Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

[Jean H.]

Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Jean H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>Way off base for the US. We get one pregnant Mexican having a baby here
>>>and the whole illegal family stays, so that one 'Citizen' gives a whole
>>>pre-existing family the right to stay here. Mortality due to disease is
>>>down from what it used to be, but then people in non-developed countries
>>>just have more children who then starve and of course, we send them food.
>>
>>Now that is a lame statement.
>>Most underdevloped countries have the potential to be autonomous regarding
>>the food... however the dear poisoned "gift" from developed country, as
>>free or cheap food, prevents any development of a local agriculture. Who
>>can compete against free food????
>>
>>By sending food to these countries, our governments are 1)giving
>>subventions to the farmers
>
>
> what are subventions?

sorry, I meant subsidy

Jean

 

[Jean H.]

DTJ wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:30:31 -0600, "Jean H."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>By sending food to these countries, our governments are 1)giving
>>subventions to the farmers 2)usually making a loan to the poor country
>>3)making sure that the markets of this poor country will remain open for
>>their goods.
>>
>>So don't blame your problem on the back of the poors.
>>Jean
>
>
> You people are frickin insane. First, you ***** if we let them
> starve, then you ***** if we don't.

Your point is correct, though you are not targeting the rights persons.
THere is a huge difference between helping people (what the population
wants) and maintaining the poors in their poor state (what the
governments, world bank ect wants).

For instance, Africa would be much better if the developed countries
were helping to establish a good cold transportation network, irrigation
system etc rather than providing cheap food to them!

Another example, in Mauritania (one of the poorest country in the
world), a while ago (like 20 years), the world bank gave a few billion $
loan to this country in order to built a water treatment plant that
would take the salt out of the water... the plant never worked because
the country could not afford the petrolum required to run it!... but
they had to pay the loan.. do you consider this as an help to
development, or as sodomization of this poor country?

A few years later, an engineer came with an idea to built a solar
powered plant to take the salt out of the sea water... world bank said
"No, it doesn't cost enough". I re-ask my previous question.

Jean

 

[bill]

Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:12:15 -0700, george conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> newsp.tg8lacqipheghf@ibm22761843607...
>>>
>>> What is it about "gradually increasing fertility rates" that you do not
>>> understand?
>>
>> What YOU do not understand is that the future growth of populations is
>> measured by the Total Fertility Rates, or TFRs. These are calculated
>> by the
>> census for nations and they say that 63 nations are no longer reproducing
>> themselves. I suggest you check out the population pyramid projections
>> which the census makes available, both for the USA and most other
>> nations of
>> the world. Stop simply guessing.
>>
>>
>
> No guessing needed. The U.S. has a population growth rate of +0.91%.
> Australia +0.85%, France +0.35%, United Kingdom +0.28%, Italy +0.04%,
> Japan +0.02%. This info is from the wild and crazy guys at the C.I.A. By
> the way, the C.I.A. says there are 272 nations which much mean there are
> 209 nations are reproducing themselves. And then some as the world
> population growth rate is +1.14% with a birth rate of 20.05 births/1,000
> population and a death rate of 8.67 deaths/1,000 population. Whole lot
> of reproducing going on. The counties that have negative growth rates
> are for the most part either tiny or not something anyone would inspire
> to. Like Russia which has a population growth rate of -0.37% but also an
> infant mortality two and half times that of the U.S. and a life
> expectancy ten years less. Is Russia your ideal for the future of the
> world?
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> "...democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot
> survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more
> and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it
> disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there
> are, the less one individual matters."
> Isaac Asimov
Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201 or
something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only
about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries?
Bill Baka

 

[bill]

Jean H. wrote:
>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>> available at all.
>
> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
> Monsanto..
>
>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
>> thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
>> he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
>> maybe Truman.
>> Bill Baka
>
> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?

He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
A. Totally stupid.
B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.

I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?

Bill Baka

 

[bill]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Jean H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>> available at all.
>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>> Monsanto..
>>
>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool thinks
>>> stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November he will be
>>> a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except maybe Truman.
>>> Bill Baka
>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>
> Stem cell research is caught up in theological debates, since the Roman
> Catholic Church is against such research too.
>
>
That is part of the problem I have with the Republicans, since so many
claim to be "Born Again" Christians that I am wondering about the church
trying to run the United States. I don't want the Vatican dictating our
policies, or a dumbo like Bush thinking he's doing God's work.
Can politics get much worse?
Bill Baka

 

[di]

"bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jean H. wrote:
>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>> available at all.
>>
>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>> Monsanto..
>>
>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool thinks
>>> stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November he will be
>>> a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except maybe Truman.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>
> He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he could
> have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4 years of
> screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
> A. Totally stupid.
> B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.
>
> I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
> voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?
>
> Bill Baka

Well Bill, if you were to get out of California you would find thousands of
people who voted for Bush, or maybe rather voted against Kerry, either way.
As far as fixing the election, they didn't have to, Democrats threw the last
2 elections away by running idiots like Kerry & Core..

 

[Jean H.]

> Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201 or
> something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only
> about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries?
> Bill Baka

1) a nation is not a country... think of the First Nations, Quebecers etc.
2) There are many more coutries than that, most of them are not
recognized... the weirdest country being this offshore oil platform
close to britain!

Jean
------------------------
http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/newcountries.htm
New Countries of the World
From Matt Rosenberg,
Your Guide to Geography.

Jan 2 2006
The 30 New Countries Created Since 1990
Since 1990, thirty new countries have been created. The dissolution of
the USSR and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s caused the creation of most
of the newly independent states.
You probably know about many of these changes but a few of these new
countries seemed to slip by almost unnoticed. This comprehensive listing
will update you about the countries which have formed since 1990.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Fifteen new countries became independent with the dissolution of the
USSR in 1991. Three of these countries declared and were granted
independence a few months preceding the fall of the Soviet Union but the
remaining twelve did not become independent until the Soviet Union fell
completely on December 26, 1991.


Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Estonia (September 1991)
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia (September 1991)
Lithuania (September 1991)
Moldova
Russia
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Former Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia dissolved in the early 1990s into five independent countries.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, February 29, 1992
Croatia, June 25, 1991
Macedonia (officially The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
declared independence on September 8, 1991 but wasn't recognized by the
United Nations until 1993 and the United States and Russia in February
of 1994
Serbia and Montenegro, (also known as the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia), April 17, 1992
Slovenia, June 25, 1991
Other New Countries

Nine other countries became independent through a variety of causes.


March 21, 1990 - Namibia became independent of South Africa

May 22, 1990 - North and South Yemen merged to form a unified Yemen

October 3, 1990 - East Germany and West Germany merged to form a unified
Germany after the fall of the Iron Curtain

September 17, 1991 - The Marshall Islands was part of the Trust
Territory of Pacific Islands (administered by the United States) and
gained independence as a former colony

September 17, 1991 - Micronesia, previously known as the Caroline
Islands, became independent from the United States

January 1, 1993 - The Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent
nations when Czechoslovakia dissolved

May 25, 1993 - Eritrea was a part of Ethiopia but seceded and gained
independence

October 1, 1994 - Palau was part of the Trust Territory of Pacific
Islands (administered by the United States) and gained independence as a
former colony

May 20, 2002 - East Timor declared independence from Portugal in 1975
but became independent of Indonesia in 2002

 

[Dave Head]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jean H. wrote:
>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>> available at all.
>>
>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>> Monsanto..
>>
>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
>>> thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
>>> he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
>>> maybe Truman.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>
>He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
>could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
>years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
>A. Totally stupid.
>B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.
>
>I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
>voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?
>
>Bill Baka

Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up
all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your
friends, in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York,
and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the
rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our
guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the
bill of right.

Now, I understand that the Dems have given up on the idea of collecting up all
the guns. Maybe they'll actually get somewhere in the polls this time. But, in
any close election, the NRA will kill you if you are not pro-gun (notice that
doesn't mean simply not anti-gun, but actually _for_ 2nd amendment rights). It
doesn't matter to the NRA whether you're Dem or Rep, you get an endorsement
from them if you support gun right. Then I vote for that person. And several
million other NRA members do the same. And that's how they win the election.

Dave Head

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:

> Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into
> collecting up all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular
> issue with you and your friends,

Which is a crock of ****. You're just telling a lie here.

> in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
> amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California,
> New York, and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the
> 2nd amendment, the rest of the country, those vast seas of red
> states, believe that without our guns, the liberals would do just as
> they please, and negate even more of the bill of right.

LOL. What crack you been smoking, dude? It's the Republicans that are
tossing your rights into the trash, not the Democrats. The Republicans
are outstandingly good liars, though, I'll give them credit for that.
As the old saying goes, all political parties die at last from
swallowing their own lies. It's currently the Republicans' turn.

 

[Lorenzo L. Love]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:07:54 -0700, bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:12:15 -0700, george conklin <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> newsp.tg8lacqipheghf@ibm22761843607...
>>>>
>>>> What is it about "gradually increasing fertility rates" that you do
>>>> not
>>>> understand?
>>>
>>> What YOU do not understand is that the future growth of populations
>>> is
>>> measured by the Total Fertility Rates, or TFRs. These are calculated
>>> by the
>>> census for nations and they say that 63 nations are no longer
>>> reproducing
>>> themselves. I suggest you check out the population pyramid projections
>>> which the census makes available, both for the USA and most other
>>> nations of
>>> the world. Stop simply guessing.
>>>
>>>
>> No guessing needed. The U.S. has a population growth rate of +0.91%.
>> Australia +0.85%, France +0.35%, United Kingdom +0.28%, Italy +0.04%,
>> Japan +0.02%. This info is from the wild and crazy guys at the C.I.A.
>> By the way, the C.I.A. says there are 272 nations which much mean there
>> are 209 nations are reproducing themselves. And then some as the world
>> population growth rate is +1.14% with a birth rate of 20.05
>> births/1,000 population and a death rate of 8.67 deaths/1,000
>> population. Whole lot of reproducing going on. The counties that have
>> negative growth rates are for the most part either tiny or not
>> something anyone would inspire to. Like Russia which has a population
>> growth rate of -0.37% but also an infant mortality two and half times
>> that of the U.S. and a life expectancy ten years less. Is Russia your
>> ideal for the future of the world?
>> Lorenzo L. Love
>> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>> "...democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot
>> survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more
>> and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it
>> disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there
>> are, the less one individual matters."
>> Isaac Asimov
> Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201 or
> something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only
> about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries?
> Bill Baka

Since you missed it, I'll repeat "the C.I.A. says there are 272 nations".
That was as of 5 October, 2006. There may be more by now.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"We are living beyond our means. As a people we have developed a
life-style that is draining the earth of its priceless and irreplaceable
resources without regard for the future of our children and people all
around the world."
Margaret Mead

 

[Dave Head]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:02:59 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into
>> collecting up all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular
>> issue with you and your friends,
>
>Which is a crock of ****. You're just telling a lie here.

Not by a long shot. They were never openly pursuing that, because to say it
even they knew was poison. So, they held that view, and worked toward that
goal, but were damn transparent to the rest of us.

For instance, what is gun registration good for? Not tracking guns. Its good
for knowing where the guns are, and then declaring them to be illegal and
expecting people to turn them in. Happened in California with the assault
weapon ban out there (the people, BTW, mostly didn't turn them in - there's
hundreds of thousands of now-illegal "assault" weapons in California society.)

What else is gun registration good for? If you get 'em all registered, then
you institute a tax on gun ownership, and just keep raising it and raising it
until only the wealthly and elite have the wherewithall to keep guns. That's
what the liberal elite is aiming at.

Nts not a crock, its the truth. The liberal Dems were just smart enough not to
say it. Their supporters said it at times, and the occasional politician said
it - it was one of the California Dems, in fact, that said, "If it were up to
me, if I had the power, I'd say, "Turn 'em all in, Mr. and Mrs America" ".

The liberal Dems _were_ most assuredly working toward an eventual confiscation
of _all_ the American citizens guns. That's a fact.

>> in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
>> amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California,
>> New York, and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the
>> 2nd amendment, the rest of the country, those vast seas of red
>> states, believe that without our guns, the liberals would do just as
>> they please, and negate even more of the bill of right.
>
>LOL. What crack you been smoking, dude? It's the Republicans that are
>tossing your rights into the trash, not the Democrats.

True and not true. Its both. My particular pet amendment is the 2nd. You
pick one and vote on that. I don't care. The SOB's have to be stopped when
they F with the constitution and specifically its bill of rights.

>The Republicans
>are outstandingly good liars, though, I'll give them credit for that.

Not a patch on gun-grabbing liberal democrats, tho.

>As the old saying goes, all political parties die at last from
>swallowing their own lies. It's currently the Republicans' turn.

Republican party is not going to die. For that to happen, there would have to
be a credible replacement around somewhere. There isn't. Going to vote for
libertarians? Didn't think so. Nothing else appears to be standing around as
a viable replacement.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Head wrote:

> The liberal Dems _were_ most assuredly working toward an eventual confiscation
> of _all_ the American citizens guns. That's a fact.

So are the republicans, they just aren't noisy about it. Don't believe
me, research the expansion of the BATF under shrub.

> True and not true. Its both. My particular pet amendment is the 2nd. You
> pick one and vote on that. I don't care. The SOB's have to be stopped when
> they F with the constitution and specifically its bill of rights.

The 2nd is the trump card of the people. Once the 2nd is completely lost
we won't even have the others on face value.

That's what most americans today don't understand about the second
amendment. It isn't there for hunting or sport, it's there for the people
to protect themselves from a government that has run amuck. It is there
as a final word, the final power of the people. The founders know an
armed populace is not controlable. No military, no matter how strong can
win in the long term against an armed population short of turning that
nation into a worthless, smoldering glass parking lot.

A government run amuck is one that would sieze our property, hold us as
'enemy combatants' if we disagree or oppose it's policies, refuse to
do it's constitutional obligation to secure the borders, and a whole host of
other things that have gone down in recent years.

We either get the Ds and Rs out of office before the electronic voting
machines with all their backdoors and cheating capability (
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ ) get in across the board or we will be
left with just the trump card.

 

[bill]

di wrote:
> "bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jean H. wrote:
>>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>>> available at all.
>>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>>> Monsanto..
>>>
>>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool thinks
>>>> stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November he will be
>>>> a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except maybe Truman.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>> He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he could
>> have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4 years of
>> screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
>> A. Totally stupid.
>> B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.
>>
>> I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
>> voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?
>>
>> Bill Baka
>
> Well Bill, if you were to get out of California you would find thousands of
> people who voted for Bush, or maybe rather voted against Kerry, either way.
> As far as fixing the election, they didn't have to, Democrats threw the last
> 2 elections away by running idiots like Kerry & Core..
>
>
BZZZT,
The biggest idiot is in the White House now.
Bill

 

[Michael Warner]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:46:02 GMT, Dave Head wrote:

> True and not true. Its both. My particular pet amendment is the 2nd. You
> pick one and vote on that. I don't care.

The Republicans must just /love/ voters like you. As long as you're allowed
to keep your popgun (no, they're not scared of it - they have much bigger
ones), you don't mind them systematically stripping you of all your other
rights.

Once you're in indefinite detention with no lawyer and no trial, because
your cranky neighbour dobbed you in as a terrorist to someone in Homeland
Security with a quota to fill, your precious 2nd Amendment won't do you
much good at all.

Someone once said that religion is the opiate of the masses. In the US,
it seems to be guns. Thank God I don't live there.


--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

 

[di]

"Michael Warner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:46:02 GMT, Dave Head wrote:
>
>
> Someone once said that religion is the opiate of the masses. In the US,
> it seems to be guns. Thank God I don't live there.

Thank god you don't either, we have enough like you.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Head <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jean H. wrote:
>>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>>> available at all.
>>>
>>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>>> Monsanto..
>>>
>>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
>>>> thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
>>>> he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
>>>> maybe Truman.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>>
>>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>>
>>He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
>>could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
>>years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
>>A. Totally stupid.
>>B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.
>>
>>I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
>>voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?
>>
>>Bill Baka
>
> Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up
> all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your
> friends, in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
> amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York,
> and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the
> rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> bill of right.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, what good is it to live in a country where you can't
shoot the people (or government) with whom you disagree?


> Now, I understand that the Dems have given up on the idea of collecting up all
> the guns. Maybe they'll actually get somewhere in the polls this time. But, in
> any close election, the NRA will kill you if you are not pro-gun
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^

Soylent Green[tm] is People!


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Dave Head]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:16:02 +0930, Michael Warner <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:46:02 GMT, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> True and not true. Its both. My particular pet amendment is the 2nd. You
>> pick one and vote on that. I don't care.
>
>The Republicans must just /love/ voters like you.

Why the Republicans? I vote for the best candidate in terms of their
demonstrated support of the 2nd amendment. Right now, I'm told that Howard
Dean is rated by the NRA as an A+ candidate. Sooo... if it were a contest
between him and GWB right now, I'd vote for Howard Dean, 'cuz GWB just isn't
that good on the 2nd amendment.

DPH

> As long as you're allowed
>to keep your popgun (no, they're not scared of it - they have much bigger
>ones), you don't mind them systematically stripping you of all your other
>rights.
>
>Once you're in indefinite detention with no lawyer and no trial, because
>your cranky neighbour dobbed you in as a terrorist to someone in Homeland
>Security with a quota to fill, your precious 2nd Amendment won't do you
>much good at all.
>
>Someone once said that religion is the opiate of the masses. In the US,
>it seems to be guns. Thank God I don't live there.

 

[bill]

Dave Head wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jean H. wrote:
>>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>>> available at all.
>>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>>> Monsanto..
>>>
>>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
>>>> thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
>>>> he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
>>>> maybe Truman.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>> He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
>> could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
>> years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
>> A. Totally stupid.
>> B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.
>>
>> I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
>> voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?
>>
>> Bill Baka
>
> Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up
> all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your
> friends, in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
> amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York,
> and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the
> rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our
> guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the
> bill of right.
>
> Now, I understand that the Dems have given up on the idea of collecting up all
> the guns. Maybe they'll actually get somewhere in the polls this time. But, in
> any close election, the NRA will kill you if you are not pro-gun (notice that
> doesn't mean simply not anti-gun, but actually _for_ 2nd amendment rights). It
> doesn't matter to the NRA whether you're Dem or Rep, you get an endorsement
> from them if you support gun right. Then I vote for that person. And several
> million other NRA members do the same. And that's how they win the election.
>
> Dave Head

I agree with you on the gun thing since I have a purchased legally and
now illegal semi-automatic and if they think I am just going to walk in
and give them my gun they are nuts. Anybody who demands MY gun is likely
to be looking down the barrel. I'm with you and the NRA on the gun
thing, but just like the stupid abortion arguments, I can't base an
election on only one issue. I'm pro-choice and pro-gun but anti Bush and
most of the current administration. If we had some 'better' Republicans
to choose from I would vote for them. I am voting for Arnold for a
second term as California's governor, both because I like him and
because his Democrat opponent looks kind of sleazy. On the rest it is a
split ticket, basically voting for the younger blood and the least
stupid as I have mentioned before. Voting a straight ticket to me is the
dumbest thing a voter can do, by not checking out each candidate. Like
the Democrats, for instance, sometimes you get a Kennedy, and sometimes
you get a Gore and a Kerry. Sometimes the Republicans get a Nixon.
It's all a game of chance, but I do think there should be an age limit
of about 75 for anybody. We have Senators and Congressmen who can barely
remember where they work, yet they keep getting elected.
And there should definitely be a minimum I.Q. standard for anyone who
wants to be president, about 120 to cull the chaff.
Bill Baka

 

[bill]

Dave Head wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:02:59 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into
>>> collecting up all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular
>>> issue with you and your friends,
>> Which is a crock of ****. You're just telling a lie here.
>
> Not by a long shot. They were never openly pursuing that, because to say it
> even they knew was poison. So, they held that view, and worked toward that
> goal, but were damn transparent to the rest of us.
>
> For instance, what is gun registration good for? Not tracking guns. Its good
> for knowing where the guns are, and then declaring them to be illegal and
> expecting people to turn them in. Happened in California with the assault
> weapon ban out there (the people, BTW, mostly didn't turn them in - there's
> hundreds of thousands of now-illegal "assault" weapons in California society.)

Heh, tell me about it. Mine stays put. I might need it some day.
>
> What else is gun registration good for? If you get 'em all registered, then
> you institute a tax on gun ownership, and just keep raising it and raising it
> until only the wealthly and elite have the wherewithall to keep guns. That's
> what the liberal elite is aiming at.
>
> Nts not a crock, its the truth. The liberal Dems were just smart enough not to
> say it. Their supporters said it at times, and the occasional politician said
> it - it was one of the California Dems, in fact, that said, "If it were up to
> me, if I had the power, I'd say, "Turn 'em all in, Mr. and Mrs America" ".
>
> The liberal Dems _were_ most assuredly working toward an eventual confiscation
> of _all_ the American citizens guns. That's a fact.
>
>>> in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
>>> amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California,
>>> New York, and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the
>>> 2nd amendment, the rest of the country, those vast seas of red
>>> states, believe that without our guns, the liberals would do just as
>>> they please, and negate even more of the bill of right.
>> LOL. What crack you been smoking, dude? It's the Republicans that are
>> tossing your rights into the trash, not the Democrats.
>
> True and not true. Its both. My particular pet amendment is the 2nd. You
> pick one and vote on that. I don't care. The SOB's have to be stopped when
> they F with the constitution and specifically its bill of rights.

Bush would like to mess with the constitution, not on guns, but other
things, so why not ***** about 'junk' amendments? Ever since 9/11 I have
found excessive police presence. When I turned 55 I went to the local
Social Security office just to see if I was eligible for anything, since
I have paid a ton of income tax and SS tax, and I was met at the door by
a retired cop with a metal detector wand. I said "What the F..k is
this?" and he said he was hired after 9/11 to prevent a possible
terrorist occurrence in the office. A Social Security office?
Get real, there are 3 employees and no money and there were 4 gray
haired people all over 70 just sitting there. Bush is getting ridiculous
with the over policing of the country. As people on r.b.misc know, I was
detained just for riding my bicycle on a public road too close to an Air
Force base and looking suspicious. I am a totally white third generation
American and no way do I look the least bit arabic, yet I was held until
a county sheriff could come and load me and my bike for a quick ride
back home. Bush may not be anti-gun but he sure as hell wants to take
our freedoms away. I am more worried about being hassled by the Homeland
Security people than being killed by a terrorist these days.
Bill Baka
>
>> The Republicans
>> are outstandingly good liars, though, I'll give them credit for that.
>
> Not a patch on gun-grabbing liberal democrats, tho.
>
>> As the old saying goes, all political parties die at last from
>> swallowing their own lies. It's currently the Republicans' turn.
>
> Republican party is not going to die. For that to happen, there would have to
> be a credible replacement around somewhere. There isn't. Going to vote for
> libertarians? Didn't think so. Nothing else appears to be standing around as
> a viable replacement.
>

 

[bill]

Jean H. wrote:
>> Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201
>> or something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only
>> about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries?
>> Bill Baka
>
> 1) a nation is not a country... think of the First Nations, Quebecers etc.
> 2) There are many more coutries than that, most of them are not
> recognized... the weirdest country being this offshore oil platform
> close to britain!
>
> Jean
> ------------------------
> http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/newcountries.htm
> New Countries of the World
> From Matt Rosenberg,
> Your Guide to Geography.
>
> Jan 2 2006
> The 30 New Countries Created Since 1990
> Since 1990, thirty new countries have been created. The dissolution of
> the USSR and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s caused the creation of most
> of the newly independent states.
> You probably know about many of these changes but a few of these new
> countries seemed to slip by almost unnoticed. This comprehensive listing
> will update you about the countries which have formed since 1990.
>
> Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
>
> Fifteen new countries became independent with the dissolution of the
> USSR in 1991. Three of these countries declared and were granted
> independence a few months preceding the fall of the Soviet Union but the
> remaining twelve did not become independent until the Soviet Union fell
> completely on December 26, 1991.

I was under the impression, apparently wrong, that those counted as
countries, but under the umbrella of the USSR.
>
>
> Armenia
> Azerbaijan
> Belarus
> Estonia (September 1991)
> Georgia
> Kazakhstan
> Kyrgyzstan
> Latvia (September 1991)
> Lithuania (September 1991)
> Moldova
> Russia
> Tajikistan
> Turkmenistan
> Ukraine
> Uzbekistan
> Former Yugoslavia
> Yugoslavia dissolved in the early 1990s into five independent countries.
>
> Bosnia and Herzegovina, February 29, 1992
> Croatia, June 25, 1991
> Macedonia (officially The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
> declared independence on September 8, 1991 but wasn't recognized by the
> United Nations until 1993 and the United States and Russia in February
> of 1994
> Serbia and Montenegro, (also known as the Federal Republic of
> Yugoslavia), April 17, 1992
> Slovenia, June 25, 1991

These were the ones I knew about due to all the press coverage of them
warring on each other. They got rid of the USSR and went right into
"Ethnic cleansing" mode. Some people are never happy.

> Other New Countries
>
> Nine other countries became independent through a variety of causes.
>
>
> March 21, 1990 - Namibia became independent of South Africa
>
> May 22, 1990 - North and South Yemen merged to form a unified Yemen
>
> October 3, 1990 - East Germany and West Germany merged to form a unified
> Germany after the fall of the Iron Curtain
>
> September 17, 1991 - The Marshall Islands was part of the Trust
> Territory of Pacific Islands (administered by the United States) and
> gained independence as a former colony
>
> September 17, 1991 - Micronesia, previously known as the Caroline
> Islands, became independent from the United States
>
> January 1, 1993 - The Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent
> nations when Czechoslovakia dissolved
>
> May 25, 1993 - Eritrea was a part of Ethiopia but seceded and gained
> independence
>
> October 1, 1994 - Palau was part of the Trust Territory of Pacific
> Islands (administered by the United States) and gained independence as a
> former colony
>
> May 20, 2002 - East Timor declared independence from Portugal in 1975
> but became independent of Indonesia in 2002

Most of these I have heard about but never really added them all up. One
or two of the minor ones per year can slip by without being noticed.
Most are insignificant anyway, and since I am not a politician, not in
my interest to be on top of them all, but it is an interesting trend
that everyone, even a two bit island, wants to be a country.
Bill Baka