dhansen Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 A fascist is anyone who uses force to get their own way. From Wikipedia: "Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism." It wasn't aimed at you but, if you feel the cap fits, far be it from me to tell you otherwise. This paragraph is downright scary: Former Colombia University Professor Robert O. Paxton, speaking about the essence of fascism - "1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one's group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination." Definitely reminds me of something..... DAMN, stop the bus, I wanna get off!
dlaing Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Definitely reminds me of something..... Should we take up arms against it???? That is it! We'll start a revolution!!!! The armed guns of right wingers united with the left wing (apologizing for allowing gun control) to fight against the new fascism! Somehow I think this plan will fall apart unless we get a unifier like Princess Di to lead us forward. How about the perfect Joanne D'Arc, Marilyn Monroe's ghost?
Martin Barrett Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Just so I'm perfectly clear on where RH and Skeeve are coming from, I have 2 simple questions for you guys: Do you think that private citizens should be able to own fully automatic weapons? If so, should there be any government regulation whatsoever? Yes or no answers should suffice. No Yes Right I could get in some serious sh1t. Last week I controlled an RTC in which 3 persons died driver , passenger and baby also a passenger in vehicle 1. lost control within the speed limit on a bend, ran wide into a much more substansial vehicle. In this weeks local theres an article which details a petion thats been signed by 1500 persons asking for for intervention ie speed limits and other road calming steps. As it stands is a national speed limit (60mph) single carriageway - one lane each directioon road and has been a number of accidents on this bend in last few years. The local authority have stated no remdial action at this time. http://herts-essex-news.co.uk/news/mercury...afer%20road.lpf FFS if its wet slow down, read the road assess the bend. Or are these 1500 going to drive past a school at kicking out time at 30mph on at cold wet dark Decenber afternoon because it's the speed limit! Take some responsiblity for your actions. I've added a post to their forum deriding their petition. Is the common person realy that much of a sheep
Guest ratchethack Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 Is the common person realy that much of a sheep The evidence isn't looking very hopeful lately. . . . .
soloNH Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 This would work for me! http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk19.htm A little pricy to play with I imagine.
stormsedge Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 Hopefully, peace will break out all over. k
Guest golden goose Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 I like it! I want one, but I can't afford it! I'm saving my boxtops for a 425hp 6.1L V8 Dodge Chally due out about a year from now....... This would work for me! http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk19.htm A little pricy to play with I imagine.
Guest golden goose Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 The evidence isn't looking very hopeful lately. . . . . You know Ratchet, I finally realized what this is all about. I used to be all for capital punishment. But in recent years, I have rotated 180 degrees on this. I am now totally opposed to capital punishment. It finally dawned on me that the problem is not the criminal element. They will always be with us. Its the bloody bleeding-hearts! And since its illegal for me to "off" a bleeding heart, but perfectly legal for repeat criminal offenders to do so, then the obvious correct solution to the entire problem is to rely upon statistics coupled with the cessation of capital punishment! You see, if you release convicted criminals, especially convicted murderers, with an eye towards statistics, perhaps the next citizen the criminals will "off" might be a bleeding heart. Which, of course, using their mentality, is the only way to legally reduce their numbers....... And that is why I am now 100% opposed to capital punishment. Generally speaking, it is also the bleeding hearts that are also opposed to gun ownership. This hits them where they live, without even contemplating firing a single round. We will let their hallowed criminal element do this for us. (no longer is the world subject to the Theory of Inverse Reality, this has been replaced by the more competent Theory Of Torroidal Anal Logic [TOTAL for short]). P.S. Can anyone relate to us how many people are wrongfully put to death each year worldwide? P.P.S. I warn you in advance, this is a trick question.
dlaing Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 You know Ratchet, I finally realized what this is all about. I used to be all for capital punishment. But in recent years, I have rotated 180 degrees on this. I am now totally opposed to capital punishment. It finally dawned on me that the problem is not the criminal element. They will always be with us. Its the bloody bleeding-hearts! And since its illegal for me to "off" a bleeding heart, but perfectly legal for repeat criminal offenders to do so, then the obvious correct solution to the entire problem is to rely upon statistics coupled with the cessation of capital punishment! You see, if you release convicted criminals, especially convicted murderers, with an eye towards statistics, perhaps the next citizen the criminals will "off" might be a bleeding heart. Which, of course, using their mentality, is the only way to legally reduce their numbers....... And that is why I am now 100% opposed to capital punishment. Generally speaking, it is also the bleeding hearts that are also opposed to gun ownership. This hits them where they live, without even contemplating firing a single round. We will let their hallowed criminal element do this for us. (no longer is the world subject to the Theory of Inverse Reality, this has been replaced by the more competent Theory Of Torroidal Anal Logic [TOTAL for short]). P.S. Can anyone relate to us how many people are wrongfully put to death each year worldwide? P.P.S. I warn you in advance, this is a trick question. Is this post for real? Or is Golden Goose just sarcastically making fun of Ratchethack and his TOTAL partisan ways? The same toroidal anal logic that defines the denial of human caused global warming is rampant in many of Ratchet's arguments. Break free from the toroid of anal circular logic! I know eventually you guys will get a round tuit.
Admin Jaap Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 Is the common person realy that much of a sheep Martin, this is not the topic to start with New Zealand jokes...
mike wilson Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 P.S. Can anyone relate to us how many people are wrongfully put to death each year worldwide? From convicted murderers, in the UK, who have served their sentence and gone out to repeat the offence: sixty two, the last time I saw any figures, which was in the mid 1980s. Don't know if that's a trick enough answer for you but it's plenty scary for me. Is it better for one murderer to go free than one person be executed wrongly? Better ask the 62. Would I like it if the innocent person was me? I don't think so. Just because one advocates gun control, it doesn't mean that one thinks all life is sacred.
Guest ratchethack Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 . . . You see, if you release convicted criminals, especially convicted murderers, with an eye towards statistics, perhaps the next citizen the criminals will "off" might be a bleeding heart. Which, of course, using their mentality, is the only way to legally reduce their numbers....... And that is why I am now 100% opposed to capital punishment. Generally speaking, it is also the bleeding hearts that are also opposed to gun ownership. This hits them where they live, without even contemplating firing a single round. We will let their hallowed criminal element do this for us. . . . I like it, GG. I find that there's a certain Zen-like quality of balance -- even justice -- in all forms of self-limiting behavior. . . . If life insurance actuaries were not prohibited from conducting their formulations based on identifying and separating bleeding heart, dark and purply, lighter-than-nitrous oxide Remulacian mentalities vs. grounded, rational, earthbound mentalities, I reckon you and I might well be enjoying substantial reductions on our premiums. . . . But o' course, that would be SO politically incorrect, wouldn't it? Increasingly, we have the fine art of political propaganda leading the sheeple to reward the negligent, ignorant, and irresponsible behavior of others by getting them to pay for the ever-increasing cost of the consequences of that negligent, ignorant, and irresponsible behavior in the form of redistribution of wealth via taxes. This is of course, nothing more than organized theft, which should never be tolerated in any society worthy of calling itself "free". But I digress. . . . On a related note, I learned yesterday the origin of the term, "politically incorrect". It arose in Chairman Mao's regime, during a four-year period of time during which 20 million politically incorrect Chinese who, having had the temerity to speak out publicly against the policies of Mao "Bite My Clank" Tse-Tung (Zedong), were routinely collected in the dark of night by breaking down the doors of their homes and yanking them from their beds, and nary as much as a trace of their existence was ever heard or seen again. . . . . Do ya s'pose the bleeding hearts consider that gun control, established 7 years prior to this 4-year period, worked well under Chm. Mao? But o' course (Part II), such historical facts as these aren't widely disseminated in the captive Liberal media. It seems that publishing such facts would be politically incorrect.
Bill Hagan Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 Is it better for one murderer to go free than one person be executed wrongly? For a wonderful discussion of the "better # than #" question, see http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm
dlaing Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 P.S. Can anyone relate to us how many people are wrongfully put to death each year worldwide? P.P.S. I warn you in advance, this is a trick question. What makes that a trick question is that we can never know. We can only relate how many are proven to be wrongfully put to death. But of course your idea of a trick question probably has something to do with abortion.... And if you worded the question Can anyone relate to us how many are wrongfully put to death each year worldwide? We could make another trick question out of it. But of course it all boils down to ones definition of wrong 20 million politically incorrect Chinese who, having had the temerity to speak out publicly against the policies of Mao What makes you think they spoke out?!?! Did they have 20 million soap boxes, 20 million newspapers, or did they all run blogs??? Where do you get these "facts"? The Maoist goverment killed people for far less than speaking out.
dlaing Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 If we can draw a conclusion by looking at the correlation of mass murders following gun control, we could also look at a correlation of arming up followed by war and other bad things. Branch Davidians armed up up and they died. Many Black Panthers armed up, and went to jail or died in gun battles. Iraq was the rising poster child for Islam to resist tyranny through a strong military....look what happened to them. Israel is well armed, has low murder rate, but is hardly safe from violence. Things are much more complicated than gun control. Tyrants will be tyrants regardless of their methodology. We could also look at many examples of gun control without tyranny. Most of post WWII Europe and North America come to mind... Or we could look at how guns were mandated in pre-revolutionary colonial america and how that led to a bloody revolution under the guise of overcoming tyranny. Good heavens the US would have turned out like Canada if we weren't so well armed Or we could look at UN policy and US foreign policy and how they ignored helping all those dis-armed victims. Notice that when the US intervenes that despite the claim of helping the oppressed it always boils down to some other national interest. If stopping tyranny was the goal of the US and UK we would be liberating a whole bunch of countries before attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. Would arming the Iraqi people have stopped Saddams tyranny? Not without very serious arms like rockets, and fighter planes. I know ratchet is preparing to fight tyranny because he has a stealth fighter in his garage.
Recommended Posts