info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The Militia Myth: Why an armed citizenry isn’t the best defense against state tyranny..
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve
Jun 21, 2016, 5:52:59 PM6/21/16
to
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>From;
>
>http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>
>I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>need of revision.
<GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands and
whimper and whine about the second Amendment.
--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>From;
>
>http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>
>I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>need of revision.
<GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands and
whimper and whine about the second Amendment.
--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.
Steve
Jun 21, 2016, 6:00:11 PM6/21/16
to
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:26:31 -0700 (PDT), trainguard
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 21 June 2016 19:25:10 UTC+1, jane.playne wrote:
>> On 6/21/2016 11:09 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> > Gun advocates fancy themselves champions of the Constitution. They
>> > misunderstand and abuse the Second Amendment
>> > accept that the Second Amendment is defensible. The unfortunate reality
>> > is that we live in a country in which there are more guns than people,
>> > where the soft targets outnumber the hard ones. Self-defense is
>> > therefore a legitimate concern. So long as the guns are on the streets
>> > and criminals have access to them, law-abiding citizens deserve the
>> > right to protect themselves.
>> >
>> > But defenders of the Second Amendment often rely on another
>> > justification. The argument, simply stated, is that the right to bear
>> > arms exists to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It’s
>> > “the ultimate check against governmental tyranny,” as Ted Cruz recently
>> > put it. There’s a superficial logic to this claim, but it doesn’t
>> > survive scrutiny. First, a “well-regulated” militia, the alleged
>> > mechanism of this check, is to be controlled by Congress according to
>> > the Constitution. States are allowed to appoint officers and train the
>> > militia, but Congress is given unfettered authority over it. So the
>> > “well-regulated” militia clause is not intended as a “check against
>> > governmental tyranny.” On the contrary, it’s an instrument of state power.
>> >
>> > But what about the practical argument that an armed citizenry is the
>> > best way to keep the state at bay? This, too, is false, and there is
>> > plenty of data to prove it.
>> >
>> > There’s an assumption that political power and violence are equivalent;
>> > that force is always and everywhere the most reliable means of achieving
>> > a political outcome. It’s true that violence is occasionally necessary
>> > (in a geopolitical context, for example), but how useful it is varies
>> > considerably. Understanding the constituents of power is critical. Gene
>> > Sharp, a pioneer of strategic nonviolence, defined political power thus:
>> > “The totality of means, influences, and pressures – including authority,
>> > rewards, and sanctions – available for use to achieve the objectives of
>> > the power-holder, especially the institutions of government, the State,
>> > and groups opposing either of them.”
>> >
>> > What’s crucial about this conception is that political power is not
>> > monolithically grounded in the state, which almost always has a monopoly
>> > on physical force. Rather, political power is pluralistic; it stems from
>> > external sources beyond the power-holder and depends, in part, upon the
>> > consent of the governed. This is another way of saying state power is
>> > contingent. Physical violence can subdue people, but that’s all it can
>> > do. And it’s very difficult to rule over a people without their tacit
>> > consent or active support.
>> >
>> > Armed individuals or even organized militias cannot defeat the United
>> > States government militarily. This ought to be obvious on its face,
>> > given the state’s overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and
>> > capabilities. Gather all the AR-15s you like. If Uncle Sam decides to
>> > detain you, he will – eventually. Having a few guns will complicate
>> > things, but it won’t negate the power asymmetry.
>> >
>> .
>>
>> "But what about the practical argument that an armed citizenry is the
>> best way to keep the state at bay? This, too, is false, and there is
>> plenty of data to prove it. "
>>
>> That is what King George III thought.
>
>His forces were actually defeated by the Continental Army and the French fleet.....
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
The continental army was, of course, comprised of the armed
citizenry.... a pissed off armed citizenry..
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 21 June 2016 19:25:10 UTC+1, jane.playne wrote:
>> On 6/21/2016 11:09 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> > Gun advocates fancy themselves champions of the Constitution. They
>> > misunderstand and abuse the Second Amendment
>> >
>> > From;
>> >
>> > http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>> >
>> >
>> > I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> > need of revision. I don’t believe we should ban guns, however, and I
>> > From;
>> >
>> > http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>> >
>> >
>> > I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> > accept that the Second Amendment is defensible. The unfortunate reality
>> > is that we live in a country in which there are more guns than people,
>> > where the soft targets outnumber the hard ones. Self-defense is
>> > therefore a legitimate concern. So long as the guns are on the streets
>> > and criminals have access to them, law-abiding citizens deserve the
>> > right to protect themselves.
>> >
>> > But defenders of the Second Amendment often rely on another
>> > justification. The argument, simply stated, is that the right to bear
>> > arms exists to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It’s
>> > “the ultimate check against governmental tyranny,” as Ted Cruz recently
>> > put it. There’s a superficial logic to this claim, but it doesn’t
>> > survive scrutiny. First, a “well-regulated” militia, the alleged
>> > mechanism of this check, is to be controlled by Congress according to
>> > the Constitution. States are allowed to appoint officers and train the
>> > militia, but Congress is given unfettered authority over it. So the
>> > “well-regulated” militia clause is not intended as a “check against
>> > governmental tyranny.” On the contrary, it’s an instrument of state power.
>> >
>> > But what about the practical argument that an armed citizenry is the
>> > best way to keep the state at bay? This, too, is false, and there is
>> > plenty of data to prove it.
>> >
>> > There’s an assumption that political power and violence are equivalent;
>> > that force is always and everywhere the most reliable means of achieving
>> > a political outcome. It’s true that violence is occasionally necessary
>> > (in a geopolitical context, for example), but how useful it is varies
>> > considerably. Understanding the constituents of power is critical. Gene
>> > Sharp, a pioneer of strategic nonviolence, defined political power thus:
>> > “The totality of means, influences, and pressures – including authority,
>> > rewards, and sanctions – available for use to achieve the objectives of
>> > the power-holder, especially the institutions of government, the State,
>> > and groups opposing either of them.”
>> >
>> > What’s crucial about this conception is that political power is not
>> > monolithically grounded in the state, which almost always has a monopoly
>> > on physical force. Rather, political power is pluralistic; it stems from
>> > external sources beyond the power-holder and depends, in part, upon the
>> > consent of the governed. This is another way of saying state power is
>> > contingent. Physical violence can subdue people, but that’s all it can
>> > do. And it’s very difficult to rule over a people without their tacit
>> > consent or active support.
>> >
>> > Armed individuals or even organized militias cannot defeat the United
>> > States government militarily. This ought to be obvious on its face,
>> > given the state’s overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and
>> > capabilities. Gather all the AR-15s you like. If Uncle Sam decides to
>> > detain you, he will – eventually. Having a few guns will complicate
>> > things, but it won’t negate the power asymmetry.
>> >
>> .
>>
>> "But what about the practical argument that an armed citizenry is the
>> best way to keep the state at bay? This, too, is false, and there is
>> plenty of data to prove it. "
>>
>> That is what King George III thought.
>
>His forces were actually defeated by the Continental Army and the French fleet.....
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
The continental army was, of course, comprised of the armed
citizenry.... a pissed off armed citizenry..
Fight for America!
Jun 21, 2016, 6:09:59 PM6/21/16
to
On 6/21/2016 3:52 PM, Steve wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner
> <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From;
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>
>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> need of revision.
>
> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands and
> whimper and whine about the second Amendment.
>
The bitches at Salon need to be dipped in a deep fryer and salted.
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner
> <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From;
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>
>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> need of revision.
>
> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands and
> whimper and whine about the second Amendment.
>
Fight for America!
Jun 21, 2016, 6:13:05 PM6/21/16
to
Brit trolls excepted....
Steve
Jun 21, 2016, 7:54:16 PM6/21/16
to
single thing they can do about it except wring their hands and whimper
and whine.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Jun 21, 2016, 10:21:13 PM6/21/16
to
We had THE HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE.
And we had NO army. We had to raise an army from nothing. No wonder they
protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms so the militia
would also be able to keep and bear arms. There is no government
military here to enforce laws and keep Americans oppressed. Because we
the people are armed. Without that we would have to use the military to
keep order in the streets like other parts of the of the world where
guns are banned.
NO thanks to that.
--
That's Karma
Anytime the NRA or government Liberals support a ban on guns or a gun
free zone (like a drinking establishment or a church or school for
safety) then government or the business owners that wanted a gun free
zone should be mandated by law to provide "armed security" for the
patrons of their stores and government services.
Otherwise the 2nd amendment shall NOT be infringed.
Yes *TARGET and Chipotle's or a BLACK CHURCH OR A GAY NIGHT CLUB* that
bans GUNS should ALL be mandated to have armed guards at every
entrance/exit and or enough for security of the occupancy of the
building which ever is greater (like fire codes are for safety).
For fire codes "X" number of exits are required so the number of exits
may be the smallest number of armed guards but the occupancy might
require more armed guards as at a Liberal Rock concert where they won't
allow guns and general admission and exiting crowd may be more than the
fire escape doors capacity. And crowds leaving are at risk of terrorist
attack.
That way any rally or entertainment or school that anti gun Liberals
wish to hold is NOT a terrorist target. NOT that I will go to any of
those events but then the *Anti* 2nd Amendment Liberals will have no
reason to whine that their gun free zone was shot up by a Muslim nut or
a murdering kid with mental problems with a stolen gun.
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3674/1018/original.jpg
Obama's TWO FACED stand on Muslim's and Gun Owners.
Kurt Lochner
Jun 21, 2016, 10:27:13 PM6/21/16
to
On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
thing.
The pity of it is, you haven't the slightest care about that, and
would like to pretend that you and your fellow stalwart fools could
raise any kind of military resistance that would compare to the
American Revolution. You not only lack the firepower, the numbers
and a terrific 'cause' (eg Trump, Tea Party, etc.), you lack a
conviction.
But, the courts will settle that, and decidedly not in your favor..
Meanwhile..
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
There’s an assumption that political power and violence are equivalent;
that force is always and everywhere the most reliable means of achieving
a political outcome. It’s true that violence is occasionally necessary
(in a geopolitical context, for example), but how useful it is varies
considerably. Understanding the constituents of power is critical. Gene
Sharp, a pioneer of strategic nonviolence, defined political power thus:
“The totality of means, influences, and pressures – including authority,
rewards, and sanctions – available for use to achieve the objectives of
the power-holder, especially the institutions of government, the State,
and groups opposing either of them.”
What’s crucial about this conception is that political power is not
monolithically grounded in the state, which almost always has a monopoly
on physical force. Rather, political power is pluralistic; it stems from
external sources beyond the power-holder and depends, in part, upon the
consent of the governed. This is another way of saying state power is
contingent. Physical violence can subdue people, but that’s all it can
do. And it’s very difficult to rule over a people without their tacit
consent or active support.
Armed individuals or even organized militias cannot defeat the United
States government militarily. This ought to be obvious on its face,
given the state’s overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and
capabilities. Gather all the AR-15s you like. If Uncle Sam decides to
detain you, he will – eventually. Having a few guns will complicate
things, but it won’t negate the power asymmetry.
--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>
>> From;
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>
>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> need of revision.
>
> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>> From;
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>
>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> need of revision.
>
> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
thing.
The pity of it is, you haven't the slightest care about that, and
would like to pretend that you and your fellow stalwart fools could
raise any kind of military resistance that would compare to the
American Revolution. You not only lack the firepower, the numbers
and a terrific 'cause' (eg Trump, Tea Party, etc.), you lack a
conviction.
But, the courts will settle that, and decidedly not in your favor..
Meanwhile..
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
There’s an assumption that political power and violence are equivalent;
that force is always and everywhere the most reliable means of achieving
a political outcome. It’s true that violence is occasionally necessary
(in a geopolitical context, for example), but how useful it is varies
considerably. Understanding the constituents of power is critical. Gene
Sharp, a pioneer of strategic nonviolence, defined political power thus:
“The totality of means, influences, and pressures – including authority,
rewards, and sanctions – available for use to achieve the objectives of
the power-holder, especially the institutions of government, the State,
and groups opposing either of them.”
What’s crucial about this conception is that political power is not
monolithically grounded in the state, which almost always has a monopoly
on physical force. Rather, political power is pluralistic; it stems from
external sources beyond the power-holder and depends, in part, upon the
consent of the governed. This is another way of saying state power is
contingent. Physical violence can subdue people, but that’s all it can
do. And it’s very difficult to rule over a people without their tacit
consent or active support.
Armed individuals or even organized militias cannot defeat the United
States government militarily. This ought to be obvious on its face,
given the state’s overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and
capabilities. Gather all the AR-15s you like. If Uncle Sam decides to
detain you, he will – eventually. Having a few guns will complicate
things, but it won’t negate the power asymmetry.
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 5:50:28 AM6/22/16
to
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Kurt Lochner <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:nkcrth$1sb$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 06/21/2016 03:58 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2016 12:44 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you consider Salon to be credible
>>>>
>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>
>>> Did you happen to notice where I quoted a part of the article
>>
>>
>> Yes, as out of context as you could manage, while ignoring
>> the rest of my reply, which went like this..
>>
>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>
>
> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>
>
>"May I suggest that you read the article before
>commenting on it?"
>David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site like
salon.
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Kurt Lochner <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:nkcrth$1sb$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 06/21/2016 03:58 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2016 12:44 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you consider Salon to be credible
>>>>
>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>
>>> Did you happen to notice where I quoted a part of the article
>>
>>
>> Yes, as out of context as you could manage, while ignoring
>> the rest of my reply, which went like this..
>>
>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>
>
> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>
>
>"May I suggest that you read the article before
>commenting on it?"
>David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site like
salon.
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 6:14:17 AM6/22/16
to
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>>
>>> From;
>>>
>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>
>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>> need of revision.
>>
>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>
>
>Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>thing.
Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser that Lochner is, it's not
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>>
>>> From;
>>>
>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>
>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>> need of revision.
>>
>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>
>
>Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>thing.
surprising that he also seems to believe that everyone should join
hands and blindly worship the leftist cause purely for the sake of
unity. Leftists always favor solidarity over individuality.
>The pity of it is, you haven't the slightest care about that, and
>would like to pretend that you and your fellow stalwart fools could
>raise any kind of military resistance that would compare to the
>American Revolution. You not only lack the firepower, the numbers
>and a terrific 'cause' (eg Trump, Tea Party, etc.), you lack a
>conviction.
>But, the courts will settle that, and decidedly not in your favor..
ridiculous failed attempts of the government to ban things that people
want, I'm pretty sure that whatever happens, I'll still be able to
retain any weapons that I already own and purchase any new ones I
might choose to have.
>Meanwhile..
...Sorry, but I don't bother with foolish leftist propaganda
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 6:16:54 AM6/22/16
to
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:21:06 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
<Liberalism-is-exposed-as-unsustainab...@cyberspace.nebulax.com>
wrote:
Poor Worthington likes to pretend that we didn't kick Britain out and
also that we didn't save their pathetic asses from Hitler...
>We had THE HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE.
>
>And we had NO army. We had to raise an army from nothing. No wonder they
>protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms so the militia
>would also be able to keep and bear arms. There is no government
>military here to enforce laws and keep Americans oppressed. Because we
>the people are armed. Without that we would have to use the military to
>keep order in the streets like other parts of the of the world where
>guns are banned.
>
>NO thanks to that.
--
<Liberalism-is-exposed-as-unsustainab...@cyberspace.nebulax.com>
wrote:
also that we didn't save their pathetic asses from Hitler...
>We had THE HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE.
>
>And we had NO army. We had to raise an army from nothing. No wonder they
>protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms so the militia
>would also be able to keep and bear arms. There is no government
>military here to enforce laws and keep Americans oppressed. Because we
>the people are armed. Without that we would have to use the military to
>keep order in the streets like other parts of the of the world where
>guns are banned.
>
>NO thanks to that.
--
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 6:31:38 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
> Leftists always favor solidarity over individuality.
That's something that you'll never have in your 'tea party'
except for your usual 'mad hatter' rhetoric and demonizations..
>> The pity of it is, you haven't the slightest care about that, and
>> would like to pretend that you and your fellow stalwart fools could
>> raise any kind of military resistance that would compare to the
>> American Revolution. You not only lack the firepower, the numbers
>> and a terrific 'cause' (eg Trump, Tea Party, etc.), you lack a
>> conviction.
>
> Sorry, [Mr. Lochner], but I certainly have no plans to wage war...
That's because you're too lazy to think for yourself,
and because of your 'low-effort thinking' you are, and
always will be, a willing sheep before the slaughter..
>> But, the courts will settle that, and decidedly not in your favor..
>
> <SNORT> But they already have decided in my favor
You just keep telling yourself that, sparky..
> I'm pretty sure that whatever happens, I'll still be able to
> retain any weapons that I already own and purchase any new ones
> I might choose to have.
Oh hell yeah!.. Go buy some more guns, sparky, that'll solve
everything, won't it? What I wonder is how smug you feel about
yourself, as you're stampeded into beliefs that have no rational
basis.
Sorta like your claims that any and all capacitors are "magnetic"..
*>LOL!<* ..dumbass..
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>>
>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>>>
>>>> From;
>>>>
>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>>
>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>>> need of revision.
>>>
>>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>>
>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>> thing.
>
> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>>>
>>>> From;
>>>>
>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>>
>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>>> need of revision.
>>>
>>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>>
>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>> thing.
>
> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
> Leftists always favor solidarity over individuality.
except for your usual 'mad hatter' rhetoric and demonizations..
>> The pity of it is, you haven't the slightest care about that, and
>> would like to pretend that you and your fellow stalwart fools could
>> raise any kind of military resistance that would compare to the
>> American Revolution. You not only lack the firepower, the numbers
>> and a terrific 'cause' (eg Trump, Tea Party, etc.), you lack a
>> conviction.
>
That's because you're too lazy to think for yourself,
and because of your 'low-effort thinking' you are, and
always will be, a willing sheep before the slaughter..
>> But, the courts will settle that, and decidedly not in your favor..
>
> <SNORT> But they already have decided in my favor
> I'm pretty sure that whatever happens, I'll still be able to
> retain any weapons that I already own and purchase any new ones
> I might choose to have.
everything, won't it? What I wonder is how smug you feel about
yourself, as you're stampeded into beliefs that have no rational
basis.
Sorta like your claims that any and all capacitors are "magnetic"..
*>LOL!<* ..dumbass..
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 7:10:59 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>
>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
your religiously-held political ideology.
You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
But, you just avoid thinking about that, don't you?
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>
>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>
>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>
>>
>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>
>>
>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>> commenting on it?"
>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>
>
> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>
>>
>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>
>>
>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>> commenting on it?"
>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>
>
> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
your religiously-held political ideology.
something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
But, you just avoid thinking about that, don't you?
David Hartung
Jun 22, 2016, 7:21:50 AM6/22/16
to
feelings are hurt; when I read the article and comment on it, the accuse
me of not reading it.
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 7:31:14 AM6/22/16
to
"think."
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 7:33:08 AM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:11:01 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>>
>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>>
>>>
>>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>>> commenting on it?"
>>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>>
>>
>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>
>
>Like the ones you read, Stevie?
<SNICKER> Lochner imagines that he know what I read...
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>>
>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>>
>>>
>>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>>> commenting on it?"
>>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>>
>>
>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>
>
>Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 7:42:14 AM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:31:38 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>>>>
>>>>> From;
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>>>
>>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>>>> need of revision.
>>>>
>>>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>>>
>>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>>> thing.
>>
>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>
>
>That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
That your fantasies involve me makes me smile....
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>>>>
>>>>> From;
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>>>
>>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>>>> need of revision.
>>>>
>>>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>>>
>>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>>> thing.
>>
>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>
>
>That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>> Leftists always favor solidarity over individuality.
>
>
>That's something that you'll never have in your 'tea party'
>except for your usual 'mad hatter' rhetoric and demonizations..
never get involved with.
>>> The pity of it is, you haven't the slightest care about that, and
>>> would like to pretend that you and your fellow stalwart fools could
>>> raise any kind of military resistance that would compare to the
>>> American Revolution. You not only lack the firepower, the numbers
>>> and a terrific 'cause' (eg Trump, Tea Party, etc.), you lack a
>>> conviction.
>>
>
>
>That's because you're too lazy to think for yourself,
>and because of your 'low-effort thinking' you are, and
>always will be, a willing sheep before the slaughter..
<LOL> The fact that I think for myself bothers group thinking
>
>That's because you're too lazy to think for yourself,
>and because of your 'low-effort thinking' you are, and
>always will be, a willing sheep before the slaughter..
lefties like Lochner...
>>> But, the courts will settle that, and decidedly not in your favor..
>>
>> <SNORT> But they already have decided in my favor
>
>
>You just keep telling yourself that, sparky..
that the RKBA is an individual's right.
>> I'm pretty sure that whatever happens, I'll still be able to
>> retain any weapons that I already own and purchase any new ones
>> I might choose to have.
>
>
>Oh hell yeah!.. Go buy some more guns, sparky, that'll solve
>everything, won't it? What I wonder is how smug you feel about
>yourself, as you're stampeded into beliefs that have no rational
>basis.
makes me smile and makes you whine.
>Sorta like your claims that any and all capacitors are "magnetic"..
>
>*>LOL!<* ..dumbass..
which is how I know his claims of a degree in physics is nonsense.
I remember when Kurt Lochner Harrington did a trace on my post and the icon showed up
where it always did when you traced someone in the Tampa area.. Kurt
thought I lived there..
"Oh, that place over on W. Rio Vista Ave he keeps posting from?"
--Little Kurtie Lichner trying to identify where I post from
and not realizing that any IP in the Tampa area showed up on that
spot.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2ceac009efcc3592?
I told Kurt that he got me and that he should come and visit me. I
wasn't home much and he should just come on in, grab a beer and take a
swim in the pool.
Poor Kurt finally figured it out and got very angry...
I wonder if Kurt is still angry about that...
Let it go Kurt. You'll feel better...
jane.playne
Jun 22, 2016, 8:03:37 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 7:11 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>>
>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>>
>>>
>>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>>> commenting on it?"
>>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>>
>>
>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>
>
> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>
>
> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
>
>
> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
.
> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>>
>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>>
>>>
>>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>>> commenting on it?"
>>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>>
>>
>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>
>
> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>
>
> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
>
>
> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
...and YOU keep ignoring the power of asymmetry that existed in 1776.
You berated me for "this is the 21st century". OK, lets look at the
20th and 21st centuries. Why did a power house like the USSR tuck its
tail between its legs and flee Afghanistan? Talk about power asymmetry!
Why are we STILL in Afghanistan??? Talk about power asymmetry!
> your religiously-held political ideology.
>
> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
country.
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 8:21:12 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 7:03 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too loudly:
>
> On 6/22/2016 7:11 AM, Kurt Lochner was taunting the deliberate ignorance of:
I chastised both you and Hartung for ignoring, because your guns
are protecting you from the deliberate subterfuge and propaganda
that you seemingly want to divide the country along your political
imagined political ideology..
As I said..
I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
your religiously-held political ideology.
Best you keep that in mind rather than arguing for your
'asymmetry', or your cause is already lost without the rest of us..
>
> On 6/22/2016 7:11 AM, Kurt Lochner was taunting the deliberate ignorance of:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>>>> commenting on it?"
>>>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>>>
>>>
>>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>>
>>
>> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>>
>>
>> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
>>
>>
>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>
>
>> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>>>> commenting on it?"
>>>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>>>
>>>
>>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>>
>>
>> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>>
>>
>> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
>>
>>
>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>
>
> ...and YOU keep ignoring the power of asymmetry
No, it's YOU that is ignoring how easily misled you are, to which
I chastised both you and Hartung for ignoring, because your guns
are protecting you from the deliberate subterfuge and propaganda
that you seemingly want to divide the country along your political
imagined political ideology..
As I said..
I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
your religiously-held political ideology.
You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
Remember when we were Americans, first and foremost?
regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
Best you keep that in mind rather than arguing for your
'asymmetry', or your cause is already lost without the rest of us..
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 8:28:20 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 6:33 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stomped his little feet:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:11:01 -0500, Kurt Lochner continued heckling:
suggested, cupcakes. You've made it abundantly clear what sorts
of right-wing crack-pottery you've ingested and keep repeating..
>> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
>
> You go ahead, I'll pass...
Of course, you'd have to admit that you were being foolish, and
rather than admit a mistake (eg. capacitors, electric fields),
you call up your usual 'bluster and spit' to try and run away.
Yes, you and your fellow right-wingers have been duped, and
the results are now self-evident, so let's go back over this..
You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:11:01 -0500, Kurt Lochner continued heckling:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>>>> commenting on it?"
>>>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>>>
>>>
>>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>>
>>
>> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>
> <SNICKER> Lochner imagines that he know what I read...
I don't have to 'imagine' anything, such as you have dishonestly
>> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>>>> commenting on it?"
>>>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>>>
>>>
>>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>>
>>
>> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>
> <SNICKER> Lochner imagines that he know what I read...
suggested, cupcakes. You've made it abundantly clear what sorts
of right-wing crack-pottery you've ingested and keep repeating..
>> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
>
> You go ahead, I'll pass...
rather than admit a mistake (eg. capacitors, electric fields),
you call up your usual 'bluster and spit' to try and run away.
Yes, you and your fellow right-wingers have been duped, and
the results are now self-evident, so let's go back over this..
You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
need of revision. I don’t believe we should ban guns, however, and I
accept that the Second Amendment is defensible. The unfortunate reality
is that we live in a country in which there are more guns than people,
where the soft targets outnumber the hard ones. Self-defense is
therefore a legitimate concern. So long as the guns are on the streets
and criminals have access to them, law-abiding citizens deserve the
right to protect themselves.
...
accept that the Second Amendment is defensible. The unfortunate reality
is that we live in a country in which there are more guns than people,
where the soft targets outnumber the hard ones. Self-defense is
therefore a legitimate concern. So long as the guns are on the streets
and criminals have access to them, law-abiding citizens deserve the
right to protect themselves.
Armed individuals or even organized militias cannot defeat the United
States government militarily. This ought to be obvious on its face,
given the state’s overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and
capabilities. Gather all the AR-15s you like. If Uncle Sam decides to
detain you, he will – eventually. Having a few guns will complicate
things, but it won’t negate the power asymmetry.
States government militarily. This ought to be obvious on its face,
given the state’s overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and
capabilities. Gather all the AR-15s you like. If Uncle Sam decides to
detain you, he will – eventually. Having a few guns will complicate
things, but it won’t negate the power asymmetry.
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 8:34:29 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
>
> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
some 'evil gub'mint' such as you've been hood winked into
believing.
But, what you keep ignoring it this:
You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
courage of convictions, to do anything but be easily manipulated
by your irrational fears..
Yeah, run out and buy some more guns, before 'they' come to
take them away. I'm sure the firearms corporations will welcome
your money, yet again.
Dipshit..
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 8:36:50 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 6:31 AM, Foot Stompy Steve blustered and spit:
Funny, how studies of howler monkeys indicated that the loudest among
them had the smallest testes, sort of like so-called "conservatives"..
>
> They have to read the lefty propaganda sites
*>LOL!<* You're so easily frightened, for all your primate posturings..
> They have to read the lefty propaganda sites
Funny, how studies of howler monkeys indicated that the loudest among
them had the smallest testes, sort of like so-called "conservatives"..
David Hartung
Jun 22, 2016, 8:40:14 AM6/22/16
to
On 06/22/2016 07:34 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>
>
> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
> some 'evil gub'mint' such as you've been hood winked into
> believing.
IN this one sentence, you demonstrate just how little you know about me
> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>
>
> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
> some 'evil gub'mint' such as you've been hood winked into
> believing.
or any one else who describes himself as "conservative".
> But, what you keep ignoring it this:
>
> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
> something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
as divisive as the "right"
> You lack the numbers, the strength and integrity, much less the
> courage of convictions, to do anything but be easily manipulated
> by your irrational fears..
follow a "failed" ideology. Thus far you have been wrong.
> Yeah, run out and buy some more guns, before 'they' come to
> take them away. I'm sure the firearms corporations will welcome
> your money, yet again.
Vandar
Jun 22, 2016, 8:56:20 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 8:34 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>
>
> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
> some 'evil gub'mint' such as you've been hood winked into
> believing.
>
> But, what you keep ignoring it this:
>
> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
> something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
Why should your opinion on anything concern anyone but yourself?
> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>
>
> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
> some 'evil gub'mint' such as you've been hood winked into
> believing.
>
> But, what you keep ignoring it this:
>
> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
> something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 9:02:37 AM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:28:22 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 6:33 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stomped his little feet:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:11:01 -0500, Kurt Lochner continued heckling:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>>>>> commenting on it?"
>>>>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>>>
>>>
>>> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>>
>> <SNICKER> Lochner imagines that he know what I read...
>
>
>I don't have to 'imagine' anything, such as you have dishonestly
>suggested, cupcakes. You've made it abundantly clear what sorts
>of right-wing crack-pottery you've ingested and keep repeating..
<CHUCKLES> More imaginative fantasies from Lochner... Alcohol has
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 6:33 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stomped his little feet:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:11:01 -0500, Kurt Lochner continued heckling:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Kurt Lochner chastised the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/21/2016 5:03 PM, David Hartung ignored:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or as Hartung himself puts it:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "May I suggest that you read the article before
>>>>> commenting on it?"
>>>>> David Hartung, Sept 16 2015
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/q8cz674
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>>>
>>>
>>> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>>
>> <SNICKER> Lochner imagines that he know what I read...
>
>
>I don't have to 'imagine' anything, such as you have dishonestly
>suggested, cupcakes. You've made it abundantly clear what sorts
>of right-wing crack-pottery you've ingested and keep repeating..
numbed is mind toward reality and all he has left are lowbrow
fantasies
>>> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
>>
>> You go ahead, I'll pass...
>
"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html
A changing magnetic field makes an electric field. A changing electric field makes a magnetic field.
www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/Electrodynamics/ChangeChange.pdf
jane.playne
Jun 22, 2016, 9:03:02 AM6/22/16
to
*MY* political ideology is defending the US Constitution and what the
Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. If YOU and
YOUR political ideology don't like it, the Founding Fathers provided a
means of updating the US Constitution.
YOU want to do an end run around that legal procedure and divide the
country with YOUR political agenda.
> As I said..
>
> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
Yes, I read the *entire* bullshit article BEFORE responding to you. YOU
are the one who is ignoring the counter examples where power of
asymmetry didn't help:
US Revolution
USSR vs Afghanistan
US vs Afghanistan
Let me give you an example of why the author is full of shit.
Sean Illing erroneously claimed, "Congress is given unfettered authority
over it [the militia]".
That is pure bullshit; congress is given certain limited authority and
responsibility of the militia ONLY "as may be employed in the Service of
the United States"[1]
"The President shall be Commander in Chief... of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"[2]
Got that? ... ONLY "as may be employed in the Service of the United
States" and ONLY "when called into *actual* Service of the United States"
YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
without verification simply because you are a bigger fool ... and his
political ideology is what you WANT to hear.
> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
> your religiously-held political ideology.
>
> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
> something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
>
>
> Remember when we were Americans, first and foremost?
>
Then support and defend the US Constitution, including the II Amendment,
that doesn't suit YOUR political ideology.
>
> Best you keep that in mind rather than arguing for your
> 'asymmetry', or your cause is already lost without the rest of us..
>
>
1. US Constitution.
2. ibid
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 9:04:54 AM6/22/16
to
non-thinking clones of himself...
jane.playne
Jun 22, 2016, 9:18:07 AM6/22/16
to
*Exactly* what is YOUR point; what is YOUR political ideology?
ideology of Sean Illing:
"I don’t believe we should ban guns"
"Self-defense is therefore a legitimate concern"
Mitchell Holman
Jun 22, 2016, 9:26:49 AM6/22/16
to
David Hartung <david_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5MadnYHcWa5V6ffK...@giganews.com:
Hartung dismisses Salon as a source.
Except when HE is posting from it......;)
news:5MadnYHcWa5V6ffK...@giganews.com:
Except when HE is posting from it......;)
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 9:26:53 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 6:42 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was blathering incoherently:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:31:38 -0500, Kurt Lochner was taunting:
>>> Leftists always favor solidarity over individuality.
>>
>>
>> That's something that you'll never have in your 'tea party'
>> except for your usual 'mad hatter' rhetoric and demonizations..
>
> Solidarity is just another word for group think.
Nope, you're merely regurgitating your 'talking points', moron..
> That's something I never get involved with.
Right, you'd never join the Tea Party, or attend their rallies..
*>LOL!<*
>>>> The pity of it is, you haven't the slightest care about that, and
>>>> would like to pretend that you and your fellow stalwart fools could
>>>> raise any kind of military resistance that would compare to the
>>>> American Revolution. You not only lack the firepower, the numbers
>>>> and a terrific 'cause' (eg Trump, Tea Party, etc.), you lack a
>>>> conviction.
>>>
>>> Sorry, [Mr. Lochner], but I certainly have no plans to wage war...
>>>> But, the courts will settle that, and decidedly not in your favor..
>>>
>>> <SNORT> But they already have decided in my favor
>>
>> You just keep telling yourself that, sparky..
>
> [Mr. Lochner] seems to never have read the SCOTUS decisions
Too bad you can't be bothered to cite any of them, hunh?
>>> I'm pretty sure that whatever happens, I'll still be able to
>>> retain any weapons that I already own and purchase any new ones
>>> I might choose to have.
>>
>>
>> Oh hell yeah!.. Go buy some more guns, sparky, that'll solve
>> everything, won't it? What I wonder is how smug you feel about
>> yourself, as you're stampeded into beliefs that have no rational
>> basis.
>
> I may buy more, I may not.
Kinda wishy-washy there, dummy. Did your false 'absolutes' cause
a brain fart, again?
> It's that I have the freedom to do so that makes me smile
You have a low thrill-threshold there, Foot Stompy Steve-O..
>> Sorta like your claims that any and all capacitors are "magnetic"..
>>
>> *>LOL!<* ..dumbass..
>
>
> <SNICKER> Poor dumb Lochner never learned about electromagnetic force
You know very little about it, Steve-O, in that electric fields
are seven orders of magnitude stronger than magnetic fields, and
said electrostatic fields are also nearly 39 orders of magnitude
stronger than gravitational fields, for a comparison..
I presented that fact to you in a simple example question regarding
the comparison of electric and magnetic fields, along with the cite
that would help you to understand the basic concepts that apparently
were missed with your Google searches, and made worse by your pathetic
crowing afterward..
But hey, let's run back over that, and from one of your own cites..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
"In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
other three fundamental forces that they can be
considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
corrections."
What's the repulsive force between two charged masses of
1.0 Coulombs each at a distance of 1.0 meter, Crayon?
And, tell us how many Gauss it would take for a pair of
magnets to repel each other with as much force?
Part of the answer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb#In_everyday_terms
According to Coulomb's law, two negative point charges of −1 C,
placed one meter apart, would experience a repulsive force of
9×10^9 Newtons, a force roughly equal to the weight of
920,000 metric tons of mass on the surface of the Earth.
Try not to embarrass yourself again with your smugness, m'kay?
*>LOL!<*
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:31:38 -0500, Kurt Lochner was taunting:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>>>>> need of revision.
>>>>>
>>>>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>>>>
>>>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>>>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>>>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>>>> thing.
>>>
>>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>>
>> That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>
> That your fantasies
No 'fantasies' to it, "steve-o", you're insanely jealous of me..
>> On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>>>>> need of revision.
>>>>>
>>>>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>>>>
>>>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>>>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>>>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>>>> thing.
>>>
>>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>>
>> That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>
> That your fantasies
>>> Leftists always favor solidarity over individuality.
>>
>>
>> That's something that you'll never have in your 'tea party'
>> except for your usual 'mad hatter' rhetoric and demonizations..
>
> Solidarity is just another word for group think.
> That's something I never get involved with.
*>LOL!<*
>>>> The pity of it is, you haven't the slightest care about that, and
>>>> would like to pretend that you and your fellow stalwart fools could
>>>> raise any kind of military resistance that would compare to the
>>>> American Revolution. You not only lack the firepower, the numbers
>>>> and a terrific 'cause' (eg Trump, Tea Party, etc.), you lack a
>>>> conviction.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's because you're too lazy to think for yourself,
>> and because of your 'low-effort thinking' you are, and
>> always will be, a willing sheep before the slaughter..
>
> <LOL> The fact that I think for myself
I have yet to see an example of you thinking for yourself, dummy..
>>
>> That's because you're too lazy to think for yourself,
>> and because of your 'low-effort thinking' you are, and
>> always will be, a willing sheep before the slaughter..
>
> <LOL> The fact that I think for myself
>>>> But, the courts will settle that, and decidedly not in your favor..
>>>
>>> <SNORT> But they already have decided in my favor
>>
>> You just keep telling yourself that, sparky..
>
Too bad you can't be bothered to cite any of them, hunh?
>>> I'm pretty sure that whatever happens, I'll still be able to
>>> retain any weapons that I already own and purchase any new ones
>>> I might choose to have.
>>
>>
>> Oh hell yeah!.. Go buy some more guns, sparky, that'll solve
>> everything, won't it? What I wonder is how smug you feel about
>> yourself, as you're stampeded into beliefs that have no rational
>> basis.
>
> I may buy more, I may not.
a brain fart, again?
> It's that I have the freedom to do so that makes me smile
>> Sorta like your claims that any and all capacitors are "magnetic"..
>>
>> *>LOL!<* ..dumbass..
>
>
> <SNICKER> Poor dumb Lochner never learned about electromagnetic force
are seven orders of magnitude stronger than magnetic fields, and
said electrostatic fields are also nearly 39 orders of magnitude
stronger than gravitational fields, for a comparison..
I presented that fact to you in a simple example question regarding
the comparison of electric and magnetic fields, along with the cite
that would help you to understand the basic concepts that apparently
were missed with your Google searches, and made worse by your pathetic
crowing afterward..
But hey, let's run back over that, and from one of your own cites..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
"In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
other three fundamental forces that they can be
considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
corrections."
What's the repulsive force between two charged masses of
1.0 Coulombs each at a distance of 1.0 meter, Crayon?
And, tell us how many Gauss it would take for a pair of
magnets to repel each other with as much force?
Part of the answer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb#In_everyday_terms
According to Coulomb's law, two negative point charges of −1 C,
placed one meter apart, would experience a repulsive force of
9×10^9 Newtons, a force roughly equal to the weight of
920,000 metric tons of mass on the surface of the Earth.
Try not to embarrass yourself again with your smugness, m'kay?
*>LOL!<*
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 9:41:01 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 7:40 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 06/22/2016 07:34 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>>
>> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
>> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
>> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
>> some 'evil gub'mint' such as you've been hood winked into
>> believing.
>
> IN this one sentence, you demonstrate
Just how gullible you really are, and how defensive you are as
> On 06/22/2016 07:34 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>>
>> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
>> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
>> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
>> some 'evil gub'mint' such as you've been hood winked into
>> believing.
>
> IN this one sentence, you demonstrate
regards to how easily you are manipulated by fears unreasoned..
"They're gonna keep me from buying that gun, must buy that gun!"
Yeah, that's how you so-called "conservatives" look these days..
>> But, what you keep ignoring it this:
>>
>> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
>> something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
>> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
>
> One can credibly make the argument that the American "left"
> is every bit as divisive as the "right"
>> You lack the numbers, the strength and integrity, much less the
>> courage of convictions, to do anything but be easily manipulated
>> by your irrational fears..
>
> Yes, the "left" has been making such claims for years
>> Yeah, run out and buy some more guns, before 'they' come to
>> take them away. I'm sure the firearms corporations will welcome
>> your money, yet again.
>
> You know how many firearms I own?
about that indicates to me that maybe you shouldn't have many..
You think that I haven't seen this kind of right-wing puffery before?
Mitchell Holman
Jun 22, 2016, 9:41:42 AM6/22/16
to
worthy of even a glance - except when HE is posting
from that same source and demands you read the article
fully before commenting on it.
Sheesh...............
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 9:51:56 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 8:02 AM, Foot Stompy Steve-O 'bravely' ran away from:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:28:22 -0500, Kurt Lochner was again laughing at:
on a politically-related newsgroup, sure.. *>chuckling<*
Yeah, and you've never regurgitated a right-wing talking point, sure..
>>>> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
>>>
>>> You go ahead, I'll pass...
>>
> <SNIP
Poor Foot Stompy Steve-O, can't take the heat, runs away again..
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:28:22 -0500, Kurt Lochner was again laughing at:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 6:33 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stomped his little feet:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:11:01 -0500, Kurt Lochner continued heckling:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>>>>
>> On 6/22/2016 6:33 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stomped his little feet:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:11:01 -0500, Kurt Lochner continued heckling:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>>>
>>> <SNICKER> Lochner imagines that he know what I read...
>>
>>
>> I don't have to 'imagine' anything, such as you have dishonestly
>> suggested, cupcakes. You've made it abundantly clear what sorts
>> of right-wing crack-pottery you've ingested and keep repeating..
>
> <CHUCKLES> More imaginative fantasies
Only on your behalf, as if you've never stated a political opinion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>>>
>>> <SNICKER> Lochner imagines that he know what I read...
>>
>>
>> I don't have to 'imagine' anything, such as you have dishonestly
>> suggested, cupcakes. You've made it abundantly clear what sorts
>> of right-wing crack-pottery you've ingested and keep repeating..
>
> <CHUCKLES> More imaginative fantasies
on a politically-related newsgroup, sure.. *>chuckling<*
Yeah, and you've never regurgitated a right-wing talking point, sure..
>>>> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
>>>
>>> You go ahead, I'll pass...
>>
> <SNIP
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 9:53:19 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 8:17 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>
> *Exactly* what is YOUR point
You, and your fellow right-wingers, have been duped, and
>
> *Exactly* what is YOUR point
the results are now self-evident, so let's go back over this..
You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
Have you figured out why, yet?
You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 10:00:59 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 8:02 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too loudly:
....
> YOU want to do an end run around that legal procedure
Nope, I've already seen what large numbers of stupid people can do,
and you're not convincing me that you know the Constitution better
than myself..
>> As I said..
>>
>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>
>
and vinegar did you drink before writing your replies, jane?
> Let me give you an example of why the author is full of shit.
Nah, I'll pass on that, thanks..
> YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
You should see the view from here, sweetie..
>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>
banned soon.. Hurry, supplies won't last, gun manufacturers
are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
dead children and homosexuals, right?
Mucking Fidiot..
>
> On 6/22/2016 8:21 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 7:03 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too loudly:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 7:11 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 8:21 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 7:03 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too loudly:
>>>
....
>>>>
>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>
>>>
>>> ...and YOU keep ignoring the power of asymmetry
>>
>>
>> No, it's YOU that is ignoring how easily misled you are, to which
>> I chastised both you and Hartung for ignoring, because your guns
>> are protecting you from the deliberate subterfuge and propaganda
>> that you seemingly want to divide the country along your political
>> imagined political ideology..
>>
> .
>
> *MY* political ideology is defending the US Constitution
I doubt your credibility to interpret the Constitution correctly..
>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>
>>>
>>> ...and YOU keep ignoring the power of asymmetry
>>
>>
>> No, it's YOU that is ignoring how easily misled you are, to which
>> I chastised both you and Hartung for ignoring, because your guns
>> are protecting you from the deliberate subterfuge and propaganda
>> that you seemingly want to divide the country along your political
>> imagined political ideology..
>>
> .
>
> *MY* political ideology is defending the US Constitution
> YOU want to do an end run around that legal procedure
and you're not convincing me that you know the Constitution better
than myself..
>> As I said..
>>
>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>
>
> Yes, I read the *entire* bullshit article
Oh, you're so objective in the morning. How many cups of piss
and vinegar did you drink before writing your replies, jane?
> Let me give you an example of why the author is full of shit.
> YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>
>> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
>> something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
>> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
>>
>>
>> Remember when we were Americans, first and foremost?
>
>> something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
>> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
>>
>>
>> Remember when we were Americans, first and foremost?
>
> Then support and defend the US Constitution
Then run out and buy more of those guns that you think will be
banned soon.. Hurry, supplies won't last, gun manufacturers
are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
dead children and homosexuals, right?
Mucking Fidiot..
jane.playne
Jun 22, 2016, 10:06:04 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 9:53 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 8:17 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>
>> *Exactly* what is YOUR point
>
> You, and your fellow right-wingers, have been duped, and
> the results are now self-evident, so let's go back over this..
>
> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
> something that you have been sworn to uphold,
Actually, I haven't been sworn to uphold anything. HOWEVER I do uphold
> On 6/22/2016 8:17 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>
>> *Exactly* what is YOUR point
>
> You, and your fellow right-wingers, have been duped, and
> the results are now self-evident, so let's go back over this..
>
> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
> something that you have been sworn to uphold,
and defend the US Constitution, something that YOU do not want to do.
> and my lack of
> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
>
My concern is YOUR lack of support and defense of the US Constitution,
the supreme law of our country.
> Have you figured out why, yet?
>
You are what I call a dishonest poster. You snip the statements of
those who counter your position AND you refuse to respond to quiries
about your position.
*Exactly* what is YOUR political ideology?
Here is the ideology of the author of the article that YOU cited.
Ideology of Sean Illing:
"I don’t believe we should ban guns"
"Self-defense is therefore a legitimate concern"
"law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect themselves.
Do YOU believe that the government should or should not ban guns?
"Self-defense is therefore a legitimate concern"
"law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect themselves.
Do YOU believe that self-defense is a legitimate concern?
Co you believe that law abiding citizens deserve the right to protect
themselves?
When the difference between life and death is a matter of seconds, the
police will be there in minutes.
jane.playne
Jun 22, 2016, 10:16:13 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 10:01 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 8:02 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too loudly:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 8:21 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 7:03 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too loudly:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2016 7:11 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> ....
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...and YOU keep ignoring the power of asymmetry
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's YOU that is ignoring how easily misled you are, to which
>>> I chastised both you and Hartung for ignoring, because your guns
>>> are protecting you from the deliberate subterfuge and propaganda
>>> that you seemingly want to divide the country along your political
>>> imagined political ideology..
>>>
>> .
>>
>> *MY* political ideology is defending the US Constitution
>
>
> I doubt your credibility to interpret the Constitution correctly..
>
>
>> YOU want to do an end run around that legal procedure
>
>
> Nope, I've already seen what large numbers of stupid people can do,
> and you're not convincing me that you know the Constitution better
> than myself..
>
.
> On 6/22/2016 8:02 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too loudly:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 8:21 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 7:03 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too loudly:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2016 7:11 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> ....
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...and YOU keep ignoring the power of asymmetry
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's YOU that is ignoring how easily misled you are, to which
>>> I chastised both you and Hartung for ignoring, because your guns
>>> are protecting you from the deliberate subterfuge and propaganda
>>> that you seemingly want to divide the country along your political
>>> imagined political ideology..
>>>
>> .
>>
>> *MY* political ideology is defending the US Constitution
>
>
> I doubt your credibility to interpret the Constitution correctly..
>
>
>> YOU want to do an end run around that legal procedure
>
>
> Nope, I've already seen what large numbers of stupid people can do,
> and you're not convincing me that you know the Constitution better
> than myself..
>
You know the US Constitution better than Scalia?
I have read Scalia's opinion on Washington DC v Heller and I agree with
what Scalia wrote.
>
>>> As I said..
>>>
>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>
>>
>> Yes, I read the *entire* bullshit article
>
>
> Oh, you're so objective in the morning. How many cups of piss
> and vinegar did you drink before writing your replies, jane?
>
>
>> Let me give you an example of why the author is full of shit.
>
>
> Nah, I'll pass on that, thanks..
>
You whine about others not reading your citation, but AS I SAID, you
have no interest in reading what is counter to your bullshit ideas.
Not only that, but you snip ideas that are counter to yours.
Sean Illing erroneously claimed, "Congress is given unfettered authority
over it [the militia]".
That is pure bullshit; congress is given certain limited authority and
responsibility of the militia ONLY "as may be employed in the Service of
the United States"[1]
"The President shall be Commander in Chief... of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"[2]
Got that? ... ONLY "as may be employed in the Service of the United
States" and ONLY "when called into *actual* Service of the United States"
YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
without verification simply because you are a bigger fool ... and his
political ideology is what you WANT to hear.
>
political ideology is what you WANT to hear.
>
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 10:23:06 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 9:05 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>
> On 6/22/2016 9:53 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 8:17 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>>
>>> *Exactly* what is YOUR point
>>
>> You, and your fellow right-wingers, have been duped, and
>> the results are now self-evident, so let's go back over this..
>>
>> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
>> something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
>
> On 6/22/2016 9:53 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 8:17 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>>
>>> *Exactly* what is YOUR point
>>
>> You, and your fellow right-wingers, have been duped, and
>> the results are now self-evident, so let's go back over this..
>>
>> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
>> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
>
>
> Actually, I haven't been sworn to uphold anything
Yeah, I already noticed that about your tirades, jane..
> My concern is YOUR lack of support and defense of the US Constitution,
>> You, and your fellow right-wingers, have been duped, and
>> the results are now self-evident, so let's go back over this..
>>
>> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
>> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you figured out why, yet?
>
>
>
>
> You are what I call a dishonest poster. You snip
Fine, then just ignore what I wrote in my reply, pretend that
you aren't being duped, accuse me, falsely, of all the crap
that you've been spewing and stewing about. I don't care..
You are no longer an American first, and have let yourself
become a 'useful idiot'..
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 10:51:05 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 9:16 AM, jane.playne was blathering on, again:
> I have read Scalia's opinion
Your agreement with Scalia doesn't confer actual knowledge on your behalf..
>>>> As I said..
>>>>
>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I read the *entire* bullshit article
>>
>>
>> Oh, you're so objective in the morning. How many cups of piss
>> and vinegar did you drink before writing your replies, jane?
>>
>>
>>> Let me give you an example of why the author is full of shit.
>>
>>
>> Nah, I'll pass on that, thanks..
>>
>
misinterpretations..
> Not only that, but you snip
Like that?
> YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
> without verification simply because you are a bigger fool
Nope, I don't accept your blatherings as anything more than mere
blatherings..
Now, run out and buy more of those guns that you think will be
>
> On 6/22/2016 10:01 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 8:02 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too loudly:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 8:21 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2016 7:03 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too
>>>> loudly:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/22/2016 7:11 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and YOU keep ignoring the power of asymmetry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it's YOU that is ignoring how easily misled you are, to which
>>>> I chastised both you and Hartung for ignoring, because your guns
>>>> are protecting you from the deliberate subterfuge and propaganda
>>>> that you seemingly want to divide the country along your political
>>>> imagined political ideology..
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> *MY* political ideology is defending the US Constitution
>>
>>
>> I doubt your credibility to interpret the Constitution correctly..
>>
>>
>>> YOU want to do an end run around that legal procedure
>>
>>
>> Nope, I've already seen what large numbers of stupid people can do,
>> and you're not convincing me that you know the Constitution better
>> than myself..
>>
>
> On 6/22/2016 10:01 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 8:02 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too loudly:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 8:21 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2016 7:03 AM, jane.playne was again complaining doth too
>>>> loudly:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/22/2016 7:11 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and YOU keep ignoring the power of asymmetry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it's YOU that is ignoring how easily misled you are, to which
>>>> I chastised both you and Hartung for ignoring, because your guns
>>>> are protecting you from the deliberate subterfuge and propaganda
>>>> that you seemingly want to divide the country along your political
>>>> imagined political ideology..
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> *MY* political ideology is defending the US Constitution
>>
>>
>> I doubt your credibility to interpret the Constitution correctly..
>>
>>
>>> YOU want to do an end run around that legal procedure
>>
>>
>> Nope, I've already seen what large numbers of stupid people can do,
>> and you're not convincing me that you know the Constitution better
>> than myself..
>>
>
> You know the US Constitution better than
..yourself, and there's quite some doubt as to Scalia, too..
> I have read Scalia's opinion
>>>> As I said..
>>>>
>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I read the *entire* bullshit article
>>
>>
>> Oh, you're so objective in the morning. How many cups of piss
>> and vinegar did you drink before writing your replies, jane?
>>
>>
>>> Let me give you an example of why the author is full of shit.
>>
>>
>> Nah, I'll pass on that, thanks..
>>
>
> You whine about others not reading your citation
No, I simply point that out when you get confused by your own
misinterpretations..
> Not only that, but you snip
> YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
> without verification simply because you are a bigger fool
blatherings..
Now, run out and buy more of those guns that you think will be
banned soon.. Hurry, supplies won't last, gun manufacturers
are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
dead children and homosexuals, right?
Mucking Fidiot..
are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
dead children and homosexuals, right?
Mucking Fidiot..
Rudy Canoza
Jun 22, 2016, 10:51:32 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 5:34 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>
>
> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
> some 'evil gub'mint'
You demean yourself as a bigot when you use language like that and
> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>
>
> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
> some 'evil gub'mint'
imagine it represents Hartung's manner of thinking and expression.
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 11:04:20 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 9:51 AM, Rudely Cornholed whined:
Pity..
>
> On 6/22/2016 5:34 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>>
>>
>> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
>> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
>> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
>> some 'evil gub'mint'
>
> You demean yourself as a bigot when you use language like that
Oh really? You don't like me making fun of you?
> On 6/22/2016 5:34 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>>
>>
>> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
>> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
>> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
>> some 'evil gub'mint'
>
> You demean yourself as a bigot when you use language like that
Pity..
Rudy Canoza
Jun 22, 2016, 11:11:14 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 7:51 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
at all.
>> You know the US Constitution better than Scalia?
>>
>> I have read Scalia's opinion on Washington DC v Heller and I agree with
>> what Scalia wrote.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> I have read Scalia's opinion on Washington DC v Heller and I agree with
>> what Scalia wrote.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> As I said..
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I read the *entire* bullshit article
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, you're so objective in the morning. How many cups of piss
>>> and vinegar did you drink before writing your replies, jane?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let me give you an example of why the author is full of shit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, I'll pass on that, thanks..
>>>
>> .
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I read the *entire* bullshit article
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, you're so objective in the morning. How many cups of piss
>>> and vinegar did you drink before writing your replies, jane?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let me give you an example of why the author is full of shit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, I'll pass on that, thanks..
>>>
>> .
>>
>> You whine about others not reading your citation, but AS I SAID, you
>> have no interest in reading what is counter to your bullshit ideas.
>>
>> Not only that, but you snip ideas that are counter to yours.
>>
>>
>> Sean Illing erroneously claimed, "Congress is given unfettered authority
>> over it [the militia]".
>>
>> That is pure bullshit; congress is given certain limited authority and
>> responsibility of the militia ONLY "as may be employed in the Service of
>> the United States"[1]
>>
>> "The President shall be Commander in Chief... of the Militia of the
>> several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
>> States"[2]
>>
>> Got that? ... ONLY "as may be employed in the Service of the United
>> States" and ONLY "when called into *actual* Service of the United States"
>>
>> have no interest in reading what is counter to your bullshit ideas.
>>
>> Not only that, but you snip ideas that are counter to yours.
>>
>>
>> Sean Illing erroneously claimed, "Congress is given unfettered authority
>> over it [the militia]".
>>
>> That is pure bullshit; congress is given certain limited authority and
>> responsibility of the militia ONLY "as may be employed in the Service of
>> the United States"[1]
>>
>> "The President shall be Commander in Chief... of the Militia of the
>> several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
>> States"[2]
>>
>> Got that? ... ONLY "as may be employed in the Service of the United
>> States" and ONLY "when called into *actual* Service of the United States"
>>
>> YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
>> without verification simply because you are a bigger fool ... and his
>> political ideology is what you WANT to hear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>> political ideology is what you WANT to hear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You should see the view from here, sweetie..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>> and no matter how much this 'power of asymmetry' is pointed
>>>>> out to you, you'll just ignore the facts that do not suit
>>>>> your religiously-held political ideology.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
>>>>> something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
>>>>> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember when we were Americans, first and foremost?
>>>>
>>>> Then support and defend the US Constitution
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
>>>>> something that you have been sworn to uphold, and my lack of
>>>>> regard for such behavior on your part should concern you greatly..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember when we were Americans, first and foremost?
>>>>
>>>> Then support and defend the US Constitution
>
>
> ..yourself, and there's quite some doubt as to Scalia, too..
No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia, and you don't know it
at all.
Rudy Canoza
Jun 22, 2016, 11:13:53 AM6/22/16
to
[followups vandalism by illiberal bigot "little kurtsie" automatically
repaired]
On 6/22/2016 8:04 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
Yep. Of course, you *are* an anti-intellectual bigot, so it's good that
you confirm it.
repaired]
On 6/22/2016 8:04 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 9:51 AM, Rudy Canoza, little curtsie's better in every way, wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 5:34 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
>>> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
>>> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
>>> some 'evil gub'mint'
>>
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 5:34 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Holman and Lochner are never happy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Quite the contrary, David. I'm happy that I'm not yourself,
>>> in that I don't feel it necessary to be herded into buying
>>> firearms out of fears being of them being 'taken away' by
>>> some 'evil gub'mint'
>>
>> You demean yourself as a bigot when you use language like that and
>> imagine it represents Hartung's manner of thinking and expression.
>
>
> Oh really?
>> imagine it represents Hartung's manner of thinking and expression.
>
>
Yep. Of course, you *are* an anti-intellectual bigot, so it's good that
you confirm it.
jane.playne
Jun 22, 2016, 11:16:08 AM6/22/16
to
So, you agree with your citation and the statement that "Congress is
given unfettered authority over [the state's militia]"?
What part of your citation do you agree with; what part do you disagree
with?
"I don’t believe we should ban guns"
"Self-defense is therefore a legitimate concern"
"law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect themselves.
Do YOU believe that the government should or should not ban guns?
Do YOU believe that self-defense is a legitimate concern?
Co you believe that law abiding citizens deserve the right to protect
themselves?
believe that YOU are the one who hasn't read your own citation.
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 11:22:02 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 10:15 AM, jane.playne whined, again:
>>> YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
>>> without verification simply because you are a bigger fool
>>
>>
>> Nope, I don't accept your blatherings as anything more than mere
>> blatherings..
>>
>>
>
Now, run out and buy more of those guns that you think will be
banned soon.. Hurry, supplies won't last, gun manufacturers
are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
dead children and homosexuals, right?
Mucking Foron..
>
> On 6/22/2016 10:51 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 9:16 AM, jane.playne was blathering on, again:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 10:01 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I've already seen what large numbers of stupid people can do,
>>>> and you're not convincing me that you know the Constitution better
>>>> than myself..
>>>>
>>>
>>> You know the US Constitution better than
>>
>>
>> ..yourself, and there's quite some doubt as to Scalia, too..
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have read Scalia's opinion
>>
>>
>> Your agreement with Scalia doesn't confer actual knowledge on your
>> behalf..
*>cricket.wav<*
> On 6/22/2016 10:51 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 9:16 AM, jane.playne was blathering on, again:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 10:01 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I've already seen what large numbers of stupid people can do,
>>>> and you're not convincing me that you know the Constitution better
>>>> than myself..
>>>>
>>>
>>> You know the US Constitution better than
>>
>>
>> ..yourself, and there's quite some doubt as to Scalia, too..
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have read Scalia's opinion
>>
>>
>> Your agreement with Scalia doesn't confer actual knowledge on your
>> behalf..
>>> YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
>>> without verification simply because you are a bigger fool
>>
>>
>> Nope, I don't accept your blatherings as anything more than mere
>> blatherings..
>>
>>
>
> So, you agree with your citation
Nope, I don't accept your blatherings as anything more than mere
blatherings..
blatherings..
> You bitch and whine about others not reading your citation
You apparently have a reading comprehension problem..
Now, run out and buy more of those guns that you think will be
banned soon.. Hurry, supplies won't last, gun manufacturers
are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
dead children and homosexuals, right?
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 11:24:13 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 10:11 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 7:51 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 7:16 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You know the US Constitution better than
>>
> On 6/22/2016 7:51 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 7:16 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You know the US Constitution better than
>>
>> ..yourself, and there's quite some doubt as to Scalia, too..
>
> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia
That would be 'false absolute', Rudely..
>
> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:24:59 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 4:31 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>>>>
>>>>> From;
>>>>>
> On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>>>>>
>>>>> From;
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>>>> need of revision.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>>>> need of revision.
>>>>
>>>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>>>
>>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>>> thing.
>>
>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>
>
> That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
No more balancing a Michelob on your guitar neck then?
>>>
>>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>>> thing.
>>
>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>
>
> That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>> Leftists always favor solidarity over individuality.
>
>
> That's something that you'll never have in your 'tea party'
> except for your usual 'mad hatter' rhetoric and demonizations..
>>> The pity of it is, you haven't the slightest care about that, and
>>> would like to pretend that you and your fellow stalwart fools could
>>> raise any kind of military resistance that would compare to the
>>> American Revolution. You not only lack the firepower, the numbers
>>> and a terrific 'cause' (eg Trump, Tea Party, etc.), you lack a
>>> conviction.
>>
>> Sorry, [Mr. Lochner], but I certainly have no plans to wage war...
>
>
> That's because you're too lazy to think for yourself,
> and because of your 'low-effort thinking' you are, and
> always will be, a willing sheep before the slaughter..
>>> But, the courts will settle that, and decidedly not in your favor..
>>
>> <SNORT> But they already have decided in my favor
>
>
> You just keep telling yourself that, sparky..
>> I'm pretty sure that whatever happens, I'll still be able to
>> retain any weapons that I already own and purchase any new ones
>> I might choose to have.
>
>
> Oh hell yeah!.. Go buy some more guns, sparky, that'll solve
> everything, won't it? What I wonder is how smug you feel about
> yourself, as you're stampeded into beliefs that have no rational
> basis.
> Sorta like your claims that any and all capacitors are "magnetic"..
>
> *>LOL!<* ..dumbass..
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:25:48 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 5:11 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
This from the moron who chases gray aliens around, thinks streetlights
> Let's go back over what I wrote, and Hartung ignored..
explode at his presence and said there was no such thing as a magnetic
capacitor?
It is to LAUGH Urt - at YOU!
Did the gray aliens defeat you yet, Urt?
RUN!!!!!
From: Kurt.L...@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kurt Lochner)
Subject: Re: Roswell Discussion
Date: 19 Jul 91 07:47:43 GMT
Hey, what about this scenario....
Alien craft is attacked by another alien craft. Doomed
craft crashed in Roswell, NM and the local authorities
pack up the remains efficiently, quickly, squelch the
noises being made by the press. The other aliens hijack
the remains in mid-flight and the very same local air
officialdom that unwittingly aided these beings are now
left holding a weather balloon for their "evidence"...
So with that out of the way, I feel certain that there
exists the possibility for our differing cultures to live
together in this universe. Leaving the air force with a
balloon instead of advanced technologies demonstrates to
my way of thinking that they've at least got a sense of
humor....and?
---------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My condolensces, I'm just an out of work physicist.
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Loch...@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kurt.Loch...@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kurt Lochner)
Subject: Re: The Coverup
Date: 6 Aug 91 16:46:55 GMT
Quote:
Hi Kurt,
To add to some people's idea that the Greys look like
insects, I'm reminded of an article in the most recent
UFO Magazine in which a man describes an encounter
with beings that looked like insects to him.
----------
I 'll be happy to sent you a copy of this article if
you want it.
Hmm, I'm wondering how you'll send it to me, I presume
US Snail-mail so here's the address....
500 S. State #40
Edmond, OK 73034
I got ahold of a copy of Strieber's Majestic and find
most of it to be interesting. I still get the impression
that the Roswell debris was hijacked in mid-air and that
the government officialdom is still quite embarrassed.
--
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Loch...@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG
---------------------------------------------------------------
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:27:04 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 6:21 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> As I said..
>
> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
> As I said..
>
> I see that you couldn't be bothered to read the article,
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:31:10 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 6:28 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> Of course, you'd have to admit that you were being foolish, and
> rather than admit a mistake (eg. capacitors, electric fields),
> you call up your usual 'bluster and spit' to try and run away.
These magnetic capacitors are what YOU claimed do not exist, Urt:
> Of course, you'd have to admit that you were being foolish, and
> rather than admit a mistake (eg. capacitors, electric fields),
> you call up your usual 'bluster and spit' to try and run away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSEXjXLk9rg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_capacitance
Magnetic capacitance (capacitive magnetic reactance) (SI Unit: -Ω−1) is
a magnetic "reactance" which prevents magnetic "current" in oscillating
magnetic circuits from rising. This is associated with high reluctance.
For harmonic regimes it is equal to:
{\displaystyle x_{C}={\frac {1}{\omega C_{M}}}}
Where:
{\displaystyle C_{M}} is the magnetic capacitivity (SI Unit: -s·Ω−1)
{\displaystyle \omega } is the angular frequency of the magnetic circuit
In complex form it is written as an imaginary number:
{\displaystyle -jx_{C}=-j{\frac {1}{\omega C_{M}}}={\frac {1}{j\omega
C_{M}}}}
The electrical potential energy sustained by magnetic capacitivity
varies with the frequency of oscillations in magnetic fields. The
average power in a given period is equal to zero. The magnetic
capacitance is a reactive part of the magnetic circuit.[1][2]
http://icosym-nt.cvut.cz/courseodl/node44.html
A pure magnetic capacitor can be described by the constitutive relation
f(phi, w, t) = 0 (70)
For an ideal magnetic capacitor (70) becomes
phi(t) = Cm .w(t) (71)
where Cm, the magnetic capacitance, is known as the permeance, and is
measured in henrys. Its reciprocal value Dm = 1/Cm is called the reluctance.
The energy stored in the magnetic capacitor is
(72)
Magnetic flux phi through a part of a surface of an area S [m2] is
defined by the integral
(73)
where Bn is the magnetic flux density vector which is normal to the
surface. Within a material, B and H are related by the permeability mu
of the material:
B = muH mu= mu0 mur
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:31:46 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 6:34 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> Yeah, run out and buy some more guns, before 'they' come to
> take them away. I'm sure the firearms corporations will welcome
> your money, yet again.
>
> Dipshit..
> Yeah, run out and buy some more guns, before 'they' come to
> take them away. I'm sure the firearms corporations will welcome
> your money, yet again.
>
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:32:53 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 6:36 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> *>LOL!<* You're so easily frightened, for all your primate posturings..
> *>LOL!<* You're so easily frightened, for all your primate posturings..
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:34:01 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 7:26 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> <SNICKER> Poor dumb Lochner never learned about electromagnetic force
>
>
> You know very little about it, Steve-O, in that electric fields
> are seven orders of magnitude stronger than magnetic fields, and
> said electrostatic fields are also nearly 39 orders of magnitude
> stronger than gravitational fields, for a comparison..
>> <SNICKER> Poor dumb Lochner never learned about electromagnetic force
>
>
> You know very little about it, Steve-O, in that electric fields
> are seven orders of magnitude stronger than magnetic fields, and
> said electrostatic fields are also nearly 39 orders of magnitude
> stronger than gravitational fields, for a comparison..
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:34:55 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 7:41 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> You think that I haven't seen this kind of right-wing puffery before?
>
> You think that I haven't seen this kind of right-wing puffery before?
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:35:39 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 7:51 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
Pot/kettle/intolerant gun grabber Urt!
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:36:28 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 7:53 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
YOU are a partisan hack of the farthest left polarity, you gun-grabbing
> You are allowing your political ideology to divide the country,
Demotarded Okie nutcase.
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:37:04 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 8:01 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> You should see the view from here, sweetie..
> You should see the view from here, sweetie..
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 11:39:53 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 8:23 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> You are what I call a dishonest poster. You snip
>
>
> Fine, then
_snip_
>> You are what I call a dishonest poster. You snip
>
>
> Fine, then
Now RAGE for us mindless man!!!!
And tel everyone again what a trailer park "Savant" you are.
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 11:42:15 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>
> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>
> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
Rudy Canoza
Jun 22, 2016, 11:46:02 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
1. No one knew it better than Scalia
2. You don't know it at all
Both are true.
> On 6/22/2016 8:11 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 7:51 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 7:16 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 7:51 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 7:16 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>> ..yourself, and there's quite some doubt as to Scalia, too..
>>
>>
>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia, and you don't know it
>> at all.
>
>> at all.
>
> That would be 'false absolute'
No, it's absolutely true.
1. No one knew it better than Scalia
2. You don't know it at all
Both are true.
jane.playne
Jun 22, 2016, 11:49:39 AM6/22/16
to
Do you agree with YOUR citation stating, "I don’t believe we should ban
guns" - Sean Illing
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 11:53:14 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 10:49 AM, jane.playne wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 11:22 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 10:15 AM, jane.playne whined, again:
>>>
> On 6/22/2016 11:22 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 10:15 AM, jane.playne whined, again:
>>>
>>> So, you agree with your citation
>>
>> Nope, I don't accept your blatherings as anything more than mere
>> blatherings..
>
> Do you agree with
>>
>> Nope, I don't accept your blatherings as anything more than mere
>> blatherings..
>
Nope, I don't accept your blatherings as anything more than mere
Now, run out and buy more of those guns that you think will be
banned soon.. Hurry, supplies won't last, gun manufacturers
are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
dead children and homosexuals, right?
Mucking Foron..
Fight for America!
Jun 22, 2016, 12:00:57 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 7:26 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Hartung dismisses Salon as a source.
>
> Except when HE is posting from it......;)
To use your own left wing liar sites against you - too fucking funny,
Twitchy Mitchy!
> Hartung dismisses Salon as a source.
>
> Except when HE is posting from it......;)
To use your own left wing liar sites against you - too fucking funny,
Twitchy Mitchy!
Fight for America!
Jun 22, 2016, 12:02:15 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 7:41 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Hartung blasts the source as uncredible and not
> worthy of even a glance - except when HE is posting
> from that same source and demands you read the article
> fully before commenting on it.
>
> Sheesh...............
Yes he ran your own hard left offense on you and KICKED YOUR ASS, Hole-man!
> Hartung blasts the source as uncredible and not
> worthy of even a glance - except when HE is posting
> from that same source and demands you read the article
> fully before commenting on it.
>
> Sheesh...............
Yes he ran your own hard left offense on you and KICKED YOUR ASS, Hole-man!
Rudy Canoza
Jun 22, 2016, 12:06:33 PM6/22/16
to
[followups vandalism by the gutless fat fuck, "little kurtsie", repaired
automatically]
On 6/22/2016 8:53 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
automatically]
On 6/22/2016 8:53 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 8:49 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 11:22 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 10:15 AM, jane.playne whined, again:
>>>>
>> On 6/22/2016 11:22 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 10:15 AM, jane.playne whined, again:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2016 10:51 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/22/2016 9:16 AM, jane.playne was blathering on, again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/22/2016 10:01 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, I've already seen what large numbers of stupid people can do,
>>>>>>> and you're not convincing me that you know the Constitution better
>>>>>>> than myself..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know the US Constitution better than
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ..yourself, and there's quite some doubt as to Scalia, too..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have read Scalia's opinion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your agreement with Scalia doesn't confer actual knowledge on your
>>>>> behalf..
>>>
>>>
>>> *>cricket.wav<*
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
>>>>>> without verification simply because you are a bigger fool
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/22/2016 9:16 AM, jane.playne was blathering on, again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/22/2016 10:01 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, I've already seen what large numbers of stupid people can do,
>>>>>>> and you're not convincing me that you know the Constitution better
>>>>>>> than myself..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know the US Constitution better than
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ..yourself, and there's quite some doubt as to Scalia, too..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have read Scalia's opinion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your agreement with Scalia doesn't confer actual knowledge on your
>>>>> behalf..
>>>
>>>
>>> *>cricket.wav<*
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> YOU are willing to blindly accept the political blathering of a fool
>>>>>> without verification simply because you are a bigger fool
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, I don't accept your blatherings as anything more than mere
>>>>> blatherings..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you agree with your citation
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, I don't accept your blatherings as anything more than mere
>>> blatherings..
>>>
>>>
>>>>> blatherings..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you agree with your citation
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, I don't accept your blatherings as anything more than mere
>>> blatherings..
>>>
>>>
>>>> You bitch and whine about others not reading your citation
>>>
>>>
>>> You apparently have a reading comprehension problem..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You apparently have a reading comprehension problem..
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, run out and buy more of those guns that you think will be
>>> banned soon.. Hurry, supplies won't last, gun manufacturers
>>> are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
>>> dead children and homosexuals, right?
>>>
>>>
>>> Mucking Foron..
>>>
>>>
>>> banned soon.. Hurry, supplies won't last, gun manufacturers
>>> are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
>>> dead children and homosexuals, right?
>>>
>>>
>>> Mucking Foron..
>>>
>>>
>> .
>>
>> Do you agree with YOUR citation stating, "I don’t believe we should ban
>> guns" - Sean Illing
>
>
>>
>> Do you agree with YOUR citation stating, "I don’t believe we should ban
>> guns" - Sean Illing
>
>
> Nope, I don't accept your blatherings
Seems they're *your* blatherings, little kurtsie.
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 12:09:48 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 8:51 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> Mucking Fidiot..
> Mucking Fidiot..
>
> --
> "Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
> gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
> -Lionel Trilling
> --
> "Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
> gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
> -Lionel Trilling
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 12:11:03 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 9:04 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> You don't like me making fun of you?
>
>
> Pity..
Fight for America!
Jun 22, 2016, 12:12:04 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 9:22 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> Hurry, supplies won't last, gun manufacturers
> are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
> dead children and homosexuals, right?
>
>
> Mucking Foron..
Such a frighty lefty, did Granny Lochner show you an actual gun and make
> Hurry, supplies won't last, gun manufacturers
> are depending on your for their fat paychecks, never mind the
> dead children and homosexuals, right?
>
>
> Mucking Foron..
you wet your panties, Urtie dear?
Fight for America!
Jun 22, 2016, 12:12:40 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 9:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia
>
> That would be 'false
No, that would be a provable fact.
>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia
>
> That would be 'false
I love that it sticks in your fascist throat, btw...
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 12:15:06 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 9:42 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>
>> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
>
>
> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>
Are you going to get yourself arrested for harassing them?
> On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>
>> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
>
>
> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 12:15:38 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 9:53 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> never mind the
> dead children and homosexuals, right?
>
>
> Mucking Foron..
>
>
>
> --
> "Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
> gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
> -Lionel Trilling
> never mind the
> dead children and homosexuals, right?
>
>
> Mucking Foron..
>
>
>
> --
> "Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
> gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
> -Lionel Trilling
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 12:31:27 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:12:24 -0700 (PDT), milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 6:51:55 AM UTC-7, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 8:02 AM, Foot Stompy Steve-O 'bravely' ran away from:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:28:22 -0500, Kurt Lochner was again laughing at:
>> >>
>> >> On 6/22/2016 6:33 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stomped his little feet:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:11:01 -0500, Kurt Lochner continued heckling:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>> >>>
>> >>> <SNICKER> Lochner imagines that he know what I read...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't have to 'imagine' anything, such as you have dishonestly
>> >> suggested, cupcakes. You've made it abundantly clear what sorts
>> >> of right-wing crack-pottery you've ingested and keep repeating..
>> >
>> > <CHUCKLES> More imaginative fantasies
>>
>>
>> Only on your behalf, as if you've never stated a political opinion
>> on a politically-related newsgroup, sure.. *>chuckling<*
>
>He does that? All I ever see from him is personal invective, proving that he has no life and is jealous of those of us who do.
<SNICKER> Shook calls his Internet activity a life...
>> Yeah, and you've never regurgitated a right-wing talking point, sure..
>
>No, no... that's not fair. In the Stalker's M.O., he doesn't regurgitate so much as appropriate. He says something he heard once and then claims he thought of it all by himself. Google Scholar through and through.
That's from Shook who once said:
"And Roth's don't pay shit in interest these days."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1434b188779dea12?hl=en
>It's why we make him look stupid so often. I mean, look at him on the First Amendment. It's been 12 years since I posted that the First Amendment can be used to protect you from more than the government, and he's so wedded to the opposite notion that he continues to make himself look foolish. He has been repeating the same bullshit for a dozen years and has no idea that what he repeats proves ME right. I mean, he pretends to have a wife who's a "Filipina lawyer" (still not sure why he had to pretend she was Filipina, except that he's obviously attracted to them and can't figure out why they won't talk to him), but he obviously never speaks to "her" because he says the stupidest shit.
Poor Milt hasn't explained this bit of twisted confusion...
Note that I said people can violate your First Amendment RIGHTS, and
not "the First Amendment."
--Milt Shook
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/hWmmi5D5lT4/7N0Xk3n6voIJ
>And then there's the magnetic capacitors. HE is the genius who proved you wrong, remember? And he still doesn't know WTF he's talking about. Oh, yeah, and look at him with the bicycle thing. I have a ticket right here, in a frame, but he claims he's proven that it couldn't possibly have happened because he looked it up on Google and he misunderstood what he said.
<GRIN> Of course I don't expect Shook to understand what
electromagnetic force is all about..
>Oh, yeah, and then there is the immense career as a computer genius he claims to have, in which he regurgitates shit he doesn't understand from Google. Like the time he told Matt Telles what the headers meant because he's such a computer genius. This, despite the fact that he doesn't use macros, but keeps all of the data about us on his vaunted "storage drive."
<LOL> Milt seems to think the reference to the version of Windows in
some of the Usenet header fields has to do with what version of
Firefox is being used..
>Oh, yeah, then there was the posting on Usenet from an Earthlink/Mindspring account he accessed from his boat. That was fun, too.
I'm not expecting Shook to understand that most marinas have telephone
connections for each slip that go right along with the shore power
electric connections. I mean, the idea that a loser like Shook would
ever have access to a boat that slipped in a marina is preposterous.
>Like I said, he doesn't regurgitate, he appropriates. And he doesn't understand most of what he posts. If he wasn't such a self-important, arrogant dick, I might even feel sorry for him.
>
"The states cannot amend the constitution. Congress can.
--Milt Shook Dec 14 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7e04b6aeaa019d1a?hl=en
"I've explained it to you before; it's because the state is
obligated to protect your First Amendment rights, even
from private parties. "
--Milt Shook claiming that private parties are subject to the First Amendment
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/49833dff86ea3447
"Bush can pardon ANYONE for ANYTHING. The purpose of the pardon power
in the first place was so that the president would have the power to
right a judicial wrong, even at the state level. Since probably at
least 90% or more of crime is prosecuted at the state level, it
wouldn't make sense to only give him the power to pardon federal
crimes."
--Milt Shook claiming that Bush could pardon OJ Simpson.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/4f4fe748216d1e2e?hl=en
"Of COURSE the US Constitution is state law! You moron!
Do you even know what it means to "ratify" something?"
--Milt Shook was he drunk when he said this?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b27b8b27a4ae5e03?hl=en&
"In fact, being married actually CUTS
Social Security benefits for both."
--Milt Shook disagreeing with the social security people
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e76631f45f458651?hl=en
"The feds don't have jurisdiction on a street corner. "
--Milt.Shook... July 22, 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/28db971e38f80e7f
"It doesn't matter if it's state property or not; the state doesn't
have to power to limit access to a public area. They can charge to
access it, but they can't force people to have a state ID card or
something. It's right in the 14th Amendment; if you allow one person
to get in for free, then all people have to be allowed in for free, if
it's public property."
--Milt Shook.. more ignorance of the law
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/83e117a21b818c9b
"You cannot fire someone for something that
has nothing to do with their job."
--Milt Shook ...wrong again...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c85065e97f69d9e0?hl=en
>On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 6:51:55 AM UTC-7, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 8:02 AM, Foot Stompy Steve-O 'bravely' ran away from:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:28:22 -0500, Kurt Lochner was again laughing at:
>> >>
>> >> On 6/22/2016 6:33 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stomped his little feet:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:11:01 -0500, Kurt Lochner continued heckling:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 6/22/2016 4:50 AM, Foot Stompy Steve stupidly posted:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Can't blame someone for ignoring a fruitcake propaganda site
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Like the ones you read, Stevie?
>> >>>
>> >>> <SNICKER> Lochner imagines that he know what I read...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't have to 'imagine' anything, such as you have dishonestly
>> >> suggested, cupcakes. You've made it abundantly clear what sorts
>> >> of right-wing crack-pottery you've ingested and keep repeating..
>> >
>> > <CHUCKLES> More imaginative fantasies
>>
>>
>> Only on your behalf, as if you've never stated a political opinion
>> on a politically-related newsgroup, sure.. *>chuckling<*
>
>He does that? All I ever see from him is personal invective, proving that he has no life and is jealous of those of us who do.
<SNICKER> Shook calls his Internet activity a life...
>> Yeah, and you've never regurgitated a right-wing talking point, sure..
>
>No, no... that's not fair. In the Stalker's M.O., he doesn't regurgitate so much as appropriate. He says something he heard once and then claims he thought of it all by himself. Google Scholar through and through.
That's from Shook who once said:
"And Roth's don't pay shit in interest these days."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1434b188779dea12?hl=en
>It's why we make him look stupid so often. I mean, look at him on the First Amendment. It's been 12 years since I posted that the First Amendment can be used to protect you from more than the government, and he's so wedded to the opposite notion that he continues to make himself look foolish. He has been repeating the same bullshit for a dozen years and has no idea that what he repeats proves ME right. I mean, he pretends to have a wife who's a "Filipina lawyer" (still not sure why he had to pretend she was Filipina, except that he's obviously attracted to them and can't figure out why they won't talk to him), but he obviously never speaks to "her" because he says the stupidest shit.
Poor Milt hasn't explained this bit of twisted confusion...
Note that I said people can violate your First Amendment RIGHTS, and
not "the First Amendment."
--Milt Shook
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/hWmmi5D5lT4/7N0Xk3n6voIJ
>And then there's the magnetic capacitors. HE is the genius who proved you wrong, remember? And he still doesn't know WTF he's talking about. Oh, yeah, and look at him with the bicycle thing. I have a ticket right here, in a frame, but he claims he's proven that it couldn't possibly have happened because he looked it up on Google and he misunderstood what he said.
<GRIN> Of course I don't expect Shook to understand what
electromagnetic force is all about..
>Oh, yeah, and then there is the immense career as a computer genius he claims to have, in which he regurgitates shit he doesn't understand from Google. Like the time he told Matt Telles what the headers meant because he's such a computer genius. This, despite the fact that he doesn't use macros, but keeps all of the data about us on his vaunted "storage drive."
<LOL> Milt seems to think the reference to the version of Windows in
some of the Usenet header fields has to do with what version of
Firefox is being used..
>Oh, yeah, then there was the posting on Usenet from an Earthlink/Mindspring account he accessed from his boat. That was fun, too.
I'm not expecting Shook to understand that most marinas have telephone
connections for each slip that go right along with the shore power
electric connections. I mean, the idea that a loser like Shook would
ever have access to a boat that slipped in a marina is preposterous.
>Like I said, he doesn't regurgitate, he appropriates. And he doesn't understand most of what he posts. If he wasn't such a self-important, arrogant dick, I might even feel sorry for him.
>
"The states cannot amend the constitution. Congress can.
--Milt Shook Dec 14 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7e04b6aeaa019d1a?hl=en
"I've explained it to you before; it's because the state is
obligated to protect your First Amendment rights, even
from private parties. "
--Milt Shook claiming that private parties are subject to the First Amendment
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/49833dff86ea3447
"Bush can pardon ANYONE for ANYTHING. The purpose of the pardon power
in the first place was so that the president would have the power to
right a judicial wrong, even at the state level. Since probably at
least 90% or more of crime is prosecuted at the state level, it
wouldn't make sense to only give him the power to pardon federal
crimes."
--Milt Shook claiming that Bush could pardon OJ Simpson.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/4f4fe748216d1e2e?hl=en
"Of COURSE the US Constitution is state law! You moron!
Do you even know what it means to "ratify" something?"
--Milt Shook was he drunk when he said this?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b27b8b27a4ae5e03?hl=en&
"In fact, being married actually CUTS
Social Security benefits for both."
--Milt Shook disagreeing with the social security people
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e76631f45f458651?hl=en
"The feds don't have jurisdiction on a street corner. "
--Milt.Shook... July 22, 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/28db971e38f80e7f
"It doesn't matter if it's state property or not; the state doesn't
have to power to limit access to a public area. They can charge to
access it, but they can't force people to have a state ID card or
something. It's right in the 14th Amendment; if you allow one person
to get in for free, then all people have to be allowed in for free, if
it's public property."
--Milt Shook.. more ignorance of the law
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/83e117a21b818c9b
"You cannot fire someone for something that
has nothing to do with their job."
--Milt Shook ...wrong again...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c85065e97f69d9e0?hl=en
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 12:32:01 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:57:34 -0700 (PDT), milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 6:26:52 AM UTC-7, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 6:42 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was blathering incoherently:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:31:38 -0500, Kurt Lochner was taunting:
>> >>
>> >> On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> From;
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> >>>>>> need of revision.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>> >>>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>> >>>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>> >>>> thing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>> >>
>> >> That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>> >
>> > That your fantasies
>>
>>
>> No 'fantasies' to it, "steve-o", you're insanely jealous of me..
>
>Who can blame him? He's insanely jealous of anyone who doesn't have to live in a travel trailer and concoct a pretend life because his is so empty.
Speaking of a pretend life....
"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in Maryland.
Why is that hard to believe?"
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=senate+page
"I was a page for someone on the judiciary committee at the time,"
--Milt Shook Dec 7 1996
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/bb35672e77b8808a
Canyon Note:
Shook is apparently unaware that congressional pages don't work
for any individual Congressperson.
"Of course, between commuting an hour each way to and from the
Capitol every day, and trying to keep up with my studies in
high school, and play JV football (I was "too skinny" for
varsity, according to my moronic coach), and a few other
extra curricular activities, I wouldn't have had much time
for that, anyway. Especially after I blew out my knee in the
fourth game of the season... damn... "
--Milt Shook,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d4fb757cb481a5c2
Canyon Note:
Shook is apparently unaware that congressional pages attend
school mornings and evenings at the Capital so they can attend
sessions of Congress during the day and couldn't possibly
continue going to his hometown school, let alone take part
in extra curricular activities there...
"I was a [..Congressional..] page. Twice; and both
under unusual circumstances, especially the second time. "
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/f2f538a583cb79c3
Canyon note: Fantasies like that aren't unusual at all for Shook..
>On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 6:26:52 AM UTC-7, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 6:42 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was blathering incoherently:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:31:38 -0500, Kurt Lochner was taunting:
>> >>
>> >> On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> From;
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> >>>>>> need of revision.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>> >>>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>> >>>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>> >>>> thing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>> >>
>> >> That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>> >
>> > That your fantasies
>>
>>
>> No 'fantasies' to it, "steve-o", you're insanely jealous of me..
>
>Who can blame him? He's insanely jealous of anyone who doesn't have to live in a travel trailer and concoct a pretend life because his is so empty.
Speaking of a pretend life....
"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in Maryland.
Why is that hard to believe?"
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=senate+page
"I was a page for someone on the judiciary committee at the time,"
--Milt Shook Dec 7 1996
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/bb35672e77b8808a
Canyon Note:
Shook is apparently unaware that congressional pages don't work
for any individual Congressperson.
"Of course, between commuting an hour each way to and from the
Capitol every day, and trying to keep up with my studies in
high school, and play JV football (I was "too skinny" for
varsity, according to my moronic coach), and a few other
extra curricular activities, I wouldn't have had much time
for that, anyway. Especially after I blew out my knee in the
fourth game of the season... damn... "
--Milt Shook,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d4fb757cb481a5c2
Canyon Note:
Shook is apparently unaware that congressional pages attend
school mornings and evenings at the Capital so they can attend
sessions of Congress during the day and couldn't possibly
continue going to his hometown school, let alone take part
in extra curricular activities there...
"I was a [..Congressional..] page. Twice; and both
under unusual circumstances, especially the second time. "
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/f2f538a583cb79c3
Canyon note: Fantasies like that aren't unusual at all for Shook..
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 12:34:44 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:55:12 -0700 (PDT), milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 2:52:58 PM UTC-7, Steve wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner
>> <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >From;
>> >
>> >http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>> >
>> >I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> >need of revision.
>>
>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands and
>> whimper and whine about the second Amendment.
>>
>
>The only whimpering and whining comes from the gunloon crowd, who imagine themselves repelling invading US government forces with their AR-15s. You people crack me up.
I strongly suspect that people who understand they have the right to
own guns don't have much to complain about. We know that right aint
going away..
I'm still waiting for Shook to act on the following.
"I think this one gets reported, Canyon. Consider yourself done, or else. if you ever contact me, or anyone I know, ever again, I'll turn it in to the police down there in Florida,
and let them investigate it. I am a total stranger to you, we have never met, and you have no reason to look up information about me. As for proving malice, well, that's pretty much in every post. Don't bother me ever again."
"And I do mean NEVER."
--Milt.Shook Nov 24 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e0cfd30d3d3084b1
>On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 2:52:58 PM UTC-7, Steve wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner
>> <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >From;
>> >
>> >http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>> >
>> >I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> >need of revision.
>>
>> whimper and whine about the second Amendment.
>>
>
>The only whimpering and whining comes from the gunloon crowd, who imagine themselves repelling invading US government forces with their AR-15s. You people crack me up.
I strongly suspect that people who understand they have the right to
own guns don't have much to complain about. We know that right aint
going away..
I'm still waiting for Shook to act on the following.
"I think this one gets reported, Canyon. Consider yourself done, or else. if you ever contact me, or anyone I know, ever again, I'll turn it in to the police down there in Florida,
and let them investigate it. I am a total stranger to you, we have never met, and you have no reason to look up information about me. As for proving malice, well, that's pretty much in every post. Don't bother me ever again."
"And I do mean NEVER."
--Milt.Shook Nov 24 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e0cfd30d3d3084b1
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 12:35:00 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 11:14 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 9:42 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>>
>>> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
>>
>>
>> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>>
>
> Am I going to get myself arrested for harassing you?
> On 6/22/2016 9:42 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>>
>>> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
>>
>>
>> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>>
>
That's up to you, Jeffry..
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 12:47:40 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:53:32 -0700 (PDT), milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:44:11 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 06/21/2016 10:09 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> > Gun advocates fancy themselves champions of the Constitution. They
>> > misunderstand and abuse the Second Amendment
>> > accept that the Second Amendment is defensible. The unfortunate reality
>> > is that we live in a country in which there are more guns than people,
>> > where the soft targets outnumber the hard ones. Self-defense is
>> > therefore a legitimate concern. So long as the guns are on the streets
>> > and criminals have access to them, law-abiding citizens deserve the
>> > right to protect themselves.
>> >
>> > But defenders of the Second Amendment often rely on another
>> > justification. The argument, simply stated, is that the right to bear
>> > arms exists to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It’s
>> > “the ultimate check against governmental tyranny,” as Ted Cruz recently
>> > put it. There’s a superficial logic to this claim, but it doesn’t
>> > survive scrutiny. First, a “well-regulated” militia, the alleged
>> > mechanism of this check, is to be controlled by Congress according to
>> > the Constitution. States are allowed to appoint officers and train the
>> > militia, but Congress is given unfettered authority over it. So the
>> > “well-regulated” militia clause is not intended as a “check against
>> > governmental tyranny.” On the contrary, it’s an instrument of state power.
>> >
>> > But what about the practical argument that an armed citizenry is the
>> > best way to keep the state at bay? This, too, is false, and there is
>> > plenty of data to prove it.
>> >
>> > There’s an assumption that political power and violence are equivalent;
>> > that force is always and everywhere the most reliable means of achieving
>> > a political outcome. It’s true that violence is occasionally necessary
>> > (in a geopolitical context, for example), but how useful it is varies
>> > considerably. Understanding the constituents of power is critical. Gene
>> > Sharp, a pioneer of strategic nonviolence, defined political power thus:
>> > “The totality of means, influences, and pressures – including authority,
>> > rewards, and sanctions – available for use to achieve the objectives of
>> > the power-holder, especially the institutions of government, the State,
>> > and groups opposing either of them.”
>> >
>> > What’s crucial about this conception is that political power is not
>> > monolithically grounded in the state, which almost always has a monopoly
>> > on physical force. Rather, political power is pluralistic; it stems from
>> > external sources beyond the power-holder and depends, in part, upon the
>> > consent of the governed. This is another way of saying state power is
>> > contingent. Physical violence can subdue people, but that’s all it can
>> > do. And it’s very difficult to rule over a people without their tacit
>> > consent or active support.
>> >
>> > Armed individuals or even organized militias cannot defeat the United
>> > States government militarily. This ought to be obvious on its face,
>> > given the state’s overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and
>> > capabilities. Gather all the AR-15s you like. If Uncle Sam decides to
>> > detain you, he will – eventually. Having a few guns will complicate
>> > things, but it won’t negate the power asymmetry.
>>
>> The fact that you consider Salon to be credible says much about you,
>> none of it good.
>>
>> From the article you cited:
>> [...]
>> Here’s why Sharp’s view of power matters: If it’s true that rulers
>> depend upon the consent of the ruled, withdrawing that consent is the
>> most effective means of displacing power. To bring the government to its
>> knees, the people need only raise the costs of oppression. A few
>> thousand militiamen with guns is a nuisance to organized state power,
>> but tens of millions of people in the streets (a la Tahrir Square in
>> Egypt) is a revolution in consciousness. Mass mobilization of that
>> magnitude shuts down a society, renders it ungovernable. It’s a complete
>> withdrawal from the system and a way of applying power without violence.
>> It’s the people using the one material advantage they have over the
>> state: numbers.
>> [...]
>>
>> How did that work for the people of Tianeman square?
>>
>> Tens of millions of unarmed people will accomplish nothing if the
>> government is willing to kill them all to achieve its purposes. However,
>> tens of thousands of armed citizens can accomplish much, even of the
>> government is willing to kill.
>
>Oh, yeah, one more thing.
>
>If you think the reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can repel an invasion by their own government... wow. The fantasy is strong with this one.
<LOL> Actually, the 2nd Amendment was written pretty much for that
very reason, Dummy. Apparently Milt never studied American History.
"You're arguing with someone who studies Constitutional
Law as a hobby. I read court cases as part of my job,
but also for fun. "
--Milt Shook.. Jul 17 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.usa/msg/e5aafcd491c9ecf5?hl=en&
"That's it. I STUDY and write papers on the Constitution,
and have as mentors two of the top constitutional
scholars in the country. "
--Milt.Shook.. 1997/06/12
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.dan-quayle/msg/68b31af32fbde46d?dmode=source&hl=en
..and yet Shook really believes that he can sue a private party under the First Amendment as he claims below...
"Your boss (supposing you work for a private employer) fires
you because you held a Bush rally in your back yard. You should
sue him, but on what basis? Your First Amendment rights, of
course."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b37ce113a46a2ef9
CAnyon NOte:
"The First Amendment, unfortunately, only limits the coercive powers
of the Government [..]"
http://www.workrights.org/issue_whistle/wb_legislative_brief.html /freedom1.html
>On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:44:11 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 06/21/2016 10:09 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> > Gun advocates fancy themselves champions of the Constitution. They
>> > misunderstand and abuse the Second Amendment
>> >
>> > From;
>> >
>> > http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>> >
>> >
>> > I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> > need of revision. I don’t believe we should ban guns, however, and I
>> > From;
>> >
>> > http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>> >
>> >
>> > I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>> > accept that the Second Amendment is defensible. The unfortunate reality
>> > is that we live in a country in which there are more guns than people,
>> > where the soft targets outnumber the hard ones. Self-defense is
>> > therefore a legitimate concern. So long as the guns are on the streets
>> > and criminals have access to them, law-abiding citizens deserve the
>> > right to protect themselves.
>> >
>> > But defenders of the Second Amendment often rely on another
>> > justification. The argument, simply stated, is that the right to bear
>> > arms exists to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It’s
>> > “the ultimate check against governmental tyranny,” as Ted Cruz recently
>> > put it. There’s a superficial logic to this claim, but it doesn’t
>> > survive scrutiny. First, a “well-regulated” militia, the alleged
>> > mechanism of this check, is to be controlled by Congress according to
>> > the Constitution. States are allowed to appoint officers and train the
>> > militia, but Congress is given unfettered authority over it. So the
>> > “well-regulated” militia clause is not intended as a “check against
>> > governmental tyranny.” On the contrary, it’s an instrument of state power.
>> >
>> > But what about the practical argument that an armed citizenry is the
>> > best way to keep the state at bay? This, too, is false, and there is
>> > plenty of data to prove it.
>> >
>> > There’s an assumption that political power and violence are equivalent;
>> > that force is always and everywhere the most reliable means of achieving
>> > a political outcome. It’s true that violence is occasionally necessary
>> > (in a geopolitical context, for example), but how useful it is varies
>> > considerably. Understanding the constituents of power is critical. Gene
>> > Sharp, a pioneer of strategic nonviolence, defined political power thus:
>> > “The totality of means, influences, and pressures – including authority,
>> > rewards, and sanctions – available for use to achieve the objectives of
>> > the power-holder, especially the institutions of government, the State,
>> > and groups opposing either of them.”
>> >
>> > What’s crucial about this conception is that political power is not
>> > monolithically grounded in the state, which almost always has a monopoly
>> > on physical force. Rather, political power is pluralistic; it stems from
>> > external sources beyond the power-holder and depends, in part, upon the
>> > consent of the governed. This is another way of saying state power is
>> > contingent. Physical violence can subdue people, but that’s all it can
>> > do. And it’s very difficult to rule over a people without their tacit
>> > consent or active support.
>> >
>> > Armed individuals or even organized militias cannot defeat the United
>> > States government militarily. This ought to be obvious on its face,
>> > given the state’s overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and
>> > capabilities. Gather all the AR-15s you like. If Uncle Sam decides to
>> > detain you, he will – eventually. Having a few guns will complicate
>> > things, but it won’t negate the power asymmetry.
>>
>> The fact that you consider Salon to be credible says much about you,
>> none of it good.
>>
>> From the article you cited:
>> [...]
>> Here’s why Sharp’s view of power matters: If it’s true that rulers
>> depend upon the consent of the ruled, withdrawing that consent is the
>> most effective means of displacing power. To bring the government to its
>> knees, the people need only raise the costs of oppression. A few
>> thousand militiamen with guns is a nuisance to organized state power,
>> but tens of millions of people in the streets (a la Tahrir Square in
>> Egypt) is a revolution in consciousness. Mass mobilization of that
>> magnitude shuts down a society, renders it ungovernable. It’s a complete
>> withdrawal from the system and a way of applying power without violence.
>> It’s the people using the one material advantage they have over the
>> state: numbers.
>> [...]
>>
>> How did that work for the people of Tianeman square?
>>
>> Tens of millions of unarmed people will accomplish nothing if the
>> government is willing to kill them all to achieve its purposes. However,
>> tens of thousands of armed citizens can accomplish much, even of the
>> government is willing to kill.
>
>Oh, yeah, one more thing.
>
>If you think the reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can repel an invasion by their own government... wow. The fantasy is strong with this one.
<LOL> Actually, the 2nd Amendment was written pretty much for that
very reason, Dummy. Apparently Milt never studied American History.
"You're arguing with someone who studies Constitutional
Law as a hobby. I read court cases as part of my job,
but also for fun. "
--Milt Shook.. Jul 17 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.usa/msg/e5aafcd491c9ecf5?hl=en&
"That's it. I STUDY and write papers on the Constitution,
and have as mentors two of the top constitutional
scholars in the country. "
--Milt.Shook.. 1997/06/12
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.dan-quayle/msg/68b31af32fbde46d?dmode=source&hl=en
..and yet Shook really believes that he can sue a private party under the First Amendment as he claims below...
"Your boss (supposing you work for a private employer) fires
you because you held a Bush rally in your back yard. You should
sue him, but on what basis? Your First Amendment rights, of
course."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b37ce113a46a2ef9
CAnyon NOte:
"The First Amendment, unfortunately, only limits the coercive powers
of the Government [..]"
http://www.workrights.org/issue_whistle/wb_legislative_brief.html /freedom1.html
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 12:49:07 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:52:22 -0700 (PDT), milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>- We have a civilian military, run by people who are completely independent of the government.
<ROTFLMAO> Another keeper from Shook..
--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.
>
>- We have a civilian military, run by people who are completely independent of the government.
<ROTFLMAO> Another keeper from Shook..
--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 12:51:49 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:26:53 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 6:42 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was blathering incoherently:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:31:38 -0500, Kurt Lochner was taunting:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:09:05 -0500, Kurt Lochner was quoting:
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 6:42 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was blathering incoherently:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:31:38 -0500, Kurt Lochner was taunting:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/21/2016 4:52 PM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>>>>>> need of revision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I consider the Second Amendment a misinterpreted anachronism, badly in
>>>>>>> need of revision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <GRIN> I so enjoy watching the leftist loons wring their hands
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your imaginations appears to limited to what you'd like to believe
>>>>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>>>>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>>>>> thing.
>>>>
>>>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>>>
>>> That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>>
>> That your fantasies
>
>
>No 'fantasies' to it, "steve-o", you're insanely jealous of me..
That's from Little Kurtie Lochner who lives with his mommy....
>>>>> about your political opponents, never mind that you are gullible
>>>>> enough to think that dividing the nation against itself is a good
>>>>> thing.
>>>>
>>>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>>>
>>> That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>>
>> That your fantasies
>
>
>No 'fantasies' to it, "steve-o", you're insanely jealous of me..
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 1:02:49 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 11:51 AM, Foot Stompy Steve broke out in a sweat when:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:26:53 -0500, Kurt Lochner replied:
--
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
..
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36:15 -0500
news: <cejm945eqt2hspb4k...@4ax.com>
"I don't need to prove anything.."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
"MY self image is very secure...."
..
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:08:28 GMT
news:<u3sp5vc0nhsdj4fbo...@4ax.com>
"[..] my ego isn't even slightly effected by what others
might think of me."
..
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
news:<rg6q5vgq29cerpocl...@4ax.com>
"I don't need to back anything up, you moron, cause unlike
yourself, my self image is not dependent on what others
think about me."
..
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Wed, 28 May 2008 10:37:55 -0400
news: <p6rq341tt0r6gkte6...@4ax.com>
"<chuckle> I aint here to collect responses,[..]"
..
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:20:02 -0400
news: <3b5a84t0b9fanulr3...@4ax.com>
"I never had any friends on Usenet.. I never needed any
friends on Usenet.."
..
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:44:19 -0500
news: <tour941biih7br0kr...@4ax.com>
"It's actually quite satisfying to be hated and despised"
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:26:53 -0500, Kurt Lochner replied:
>>
>> On 6/22/2016 6:42 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was blathering incoherently:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:31:38 -0500, Kurt Lochner was taunting:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
.....
>> On 6/22/2016 6:42 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was blathering incoherently:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:31:38 -0500, Kurt Lochner was taunting:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2016 5:14 AM, Foot Stompy Steve was raving impotently at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:27:14 -0500, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:
>>>>> Alcoholic dead beat dad, and chronic loser
>>>>
>>>> That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>>>
>>> That your fantasies
>>
>> No 'fantasies' to it, "steve-o", you're insanely jealous of me..
>
> That's from
*>LOL!<* Back to your prepubescent name-calling, Steve-O?
>>>>
>>>> That my recovery makes you feel so insecure is heart warming..
>>>
>>> That your fantasies
>>
>> No 'fantasies' to it, "steve-o", you're insanely jealous of me..
>
> That's from
--
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
..
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36:15 -0500
news: <cejm945eqt2hspb4k...@4ax.com>
"I don't need to prove anything.."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
"MY self image is very secure...."
..
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:08:28 GMT
news:<u3sp5vc0nhsdj4fbo...@4ax.com>
"[..] my ego isn't even slightly effected by what others
might think of me."
..
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
news:<rg6q5vgq29cerpocl...@4ax.com>
"I don't need to back anything up, you moron, cause unlike
yourself, my self image is not dependent on what others
think about me."
..
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Wed, 28 May 2008 10:37:55 -0400
news: <p6rq341tt0r6gkte6...@4ax.com>
"<chuckle> I aint here to collect responses,[..]"
..
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:20:02 -0400
news: <3b5a84t0b9fanulr3...@4ax.com>
"I never had any friends on Usenet.. I never needed any
friends on Usenet.."
..
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:44:19 -0500
news: <tour941biih7br0kr...@4ax.com>
"It's actually quite satisfying to be hated and despised"
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 1:12:00 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:35:02 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 11:14 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 9:42 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
>>>
>>>
>>> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>>>
>>
>> Am I going to get myself arrested for harassing you?
>
>
>That's up to you, Jeffry..
Poor little Kurtie, the big bad internet meanies won't stop making him
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 11:14 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 9:42 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
>>>
>>>
>>> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>>>
>>
>> Am I going to get myself arrested for harassing you?
>
>
>That's up to you, Jeffry..
cry and momma Iris won't wipe his little nose for him any more.....
jane.playne
Jun 22, 2016, 1:29:03 PM6/22/16
to
That is what I love about progressives. When confronted with an
argument that they can not counter, they snip the argument and feebly
attempt a diversion.
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 2:27:41 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 10:46 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 8:11 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
...
>>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia,
>>> and you don't know it at all.
>>
>> That would be a 'false absolute'
>>> and you don't know it at all.
>>
>
> No, it's absolutely true.
No, it's absolutely false..
> No, it's absolutely true.
And corporations are not persons, contrary to Scalia's ruling..
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/scalia-thomas-and-citizens-united-047855
“It appears both justices have participated in political strategy
sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders
whose political aims were advanced by the decision,” the Common Cause
petition asserts.
In addition, Common Cause argues that Thomas should have recused himself
because his wife was the founder of Liberty Central, a conservative
group funded with a small group of anonymous donors who endorsed
candidates in about a dozen 2010 races.
It’s unknown whether those donors are corporations or individuals, but
Virginia Thomas said publicly that she’d accept corporate money in light
of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 2:34:09 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 11:06 AM, Rudely Canola'd whined desperately:
>
> [followups vandalism by the gutless fat fuck, "little kurtsie"
I'm not 'fat', you insanely raging asshuffer..
> [followups vandalism by the gutless fat fuck, "little kurtsie"
Rudy Canoza
Jun 22, 2016, 2:35:05 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 11:27 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> Both are true.
> On 6/22/2016 8:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia, and you don't know it
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>> That would be 'false absolute'
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>
>> No, it's absolutely true.
>>
>> No, it's absolutely true.
>>
>> 1. No one knew it better than Scalia
>> 2. You don't know it at all
>>
>> Both are true.
>
>
> No, it's absolutely false..
No, they are true - proved beyond rational dispute.
>
> No, it's absolutely false..
Rudy Canoza
Jun 22, 2016, 2:37:52 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 11:34 AM, Kurt Lochner, gutless fat fuck, wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 11:06 AM, Rudy Canoza helpfully expounded:
> On 6/22/2016 11:06 AM, Rudy Canoza helpfully expounded:
>>
>> [followups vandalism by the gutless fat fuck, "little kurtsie"
>
>
> I'm not 'fat',
You are, of course, a gutless fat fuck. You prove it repeatedly.
>> [followups vandalism by the gutless fat fuck, "little kurtsie"
>
>
> I'm not 'fat',
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 2:40:59 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:27:37 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 10:46 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 8:11 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>...
>>>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia,
>>>> and you don't know it at all.
>>>
>>> That would be a 'false absolute'
>>
>> No, it's absolutely true.
>
>
>No, it's absolutely false..
>
>And corporations are not persons, contrary to Scalia's ruling..
Of course, Scalia's opinion is significant, while the opinions of
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 10:46 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 8:11 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>...
>>>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia,
>>>> and you don't know it at all.
>>>
>>> That would be a 'false absolute'
>>
>> No, it's absolutely true.
>
>
>No, it's absolutely false..
>
>And corporations are not persons, contrary to Scalia's ruling..
leftist losers like Lochner, are not....
Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner Harrington about Faraday's Law
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...
Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.. Need a cite?
Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true
Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..
Canyon: OK
"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 3:04:04 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 1:35 PM, Rudely Canola'd whined and stomped his feet:
...
You're done..
> On 6/22/2016 11:27 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 8:46 AM, Rudely Canola'd writhed in denials:
...
>>> Both are true.
>>
>> No, it's absolutely false..
>
> No, they are true - proved beyond rational dispute.
I see no such "proved" on your lame behalf, so suck it up, buttercup.
>>
>> No, it's absolutely false..
>
> No, they are true - proved beyond rational dispute.
You're done..
jane.playne
Jun 22, 2016, 3:59:26 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 2:27 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 10:46 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 8:11 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
> ...
>>>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia,
>>>> and you don't know it at all.
>>>
>>> That would be a 'false absolute'
>>
>> No, it's absolutely true.
>
>
> No, it's absolutely false..
>
> And corporations are not persons, contrary to Scalia's ruling..
>
>
> http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/scalia-thomas-and-citizens-united-047855
>
I read your citation from start to finish and there was NO reference to
> On 6/22/2016 10:46 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 8:11 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
> ...
>>>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia,
>>>> and you don't know it at all.
>>>
>>> That would be a 'false absolute'
>>
>> No, it's absolutely true.
>
>
> No, it's absolutely false..
>
> And corporations are not persons, contrary to Scalia's ruling..
>
>
> http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/scalia-thomas-and-citizens-united-047855
>
Scalia stating that corporations are persons.
You don't read the stuff that you cite, do you????
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 4:43:34 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 2:59 PM, jane.playne wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 2:27 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 10:46 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2016 8:11 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia,
>>>>> and you don't know it at all.
>>>>
>>>> That would be a 'false absolute'
>>>
>>> No, it's absolutely true.
>>
>>
>> No, it's absolutely false..
>>
>> And corporations are not persons, contrary to Scalia's ruling..
>>
>>
>> http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/scalia-thomas-and-citizens-united-047855
>>
>>
>
> I read your citation from start to finish
No, you didn't, at least not for comprehension, sweetie..
> On 6/22/2016 2:27 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 10:46 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2016 8:11 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia,
>>>>> and you don't know it at all.
>>>>
>>>> That would be a 'false absolute'
>>>
>>> No, it's absolutely true.
>>
>>
>> No, it's absolutely false..
>>
>> And corporations are not persons, contrary to Scalia's ruling..
>>
>>
>> http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/scalia-thomas-and-citizens-united-047855
>>
>>
>
> I read your citation from start to finish
> You don't read the stuff that you cite, do you????
>> “It appears both justices have participated in political strategy
>> sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders
>> whose political aims were advanced by the decision,” the Common Cause
>> petition asserts.
in a faithful, jurisprudent manner, unlike what you were trying
to quibble about, hon'..
"No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia"
Steve
Jun 22, 2016, 4:47:34 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:43:30 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 2:59 PM, jane.playne wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 2:27 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 10:46 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/2016 8:11 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia,
>>>>>> and you don't know it at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be a 'false absolute'
>>>>
>>>> No, it's absolutely true.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's absolutely false..
>>>
>>> And corporations are not persons, contrary to Scalia's ruling..
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/scalia-thomas-and-citizens-united-047855
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I read your citation from start to finish
>
>
>No, you didn't, at least not for comprehension, sweetie..
>
>
>> You don't read the stuff that you cite, do you????
>
>
>Yes, I do..
Lochner's chronic alcohol problem as killed so many brain cells that
<kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2016 2:59 PM, jane.playne wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 2:27 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 10:46 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2016 8:24 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/2016 8:11 AM, Rudely "fat fuck" Canola'd wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>> No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia,
>>>>>> and you don't know it at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be a 'false absolute'
>>>>
>>>> No, it's absolutely true.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's absolutely false..
>>>
>>> And corporations are not persons, contrary to Scalia's ruling..
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/scalia-thomas-and-citizens-united-047855
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I read your citation from start to finish
>
>
>No, you didn't, at least not for comprehension, sweetie..
>
>
>> You don't read the stuff that you cite, do you????
>
>
>Yes, I do..
he's never quite sure of what he's done vs what he's only imagined
doing.
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 5:15:10 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 10:24 AM, slaphead, the gormless worm, whined:
> No more balancing a Michelob on your guitar neck then?
Neck? Wow, you're desperately misremembering that photo..
> Fume and rage
Tha's what you're doing, yes..
> Lear Jet 8 track rotating atock insults
Poor slaphead, no attention to details, just the usual
right-wing 'low-effort thinking' again, and again, and..
> No more balancing a Michelob on your guitar neck then?
Neck? Wow, you're desperately misremembering that photo..
> Fume and rage
Tha's what you're doing, yes..
> Lear Jet 8 track rotating atock insults
Poor slaphead, no attention to details, just the usual
right-wing 'low-effort thinking' again, and again, and..
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 5:22:03 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 10:35 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>
>
> Am I going to get myself arrested for harassing you?
>
>
> That's up to you, Jeffry..
Well yes it is Urt, and reports have already been filed.
> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>
>
> Am I going to get myself arrested for harassing you?
>
>
> That's up to you, Jeffry..
A bad move on your behalf..
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 5:22:51 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 11:02 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> That's from
>
>
> *>LOL!<* Back to your prepubescent name-calling
And YOU?
>> That's from
>
>
> *>LOL!<* Back to your prepubescent name-calling
Slaphead?
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 5:24:15 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 12:27 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> No, it's absolutely true.
>
>
> No, it's absolutely false..
These magnetic capacitors are what YOU claimed do not exist, Urt:
>> No, it's absolutely true.
>
>
> No, it's absolutely false..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSEXjXLk9rg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_capacitance
Magnetic capacitance (capacitive magnetic reactance) (SI Unit: -Ω−1) is
a magnetic "reactance" which prevents magnetic "current" in oscillating
magnetic circuits from rising. This is associated with high reluctance.
For harmonic regimes it is equal to:
{\displaystyle x_{C}={\frac {1}{\omega C_{M}}}}
Where:
{\displaystyle C_{M}} is the magnetic capacitivity (SI Unit: -s·Ω−1)
{\displaystyle \omega } is the angular frequency of the magnetic circuit
In complex form it is written as an imaginary number:
{\displaystyle -jx_{C}=-j{\frac {1}{\omega C_{M}}}={\frac {1}{j\omega
C_{M}}}}
The electrical potential energy sustained by magnetic capacitivity
varies with the frequency of oscillations in magnetic fields. The
average power in a given period is equal to zero. The magnetic
capacitance is a reactive part of the magnetic circuit.[1][2]
http://icosym-nt.cvut.cz/courseodl/node44.html
A pure magnetic capacitor can be described by the constitutive relation
f(phi, w, t) = 0 (70)
For an ideal magnetic capacitor (70) becomes
phi(t) = Cm .w(t) (71)
where Cm, the magnetic capacitance, is known as the permeance, and is
measured in henrys. Its reciprocal value Dm = 1/Cm is called the reluctance.
The energy stored in the magnetic capacitor is
(72)
Magnetic flux phi through a part of a surface of an area S [m2] is
defined by the integral
(73)
where Bn is the magnetic flux density vector which is normal to the
surface. Within a material, B and H are related by the permeability mu
of the material:
B = muH mu= mu0 mur
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 5:25:39 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 12:34 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 11:06 AM, Rudely Canola'd whined desperately:
>>
>> [followups vandalism by the gutless fat fuck, "little kurtsie"
>
>
> I'm not 'fat', you insanely raging asshuffer..
>
>
First true thing you have said in YEARS, pipecleaner arms...
> On 6/22/2016 11:06 AM, Rudely Canola'd whined desperately:
>>
>> [followups vandalism by the gutless fat fuck, "little kurtsie"
>
>
> I'm not 'fat', you insanely raging asshuffer..
>
>
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 5:26:53 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 1:03 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> No, they are true - proved beyond rational dispute.
>
>
> I see no such "proved" on your lame behalf, so suck it up, buttercup.
>> No, they are true - proved beyond rational dispute.
>
>
> I see no such "proved" on your lame behalf, so suck it up, buttercup.
Fight for America!
Jun 22, 2016, 5:28:10 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 2:43 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> "No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia"
This is true, yes.
> "No one knew the Constitution better than Scalia"
Fight for America!
Jun 22, 2016, 5:48:42 PM6/22/16
to
Kurt Lochner
Jun 22, 2016, 5:55:38 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 4:21 PM, Urt-kel wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 10:35 AM, Kurt Lochner restored:
Hrmm, Eastern Time, that'd be in North Carolina at Amazon..
> On 6/22/2016 11:35 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 11:14 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 9:42 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
>>>>
>>>>
mere mentions of the words "2nd Amendment" and such, it's kind of
difficult to keep from laughing at your attempted deflections
and dissemblings into minutia and micro-debates, irked-girl..
>>> Am I going to get myself arrested for harassing you?
>>
>> That's up to you, Jeffry..
>
> Well yes it is
Well, I always suspected that you would be your own undoing..
> reports have already been filed.
That's what I have read about you in the past..
So, how are you going to explain why you've been stalking me
ever since your unwelcome advances were shunned? That's going
to be kind of unfortunate for you, isn't it?..
> On 6/22/2016 10:35 AM, Kurt Lochner restored:
Hrmm, Eastern Time, that'd be in North Carolina at Amazon..
> On 6/22/2016 11:35 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 11:14 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 9:42 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
Or was it an Amazon-related holding? With all my fans adoring my
mere mentions of the words "2nd Amendment" and such, it's kind of
difficult to keep from laughing at your attempted deflections
and dissemblings into minutia and micro-debates, irked-girl..
>>> Am I going to get myself arrested for harassing you?
>>
>> That's up to you, Jeffry..
>
> Well yes it is
> reports have already been filed.
So, how are you going to explain why you've been stalking me
ever since your unwelcome advances were shunned? That's going
to be kind of unfortunate for you, isn't it?..
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 6:00:02 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 3:55 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 4:21 PM, Urt-kel wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 10:35 AM, Kurt Lochner restored:
>
> Hrmm, Eastern Time, that'd be in North Carolina at Amazon..
>
>> On 6/22/2016 11:35 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 11:14 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2016 9:42 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>
> Or was it an Amazon-related holding?
Well you tell us Urt!
> On 6/22/2016 4:21 PM, Urt-kel wrote:
>> On 6/22/2016 10:35 AM, Kurt Lochner restored:
>
> Hrmm, Eastern Time, that'd be in North Carolina at Amazon..
>
>> On 6/22/2016 11:35 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2016 11:14 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2016 9:42 AM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/2016 10:39 AM, Urt-kel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And tel everyone again what a trailer park
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does ImmunoSores know what you're using their computer networks for?
>
> Or was it an Amazon-related holding?
> With all my fans adoring my
> mere mentions of the words "2nd Amendment" and such, it's kind of
> difficult to keep from laughing at your attempted deflections
> and dissemblings into minutia and micro-debates, irked-girl..
>>>> Am I going to get myself arrested for harassing you?
>>>
>>> That's up to you, Jeffry..
>>
>> Well yes it is
>
> Well, I always suspected that you would be your own undoing..
>> reports have already been filed.
>
> That's what I have read about you in the past..
> So, how are you going to explain why you've been stalking me
> ever since your unwelcome advances were shunned?
> That's going to be kind of unfortunate for you, isn't it?..
reign of terror here.
Urt-kel
Jun 22, 2016, 6:03:33 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 3:15 PM, Kurt Lochner wrote:
> On 6/22/2016 10:24 AM, slaphead, the gormless worm, whined:
>> No more balancing a Michelob on your guitar neck then?
>
> Neck? Wow, you're desperately misremembering that photo..
Ah, so you admit it exists, lol!
> On 6/22/2016 10:24 AM, slaphead, the gormless worm, whined:
>> No more balancing a Michelob on your guitar neck then?
>
> Neck? Wow, you're desperately misremembering that photo..
>> Fume and rage
>
> Tha's what you're doing, yes..
>> Lear Jet 8 track rotating atock insults
>
>
> Poor slaphead, no attention to details,
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages