|
Is rfc dying?
Nad R wrote: > > "Pete C." > wrote: > > Nad R wrote: > > >> If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second > >> amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen? > > > > If a two thirds majority of people were to vote to require you to go to > > church would you still be a law abiding citizen? > > As an atheist, yes I would go to church if the laws required it. I would > not want to go to jail. I'm not as submissive as you it seems. > > And you still did not answer the question! No, I didn't. I can't make predictions for such a situation, there are too many variables. > > >> Crime is getting so high in this country > > > > Crime increases in areas with "gun control" and decreases in areas that > > support gun rights. Look it up on the FBI's site yourself. > > > >> , it would not surprise me to such > >> limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in > >> those gun law restrictions. > > > > You will be contributing to the increase in crime. Do some research on > > the FBIs site and learn the truth. > > Like this one that states the higher the gun ownership in a country the > higher the murder rate. > > http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm Nope, propaganda sites do not contain valid data and this has been proven over and over. Try the FBI site and it's statistics, you might find them surprising. |
Is rfc dying?
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:55:05 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
> wrote: > I love those CFLs, they save me money and in two years and out of twenty > bulbs only one bulb burned out and replaced it with no problems. I put one in my laundry room recently. Have you noticed that it starts off bright, and dims shortly afterward? I haven't timed it... but maybe it's a minute. -- Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground. |
Is rfc dying?
"Pete C." > wrote:
> Nad R wrote: >> >> "Pete C." > wrote: >>> Nad R wrote: >> >>>> If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second >>>> amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen? >>> >>> If a two thirds majority of people were to vote to require you to go to >>> church would you still be a law abiding citizen? >> >> As an atheist, yes I would go to church if the laws required it. I would >> not want to go to jail. > > I'm not as submissive as you it seems. > >> >> And you still did not answer the question! > > No, I didn't. I can't make predictions for such a situation, there are > too many variables. > >> >>>> Crime is getting so high in this country >>> >>> Crime increases in areas with "gun control" and decreases in areas that >>> support gun rights. Look it up on the FBI's site yourself. >>> >>>> , it would not surprise me to such >>>> limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in >>>> those gun law restrictions. >>> >>> You will be contributing to the increase in crime. Do some research on >>> the FBIs site and learn the truth. >> >> Like this one that states the higher the gun ownership in a country the >> higher the murder rate. >> >> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm > > Nope, propaganda sites do not contain valid data and this has been > proven over and over. Try the FBI site and it's statistics, you might > find them surprising. Do they have world statistics on gun use or just with the gun nuts in the states? I see you dismiss any information that does not conform to your religious beliefs. Like so many gun nuts out there that cannot be reasoned with or find a middle ground... Religious Extremist are everywhere these days. -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
Is rfc dying?
sf > wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:55:05 +0000 (UTC), Nad R > > wrote: > >> I love those CFLs, they save me money and in two years and out of twenty >> bulbs only one bulb burned out and replaced it with no problems. > > I put one in my laundry room recently. Have you noticed that it > starts off bright, and dims shortly afterward? I haven't timed it... > but maybe it's a minute. Must be buying something different. My lights start off dim and around one minute full brightness and has not changed. Perhaps your eyes may be adjusting to the brightness like going from bright outside to indoors? When I built my home, I kept the lights on it's own circuit and everything that has a motor gets its own breaker. So when the washing machine kicks on my lights do not flicker or dim. -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/17/2011 9:41 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> From irs.gov, it appears that the capital gains tax rate is 28%, so your > claim of the rich paying 15% is way off. General Electric made $5.1 BILLION dollars and paid no taxes. LOTS of companies pay no taxes: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011...s_avoidin.html http://www.businessinsider.com/16-mo...n-taxes-2011-3 Why is it that the right wing complains about "those people on welfare" but would never think about closing tax loopholes for Big Business or Big Oil.... or farm subsidies? George L |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/17/2011 9:08 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>> Specifically, who is denying YOU your right to own a gun? What specific >> federal law has been enacted that prevents YOU from owning a gun? > > The now expired ugly gun ban was one. The existing ugly gun bans in some > of the noted states also affect me as I have property in some of them. Translation: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to own a gun than I did before. >> So you agree that your right to own a gun has NOT been impeded, is that >> correct? > > No, that is not correct, and I have cited how my rights were both > previously infringed and are currently infringed in some locations. TRANSLATION: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to own a gun than I did before. Somewhere, some local places might be trying to impose laws that might affect someone else, but MY ability to own a gun has NOT been changed. >> So you agree that the rank and file gun owners we acting out of fear, >> not out of any rational, direct knowledge> > > No, they were acting on the stated intentions of his party members, and > those party members were just as surprised as the rest of us when Obama > did not go along with their plans once he was elected. Translation: We were so afraid of what MIGHT happen that we ran around like Chicken Little crying "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" >> It happened because the rank and file gun owners were so SURE that >> "OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS AND AMMO" that they created a huge >> spike in sales, stockpiling guns and ammo so they would be ready to >> "exercise our Second Amendment Rights and "take our country back". >> >> They created a shortage then then blamed it on Obama... and that is a >> fact. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102851807 >> http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-04/u...-ammo?_s=PM:US > > As noted in your links: > > "Ammunition suppliers say the shortage is due to several factors, > including the sheer volume of ammunition heading overseas to fight wars > in Iraq and Afghanistan." Translation: I delibegrately left out the following: "It started the day that Obama got elected," Johnny Dury, who owns Dury's Gun Shop in San Antonio, tells NPR's Michele Norris. "It is when everything just went crazy in the gun business." Dury says people are buying guns as well as ammunition, creating a shortage of both. He says people are buying the guns to protect themselves because they perceive Obama's policies as socialist and rewarding those "people who are not working hard." They are also afraid, he says, of more restrictive gun laws. "Everybody was scared he was going to take the ammo away or he was going to tax it out of sight on the prices," Dury says. "So people started stocking up, buying half a lifetime to a lifetime supply of ammo all at one time." >> Yeah, right. I've heard all about the threaths that we were protected >> from... and so sorry that we can't disclose what those threats were, but >> trust us, we are protecting you. You really believe that? > > Based on some of the information that I have, yes. Translation: "Yes, there were lots of threats but I'm not at liberty to talk about them in public." I moved into my neighborhood 4 years ago and began to protect this sub-division from lion attacks. It worked... not a single lion attack happened on my watch. I went tot he Neighborhood Association and told them about all the lion attacks I prevented, but I didn't give them specifics because I didn't want to scare them or let the other lions out there know how vigilant I am. They thanked me and now I am a big hero. >> Sorry, but Obama care hasn't changed the way you buy medical insurance. >> Please cite exactly how YOU have been affected. > > There have already been changes to my medical insurance for the 2011 > year that resulted from Obummercare. Translation: I can't give you a specific example of how my insurance has been changed. But I'm telling you, it has been... or it will be sometimes... and I bet I'm not going to like it if and when it does happen." >> Oh, I see.... you haven't had any of YOUR constitutional rights taken >> away... you are just afraid that they are GOING to be taken way someday, >> somewhere, somehow. Congratulations for buying into the politics of fear. > > Sorry, that is your false claim. My constitutional rights have indeed > been infringed and I provided the examples. There is no "fear", there is > valid concern based on current and prior infringement. Translation: "While I have not given you one SPECIFIC example of how MY constitutional rights have been infringed on, I know for sure in my heart that they have been... and down the road, someday, somewhere, some way... some one else is going to infringe even more... and by golly, I'm afraid of all this so I"m stockpiling my guns and ammo so when the Socialists take over, me and my friends can rise up and "exercise our Second Amendment Rights". I WAAANT MY COUNTRY BAAAAAAACK!!! > > Yes, I did indeed, and I have no problem whatsoever with non criminals > owning pretty much any type of weapon. I am not paranoid like the > anti-gun kooks. Your whole idea of what is happening in the world is based on paranoia. Not based on anything that actually happens, but based on fear of what MIGHT happen. George L |
Is rfc dying?
George Leppla > wrote:
> On 7/17/2011 9:41 PM, Pete C. wrote: >> From irs.gov, it appears that the capital gains tax rate is 28%, so your >> claim of the rich paying 15% is way off. > > General Electric made $5.1 BILLION dollars and paid no taxes. LOTS of > companies pay no taxes: > > http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011...s_avoidin.html > > http://www.businessinsider.com/16-mo...n-taxes-2011-3 > > Why is it that the right wing complains about "those people on welfare" > but would never think about closing tax loopholes for Big Business or Big > Oil.... or farm subsidies? > > George L The Right Wing extremist do not want to pay any taxes. Corporations pay no taxes and that is ok with right wing extremist. People on welfare use tax payers money. But the Right Wing Extremist are WAR mongers that love to kill, kill, kill in their dreams and want protection from those nations that have nothing but rocks. They love to threaten and go to war against other nations and not pay one dime for it. However the right wing extremist drains the Medicare and Social Security funds that older people need to live on in order to pay for the rich mans corporate oil and farm subsidies. -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/17/2011 9:36 PM, Nad R wrote:
> "Pete > wrote: >> "gloria.p" wrote: >>> >>> On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote: >>> >>> > >>>> When the second amendment >>>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was >>>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was >>>> very much what was being considered. >>>> >>> >>> No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but >>> you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen >>> being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because >>> he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.) >>> >> >> Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the >> second amendment. As for your wild west fantasy, that has never been >> reality. Concealed carry has been law in a great many states, including >> ones you probably don't expect, for literally decades and your fantasy >> of law abiding citizens having gunfights on the street have never >> materialized anywhere. Criminals and gangs have been known to have >> gunfights, but guess what, they can't legally have guns. Armed law >> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against >> criminals many millions of times. > > In a democratic society do believe the majority should rule? > > If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second > amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen? > > Crime is getting so high in this country, it would not surprise me to such > limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in > those gun law restrictions. > Don't hold your breath. I was just over an old friends house the other day. Guy is left leaning and anti gun. We were watching the moon rise on their deck and he said "what kind of gun should I buy for personal defense in the house?" and "can I go shooting with you?" He is a well educated very sensible person who finally realized the usual police involvement in a home invasion is to use that fancy chalk to outline the body(s). It is NOT the usual idea that some folks seem to have that there is an invisible police helicopter over their house that will immediately respond when there is a problem. |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/17/2011 10:50 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On Jul 17, 7:29 pm, Nad > wrote: >> "Pete > wrote: >>> Mark Thorson wrote: >> >>>> Dave Smith wrote: >> >>>>> But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for >>>>> minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned >>>>> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is >>>>> gun rights. >> >>>> And now lightbulbs. Michelle Bachman won't let the >>>> commies take away our lightbulbs. >> >>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008447 >> >>> I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more guns... >> >> I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more butter... >> > > How do I hate thee, CFL -- let me count the ways.. CFLs last no longer > at my house than incandescents do. A three-way CFL, made by GE, burst > into flames in my floor lamp. I broke a twisty bulb moving a > torchiere, turning my living room into a HazMat scene. They > specifically are marked "Not for outdoor use." They were total junk when they first came out and like anything else in high volume production they learned how to make improvements. I can't remember the last time I changed a bad one. And the big thing they overcame was the slow startup. Now you turn them on and they are at full brightness. As far as GE you might ask Obama since his good buddy runs GE (remember that company that doesn't pay taxes?). |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/18/2011 7:38 AM, George wrote:
> They were total junk when they first came out and like anything else in > high volume production they learned how to make improvements. I can't > remember the last time I changed a bad one. And the big thing they > overcame was the slow startup. Now you turn them on and they are at full > brightness. When we moved here 4 years ago, we replaced all the bulbs with CFL's. I think I have had to replace 4 or 5 of them... out of about 30. If we move, I'm taking them with me and will put the old bulbs back. George L |
Is rfc dying?
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:28:16 -0400, George >
wrote: > Don't hold your breath. I was just over an old friends house the other > day. Guy is left leaning and anti gun. We were watching the moon rise on > their deck and he said "what kind of gun should I buy for personal > defense in the house?" and "can I go shooting with you?" He is a well > educated very sensible person who finally realized the usual police > involvement in a home invasion is to use that fancy chalk to outline the > body(s). It is NOT the usual idea that some folks seem to have that > there is an invisible police helicopter over their house that will > immediately respond when there is a problem. You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad it is in your poverty stricken part of the country. -- Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground. |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/18/2011 7:42 AM, George Leppla wrote:
> On 7/17/2011 9:41 PM, Pete C. wrote: >> From irs.gov, it appears that the capital gains tax rate is 28%, so your >> claim of the rich paying 15% is way off. > > General Electric made $5.1 BILLION dollars and paid no taxes. LOTS of > companies pay no taxes: > > http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011...s_avoidin.html > > http://www.businessinsider.com/16-mo...n-taxes-2011-3 > > > Why is it that the right wing complains about "those people on welfare" > but would never think about closing tax loopholes for Big Business or > Big Oil.... or farm subsidies? I am all for it. As far as ge you would need to ask Obama since jeff immelt is his good buddy (Obama even made him head of his "jobs council" even though ge is directly responsible for taking numerous good jobs off shore). > > George L > |
Is rfc dying?
sf > wrote:
> You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an > area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when > there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling > potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to > the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad > it is in your poverty stricken part of the country. Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but not too over sized to be gaudy. But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping. -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
Is rfc dying?
On 18/07/2011 3:29 AM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:55:05 +0000 (UTC), Nad R > > wrote: > >> I love those CFLs, they save me money and in two years and out of twenty >> bulbs only one bulb burned out and replaced it with no problems. > > I put one in my laundry room recently. Have you noticed that it > starts off bright, and dims shortly afterward? I haven't timed it... > but maybe it's a minute. > I find the opposite. They start off low and get brighter, but it only takes a few seconds for them to warm up to full brightness. |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/18/2011 7:59 AM, George wrote:
> I am all for it. As far as ge you would need to ask Obama since jeff > immelt is his good buddy (Obama even made him head of his "jobs council" > even though ge is directly responsible for taking numerous good jobs off > shore). C'mon, George... you know better than that. GE and the other big companies who pay no tax are doing so based on tax cuts and loopholes that were put in place almost 10 years ago. Obama had nothing to do with the current tax code that makes this possible. George L |
Is rfc dying?
Nad R wrote: > > "Pete C." > wrote: > > Nad R wrote: > >> > >> "Pete C." > wrote: > >>> Nad R wrote: > >> > >>>> If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second > >>>> amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen? > >>> > >>> If a two thirds majority of people were to vote to require you to go to > >>> church would you still be a law abiding citizen? > >> > >> As an atheist, yes I would go to church if the laws required it. I would > >> not want to go to jail. > > > > I'm not as submissive as you it seems. > > > >> > >> And you still did not answer the question! > > > > No, I didn't. I can't make predictions for such a situation, there are > > too many variables. > > > >> > >>>> Crime is getting so high in this country > >>> > >>> Crime increases in areas with "gun control" and decreases in areas that > >>> support gun rights. Look it up on the FBI's site yourself. > >>> > >>>> , it would not surprise me to such > >>>> limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in > >>>> those gun law restrictions. > >>> > >>> You will be contributing to the increase in crime. Do some research on > >>> the FBIs site and learn the truth. > >> > >> Like this one that states the higher the gun ownership in a country the > >> higher the murder rate. > >> > >> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm > > > > Nope, propaganda sites do not contain valid data and this has been > > proven over and over. Try the FBI site and it's statistics, you might > > find them surprising. > > Do they have world statistics on gun use or just with the gun nuts in the > states? Do you have statistics from credible sources that take into account the fact that in countries with high crime rates, more people need to own guns to defend themselves? High gun ownership does not cause high crime, high crime causes high gun ownership. > > I see you dismiss any information that does not conform to your religious > beliefs. Like so many gun nuts out there that cannot be reasoned with or > find a middle ground... Religious Extremist are everywhere these days. So the FBI is a right wing religious organization in your wacko view? |
Is rfc dying?
George wrote: > > On 7/17/2011 9:36 PM, Nad R wrote: > > "Pete > wrote: > >> "gloria.p" wrote: > >>> > >>> On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote: > >>> > >>> > > >>>> When the second amendment > >>>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was > >>>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was > >>>> very much what was being considered. > >>>> > >>> > >>> No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but > >>> you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen > >>> being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because > >>> he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.) > >>> > >> > >> Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the > >> second amendment. As for your wild west fantasy, that has never been > >> reality. Concealed carry has been law in a great many states, including > >> ones you probably don't expect, for literally decades and your fantasy > >> of law abiding citizens having gunfights on the street have never > >> materialized anywhere. Criminals and gangs have been known to have > >> gunfights, but guess what, they can't legally have guns. Armed law > >> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against > >> criminals many millions of times. > > > > In a democratic society do believe the majority should rule? > > > > If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second > > amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen? > > > > Crime is getting so high in this country, it would not surprise me to such > > limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in > > those gun law restrictions. > > > Don't hold your breath. I was just over an old friends house the other > day. Guy is left leaning and anti gun. We were watching the moon rise on > their deck and he said "what kind of gun should I buy for personal > defense in the house?" and "can I go shooting with you?" He is a well > educated very sensible person Yes, I know several folks who are quite left leaning and *used* to be anti gun who now own guns. Similarly I helped introduce most of them to guns once they expressed interest. > who finally realized the usual police > involvement in a home invasion is to use that fancy chalk to outline the > body(s). No chalk outlines, never have been either, they would contaminate the crime scene. They just take pictures, measurements, notes, samples, etc. It is correct of course that the police do not protect the population from such crimes, they only investigate the crimes after the fact and try to track down the criminals. The victims are still dead/raped/whatever. > It is NOT the usual idea that some folks seem to have that > there is an invisible police helicopter over their house that will > immediately respond when there is a problem. It's strange how some people will have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in their homes because they realize that the fire department won't be there instantly in the event of an emergency, but are blind to the fact that the police won't be there instantly either. There was a case a couple years back just over the line in the next state that made the local news here, a home invasion by a criminal armed with a dreaded AK47 assault rifle. The criminal was shot and killed by the homeowners, with one homeowner sustaining a minor wound to their arm (treated by EMTs at the scene I believe, no hospital required). |
Is rfc dying?
sf wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:28:16 -0400, George > > wrote: > > > Don't hold your breath. I was just over an old friends house the other > > day. Guy is left leaning and anti gun. We were watching the moon rise on > > their deck and he said "what kind of gun should I buy for personal > > defense in the house?" and "can I go shooting with you?" He is a well > > educated very sensible person who finally realized the usual police > > involvement in a home invasion is to use that fancy chalk to outline the > > body(s). It is NOT the usual idea that some folks seem to have that > > there is an invisible police helicopter over their house that will > > immediately respond when there is a problem. > > You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an > area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when > there are no taxes to pay for them. Exactly where is this utopia of yours where there is a police officer stationed by everyone's front door to respond in seconds when something happens at your house? Even in cities with plenty of police on regular patrols the response time is several minutes, in more rural areas it can be more like 10 minutes. |
Is rfc dying?
Nad R wrote: > > Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain > when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower > they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when > living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but > not too over sized to be gaudy. Absolutely, dirt roads help a lot in discouraging PYVs from infesting an area. They can be a bit dusty though. > But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping. Once I get situated with my little subsistence farm, I'm hoping to leave it perhaps a couple times a year at most. There isn't much I'd need that can't be readily purchased in a six month supply at Costco or wherever, and these days you can readily order damned near anything online and have it delivered in short order. |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/18/2011 8:50 AM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:28:16 -0400, > > wrote: > >> Don't hold your breath. I was just over an old friends house the other >> day. Guy is left leaning and anti gun. We were watching the moon rise on >> their deck and he said "what kind of gun should I buy for personal >> defense in the house?" and "can I go shooting with you?" He is a well >> educated very sensible person who finally realized the usual police >> involvement in a home invasion is to use that fancy chalk to outline the >> body(s). It is NOT the usual idea that some folks seem to have that >> there is an invisible police helicopter over their house that will >> immediately respond when there is a problem. > > You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an > area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when > there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling > potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to > the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad > it is in your poverty stricken part of the country. > Talk about drama... There are no cutbacks involving police protection in his area. My friend very sensibly realized that they have food and water on hand because there is no invisible government helicopter hovering over their house waiting for say a heavy snow storm. So the same goes for personal protection. There is no invisible police helicopter hovering over his house. If an intruder breaks in there is a pretty good chance that the only thing the police will be able to do is to try to figure out what happened. So just like having food and water on hand my friend wants to fill the other protection gap. And he is asking questions and wants to get training. Have a chat with an honest cop sometime and they will tell you that they are in favor of folks doing what my friend decided to do because they can't possibly be everywhere. |
Is rfc dying?
George Leppla wrote: > > On 7/17/2011 9:08 PM, Pete C. wrote: > > >> Specifically, who is denying YOU your right to own a gun? What specific > >> federal law has been enacted that prevents YOU from owning a gun? > > > > The now expired ugly gun ban was one. The existing ugly gun bans in some > > of the noted states also affect me as I have property in some of them. > > Translation: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to > own a gun than I did before. Translation: My second amendment rights are still being infringed. Obama letting the ugly gun ban expire was certainly a step in the correct direction, but the other infringements still exist. > > >> So you agree that your right to own a gun has NOT been impeded, is that > >> correct? > > > > No, that is not correct, and I have cited how my rights were both > > previously infringed and are currently infringed in some locations. > > TRANSLATION: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to > own a gun than I did before. Somewhere, some local places might be > trying to impose laws that might affect someone else, but MY ability to > own a gun has NOT been changed. Translation: My second amendment rights are still being infringed in places that I have a presence. That infringement directly affect me, not just someone else. > > >> So you agree that the rank and file gun owners we acting out of fear, > >> not out of any rational, direct knowledge> > > > > No, they were acting on the stated intentions of his party members, and > > those party members were just as surprised as the rest of us when Obama > > did not go along with their plans once he was elected. > > Translation: We were so afraid of what MIGHT happen that we ran around > like Chicken Little crying "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" Translation: Just like people who "run around like chicken little" preparing for an approaching hurricane only to have it change course at the last minute, they rationally assessed the threat and prepared. > > >> It happened because the rank and file gun owners were so SURE that > >> "OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS AND AMMO" that they created a huge > >> spike in sales, stockpiling guns and ammo so they would be ready to > >> "exercise our Second Amendment Rights and "take our country back". > >> > >> They created a shortage then then blamed it on Obama... and that is a > >> fact. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102851807 > >> http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-04/u...-ammo?_s=PM:US > > > > As noted in your links: > > > > "Ammunition suppliers say the shortage is due to several factors, > > including the sheer volume of ammunition heading overseas to fight wars > > in Iraq and Afghanistan." > > Translation: I delibegrately left out the following: > > "It started the day that Obama got elected," Johnny Dury, who owns > Dury's Gun Shop in San Antonio, tells NPR's Michele Norris. "It is when > everything just went crazy in the gun business." > > Dury says people are buying guns as well as ammunition, creating a > shortage of both. He says people are buying the guns to protect > themselves because they perceive Obama's policies as socialist and > rewarding those "people who are not working hard." They are also afraid, > he says, of more restrictive gun laws. > > "Everybody was scared he was going to take the ammo away or he was going > to tax it out of sight on the prices," Dury says. "So people started > stocking up, buying half a lifetime to a lifetime supply of ammo all at > one time." And this is different from the shortage of plywood, bottled water, etc. when people are preparing for an approaching hurricane exactly how? > > >> Yeah, right. I've heard all about the threaths that we were protected > >> from... and so sorry that we can't disclose what those threats were, but > >> trust us, we are protecting you. You really believe that? > > > > Based on some of the information that I have, yes. > > Translation: "Yes, there were lots of threats but I'm not at liberty to > talk about them in public." Yes, that's pretty much the correct translation. Sorry if you are so blinded that you want to believe there can't be any truth to it. > > I moved into my neighborhood 4 years ago and began to protect this > sub-division from lion attacks. It worked... not a single lion attack > happened on my watch. I went tot he Neighborhood Association and told > them about all the lion attacks I prevented, but I didn't give them > specifics because I didn't want to scare them or let the other lions out > there know how vigilant I am. They thanked me and now I am a big hero. False analogy. The US has experienced multiple attacks from known enemies, this is not some phantom theoretical threat that has never actually materialized. > > >> Sorry, but Obama care hasn't changed the way you buy medical insurance. > >> Please cite exactly how YOU have been affected. > > > > There have already been changes to my medical insurance for the 2011 > > year that resulted from Obummercare. > > Translation: I can't give you a specific example of how my insurance > has been changed. But I'm telling you, it has been... or it will be > sometimes... and I bet I'm not going to like it if and when it does happen." Translation: I noted that my insurance already changed, and I'm not going to dig out and transcribe the exact details from my insurance paperwork. Suffice it to say that I work for a very large company, with insurance through Aetna and the 2011 enrollment paperwork noted specific changes in coverages and co-pays to comply with Obummercare. > > >> Oh, I see.... you haven't had any of YOUR constitutional rights taken > >> away... you are just afraid that they are GOING to be taken way someday, > >> somewhere, somehow. Congratulations for buying into the politics of fear. > > > > Sorry, that is your false claim. My constitutional rights have indeed > > been infringed and I provided the examples. There is no "fear", there is > > valid concern based on current and prior infringement. > > Translation: "While I have not given you one SPECIFIC example of how MY > constitutional rights have been infringed on, I know for sure in my > heart that they have been... and down the road, someday, somewhere, some > way... some one else is going to infringe even more... and by golly, Yes, I did provide several specific examples of both previous (federal ugly gun ban) and ongoing infringement (state ugly gun ban in states where I have a presence). > I'm afraid of all this so I"m stockpiling my guns and ammo so when the > Socialists take over, me and my friends can rise up and "exercise our > Second Amendment Rights". I'm not stockpiling anything. I continue to buy guns and ammo as extra funds are available for my normal recreational, hunting and personal defense use. No mountains of guns or lifetime supplies of ammo. > > > > Yes, I did indeed, and I have no problem whatsoever with non criminals > > owning pretty much any type of weapon. I am not paranoid like the > > anti-gun kooks. > > Your whole idea of what is happening in the world is based on paranoia. > Not based on anything that actually happens, but based on fear of what > MIGHT happen. My whole idea is based on documented facts, and ones that can be validated at credible .gov site, not kooky .org sites. I suppose in your warped view, the two WTC attacks never happened, or the failed bomb in NYC, or the Ft. Hood attack. I suppose in your warped view the federal ugly gun ban never existed, and the various state ugly gun bans, mag bans, etc don't exist. |
Is rfc dying?
George wrote: > > On 7/17/2011 10:50 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote: > > On Jul 17, 7:29 pm, Nad > wrote: > >> "Pete > wrote: > >>> Mark Thorson wrote: > >> > >>>> Dave Smith wrote: > >> > >>>>> But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for > >>>>> minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned > >>>>> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is > >>>>> gun rights. > >> > >>>> And now lightbulbs. Michelle Bachman won't let the > >>>> commies take away our lightbulbs. > >> > >>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008447 > >> > >>> I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more guns... > >> > >> I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more butter... > >> > > > > How do I hate thee, CFL -- let me count the ways.. CFLs last no longer > > at my house than incandescents do. A three-way CFL, made by GE, burst > > into flames in my floor lamp. I broke a twisty bulb moving a > > torchiere, turning my living room into a HazMat scene. They > > specifically are marked "Not for outdoor use." > > They were total junk when they first came out and like anything else in > high volume production they learned how to make improvements. I can't > remember the last time I changed a bad one. And the big thing they > overcame was the slow startup. Now you turn them on and they are at full > brightness. I've been using mostly CFLs for a good 8 years, in that time I have replaced about four CFLs that have died, three of old age after 6+ years each, and one that was inadvertently killed by a half wave dimmer. I really don't know what could be behind the short CFL life some people seem to get, certainly I'm not buying any exotic CFLs. The people with short CFL life may have underlying problems with their electrical service. I've yet to break a CFL, and even if I did it hardly qualifies as a HazMat scene unless you happen to have a toddler crawling around. I've not had any CFLs burst into flames either. My CFLs all start in a tiny fraction of a second, so tiny that you can't detect a delay if the CFL is on a quiet switch like a Decora. My CFLs start at about 90% brightness and are up to 100% within about 10 seconds. The color temperatures are also vastly improved from the very early CFLs. |
Is rfc dying?
George Leppla wrote: > > On 7/18/2011 7:38 AM, George wrote: > > They were total junk when they first came out and like anything else in > > high volume production they learned how to make improvements. I can't > > remember the last time I changed a bad one. And the big thing they > > overcame was the slow startup. Now you turn them on and they are at full > > brightness. > > When we moved here 4 years ago, we replaced all the bulbs with CFL's. I > think I have had to replace 4 or 5 of them... out of about 30. If we > move, I'm taking them with me and will put the old bulbs back. 7 years at the current location, around 18 CFLs and three recent replacements for ones that died of old age. One other replacement that was an inadvertent casualty of a half wave dimmer. |
Is rfc dying?
George Leppla wrote: > > On 7/17/2011 9:41 PM, Pete C. wrote: > > From irs.gov, it appears that the capital gains tax rate is 28%, so your > > claim of the rich paying 15% is way off. > > General Electric made $5.1 BILLION dollars and paid no taxes. LOTS of > companies pay no taxes: > > http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011...s_avoidin.html > > http://www.businessinsider.com/16-mo...n-taxes-2011-3 > > Why is it that the right wing complains about "those people on welfare" > but would never think about closing tax loopholes for Big Business or > Big Oil.... or farm subsidies? We were discussing taxes on the rich, not taxes on corporations. The rich are not paying only 15%, more like 28-35% or more, but the noted "ordinary working stiff" is paying 15%. The claims of corporations paying almost nothing in taxes are also quite distorted, since they are referring to corporate income taxes only, not the millions corporations pay in payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, inventory taxes, property and asset taxes, and many other taxes. |
Is rfc dying?
George Leppla wrote: > > On 7/18/2011 7:59 AM, George wrote: > > I am all for it. As far as ge you would need to ask Obama since jeff > > immelt is his good buddy (Obama even made him head of his "jobs council" > > even though ge is directly responsible for taking numerous good jobs off > > shore). > > C'mon, George... you know better than that. GE and the other big > companies who pay no tax are doing so based on tax cuts and loopholes > that were put in place almost 10 years ago. Obama had nothing to do > with the current tax code that makes this possible. > > George L The claim that these corporation pay no taxes is simply false. Those claims are based only on corporate income taxes, and ignore the millions in other taxes that those corporations pay. |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote: >> >> On 17/07/2011 11:42 AM, Pete C. wrote: >> >>> >>> This is another significant failing of left wingers, trying to claim >>> that somehow the only people who want to protect their constitutional >>> rights are on the other wing. The fact is that there is little if any >>> political bias in the distribution of gun owners, millions of >>> center-left people own guns. I'm very much in the center and I will >>> certainly do everything I can to protect my constitutional rights, >>> whether first, second or any other amendment. The attempts to falsely >>> equate legal gun owners with crime are pathetic and disgusting. >> >> My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their >> constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about >> the constitutional rights of others. > > Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the > constitutional rights of others? example, please? blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:42:18 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> sf wrote: >> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete C." > >> wrote: >> >>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the >>> constitutional rights of others? >> >> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights". > > No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the > inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the > paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp. no, the only nuts are in the paranoid, irrational and unethical camp that thinks the government is going to take away their guns. when has this happened? the NRA has been making fools of you for decades (and making tons of money doing it). blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:01:47 -0500, George Leppla wrote:
> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote: >>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights". >> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the >> inaliable human right of self defense. > > So who is denying you your rights to own a gun? Since Obama came into > office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes. In fact, the > Prez signed a law making it permissible to carry a weapon in many > federal parks. > > I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was > going to "take away our guns".. and then there was the big "no ammo" > scare. Neither happened. > > The single most heinous government act that denies people their > constitutional rights is the Patriot Act... initiated by Bush... and > extended by Obama. > > So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away > since the last election? > > (BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want > them registered) > > George L what are you, some kind of commie? i suppose you support a ban on private ownership of bazookas, too! your pal, blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> George Leppla wrote: >> >> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote: >>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights". >>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the >>> inaliable human right of self defense. >> >> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun? > > Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples > constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. what the **** are you talking about? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Calif ornia> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Illin ois> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_Y ork> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Conne cticut> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_J ersey> i see no bans on guns. once again, you are full of shit. >Ask folks who's rights > were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. if you're talking about the automatic weapons ban, boo ****ing hoo. you can't own a gun enabling you to kill thirty people in thirty seconds. just who are you defending yourself from? blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:53:28 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> Armed law > abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against > criminals many millions of times. bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.' oh, right - you don't provide cites for your bullshit claims. blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:34:50 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> Nad R wrote: >> >> "Pete C." > wrote: >>> Nad R wrote: >> >>>> If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second >>>> amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen? >>> >>> If a two thirds majority of people were to vote to require you to go to >>> church would you still be a law abiding citizen? >> >> As an atheist, yes I would go to church if the laws required it. I would >> not want to go to jail. > > I'm not as submissive as you it seems. my hero! blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:16:11 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> Nad R wrote: >> >> >> Crime is getting so high in this country > > Crime increases in areas with "gun control" and decreases in areas that > support gun rights. Look it up on the FBI's site yourself. if it's so cut and dried, provide the cite. prove us wrong. blake |
Is rfc dying?
sf > wrote:
> wrote: > >> I love those CFLs, they save me money and in two years and out of twenty >> bulbs only one bulb burned out and replaced it with no problems. >I put one in my laundry room recently. Have you noticed that it >starts off bright, and dims shortly afterward? I haven't timed it... >but maybe it's a minute. CFL's generally fluctuate in brightness more than a normal light bulb would. This might have to do with them warming up, or it may have more to do with their being sensitive to slight variations in power-line voltage. It's a little bit of a hassle. My kitchen overhead light has historically been a 150W incandescent. I replaced it with the biggest CFL that would fit in the fixture, which is 105W equivalent. If it's operating at full brightness, it's about bright enough for the purpose, but sometimes it is at less than full brightness. Steve |
Is rfc dying?
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:24 +0000 (UTC), Nad R wrote:
> sf > wrote: > >> You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an >> area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when >> there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling >> potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to >> the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad >> it is in your poverty stricken part of the country. > > Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain > when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower > they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when > living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but > not too over sized to be gaudy. > But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping. 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something? your pal, blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:48:17 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> sf wrote: >> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, "Pete C." > >> wrote: >> >>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples >>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. Ask folks who's rights >>> were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. When the second amendment >>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was >>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was >>> very much what was being considered. >> >> The gun laws in California are the way voters want them, and we're >> working on making them even more restrictive. > > The courts may have something to say about your attempts to infringe on > peoples constitutional rights. Indeed, I recently read that there have > been significant increases in issuing CHLs in parts of CA this year. ooh, sounds like their rights are being trampled, all right. or would you prefer 'must carry' laws? blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:08:08 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> George Leppla wrote: >> >> On 7/17/2011 5:25 PM, Pete C. wrote: >>> >>> George Leppla wrote: >>>> >>>> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote: >>>>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights". >>>>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the >>>>> inaliable human right of self defense. >>>> >>>> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun? >>> >>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples >>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. >> >> Specifically, who is denying YOU your right to own a gun? What specific >> federal law has been enacted that prevents YOU from owning a gun? > > The now expired ugly gun ban was one. The existing ugly gun bans in some > of the noted states also affect me as I have property in some of them. > >> >>> >>>> Since Obama came into >>>> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes. >>> >>> Due only to the fact that Obama isn't out at the left wing like the rest >>> of his party, and due to the fact that gun owners have representation to >>> fend off the constant attacks from the left wing. >> >> So you agree that your right to own a gun has NOT been impeded, is that >> correct? > > No, that is not correct, and I have cited how my rights were both > previously infringed and are currently infringed in some locations. you haven't cited jack shit. blake |
Is rfc dying?
blake murphy > wrote:
>ooh, sounds like their rights are being trampled, all right. or would you >prefer 'must carry' laws? Why stop at "must carry"? The tea party could enact a constitutional amendment providing that every citizen must discharge their firearm in the direction of an Enemy of the State at least once per year. S. |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:13:04 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 17/07/2011 3:42 PM, Pete C. wrote: >> >> sf wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the >>>> constitutional rights of others? >>> >>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights". >> >> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the >> inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the >> paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp. > > But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for > minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned > about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is > gun rights. well, marriage for homosexual queers isn't a right. me owning as many handguns as i possibly can is. see how simple it is? your pal, blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:41:19 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> sf wrote: >> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:38:27 -0500, "Pete C." > >> wrote: >> >>> >>> sf wrote: >>> > >>> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:34:46 -0500, "Pete C." > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > >>> > > There are a lot of loopholes, because the rich are already over taxed. >>> > >>> > You bought into the right wing ideology hook, line and sinker. >>> >>> So what is your reasoned argument that give justification to taxing one >>> person 15% of their income and another 35% of their income, in direct >>> violation of equal protection. >> >> The rich are NOT over taxed, so get it right. Why do the rich pay >> only 15% on their income, which is mainly capital gains, > > From irs.gov, it appears that the capital gains tax rate is 28%, so your > claim of the rich paying 15% is way off. what the **** are you talking about? from the IRS site: 7. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2010, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. <http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106799,00.html> the one time you provide a cite, it disproves your assertion. congratulations. blake |
Is rfc dying?
blake murphy > wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:41:19 -0500, Pete C. wrote: > >> sf wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:38:27 -0500, "Pete C." > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> sf wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:34:46 -0500, "Pete C." > >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > There are a lot of loopholes, because the rich are already over taxed. >>>> > >>>> > You bought into the right wing ideology hook, line and sinker. >>>> >>>> So what is your reasoned argument that give justification to taxing one >>>> person 15% of their income and another 35% of their income, in direct >>>> violation of equal protection. >>> >>> The rich are NOT over taxed, so get it right. Why do the rich pay >>> only 15% on their income, which is mainly capital gains, >> >> From irs.gov, it appears that the capital gains tax rate is 28%, so your >> claim of the rich paying 15% is way off. > >what the **** are you talking about? from the IRS site: > > >7. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than >the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2010, the maximum capital >gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate >may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net >capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. > ><http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106799,00.html> > >the one time you provide a cite, it disproves your assertion. >congratulations. Possibly Pete was looking at the short-term capital gain rate. In casual conversation, "capital gain rate" means the long term rate, the rate that is preferentially lower than other tax rates. Steve |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter