Recipe for Car Power: Heat Vegetable Oil, Flip Switch and Go.
Steve Spence
http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
Recipe for Car Power: Heat Vegetable Oil, Flip Switch and Go.
By CHRIS DIXON
LOS ANGELES, April 21 - "I wouldn't do this to a $30,000 car unless I was
confident that it would work."
With that, John Lin, owner of a Los Angeles fast-food franchise, opened the
door of an opulent white Ford Excursion.
Powered by a seven-liter turbo-diesel engine that delivers just 13 miles a
gallon, this oversize S.U.V. seemed the quintessential environmentalist's
target. Yet soon, Mr. Lin will be paying less to fuel it than he would pay
if he owned a Toyota Prius, which supplements gasoline with electricity. As
an added benefit, he will sharply reduce the pollution.
Mr. Lin will not use a radical new mileage-boosting technology, but rather
he will use simple vegetable oil, the same cheap, plentiful and
clean-burning fuel that Rudolf Diesel used to power his first engine at the
1900 Paris World's Fair.
Normally, a restaurateur like Mr. Lin would have to pay someone to haul off
the 10 gallons of vegetable oil used each day in his fryers. The oil would
be dumped in a landfill, or perhaps used in animal feed. Instead, Mr. Lin
will filter his oil and pour it into a heated auxiliary tank on the
Excursion.
He will then start the vehicle on regular diesel, and after a few minutes,
when the vegetable oil becomes more viscous in the heater, a manual switch
will direct it to the diesel engine. From there, the only detectable
difference will be the faint odor of French fries, and a noticeable lack of
diesel stench.
The change in odor, however, is not the only benefit to be gained. In 1998,
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory released a study on a fuel called
biodiesel. Essentially vegetable oil with methanol and lye added to aid
cold-weather flow and remove glycerin, biodiesel results in fewer harmful
emissions than petroleum-based diesel.
Carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 43 percent, hydrocarbons by 56
percent, particulates by 55 percent and sulfurs, a particular problem with
petroleum diesel, are reduced by 100 percent.
Typically, biodiesel fuel costs at least as much as regular diesel. But
straight vegetable oil is essentially free; Mr. Lin says most restaurant
owners are more than happy to get rid of it. And unlike biodiesel, it does
not require methanol and lye. It does, however, require a fairly simple
conversion system that consists of a vegetable oil tank and a fuel heater.
A couple of years ago, after much online research, Mr. Lin bought a 1983
Mercedes 300SD Turbodiesel for $3,000 and got in touch with a diesel
enthusiast, Charlie Anderson. Mr. Anderson, a farmer in Drury, Mo., had just
founded a company called Greasel. For $500, Mr. Anderson sold Mr. Lin one of
his first vegetable-oil-to-diesel conversion kits and coached Mr. Lin on
installing it.
"I said, If it blows up, it blows up," Mr. Lin said, "and I'm only out
$3,000. But I installed the system, flipped the switch, and sure enough, the
thing works."
Mr. Lin found that vegetable oil led to no noticeable loss in power or
mileage. In fact, he said, it smoothed the engine's idle. This came as no
surprise to Mr. Anderson, who has now installed hundreds of systems in a
variety of diesel vehicles - Volkswagen TDI's, tractors, large Dodge
four-by-fours and even a used Greyhound bus. In addition, Greasel has sold
hundreds more of its units to do-it-yourselfers.
"Even if people are paying the same for this as diesel," he said, "it's just
so much better for the environment. A dog can lick this stuff right off the
ground."
If biodiesel or straight vegetable oil are so much better as fuels, why
aren't they in widespread use? Simple economics is how Russ Teall, a
biodiesel refiner and president of Biodiesel Industries, sees it. "Basically
the cost of virgin vegetable oil is too high," he said. "It costs from $1.65
to $2 a gallon. At the wholesale level, petroleum diesel varies from 60
cents to $1.20 in California."
Mr. Teall also says a lack of transportation and refining infrastructure
have discouraged a shift to biofuel.
But Joe Jobe, president of the National Biodiesel Board, said this was
changing rapidly as a result of smaller refining plants and a worldwide glut
of vegetable oil.
"The price of vegetable oils and diesels are beginning to come closer
because of the growing demand for soy protein for food," Mr. Jobe said.
"When you grind up soybeans, you get 80 percent soy meal and 20 percent
oil." Furthermore, he said, biodiesel can also be made easily from waste
restaurant oil.
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
ssp...@green-trust.org
William P.N. Smith
>http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
>Recipe for Car Power: Heat Vegetable Oil, Flip Switch and Go.
>By CHRIS DIXON
Chris needs to check some facts. I'd have thought Steve would know
better...
>an added benefit, he will sharply reduce the pollution.
Plus, he's breaking the law, and avoiding paying his taxes.
>He will then start the vehicle on regular diesel, and after a few minutes,
>when the vegetable oil becomes more viscous in the heater
Wouldn't it become less viscous?
>Carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 43 percent, hydrocarbons by 56
>percent, particulates by 55 percent and sulfurs, a particular problem with
>petroleum diesel, are reduced by 100 percent.
How about filtering the grease, how does it do in the winter, and what
about lubricity?
>Typically, biodiesel fuel costs at least as much as regular diesel.
Typically, biodiesel costs 4 times as much as diesel.
--
William Smith wp...@compusmiths.com N1...@amsat.org
ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
J. F. Cornwall
> "Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>>http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
>>Recipe for Car Power: Heat Vegetable Oil, Flip Switch and Go.
>>By CHRIS DIXON
>
>
> Chris needs to check some facts. I'd have thought Steve would know
> better...
>
>
>>an added benefit, he will sharply reduce the pollution.
>
>
> Plus, he's breaking the law, and avoiding paying his taxes.
What laws would he be breaking? If he has to start it up with regular
diesel fuel, he pays his taxes when he buys it. No evasion there, and
doubt even Califrognia has laws mandating that you have to buy
'approved' fuel instead of making your own (which is essentially what
the guys is doing with the fryer oil).
Steve Spence
1. It's not illegal in the USA to make and use your own fuel. There are no
taxes on home made fuel. If you sell it to someone else, that's a bit
different. Other countries have different laws.
2. correct, less viscous.
3. it's not difficult to filter oil, even in cold climates. it does require
heat, but not in California where the author of the article is based. The
sun provides heat or it can be done indoors. I've put a pot of oil on the
woodstove to heat it to 100F. filters nicely. lubricity of vegetable oil and
biodiesel is much higher than diesel, extending the life of the engine,
injectors, and injector pump.
4. Commercial biodiesel can cost as much as 4 times as much as dino diesel,
but not typically(dino diesel was $2/gallon recently, biodiesel was $3.50),
homemade biodiesel costs .50 - .80 / gallon typically.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
ssp...@green-trust.org
"William P.N. Smith" <wp...@compusmiths.com> wrote in message
news:ricaavkgff08fp5bu...@4ax.com...
Steve Spence
on the road. regular diesel (and vegetable oil) is not dyed. There is no tax
on homemade fuel, only commercial fuel.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
ssp...@green-trust.org
"georgess" <georg...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3ea55114...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:26:23 GMT, "J. F. Cornwall"
> <JCor...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> >What laws would he be breaking? If he has to start it up with regular
> >diesel fuel, he pays his taxes when he buys it. No evasion there, and
> >doubt even Califrognia has laws mandating that you have to buy
> >'approved' fuel instead of making your own (which is essentially what
> >the guys is doing with the fryer oil).
>
>
> I suspect they do. Most states have you dye ordinary number 2 heating
> oil so you cand tell the difference between it, and the same _Taxed_
> substace sold to power your car.
>
>
> --
> remove 1 to respond
J. F. Cornwall
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:26:23 GMT, "J. F. Cornwall"
> <JCor...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>diesel fuel, he pays his taxes when he buys it. No evasion there, and
>>doubt even Califrognia has laws mandating that you have to buy
>>'approved' fuel instead of making your own (which is essentially what
>>the guys is doing with the fryer oil).
>
>
>
> oil so you cand tell the difference between it, and the same _Taxed_
> substace sold to power your car.
But that's a different matter than using waste oil. Not that states
would wait very long before grabbing taxes on waste oil too...
Jim
mike klev
> corrections and comments:
>
> 4. Commercial biodiesel can cost as much as 4 times as much as dino diesel,
> but not typically(dino diesel was $2/gallon recently, biodiesel was $3.50),
> homemade biodiesel costs .50 - .80 / gallon typically.
>
>
I was told, that the reason we stoped using disel, and started using
petrolium disel, was that disel was 30% more expensive than the
coctailmix of petrolium disel. The change I'm refering to is before I
was born (1976), but the names (disel and petrolium disel) was still
used when i was a kid.
Notice, that the name of the disels was: Disel and Petrolium Disel....
NOT Bio-Disel and Disel...
---
Mike Klev
Norway, Europe.
Steve Spence
petroleum diesel at the pumps. We are advocating biodiesel or vegetable oil
instead, as a renewable, clean burning alternative.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
ssp...@green-trust.org
"mike klev" <mek...@siving.hia.no> wrote in message
news:b83rui$keb$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
the original greggie gibson©
> "Steve Spence" wrote:
>
> >http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
> >Recipe for Car Power: Heat Vegetable Oil, Flip Switch and Go.
> >By CHRIS DIXON
>
>
> Chris needs to check some facts. I'd have thought Steve would know
> better...
>
>
> >an added benefit, he will sharply reduce the pollution.
>
>
> Plus, he's breaking the law, and avoiding paying his taxes.
>
>
in california we don't pay "road" taxes (except in the form of yearly
registration and the occassional toll). we do pay "fuel" taxes on fuel
we buy, but california hasn't mandated that we are required to buy fuel
Sylvan Butler
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:02:29 GMT, "Steve Spence"
><ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote:
>>Mr. Anderson, a farmer in Drury, Mo., had just
>>founded a company called Greasel. For $500, Mr. Anderson sold Mr. Lin one of
>>his first vegetable-oil-to-diesel conversion kits
> http://www.greasel.com/
> remove 1 to respond
Ahh, good url. :)
sdb
--
| Sylvan Butler | Not speaking for Hewlett-Packard | sbutler-boi.hp.com |
| Watch out for my e-mail address. Thank UCE. >>>> change ^ to @ <<<< |
It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our
own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval
of their consciences. -- C. S. Lewis
Duke McMullan N5GAX
news:cWcpa.77800$MB4.30...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> dyed fuel oil is non taxed. it's dyed red so you can't use home heating
oil
> on the road. regular diesel (and vegetable oil) is not dyed. There is no
tax
> on homemade fuel, only commercial fuel.
Please to clue me in, Steve. I can't see how dyeing my fuel oil could
prevent me from pumping a few gallons from my heater tank into my vehicle
tank. Of course, if they have traffic stops where the cops take a
flashlight and look down everyone's fuel tank, maybe it would work . . . .
;^)
Puzzled,
d
--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtm...@qwest.net
Gary Coffman
>"Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
>news:cWcpa.77800$MB4.30...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
>> dyed fuel oil is non taxed. it's dyed red so you can't use home heating
>oil
>> on the road. regular diesel (and vegetable oil) is not dyed. There is no
>tax
>> on homemade fuel, only commercial fuel.
>
>Please to clue me in, Steve. I can't see how dyeing my fuel oil could
>prevent me from pumping a few gallons from my heater tank into my vehicle
>tank. Of course, if they have traffic stops where the cops take a
>flashlight and look down everyone's fuel tank, maybe it would work . . . .
>;^)
Anyone who buys non-tax fuel (gas or diesel) is subject to inspection by
the taxing authorities. They come out to your place and inspect the tanks
of any road vehicles (and lawn mowers) to see if any dye is present in their
tanks. If there is, they hit you with a *big* fine, and cancel your tax exempt
status for buying fuel. We get hit with a surprise inspection about every two
years on the farm.
This is much less likely to happen if you're using home heating oil in your
diesel car. It is mainly an issue for farmers or construction outfits who buy
non-tax fuel for their off road equipment.
Gary
Unknown
wrote:
yeah. I know a lot of people that run it in diesel pickups. Don't know
of anyone that's ever gotten nailed for it.
Russ
A few years ago, a guy in Montclair, NJ got "smart" and kept the F. O.
tank when he had the heat converted to gas. He bought and ran F. O.
in his Peugeot. I don't know how he got caught though. Possibly a
mechanic turned him in for the reward. When I was young, a friends
family had a F. O. business. They ran the trucks on it but they kept
careful records and paid the state and federal taxes regularly.
Russ
Unknown
wrote:
down here they sell off-road diesel at some of the stations. People
just stick 55 gallon drums on a trailer or something, go there, fill
them up, and pay cash, then go home and pump it into the truck. So
many people have tractors and stuff that it doesn't even raise an
eyebrow.
Jamie Hart
"the original greggie gibson©" <alt.consumer...@newsgroup.to> wrote
in message news:2Rgpa.303$xZ4...@news.inreach.com...
burn vegetable oil, some people in wales were recently arrested and fined
for doing this.
The govt doesnt care if you use vegie oil but you must pay duty at the same
rate as you would for diesel.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
I've always used natgas or propane, and only once had the delightful
experience of cleaning someone else's oil heater.
Soooooo, I didn't know jack about the practicalities of oil heat. Thanks
for filling in the info.
Now, how much money could be made selling a "bleach" for the dye, I wonder?
;^)
d
--
Barnes's Theorem: For every foolproof device
there is a fool greater than the proof.
Steve Spence
diesel. it's also cleaner.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
ssp...@green-trust.org
"Duke McMullan N5GAX" <mtm...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:gQlqa.677$Oa7....@news.uswest.net...
strabo
Unbelievable!
What about a steam engine?
Don Lancaster
>
>
>
> What about a steam engine?
Steam engines have one power cycle per stroke and require no
transmissions as they are instantly reversible.
Curiously they failed because of hoof and mouth disease.
Just at the time when steam still had a clear edge over ICE, they closed
all of the public horsetroughs.
This, combined with poor management and no production concepts by the
steam companies changed history.
Issues today would include recycling the working fluid and
corrosion/contamination.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Duncan Wood
> strabo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> What about a steam engine?
>
> Steam engines have one power cycle per stroke and require no
> transmissions as they are instantly reversible.
>
> Curiously they failed because of hoof and mouth disease.
>
> Just at the time when steam still had a clear edge over ICE, they closed
> all of the public horsetroughs.
snip
What the world over?
G. R. L. Cowan
Water still freezes the world over.
I mean, it freezes all over the world.
Hmm. There's no way to say this without
inducing the fear of an immediate Ice Age,
and causing thousands to leave their computers
and their houses and pick a direction
and start running.
Maybe mostly water with a little ammonia
would work. Big heat capacity.
How much freezing point depression
for ten mole percent ammonia?
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
100 internal combustion watt-hours in a baby's fist
RamDog
closed
> > > all of the public horsetroughs.
> >
> > snip
> >
> > What the world over?
>
> Water still freezes the world over.
> I mean, it freezes all over the world.
> Hmm. There's no way to say this without
> inducing the fear of an immediate Ice Age,
ICE= I.C.E.=Internal Combustion Engine
RamDog
daestrom
"Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oprn8n50...@news.demon.co.uk...
Well, I doubt that. But steam engines of that era were voracious drinkers
of water. RR using steam had to place water towers as often (or more so)
than fuel stops. RR even got inventive ways of taking on water without
stopping.
ICE's of that era were simpler to operate. Just set the spark and throttle,
and crank her over, and you're ready to drive to town. Steamer's you light
the fire and, if it's coal or wood tend the fire. Then go back to whatever
for a couple of hours before your ready to drive while it builds up steam.
Not to mention controlling the feedwater and banking the fire *before* you
stopped where you were going to avoid lifting the safety valve. Controlling
the power of ICE (adjusting throttle) is much simpler than adjusting the
fire (which you have to 'look-ahead' for what the engine will be doing in
the next ten minutes), adjusting the throttle, the reversing gear, the
cinder/ash pan, maintaining water level in boiler, condensate drains from
cylinder cocks, I could go on but I think you see my point.
Although the ICE is probably more complicated to build, and maintenance is
comparable, the simple operation compared to the operation of a steam engine
is what *really* tipped the advantage for wide spread use of ICE's.
Although you may need a license to operate a car on the road, you don't need
one for your lawn-mower, farm tractor etc... Boiler explosions were common
place in the early part of 20th century. This led to licensing required for
boiler operators. Point is, operating a boiler/steam engine is a
complicated business that was beyond the skills of the average lay person.
Modern technology can automate/control much of the operation of modern
steam, but the ICE has already made its mark. Whole generations can operate
small/medium ICE's with little training. Boiler/steam operation is as
foreign to the public as space travel (maybe even more so...).
daestrom
Duncan Wood
wrote:
I was finding the previous post rather surreal
William P.N. Smith
>What about a steam engine?
I'd imagine the steam was free of tax, but the fuel would probably be
taxed if there were any steam cars out there.
quibbler
rst...@inreach.com says...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:29:31 -0600, "Duke McMullan N5GAX"
> <mtm...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> >"Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> >news:cWcpa.77800$MB4.30...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> >> dyed fuel oil is non taxed. it's dyed red so you can't use home heating
> >oil
> >> on the road. regular diesel (and vegetable oil) is not dyed. There is no
> >tax
> >> on homemade fuel, only commercial fuel.
> >
> >Please to clue me in, Steve. I can't see how dyeing my fuel oil could
> >prevent me from pumping a few gallons from my heater tank into my vehicle
> >tank. Of course, if they have traffic stops where the cops take a
> >flashlight and look down everyone's fuel tank, maybe it would work . . . .
> >;^)
>
> in a truck.
Out of curiosity, I wonder how hard it would would be to remove the dye
with some sort of filter, or maybe to add some other color of dye to
confuse people who might check. I'm sure chemists on the govt and tax
cheat sides have thought about it.
> Proud member of the vast right wing
> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
Why in the world would you be proud of that :?
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that
faith does not prove anything." (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Dale Farmer
quibbler wrote:
At least in the US, the dye used is such that you would need to redistill the
fuel to get it out. The dye is also powerful enough that even after you run the
tank nearly dry, and then refill with undyed fuel, the fuel in the tank will have
a noticeable pink tinge. Also all the crud at the bottom of the tank will be
more
or less permanently dyed pink. The folks who planned the dye scheme knew
what they were doing.
--Dale
Dale Farmer
Don Lancaster wrote:
> strabo wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > What about a steam engine?
>
> Steam engines have one power cycle per stroke and require no
> transmissions as they are instantly reversible.
>
> Curiously they failed because of hoof and mouth disease.
>
> Just at the time when steam still had a clear edge over ICE, they closed
> all of the public horsetroughs.
> This, combined with poor management and no production concepts by the
> steam companies changed history.
>
> Issues today would include recycling the working fluid and
> corrosion/contamination.
take a look at Stirling cycle engines.
--Dale
Gary Coffman
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 06:25:40 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>> > strabo wrote:
>> >> What about a steam engine?
>> >
>> > all of the public horsetroughs.
>
>of water. RR using steam had to place water towers as often (or more so)
>than fuel stops. RR even got inventive ways of taking on water without
>stopping.
Yeah, things like scoops they could lower into open top troughs between
the rails. But this was primarily because the steam engines of the era were
open loop designs. In other words, they simply discharged the steam, and
all its residual heat energy, to the atmosphere after a single expansion in
the cylinder. That's thermally inefficient as well as being a prodigious
consumer of water.
>ICE's of that era were simpler to operate. Just set the spark and throttle,
>and crank her over, and you're ready to drive to town. Steamer's you light
>the fire and, if it's coal or wood tend the fire. Then go back to whatever
>for a couple of hours before your ready to drive while it builds up steam.
>Not to mention controlling the feedwater and banking the fire *before* you
>stopped where you were going to avoid lifting the safety valve. Controlling
>the power of ICE (adjusting throttle) is much simpler than adjusting the
>fire (which you have to 'look-ahead' for what the engine will be doing in
>the next ten minutes), adjusting the throttle, the reversing gear, the
>cinder/ash pan, maintaining water level in boiler, condensate drains from
>cylinder cocks, I could go on but I think you see my point.
Oil fired flash boiler systems were available during the steam car era.
You could drive away within a couple of minutes of starting up, little
different from the warm up demands of the IC engines of the era.
>Although the ICE is probably more complicated to build, and maintenance is
>comparable, the simple operation compared to the operation of a steam engine
>is what *really* tipped the advantage for wide spread use of ICE's.
>Although you may need a license to operate a car on the road, you don't need
>one for your lawn-mower, farm tractor etc... Boiler explosions were common
>place in the early part of 20th century. This led to licensing required for
>boiler operators. Point is, operating a boiler/steam engine is a
>complicated business that was beyond the skills of the average lay person.
Flash boilers don't require a license to operate since they have very little
steam in them at any given time. (Less than a teacup full of water was steam
at any given moment in the automotive flash boilers of the era.) This also
largely resolves the issue of staying ahead of the vehicle in terms of heat
management.
>Modern technology can automate/control much of the operation of modern
>steam, but the ICE has already made its mark. Whole generations can operate
>small/medium ICE's with little training. Boiler/steam operation is as
>foreign to the public as space travel (maybe even more so...).
The real issue is *fuel economy*. The steamers got fewer miles per gallon
than the IC engined vehicles. A big steam power plant can be very efficient
because of thermal economies of scale, but it is difficult to get good economy
with a small steam plant, particularly one with highly variable loading. This is
what also killed the steam locomotive once they switched to oil firing. Diesels
were simply more fuel efficient.
Gary
William P.N. Smith
>rst...@inreach.com says...
>> Proud member of the vast right wing
>> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
>Why in the world would you be proud of that :?
Because he's on the winning side! 8*)
Don Lancaster
>
>
>
> take a look at Stirling cycle engines.
>
> --Dale
Already have.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/ratholes.pdf
No One
> > in a truck.
>
> Out of curiosity, I wonder how hard it would would be to remove the dye
> with some sort of filter, or maybe to add some other color of dye to
> confuse people who might check. I'm sure chemists on the govt and tax
> cheat sides have thought about it.
Very tough and cost more then paying the taxes. Its reached the point that
like the IRS people aren't willing to take the chance to save a few hundred
bucks.
>
>
>
> > Proud member of the vast right wing
> > conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
>
> Why in the world would you be proud of that :?
Because that's what the other side calls anyone that 1) disagrees with their
thinking or 2) doesn't think firearms jump up and kill w/o human help??
erniegalts
wrote:
Out of curiosity, what do you find so unbelievable about it? Highway
maintenance and construction is expensive, and someone has to pay
taxes to support it.
The tax on fuel is just a way to tax road users. The type of fuel
used doesn't matter.
On such issues, there are two general approaches. Can take the view
that only road users pay for this or everyone pays whether they use
highways or not.
Everyone is taxed for schools whether they have children or not, which
I personally think unfair.
You get the similar situation in many towns or cities. It costs the
city "X" amount to provide water, sewage, and garbage collection
services, and you will pay some of the costs whether you actually use
the services or not.
erniegalts
[Australia]
[misc.survivalism]
Tallgrass
> http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
>
> Recipe for Car Power: Heat Vegetable Oil, Flip Switch and Go.
> By CHRIS DIXON
>
>
> confident that it would work."
>
> With that, John Lin, owner of a Los Angeles fast-food franchise, opened the
> door of an opulent white Ford Excursion.
>
> Powered by a seven-liter turbo-diesel engine that delivers just 13 miles a
> gallon, this oversize S.U.V. seemed the quintessential environmentalist's
> target. Yet soon, Mr. Lin will be paying less to fuel it than he would pay
> if he owned a Toyota Prius, which supplements gasoline with electricity. As
> an added benefit, he will sharply reduce the pollution.<<snipped here>>
> Steve Spence
> Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
> http://www.green-trust.org
> ssp...@green-trust.org
Any chance veggie oil can be used as a replacement for two cycle oil?
Wonder what the mixing ratio would be?
thanks.....
Linda H.
quibbler
wp...@compusmiths.com says...
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >rst...@inreach.com says...
> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
>
> >Why in the world would you be proud of that :?
>
> Because he's on the winning side! 8*)
No, he's already lost. He doesn't even realize that his so-
called opinions are spoonfed to him by corporations who use their
ill-gotten profits to shape the way people think. As far as the gun
culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about it.
I've owned and used hunting rifles for many years without ever being
tempted to belong to some militant, paranoid gun culture. I don't need
automatic weapons or even pistols for hunting either.
quibbler
I suspected as much. I suppose a person could rig up a dummy gas tank
that was kept full of clean gas and have a second, real gas tank that was
not directly accessible where one put the dyed fuel. But I imagine that
the payoff time would be too long to make it worthwhile even if it would
work.
Russ
All of my two-stroke model airplane engines run on a mixture
containing synthetic and castor oil. They run very well on alcohol
and castor oil with no synthetic oil. The four-stroke engines do also
but for a different reason. The four-strokes don't have an oiling
system as such and depend on the "total-loss" oiling system.
Russ
piwhacket
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.191467cbe...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
For entertainment only, of course.
Red in the world of oil-bound paints is most often "fugitive"; it fades. The
rosy flesh-tones in the cheeks of all those portraits by Joshua Reynolds
long ago faded to a dull cream, and often need the restorer's attention. You
can't beat photons; they will fade anything and often eat the red areas out
of the pattern in curtains. I once stored a gallon of red derv in a glass
demijohn bottle and the sunlight faded the colour completely away in a few
days. Could one of those ultra-violet submersible lamps designed for the
sterilization of water supplies and swimming-pools be the answer?
By the way; _don't do this_ under any circumstances.
Pi.
Sean
border areas of NI. Very illegal,and run mostly by the terrorists for
funds.Big operation of diesel washing plants,apprently caustic soda is a big
ingrediant in the process.Dunno about the machinery involved
Sean
--
'They say that one learns from ones mistakes.iprefer to learn from the
mistakes of others'
Otto von Bismarck
One should never put on one's best trousers to go to battle for freedom and
truth'
Henrick Ibsen 1828-1906
Keep on rockin in the free world!
"piwhacket" <piwha...@free.com> wrote in message
news:b8hetd$9varn$1...@ID-162187.news.dfncis.de...
William P.N. Smith
>wp...@compusmiths.com says...
>> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >rst...@inreach.com says...
>> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
>> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
>> >Why in the world would you be proud of that :?
>> Because he's on the winning side! 8*)
>No, he's already lost. He doesn't even realize that his so-
>called opinions are spoonfed to him by corporations who use their
>ill-gotten profits to shape the way people think.
Again, if he's on the side of the ill-gotten-gains, spoonfeeding
corporations, he's on the winning side. Check with your local
conspiracy theorist, as to who actually _owns_ the black helicopters!
Duke McMullan N5GAX
> In article <hmllavg3ah7badert...@4ax.com>,
> wp...@compusmiths.com says...
> > quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >rst...@inreach.com says...
> > >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> > >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
> >
> > >Why in the world would you be proud of that :?
> >
> > Because he's on the winning side! 8*)
>
> No, he's already lost. He doesn't even realize that his so-
> called opinions are spoonfed to him by corporations who use their
> ill-gotten profits to shape the way people think. As far as the gun
> culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about it.
> I've owned and used hunting rifles for many years without ever being
> tempted to belong to some militant, paranoid gun culture. I don't need
> automatic weapons or even pistols for hunting either.
<Chuckle!> From the view at N5GAX, what quib needs is to learn to take
himself much less seriously. But that's just the view from here . . . .
d
--
Some minds should be cultivated, others plowed under.
erniegalts
wrote:
Didn't most warplanes in WW1 use castor oil as a lubricant? From
memory read somewhere that this caused the pilots to suffer from
diarrhea.
erniegalts
[Australia]
[misc.survivalism]
quibbler
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >wp...@compusmiths.com says...
> >> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >rst...@inreach.com says...
> >> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> >> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
>
> >> >Why in the world would you be proud of that :?
>
> >> Because he's on the winning side! 8*)
>
> >No, he's already lost. He doesn't even realize that his so-
> >called opinions are spoonfed to him by corporations who use their
> >ill-gotten profits to shape the way people think.
>
> Again, if he's on the side of the ill-gotten-gains, spoonfeeding
> corporations, he's on the winning side.
No, he'd be on the winning side if he didn't really believe all that
bullshit but was able to profit. However, he does believe the bullshit
and he doesn't profit. Corporations pay media corporations to brain wash
the masses. They don't send you a $50 check and list of opinions to
spout.
> Check with your local
> conspiracy theorist, as to who actually _owns_ the black helicopters!
> 8*)
That's a bogeyman of the right. Before they became the neo-con new world
odor they used to be worried about the "new world order".
Don Widders
Seek help, Quibbler.
Don W.
William P.N. Smith
>They don't send you a $50 check and list of opinions to
>spout.
Well, maybe they don't send _you_ a $50 check... 8*) Who else here
is in the DNRC?
Russ
Some did. The ones using the LeRhone and Oberusal rotary engines.
The crankshaft was fixed and was the engine mount. The crankcase and
cylinders revolved around it. The seal around the crank was too large
and the valve gear was lubed by the "sling enough oil on it and it'll
be ok" system. Castor oil was used because of its high-temperature
stability. Yes, ingesting the large quantities of oil splashed about
did cause diarrhea. They drank copious quantities of brandy to offset
this and for other reasons. It was cold and frightening in those
spruce and muslin kites.
Russ
Steve Spence
> >> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> >> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
to me indicates the posters attempt to ridicule the thought that there is a
vast right wing conspiracy or an evil gun culture. If this is the case, I
agree with him.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
ssp...@green-trust.org
"William P.N. Smith" <wp...@compusmiths.com> wrote in message
news:edroavspur5ootbph...@4ax.com...
William P.N. Smith
>does everyone miss the sarcasm intended by the quote?
>
>> >> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
>> >> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
Yup, so far it's pretty near universal. Sigh.
dave...@spamcop.net
> As far as the gun
> culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about it.
Yes, and?
> I've owned and used hunting rifles for many years without ever being
> tempted to belong to some militant, paranoid gun culture.
The "paranoia" you seem to think you see, is justified caution.
> I don't need
> automatic weapons or even pistols for hunting either.
That's fine, just don't try to push your views on me, and we'll get
along just fine. However - based on your reaction to the original
quote in question, I have to wonder how much of what you say is true.
Rich Grise
> "Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote:
> >does everyone miss the sarcasm intended by the quote?
> >
> >> >> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> >> >> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
>
> Yup, so far it's pretty near universal. Sigh.
>
> 8*)
The right wing conspiracy isn't vast. It's only
half vast.
%-}
Rich
quibbler
rst...@inreach.com says...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:12:37 GMT, "Steve Spence"
> <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
> >does everyone miss the sarcasm intended by the quote?
> >
> >> >> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> >> >> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
> >
> >to me indicates the posters attempt to ridicule the thought that there is a
> >vast right wing conspiracy or an evil gun culture. If this is the case, I
> >agree with him.
>
Thank you. I was going to say that if Hillary thinks there is one, it
clearly must be so. But seriously, what do you think the heritage
foundation is? What about the Brookings Institute. What about the
Business Roundtable? There are tons of corporate financed, right-wing
groups who are paid to advance business agendas. The left does not have
nearly as many well financed and powerful organizations. That suggests a
certain vastness to the right-wing conspiracy.
> There IS a gun culture, but it isn't evil.
Not all of it anyway :)
> I was indulging in it
> yesterday up in Coarsegold, CA, trying to hit clay pigeons. Tons o'
> fun. Again, I'm sure Hillary! and her ilk think guns, and everyone
> who shoots them, are evil - other than police and her bodyguards.
No. She probably is simply aware that most violent crimes that turn
deadly involve guns. Sure people could use knives and baseball bats,
etc. But they prefer guns because they are much easier.
>
> HTH
Yep.
quibbler
ssp...@green-trust.org says...
> does everyone miss the sarcasm intended by the quote?
>
> > >> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> > >> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
>
> to me indicates the posters attempt to ridicule the thought that there is a
> vast right wing conspiracy or an evil gun culture.
Yep, it indicates that to me too. I think that he is off-base to
ridicule it though. I think that he has to be programmed to think that
way in the face of the evidence. Either that or he is simply ignorant of
the relevant facts.
> If this is the case, I
> agree with him.
I don't believe there is a vast evil gun culture, but it is certain that
there are some people who run guns, modify weapons for full auto
operation and plan on doing nasty, violent things with their weapons.
You can just look at countries like Afghanistan if you want to see what
it might be like in the US with everyone toting around automatic weapons,
RPGs and other heavy firepower.
As far as the right-wing conspiracy, the right-wing works very hard to
create the impression that they are not a conspiracy. But the fact is
that the upper classes maintain their privileges despite fewer and fewer
people owning more and more. That can't maintain great power in a
democracy with so few members, unless they conspire to influence
organizations like the major media and congress.
quibbler
dave...@spamcop.net says...
> In misc.rural quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > As far as the gun
> > culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about it.
>
> Yes, and?
Yes and the NRA is lead by raving fanatics. It is nothing like the
organization it used to be. It is an apologist for the gun industry and
it stresses gun ownership to the exclusion of sane regulation or
consideration of the consequences.
>
> > I've owned and used hunting rifles for many years without ever being
> > tempted to belong to some militant, paranoid gun culture.
>
> The "paranoia" you seem to think you see, is justified caution.
No, it's paranoia. Every time they find a candidate whom they don't like
they blitz the airwaves and media with claims that this person is going
to "take away your guns". Often times they have absolutely no evidence
to support such a claim. It is purely a scare tactic to mobilize the
paranoia of the gun culture.
>
> > I don't need
> > automatic weapons or even pistols for hunting either.
>
> That's fine, just don't try to push your views on me, and we'll get
> along just fine. However - based on your reaction to the original
> quote in question, I have to wonder how much of what you say is true.
That's easy. All of what I said was true.
Don Widders
> In article <loeqavsohrblkbr6p...@4ax.com>,
> rst...@inreach.com says...
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:12:37 GMT, "Steve Spence"
> > <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote:
> >
> > >does everyone miss the sarcasm intended by the quote?
> > >
> > >> >> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> > >> >> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
> > >
> > >to me indicates the posters attempt to ridicule the thought that there
is a
> > >vast right wing conspiracy or an evil gun culture. If this is the case,
I
> > >agree with him.
> >
> > Well, Hillary! sure thinks there is a vast right wing conspiracy.
>
> Thank you. I was going to say that if Hillary thinks there is one, it
> clearly must be so. But seriously, what do you think the heritage
> foundation is? What about the Brookings Institute. What about the
> Business Roundtable? There are tons of corporate financed, right-wing
> groups who are paid to advance business agendas. The left does not have
> nearly as many well financed and powerful organizations. That suggests a
> certain vastness to the right-wing conspiracy.
>
right-wing conspiracies? Are the AFL-CIO, NEA, Greenpeace, NAACP and ACLU
all part of the vast left-wing/socialist conspiracy? Everyone has their
agenda. The difference is that good business benefits everyone whereas
socialism brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
> > There IS a gun culture, but it isn't evil.
>
> Not all of it anyway :)
>
> > I was indulging in it
> > yesterday up in Coarsegold, CA, trying to hit clay pigeons. Tons o'
> > fun. Again, I'm sure Hillary! and her ilk think guns, and everyone
> > who shoots them, are evil - other than police and her bodyguards.
>
> No. She probably is simply aware that most violent crimes that turn
> deadly involve guns. Sure people could use knives and baseball bats,
> etc. But they prefer guns because they are much easier.
So when it's illegal to own guns, will the evil members of the 'gun culture'
turn in their guns?
Don W.
Don Widders
> In article <9N9ra.159690$MB4.55...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> ssp...@green-trust.org says...
> > does everyone miss the sarcasm intended by the quote?
> >
> > > >> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> > > >> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
> >
> > to me indicates the posters attempt to ridicule the thought that there
is a
> > vast right wing conspiracy or an evil gun culture.
>
> Yep, it indicates that to me too. I think that he is off-base to
> ridicule it though. I think that he has to be programmed to think that
> way in the face of the evidence. Either that or he is simply ignorant of
> the relevant facts.
>
>
> > If this is the case, I
> > agree with him.
>
> I don't believe there is a vast evil gun culture, but it is certain that
> there are some people who run guns, modify weapons for full auto
> operation and plan on doing nasty, violent things with their weapons.
Perhaps a few more gun laws will keep them from doing that?
> You can just look at countries like Afghanistan if you want to see what
> it might be like in the US with everyone toting around automatic weapons,
> RPGs and other heavy firepower.
>
> As far as the right-wing conspiracy, the right-wing works very hard to
> create the impression that they are not a conspiracy. But the fact is
> that the upper classes maintain their privileges despite fewer and fewer
> people owning more and more. That can't maintain great power in a
> democracy with so few members, unless they conspire to influence
> organizations like the major media and congress.
The NEA, AFL-CIO, ACLU, NAACP don't conspire to influence organizations like
the major media and congress?
Don W.
Don Widders
> In article <b8k0uh$asguf$1...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>,
> dave...@spamcop.net says...
> > In misc.rural quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As far as the gun
> > > culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about
it.
> >
> > Yes, and?
>
> Yes and the NRA is lead by raving fanatics. It is nothing like the
> organization it used to be. It is an apologist for the gun industry and
> it stresses gun ownership to the exclusion of sane regulation or
> consideration of the consequences.
>
"Regulations" that run counter to the second amendment to the Constitution
would seem to be something less than "sane" because they break the very
spirit of the Bill of Rights. The "raving fanatics" of whom you speak are
strong proponents of gun safety and responsibility.
> >
> > > I've owned and used hunting rifles for many years without ever being
> > > tempted to belong to some militant, paranoid gun culture.
> >
> > The "paranoia" you seem to think you see, is justified caution.
>
> No, it's paranoia. Every time they find a candidate whom they don't like
> they blitz the airwaves and media with claims that this person is going
> to "take away your guns". Often times they have absolutely no evidence
> to support such a claim. It is purely a scare tactic to mobilize the
> paranoia of the gun culture.
The Constitution is very dear and important to some of us. Some of us
believe that the second amendment is the only way to ensure the US
Government remains a government of, by and for the people. Are you a
citizen of the US?
>
> >
> > > I don't need
> > > automatic weapons or even pistols for hunting either.
> >
> > That's fine, just don't try to push your views on me, and we'll get
> > along just fine. However - based on your reaction to the original
> > quote in question, I have to wonder how much of what you say is true.
>
> That's easy. All of what I said was true.
>
All of what you've said is a crock from someone who hates the U.S. system of
government. I wonder what makes you despise it? Do freedom and liberty
annoy you? Is it the opportunity to easily get a job and pay your bills
that upsets you?
There are plenty of places in the world for you to live an oppressed life
full of strife and even hunger. Some people might get a little upset when
you try to mess up what Founders have created in the U.S.
Don W.
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:9s5mavcrnaroklq10...@4ax.com...
> The tax on fuel is just a way to tax road users. The type of fuel
> used doesn't matter.
>
> On such issues, there are two general approaches. Can take the view
> that only road users pay for this or everyone pays whether they use
> highways or not.
>
> Everyone is taxed for schools whether they have children or not, which
> I personally think unfair.
Well, I think that's fair, having five children of my own ;)
For the road issue, there has to be a balance between encouraging people to
use the roads, and taxing people to use the roads. There is society benefit
from mobility, hence the tax should be more general than a simple fuel tax
(as it is in most countries).
However, heavy-handed prosecution of alternative (chip-oil) fuel users is
short-sighted. The tax spent on such endeavours (policing and prosecution)
is unlikely to recoup either the loss in road tax, or the loss in general
energy efficiency of the society.
Roland
--
Roland Paterson-Jones
Manager, Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8044
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
Sylvan Butler
> ill-gotten profits to shape the way people think. As far as the gun
> culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about it.
Yup. But one cannot keep and preserve that right for future
generations without becoming very serious about it.
> I've owned and used hunting rifles for many years without ever being
> tempted to belong to some militant, paranoid gun culture. I don't need
> automatic weapons or even pistols for hunting either.
Nobody does. But you sound as if you meant something more
significant???
sdb
--
| Sylvan Butler | Not speaking for Hewlett-Packard | sbutler-boi.hp.com |
| Watch out for my e-mail address. Thank UCE. >>>> change ^ to @ <<<< |
It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our
own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval
of their consciences. -- C. S. Lewis
Sylvan Butler
> In article <b8k0uh$asguf$1...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>,
> dave...@spamcop.net says...
>> In misc.rural quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > As far as the gun
>> > culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about it.
>>
>> Yes, and?
>
> Yes and the NRA is lead by raving fanatics. It is nothing like the
No, the NRA is led by cowering capitulists who will compromise
anything to avoid fighting the good fight.
> it stresses gun ownership to the exclusion of sane regulation or
> consideration of the consequences.
Uh, there is NO SUCH THING as "sane regulation" of a basic human
right.
> they blitz the airwaves and media with claims that this person is going
> to "take away your guns". Often times they have absolutely no evidence
> to support such a claim.
Nonsense. Please provide the evidence to prove your claims re. the
NRA.
> That's easy. All of what I said was true.
Except when you've said anything, and of course all your innuendo is
blatent falsehood. Other than that...
Sylvan Butler
>> Proud member of the vast right wing
>> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
>
Because it is the side of truth, liberty, justice and the american
way.
Sylvan Butler
>> fun. Again, I'm sure Hillary! and her ilk think guns, and everyone
>> who shoots them, are evil - other than police and her bodyguards.
>
> No. She probably is simply aware that most violent crimes that turn
> deadly involve guns.
Maybe we should outlaw crimes?
Anyway, I doubt she knows any such thing. She knows very little
about anything other than how to lie, cheat and manipulate people to
get what she wants.
Sylvan Butler
> Anyone who buys non-tax fuel (gas or diesel) is subject to inspection by
> the taxing authorities. They come out to your place and inspect the tanks
> of any road vehicles (and lawn mowers) to see if any dye is present in their
Would that be a "road lawn mower" ??? Because off-road fuel is 100%
legal in all the lawn mowers I've used.
> tanks. If there is, they hit you with a *big* fine, and cancel your tax exempt
> status for buying fuel. We get hit with a surprise inspection about every two
> years on the farm.
Same in my family.
erniegalts
wrote:
Thanks for the info. Had forgotten about the brandy, although now
that you mention it remember reading about it. Dunno how effective it
would be against the diarrhea, but probably helped on the other
issues.:-)
erniegalts
[Australia]
[misc.survivalism]
William P.N. Smith
>Corporations pay media corporations to brain wash
>the masses. They don't send you a $50 check and list of opinions to
>spout.
Not a stockholder, are you Quibbles? 8*)
ny...@worldonline.co.uk
> Thanks for the info. Had forgotten about the brandy, although now
> that you mention it remember reading about it. Dunno how effective it
> would be against the diarrhea, but probably helped on the other
> issues.:-)
On holiday camping around France, driving up the cote Atlantique with a bad
case of Napoleon's revenge, diacalm had NO effect whatsoever.
Stopped off in Cognac to visit the Hennesy distillery although I wanted to
sit the visit out in the John, She who must be obeyed told me to accompany
her or else!!!
So I did the tour hoping that I could hold out;-)
We went into an enormous warehouse stacked out with oak barrels that had
once held sherry, the outsides of the barrels had hoops of pinewood which
provided food for a fungal virus, which would have eaten the oak if the pine
wasn't there.
The smell inside those warehouses was magnificent, the cognac spirit seeps
through the oak and permeates the air, the workers have to rotate every hour
from one job to another but no more than two hours a day inside those
warehouses.
We bought a bottle of Hennesy, one litre, it came with Two cognac glasses,
the cognac is long gone but the glasses are still here.
And Napoleons revenge?
Gone with the wind:-))))))))
dave...@spamcop.net
> I don't believe there is a vast evil gun culture, but it is certain that
> there are some people who run guns, modify weapons for full auto
> operation and plan on doing nasty, violent things with their weapons.
All of which are extremely illegal.
> You can just look at countries like Afghanistan if you want to see what
> it might be like in the US with everyone toting around automatic weapons,
> RPGs and other heavy firepower.
The machinery makes people evil then, is this your claim?
> As far as the right-wing conspiracy, the right-wing works very hard to
> create the impression that they are not a conspiracy. But the fact is
> that the upper classes maintain their privileges despite fewer and fewer
> people owning more and more. That can't maintain great power in a
> democracy with so few members, unless they conspire to influence
> organizations like the major media and congress.
So...then the people would have _more_ power if they were not able to
defend themselves? How does *that* work?
dave...@spamcop.net
> dave...@spamcop.net says...
>> In misc.rural quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > As far as the gun
>> > culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about it.
>>
>> Yes, and?
> Yes and the NRA is lead by raving fanatics. It is nothing like the
> organization it used to be. It is an apologist for the gun industry and
> it stresses gun ownership to the exclusion of sane regulation or
> consideration of the consequences.
Your definition of "sane regulation" is no doubt seen by me and others
as "slippery slope", "ineffective", "misguided", and so on.
>> The "paranoia" you seem to think you see, is justified caution.
> No, it's paranoia. Every time they find a candidate whom they don't like
> they blitz the airwaves and media with claims that this person is going
> to "take away your guns". Often times they have absolutely no evidence
> to support such a claim. It is purely a scare tactic to mobilize the
> paranoia of the gun culture.
I don't suppose you'd care to go into specifics? I follow races I can
do something in very closely, and have found no pattern of behavior which
agrees with your vague claims.
>> That's fine, just don't try to push your views on me, and we'll get
>> along just fine. However - based on your reaction to the original
>> quote in question, I have to wonder how much of what you say is true.
> That's easy. All of what I said was true.
Funny, that's what the last used car salesman I talked to said.
Dave Hinz
Jonathan Ball
> In alt.energy.homepower quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't believe there is a vast evil gun culture, but it is certain that
>>there are some people who run guns, modify weapons for full auto
>>operation and plan on doing nasty, violent things with their weapons.
>
>
> All of which are extremely illegal.
But there are a LOT of people who do it, and they claim
the same justification for doing it that more mundane
gun owners - a handgun or two - claim.
>
>
>>You can just look at countries like Afghanistan if you want to see what
>>it might be like in the US with everyone toting around automatic weapons,
>>RPGs and other heavy firepower.
>
>
> The machinery makes people evil then, is this your claim?
No, and you knew he wasn't claiming that when you
sleazily suggested it, so why did you do it?
>
>
>>As far as the right-wing conspiracy, the right-wing works very hard to
>>create the impression that they are not a conspiracy. But the fact is
>>that the upper classes maintain their privileges despite fewer and fewer
>>people owning more and more. That can't maintain great power in a
>>democracy with so few members, unless they conspire to influence
>>organizations like the major media and congress.
>
>
> So...then the people would have _more_ power if they were not able to
> defend themselves? How does *that* work?
He's not claiming that, either.
You're pretty handy with a bale of straw, aren't you?
quibbler
wid...@prohibitionbar.net says...
Well golly fucking gee, there are some liberal organizations too, like
nobody knew that. But union membership has been declining rapidly due to
shifting industrial priorities and active campaigns by corporations. The
NEA is not a liberal organization but a government organization with
direct responsibility to elected officials. The NAACP, Greenpeace and
ACLU have trivial budgets compared to the massive corporate endowments
given to organizations like the Ford or Heritage foundations.
Billionaires like Sciafe and the Coors family have long endowed these
organizations and many other special interest groups with massive funding
to articulate policies friendly to their selfish business interests. Oh
and before you even tell me about Ted Turner and the evil hollywood
liberals, their money is not primarily going to buying special treatment
that is intended to help them financially in the future. Turner's
massive donation to the UN didn't win him special tax cuts or government
contracts or loosen regulations on pollution like many right-wing groups
are constantly after.
The fact is that corporations try to make up for in money what they lack
in actual representation or democracy. Between 1969 and 1999 CEOs went
from making 40 times the median salary to over 400 times the median
salary and that doesn't count all kinds of special stock options and
perks which make the figure even higher. Corporate executives who sit on
multiple boards and have the direct ear of the president through the
Business Roundtable are the real ruling elite, despite myths about
liberal elitists. These upper class people, like George W. Bush, go to
their own prep schools which don't accept commoners and even have their
own phone book, called the "Social Register", of other rich and powerful
people in major US cities. They attend exclusive country clubs and are
interwoven into power networks which exist to support the business status
quo. They create the myth that small businesses can really make people
wealthy when in reality one third of all small businesses are run by a
single person, part time and over half of all small businesses fail after
one year. It isn't because of government regulation either. It's
because a handful of organizations own most of the industrial capital in
the united states and do their best to make sure that up and coming
competitors don't have much of a chance. The top five corporations in
the US own 30% of industrial assets and the disparities are growing.
Those are just the facts.
> Everyone has their
> agenda. The difference is that good business benefits everyone whereas
> socialism brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Is that why Canada, the UK and Australia all have higher life
expectancies than the US and spend less on their "socialized medicine" to
cover everyone than we spend to only cover a fraction of our citizens?
Do you know that private insurance companies dump the sickest people onto
government programs like medicare, so that they can boost their profits?
I know you'll want to tell me about rationing and waiting lists in these
other systems, but the fact is that rationed care is better than no care
at all. I can also tell you that if it wasn't for "socialist"
organizations like unions that a hell of a lot more people in this
country would be making minimum wage, since they would be unable or
unwilling to try to stand up to monolithic organizations and demand
higher pay for fear of being blackballed. You can try to deny history,
but it is a fact that tactics like this were common in the days before
unions and many large corporations, even today do everything they can to
curtail union activities.
>
>
> > > There IS a gun culture, but it isn't evil.
> >
> > Not all of it anyway :)
> >
> > > I was indulging in it
> > > yesterday up in Coarsegold, CA, trying to hit clay pigeons. Tons o'
> > > fun. Again, I'm sure Hillary! and her ilk think guns, and everyone
> > > who shoots them, are evil - other than police and her bodyguards.
> >
> > No. She probably is simply aware that most violent crimes that turn
> > deadly involve guns. Sure people could use knives and baseball bats,
> > etc. But they prefer guns because they are much easier.
>
> So when it's illegal to own guns, will the evil members of the 'gun culture'
> turn in their guns?
First off, the primary regulations are aimed at making it harder for the
wrong kind of people to get guns. This does work. Lots of criminals
have a harder time getting access to serious firepower and are too stupid
or poorly connected to reliably get guns on the street. Laws are
not perfect and there's no way to stop black markets, theft of weapons,
etc. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws, just because it
might be possible to bypass them. I don't think that we would ever have
a situation where everyone had to turn in his or her guns. That wouldn't
make sense. A hunting gun like a rifle or shotgun is less likely to be
involved in a serious crime and therefore we don't need to worry about
these nearly as much. More likely, the government would concentrate on
David Koresh types who are probably not stockpiling arms and a million
rounds of ammo just for the joy of collecting them. It's also better to
not have plentiful guns in urban environments. I think there might be
prudent situations in which guns would still be carried by some people
other than law enforcement, but these people need to be financially and
legally responsible. Unless the system is very well regulated then it's
likely to lead to the same kind of lawlessness we see in gun cultures
like afghanistan or columbia.
Jonathan Ball
You're not very persuasive in presenting your view of
how this so-called "right wing", conspiratorial or not,
works to maintain its position. First of all, the
media, at least the entertainment wing of the media,
are overwhelmingly Democrat, and support, both
financially and politically, Democrat positions.
Second, you haven't even begun to support your implied
claim that there is something ill-gotten about the
great wealth of the rich.
Third, there isn't anything too surprising about seeing
the rich work to counter redistributionist schemes.
You claim, again by implication, that the rich seeking
to protect their wealth are somehow thwarting
democratic sentiment. But it is not a virtue of
democracy that the mob seek to overcome the effects of
their own sloth and undiscipline by expropriating the
value earned by those who work hard, follow the rules,
and save for the future.
In some of your other replies in this thread, you've
broadly hinted that only "brainwashed" people could
fail to view the situation as you see it. In fact, you
give yourself away as the most doctrinaire of leftist
thinkers. Your very language is a big part of it. You
think "right wing" is an obvious and deserved
pejorative, and you intend it as one; you undoubtedly
think of yourself as the warm-n-fuzzy sounding
"progressive", rather than the pejorative "leftist".
Here's a good quote for you that I stumbled upon by
accident yesterday:
It may be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty
may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
satisfied; but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end, for they do so with the
approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
The wealth redistributionists are the epitome of the
would-be omnipotent moral busybodies.
quibbler
dave...@spamcop.net says...
> In alt.energy.homepower quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't believe there is a vast evil gun culture, but it is certain that
> > there are some people who run guns, modify weapons for full auto
> > operation and plan on doing nasty, violent things with their weapons.
>
> All of which are extremely illegal.
But when the government tries to enforce many of these regulations, right
wing groups and the NRA screams bloody murder. They also do their best
to maintain loopholes. The best way to prevent many of these crimes is
to make sure that the criminal doesn't get the weapons in the first
place. Once they get the weapons and can legally practice using them,
then it becomes much more difficult to prevent them from doing harmful
things.
>
> > You can just look at countries like Afghanistan if you want to see what
> > it might be like in the US with everyone toting around automatic weapons,
> > RPGs and other heavy firepower.
>
> The machinery makes people evil then, is this your claim?
Not entirely. But it gives them more power and power tends to corrupt.
It probably also does magnify the egos of some people and allows them to
turn a minor situation into a major confrontation. If a person had a gun
on him every time he got angry then the chances that he could snap and do
something impulsive are increased.
>
> > As far as the right-wing conspiracy, the right-wing works very hard to
> > create the impression that they are not a conspiracy. But the fact is
> > that the upper classes maintain their privileges despite fewer and fewer
> > people owning more and more. That can't maintain great power in a
> > democracy with so few members, unless they conspire to influence
> > organizations like the major media and congress.
>
> So...then the people would have _more_ power if they were not able to
> defend themselves?
It's pretty clear that I was talking about corporate power there, which
primarily economic. If a bank denies you a loan then a gun is not going
to help you. However, as far as people defending themselves, I would
have no problem with things like rifles and shotguns, which can be ok for
home defense. But the reality is that the government already makes it
quite difficult to own automatic weapons. So how are you going to defend
yourself against actual soldiers with automatic weapons, grenade
launchers and body armor anyway, if a military junta takes over? That
doesn't even count the M1 tanks and air power that could be brought to
bear against some tiny, rag-tag militia with delusions of grandeur about
defending their rights with pistols and semi-automatic pea shooters.
> How does *that* work?
Contrary to what people like Mao said, all power does not come out of the
barrel of a gun. Granted, many dictators are steeped in gun culture, but
I'm not sure that this is a good thing.
No One
culture'
> >turn in their guns?
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44843-2003Apr27.html
>
> But the police are supposed to be the ones who are safe with guns,
> right???
If you want to make police safer from shooting deaths the first thing you
would do is to take their weapons from them. The data shows most LEO die
from shots fired from their own weapons.
No One
> there are some people who run guns, modify weapons for full auto
> operation and plan on doing nasty, violent things with their weapons.
Check some crime data. You will find 1) very few crimes are committed with
full auto weapons and 2) when crimes are committed with them very few people
are killed. It takes a -=LOT=- of skill and training to use one effectively.
I rather face someone with a converted semi to full auto weapon (which
usually fails) than one with a scoped bolt action weapon.
Heck look at the 'spray and pray' shooting that is being taught to LEOs
today. They use 9mm weapons because they hold 11-21 rounds then they are
taught that you have to have multiple hits to stop someone.
> You can just look at countries like Afghanistan if you want to see what
> it might be like in the US with everyone toting around automatic weapons,
> RPGs and other heavy firepower.
Then again you could look at Switzerland and see what the US might look like
if every one was allowed to have select fire weapon in their house.
> As far as the right-wing conspiracy, the right-wing works very hard to
> create the impression that they are not a conspiracy. But the fact is
To clintonize it, it depends on your definition of conspiracy is. Is a
political party trying to elect someone a conspiracy?
> that the upper classes maintain their privileges despite fewer and fewer
> people owning more and more. That can't maintain great power in a
You have that backwards, it’s the left who want to maintain their power by
conspiring to keep the poor, poor. The left seem to want to keep a pool of
poor people for the criminals to prey on. 90% of the laws they pass to 'help
the poor victims of crime' make them more vulnerable. Gun control is the
biggest. If they ban "cheap guns" that means the single mother working the
late shift and having to walk home from the bus stop can't afford to buy a
firearm for protection but the business man can afford to buy one in case
he's assaulted between the office door and his Lexes<sp>.
> democracy with so few members, unless they conspire to influence
> organizations like the major media and congress.
FYI, we don't live in a democracy. Even if 80% of the people want a law they
may not get it. Can be a good thing, ask any black man over 40 who grew up
in Mississippi.
dave...@spamcop.net
> Lots of criminals
> have a harder time getting access to serious firepower and are too stupid
> or poorly connected to reliably get guns on the street. Laws are
> not perfect and there's no way to stop black markets, theft of weapons,
> etc. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws, just because it
> might be possible to bypass them.
The only way a convicted felon can get a gun, is illegally. 100% of the
time. So, I'd content that your "might be possible" should instead be
replaced with "it is regularly ignored by criminals".
> I don't think that we would ever have
> a situation where everyone had to turn in his or her guns. That wouldn't
> make sense. A hunting gun like a rifle or shotgun is less likely to be
> involved in a serious crime and therefore we don't need to worry about
> these nearly as much.
...nearly as much. Yeah, about that slippery-slope...
> More likely, the government would concentrate on
> David Koresh types who are probably not stockpiling arms and a million
> rounds of ammo just for the joy of collecting them.
So, I'm a threat now because I collect guns? How does my collection, which
is very securly locked up, pose a threat to you or anyone else?
> It's also better to
> not have plentiful guns in urban environments.
What, you mean at all (unrealistic), or just disarming the honest people?
Why would a criminal (who, by definition, is a criminal) give up their
guns? They wouldn't. Can you at least agree with that?
So...this criminal is armed. He's surrounded by potential victims, and now
he's assured that the law abiding citizens are disarmed. How has that made
anyone's life safer (aside from the armed criminal)? How would that reduce
his opportunities to commit crimes against honest folks?
> I think there might be
> prudent situations in which guns would still be carried by some people
> other than law enforcement, but these people need to be financially and
> legally responsible. Unless the system is very well regulated then it's
> likely to lead to the same kind of lawlessness we see in gun cultures
> like afghanistan or columbia.
Have you done _any_ reading at all about how crime is affected when states
pass concealed-carry laws for law-abiding citizens? (Hint: criminals
hate it).
No One
> > > culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about
it.
> >
> > Yes, and?
>
> Yes and the NRA is lead by raving fanatics. It is nothing like the
> organization it used to be. It is an apologist for the gun industry and
> it stresses gun ownership to the exclusion of sane regulation or
> consideration of the consequences.
Hum. . .when was the last time you read the American Rifleman?
> > > I've owned and used hunting rifles for many years without ever being
> > > tempted to belong to some militant, paranoid gun culture.
> >
> > The "paranoia" you seem to think you see, is justified caution.
>
> No, it's paranoia. Every time they find a candidate whom they don't like
> they blitz the airwaves and media with claims that this person is going
> to "take away your guns". Often times they have absolutely no evidence
> to support such a claim. It is purely a scare tactic to mobilize the
> paranoia of the gun culture.
Well let's see. Why don't you go out to CA and buy an HK91? Oops, can't
have that there. Try to buy a new, made after 1986, slective fire weapon
with your Class III permit. Drat! Those are banned. Go to DC and find
someone who legally owns a AR-15. Crap, those are banned there. Seems to
me that there are a lot of banned weapons and more and more places where the
police are allowed to 'take away your guns'.
No One
> >>there are some people who run guns, modify weapons for full auto
> >>operation and plan on doing nasty, violent things with their weapons.
> >
> >
> > All of which are extremely illegal.
>
> But there are a LOT of people who do it, and they claim
> the same justification for doing it that more mundane
> gun owners - a handgun or two - claim.
Sorry but the crime stats just don't back you up. Care to 1) define "a LOT"
and 2) show where you got the number?
I havent' checked in a few years but IIRC the last time I check the FBI/BATF
reported something like 20 cases of illegal full auto weapons. FYI, the
BATF considers having a weapon which can be converted and the parts to
convert as having a converted weapon, no matter how much machining must be
done before it will work.
Also, did you know that the government never came up with even one converted
weapon at Waco? I don't even think they found a full auto weapon at all but
IIRC, at least one of the people living there had a Class III permit meaning
that it would be perfectly legal for there to be all kinds of "bad" things
there as long as the tax man was paid.
dave...@spamcop.net
> In article <b8m4tc$bcb5m$2...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>,
> dave...@spamcop.net says...
>> In alt.energy.homepower quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't believe there is a vast evil gun culture, but it is certain that
>> > there are some people who run guns, modify weapons for full auto
>> > operation and plan on doing nasty, violent things with their weapons.
>>
>> All of which are extremely illegal.
> But when the government tries to enforce many of these regulations, right
> wing groups and the NRA screams bloody murder.
Bullshit.
The NRA has been saying for as long as I know, that the existing laws are
not being enforced properly. They exposed the shameful lack of prosecution
by Clinton/Gore of the "assault weapons ban" (what, 7 prosecutions in the first
6 years?), even while claiming that it prevented hundreds of thousands of
criminals from getting guns.
> They also do their best
> to maintain loopholes.
Like what, specifically, for instance? You seem to be long on rhetoric,
and zero on specifics.
> The best way to prevent many of these crimes is
> to make sure that the criminal doesn't get the weapons in the first
> place.
Yes, keeping them in jail would be a good way of doing that. Prosecuting
the hell out of them when they violate the laws saying they can't have
guns. It works, where it's done. In programs that the NRA has been
pushing cities to adopt.
> Once they get the weapons and can legally practice using them,
No, they can't legally touch them. You will note that that law doesn't
stop 'em either, just like the "don't murder people" and "don't steal
stuff" laws are also ignored. (See above regarding the term 'criminals').
>> > You can just look at countries like Afghanistan if you want to see what
>> > it might be like in the US with everyone toting around automatic weapons,
>> > RPGs and other heavy firepower.
>>
>> The machinery makes people evil then, is this your claim?
> Not entirely. But it gives them more power and power tends to corrupt.
People are either good, or they are bad. A piece of metal in one's hand
does not transform someone from a good person, to a bad person.
> It probably also does magnify the egos of some people and allows them to
> turn a minor situation into a major confrontation. If a person had a gun
> on him every time he got angry then the chances that he could snap and do
> something impulsive are increased.
Evidence proves otherwise; the crime rate among concealed-carry permitees
is remarkable in how low it is; how rarely that which you claim happens.
>> So...then the people would have _more_ power if they were not able to
>> defend themselves?
> It's pretty clear that I was talking about corporate power there, which
> primarily economic. If a bank denies you a loan then a gun is not going
> to help you. However, as far as people defending themselves, I would
> have no problem with things like rifles and shotguns, which can be ok for
> home defense. But the reality is that the government already makes it
> quite difficult to own automatic weapons.
Define "automatic weapons", please. I think you are misusing this term.
> So how are you going to defend
> yourself against actual soldiers with automatic weapons, grenade
> launchers and body armor anyway, if a military junta takes over?
Please google for "Warsaw ghetto" and get back to us.
> That
> doesn't even count the M1 tanks and air power that could be brought to
> bear against some tiny, rag-tag militia with delusions of grandeur about
> defending their rights with pistols and semi-automatic pea shooters.
>> How does *that* work?
> Contrary to what people like Mao said, all power does not come out of the
> barrel of a gun. Granted, many dictators are steeped in gun culture, but
> I'm not sure that this is a good thing.
You seem to be confusing the defensive use with offensive use. You also
seem to be equating gun ownership (which, ahem, you earlier claimed you
don't have a problem with...) with dictatorships. In reality, it is the
antidote for dictatorships.
quibbler
wid...@prohibitionbar.net says...
> "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.191755735...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > In article <b8k0uh$asguf$1...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>,
> > dave...@spamcop.net says...
> > > In misc.rural quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As far as the gun
> > > > culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about
> it.
> > >
> > > Yes, and?
> >
> > Yes and the NRA is lead by raving fanatics. It is nothing like the
> > organization it used to be. It is an apologist for the gun industry and
> > it stresses gun ownership to the exclusion of sane regulation or
> > consideration of the consequences.
> >
>
> "Regulations" that run counter to the second amendment to the Constitution
Regulation is part of the second amendment. I think that we should
maintain reasonable gun ownership, but the militia concept is a hopeless,
anachronistic throwback. Our national guards are the modern equivalent of
militias. Unless you plan on acquire an M1 battle tank then you don't
have a chance against real armed forces.
> would seem to be something less than "sane" because they break the very
> spirit of the Bill of Rights. The "raving fanatics" of whom you speak are
> strong proponents of gun safety and responsibility.
I said the leaders of the NRA are "raving fanatics", not all of members.
I highly doubt that the leadership gives a rat's ass about gun safety and
as far as responsibility, they've opposed every responsible piece of gun
legislation that has come down the pike. For them "responsibility" is
just a code word for doing nothing and then shrugging off gun crime as
"not the gun's fault". What they really do is dodge responsibility for
the consequences of their own policies.
>
> > >
> > > > I've owned and used hunting rifles for many years without ever being
> > > > tempted to belong to some militant, paranoid gun culture.
> > >
> > > The "paranoia" you seem to think you see, is justified caution.
> >
> > No, it's paranoia. Every time they find a candidate whom they don't like
> > they blitz the airwaves and media with claims that this person is going
> > to "take away your guns". Often times they have absolutely no evidence
> > to support such a claim. It is purely a scare tactic to mobilize the
> > paranoia of the gun culture.
>
> The Constitution is very dear and important to some of us.
I highly doubt that, or you'd probably be a constitution lawyer. Most
people, democrat and republican hardly flinched when the "patriot act"
effectively abolished some of our most important freedoms. That
includes many gun nuts who supposedly hold the Constitution "very dear
and important". Like topics such as abortion, gun rights is an emotional
issue that generates lots of sound and fury, but has little substance.
Many politicians love to let people blow off steam on diversions like
these, while they dish out trillions of dollars of tax bribes to the
wealthiest americans and pretend that they don't know why our economy is
taking a nose dive.
> Some of us
> believe that the second amendment is the only way to ensure the US
> Government remains a government of, by and for the people.
Well it doesn't. Unless you've got a B2 bomber and a couple of
ICBMs buried in your back yard :)
> Are you a citizen of the US?
Yes. Born and raised.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > I don't need
> > > > automatic weapons or even pistols for hunting either.
> > >
> > > That's fine, just don't try to push your views on me, and we'll get
> > > along just fine. However - based on your reaction to the original
> > > quote in question, I have to wonder how much of what you say is true.
> >
> > That's easy. All of what I said was true.
> >
> All of what you've said is a crock from someone who hates the U.S. system of
> government.
Now where the fuck did you get this? My position on gun ownership is
closer to the government's position than yours is. I said nothing to
indicate that I hate the US system of government. For you to say such a
thing without a shred of decent evidence makes you a rude, stupid
asshole. I am opposed to certain blatantly corrupt practices of
corporate america and certain blatantly corrupt pressure groups within
it. That has nothing to do with our system of government. I still have
great hope for our government. With proper reforms it may may be able to
function as a working democracy again. If you are a sane, bonded,
trained and responsible citizen, I have no problem with you owning a gun.
I'm not sure that all of those things apply to you based on what I've
seen from you, but I would wait for an actual background check before
making any kind of final decision. In any event, I probably care as much
or more about freedom than you do. Unlike you apparently, I don't think
it's right for the little guy to always get pushed around by corporate
america and always forced to bargain with them from a position of
relative weakness. You think we need guns and I think we need similar
economic and political self defense that guns alone will never secure. I
don't hate capitalism either. But it's pretty clear that monopoly
practices will destroy a free market system if they go unchecked. The
constant merger movement in the corporate community is moving exactly
toward that kind of thing and it needs to be held in check.
> I wonder what makes you despise it? Do freedom and liberty
> annoy you? Is it the opportunity to easily get a job and pay your bills
> that upsets you?
Could anyone honestly believe their opponents hated freedom and the
ability to pay bills. Your problem is that you unrealistically vilify
your opponents. You make irrational assumptions about their motives and
you show an inability to put yourself in their shoes and think about what
really drives them. Only a moron like george bush could honestly believe
than anyone who opposes him simply hates freedom. Now stop spouting his
sort of rhetoric and use your brain.
>
> There are plenty of places in the world for you to live an oppressed life
> full of strife and even hunger.
There are plenty of places in the world that aren't like that also.
What's your point. I want to stay in America. But if things get bad, I
won't have any problem leaving. I can speak multiple languages. I've
got advanced academic skills. If the US become much more draconian then
they will end up driving away their most talented people, just like the
Nazis did. They're the ones who will lose.
> Some people might get a little upset when
> you try to mess up what Founders have created in the U.S.
The founders provided an ability to amend what they created. Many of
their ideas are quite workable, but other are not. Still others are
clearly being misinterpreted by a religious right which is determined to
institute theocracy in this country. Others things are being subverted
for the sake of corporate power and greed. I think that we can and will
fix these things. We had better, because otherwise technological
progress will be impossible and world leadership will migrate to some
other place like asia or the european union.
William P.N. Smith
>A hunting gun like a rifle or shotgun is less likely to be
>involved in a serious crime and therefore we don't need to worry about
>these nearly as much.
Sorry Quibbles, the second amendment isn't about hunting. Nor is it
about self defense from criminals. Those are, however, other nice
reasons to have guns. My favorite is stalking the wily paper target,
FWIW. 8*)
quibbler
<slrnbarkm7.qbd.Z...@hpb13799Z.Zboi.hpZ.com.invalid>,
Znospam+...@hpb13799Z.Zboi.hpZ.com.invalid says...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:13:32 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <b8k0uh$asguf$1...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>,
> > dave...@spamcop.net says...
> >> In misc.rural quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > As far as the gun
> >> > culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about it.
> >>
> >> Yes, and?
> >
> > Yes and the NRA is lead by raving fanatics. It is nothing like the
>
> No, the NRA is led by cowering capitulists who will compromise
> anything to avoid fighting the good fight.
I guess. They are influenced by various industries with a lot of money.
I think their main problem is just that they got hijacked by lame-brained
fanatics who see any kind of compromise, from trigger locks to background
checks, as nothing more than a ruse to institute gun confiscation.
>
> > it stresses gun ownership to the exclusion of sane regulation or
> > consideration of the consequences.
>
> Uh, there is NO SUCH THING as "sane regulation" of a basic human
> right.
What basic human right? The right to pack heat is basic? I will
charitably assume you mean the right to self-defense. For my part I
usually carry a small pocket knife and occasionally some non-lethal
things like pepper spray or a small stun device if I'm out way after
dark. I've never had to use any of these things.
>
> > they blitz the airwaves and media with claims that this person is going
> > to "take away your guns". Often times they have absolutely no evidence
> > to support such a claim.
>
> Nonsense. Please provide the evidence to prove your claims re. the
> NRA.
Just the ridiculous accusations they made against Gore in the last
election were sufficient. There was no reason to think that Gore
represented any kind of threat to gun ownership, but the NRA is a one-
trick pony and the only way they know of mobilizing their base is by
accusing their opponents of supporting outright confiscation. The NRA
spent lots of money on ads against Gore that suggested this sort of
thing.
>
> > That's easy. All of what I said was true.
>
> Except when you've said anything, and of course all your innuendo is
> blatent falsehood. Other than that...
Whatever.
quibbler
dave...@spamcop.net says...
> In alt.energy.homepower quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <b8k0uh$asguf$1...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>,
> > dave...@spamcop.net says...
> >> In misc.rural quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > As far as the gun
> >> > culture crap, one can own a gun without becoming a raving nut about it.
> >>
> >> Yes, and?
>
> > Yes and the NRA is lead by raving fanatics. It is nothing like the
> > organization it used to be. It is an apologist for the gun industry and
> > it stresses gun ownership to the exclusion of sane regulation or
> > consideration of the consequences.
>
> Your definition of "sane regulation" is no doubt seen by me and others
> as "slippery slope", "ineffective", "misguided", and so on.
Occasionally a slippery slope argument actually manages to not be
fallacious, though usually it is. As far as effectiveness, it is a
standard ploy to argue that unless something is 100% effective that it
should not be used at all. It's true that many gun regulations would not
be 100% effective. But it ignores the fact that most criminals are
incredibly stupid. One would think that all criminals would wear gloves
and a mask. But many still manage to not use one or both. However, an
opponent could hypothetically argue that all surveillance cameras and
fingerprinting techniques were "ineffective" just because the criminal
could use masks and gloves respectively. Now there may be lots of
misguided things. Speed limits may not really make the roads safer and
seat belts won't protect you from every type of injury. But that still
doesn't mean that they don't have some use. What's clear is that the
present state of things isn't acceptable and we've got to do something.
>
> >> The "paranoia" you seem to think you see, is justified caution.
>
> > No, it's paranoia. Every time they find a candidate whom they don't like
> > they blitz the airwaves and media with claims that this person is going
> > to "take away your guns". Often times they have absolutely no evidence
> > to support such a claim. It is purely a scare tactic to mobilize the
> > paranoia of the gun culture.
>
> I don't suppose you'd care to go into specifics? I follow races I can
> do something in very closely, and have found no pattern of behavior which
> agrees with your vague claims.
Surely you would have to admit that the NRA made all kinds of accusations
about both clinton and gore, even though it was people like george h. w.
bush who probably signed more significant anti-gun legislation.
>
> >> That's fine, just don't try to push your views on me, and we'll get
> >> along just fine. However - based on your reaction to the original
> >> quote in question, I have to wonder how much of what you say is true.
>
> > That's easy. All of what I said was true.
>
> Funny, that's what the last used car salesman I talked to said.
That's what lemon laws are for. Fortunately, not all car salesmen are
liars.
dave...@spamcop.net
> Our national guards are the modern equivalent of
> militias.
Maybe if you and your kind keep repeating that, someday it will become
true. Until then, the reality is that "militia" means, as written,
all able-bodied men above a certain age (I believe it was 18).
> I said the leaders of the NRA are "raving fanatics", not all of members.
And yet, the leaders of the NRA are elected by the members. Odd that
you perceive something which those of us who are members do not. Perhaps
that is because you are wrong.
> I highly doubt that the leadership gives a rat's ass about gun safety
You are now bordering on offensive, rather than merely misinformed.
Gun safety has always been a primary goal of the NRA.
> and
> as far as responsibility, they've opposed every responsible piece of gun
> legislation that has come down the pike. For them "responsibility" is
> just a code word for doing nothing and then shrugging off gun crime as
> "not the gun's fault".
The tool does not cause the crime, the crimial causes the crime. You seem
to have this "I don't want to blame a person for being bad" attitude.
It's like a little kid - they trip over their bike, and blame it on
the bike. Most of us grow out of it by age 10 or so, though.
> What they really do is dodge responsibility for
> the consequences of their own policies.
You don't understand the consequences; you only see the consequences of
failures of 8 years of clinton/gore to prosecute criminals effectively.
>> The Constitution is very dear and important to some of us.
> I highly doubt that, or you'd probably be a constitution lawyer.
You've gone past "offensive" now. How _DARE_ you state that someone
who doesn't make their living in constitutional law has no right to
believe in the constitution strongly?
> Most
> people, democrat and republican hardly flinched when the "patriot act"
> effectively abolished some of our most important freedoms. That
> includes many gun nuts who supposedly hold the Constitution "very dear
> and important". Like topics such as abortion, gun rights is an emotional
> issue that generates lots of sound and fury, but has little substance.
Well, your posts are certainly short on anything resembling an understanding
of history, statistics, or crime. Speak for yourself.
> Many politicians love to let people blow off steam on diversions like
> these, while they dish out trillions of dollars of tax bribes to the
> wealthiest americans and pretend that they don't know why our economy is
> taking a nose dive.
Yeah, it's all a conspiracy. Sigh...I think you want a different group.
>> Some of us
>> believe that the second amendment is the only way to ensure the US
>> Government remains a government of, by and for the people.
> Well it doesn't. Unless you've got a B2 bomber and a couple of
> ICBMs buried in your back yard :)
Disarming a populace is the most effective way of enslaving it. If not
by the group that disarmed it, then by someone else.
(snip barrage of obscenities)
> they will end up driving away their most talented people, just like the
> Nazis did. They're the ones who will lose.
Are you familiar with the term "Godwin's law"?
>> Some people might get a little upset when
>> you try to mess up what Founders have created in the U.S.
> The founders provided an ability to amend what they created. Many of
> their ideas are quite workable, but other are not.
Ah, so you follow the ACLU's theory of the bill of rights being a menu
from which to pick and choose, then?
quibbler
<slrnbarkad.qbd.Z...@hpb13799Z.Zboi.hpZ.com.invalid>,
Znospam+...@hpb13799Z.Zboi.hpZ.com.invalid says...
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 10:55:00 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
> >
> > Why in the world would you be proud of that :?
>
> Because it is the side of truth, liberty, justice and the american
> way.
Or so you've been brainwashed to think. Reality simply doesn't accord
with that view. Our soldiers are getting paid minimum wage to fight and
die in Iraq as part of George W. Bush's re-election bid, while people
like Cheney get paid fat pay checks for doing nothing but influence
peddling. Do you know that Cheney receives $1 million a year from
halliburton in retirement salary alone, not to mention all of his stock
and previous income from them, all for working for them for a grand total
of five years. You don't even make that kind of money in the mafia.
There is no legitimate business in which cheney's skills are really worth
that much in a real employment market. But Cheney is not unique. There
are thousands of upper level corporate execs who get far sweeter deals
than this. Yet McDonalds has always opposed even the slightest effort to
unionize and like many corporate reactionaries they seethe with gloom and
doom prophecies every time the minimum wage is raised by a couple of
nickles. We laughed at the corruption in the soviet system, but we fail
to see that the corruption in our business community is as bad or worse.
quibbler
wp...@compusmiths.com says...
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Corporations pay media corporations to brain wash
> >the masses. They don't send you a $50 check and list of opinions to
> >spout.
>
> Not a stockholder, are you Quibbles? 8*)
I still have a bit of stock. Are you gonna give me the "Larry the
Liquidator" speech about how corporations care deeply and passionately
about making money for stockholders?
dave...@spamcop.net
> I guess. They are influenced by various industries with a lot of money.
> I think their main problem is just that they got hijacked by lame-brained
> fanatics who see any kind of compromise, from trigger locks to background
> checks, as nothing more than a ruse to institute gun confiscation.
Oh look, yet another factual error from The Sniveller. The NRA was
pushing for *instant* background checks (just like your instant credit-card
checks in implementation), rather than the "wait 3 days during which maybe
they'll get around to running a background check" that clinton/gore pushed
for. They didn't want the background check, they wanted the delay. Proof
that they didn't give a damn about the background check is their utter
failure to prosecute the criminals who identified themselves as
violating a law, identified where they'd be 3 days later, and were
completely and utterly ignored by the administration. Here you have
a criminal, who has signed their name that they're not a felon, who
has violated several laws just to fill out the form, and they did
nothing at all to prosecute; all while crowing about how effective
it was.
>> Uh, there is NO SUCH THING as "sane regulation" of a basic human
>> right.
> What basic human right? The right to pack heat is basic? I will
> charitably assume you mean the right to self-defense. For my part I
> usually carry a small pocket knife and occasionally some non-lethal
> things like pepper spray or a small stun device if I'm out way after
> dark. I've never had to use any of these things.
Goody for you. You have no right to limit my self-defense to your
particular (ineffective) choice of non-methods.
>> Nonsense. Please provide the evidence to prove your claims re. the
>> NRA.
> Just the ridiculous accusations they made against Gore in the last
> election were sufficient. There was no reason to think that Gore
> represented any kind of threat to gun ownership,
Well, except for his statements regarding gun ownership. Go ahead, you
can google for that as well as I could. His record was clear, and his
association with Clinton was extensive in that regard as well.
>> Except when you've said anything, and of course all your innuendo is
>> blatent falsehood. Other than that...
> Whatever.
Ah, yes. A convincing argument there.
dave...@spamcop.net
> In article <b8m51u$bcb5m$3...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>,
> dave...@spamcop.net says...
>>
>> as "slippery slope", "ineffective", "misguided", and so on.
> Occasionally a slippery slope argument actually manages to not be
> fallacious, though usually it is. As far as effectiveness, it is a
> standard ploy to argue that unless something is 100% effective that it
> should not be used at all. It's true that many gun regulations would not
> be 100% effective.
Gun control is worse than 0% effective - it harms the honest people while
doing nothing to stop the criminals. It's a negative effect, not just
"not 100% effective".
> What's clear is that the
> present state of things isn't acceptable and we've got to do something.
Yes, we've got to prosecute and incarcerate those who violate the
laws that already exist.
>> I don't suppose you'd care to go into specifics? I follow races I can
>> do something in very closely, and have found no pattern of behavior which
>> agrees with your vague claims.
> Surely you would have to admit that the NRA made all kinds of accusations
> about both clinton and gore,
The "accusations" that I know of regarding Clinton and Gore are well
documented. Which specific claims are you claiming are inaccurate?
> even though it was people like george h. w.
> bush who probably signed more significant anti-gun legislation.
See above question.
Duncan Wood
> by the group that disarmed it, then by someone else.
>
enslaved over here
quibbler
dave...@spamcop.net says...
> In alt.energy.homepower quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Lots of criminals
> > have a harder time getting access to serious firepower and are too stupid
> > or poorly connected to reliably get guns on the street. Laws are
> > not perfect and there's no way to stop black markets, theft of weapons,
> > etc. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws, just because it
> > might be possible to bypass them.
>
> The only way a convicted felon can get a gun, is illegally. 100% of the
> time. So, I'd content that your "might be possible" should instead be
> replaced with "it is regularly ignored by criminals".
It's not about the criminals ignoring it. It's about the gun dealers not
being able to sell to them. The harder it is for them to buy a gun
legitimately, the better the chance is that they will turn to things like
replicas or knives, that aren't nearly as dangerous.
>
> > I don't think that we would ever have
> > a situation where everyone had to turn in his or her guns. That wouldn't
> > make sense. A hunting gun like a rifle or shotgun is less likely to be
> > involved in a serious crime and therefore we don't need to worry about
> > these nearly as much.
>
> ...nearly as much. Yeah, about that slippery-slope...
>
> > More likely, the government would concentrate on
> > David Koresh types who are probably not stockpiling arms and a million
> > rounds of ammo just for the joy of collecting them.
>
> So, I'm a threat now because I collect guns?
I think you failed to get the joke.
> How does my collection, which
> is very securly locked up, pose a threat to you or anyone else?
No, the joke suggested that a real gun collector wasn't the one we needed
to worry about.
>
> > It's also better to
> > not have plentiful guns in urban environments.
>
> What, you mean at all (unrealistic), or just disarming the honest people?
No, I just mean that in a city environment shooting off guns is likely to
be dangerous, even in the hands of professionals. If every dipwad who
thinks he's entitled to shoot someone for looking at him funny is toting
a gun then it's likely that things will be bad. It's also likely that
guns will make their way into the hands of criminals if the guns are
plentiful.
> Why would a criminal (who, by definition, is a criminal) give up their
> guns?
You propose a completely false alternative. That's not how it would be
done. They could start restricting ammo sales, since a hunter or someone
defending his home probably doesn't blow through a couple thousand rounds
and what not. They would certainly also encourage people to turn in
felons who are thought to have guns. If the supply is very tight and the
cops keep taking guns off the street then eventually criminals are going
to have fewer weapons between them.
> They wouldn't. Can you at least agree with that?
That doesn't have to be the only way to get guns out of the hands of
criminals.
>
> So...this criminal is armed. He's surrounded by potential victims, and now
> he's assured that the law abiding citizens are disarmed.
Typical ridiculous scenario. I didn't say that normal citizens would be
disarmed. I said guns would not be plentiful, as compared to the present
situation. This might make it more likely that a person the criminal
attacks is unarmed, but he still never knows. Besides, it was harder for
the criminal to get his gun, so there is less risk of a law abiding
citizen being assaulted with a gun by this criminal.
> How has that made
> anyone's life safer (aside from the armed criminal)?
How is the average person any safer when they buy a gun for protection
but never practice with it and end up letting the criminal take it away
from them? Guns should only be in the hands of people who undergo
training.
> How would that reduce
> his opportunities to commit crimes against honest folks?
Because more criminals will find it harder to get guns, which will mean
that statistically fewer will be likely to have them. Therefore less
criminals will be armed and it will be easier for ordinary citizens to
resist.
>
> > I think there might be
> > prudent situations in which guns would still be carried by some people
> > other than law enforcement, but these people need to be financially and
> > legally responsible. Unless the system is very well regulated then it's
> > likely to lead to the same kind of lawlessness we see in gun cultures
> > like afghanistan or columbia.
>
> Have you done _any_ reading at all about how crime is affected when states
> pass concealed-carry laws for law-abiding citizens? (Hint: criminals
> hate it).
You mean readings in the NRA literature? I've read some stuff by
Handguns, Inc. It isn't so rosy about concealed weapons permits. It's
often plagued by just the problems I'm talking about. People don't know
how to use their guns and end up getting them taken away from them by
criminals. Plus they don't adequately secure them, making it possible
for burglars or children to gain access to them. The average person
doesn't want to have to shoot someone dead in the street.
No One
> > Everyone has their
> > agenda. The difference is that good business benefits everyone whereas
> > socialism brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
>
> Is that why Canada, the UK and Australia all have higher life
> expectancies than the US and spend less on their "socialized medicine" to
> cover everyone than we spend to only cover a fraction of our citizens?
> Do you know that private insurance companies dump the sickest people onto
> government programs like medicare, so that they can boost their profits?
Yep, that’s their job to make money.
> I know you'll want to tell me about rationing and waiting lists in these
> other systems, but the fact is that rationed care is better than no care
> at all. I can also tell you that if it wasn't for "socialist"
I lot of people wouldn’t agree with you. Such as the people coming to the US
to buy health care they can’t get at home with their "socialized medicine".
BTW, the biggest cost in US health care in not medical but legal. I have a
friend who is an OB nurse and she pays (well used to pay the hospital pays
in now) around $40,000 a year in malpractice insurance. There are places in
the US where you can not find an OB doctor because no one is willing to or
can pay the insurance rates to keep the lawyers feed. You want to help
health care in the US? Make the system ‘loser pays’ and/or do away with the
lawyers sharing the jackpot, i.e. pay them a straight salary. Heck you could
cut the cost of 90% of the items in the US if you could make the system
‘loser pays’ and stop people who get burned when they put hot coffee between
their legs from getting awarded millions of dollars.
> organizations like unions that a hell of a lot more people in this
> country would be making minimum wage, since they would be unable or
> unwilling to try to stand up to monolithic organizations and demand
> higher pay for fear of being blackballed. You can try to deny history,
Try taking an econ class or looking at the real world and you will see the
only thing a minimum wage hike does is make prices go up. Many years ago
when the min wage went up from $3.35/hr to what ever I was working at a fast
food restaurant. The night before the wage increase went into effect I help
them raise the prices of every item on our menu. So now the high schoolers
and new hires had an extra four bucks or so a week but everyone else who ate
there got an effect pay CUT because of the higher prices.
I’ve worked in union and non union shops and I will tell you that the union
is nothing more than a bunch of legalized blackmailers! If you don’t give us
what we want we will harm you. EVERY union shop I’ve worked in there has
been a "us against them" feeling. The company is trying to make sure the
workers aren’t screwing it and the workers are trying to make sure the
company isn’t screwing them. In most non union shops the workers seem to
know that if the company goes belly up their pay goes to zero and are
willing to do a little more and the company is willing to ‘share the wealth’
in good times. I have NEVER received a bonus in a union shop that was bigger
than called for in the contract whereas in two non union shops we were given
a bonus plus when things were going good.
The day of the union is gone, IMO. When you can make something overseas, pay
to have it shipped to the US and still sell it cheaper than you can paying
union scale then the unions have overpriced themselves out of the market.
> but it is a fact that tactics like this were common in the days before
> unions and many large corporations, even today do everything they can to
> curtail union activities.
Think about this. How would you feel if your kids formed a union and told
YOU how YOU were going to run YOUR house? What the he!! does a worker have
invested in a job or business? If a company goes out business most workers
have a couple of hard months then move on. The owner of the business usually
winds up in bankruptcy hoping he can keep his house.
> > So when it's illegal to own guns, will the evil members of the 'gun
culture'
> > turn in their guns?
>
> First off, the primary regulations are aimed at making it harder for the
> wrong kind of people to get guns. This does work. Lots of criminals
> have a harder time getting access to serious firepower and are too stupid
> or poorly connected to reliably get guns on the street. Laws are
Really? Then tell me why there are more and higher quality firearms on the
streets today? We started passing national gun laws in 1936, if memory
serves, and have added more and more and more as time has gone on.
> legally responsible. Unless the system is very well regulated then it's
> likely to lead to the same kind of lawlessness we see in gun cultures
> like afghanistan or columbia.
That’s like saying that unless we regulate firearms going to the beach in
Miami will be like trying to picnic on the beaches of Normandy in early June
of 1942. If you haven’t noticed there are WARS going on in those places.
My concern is that once the government controls who can or more importantly
can NOT have a firearm you will have places like Cambodia, Uganda and the
former USSR where the masses are controlled by a small but armed group and
may be slaughtered on a whim.
No One
> charitably assume you mean the right to self-defense. For my part I
> usually carry a small pocket knife and occasionally some non-lethal
> things like pepper spray or a small stun device if I'm out way after
> dark. I've never had to use any of these things.
Be careful, carrying these things are in the same class as carrying a
firearm in some places. NYC, DC, Canada and UK pop to mind.
> Just the ridiculous accusations they made against Gore in the last
> election were sufficient. There was no reason to think that Gore
> represented any kind of threat to gun ownership, but the NRA is a one-
> trick pony and the only way they know of mobilizing their base is by
> accusing their opponents of supporting outright confiscation. The NRA
> spent lots of money on ads against Gore that suggested this sort of
> thing.
Having had Gore as a senator for a period of time I feel perfectly qualified
to say, you're full of tripe! Gore had a documented history of supporting
every gun control law that was placed in front of him. IMO, he has a history
of be a dunce as well. I wrote him one time to ask him for the data he had
used to back up what he had said in a letter and a speech on guns. Care to
guess what he sent me? DoJ reports? Nope. FBI crime stats? Sorry wrong
answer. BATF findings? Wrong again. He sent me photo copies of newspaper
articles!! The buffoon was getting his info from newspapers. When I wrote
him back to ask if there had been some kind of mistake, thinking they had
just not included the real hard data I got no response so I called and no
one would say where his data came from. This is the only time I have ever
written one of my elected officials and did not get a reply, not even a form
letter.
dave...@spamcop.net
> In article <b8mebr$bcjub$4...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>,
> dave...@spamcop.net says...
>> The only way a convicted felon can get a gun, is illegally. 100% of the
>> time. So, I'd content that your "might be possible" should instead be
>> replaced with "it is regularly ignored by criminals".
> It's not about the criminals ignoring it. It's about the gun dealers not
> being able to sell to them. The harder it is for them to buy a gun
> legitimately, the better the chance is that they will turn to things like
> replicas or knives, that aren't nearly as dangerous.
They have ZERO CHANCE of buying a gun illegally. None. Making it 'harder'
to get from dealers only makes it difficult for honest folks, who can
legally own a gun, to be able to defend themselves. Whose side are
you on, by the way, mine or the criminals?
>> > More likely, the government would concentrate on
>> > David Koresh types who are probably not stockpiling arms and a million
>> > rounds of ammo just for the joy of collecting them.
>>
>> So, I'm a threat now because I collect guns?
> I think you failed to get the joke.
Somehow I'm failing to see the humor in hundreds of burned people. Pardon
my lack of sense of humor on this.
>> How does my collection, which
>> is very securly locked up, pose a threat to you or anyone else?
> No, the joke suggested that a real gun collector wasn't the one we needed
> to worry about.
You're not doing a very good job of presenting whatever your point is
here.
>> > It's also better to
>> > not have plentiful guns in urban environments.
>>
>> What, you mean at all (unrealistic), or just disarming the honest people?
> No, I just mean that in a city environment shooting off guns is likely to
> be dangerous, even in the hands of professionals. If every dipwad who
> thinks he's entitled to shoot someone for looking at him funny is toting
> a gun then it's likely that things will be bad.
That doesn't happen. Go read the FBI's crime statistics, would ya?
> It's also likely that
> guns will make their way into the hands of criminals if the guns are
> plentiful.
As opposed to now, when the criminals aren't armed. Right. Look; it's
like this. Right now, almost all criminals have guns, and about half of
the honest folks have guns. Do you agree with that, yes or no?
If you answered yes, then follow me on this one. If private ownership
of guns is outlawed, then the criminals will continue to have guns,
(as they are, after all, ignoring laws by definition), and yet the
honest people will be disarmed. Yes, or no?
If you answered yes, please explain to us all how the criminal, who still
has his gun, is going to be anything but emboldened by the knowledge that
his intended victim is almost guaranteed to be unarmed. (show your
work).
>> Why would a criminal (who, by definition, is a criminal) give up their
>> guns?
> You propose a completely false alternative. That's not how it would be
> done. They could start restricting ammo sales, since a hunter or someone
> defending his home probably doesn't blow through a couple thousand rounds
> and what not.
I go through many thousands of rounds a year. Who are you to tell me
that this is crimianal or suspicous behavior?
> They would certainly also encourage people to turn in
> felons who are thought to have guns.
Do you know of any armed felons at this time? Have you turned them in?
Why not? How would it change your theory?
> If the supply is very tight and the
> cops keep taking guns off the street then eventually criminals are going
> to have fewer weapons between them.
Yes, that's working _so well_ with the "war on drugs". (note heavy
sarcasm). Perhaps you can suggest how illegal gun trafficing (which is
already how the criminals are getting their guns) would be stopped or
substantially slowed, when neither has happened for illegal drug
trafficing.
>> They wouldn't. Can you at least agree with that?
> That doesn't have to be the only way to get guns out of the hands of
> criminals.
What doesn't? You snipped the context.
>> So...this criminal is armed. He's surrounded by potential victims, and now
>> he's assured that the law abiding citizens are disarmed.
> Typical ridiculous scenario. I didn't say that normal citizens would be
> disarmed. I said guns would not be plentiful, as compared to the present
> situation.
There are two kinds of people; criminals, and non-criminals. Non-criminals,
you have nothing to fear from, armed or not. (actually, an armed non-
criminal gives you the benefit of deterring crime). You are less safe
if your fellow non-criminals are disarmed, than you are if some of them
are carrying. Again, it's all about keeping the criminals afraid to
attack you.
> This might make it more likely that a person the criminal
> attacks is unarmed, but he still never knows. Besides, it was harder for
> the criminal to get his gun, so there is less risk of a law abiding
> citizen being assaulted with a gun by this criminal.
It won't be harder for them to get guns, it's already illegal and the
sources they get their guns from illegally today won't magically
"go away", just because yet another law is passed. It'll just make it so
they're violating 18 laws now, instead of only 17 (for instance).
>> How has that made
>> anyone's life safer (aside from the armed criminal)?
> How is the average person any safer when they buy a gun for protection
> but never practice with it and end up letting the criminal take it away
> from them?
Doesn't happen. Go read some stats. Is it worth my effort to dig up
links to the FBI's data on this? I mean, would you bother to go read it,
and then learn from it?
> Guns should only be in the hands of people who undergo
> training.
Who decides what the training is? Can you think of any way that such
a requirement could be abused, by any chance? Why not use the person's
history?
>> How would that reduce
>> his opportunities to commit crimes against honest folks?
> Because more criminals will find it harder to get guns, which will mean
> that statistically fewer will be likely to have them.
Still not going to work, it's still not true. They're still getting
them illegally today, and will still continue to do so in the future.
Human nature is not going to change, and criminals will continue to
break laws if they are in a position to do so.
> Therefore less
> criminals will be armed and it will be easier for ordinary citizens to
> resist.
With what? The ordinary citizen in your scenario is guaranteed to be unarmed.
>> Have you done _any_ reading at all about how crime is affected when states
>> pass concealed-carry laws for law-abiding citizens? (Hint: criminals
>> hate it).
> You mean readings in the NRA literature? I've read some stuff by
> Handguns, Inc.
Yes, that much is painfully obvious.
> It isn't so rosy about concealed weapons permits. It's
> often plagued by just the problems I'm talking about. People don't know
> how to use their guns and end up getting them taken away from them by
> criminals.
Does HCI (that's handgun CONTROL, Inc, by the way) provide any cites
which have actually passed a peer-review process?
> Plus they don't adequately secure them, making it possible
> for burglars or children to gain access to them.
Who doesn't adequately secure them?
> The average person
> doesn't want to have to shoot someone dead in the street.
Nobody does. But if it's a case of them or me, it's gonna be them.
That is, it would be if my state allowed honest people to carry,
which it does not (yet) allow.
This time, please answer the questions directly that I have asked,
rather than trimming around the ones you find uncomfortable.
Thanks awfully.
dave...@spamcop.net
Yes, and next time you guys are nearly overrun by your local dictator,
we'll come over and bail your asses out. Again.
Don Widders
> In article <X7udnZHFdZQ...@speakeasy.net>,
> wid...@prohibitionbar.net says...
> > "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.191755735...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > In article <b8k0uh$asguf$1...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>,
> > >
> > > Yes and the NRA is lead by raving fanatics. It is nothing like the
> > > organization it used to be. It is an apologist for the gun industry
and
> > > it stresses gun ownership to the exclusion of sane regulation or
> > > consideration of the consequences.
> > >
> >
> > "Regulations" that run counter to the second amendment to the
Constitution
>
> Regulation is part of the second amendment. I think that we should
> maintain reasonable gun ownership, but the militia concept is a hopeless,
> anachronistic throwback. Our national guards are the modern equivalent of
> militias. Unless you plan on acquire an M1 battle tank then you don't
> have a chance against real armed forces.
>
"...the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
What part of that do you not understand?
The U.S. Constitution is an awesome document (or course, it doesn't surprise
me you consider parts of it to be "hopeless anachronistic throwback") and
the core of our Constitution is the concept that The People come first and
the government should exist to serve The People and not the other way
around. There is a very good reason for the second amendment and a very
good reason it's worded exactly as it's worded.
>
> > would seem to be something less than "sane" because they break the very
> > spirit of the Bill of Rights. The "raving fanatics" of whom you speak
are
> > strong proponents of gun safety and responsibility.
>
> I said the leaders of the NRA are "raving fanatics", not all of members.
> I highly doubt that the leadership gives a rat's ass about gun safety and
> as far as responsibility, they've opposed every responsible piece of gun
> legislation that has come down the pike. For them "responsibility" is
> just a code word for doing nothing and then shrugging off gun crime as
> "not the gun's fault". What they really do is dodge responsibility for
> the consequences of their own policies.
...and you think that 'gun crime' IS the gun's fault?? So allowing
criminals to go free and repealing the second amendment will eliminate 'gun
crime'? Think about what you're saying.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > I've owned and used hunting rifles for many years without ever
being
> > > > > tempted to belong to some militant, paranoid gun culture.
> > > >
> > > > The "paranoia" you seem to think you see, is justified caution.
> > >
> > > No, it's paranoia. Every time they find a candidate whom they don't
like
> > > they blitz the airwaves and media with claims that this person is
going
> > > to "take away your guns". Often times they have absolutely no
evidence
> > > to support such a claim. It is purely a scare tactic to mobilize the
> > > paranoia of the gun culture.
> >
> > The Constitution is very dear and important to some of us.
>
> I highly doubt that, or you'd probably be a constitution lawyer.
Brilliant deduction.
> Most
> people, democrat and republican hardly flinched when the "patriot act"
> effectively abolished some of our most important freedoms.
What leads you to believe that? Most of us would probably be willing to
temporarily "be flexible" if it would eliminate terrorism. Unfortunately,
it's not at all clear that such flexibility will be temporary or that it
will help to eliminate terrorism.
> That
> includes many gun nuts who supposedly hold the Constitution "very dear
> and important". Like topics such as abortion, gun rights is an emotional
> issue that generates lots of sound and fury, but has little substance.
The second amendment and the concept of a government that exists to serve
the people are very substantive concepts. Too bad you don't appreciate
that. If you really want the government to hold all the guns, please, allow
me to pick a better nation for you.
> Many politicians love to let people blow off steam on diversions like
> these, while they dish out trillions of dollars of tax bribes to the
> wealthiest americans and pretend that they don't know why our economy is
> taking a nose dive.
>
> > Some of us
> > believe that the second amendment is the only way to ensure the US
> > Government remains a government of, by and for the people.
>
> Well it doesn't. Unless you've got a B2 bomber and a couple of
> ICBMs buried in your back yard :)
>
> > Are you a citizen of the US?
>
> Yes. Born and raised.
Millions of people throughout the world are more worthy of US citizenship
than you because they admire and embrace our system of government. You have
the good fortune to be a US citizen and you have no clue how lucky you are
or why you are so lucky.
It's true that the second amendment alone cannot ensure a government of, by
and for the people, but the second amendment is the first thing an
oppressive government would attack. We haven't been nearly vigilant enough
in the way we as citizens protect our rights and control our system of
government. Unfortunately, we're too comfortable to bother. Fortunately,
liberal, socialist lunatics are a minority and there is still hope for the
U.S.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I don't need
> > > > > automatic weapons or even pistols for hunting either.
> > > >
> > > > That's fine, just don't try to push your views on me, and we'll get
> > > > along just fine. However - based on your reaction to the original
> > > > quote in question, I have to wonder how much of what you say is
true.
> > >
> > > That's easy. All of what I said was true.
> > >
> > All of what you've said is a crock from someone who hates the U.S.
system of
> > government.
>
> Now where the fuck did you get this? My position on gun ownership is
> closer to the government's position than yours is. I said nothing to
> indicate that I hate the US system of government.
Wrong. "...the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." That's what the second amendment says.
You wrote "Yes and the NRA is lead by raving fanatics. It is nothing like
the organization it used to be. It is an apologist for the gun industry and
it stresses gun ownership to the exclusion of sane regulation or
consideration of the consequences." Care to enumerate the "sane
regulation(s)" excluded by NRA leaders?
You wrote "...the militia concept is a hopeless, anachronistic throwback."
Is there anything about the second amendment to the Constitution that you
like? If you don't like the second amendment to the constitution, then it's
reasonable to believe you're not entirely comfortable with a government that
exists to serve The People. Perhaps you believe The People are not capable
of assuming the responsibilities of citizenship in such a country?
Early on in this thread you wrote "No, he's already lost. He doesn't even
realize that his so-called opinions are spoonfed to him by corporations who
use their ill-gotten profits to shape the way people think. As far as the
gun culture crap..." It's pretty clear that you don't respect the thinking
of others when it doesn't agree with your own and that you consider the
fruit of our system of free enterprise to be "ill-gotten profits".
Free enterprise and a goverment that exists to serve The People characterize
the U.S. system of government.
> For you to say such a thing without a shred of decent evidence makes
> you a rude, stupid asshole.
Oh, now that's a polite, well-reasoned response. Does this represent your
overall level of courtesy and intelligence? Your mother must be very proud.
> I am opposed to certain blatantly corrupt practices of
> corporate america and certain blatantly corrupt pressure groups within
> it.
No, you're opposed to the conservative movement because you're a socialist
in a democratic republic. Are you opposed to the blatantly corrupt
practices of labor unions (which are among the most blatantly corrupt
pressure groups)?
> That has nothing to do with our system of government. I still have
> great hope for our government. With proper reforms it may may be able to
> function as a working democracy again. If you are a sane, bonded,
> trained and responsible citizen, I have no problem with you owning a gun.
> I'm not sure that all of those things apply to you based on what I've
> seen from you, but I would wait for an actual background check before
> making any kind of final decision. In any event, I probably care as much
> or more about freedom than you do.
Thank you for clarifying that because it's not evident in your writing.
More evident in your writing is an inclination to favor infringement of the
RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. More evident is your disdain for
free enterprise.
> Unlike you apparently, I don't think
> it's right for the little guy to always get pushed around by corporate
> america and always forced to bargain with them from a position of
> relative weakness.
Unlike you apparently, I don't think little guys are always in a position of
relative weakness. If the little guy has something 'corporate America'
wants (like education, initiative, a decent work ethic, reasonable personal
hygiene), then the little guy is in a position of relative strength. If
you've been bargaining with 'corporate America' from a position of relative
weakness, this tells a great deal about you. (Does the term 'total loser'
apply?)
> You think we need guns and I think we need similar
> economic and political self defense that guns alone will never secure. I
> don't hate capitalism either. But it's pretty clear that monopoly
> practices will destroy a free market system if they go unchecked.
That's why we have antitrust laws. So what exactly is it that you hate
about 'corporate America', the vast rightwing conspiracy and the evil gun
culture?
> The
> constant merger movement in the corporate community is moving exactly
> toward that kind of thing and it needs to be held in check.
Uhmmm, it IS held in check. All large corporate mergers are reviewed
extensively by the Federal Judicial system. You hate them too?
>
> > I wonder what makes you despise it? Do freedom and liberty
> > annoy you? Is it the opportunity to easily get a job and pay your bills
> > that upsets you?
>
> Could anyone honestly believe their opponents hated freedom and the
> ability to pay bills. Your problem is that you unrealistically vilify
> your opponents. You make irrational assumptions about their motives and
> you show an inability to put yourself in their shoes and think about what
> really drives them.
Your right. I'm not interested enough in what really drives you to put
myself in your shoes, but if I've unjustly villified you, please clarify
what it is you don't like about the second amendment to the constitution
(you know, the hopeless, anachronistic militia concept and the part of the
constitution where it says THE PEOPLE have a right to keep and bear arms and
that right should not be infringed?) Please clarify exactly what you don't
like about our system of free enterprise (you know, "blatantly corrupt
practices of corporate america" -- the same corporate America that always
pushes around the little guy and forces him to bargain with them from a
position of relative weakness?)
> Only a moron like george bush could honestly believe
> than anyone who opposes him simply hates freedom. Now stop spouting his
> sort of rhetoric and use your brain.
>
You seem to embrace a high degree of regulation (even greater infringement
on the right of the people to keep and to bear arms, even greater
regulations on "corporate america".) Since you're a great user of your
brain, surely you recognize that free enterprise would not be free if it's
over-regulated and excessive gun laws infringe on one's constitutional right
to keep and to bear arms thereby constraining the freedom to exercise that
right. You've made it clear you don't believe individuals are capable of
handling such freedom ("it [keeping and bearing arms] gives them more power
and power tends to corrupt."), so society must take responsibility for the
individuals. You're a socialist and you'd probably be a lot more happy in a
socialist country. You seem to be quite fond of the medical system in
Canada. Have you ever considered migrating north?
>
> >
> > There are plenty of places in the world for you to live an oppressed
life
> > full of strife and even hunger.
>
> There are plenty of places in the world that aren't like that also.
> What's your point. I want to stay in America. But if things get bad, I
> won't have any problem leaving.
Things ARE bad, remember? "...corporate america" and all that? Do you not
realize that 'America' is a proper noun and should be capitalized? I'm
suprised you didn't spell it with a 'k'.
> I can speak multiple languages.
Your English could use a little work.
> I've
> got advanced academic skills. If the US become much more draconian then
> they will end up driving away their most talented people, just like the
> Nazis did. They're the ones who will lose.
>
If you consider yourself to be among the most talented, then perhaps you're
right. I, for one, would not be sorry to see you leave.
> > Some people might get a little upset when
> > you try to mess up what Founders have created in the U.S.
>
> The founders provided an ability to amend what they created.
Yup, it's supposed to require ratification by three fourths of the States.
You think you'll get three fourths of the States to supercede the second
amendment?
> Many of
> their ideas are quite workable, but other are not.
Oh, I can't wait to hear directly from Mr. "quibbler" which of the ideas of
the Founders are not quite workable.
> Still others are
> clearly being misinterpreted by a religious right which is determined to
> institute theocracy in this country.
Do you mean like misinterpreting the second amendment in the Bill of Rights
to mean that THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to keep and to bear arms? You might
want to re-read the Constitution before you assert that.
> Others things are being subverted
> for the sake of corporate power and greed.
Like what? Why do you think corporations are so evil? Do you work for one?
Do they send you a paycheck? What's the problem?
> I think that we can and will
> fix these things.
That's why I wish you'd find a country more compatible with your ideals. I
don't want your fixes.
Don W.
No One
>
> Not entirely. But it gives them more power and power tends to corrupt.
> It probably also does magnify the egos of some people and allows them to
> turn a minor situation into a major confrontation. If a person had a gun
> on him every time he got angry then the chances that he could snap and do
> something impulsive are increased.
My god there will be blood flowing in the streets if we allow every Tom,
Dick and Harry to carry a gun!!! Wait. . .isn't that what they said when FL
passed the must issue law. Hold it any one in VT can carry any type of
firearm he wants WITHOUT a license surely their gutters must be packed with
the dead from all these snapping people! Sorry but history does not support
your argument.
> to help you. However, as far as people defending themselves, I would
> have no problem with things like rifles and shotguns, which can be ok for
> home defense. But the reality is that the government already makes it
Dang hard for a woman to carry a shotgun in her purse.
> quite difficult to own automatic weapons. So how are you going to defend
> yourself against actual soldiers with automatic weapons, grenade
> launchers and body armor anyway, if a military junta takes over? That
> doesn't even count the M1 tanks and air power that could be brought to
> bear against some tiny, rag-tag militia with delusions of grandeur about
> defending their rights with pistols and semi-automatic pea shooters.
Read some history. Say something on Vietnam between 1948 and 1975. If you
want something more up to date go to a library and read some of the papers
when two guys were using one rifle to shoot people. A small group of people
can make an entire city next to impossible to govern. The government has
published some good manuals as well as detailed studies on ‘non conventional
warfare’ and its real and possible effects on a government.
> > How does *that* work?
>
> Contrary to what people like Mao said, all power does not come out of the
> barrel of a gun. Granted, many dictators are steeped in gun culture, but
> I'm not sure that this is a good thing.
Not a big student of history are you? Show me three examples of a government
not ruling its people by force or the threat of force. I’ll help you, the US
doesn’t count (think of why people are so willing to over pay the IRS, it
ain’t because they feel a moral obligation)
Steve Spence
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
ssp...@green-trust.org
The Technical Manager
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:37:43 +0100, "Jamie Hart"
> <theodor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"the original greggie gibson©" <alt.consumer...@newsgroup.to> wrote
> >in message news:2Rgpa.303$xZ4...@news.inreach.com...
> >> William P.N. Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Steve Spence" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
> >> > >Recipe for Car Power: Heat Vegetable Oil, Flip Switch and Go.
> >> > >By CHRIS DIXON
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Chris needs to check some facts. I'd have thought Steve would know
> >> > better...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >an added benefit, he will sharply reduce the pollution.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Plus, he's breaking the law, and avoiding paying his taxes.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> in california we don't pay "road" taxes (except in the form of yearly
> >> registration and the occassional toll). we do pay "fuel" taxes on fuel
> >> we buy, but california hasn't mandated that we are required to buy fuel
> >>
> >In the UK it is a crime to avoid paying fuel duty, one way to do this is to
> >burn vegetable oil, some people in wales were recently arrested and fined
> >for doing this.
> >
> >The govt doesnt care if you use vegie oil but you must pay duty at the same
> >rate as you would for diesel.
>
> Unbelievable!
>
> What about a steam engine?
Depends on what the fuel is. If it is a liquid then the duty must be paid on it.
The reason why you must pay duty if you run a road vehicle on vegetable oil is
because of the badly thought out 1979 hydrocarbon fuel duties act which
describes that liquid fuels containing carbon which includes vegetable oils as
well as mineral oils are subject to duty at certain rates depending on their
viscosities and boiling points. At the time the act was drafted nobody in
government though about the use of vegetable oils as fuels but the way the act
was worded sadly brought them under the net of the taxman.
In the near future the EU is likely to determine the rate of duty charged on
road vehicle fuels and take control away from national governments. In effect it
will nullify the 1979 act and it is likely that vegetable oil fuels will be tax
free or have only a very low level of duty charged on them around 5p a litre
rather than 25p a litre which is charged today. Allegedly the UK has the highest
tax on vegetable oil based road vehicle fuels in the world at the moment !
Rich Wellner
> "...the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed." What part of that do you not understand?
>
> The U.S. Constitution is an awesome document (or course, it doesn't
> surprise me you consider parts of it to be "hopeless anachronistic
> throwback") and the core of our Constitution is the concept that The
> People come first and the government should exist to serve The People
> and not the other way around. There is a very good reason for the
> second amendment and a very good reason it's worded exactly as it's
> worded.
Presumably you aren't referring to long process of negotiation, nor the
context of the day, but to your feeling about how it fits into the world
of today.
Your statement implies that the second amendment wasn't a political
statement set in the context of revolting from a parent government that
had no representation for the people. It was. It may still be valuable
today, but to think that it was designed with todays world in mind is
giving the founding brothers more credit than they deserve.
> ...and you think that 'gun crime' IS the gun's fault?? So allowing
> criminals to go free and repealing the second amendment will eliminate
> 'gun crime'? Think about what you're saying.
Many people believe that reducing legal guns will also reduce illegal
guns. Both sides have evidence to support their claims. It is not nearly
so clear a subject as to warrant a dismissive "Think about what you're
saying".
> The second amendment and the concept of a government that exists to
> serve the people are very substantive concepts. Too bad you don't
> appreciate that. If you really want the government to hold all the
> guns, please, allow me to pick a better nation for you.
This argument compares apples to oranges. The right to bear arms is
irrelevent to the ability of a populace to revolt in the modern age. It
isn't like the weapons that folks have in their closets are going to be
effective against a tank after all.
A group of patriots, sufficiantly motivated to risk their own lives, will
procure the weapons needed to fight opression regardless of the rights and
responsibilities afforded in the constitution.
> Millions of people throughout the world are more worthy of US
> citizenship than you because they admire and embrace our system of
> government. You have the good fortune to be a US citizen and you have
> no clue how lucky you are or why you are so lucky.
Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean that he isn't worthy. In
fact, one of the things that makes this country great is the right to
disagree with not only the other citizens but the government itself.
> It's true that the second amendment alone cannot ensure a government of,
> by and for the people, but the second amendment is the first thing an
> oppressive government would attack.
See above. The second ammednment is utterly irrelevent in the modern
context. A group of patriots will have to step well outside the bounds of
what the constitution protects in order to have the remotest of fighting
chances.
rw2
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Poliglut.org
Politics from the excellence in blogging think tank
We welcome everyone, no matter how wrong you might be
-----------------------------------------------------
William P.N. Smith
>wp...@compusmiths.com says...
>> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Corporations pay media corporations to brain wash
>> >the masses. They don't send you a $50 check and list of opinions to
>> >spout.
>> Not a stockholder, are you Quibbles? 8*)
>I still have a bit of stock. Are you gonna give me the "Larry the
>Liquidator" speech about how corporations care deeply and passionately
>about making money for stockholders?
No, I was going to point out the fact that many of those evil
corporations do send you a (dividend) check and a list of opinions
(quarterly reports).
How come you own stock, if corporations are evil?
Don Widders
> In article
> <slrnbarkad.qbd.Z...@hpb13799Z.Zboi.hpZ.com.invalid>,
> Znospam+...@hpb13799Z.Zboi.hpZ.com.invalid says...
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 10:55:00 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > >> Proud member of the vast right wing
> > >> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
> > >
> > > Why in the world would you be proud of that :?
> >
> > Because it is the side of truth, liberty, justice and the american
> > way.
>
> Or so you've been brainwashed to think. Reality simply doesn't accord
> with that view. Our soldiers are getting paid minimum wage to fight and
> die in Iraq as part of George W. Bush's re-election bid,
You're asserting the action in Iraq had nothing to do with a dangerous,
powerful, maniacal dictator that was hated by his own people? If it was a
re-election bid, he should have waited another year!
> while people
> like Cheney get paid fat pay checks for doing nothing but influence
> peddling. Do you know that Cheney receives $1 million a year from
> halliburton in retirement salary alone, not to mention all of his stock
> and previous income from them, all for working for them for a grand total
> of five years.
Are you jealous? I notice you don't mention the most outrageous influence
peddler of all time. Of course, I don't consider Cheney to be an influence
peddler and he certainly isn't a criminal like Clinton.
> You don't even make that kind of money in the mafia.
> There is no legitimate business in which cheney's skills are really worth
> that much in a real employment market.
Just because you can't comprehend successful high level administration
doesn't mean it has no value.
> But Cheney is not unique. There
> are thousands of upper level corporate execs who get far sweeter deals
> than this.
So why do you think Cheney should not receive comparable compensation?
>Yet McDonalds has always opposed even the slightest effort to
> unionize and like many corporate reactionaries they seethe with gloom and
> doom prophecies every time the minimum wage is raised by a couple of
> nickles. We laughed at the corruption in the soviet system, but we fail
> to see that the corruption in our business community is as bad or worse.
>
I never considered Soviet corruption to be funny. So far nothing you cite
seems to be corrupt. McDonald's is corrupt because they don't want to
unionize? Cheney is corrupt because he receives a hefty retirement?
> --
> _____________________________________________________
> Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
> "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that
> faith does not prove anything." (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Let's talk about YOUR signature, Mr. quibbler. Does this mean that you
equate faithful people to lunatics? Would that mean you subscribe to no
religion and that you have no faith? That might explain a lot. You may be
thinking that you invented yourself. That's probably why you're so fond of
Al Gore.
Don W.