productive classes.
>>
>

> Children of working class ARE the productive class

No.

[George Plimpton]

On 10/9/2013 9:42 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:58:26 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2013 5:50 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:35:33 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> children of leftists, who have been raised with
>>>> a sense of entitlement and resentment toward the productive classes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Children of working class ARE the productive class
>>
>> No.
>

> Cough, cough.....
>
> There you go again

There I go again, showing you to be a boilerplate-spewing idiot.

"Children of working class..." - ha ha ha ha ha! You fucking geriatric
idiot.