Political Furriness
David Fox
political views. Most notably a conversation with Camstone over dinner at AC
(I'm very sorry, LK, I got on a roll, but even then I'm more boring than Noam
Chomsky). So I have taken an interest in the political opinions of furs to
discern whether their political opinions are acting under the influence of
their phenotype or if in fact, there is no relationship. Thus I am for you
would describe your political opinions and how (or if) they relate to your
phenotype. Then I would like to know your positions on a couple of recent
issues:
1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
3) Abortion.
4) Gun control.
5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the government
in public areas.
Feel free to answer all, some, or none of the questions to whatever level you
feel is necessary.
David Fox
- -
Take a lesson from Kansai Airport: no matter what happens, try to keep your
head above water.
I don't cut corners, but you'll have to if you want to e-mail me.
David Lazerous
think ti would be wise to take this sort of thing to e-mail. I'm not trying
to tell you what to do or that you can't talk about it here. I'm just sayig
maybee it's something that should be discussed through
David Lazerous
Fulva
1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
But weve probably got crap in Area 51that beats all that so...
2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
bonk!
But we should still try to live up to it.
3) Abortion.
I don't think people should do it. I beleive that it is the duty of any parent
to lay down their life if need be for the protection of their offspring.
But making it illegal won't stop it so people might as well do it in
ahospitall.
I can't find an excuse for late terms though.
4) Gun control.
Governmental public control ploy.
Yes it is
. The crazy yos in the mountains are right about this one.
"Guns don't kill people Apes kill people!"
-Charlton Heston(Not realy)
5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the government
in public areas.
Don't like the Idea.
I'm glad the forests are still un monitered.
MiMiC_x9
news:20010806005532...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
Well... I'm not an American... but will a Canuck's view do?
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
Well... I dunno... sure, it'll make sure all the americans are safe... but
any nukes that they distroy will be right above me! Yah... thanks a bunch!
But anything that jeprodizes MAD ("Mutually assured destruction") is a bad
thing. Nukes stay on the ground because there is no way anyone could win.
Makeing it possible to win means that "My daddy was prez... so I should be
too!" Bush can press the button without worrying about hurting the citizens
of his country. It seems like he believes "The rest of the world can go all
to hell... just so long as we are all ok." ...not the best foreign policy.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
The world is dieing in the putrid waste of our own doing. Take at least ONE
step in the right direction... and not in the direction of the oil up in the
natural parks of Alaska.
> 3) Abortion.
This is more than just political... the church is also getting itself
involved. Being someone who has been to a church mebbe five times in his
entire life, three of which were for funerals, I can't speak from the
perspective of the church. But, it is my belief, that a woman should ba
allowed to do whatever she wants to do with her own body. You don't see
people protesting piercings or tattoos do you? It's along the lines of the
same thing... personal modification of your own body. It should be a womans
choise... but the real question: should the government/insurance cover it?
> 4) Gun control.
GUNS FOR ALL!!!!! ;-P j/k. Nah... people are all uptight saying that guns
kill people, or make it easier to kill people. I'll side with '2' on this
one. Let the people have their guns... just make them register it, and have
permits for carrying hidden guns.
http://www.werewolves.org/~two/2rant-guns.mp3
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
government
> in public areas.
Not as bad as requiring fingerprits of every child at birth... but still an
invasion of privacy (at least the face-scanning types). The non-face
scanners are just there to prevent crime, rather than keep track of EVERYONE
that should happen to walk by. THAT isn't right... because it is not the
governments business to know that 'Billy-Bob Joel' likes shopping in "The
Adult-Drag Superplex" on fridays after work at the meat shope.
MiMiC
Gooooooooooooo Canada!
--
.:Welcome to a Wonderland of Caffinated Goodness:.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the universe."
--Albert Einstein
"The only difference between an F student and an A student
is that the F student forgets everything before the exam,
while the A student forgets everything after the exam."
--Unknown
+===ICQ : 65079305===+
http://www.FurNation.com/MiMiCs_Universe/
FFS3amwAC-D+H+M+PR++T+++W>****$ZSm+++RLU/BM/LWa-cnuw+++d++
e>+++f-h*iwf+j---p*>+sm#
David Fox
In order to be consistent with my own political and philosophical beliefs, I
can't just say "send me an e-mail." If there is a fur here that wants to make a
stand, then so be it, here is their opportunity if they'd like it. If, instead,
a fur believes his opinion will offend, but would still like to reply and add
their opinion to my collection of data concerning furs and their relationship
to their phenotypes, they may send me answers via e-mail. I, however, will not
be demanding that people send only e-mail nor that they make only posts, I
believe that such a requirement given the nature of this thread in particular
to be wrong on its face unless the subject matter of the thread is in direct
violation of the FAQ guidelines (ie adult stories) and also in violation of the
spirit of this group.
Furthermore, as I see it, and the responses from a few furs at AC showed me,
the issue of a fur's phenotype and it's connection to one's political beliefs
is a valid question to which this group has to my knowledge not received an
answer. The Furvey (version 3.5) asks several question concerning furs, their
beliefs, and their phenotypes:
"25. How does your furriness influence your thoughts and emotions?"
"30. How does your furriness influence the way you interact with people?"
"35. Is your furriness compatible with your religion?"
"36. Has your furriness led you to reconsider your religious beliefs?"
"53. Has your gender preference changed since discovering the furry community?"
And on the environmental opinions side:
"42. Do you think it is acceptable to hunt/raise animals for food?"
"43. Do you think it is acceptable to hunt/raise animals for fur/leather?"
"44. Do you think it is acceptable to hunt/raise animals for sport?"
On the side of questions whose answers might offend many members of the group:
"54. What species of animal do you find the sexiest?"
"55. What part of an animal's body do you find the most attractive/sexy?"
And finally one question from the furvey whose answers could be violating the
FAQ or failing that the "common consensus" that explicit adult material is not
on topic for this group:
"52. What type of furry sexual fantasies do you have?"
Furvey 3.01 holds 75 questions and version 2.5 well over 100 questions.
Certainly in these other furveys there were many questions the answers to which
may offend. In all truth, that the questions appeared at all may have offended.
Given that regardless of what you post, someone will be offended (as we have
seen, even "hellos" have offended some as a waste of precious bandwidth), then
there must be a spirit to the "do not offend" policy. I believe that previous
discussions over snesitive personal issues and indeed the furvey itself
provides clear precedent that so long as the posting is not intended
specifically to offend a single fur or group of furs then it is considered
valid and on topic.
That being said, since my purpose in this thread is not to offend (nor is it
even in this message nor in any other message I've yet posted to this group), I
believe I am well within respected precedents on the content of threads and
abiding by the spirit of the group.
The survey remains respectfully submitted to this group and open to e-mail
reply, on group post, both, or some combination of the two (if in fact there
are some things that you don't care ot answer publically). Additionally, I
assure all furs that any information gathered from this survey via e-mail will
not be shared and is considered private and held in strict confidence (unless
the sender specifies otherwise) in keeping with the ethics of conducting a
survey. I also additionally guarantee that I do not take a fur's (or anyone
else's) politics personally (unless their platform happens to be my swift
execution : ) and that they do not provide the basis of my judgement of a fur's
worth as a being or a friend. That said, I await any and all replies to the
aforementioned questions.
Respectfully,
David Robert Fox
Gren
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
himself to the international community, acting out of self interest and
stirring trouble. Nobody is particularly thrilled at having lookout stations
for "son of star wars" over here as it will make us a potential target. The
heel-dragging over kyoto and demanding more research hasn't won him any
admirers either.
Still, Rats are tenacious bastards, so if things go belly up, they'll still
be around. Munching on cockroaches no doubt ;)
> 3) Abortion.
I believe that quality of life is more important, and since foetuses don't
have the capacity for thought or pain until certain points in their
development I have no problems with it.
> 4) Gun control.
While I understand the argument for self defense I don't believe that the
general public should have access to firearms. There are too many cases over
here of mentally unstable people committing murders, like a massacre of 16
school children, which have resulted in tighter controls. Perhaps people
should be allowed to use the in controlled envrinments such as clubs.
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
>government in public areas.
There is vastly more use of surveillance cameras here, and it has done
little to curb crime. What is really needed is a visible police prescence,
officers on foot interacting with the public.
Gren (cogitate, my dear boy) < =3
Ian the jwoulf Johnson
> Then I would like to know your positions on a couple of recent
> issues:
> 4) Gun control.
Gun control is foolish. Gun control causes criminals to get guns that
law-abiding poeple can't. Gun control just gives MORE power to
criminals. see: http://www.concealcarry.org/
m.copper
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
It's a slow start. I'm definitely pro arms race. We live in a
hostile world. It's our duty/destiny to create a new generation
of super weapons. Fear is a very useful political tool.
> 3) Abortion.
I don't believe life is sacred.
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by
> the government in public areas.
The contemporary UK police motto: We can't stop crime, but we
can film it from seven different angles.
- -
Sabbath
LaloFox
that what goes on 'backstage' at cons?
David Fox wrote:
> [snip] I have taken an interest in the political opinions of furs to
> discern whether their political opinions are acting under the influence of
> their phenotype or if in fact, there is no relationship.
In my case, none at all. I've been a "political animal" waaaay longer
than I've known about furriness. In fact, the furry world is a place
I like to go to leave the mundane world behind for an hour, or a day,
or two.
> Then I would like to know your positions on a couple of recent issues:
>
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
Unnecessary, useless, a waste of time and money. It's a scam to
justify the expense of some "black" R&D that's been going on since (at
least) the Reagan SDI days and may just be about ready to surface - or
leak. The so-called threat is a straw man. Greymuzzles of the right
age may remember Robert McNamara (JFK's Defense Sec'y) and the Missile
Gap, which brought us MAD and damn near brought us Nuclear Winter -
sure gave us the capacity to make one.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
Better than doing nothing at all - but not much better, and the
concept of trading "pollution credits" among nations is ridiculous.
> 3) Abortion.
I'm pro-choice - 'nuff said.
> 4) Gun control.
Some people I love happen to be gun-owners, and I wish they weren't.
I wish hand-held firearms had never been invented. But they were, and
they would wind up in the hands of individuals no matter how many laws
were passed, or how harsh the penalites.
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
> government in public areas.
Here in the US, we may still have a chance to fight this insidious
erosion of our rights to privacy. The Supreme Court decided a couple
of months ago that passive infrared scanning of a person's house
without a search warrant to establish probable cause was illegal.
That may (I hope) be enough precedent to strike down similar future
uses of 'remote sensing' technology by government agencies. Judging
from the responses posted so far by our Euro-cousins, it may already
be too late over there. I hope not.
LaloFox
Micole Khemarrica
> In personal conversations with many furs I've taken notice to many fur's
> political views. Most notably a conversation with Camstone over dinner at AC
> (I'm very sorry, LK, I got on a roll, but even then I'm more boring than Noam
> Chomsky). So I have taken an interest in the political opinions of furs to
> discern whether their political opinions are acting under the influence of
> their phenotype or if in fact, there is no relationship. Thus I am for you
> would describe your political opinions and how (or if) they relate to your
> phenotype. Then I would like to know your positions on a couple of recent
> issues:
Okay, I'll bite...
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
Among the most short-sighted and foolish ideas I've seen yet. Although
I'm all for research (as that brings new technologies which can
improve life around the world if given a chance), the idea of having a
'fence of missiles' is making the US an even bigger target, rather
than scaring off potential terrorists. Besides, everyone knows the
biggest danger to the US is *internal* not *external* terrorism. :p
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
Gaea cries in pain. Species die before their natural time, rivers are
changed, the land is changed, and disasters become increasingly common
and brutal without the natural buffers nature build to soften those
blows. And considering the US is the largest producer of pollutants
in the world, it should have been a no-brainer to sign on to the
principals of this accord rather than whine about ways around it.
> 3) Abortion.
I am weasel. There are good times for kids and there are bad times for
kids; during the bad times, kids will die: be it by the mother, pack,
or elements.
It should not be up to an impersonal government body to tell any of
its citizens what to do with their own bodies. Likewise, allowing
abortion does not *force* abortion upon those who do not wish it...
that's why it was called Pro-CHOICE. I advocate the right to choose,
even though I personally would be unlikely to abort a child and
instead offer it up for adoption if I feel I cannot take the
responsibility (financially or otherwise) for raising another life.
> 4) Gun control.
I believe in gun control... you are in control of your guns. :3
Seriously, though, there have been many 'social experiments' that have
proven that regulating guns only guarantees crimes by guns and a loss
of societal controls, whereas allowing open access to guns creates a
self-contained social structure that inhibits crimes in general and
gun-related crimes in specific.
I think everyone should be made to learn how to operate and maintain a
gun, even if they choose not to own one... and that kids should be
*especially* trained at an early age to recognize a gun for what it
is: a tool, something that can be dangerous if improperly handled, not
intrinsically evil but occassionally live-savingly useful.
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the government
> in public areas.
I'm kinda weird about that one... public areas are just that, public.
There's no expectation of privacy there, so while I'm personally edgy
about cameras in such environments I don't think it's necessarily
wrong. It's how they are *used* that makes me against them, and the
minute anyone is charged with a supposed crime in a _private_ area
observed by the cameras, the observing agency should be shot.
ermine (a devout constitutionalist)
Weyfour WWWWolf (Urpo Lankinen)
> Then I would like to know your positions on a couple of recent
> issues:
> Feel free to answer all, some, or none of the questions to whatever
> level you feel is necessary.
...I think I'll just illustrate it with some quotes. These may or may
not need to be taken seriously,
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
"Американи очень безумные...."
-- Old Russian Saying, probably inspired
some cartoonists in central Europe
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
"The White House employs a large number of highly trained staff,
whose primary purpose is to try to keep the President from
interfering with politics. Sometimes accidents do happen:
Yesterday, president Bush was several minutes without supervision,
and he succeeded in canceling the Kyoto treaty..."
-- From one political satire TV program
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
> government in public areas.
"All the world's a stage, and all the animals merely players..."
-- A "street artist" laughing gull - a bunch of animals
did various... shows of all kids, getting taped by
surveillance cameras, in /Elukat/ comics series.
(As you may guess, the people who watched the
surveillance tapes soon doubted their mental health. =)
--
$_='%?&%[=&+=?%=[%&+&%[*?]&=&~[;&+&{=?[?&%&[&{[%&^=?=[&%&]=?%~&~[?&+&~YiFF!
=[=~| Weyfour WWWWolf (aka. Urpo Lankinen), a lupine technomancer |=?*_=}?]
%}&};| ICQ:4291042 | www...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/wwwwolf/ |&;&=~?]';
tr/?~=*;%&[{}]+_^ (),.:@\/\n0-9!|a-zA-Z/0-9acde/d; $_=pack("H*",$_); print;
no one in particular
"David Fox" <fox...@aol.comCORNERS> wrote in message
news:20010806005532...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> political views. Most notably a conversation with Camstone over dinner at
AC
> (I'm very sorry, LK, I got on a roll, but even then I'm more boring than
Noam
> Chomsky). So I have taken an interest in the political opinions of furs to
> discern whether their political opinions are acting under the influence of
> their phenotype or if in fact, there is no relationship. Thus I am for you
> would describe your political opinions and how (or if) they relate to your
> phenotype. Then I would like to know your positions on a couple of recent
> issues:
Phenotype nothing. Raw thought and opinion.
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
Thinking the defending yourself encourages attacks is the same sort of
nonsense which says bullies are encouraged by kids who fight back. Or more
on topic, do vicious wolves get attacked more often than cute and cuddly
sheep? I think the point is made. So let's get the Russian wolves and
everyone else on the same page.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
Global warming? We NEED global warming. This planet used to be much
warmer and we are still in the middle of an ice age. If we're lucky, global
warming will stop its resumption and the end of this interglacial.
Besides, as soon as the Yellowstone super-caldera blows, you won't be
around to care and neither will anyone else in most of the Western
Hemisphere.
> 3) Abortion.
Life is sacred. Neither Jesus nor any other story in the bible was the
"greatest story ever told", but rather YOUR life is the greatest story ever
told. As is your neighbors', their brat, the slut down the street, the
drunken minister around the block, etc. The point of the story of Jesus
wasn't that he was so great for dying for you, but that YOU were great
enough to die for. You have value. You affect others and that effect affects
others and so on and so on. Like a drawn-out six degrees of Kevin Bacon
game, you have a place and a part to play.
Unfortunately, humans find it easier to believe none of the above, take
no serious concern for the effects their presence and actions have, and live
their lives to utter waste as if they existed in a vacuum.
How great you could be if you really accepted how powerful and great you
could be.
> 4) Gun control.
The reason for the Second Amendment, and the writings of the framers of
the Constitution and the Second Amendment make this clear, is that they'd
just come from a government which although it was three thousand miles away,
still thought it could get away with treating the people as chattel and
running over their basic rights like Who fans in Cincinatti.
They didn't trust George and they didn't trust each other either. If
they had, they'd not have been separate states but simple provinces in a
singular nation. They purposely chose this system due to their experience
and unvarnished distrust of human nature. They did a lot of praying to God
that their fellow man would behave, at least till they'd shuffled off the
coil and it wasn't their problem anymore.
The 2nd was pointedly for two reasons: that the states be armed against
a central government and that the people of those states be armed against
that central government and the states themselves. They believed and wrote
that in the case where the people were no longer in charge, where tyranny
should return, and all they'd wrought be destroyed, the people should take
matters into their hands, and repeat their act of rebellion, and start again
if needed.
The militia was NOT the blue coats or an organized force. They were
every free armed man availible. And yes, freed slaves with arms were
included in that. And after rectifying slavery and segregation, African
Americans gained with everything else the right to be armed along with the
pasty Europeans against enemies foreign AND domestic.
As with buying life insurance to cover your family, you hope they'll
never need it and you aren't going to die before you're a ripe old age. Or
merely old and ripe. Similarly, we hope we won't need to fire on our former
countrymen and overthrow the government. We hope they'll never become like
the monsters we see in the daily news around the world and that they will be
inherently better. But they're genetically the same and they are just as
likely as anyone else to turn to the dark side and be assholes.
Better to be visibly and pointedly prepared so the people in charge
remember they can be taken out of the picture if they try manipulating
things towards dictatorialism and tyranny. And yes, IT CAN HAPPEN HERE AND
IT CAN REPEAT ITSELF. We hope it doesn't, but...
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
government
> in public areas.
Whatever can be seen in public may be reasoned to be like lighting a
crack pipe in public. You have ZERO expectation of privacy and are
eliminating any SEARCH of any kind. You're putting it in the open.
However, police need to be on the scene for best interpretation of
events and at a distance over cameras it may lend to inappropriate responses
which would upset rather than help to server the public safety, welfare, and
harmony the police are charged with seeing to through law enforcement.
There's nothing unreasonable and no search involved with seeing things
visible in public. But there's another angle with those cameras being at a
high spot where policmen would not have a normally reasonable chance of
seeing from and thus possibly interpreted as unreasonable.
> Feel free to answer all, some, or none of the questions to whatever level
you
> feel is necessary.
>
> David Fox
-Wayd Wolf
Tiado
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
I don't know if Dubya has any idea (if any at all) about what the
consequences of starting another race war with a nation like China or
Iraq.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
If only you could get the heavy industry to cooperate with the protocol,
which is highly unlikely, only then will the world be able to meet the
mandate.
> 3) Abortion.
I don't want to talk about this at all be basically, this topic is a
minefield.
> 4) Gun control.
I'm from Canada and the west and I know how much of a waste of
taxpayers' money all the anti-firearm legislation is, and it wont do
anything to fight crime because all the terrible criminals, the ones
that are a real big threat, still still get their hands on the biggest
(or the most compact), most nastiest weapons around, I don't think that
responsible firearm owners should be forced to give up their weapons
because of some stupid law, and where will it stop? next thing you know
the government would want to ban anything else that people can use as
weapons.
Of course this is just my view and there are probably others that won't
agree with me.
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the government
> in public areas.
face scanning surveillance is an outright invasion of privacy, I don't
think that this technology would do anything to fight crime, and this
face-profiling could be used to track and follow people who don't
deserve it, as for normal surveillance, it's okay as long as it's used
in moderation, like where you'll find cameras absolutely everywhere like
on the streets in residential neighborhoods of cities.
--
Tiado
FDL[Perentie]3ads/CW3acds A->+ C-> Dm+++ H++ M- P+++ R++ T+++ W->
Z Sm++ RLCT/MC a19 cdlmnw++ d+ e f++ h iwf++>+++ j+>+++ p>+ sm-->m+
T I A D O H O M E
(at) or "@" (dot) you know: "."
C O M
Tiado
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
I don't know if Dubya has any idea (if any at all) about what the
consequences of starting another race war with a nation like China or
Iraq.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
If only you could get the heavy industry to cooperate with the protocol,
which is highly unlikely, only then will the world be able to meet the
mandate.
> 3) Abortion.
I don't want to talk about this at all because basically, this topic is
a minefield.
> 4) Gun control.
I'm from Canada and the west and I know how much of a waste of
taxpayers' money all the anti-firearm legislation is, and it wont do
anything to fight crime because all the terrible criminals, the ones
that are a real big threat, still still get their hands on the biggest
(or the most compact), most nastiest weapons around, I don't think that
responsible firearm owners should be forced to give up their weapons
because of some stupid law, and where will it stop? next thing you know
the government would want to ban anything else that people can use as
weapons.
Of course this is just my view and there are probably others that won't
agree with me.
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the government
> in public areas.
face scanning surveillance is an outright invasion of privacy, I don't
Zenwolf
"David Fox" <fox...@aol.comCORNERS> wrote in message
news:20010806005532...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> political views. Most notably a conversation with Camstone over dinner at
AC
> (I'm very sorry, LK, I got on a roll, but even then I'm more boring than
Noam
> Chomsky). So I have taken an interest in the political opinions of furs to
> discern whether their political opinions are acting under the influence of
> their phenotype or if in fact, there is no relationship.
I doubt if you could find a correlation based on phenotype, but its your
reasearch paper :o)
>Thus I am for you
> would describe your political opinions and how (or if) they relate to your
> phenotype. Then I would like to know your positions on a couple of recent
> issues:
>
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
>
Good idea...might be useful against asteroids & comets.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
>
We failed to attend those right? Bush is 0Wn3d by the oil companies.Next
time, vote for the other guy and dont just sit on yer ass and complain.
> 3) Abortion.
>
Sad but necessary.I'm not a female so I really can't make that decision.
> 4) Gun control.
Hit what you're aiming at. Guaranteed by the US Constitution.Case closed :o)
>
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
government
> in public areas.
>
Will work in UK...hopefully not here.It violates the unlawful search &
seizure clause in teh Constitution.Florida is just an experiment bound to
fail.
> Feel free to answer all, some, or none of the questions to whatever level
you
> feel is necessary.
>
Kewl :o)
ZW
Izefox
>Then I would like to know
>your positions on a couple of recent issues:
>
>2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
I'm amazed that there even is such a thing. Apparently some of the worlds
leaders still care about this planet.
>3) Abortion.
I'm not against it. It should be every woman's own decision.
>4) Gun control.
Gun control is always a good thing. At least I feel much safer when only
a small minority of people owns guns. Just think about it: Have guns caused
more good or bad things?
>5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
>government in public areas.
It's OK, but only to fight crime.
--
Izefox (arctic fox)
ICQ: 123876190
Skytech
> Feel free to answer all, some, or none of the questions to whatever
level you
> feel is necessary.
>
MUST-RESIST!!
I'd go off on a *major* speel on all those hot button topics and I
really don't feel any have nuch to do with furry lifestyle as generally
presented. All good question but not here.
--
La gvatanta vulpo (The vigilant fox)
Skytech
^^
<@@>
./
Kellic J. Tiger
>
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
I really wish Bush would show up at my front door. My first reaction
would be to give him a bloody nose. Well then again maybe I'd also get a
wet towel and snap it at the guy. I really dislike the man.
NOTE: For you secret service sneaks out there looking for people
threatening Bush. NOOOO I would NOT do anything else. My god the last
thing I would want is Cheney as our president. I can honestly say I'd
rather see Dan Quale as the man. Well that and the fact that I don't
think it's actually possible for me to kill anyone. Damn morals. How
dare my parents give em to me when I was growing up!
Anyways, just about everything he's done in the White House since day
one I totally disapprove of. The drilling in Alaska, this BS tax cut,
this crock of an Anti-Ballistic Missile defense system. Give me a
break. How many nukes do we have? Even if it was a rogue country that
launched one up our tailpipe don't you think they would know the
consequences of such an action. The American public would be chomping
at the bit to retaliate either through conventional warfare or through a
direct nuclear strike. If anything it's going to be some terrorist
group that smuggles a nuke into the US and detonates it that way. That
is what Bush should be spending our money on. Better surveillance of
our borders and airports. What is our national debt at right now. You
don't go out and buy the most expensive burglar alarm system if you are
in debt.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
Once again the Bush admin are a bunch of moronic blunderers. Just goes
to show you Bush is in big business's pocket. Screw the environment.
Pleasing big business comes first with this administration. I can't
believe this man. What was his excuse? Something like the data wasn't
conclusive and is incomplete. I really hope all who voted for this @$$
are happy with his actions. I for one know that there is no way in hell
I'm voting for this guy when the next elections roll around. Satan
himself could be running for office, and if I had the choice between
Bush and Satan I'd pick Mr. 666 any day of the week. In the past I've
always looked at the candidates from both sides. I've never been Demo
or Repub. I've been known to vote for both. But not any more. That's
assuming we have any elections. I'm waiting for word that Bush has
appointed himself supreme dictator and elections have been abolished.
> 3) Abortion.
*Kellic jumps into a foxhole* Everyfur take cover. Flamage heading our
way. *Kellic looks over and sees a few other furs next to him covering
their heads.* Ooo you are SO looking for flamage on this one. My 2
cents. A woman should be able do whatever the hell she wants with her
own body and until that little one can live on its own without her its
still a part of her. In theory I feel that way. But part of me does
believe at a certain point you JUST can't have an abortion. (I mean is
it right to have an abortion a month before the child is due?) Do I have
any idea at what point that is? Hell no. I don't believe any of us are
wise enough to know that because its so subjective. I wish god would
deliver a supplemental version of the bible along with the new 4,700
commandments to clear up a few of these problems.
> 4) Gun control.
::sigh:: This a double edged sword. I use to be totally against guns.
But part of me realizes that if the we ever need to take up arms
against our government this right will be invaluable. But a part of me
is totally sick of seeing kids shooting kids in schools. If nothing
else I think there should be a law requiring every type of gun made to
have a palm print reader on the grip so the gun only works with only one
person. Don't think for a second that this technology isn't available.
It is. Sure it would jack up the price of firearms tremendously and
obviously there would be ways around this but it's a hell of a lot
better then what we have now.
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the government in public areas.
Bull shit. If they start putting those in place I'll fursonally
graffiti the lens.
Now ask me if you really want to know how I feel. ;x)
Sorry. I'm still pissed about the election and its rubbing off in my
response. Ya, ya I know I should let it go. But since then I haven't
heard word one about revamping the way we do elections. (i.e. The
devices we use to collect votes.) You'd think there would have been a
some sort of panel formed to look into this. An outcry from the people
to revamp our system. But after Bush took office everything's business
as usual and this steams me. *Kellic dawns his fire retardant suit as
he ducks back down into the foxhole.* Is that a fur with a flamethrower
heading my way?!?!?!
--
-Kellic J. Tiger
-"Ambiguity succeeds where honesty dares not venture"-Dogbert
-Fur Code: FFT2s A- C* D# H- M? P+ R- T++ W- Z? Sm# RLCT a24 cdln++++$
d++ e+ f-- h* i++ j+ p- sm-
***TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL REMOVE NULL FROM MY ADDRESS***
Alexsandyr Troutnoodler
Hash: SHA1
David Fox wrote in message
<20010806005532...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
>1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
Me: Hmmmm. One word: CHINA. All Americans may now commence
kissing President Bush's feet in PROFOUND gratitude that he is going
to build this system.
In fact, excuse me, but I'm going to be on the west coast, helping to
dig the sites a little faster. You guys all know what my job is,
right? Right. Trust me on this. Be grateful. And pray to God that
it works.
Otter: Mreep? *gnosh*gnosh*gnosh*
>2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
Me: It's a lovely concept. Great idea, too! Yet, for all the
howling that the rest of the world did when Bush threw it out on it's
ear, I find it QUITE interesting that only Lithuania signed it.
Everyone else just seemed to be standing around, waiting for the Big
Bad Americans to sign it first.
As C&C Music Factory said in a song, "Things that make you go,
'Hmmmm...'"
However, I *DO* object to Bush cutting funding to alternative energy
research and his veiled attempts at opening the Alaskan Fish and
Wildlife Refuge.
Otter: BARK! *sploosh*
>3) Abortion.
Me: Let's see...you want to make abortion illegal, hmmm? Okay, no
problem. For TODAY, we've got 75 crack babies, 52 teenage-mother
abandonments, 23 Down's Syndrome and 15 "Flipper Kids". How many can
I sign you up for? Oh, by the way, you don't get a choice of color.
*holds up a pen, ready to sign you up*
If you try to fix one problem, you often create another one. Find a
way to fix the problem the RIGHT WAY the FIRST TIME, or MIND YOUR OWN
BUSINESS.
Outside of the practical considerations, I find it sad that it even
exists.
Otter: Mreeeeeeeawawwww! *kidnaps a mother's pup to trade it back
for her food*
>4) Gun control.
Me: What part of "Shall NOT be infringed" don't you understand? Gun
control is hitting your target. There are ENOUGH laws on the books
already, thank you. Try enforcing them for a change.
Otter: EEEP! *SPLOOSH!*
>5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
>government in public areas.
Me: Does anyone here remember the book "1984" by George Orwell? I
read that book all the way back in 1984 (oddly enough) and it's as
clear to me today as it was back then.
It's interesting that nobody ever gives much thought as to exactly
HOW "Pacifica" and "Oceania" came to be, isn't it? You don't suppose
that these two "Utopian Societies" simply popped up overnight, do
you? You don't REALLY think that "Big Brother" just materialized out
of thin air and everyone just jumped up and gave Hosannahs to his
name, do you?
THINK, YA BLOODY FULE!!!
"Big Brother" and EVERYTHING that came with "him" was the result of a
society that REFUSED TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN
ACTIONS!!! "Pacifica" and "Oceania" came about because people WANTED
MORE LAWS to PROTECT them from the bad things in life.
Unfortunately, they all forgot something really important...
THE BAD THINGS IN LIFE ARE GOOD THINGS IN EXCESS!!
Keep your !@&#^@ cameras outta my face, you son of a #&@^!!!
Otter: *cavorts for the cameras* Meerpp!
*Grins IRL* Hee!
"My opinions are my own. If they piss you off, they're HIS
opinions!" *points at the otter in the water*
==========O <==[IonOtter, LogOut]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO29m7ZHtUWscYsN3EQLz4wCdH5sSd5rmpjB+EJo/0+MmOSqmxXkAoOSk
2vPqY1yUf+8+T5uLc/oZ1Jwy
=SXyf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Aelis Montana
>
I definitely believe in abortion, I think we should do anything we possibly can
to manage the world population. There's way to many people here already, if we
don't do something soon it'll be our demise.
>4) Gun control.
I don't think civilians should be allowed to carry guns.
-Aelis Montana-
Blue furred cat
Furry Code: FF2acmr/ArB4s A C- D+ H+ M P++ R+ T+++ W Z Sf++ RLU a17 cn+ d+ e-
f+ h* iwf+ j- p++ sf+
AIM: Bluefurrykitty
Alexsandyr Troutnoodler
Hash: SHA1
Tiado wrote in message <3B6F2FBA...@my.sig>...
I don't think that responsible firearm owners should be forced to
give up their weapons because of some stupid law, and where will it
stop? next thing you know the government would want to ban anything
else that people can use as weapons.
(endqoute)
To which I reply, with a qoute from 2 the Griffon: "FWOOOO-TWAAHHH!!
FLAMING PRISMA-COLOR OF DEATH!!! *karate-leaps and shoves
disgustingly flame-pink art-pencil into someone's eyeball!!!*"
Ever wonder where 90% of all martial arts weapons came from? Farm
implements. Yep! A farmer was swingin' his grain thresher on the
threshing floor when an arrogant samurai came over to push him
around. The thresher "just sorta slipped" and laid the samurai out
flatter than a flounder.
VOILA! Hence came the footman's flail, the 3-section staff and the
nunchakau. Sure don't look like no farm implement in Bruce Lee's
paws, though, now do they? >;)
============O <==[IonOtter, LogOut]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO29xSZHtUWscYsN3EQINAwCgjmJm7Pl5IxC0MfNIeXn0xf+I2bAAniPg
Ov+w0qYmW9WAItNNPts3nUc5
=llRK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Fox
>1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
I believe that ABM technology is essential for survival in the post cold war
model that no longer really carries the risk of global destruction in any
serious capacity.
>2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
These accords are misguided and would require America to swallow most of the
harsh parts while the countries with the worst GDP/pollution ratios are not
required to comply.
>3) Abortion.
I am in favor at current. By the same token, the woman if she has the full
power to abort the child also must take the full responsibility for the child.
This is the only fair arrangement, the father may only be required to kick in
only for the costs of the birthing or the cost of the abortion from a legal
standpoint. Everyhting else should be recognized as the father being a good
father, not in the current view that men are required to actually be
responsible for a child they have zero choices about in this country. That
arrangement is the most sexist thing since not letting women vote. Think about
it.
>4) Gun control.
"Shall not be infringed" translates to "from my cold dead hands." This is a
fundamental right in a free society. Not only that but it is symbolic of the
freedom and responsibility that were core social values at one point.
Controls only control law-abiding citizens, by definition criminals break laws.
So it only limits the rights of the law abiding while opening those same law
abiding citizens to attack by armed criminals. Effectively on crime and the
police: the response time for my neighborhood is around 3-4 minutes, but that
is 3-4 minutes after the fact; if the crime was murder, I'm afraid that
response time does me no good.
I'd much rather be able to drop an attacker where he stands (and don't doubt I
can't, I'm a good enough shot and quick enough at getting the gun to a ready
position) than hope that I'm not killed after he has my wallet.
>5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
>government
>in public areas.
The no-privacy on a public street argument has been made. I agree, no privacy
is on a public street. This is too bad. However, that does not open the door to
monitor people on those streets with cameras recording their every move. If a
police car did that to you on a highway long enough in this state, it is
harassment, plain and simple. No amount of "lack of privacy" justifies
watchers.
And if you want to beat crime, put an officer on the plaza. I guarantee you
that he will deter crime AND make citizens feel somewhat safer, knowing that
there is somene to actually stop an altercation.
It is only fair to answer my own questions.
David Fox
>Me: Hmmmm. One word: CHINA. All Americans may now commence
>kissing President Bush's feet in PROFOUND gratitude that he is going
>to build this system.
Not only are you a great furson, but a great furson with similar opinions!
On the subject of China:
While many pundits declare China a non-threat or proclaim the need for
engagement of China, it increasingly appears that the only engagement China
wishes to undertake is in a World War II style bid for Pacific superiority. The
ominous prospect is that China is becoming bolder since it received such
worldwide attention as a vast new marketplace. Though many claim that the
Chinese threat could be easily diffused by the refusal of US trade or help of
any sort, they are at best inaccurate and at worst dangerously wrong.
Reliable sources indicate that connections to German industry (long jealous of
being unable to gain footholds in China during the 19th century) would quickly
replace US ties. Furthermore the nature of the German economy dictates that
such a large export market would be its most valuable asset to further growth
while the rest of Europe continues to grapple with itself. It is furthermore
likely that a Unified European Military would lend technological if not
diplomatic support to China in pursuit of richer markets. With no major
opposition outside of the US and an increasingly weak Russia, China feels it
has free rein.
However the deployment of ballistic missile defense combined with a strategy
(one that Bush has taken) of truly serious relations with Russia to provide
China with the kind of opposition that is needed in this situation. Recent
developments in Pakistan are especially disturbing and I still await reliable
information concerning Chinese moves in the South China Sea involving drilling,
shipping, and bases. I still see the Spratly's Islands as a good bet for a
flashpoint. Furthermore, I am awaiting a next major conflict between India and
Pakistan, I guarantee Chinese intervention that may give very good clues on the
real extent of Chinese military power.
Though I maintain a certainty that Chinese sabre-rattling if not actual
conflict will be the realities for at least the next 10 years. I base this on
information gained from a variety of sources--these sources helped create my
map of hotspots and helped to accurately predict the coming of the Kosovo
Conflict, informed me ahead of major media of the Chinese embassy hit, were key
in the predictions of a revived Chechen conflict, and (as the best yet) kept me
apparently far more abreast of events on the Indian subcontinent than any other
agency or individual I know--that I view as intensely reliable.
Given that threat, I believe that missile defense will become a trump card that
will help to remove a lot of the potential difficulties in dealing with the
more dogmatic Chinese government.
This notwithstanding the defense against "roque states" and related advances in
NG&CS as well as updated propulsion systems that should help to counteract the
effects guided missile technology has had on the security of our carriers
(which are radar targets first class I'm informed). The need for better
guidance, especially guidance that will not rely on things such as radar, is
needed to maintain at least a small level of stealth and remove all shoot and
be seen problems while not degrading performance of weapons systems.
I may not be accurate there, I've been long since out of the military tech
loop, the journals that carry it are outrageously expensive and my own
information gathering operations have undergone serious financial cutbacks in
recent months (from around 40 periodicals, newspapers, and journals, to around
12) with most of the remainders comprising mainly foreign policy reports and
limited references to emerging military technology.
Gotta love our new President and all the talented men and women in his
administration.
>There are ENOUGH laws on the books
>already, thank you. Try enforcing them for a change.
Or better yet, repeal them and save my tax dollars for something I like (like
missile defense or just a bigger military budget in general)
SlickScale
issues have any relation to my phenotype. So I guess I shall commence
spouting complete OT paranoid BS now.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
PR - no government nor their corporate masters have any intention of
economically disadvantaging themselves in this fashion. If I recall
correctly the standards set by the summit have been lowered so that some
countries would sign to it.
It's a good cause, but good lost when they started selling our rebellion to
us. It's a terrible thing, but they're not going to stop until their own
asses become threatened, and that's not now.
Tragedy.
> 3) Abortion.
I'm of a bizarre and contradictory opinion on this issue, as I am with many
many other issues. I'll take this in a somewhat backward chronological
order.
Overall I am against abortion. The reason for this being is that it's
potentially entirely unnecessary. Going further into political opinion, I
believe in a system where all persons of the male persuasion are
mandatorially implanted with a reversable system to block the tubes leaving
the testicles. In this fashion, full reproduction without government consent
is impossible but people can hump to their heart's content - at least
without fear of conception anyway. Yes I understand the potential evil that
could be brought about by this system if corrupted, but that's too far off
my original argument.
This system will completely remove the issues of abortion, unexpected babies
from incest rape and teen experimentation, and overpopulation.
Obviously this system will not come about any time soon, if ever. Until that
time, I am pro-choice.
A necessary tragedy.
> 4) Gun control.
"An armed society is a polite society."
Not many thieves are going to mug you if they THINK you have a firearm
tucked away who knows where on your person. And if they do try, an equally
potentially armed witness samaritan might not like that. Beyond this point
the police will likely be on the scene and case closed.
Yeah. The crazies are going to kill you with their guns or their knives or
their sharpsticks or their broken plates or their fists. Difference is,
while they're almost always going to be one-up on you on that scale, there
isn't anything higher than a gun.
A mass shooting is going to be stopped short of mass by a citizen in self
defense.
Any gangster or government (same thing, essentially) that tries to step on
people is going to think twice about it. Which is why they're passing gun
control laws. Read up on history, friends. Japan is only the first to come
to mind.
Tragedy creeping up behind us as we run.
You been counting? Good, coz you'll be wondering where this went:
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
Relevant to 4.
The USofA has been in the business of being #1 full time for probably the
past 100 years, and they've been quite successful - possibly more than any
other organization in history. And they don't seem to feel like stopping
either.
Therefore this doesn't come as a surprise. As a person who distrusts any
government, especially the American government, I am extremely wary of the
missile shield.
However, I am otherwise indifferent to it. There's nothing I can do about it
and there's nothing anyone will do about it. Despite this being
over-the-top, I think keeping a strong military is vitally important for any
nation, and the technology that military research brings is great.
Building tragedy.
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
government
> in public areas.
Disgusting. Good morning, America, c 1984!
I can't on my own imagine a single reasonable explanation of this concept
other than government control. In spite of this, the government does not
give a rat's ass about harmless private things like furry. But don't expect
to be able to do anything serious when they legislate it to appease some
lobby group and keep morale up. (ie go to work every day)
Relevant to 1 and 2 and 4
Fitter
Happier
More Productive tragedy.
I see a pattern.
Slicky
David Fox
>MUST-RESIST!!
>
>I'd go off on a *major* speel on all those hot button topics and I
>really don't feel any have nuch to do with furry lifestyle as generally
>presented. All good question but not here.
My original intent, as stated perhaps not clearly enough, was to guage
political views and get any response on how they are related to the fur's
phenotype (seeing as though there is an extensive list of things that may be
related to phenotype in the furvey, I thought politics might be, too)
Alas, I have become the furry equivalent of a Gallup Poll.
*sighs*
Though all this brings an interesting conclusion about not only furs and
politics but likely about furs and their phenotypes as a whole. Not to mention
that with every one of these polls (they garner few responses usually so there
are a number of these by me, if you hadn't noticed) no one has directly linked
politics to phenotype, I am seeing no reason to make the claim on group that if
there were real furs that they would eat other furs for actual food.
It would seem that political order (which would control this kind of thing) is
not connected to phenotypal instincts, thus there is no basis to conclude that
a furry society would bend to instincts either. I rather consider my
experiences with these questions on group to be a reliable indicator to that
effect.
There is, however, a view that will be rather unpopular and may result in my
receiving less enthusiasm than ever before. This soon to be unpopular view does
account for the discrepancy rather well, though.
Assuming I state it on group.
Skipai Da Otter
Hash: SHA1
"David Fox" <fox...@aol.comCORNERS> wrote in message
news:20010806005532...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
I thought I answer this considering that I am looking to living in
this country sometime in this decade. And it be different to get a
opinion on the other side of the pond as well, with some concerns etc
on how it's run over here.
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
I have read alot about this program and also how the MoD here in the
UK have condemned the plan since it would be waaaaaay too expensive
to implement being part of it. Quite frankly I have never really
understood why on earth we needed such mass destructive weapons that
would make 0% winner in a full out nuclear war. For the top brass in
the states. You can forget it. Doesn't matter if you start the war
or finish it. No one is gonna survive.
However, from reading the replies on this thread and thinking very
carefully. I seriously wish that our Prime Minister wasn't such a
a$$ kisser to the states. Sorry to have to say that, but it's
humiliating that we do. Okay, most of the things are good that come
out of the country of yours but since idea isn't one of them. What
with the slight chance of another recession coming again. May I
remind you that this is how one word war came about last time.
Direct weapons being lunched from one country to another is slim at
least. I agree that todays tactics are to use terrorism.
Why I say this is because, look at the facts. You have the
successful and still running terrorism going on in the world. Not
that I approve of such activities though. But yes, most countries
have to seriously improve on their security to make terrorism attacks
on a country very slim in happening. It's just a matter on looking
to where a attack could happen. And smuggling in something that's
got mass destructive power is much easier than firing it in the sky
where it get picked up by radar.
Me thinks that the Bush Administration has to seriously reconsider
their security plans. You don't have to think BIG all the time.
Even the smallest, well thought out plans can secure a countries
security for much less $'s as well.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
Okay. I just don't believe that the US has rejected this. Even
China has accepted these accords for crying out loud. I do know that
there must've been some pressure from the oil companies pressing down
on Bush to make him surrender. This is not a good thing to let a
leader of a country be run by oil tycoons. You may as well give the
Presidency to them instead.
Mainly that this pollution problem is not going to go away and living
in a old fashioned way of. "Well, it's not going to be that bad in
my time." Is no excuse whatsoever. We as of today, do have a /huge/
responsibility for the upkeep of the planet and for the future
generations that will follow after us.
But speaking on this. What would the US do when all oil have run
dry. Yep. It's only finite source. You would think that by now
that the US and also other western countries would start to really
put money in to securing our future with alternative energy sources.
Forget what the coal, gas and oil fat cats want to happen. They be
no use whatsoever when it runs out and what would you rather have?
To continue on strongly or to find yourselves going back to pre
industrial age within 6 months?
At this time, I think Bush has chosen the latter option. Aren't you
glad that eventually you all be able to experience olde fashioned
Europe and British life with castles, disease and no way to get from
state to state since it take way too long by horseback.
Mind you, this is only just one scenerio that could happen. We have
a chance to make sure it doesn't but not being prepared in looking
after our future interests and looking to the present day of profit
on industry as it is. Is somehow just wrong but then, no one said
running a country and also helping to run a whole planet would be
easy. But does require common sense though.
> 4) Gun control.
I have to say that with some sadness that the UK is slowly turning
into the US on this regard. Over the last year we have seen in this
place, gun related crime shoot up by 50%. Now that is a lot. Okay,
so everyone has a right to own a gun. Now don't get me wrong on this
one, but how come the US is so scared of changing fundemental ways?
It really boils down to that. Apart from writing that constituation
of rights. Just what major real changes have the US really done over
the last 100 years? I could see why you had to own a gun way back
during the old times but come on. This is the 21st century. And
mostly, if you use a gun, even in self defense you be done for man
slaughter or murder anyway, regardless if a person is in your home or
not.
If not, then seriously tighten gun control than what it is right now,
even to just reduce the amount of school shootings. I have nothing
against the US at all, but how many more incidents is it going to
take before you lot decide that enough is enough to make changes to
ensure that this won't happen again or to ensure that it's so bloody
hard to make it happen again.
Only ways I can see on doing this is:
1. Having stricter gun owning laws. Even if that means that you
need to do a lot more tests on gun safety, go through just what is it
like to actually shoot living flesh. Any big leg of lamb etc would
be enough.
2. That all bought guns have to be locked up so that children can't
get hold of them.
3. No one under the age of 21 or maybe 25 can't own a gun. Yeah I
know this goes against most of your rights but get over that small
one. Which would you rather have? Some kid who has a grudge against
your son over a petty arguement the day ago and comes in and blasts
him full in the chest. Or have stronger gun guidelines. Well, it's
really up to the citizens in the states. The government works for
you. Sometimes most people forget that they are the governments
bosses sometimes.....
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by
> the government in public areas.
This is already happening over here in the UK. If you've been to the
UK, then you've already been scanned by these cameras. They're in
ports, airports, motorways and currently in Manchester, Birmingham
and London. They are used to search for known terrorists, keep a eye
on where they are but can be used to tracking escaped crinimals
easily enough.
I don't think you have much choice in the matter if they do or not.
Freedom works both ways from yourside and also the governments and if
it increases security to your country in catching crinimals and
anyone who shouldn't be in the US. I rather that they use that
system. I wouldn't see anything wrong with it, unless you had
something to actually hide. Which usually means unlawful things that
are set out in the countries/states law.
> Feel free to answer all, some, or none of the questions to whatever
> level you feel is necessary.
- --
Skipai Da Otter
Take out mudslide to reply to me
FZp4m A+ C- D++++ H+++ M++ P+ R+ T++++ W- Z Sp+ RLU a26 cadlnw++++ d+
e+++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO2/llJxl8H7mp9nsEQIDwgCgt5ny1GvOmoU+dOsUZX+iF4Zt3R8Ani1d
uTu065N7CYj9ZIpNHyWWFM4v
=wWIX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Skipai Da Otter
Hash: SHA1
"m.copper" <m.co...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FTvb7.12867$hs5.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> It's a slow start. I'm definitely pro arms race. We live in a
> hostile world. It's our duty/destiny to create a new generation
> of super weapons. Fear is a very useful political tool.
It's a futile start. Okay, listen to why I think this.
The current way I see things right now is that everyone has to fight
to actually get along with each other. It's the usual causes that
spark conflicts from;
The who can build bigger ships between Britain and Germany that was
one of the things that sparked off a conflict that was WWI.
Which means, any war has the same simple factors in it. 1. Land
which regards resources etc. 2. Who has the bigger gun than someone
else.
So in my own personal opinion. Building bigger guns etc is only
provoking the situation but I agree that since we do live in a
hostile world made up of those factors and many more factors, it's a
viscious circle that needs to be broken but that's going to be a very
hard thing to do. Only way I can see that from happening if
something global happened from a outside source that threatened this
planet to make us stop long enough to fight each other.
> The contemporary UK police motto: We can't stop crime, but we
> can film it from seven different angles.
This is true and does actually works I think. What I don't get is
why everyone is jumping up and down now based on automated facial
reconisition software when you've been on camera since the 1970's.
It used to be a manual thing. Camera take photo of you. Law
enforcer looks at crinimal known records if known or prints you out
if it's your first offence and then tries to find you or arrest you
for such crime.
Like I said. Most of the US, don't want changes. But that's my own
personal opinion. It's just been happening for a long time. But
somehow there's that fear when it's all becoming automated and
immediate action than say several hours to a week on getting known
crinimal information.
> - -
> Sabbath
- --
Skipai Da Otter
Take out mudslide to reply to me
FZp4m A+ C- D++++ H+++ M++ P+ R+ T++++ W- Z Sp+ RLU a26 cadlnw++++ d+
e+++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO2/nypxl8H7mp9nsEQJvmwCg+DZI/tu8HC6wy3IuzLDMU8AynmcAoLGt
44LEX3J+l4RRoh/k5YtThLw+
=flEX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gren
> Have those countries which have banned civilian ownership seen a
> decrease in their crime rates? (Most of the studies I've encountered say:
> just the opposite).
There are a great number of other factors which also need to be accounted
for, though.
Gren (the queen should try being shot at, since she enjoys killing pheasants
so much) < =3
Brian Sutton
>1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
In favor of, I think a lot of you younger folks would be surprised to know
that there was a working system briefly back in the early seventies. I've been
amused by the number of articles I've read from former arms control advocates
now whole heartedly embrace the MAD doctine, ( also articles from writers who
don't have a clue what the MAD doctine is but are still in favor of it ).
>2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
I'm not disappointed we backed out. Too many of these international treaties
seem to start with the concept, "It's the United States fault", and back fill
from there. Just out of curiousity did anyone else see the satelite photo film
loop of polution that was shown on the nightly news about a month ago?
We have been involved in some climate stuff before, Bush sr. signed off on the
Montreal protocals back in the late eighties, ( which Clinton backed out on,
funny that doesn't come up much ).
>3) Abortion.
I've changed my mind about it.
>4) Gun control.
I'd like to see as little as possible because too many of the gun control
people have the ultimate goal of removing all firearms from the hands of the
citizens. I noticed that most of the arguments in this discusion centered
around guns detering crime, I think that you overlook the real point of the
right. I think this had more to do with maintaining an armed populus that
could overthrow an unpopular government if necessary.
>5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
government
>in public areas.
I'm sure it would help a lot in fighting crime, I'm also sure it would be
abused in some way in nothing flat. Yikes, I don't even like the idea of On
Star ( even if it is endorsed by Batman ).
David, I'm amazed at how much you can type. Please e-mail me the results of
postings if you don't post'em here. I'd like to send you a copy of Eureka if
you'd give me a mailing address. So other folks don't feel left out the next
three people that e-mail me can get a copy also.
Brian Sutton
"The truth has nothing to do with this. This is about winning an argument"
--Shon Howell
Visit my website @ http://members.xoom.com/HJGpage/
for deals on Furry art & comics
Redregon
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the government
> in public areas.
neither do i
> I'm glad the forests are still un monitered.
Are you absolutely sure about this one?
DynoMutt
Redregon <Frisk...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11313330.01080...@posting.google.com...
Satellite technology exists that both we and the russians can read each
others licence plates.
Not to mention the thermal sensing devices being used on suspected 'growers'
by the gubamint...
Izefox
>On 7 Aug 2001 00:32:00 GMT, ize...@www.fi (Izefox) (Izefox) left the
>following spoor in alt.lifestyle.furry:
>
>>
>> Gun control is always a good thing. At least I feel much safer when
>> only a small minority of people owns guns. Just think about it: Have
>> guns caused more good or bad things?
>>
> Depends -- was the American Revolution good or bad?
You could ask that for about every war there is/has been. But that wasn't
the point. The point was: People use guns to kill other people.
> Have those countries which have banned civilian ownership seen a
>decrease in their crime rates? (Most of the studies I've encountered
>say: just the opposite).
No, but then many criminals would not use guns in their crimes. And I
didn't say that civilian ownership of a gun should be banned. I would just
like to see it strictly controlled. (What it is in Finland)
--
Izefox
ICQ: 123876190
Nebulous
Kellic J. Tiger wrote
>
> Now ask me if you really want to know how I feel. ;x)
> Sorry. I'm still pissed about the election and its rubbing off in my
> response. Ya, ya I know I should let it go. But since then I haven't
> heard word one about revamping the way we do elections. (i.e. The
> devices we use to collect votes.) You'd think there would have been a
> some sort of panel formed to look into this. An outcry from the people
> to revamp our system. But after Bush took office everything's business
> as usual and this steams me. *Kellic dawns his fire retardant suit as
> he ducks back down into the foxhole.* Is that a fur with a flamethrower
> heading my way?!?!?!
>
There has been a commission on revamping election rules. It was headed by
former presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. The reason you probably
haven't heard much about it is that it wasn't *BIG NEWS*. I heard about it
a couple of weeks ago on one of the news programs on public radio ('Talk of
the Nation' maybe?). It mostly wasn't about choosing the best voting
devices, but about standardizing the rules for vote counts, absentee
ballots, and recounts. They also discussed ways to get more people *to*
vote.
--
Nebulous Rikulau
My furcode
FFCs4a A- C* D H+ M- P++ R+ T+++ W Z+ Sm RLRB/AT a+ cn++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j+
p+ sm-
Brian Sutton
>by
>former presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. The reason you probably
>haven't heard much about it is that it wasn't *BIG NEWS*.
I can confirm this, the subject was on the talking heads shows last Sunday.
I'm not too hopeful that anything will come of it for a few more years, both
sides are still trying to work it to give there respective party an advantage.
Alexsandyr Troutnoodler
Hash: SHA1
Aloha, all!
Izefox wrote in message ...
>Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>You could ask that for about every war there is/has been. But that
>wasn't the point. The point was: People use guns to kill other
>people.
Exactly. If I've got some stranger breaking his was into my house,
DESPITE ALL WARNINGS, I'm going to blow him away.
In almost 90% of all break-ins where someone was in the house during
the attempt, the attacker(s) were NOT deterred by warnings. If
they're coming in with you in the house, then they are NOT going to
be scared off.
>> Have those countries which have banned civilian ownership seen
>> a
>>decrease in their crime rates? (Most of the studies I've
>>encountered say: just the opposite).
>
>No, but then many criminals would not use guns in their crimes. And
>I didn't say that civilian ownership of a gun should be banned. I
>would just like to see it strictly controlled. (What it is in
>Finland)
Ahhhh, but in Finland, you are still allowed to own firearms, both
handguns and long guns. Granted, you are licensed and documented,
but you are still armed.
Or we can use Switzerland as an example if you like. All citizens
who own a firearm (which is HIGHLY encouraged) must report to
mandatory firearms training twice a year. And all adult males are
required to maintain their government issued weapons in case of an
emergency mobilization.
Or we can take a look at it from *this* point of view...
(Excerpt from a webpage I found and can't find again, dammit..)
In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation
when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel
and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces.
Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting
were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at
sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.
Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific
Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what
Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not
simply invaded the West Coast.
Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese
commander's face as he frankly answered the question.
"You are right," he told the Americans. "We did indeed know much
about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in
your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually
had state championships for private citizens shooting military
rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."
And here is yet *another* interesting story...
(Excerpt from a letter by David Friedman, Professor of Law, Santa
Clara University)
"There was a news story a few months back from (I think) Merced
California, about someone who broke into a house containing five
children, killed two (with a pitchfork) and wounded two others.
Apparently the original news story from the local paper, carried by
the wire service, included the fact that while he was breaking in the
eldest child, a fourteen year old girl with experience in target
shooting, went to her parents' bedroom, got out their handgun--and
was unable to use it because of the trigger lock that her father had
put on in obedience to a recent state law.
The interesting point was that, according to John, that part of the
story was cut out by every newspaper in the state, aside from the
Fresno Bee (I think) which is where the original appeared."
Yes, guns are dangerous. They have one function and one function
only.
They are made to kill. (Target shooting is irrelevant)
But weather they are used to kill an animal or a human is STILL a
HUMAN DECISION.
And it is that decision that should be "on trial" as it were, not the
decision to own or not to own.
==============O <==[IonOtter, LogOUt]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO3IMxJHtUWscYsN3EQJMnACg7AfSBqcYiokEHdABDfvF3rhrSywAn22b
nnZrCpCD1VTTuHlXsjom+WHN
=G6b9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gray Silvermoon
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
I don't watch the news much, so I can't say I know (or care) about the first
two. Since I'm not even an American, most politics has little to no interest
for me.
> 3) Abortion.
Ah... now that's a tough one. It all depends on circumstance. I had a
loooong talk with my mate about this a while ago, and we came to the
conclusion that if a woman is raped or something then it should be okay to
have an abortion, since it's not fair to ruin her life because of someone
else's selfish actions.
On the other hand, people having abortions because they're too ignorant or
lazy to use proper protection is a bad thing, after all, it's not fair for
the poor fetus to die because its parents were stupid.
Either way, abortions, in my opinion, should be done as early as possible.
The longer ya wait, the more human it becomes..
> 4) Gun control.
DON'T get me started on that.
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
> government in public areas.
Very, VERY bad idea. Once again, I'm reminded that the world is becoming
more and more like George Orwell's book "1984" every day. Forget the crappy
reality TV show "Big Brother" -- "1984" is a very real possibility, and Big
Brother is already watching us.
--
~* Gray Silvermoon *~
...the voice in your head...
Antar000
> 3) Abortion.
Personally, I'm pro-life, but I can understand why people are
pro-choice. Because, if one takes a morning-aftr pill, that's
acceptable, the egg isn't yet a eftus, but when the fetus is usually
discovered, it alrady has some rudimentary thought abilities and is
ALIVE. And, abortions can be as, if not more, traumatic than giving
birth. People should just put their kid up for adoption and be more
careful yiffing.
> 4) Gun control.
A joke. Yah, I might like to own a gun sometime in the future, but
only as a collector's piece (like an authentic Colt .45 military
service revolver from the 1800's) but really, it's wierd living in a
country where you are allowed to own an assault rifle with just a
minor background check. Maybe our next president shouldn't be from
Arkansas or Texas...?
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the > government
> in public areas.
Honestly, I'm OK with that. I don't haver any record with the police,
so why should I worry...and...it's a PUBLIC area. Just like you could
set those babies up all over your property, so can they on their
property. It makes me feel a little safer, knowing that they can
identify a serial killer in a crowd of thousands with a camera.
That's just me though.
--Antar Draconis
My Furcode: FCF3adw/DL3adw/MO3adw A+ C- D H++ M- P R++ T++++ W Z Sm+
RLAT a- cl++++ d++ e* f+++ h* i+++ j+ p++ sm
You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're
all the same.
--Jonathan Davis
Brian Sutton
>country where you are allowed to own an assault rifle with just a
>minor background check.
I before E except when it isn't. Back in the twenties it was easier to get a
submachine gun than an automatic pistol, learned that from watching The
Untouchables. Down in Texas we've had the concealed carry law for a number of
years, still hasn't produced the chaos in the streets that was forecast.
>> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the
> > government
>> in public areas.
>Honestly, I'm OK with that. I don't haver any record with the police,
>so why should I worry...and...it's a PUBLIC area.
>--Antar Draconis
But we've already got challenges to racial profiling now you want to automate
the process? I'll put up with the indignity of being video taped while buying
Gundam toys at the Walmart but that's all.
Anubis
Alexsandyr Troutnoodler <iono...@hotmail.fishbones.com> wrote in message
news:9kt2ml$lk9$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Yes, guns are dangerous. They have one function and one function
> only.
>
> They are made to kill. (Target shooting is irrelevant)
>
be defended by a skilled user than a total novice.
> But weather they are used to kill an animal or a human is STILL a
> HUMAN DECISION.
>
Yup.
> And it is that decision that should be "on trial" as it were, not the
> decision to own or not to own.
>
Stop making so much sense!
Nebulous
Anubis wrote
>
> Alexsandyr Troutnoodler wrote
> >
> > Yes, guns are dangerous. They have one function and one function
> > only.
> >
> > They are made to kill. (Target shooting is irrelevant)
> >
> Um, no..target shooting is relevant to the safe use of a firearm. I'd
rather
> be defended by a skilled user than a total novice.
>
To me, Gun Control means to hit what you are aiming at. And to *ONLY* aim
at what you want to hit.
Too many children(*) have been killed by stray bullets in drive-by
shootings. Those criminals do not have control of their guns, else they
would have been able to shoot the person they were after, and not anybody
else who happenned by.
(*) One death is too many, and I give no upper age limit to childhood.
Smrgol -};>~
> They are made to kill. (Target shooting is irrelevant)
> But weather they are used to kill an animal or a human is STILL a
> HUMAN DECISION.
> And it is that decision that should be "on trial" as it were, not the
> decision to own or not to own.
Amen, my friend.
-};>~
David Friedman
...
> (Excerpt from a letter by David Friedman, Professor of Law, Santa
> Clara University)
>
> "There was a news story a few months back from (I think) Merced
> California, about someone who broke into a house containing five
> children, killed two (with a pitchfork) and wounded two others.
> Apparently the original news story from the local paper, carried by
> the wire service, included the fact that while he was breaking in the
> eldest child, a fourteen year old girl with experience in target
> shooting, went to her parents' bedroom, got out their handgun--and
> was unable to use it because of the trigger lock that her father had
> put on in obedience to a recent state law.
>
> The interesting point was that, according to John, that part of the
> story was cut out by every newspaper in the state, aside from the
> Fresno Bee (I think) which is where the original appeared."
It's a good story, but as far as I have been able to determine it
isn't true. After I heard it , I tried to locate the news stories. As
far as I can tell, the account my source had given (in a public
lecture) and had gotten from someone else confused two different news
stories.
The original story on the shooting had nothing about the girl trying
to get at her parents' handgun, and it sounded from the sequence of
events as though that would have been impractical. A later story,
based on an interview with a relative, put some of the blame on gun
control laws, I think specifically safe storage laws. So the other
newspapers were not cutting out information from the original
story--merely repeating what the original story said without adding
anything from the later story. And what was in the later story was a
lot less damning than in the account I heard.
AJL
> 1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
I'm torn on this one:
Being able to screen all incoming missiles is a nice idea, so it's
good.
It violates existing treaties by undermining MAD (Mutually Assured
Destruction), so it's bad.
It advances the development of cutting-edge techologies, so it's good,
like the space program.
It will not work in its existing implementation, so it's bad.
I'm all for spending money to develop the technology, but a lot has to
happen before it can be deployed.
> 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
I'm not up to date on these... but if they deal with Ozone layer
depletion and using CFC's (I'm assuming that they do) I will only agree
that there is still no conclusive proof that gournd-use CFC's have any
effect whatsoever on the Ozone layer... and I want my TV Tuner cleaner
spray back on the shelf at Radio Shack! <grin>
> 3) Abortion.
A private, family-based topic that doesn't belong in politics at all.
> 4) Gun control.
Being able to hit what you are aiming at.
> 5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the government
> in public areas.
Efficient, and effective. Only pictures of faces that closely match
current suspects ever get shown to a human, the computer dumps the rest
in the bit-bucket.
--Darrel.
Nebulous
AJL wrote
> > 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
>
> I'm not up to date on these... but if they deal with Ozone layer
> depletion and using CFC's (I'm assuming that they do) I will only agree
> that there is still no conclusive proof that gournd-use CFC's have any
> effect whatsoever on the Ozone layer... and I want my TV Tuner cleaner
> spray back on the shelf at Radio Shack! <grin>
>
I think that the main argument with the KCC accords is the limit on carbon
dioxide emissions. With 'emissions credits' transferable between nations.
Will the populations of India and China have to limit their breathing to
meet the CO2 emissions standards?
Jeremy DuCharme
>
> AJL wrote
>
> > > 2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
> >
> > I'm not up to date on these... but if they deal with Ozone layer
> > depletion and using CFC's (I'm assuming that they do) I will only agree
> > that there is still no conclusive proof that gournd-use CFC's have any
> > effect whatsoever on the Ozone layer... and I want my TV Tuner cleaner
> > spray back on the shelf at Radio Shack! <grin>
> >
> I think that the main argument with the KCC accords is the limit on carbon
> dioxide emissions. With 'emissions credits' transferable between nations.
>
> Will the populations of India and China have to limit their breathing to
> meet the CO2 emissions standards?
Let's look shall we?
*Nikas thumps a huge annotated copy of Kyoto on his desk*
Hmm, restrictions on CO2 out puts for China and India. None.
*Flips through the treaty for more info*
Maybe they come on board later? Nope, absolutely no limits on how
much they (and most of the third world nations) can pump into the
atmosphere.
Let's look at (Holier than Thou) Europe. Hmm, this is interesting.
They way the formulas work out Europe gets a huge credit for cleaning
up Eastern Europe, seems that picking the early nineties for the
baseline emissions data wasn't so random after all. Europe's practical
outlay, very little with cleaning up it's own back yard. And barring
Romania they STILL haven't ratified the Kyoto treaty.
The US? Which has already spent alot of money cleaning up our own
messes? We get zip, nadda, absolutely no credit for it. And don't
go blaming this on Bush Jr. either, see Clinton had three years to
submit this treaty to the US Senate, and he sat on it. The reason
was that the Senate passed a non-binding resoultion, 99-0 that unless
China and India got phased in some how the Senate would reject the
Kyoto Treaty outright. They did this during the negotiations and Gore
who wanted a treaty no matter the terms ignored them. W is simply
not willing to spend the political capital on a flawed treaty that is
66 votes in the hole.
--
30. I will ensure my magical uniform has protective properties. If it is
unable to favorably compare to a bulletproof vest, I will get rid of it
and find a new magical uniform.
64. Not all of my allies have to be magical girls. There is something to
be said for allies carrying assault weapons.
From the 'If I Ever Become a Magical Girl' List
==========================================================================
Take up the quest. B5: Crusade lives on Sci-Fi Channel starting 4/9
Brian Sutton
>
> I'm not up to date on these... but if they deal with Ozone layer
> depletion and using CFC's (I'm assuming that they do)
CFC's?
Man that's yesterday's news. That was all ironed out during the first Bush
administration.
cat
purred:
Another thread I took too long in replying to.
>1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
It should be fully developed than the plans and details posted
to the Internet. The best weapon, in this situation, is one which can
be lethal to both sides. If we alone have it, it forces others to
attack before it gets in place since, once behind an impregnable
shield, we can do what we wish to them (whether or not we intend this,
this is how others will respond to it) As it is, I seriously doubt any
system will work at 100%, just like the system(s) it replaces. I would
put my Defense $$$ into other areas. (strengthen the Navy, a better
group of aircraft than the thing we are buying from General Dynamics,
new weaponry and field equipment for the ground combat troops, and a
solution to the hideous taste of "field rations")
>2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
A great start, IF all the world would join in. The problem is
the biggest polluters won't sign so the net effect will be nil.
>
>3) Abortion.
A person has the right to do with their body and that should
not be interfered with. However I wish the same people who need an
abortion had the brains to avoid pregnancy in the first place (this
goes for both partners in the problem) Chairman Mao would have had
those sorts up against a wall fast, and rightly so. The world does not
need the irresponsible. Be that as it may, ultimately I can not have
any legitimate opinion on the subject. No male can. Since we will
never have that problem we should stand aside and leave the decision
to those who are/will be/might be involved in it.
>
>4) Gun control.
The first thing a dictator does is disarm the populace. If the
Government has reason to fear a revolution, that it has obviously
become so repressive a revolution is needed. If the Founding Fathers
were here when the situation got that bad, they would be in the front,
leading the Second Revolution (the Third for those who count the
"Civil War" as the "War of Northern Aggression"). I am far less afraid
of a fool with a gun than of the same fool with a bomb or car both of
which are easier to make or obtain than a firearm.
>
>5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the government
>in public areas.
Can we say Big Brother? No matter how benign the intent it
WILL be abused and we will all pay the price. Better to train the
Police in the faces of the dangerous criminals. An alert cop can act
to make an arrest or protect the public where a camera can only record
everyone equally. I would rather trust the judgement of a Police
Officer than someone behind a monitor doing whatever they chose with
the data they wee gathering.
cat
foobar/Jason M.
OK, I'll take a quick break from catching back up from 18 days away (details to
follow after I get through the 1800-odd posts left), to answer this survey.
And yes, as an jerk-face American, when I say "we" I probably mean "Americans."
>1) President Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile defense program.
Oh, c'mon, W. You are not Regan or your Father. The cold war is over, unless you
want to look at the new possible cold war with China. Having this program is a
slap in the face to countries we are negotiating with to lower the number of
missiles in the world. It's almost like promising to stop fist-fighting, as you
pull out a pistol and stick it to the guy's head.
Now my youthful naivety may show here, but I highly doubt any country would
seriously attack the US, given that the many(few?) economic allies of the US
would retailiate for the hurt it would put on their economies (But that doesn't
mean that those countries need the US to survive, at least that is not what I
meant).
>2) The Kyoto Climate Control accords.
I think that I am for it, but I really don't know enough about the accords to
really decide.
>3) Abortion.
A woman should be able to abort a baby if she wants, but there should be some
line draw so that people do not have sex helter-skelter with the idea that if
they do conceive, that they'll just abort the child.
>4) Gun control.
Licensing should be necessary to own a gun, and that's the bottom line. I mean
we license people to own a car, which only accidently kills people, and then let
them go relatively hog wild on something that is made to kill people?
>5) The use of face and non-face scanning surveillance cameras by the government
>in public areas.
I dunno. There is really no precedent stopping it as far as I know, but it could
easily be used in a negative way, such as to round up "politcal criminals." But
then, the modern police force is already used in many negative ways...
I guess that's it, so I'll head back to posts.
foobar, the programming dog
FCM[German Shepherd]2ad A+ C- D+ H M P R T++ W Z Sm RLCT a19 cl++>++$ d+ e+ f-
h- i+ j+ p- sm
It's jemitch at caltech.edu, not jASONemitchELL...
David Fox
"foobar/Jason M." <jASONem...@caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:9eEg7.9939$2u.7...@www.newsranger.com...
> Oh, c'mon, W. You are not Regan or your Father. The cold war is over,
unless you
> want to look at the new possible cold war with China. Having this program
is a
> slap in the face to countries we are negotiating with to lower the number
of
> missiles in the world. It's almost like promising to stop fist-fighting,
as you
> pull out a pistol and stick it to the guy's head.
Not really.... it is more equivalent to negotiating peace while building a
wall. After all "good fences make good neighbors."
On the subject of lowering the number of missiles.... I thought Putin agreed
to reconsider the ABM and allow US missile defenses on the condition that we
both reduce stockpiles....
BTW the Cold War never began and it never ended. There is always a Cold War,
it is just a question of with whom.
> Now my youthful naivety may show here, but I highly doubt any country
would
> seriously attack the US, given that the many(few?) economic allies of the
US
> would retailiate for the hurt it would put on their economies (But that
doesn't
> mean that those countries need the US to survive, at least that is not
what I
> meant).
No but I seriously doubt that the US population is going to allow the
President and Congress to defend South Korea when North Korea has vowed to
annihilate LA. Think of the threat like terrorism masked as diplomacy.
> Licensing should be necessary to own a gun, and that's the bottom line. I
mean
> we license people to own a car, which only accidently kills people, and
then let
> them go relatively hog wild on something that is made to kill people?
The Supreme Court has determined that vehicles are a privilige and a
commerce issue. Firearms, however, are an enumerated right and the Supreme
Court case on which all gun control laws are founded is rather vague and
confusing to the point that it could be adequately interprepted in two ways.
Furthermore a Federal Circuit Court has looked with skepticism at the
government's position that the right to keep and bear arms is a group
"militia" right.
> I dunno. There is really no precedent stopping it as far as I know, but it
could
> easily be used in a negative way, such as to round up "politcal
criminals." But
> then, the modern police force is already used in many negative ways...
No reason not to create one.
David Fox
David Fox
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:iei1m9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> This isn't a fence, though. We have an ocean to do that...
Yes... we have an ocean.... I was under the impression that ICBMs were
designed to fly over them and everything else.... maybe I've confused them
with tanks.... hmmmm.....
> Considering that we're already in violation of a standing ABM treaty, I
> don't think it was final.
If you care to get technical I do not believe the Soviet Union was ever in
compliance with the ABM.... if I recall contract law adequately.... a
contract is null and void when one side breaks it..... treaties after all
are contracts....
> Really? North Korea said they'd do us that kind of favor? I like NK more
> than ever now. 8:o)
It's an example.
David Fox