Guest ratchethack Posted August 8, 2006 Posted August 8, 2006 Skeeve, I'm glad you survived your attack and have the ability to pass on what you've learned, my friend. There may in fact be some who are open-minded enough to benefit from your experience and learned perspective. Though it happens many many times, it can only be hoped that it doesn't take too many similar circumstances to bring others to the reality that guns in the hands of law-abiding Citizens in fact decrease crime and save lives in very significant numbers in free societies. Fight the good fight, Rachet, but be forewarned: you will not be thanked for trying to open the eyes of those who so diligently try to keep them screwed shut! Heh, heh. . . . No warning needed here, Skeeve. Momma didn't raise NO dummies and I ain't no spring chicken. . . . ., I never expect anything more from those who've been willfully hiding from the truth their entire lives when the light o' truth shines on 'em than seein' 'em squirm like a bucket o' catawba worms . . . . . so has it always been, and so will it always be. . . . . . It's a thankless job, but somebody's just gotta do it. . . . .
TX REDNECK (R.I.P.) Posted August 8, 2006 Author Posted August 8, 2006 Gun toting granny still slinging lead " You let an old lady beat you?"
dlaing Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 Yes: his bias extends to using statistics to generate data, instead of lies. It's a bias I share strongly enough that my friends & relatives will no longer let me watch tv news, since I start yelling & laughing like a maniac anytime they throw charts up on the screen. And now you join him with your bias. There are facts and data that support both arguments. Some more credible than others, it is funny how interpretation of credibility always seems to fall roughly along partisan lines. His methods were reprehensible, but Joe McCarthy did prove how pervasive and effective the Leninist methodology of subverting higher education and thence the media had become. To arrive at this, my likely less than objective friend, I suppose you claim to be relying on facts, data, truth, etc.? Say, Skeeve! Y'er startin' to show unmistakable signs (some fairly well-developed ones, I might add) of being of one of those annoying Independent Thinkers that our "precious few" seem to have so much difficulty with around here. . . . . . Where you been, man? It's about time you started trompin' on some o' those toes that're so sorely in need o' trompin'!! Oh, so now it is about trompin'? Good to see the independent of reality thinkers bonding.
g.forrest Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 she's needed in iraq or is it afghanistan? or maybe soon lebanon..granny get ya gun.uncle sam needs ya. Gun toting granny still slinging lead " You let an old lady beat you?"
Guest ratchethack Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 it is funny how interpretation of credibility always seems to fall roughly along partisan lines. Of course any claim of objectivity requires that one's use of the word 'credibility' is capable of transcending partisan lines wherever objectively substantiated and corroborated evidence and/or proof may be capable of taking it. Do you know what the word 'partisan' means? Can you find any example of something I've posted that you believe exposes my partisan affiliation?
dlaing Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 Of course any claim of objectivity requires that one's use of the word 'credibility' transcends partisan lines. Do you know what the word 'partisan' means? Can you find any example of something I've posted that you believe exposes my partisan affiliation? Like Mr. Lott going into the study claiming to be a proponent of gun control, you can claim not to be a Republican. While both may be true, both Ratchet and Lott, have shown a pattern leaning heavily with the political philosophies of the right wing parties. You may well be a registered Socialist, but that does not mean you are not to the right of the aisle. If I wer to pigeon hole you to one party, it would be to Libertarian party. One thing you have not done is shown yourself to on the position of the left side of the aisle on any issue. Go ahead, impress me with how open minded you are on all the left wing positions. In the global warming thread I asked you to define your point of political on various topics and you ignored the questions. I have been far more open with my views than you have with yours. Usually you talk in your code words, sheople, relativists, and philistines rather than using Rush Limbaugh's words for people on the Left. The abortion issue is about the only issue that I could see you sliding over to the left on. You make statements indicating you don't like Bush, but then you indicate that the country would be in worse shape if the Democratic likelies become President. Your position on global warming puts you in the right wing partisan camp. Your position on guns puts you in the right wing partisan camp. Your position on metrosexuals puts you in the right wing partisan camp. Your criticism of Mother Jones, Move-On, George Soros and others puts you in the right wing camp. I am not a Democrat and the first time I ever voted for a Democrat for President was for Kerry. But that doesn't mean I am not left wing in my political philosophies. Face it, you are a right winger.
Guest ratchethack Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 Just as I supposed. You don't know what 'partisan' means. May I suggest you refrain from your obvious compulsion to improperly pigeonhole people for your own convenience without justification.
Guzzirider Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 she's needed in iraq or is it afghanistan? or maybe soon lebanon..granny get ya gun.uncle sam needs ya. Don't forget the upcoming tours of Iran and North Korea. I hope she has plenty of ammo.
todd haven Posted August 10, 2006 Posted August 10, 2006 What else can we let the govenrment protect us from? I have a long-felt fear of clowns, badgers, and Beanie Babies. Goes back to some horrible scars from my youth which I would rather not discuss. I challenge anyone here to present a reasoned, articulate argument to justify the ownership of anything as harmful as clown make-up, rabies-infested badger teeth, or those godforsaken Beanie Babies. Please speak up. I can no longer tolerate the carnage. Anyone not seeing my reasoning is obviously delusional. Please seek professional help at once. Now, about those tags on the mattress, pillows, and sofa...... And, don't you dare try to tell me Beanie Babies are harmless... Them's fighting words.. And, I've got a gun
Skeeve Posted August 10, 2006 Posted August 10, 2006 And now you join him with your bias. Using statistics to try to reveal truth, instead of creating unreality? Absolutely! There are facts and data that support both arguments. If the anti-freedom movement would just stop using in-house "Research Institutes" to generate predetermined results, maybe I could believe their self-serving "facts" to support their side. Unfortunately, since they don't/can't/won't, I cannot begin to lend them credence. So sorry! Some more credible than others, it is funny how interpretation of credibility always seems to fall roughly along partisan lines. You said it: the anti-freedom sorts who're all for an ever-growing Nanny-state, "It's for your own good, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" always seem to be the funding source for the researchers who find that "guns are bad." OTOH, the people who just use the data collected by non-partisan sources because its freely available & they don't have any funding to manufacture their own data sets always seem to come up with "guns are at worst a non-influence, & may actually help." Hmm, funny about that! To arrive at this, my likely less than objective friend, I suppose you claim to be relying on facts, data, truth, etc.? Just what I read in the non-partisan press my friend! Do an internet search on "Michael Belleisles" & explain to me how anyone involved on the anti-freedom side of this issue can continue to claim their methods are valid? Good to see the independent of reality thinkers bonding. So, what's the weather like there in your own private Idaho, anyway? Out here in the real world, it's hot, but then, I haven't been too hot since I left England after the coldest winter they'd had since WWII!
dlaing Posted August 10, 2006 Posted August 10, 2006 Just as I supposed. You don't know what 'partisan' means. May I suggest you refrain from your obvious compulsion to improperly pigeonhole people for your own convenience without justification. <_> Your logic is amazing.
Greg Field Posted August 10, 2006 Posted August 10, 2006 unlike all the "traditionalists" who turn up their noses & frown at all the new-fangled gimmickry, & go back to coming home meatless with their replica flintlocks [whom the replica matchlock fanciers cannot abide for their betrayal of real reenactment... ] Skeeve: I hunt in the Washington rain forest in November and December, when it never stops raining, with a flintlock. I build them. They go off when I pull the trigger, and the elk then fall down. All the folks I hunt with use fake black powder, plastic sabots (even though they are illegal here), and fancy new plastic "muzzle-loaders" with illegal (here, anyway) shotgun primers. I can tell you without any reservation that I am at no disadvantage with my rock lock, real black powder, and patched round ball. Mine get ignition the same percentage of the time and have the same or better accuracy. It's kinda like me on my Eldo and what's his name on his humpy Honda crotch rocket: It's the man operating the device that determines its real-world effectiveness. . .
Skeeve Posted August 10, 2006 Posted August 10, 2006 Skeeve: I hunt in the Washington rain forest in November and December, when it never stops raining, with a flintlock. I build them. They go off when I pull the trigger, and the elk then fall down. All the folks I hunt with use fake black powder, plastic sabots (even though they are illegal here), and fancy new plastic "muzzle-loaders" with illegal (here, anyway) shotgun primers. I can tell you without any reservation that I am at no disadvantage with my rock lock, real black powder, and patched round ball. Mine get ignition the same percentage of the time and have the same or better accuracy. It's kinda like me on my Eldo and what's his name on his humpy Honda crotch rocket: It's the man operating the device that determines its real-world effectiveness. . . Methinks you missed the point, Greg: the matchlock fanciers still despise you as an insufferable modernist and the anti-freedom crowd are just saving their plans to disarm you for later... <_>
Greg Field Posted August 11, 2006 Posted August 11, 2006 Methinks you missed the point, Greg: the matchlock fanciers still despise you as an insufferable modernist and the anti-freedom crowd are just saving their plans to disarm you for later... <_> That's when I pull out my squirt bottle of water and wet their wick. That shuts them up . . .
Guest ratchethack Posted August 11, 2006 Posted August 11, 2006 That's when I pull out my squirt bottle of water and wet their wick. That shuts them up . . . Just as long as you don't use a squirt gun that resembles a real gun. They're highly regulated and illegal, you know. . . . .
Recommended Posts