|
Is rfc dying?
blake murphy wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:49:47 -0500, Pete C. wrote: > > > Steve Pope wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > > Perhaps, however the "most people" and the special types with 25% or 28% > > tax in the above quote means it does not disprove anything. > > you're kidding, right? i'd say it handily disproves 'that the capital > gains tax rate is 28%.' in plain english. Then you need remedial education. It says in plain english that "maximum capital gains rate for most", not all, "people is 15%" and that "Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%". |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/22/2011 12:06 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > I don't have a problem with licensing owners but I see no reason to > register hunting rifles and shotguns, and I even more opposed to annual > fees. If you insist on people registering something with the intent of > enhancing public safety that is one thing, but once it is registered it > is registered. There is no justification for an annual fee. It is not > like a motor vehicle where the annual permit fees are earmarked for roads. OK... that is a pretty reasonable argument. I'd go along with that if the penalties were steep for not registering guns sold privately. If you sell a car, the vehicle has to be re-registered to the new owner. I'd be happy with a system like that. George L |
Is rfc dying?
On 22/07/2011 1:36 PM, George Leppla wrote:
> I'd go along with that if the penalties were steep for not registering > guns sold privately. If you sell a car, the vehicle has to be > re-registered to the new owner. I'd be happy with a system like that. Not here it doesn't. It only needs to be registered if it is being used on public roads. In fact, our vehicle registration comes in two part, the vehicle portion and the plate portion. The plate holder is the owner. |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/22/2011 1:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Not here it doesn't. It only needs to be registered if it is being used > on public roads. Well, there is an exception to every rule. If you have enough land to drive without ever leaving your property, I can see where a vehicle registration wouldn't be mandatory. However, the percentage of vehicles that would qualify for that kind of exemption would be very small. But, there is the issue of title transfer. You may not have to register a vehicle to drive it on your own land, but the title has to be transferred to a new owner. And of course, there are probably exceptions to that. George L |
Is rfc dying?
On 22/07/2011 2:46 PM, George Leppla wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 1:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote: >> Not here it doesn't. It only needs to be registered if it is being used >> on public roads. > > > Well, there is an exception to every rule. If you have enough land to > drive without ever leaving your property, I can see where a vehicle > registration wouldn't be mandatory. > You don't have to have enough property to drive it. All you need is a place to store it. As long as it is not being used on roads it does not have to be registered. In fact, in some places you can get a temporary permit to drive it on roads for a period of time. That is not registration. > However, the percentage of vehicles that would qualify for that kind of > exemption would be very small. Actually, it is not all that small. Every vehicle on the road eventually comes off the road, and once they are off the road the registration is no longer required. Unless the new owners (wrecking yard or recycle) registers it in their name, it stays in the old owners name on the registration records. Diligent people go into the local licence bureau and have the plates removed (on paper) from the vehicle. > > But, there is the issue of title transfer. You may not have to register > a vehicle to drive it on your own land, but the title has to be > transferred to a new owner. And of course, there are probably exceptions > to that. A lot of people are under that impression, but that is not how it works here. |
Is rfc dying?
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:35:51 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:06*pm, blake murphy > wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:00:58 -0400, George wrote: >>> On 7/20/2011 8:50 PM, Janet wrote: >>>> In article<be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d- >>>> >, says... >> >>>>> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work >>>>> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The >>>>> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about >>>>> assaulting them. >> >>>> * *My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your >>>> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people. >> >>>> * * Janet >> >>> No, his logic is that if riff-raff are aware that there is a possibility >>> that folks may be armed they will go off and do something else. So if >>> you are unarmed you benefit because of the probability that you could be. >> >> that must be why violent crime is rampant in the u.k. and practically >> unknown in well-armed regions of the u.s. >> > > The rate of homicides committed by fists and feet in the US exceeds > the total rate for most industrialized countries. The US is an > exceptionally violent country. then by all means, let's make it easier for u.s. citizens to indulge their homicidal tendencies by selling a handgun to anyone who wants one. blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:36:53 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> blake murphy wrote: >> >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:00:58 -0400, George wrote: >> >>> On 7/20/2011 8:50 PM, Janet wrote: >>>> In article<be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d- >>>> >, says... >>>> >>>>> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work >>>>> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The >>>>> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about >>>>> assaulting them. >>>> >>>> My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your >>>> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people. >>>> >>>> >>>> Janet >>>> >>>> >>> No, his logic is that if riff-raff are aware that there is a possibility >>> that folks may be armed they will go off and do something else. So if >>> you are unarmed you benefit because of the probability that you could be. >> >> that must be why violent crime is rampant in the u.k. and practically >> unknown in well-armed regions of the u.s. >> >> blake > > Except that violent crime is indeed rampant in the U.K., and in the US, > it is lower in states that respect peoples second amendment rights than > those that do not. bullshit, at least as far as murder is concerned: <http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=441> Country/ Area Homicides per 100,000 pop Australia 1.3 Canada 1.5 England & Wales 1.6 USA 5.9 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data> but then, bullshit is your preferred manner of discourse, isn't it? blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:13:45 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> blake murphy wrote: >> >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:49:47 -0500, Pete C. wrote: >> >>> Steve Pope wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Perhaps, however the "most people" and the special types with 25% or 28% >>> tax in the above quote means it does not disprove anything. >> >> you're kidding, right? i'd say it handily disproves 'that the capital >> gains tax rate is 28%.' in plain english. > > Then you need remedial education. It says in plain english that "maximum > capital gains rate for most", not all, "people is 15%" and that "Special > types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%". can you read english? i can't believe you're this stupid. oh, wait, i can. you want to tell me that 'For 2010, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is 15%' means that 'it appears that the capital gains tax rate is 28%'? jesus ****ing christ. blake |
Is rfc dying?
Pete C. wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote: > >> Lots of cars now use LEDs for their head lights. > > Name one. I've yet to see a single street legal motor vehicle with LED > based headlights. LED based marker lights are common however. This is a good point. Lots of cars now have clusters of LEDs in their lights including in the reflector that houses their headlights. The difference is there is still a different bulb type in there. Let's see how long it takes before the headlight lamps themselves are also LED so cars start coming out that are all LED. I expect it to happen in a few years. Time will tell. |
Is rfc dying?
blake murphy wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote: > >> Before nuclear weapons the trend in warfare was larger and larger until >> wars spanned the entire world. After the first nuclear war in history >> that trend got reset to much smaller wars. >> >> So the nuclear threat did deter wars in the sense that the existing >> trend of ever larger wars stopped. It also changed the face of warfare >> to smaller wars well below the nuclear threshold. >> >> When did Israel admit they have nukes? When was the last war or armies >> in that region? Deterence in action. > > when was the last war in that region? are you ****ing kidding me? "What is 1973?" Ding. Can I have Arab Isreali conflicts for $400 please, Alex. > when was the last time the was peace in that region is more like it. That is equally true. Peace is far more than the absence of war. Which is also part of my point. The threat of nuclear annihilation has turned down the volume knob on wars considerably, but it has done nothing to remove the causes of war. And so there continue to be rumblings on a smaller scale in many places. |
Is rfc dying?
On Jul 22, 12:52*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:35:51 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 wrote: > > On Jul 21, 12:06*pm, blake murphy > wrote: > >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:00:58 -0400, George wrote: > >>> On 7/20/2011 8:50 PM, Janet wrote: > >>>> In article<be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d- > >>>> >, says... > > >>>>> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work > >>>>> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The > >>>>> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about > >>>>> assaulting them. > > >>>> * *My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your > >>>> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people. > > >>>> * * Janet > > >>> No, his logic is that if riff-raff are aware that there is a possibility > >>> that folks may be armed they will go off and do something else. So if > >>> you are unarmed you benefit because of the probability that you could be. > > >> that must be why violent crime is rampant in the u.k. and practically > >> unknown in well-armed regions of the u.s. > > > The rate of homicides committed by fists and feet in the US exceeds > > the total rate for most industrialized countries. The US is an > > exceptionally violent country. > > then by all means, let's make it easier for u.s. citizens to indulge their > homicidal tendencies by selling a handgun to anyone who wants one. > Notwithstanding how violent Americans are, the vast majority of Americans belong to the potential victim class, not the potential killer class. |
Is rfc dying?
On 22/07/2011 5:21 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> blake murphy wrote: >> Doug Freyburger wrote: >> >>> Before nuclear weapons the trend in warfare was larger and larger until >>> wars spanned the entire world. After the first nuclear war in history >>> that trend got reset to much smaller wars. >>> >>> So the nuclear threat did deter wars in the sense that the existing >>> trend of ever larger wars stopped. It also changed the face of warfare >>> to smaller wars well below the nuclear threshold. >>> >>> When did Israel admit they have nukes? When was the last war or armies >>> in that region? Deterence in action. >> >> when was the last war in that region? are you ****ing kidding me? > > "What is 1973?" Ding. Can I have Arab Isreali conflicts for $400 > please, Alex. You don't get to pick another one when your answer is wrong. |
Is rfc dying?
On 22/07/2011 5:43 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > Notwithstanding how violent Americans are, the vast majority of > Americans belong to the potential victim class, not the potential > killer class. > The numbers tend to be close. For every murder victim there is a murdered. |
Is rfc dying?
On Jul 22, 3:18*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 22/07/2011 5:43 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote: > > > > > Notwithstanding how violent Americans are, the vast majority of > > Americans belong to the potential victim class, *not the potential > > killer class. > > The numbers tend to be close. For every murder victim there is a murdered.. Sure, just like for every burglary victim there's a burglar, for every stolen car there's a car thief, for every rape victim there's a rapist, etc. Gun banners do seem to think that handgun ownership will turn even the mildest-mannered into a murderer, but I have more faith in my fellow American. |
Is rfc dying?
On 22/07/2011 6:33 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > Gun banners do seem to think that handgun ownership will turn even the > mildest-mannered into a murderer, but I have more faith in my fellow > American. I don't have a problem with hand gun ownership, but I am opposed to the idea of carrying them around, concealed or open. |
Is rfc dying?
On 2011-07-22, Dave Smith > wrote:
> I don't have a problem with hand gun ownership, but I am opposed to the > idea of carrying them around, concealed or open. They don't do much good when you're in some restaurant ducking killer fire from some psycho lunatic and your gun is home in a drawer or out in the car cuz you can't legally carry it. "Responding to the massacre,[5] in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for obeying the law by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre A shooting was foiled by a women with a CCW permit, who was carrying in church. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7684728 Too many more examples to bother with. Doesn't matter. The anti-gun zealots will not be content until we're all sheered sheep. nb -- vi ...the root of evil |
Is rfc dying?
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe wrote:
> I despise history and the opening words of your paragraph tell me > why. I don't trust it, not the way it's written. I have often > wondered about the so-called "founding fathers". I will be honest, I > have no idea what you and the other person are arguing about, because > as I said, I despise history. I prefer to get my history intuitively, > not through what is written. you are a fool. blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Jul 23, 1:41*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe wrote: > > * * I despise history and the opening words of your paragraph tell me > > why. *I don't trust it, not the way it's written. *I have often > > wondered about the so-called "founding fathers". * I will be honest, I > > have no idea what you and the other person are arguing about, because > > as I said, I despise history. *I prefer to get my history intuitively, > > not through what is written. > > you are a fool. > > blake In less than 500 words, please tell me why. Written history, particularly the military and political kind, is not to be trusted. Some morons, like you for example, need those written words because you have no common sense. I don't need the books. I can look at today and see yesterday. Today is yesterdays baby, and tomorrow is todays. I actually sat down and read the Declaration of Independence a few years ago. It was in the paper and it was kind of short so I thought I'd give it a shot. Started out sounding ok, then devolved into something that sounds like it comes right out of a law firm. A bunch of double talk. I stand by my guns, the constitution is meaningless, and the fact that it is eternally argued by idiots like you only serves to prove that. You, like most who delight in arguing politics, are the fool, not me. Maybe you're not a complete fool, but I can see you're no thinker, that's for sure. TJ |
Is rfc dying?
blake murphy wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:36:53 -0500, Pete C. wrote: > > > blake murphy wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:00:58 -0400, George wrote: > >> > >>> On 7/20/2011 8:50 PM, Janet wrote: > >>>> In article<be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d- > >>>> >, says... > >>>> > >>>>> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work > >>>>> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The > >>>>> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about > >>>>> assaulting them. > >>>> > >>>> My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your > >>>> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Janet > >>>> > >>>> > >>> No, his logic is that if riff-raff are aware that there is a possibility > >>> that folks may be armed they will go off and do something else. So if > >>> you are unarmed you benefit because of the probability that you could be. > >> > >> that must be why violent crime is rampant in the u.k. and practically > >> unknown in well-armed regions of the u.s. > >> > >> blake > > > > Except that violent crime is indeed rampant in the U.K., and in the US, > > it is lower in states that respect peoples second amendment rights than > > those that do not. > > bullshit, at least as far as murder is concerned: > > <http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=441> > > Country/ Area Homicides per 100,000 pop > > Australia 1.3 > > Canada 1.5 > > England & Wales 1.6 > > USA 5.9 > > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data> > > but then, bullshit is your preferred manner of discourse, isn't it? > > blake Nope, the data is flawed. You have to adjust the US statistics to remove the gang related murders which are concentrated in small areas of the US and have little effect on the vast majority of the US population. Once you do that, the actual murder rate that applies to the general population is vastly lower. |
Is rfc dying?
blake murphy wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:13:45 -0500, Pete C. wrote: > > > blake murphy wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:49:47 -0500, Pete C. wrote: > >> > >>> Steve Pope wrote: > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> Perhaps, however the "most people" and the special types with 25% or 28% > >>> tax in the above quote means it does not disprove anything. > >> > >> you're kidding, right? i'd say it handily disproves 'that the capital > >> gains tax rate is 28%.' in plain english. > > > > Then you need remedial education. It says in plain english that "maximum > > capital gains rate for most", not all, "people is 15%" and that "Special > > types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%". > > can you read english? i can't believe you're this stupid. oh, wait, i > can. > > you want to tell me that 'For 2010, the maximum capital > gains rate for most people is 15%' means that 'it appears that the capital > gains tax rate is 28%'? jesus ****ing christ. > > blake The "rich" that this capital gains tax thread is in reference to are not "most people". |
Is rfc dying?
On 24/07/2011 10:29 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> > blake murphy wrote: >> >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:36:53 -0500, Pete C. wrote: >> >>> blake murphy wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:00:58 -0400, George wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/20/2011 8:50 PM, Janet wrote: >>>>>> In article<be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d- >>>>>> >, says... >>>>>> >>>>>>> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work >>>>>>> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The >>>>>>> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about >>>>>>> assaulting them. >>>>>> >>>>>> My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your >>>>>> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Janet >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> No, his logic is that if riff-raff are aware that there is a possibility >>>>> that folks may be armed they will go off and do something else. So if >>>>> you are unarmed you benefit because of the probability that you could be. >>>> >>>> that must be why violent crime is rampant in the u.k. and practically >>>> unknown in well-armed regions of the u.s. >>>> >>>> blake >>> >>> Except that violent crime is indeed rampant in the U.K., and in the US, >>> it is lower in states that respect peoples second amendment rights than >>> those that do not. >> >> bullshit, at least as far as murder is concerned: >> >> <http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=441> >> >> Country/ Area Homicides per 100,000 pop >> >> Australia 1.3 >> >> Canada 1.5 >> >> England& Wales 1.6 >> >> USA 5.9 >> >> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data> >> >> but then, bullshit is your preferred manner of discourse, isn't it? >> >> blake > > Nope, the data is flawed. You have to adjust the US statistics to remove > the gang related murders which are concentrated in small areas of the US > and have little effect on the vast majority of the US population. Poppycock. The vast majority of murders in our larger cities are committed by young gang members. Most of the rest happen in the remote areas when the alcohol gets flowing in the native communities. If we knocked those off the stats the homicide rate difference would be even greater. Once > you do that, the actual murder rate that applies to the general > population is vastly lower. |
Is rfc dying?
On Jul 24, 10:01*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
....(deletia) With 630 posts to this thread alone, I doubt of RFC is dying. John Kuthe... |
Is rfc dying?
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:05:24 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe wrote:
> On Jul 23, 1:41*pm, blake murphy > wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe wrote: >>> * * I despise history and the opening words of your paragraph tell me >>> why. *I don't trust it, not the way it's written. *I have often >>> wondered about the so-called "founding fathers". * I will be honest, I >>> have no idea what you and the other person are arguing about, because >>> as I said, I despise history. *I prefer to get my history intuitively, >>> not through what is written. >> >> you are a fool. >> >> blake > > In less than 500 words, please tell me why. Written history, > particularly the military and political kind, is not to be trusted. you don't trust history, you don't trust science, you prefer what your gut 'intuitively' tells you. that makes you a ****ing idiot. (done with 475-some words to spare.) blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:29:57 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> blake murphy wrote: >> >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:36:53 -0500, Pete C. wrote: >> >>> blake murphy wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:00:58 -0400, George wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/20/2011 8:50 PM, Janet wrote: >>>>>> In article<be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d- >>>>>> >, says... >>>>>> >>>>>>> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work >>>>>>> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The >>>>>>> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about >>>>>>> assaulting them. >>>>>> >>>>>> My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your >>>>>> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Janet >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> No, his logic is that if riff-raff are aware that there is a possibility >>>>> that folks may be armed they will go off and do something else. So if >>>>> you are unarmed you benefit because of the probability that you could be. >>>> >>>> that must be why violent crime is rampant in the u.k. and practically >>>> unknown in well-armed regions of the u.s. >>>> >>>> blake >>> >>> Except that violent crime is indeed rampant in the U.K., and in the US, >>> it is lower in states that respect peoples second amendment rights than >>> those that do not. >> >> bullshit, at least as far as murder is concerned: >> >> <http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=441> >> >> Country/ Area Homicides per 100,000 pop >> >> Australia 1.3 >> >> Canada 1.5 >> >> England & Wales 1.6 >> >> USA 5.9 >> >> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data> >> >> but then, bullshit is your preferred manner of discourse, isn't it? >> >> blake > > Nope, the data is flawed. You have to adjust the US statistics to remove > the gang related murders which are concentrated in small areas of the US > and have little effect on the vast majority of the US population. Once > you do that, the actual murder rate that applies to the general > population is vastly lower. bullshit. when you make those adjustments, 5.9 is going to be lower than 1.3-1.6? cite, please, or shut the **** up. blake |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/24/2011 12:11 PM, Janet wrote:
> In >, > says... >> >> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:29:57 -0500, Pete C. wrote: >>> Nope, the data is flawed. You have to adjust the US statistics to remove >>> the gang related murders which are concentrated in small areas of the US >>> and have little effect on the vast majority of the US population. Once >>> you do that, the actual murder rate that applies to the general >>> population is vastly lower. >> >> bullshit. when you make those adjustments, 5.9 is going to be lower than >> 1.3-1.6? cite, please, or shut the **** up. > > Surely you would also deduct all gang related murders in the other > countries too? > Janet I have to admit that taking a set of statistics and removing anything that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion so you can claim the results support your position is a novel way of discussing things. I think Pete C would be a good politician. George L |
Is rfc dying?
On 24/07/2011 2:07 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> John Kuthe wrote: >> Dave Smith wrote: >> >> With 630 posts to this thread alone, I doubt of RFC is dying. > > Quantity has no bearing on quality.... the quality of RFC is > definitely dying.... this thread alone brings RFC to the throes of > demise. I generally consider it bad taste to disclose the contents of my kill file, but this Kuthe idiot is an exception. He was put into it months ago for keeping score on an OT thread, basically doubling the count by posting a response to each new post with a running tally. You and I just added four more to this one, the two that we posted and the two that the twit will reply with to ours. |
Is rfc dying?
On Jul 24, 12:42*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> > * * * In less than 500 words, please tell me why. *Written history, > > particularly the military and political kind, is not to be trusted. > > you don't trust history, you don't trust science, you prefer what your gut > 'intuitively' tells you. *that makes you a ****ing idiot. Hey **** you man. First of all, I made it clear when I said I despised history that I was referring to political or military history. Everything that happens is history. For example, the history of man-made light, from fire to the electric bulb and beyond. Sure, the report could be tainted with bias for some obscure reason, but the chances of meddling with the truth in such a historical report is less likely than it would be in anything political or military. I also never said I don't trust science, and I challenge you to show me where I did. Yes, it's true, I think the reliance of science can sometimes be taken to the same extreme as those who rely exclusively on religion - but I respect achievements made through science. But yes, you are right, I trust my intuition on most issues more than the written word. That's because I'm an intuitive scientist. How can I possibly not trust science, as you say, when in fact I am not only an intuitive scientist, but one of the greatest who ever lived. Buzz off, TJ |
Is rfc dying?
On Jul 24, 4:37*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> *He was put into it months > ago for keeping score on an OT thread, basically doubling the count by > posting a response to each new post with a running tally. *You and I > just added four more to this one, the two that we posted and the two > that the twit will reply with to ours. Good point. I won't get into name-calling though, as every newsgroup I've seen seems at some point to undergo this same argument, so it's not just one person here or there. It's sort of like someone closing the door behind himself and declaring the room full to capacity. I don't claim to be a newsgroup expert, not even close - but it seems to me a bit of diversity is required to keep a place alive. If a group exists only for the express purpose of a few, it will not be a group for long. Everyone draws their own line on issues such as this. To me a troll is a pesty instigator who forces him or her self into as many threads as possible just to irritate people. God, there's tons of threads on this group. If one or two of them drift off topic and a large enough group chooses to drift with them, then what is wrong with that? Those threads can be ignored by those not content with the direction it's taken. This may not sit well with long-term regulars on this group, but as to the question, "Is RFC dying?", a good answer might be, "If it is, so what? - everything dies." Soon, I hope TJ |
Is rfc dying?
George Leppla wrote: > > On 7/24/2011 12:11 PM, Janet wrote: > > In >, > > says... > >> > >> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:29:57 -0500, Pete C. wrote: > > >>> Nope, the data is flawed. You have to adjust the US statistics to remove > >>> the gang related murders which are concentrated in small areas of the US > >>> and have little effect on the vast majority of the US population. Once > >>> you do that, the actual murder rate that applies to the general > >>> population is vastly lower. > >> > >> bullshit. when you make those adjustments, 5.9 is going to be lower than > >> 1.3-1.6? cite, please, or shut the **** up. > > > > Surely you would also deduct all gang related murders in the other > > countries too? > > Janet > > I have to admit that taking a set of statistics and removing anything > that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion so you can claim the > results support your position is a novel way of discussing things. > > I think Pete C would be a good politician. > > George L You left wing kooks do by far the most distorting of statistics, such as absurdly trying to include 18-20 year old gang members in with children in order to claim that there are huge number of child gun deaths when the reality is there are exceedingly few. |
Is rfc dying?
On 24/07/2011 9:36 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> >> I have to admit that taking a set of statistics and removing anything >> that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion so you can claim the >> results support your position is a novel way of discussing things. >> >> I think Pete C would be a good politician. >> >> George L > > You left wing kooks do by far the most distorting of statistics, such as > absurdly trying to include 18-20 year old gang members in with children > in order to claim that there are huge number of child gun deaths when > the reality is there are exceedingly few. No, they have it right. You can't try to remove some demographics from your appalling firearm homicide rate and then try to suggest that once you knock off a large chunk of the incidents your rate is no worse than others. According to the CDC, there were 12,632 firearms homicides in the US, a rate of 4.2 per 100,000. Canada's rate is 0.3 per 100,000. The US firearm homicide rates is 8.1 times higher than Canada. The handgun homicide rate is 15/3 times higher than Canada's. Even the rate of no firearm homicide is almost double Canada's. |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/24/2011 8:36 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>> > I have to admit that taking a set of statistics and removing anything >> > that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion so you can claim the >> > results support your position is a novel way of discussing things. >> > >> > I think Pete C would be a good politician. >> > >> > George L > You left wing kooks do by far the most distorting of statistics, such as > absurdly trying to include 18-20 year old gang members in with children > in order to claim that there are huge number of child gun deaths when > the reality is there are exceedingly few. And if you count only children ages 0 to 4... the death rate falls to almost zero. In your world, that statistic proves that guns pose no danger to young people at all! And besides, who really cares if kids between 18 and 20 are killing themselves and each others. They are punks... we don't have to worry about them, do we! For argument sake, we'll just pretend they don't exist. Sheesh. George L |
Is rfc dying?
On 25/07/2011 8:21 AM, George Leppla wrote:
kooks do by far the most distorting of statistics, such as >> absurdly trying to include 18-20 year old gang members in with children >> in order to claim that there are huge number of child gun deaths when >> the reality is there are exceedingly few. > > > And if you count only children ages 0 to 4... the death rate falls to > almost zero. In your world, that statistic proves that guns pose no > danger to young people at all! > > And besides, who really cares if kids between 18 and 20 are killing > themselves and each others. They are punks... we don't have to worry > about them, do we! For argument sake, we'll just pretend they don't exist. Peter might be sadly mistaken at the results if we were to follow his suggestion and snip out similar demographics. Almost all the murders in the bigger cities are committed by ethnic drug gangs. Most of the rest occur in the native communities in the north. If, we were to snip them out of the stats our murder rate would be almost zero. I dare say that the the difference in homicide rates might end up even greater than in is when you consider that actual rates. |
Is rfc dying?
Dave Smith wrote: > > On 24/07/2011 9:36 PM, Pete C. wrote: > > > > >> > >> I have to admit that taking a set of statistics and removing anything > >> that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion so you can claim the > >> results support your position is a novel way of discussing things. > >> > >> I think Pete C would be a good politician. > >> > >> George L > > > > You left wing kooks do by far the most distorting of statistics, such as > > absurdly trying to include 18-20 year old gang members in with children > > in order to claim that there are huge number of child gun deaths when > > the reality is there are exceedingly few. > > No, they have it right. You can't try to remove some demographics from > your appalling firearm homicide rate and then try to suggest that once > you knock off a large chunk of the incidents your rate is no worse than > others. According to the CDC, there were 12,632 firearms homicides in > the US, a rate of 4.2 per 100,000. Canada's rate is 0.3 per 100,000. The > US firearm homicide rates is 8.1 times higher than Canada. The handgun > homicide rate is 15/3 times higher than Canada's. Even the rate of no > firearm homicide is almost double Canada's. 18-20 year olds are *not* children, to try to count them as such is blatantly fraudulent. |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/24/2011 8:36 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>> > I have to admit that taking a set of statistics and removing anything >> > that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion so you can claim the >> > results support your position is a novel way of discussing things. >> > >> > I think Pete C would be a good politician. >> > >> > George L > You left wing kooks do by far the most distorting of statistics, such as > absurdly trying to include 18-20 year old gang members in with children > in order to claim that there are huge number of child gun deaths when > the reality is there are exceedingly few. Tell that to 4 families in Indiana: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0....html?ir=Crime Four kids, ages 2, 4, 4 and 6 dead in the past 4 weeks. Tell their parents how they can take comfort in your altered statistics. http://www.cjcj.org/post/public/poli...ids/shoot/back "The FBI reports that of the victims for whom the age of the offender could be determined, more than 6,000 U.S. children and youths under age 18 were murdered by adults over the last decade (more than the total murder victims of all ages killed by everyone in the United Kingdom in the same period). In contrast, just 1,200 victims under age 18 were murdered by other children or youths. Thus, six out of seven murders of children and youths are not cases of “children killing children” that we hear so much about, but of adults killing children—a large majority by guns." All of these kids dead... under the age of 18. So much for your gang-banger BS. George L |
Is rfc dying?
Pete C. wrote:
> > Nope, the data is flawed. You have to adjust the US statistics to remove > the gang related murders which are concentrated in small areas of the US > and have little effect on the vast majority of the US population. Once > you do that, the actual murder rate that applies to the general > population is vastly lower. The numbers are pretty meaningless. Let's try including wars. I don't care if you include or exclude Amercian deaths in European wars or European deaths in American wars, WWI alone overwhlems all crime data for centuries. Wars are gun related. Gun bans have no effect on wars. Let's try including ethnic cleansing. It's not about guns. It's about levels of violence in societies. In the US there is a level of violence in civilian society that is greater than the level in Europe. Guns or not the violence is there. In Europe there is a level of violence in ethnic/military society that is greater than the level in the US. Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia on a level the US stopped a bit over a century ago when we finally stopped killing our own aboriginies. World wars that ended up killing more Americans in Europe than all crime on both continents in several centuries and vastly more European deaths than American deaths. Decide on an outcome that you want. Pick a set of numbers that support it. No problem doing that. But the game done that way lacks meaning. Because it's not about the guns. It's about the underlying violence in society and that isn't something Europeans should be complaining about relative to Americans. Europeans live in far too violent a glass house to be throwing stones about societal violence. |
Is rfc dying?
On Jul 25, 12:15*pm, George Leppla > wrote:
> Tell that to 4 families in Indiana: > Four kids, ages 2, 4, 4 and 6 dead in the past 4 weeks. Tell their > parents how they can take comfort in your altered statistics. > "The FBI reports that of the victims for whom the age of the offender > could be determined, more than 6,000 U.S. children and youths under age > 18 were murdered by adults over the last decade (more than the total > murder victims of all ages killed by everyone in the United Kingdom in > the same period). While these truths may be tragic, let's be honest: if we were to bring back every human who has ever been murdered through time, the world would be more over-crowded than it already is. TJ |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:45:38 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> blake murphy wrote: >> >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:13:45 -0500, Pete C. wrote: >> >>> blake murphy wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:49:47 -0500, Pete C. wrote: >>>> >>>>> Steve Pope wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps, however the "most people" and the special types with 25% or 28% >>>>> tax in the above quote means it does not disprove anything. >>>> >>>> you're kidding, right? i'd say it handily disproves 'that the capital >>>> gains tax rate is 28%.' in plain english. >>> >>> Then you need remedial education. It says in plain english that "maximum >>> capital gains rate for most", not all, "people is 15%" and that "Special >>> types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%". >> >> can you read english? i can't believe you're this stupid. oh, wait, i >> can. >> >> you want to tell me that 'For 2010, the maximum capital >> gains rate for most people is 15%' means that 'it appears that the capital >> gains tax rate is 28%'? jesus ****ing christ. >> >> blake > > The "rich" that this capital gains tax thread is in reference to are not > "most people". suppose you give us a cite, then, showing that 'the rich' pay more than fifteen percent on capital gains. (and how many non-rich have appreciable capital gains in the first place.) this is just more bullshit on your part. blake |
Is rfc dying?
On 7/25/2011 12:39 PM, Tommy Joe wrote:
>> "The FBI reports that of the victims for whom the age of the offender >> > could be determined, more than 6,000 U.S. children and youths under age >> > 18 were murdered by adults over the last decade (more than the total >> > murder victims of all ages killed by everyone in the United Kingdom in >> > the same period). > > While these truths may be tragic, let's be honest: if we were to > bring back every human who has ever been murdered through time, the > world would be more over-crowded than it already is. Thank you, Mr. Malthus. George L |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:07:38 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> John Kuthe wrote: >>Dave Smith wrote: >> >>With 630 posts to this thread alone, I doubt of RFC is dying. > > Quantity has no bearing on quality.... the quality of RFC is > definitely dying.... this thread alone brings RFC to the throes of > demise. i suggest you stop reading and posting before it's to late... blake |
Is rfc dying?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:46:28 -0500, George Leppla wrote:
> On 7/24/2011 12:11 PM, Janet wrote: >> In >, >> says... >>> >>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:29:57 -0500, Pete C. wrote: > >>>> Nope, the data is flawed. You have to adjust the US statistics to remove >>>> the gang related murders which are concentrated in small areas of the US >>>> and have little effect on the vast majority of the US population. Once >>>> you do that, the actual murder rate that applies to the general >>>> population is vastly lower. >>> >>> bullshit. when you make those adjustments, 5.9 is going to be lower than >>> 1.3-1.6? cite, please, or shut the **** up. >> >> Surely you would also deduct all gang related murders in the other >> countries too? >> Janet > > I have to admit that taking a set of statistics and removing anything > that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion so you can claim the > results support your position is a novel way of discussing things. > > I think Pete C would be a good politician. > > George L given how debased u.s. politics is maybe so. lying through your teeth never seems to have any consequences as long as you're a right-winger. your pal, blake |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter