1
   

OBSERVATIONS OF EVOLUTION

 
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 08:06 am
Well, OmsigDavid, what do you propose then?
How can you bring the passion back into the morasses of apathy part of the USA have apparently sunk into?
Judging from your other threads, the answer may lie in lesser gun control, enabling passionate republicans to bring back the fire in the hearts of the apathics by wielding a Glock, perhaps?

I am curious, I have to admit.
Najmelliw
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 08:12 am
farmerman wrote:
IThe point really is. What do those same folks who voted for him in 2000, have to say today?

False.
That is not the point.
When someone is elected President,
he remains in office for 4 years,
appointing Federal judges, ambassadors,
and establishing foreign and domestic policies,
as W continues to do.
There is NO on-going popularity contest,
particularly in his 2nd term, as he is then term limited,
and thus has no incentive to do anything other than run the country as he wants to,
within Article 2 of the Consitution.



Quote:

Gore, as I recall, conceded the election like a true gentleman,

I don 't recall THAT.
Recount after recount after recount,
what with manipulating the " pregnant chads ".

He fought tooth and nail,
even hiring lawyers to disenfranchize the troops overseas
on any POSSIBLE technicality,
as thay were expected to vote Republican ( as thay did ).
He began several suits in Florida and Federal courts.



Quote:

even though in a strict democracy with one person,

America does NOT pretend to be a democracy,
strict nor otherwise; it is a republic.




Quote:

one vote, he would have won and possibly spared us from all our present trevails.

We ' d have had WORSE travails,
under some leftist Demo, and LESS freedom: gone forever.





Quote:

No, lets forget 2000 (and the ensuing dark years of Bush) and plan for some major modifications of government, like

1 returning our international respect

NO THANK U.
That 's too dangerous.
I don 't want the respect of European welfare state
collectivist authoritarians.



Quote:

2stopping the huge "money wounds"
that the present admin is fond of causing

Un certain what u have in mind


Quote:


3Stop the growing inequity between the trends
of the "rich getting richer and the ranks of the poor swelling"

That is NOT a legitimaate function of government.
Nowhere in the Supreme Law of the Land
is government granted authority to do that.
It can do so ONLY by usurpation of the authority of a schoolyard bully.



Quote:


4bring back some honesty in government and
5 remove the plutocrats

Remove the welfare staters.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 08:12 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It is not that we were * IGNORANT. *
It is that we did not share your values when we voted
David.


that may be, but in posting this fabrication, you've shown that you're either gullible or dishonest. which is it?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 08:45 am
najmelliw wrote:
Well, OmsigDavid, what do you propose then?
How can you bring the passion back
into the morasses of apathy part of the USA have apparently sunk into?

I am skeptical that evoking passion
shud necessarily be among our intentions.
However,
accepting that for the moment, arguendo,
we shud recall the glories of l'aissez faire free enterprize,
and extremely limited government,
as envisioned by the Bill of Rights,
which strangles and cripples government 37 different ways.



Quote:

Judging from your other threads,
the answer may lie in lesser gun control,

In my other threads,
I have NEVER advocated " lesser gun control "
any more than I advocated lesser control of religious opinions.

I advocated recognition of the historical fact
that the successful Revolutionaries who Founded government in America
put any control of guns BEYOND THE REACH of government,
because of their knowledge that more revolutions might be necessary,
as well as the needs of the people for personal defense
from the depredations of common criminals, or of animals, or of Indians,
French, Spanish, etc.

In addition,
by assuring an armed populace,
the Founders physically put sovereignty into the hands of the citizens.

US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) said:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered
as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic since it offers a strong moral check
against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers;
and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

His view was adopted by the US Supreme Ct in US v. MILLER
together with that of Judge Thomas Cooley who reiterated that idea, adding ( of the 2nd Amendment ):
"The meaning of the provision...is that the people ...shall have
the right to keep and bear arms
and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose
." [emphasis added]
The Constitution no more allows any government to control guns
than to edit the Bible or control who has one.



Quote:

enabling passionate republicans to bring back the fire in the hearts
of the apathics by wielding a Glock, perhaps?

I doubt the need for much passion,
as a general rule,
favoring accurate dispassionate analysis.

Personally, I don 't favor Glocks or other pistols;
they jam too much. I believe that REVOLVERS are what nature intended;
preferrably .44 special DA/SA loaded with hollowpointed slugs,
with W-I-D-E cavities.
Stopping power is what counts.
U bet your life..




Quote:

I am curious, I have to admit.
Najmelliw

I hope to have ameliorated your curiosity.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 08:47 am
yitwail wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It is not that we were * IGNORANT. *
It is that we did not share your values when we voted
David.


that may be, but in posting this fabrication, you've shown that you're either gullible or dishonest. which is it?


" It " is that I reject
your alternatives ( and your premise ).
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 09:04 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
yitwail wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It is not that we were * IGNORANT. *
It is that we did not share your values when we voted
David.


that may be, but in posting this fabrication, you've shown that you're either gullible or dishonest. which is it?


" It " is that I reject
your alternatives ( and your premise ).


you reject the premise that the *article* you posted is a fabrication? then are you a conspiracy theorist? how else do you reconcile the fact that Professor Olson denies ever writing what he's quoted as having written?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 09:07 am
farmerman wrote:
PS, I feel that I was suckered into this thread by a cheap title that was planned to draw in the evolution bloc.

Then post a thread that says something about evolution that u like.



Quote:

OM sig--do you continue your support of the present administration?


On an eclectic basis; depends on which individual issue.
I reject his opposition to stem cell research and to freedom of abortion,
as well his opposition to arming the pilots.

We won the war against Saddam YEARS ago,
we killed his evil spawn, and have him in our jail.
Enuf is enuf.
We cuda n shuda handled it as the senior Bush
handled Manuel Noriega in Panama.
( U will observe that we r not still loitering around Panama. )

Since Bush was running against Reagan
in the primaries, I never liked the Bushes
( except when thay went to war against Saddam, both times ).

Thay were never conservative.
I am an Originalist conservative Goldwater supporter.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 09:19 am
yitwail wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
yitwail wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It is not that we were * IGNORANT. *
It is that we did not share your values when we voted
David.


that may be, but in posting this fabrication, you've shown that you're either gullible or dishonest. which is it?


" It " is that I reject
your alternatives ( and your premise ).


you reject the premise that the *article* you posted is a fabrication? then are you a conspiracy theorist? how else do you reconcile the fact that Professor Olson denies ever writing what he's quoted as having written?

Did I MISS something ?
Where is this denied ?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 09:46 am
you must have missed reading the snopes.com article debunking this story, which xingu provided a link to.

here's the relevant passage:

Quote:
4. Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University is not the source of any of the statistics or the text attributed to him. Professor Olson was contacted (by me) via e-mail, and he confirmed that he had no authorship or involvement in this matter. And, as Fayette Citizen editor Dave Hamrick wrote back in January 2001:

I really enjoyed one recent message that was circulated extremely widely, at least among conservatives. It gave several interesting "facts" supposedly compiled by statisticians and political scientists about the counties across the nation that voted for George Bush and the ones that voted for Al Gore in the recent election.

Supposedly, the people in the counties for Bush had more education, more income, ad infinitum, than the counties for Gore.

I didn't have time to check them all out, but I was curious about one item in particular... the contention that the murder rate in the Gore counties was about a billion times higher than in the Bush counties.

This was attributed to a Professor Joseph Olson at the Hamline University School of Law. I never heard of such a university, but went online and found it. And Prof. Olson does exist.

"Now I'm getting somewhere," I thought.

But in response to my e-mail, Olson said the "research" was attributed to him erroneously. He said it came from a Sheriff Jay Printz in Montana. I e-mailed Sheriff Printz, and guess what? He didn't do the research either, and didn't remember who had e-mailed it to him.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 12:41 pm
yitwail wrote:
you must have missed reading the snopes.com article debunking this story, which xingu provided a link to.

here's the relevant passage:

Quote:
4. Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University is not the source of any of the statistics or the text attributed to him. Professor Olson was contacted (by me) via e-mail, and he confirmed that he had no authorship or involvement in this matter. And, as Fayette Citizen editor Dave Hamrick wrote back in January 2001:

I really enjoyed one recent message that was circulated extremely widely, at least among conservatives. It gave several interesting "facts" supposedly compiled by statisticians and political scientists about the counties across the nation that voted for George Bush and the ones that voted for Al Gore in the recent election.

Supposedly, the people in the counties for Bush had more education, more income, ad infinitum, than the counties for Gore.

I didn't have time to check them all out, but I was curious about one item in particular... the contention that the murder rate in the Gore counties was about a billion times higher than in the Bush counties.

This was attributed to a Professor Joseph Olson at the Hamline University School of Law. I never heard of such a university, but went online and found it. And Prof. Olson does exist.

"Now I'm getting somewhere," I thought.

But in response to my e-mail, Olson said the "research" was attributed to him erroneously. He said it came from a Sheriff Jay Printz in Montana. I e-mailed Sheriff Printz, and guess what? He didn't do the research either, and didn't remember who had e-mailed it to him.

As I indicated in my original posting
of this thread, I did not do the original research.
It now appears that there is an inconsistency
between the assertions of that research
and denials thereof.

I don 't have sufficient information to know
which is correct. I 'll inquire of the gentleman from whom I received it.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2006 01:53 pm
farmerman wrote:
Stop the growing inequity between the trends
of the "rich getting richer and the ranks of the poor swelling"

OmSigDAVID wrote:
That is NOT a legitimaate function of government.
Nowhere in the Supreme Law of the Land
is government granted authority to do that.
It can do so ONLY by usurpation of the authority of a schoolyard bully.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
we shud recall the glories of l'aissez faire free enterprize


"OmSigDAVID" has forgotten all about the Antitrust Laws that have been so weakly enforced.
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Apr, 2006 09:45 am
Quote:
Supporters of "gun control" believe that if the wolves are eating the sheep,
the teeth shud be pulled from the mouths of the sheep.

"Gun control" is O.S.H.A. for violent criminals,
offering them on-the-job protection from their victims

Damn right. If guns become illegal then by definition only criminals will own them. Why would want a country in which only bad men have guns? I think its because governments dont like their populations being armed - it allows them power to revolt if the government becomes a corrupt prick.

Quote:
Stop the growing inequity between the trends
of the "rich getting richer and the ranks of the poor swelling"

Ah yes, good old capitalism. We could become communist of course, but then the government becomes corrupt and totalitarian instead and its even worse.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/08/2021 at 04:11:40