Just in case anyone gives a shat....

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

For any Florida based, Libertarian curious folks out there....

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 3 ~ MIAMI, FLORIDA

Hilton Miami Airport and Towers

5101 Blue Lagoon Drive, Miami, FL

Hotel Phone number (for directions only): 305-262-1000

5:30-6:30 ~ Reception with hors d'oeuvres & no-host bar

6:30-8:30 ~ Harry Browne "Libertarians Want You To Be Free"

Free of charge and open to the public

Invite a friend!

Business attire requested

To make reservations or get more info,

mailto:RSVP@HarryBrowne2000.org

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 ~ WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA

Sheraton West Palm Beach

630 Clearwater Park Road, West Palm Beach

Hotel Phone number (for directions only): 561-833-1234

6:30-7:30 ~ Reception with hors d'oeuvres & no-host bar

7:30-9:30 ~ Harry Browne "Libertarians Want You To Be Free" Free of charge and open to the public

Invite a friend!

Business attire requested

To make reservations or get more info, mailto:RSVP@HarryBrowne2000.org

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5 ~ ORLANDO, FLORIDA

Radisson Plaza Hotel

60 S. Ivanhoe Blvd., Orlando

Hotel Phone number (for directions only): 407-425-4455

6:30-7:30 ~ Reception with hors d'oeuvres & no-host bar

7:30-9:30 ~ Harry Browne "Libertarians Want You To Be Free"

Free of charge and open to the public

Invite a friend!

Business attire requested

To make reservations or get more info, mailto:RSVP@HarryBrowne2000.org

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6 ~ TAMPA, FLORIDA

Sheraton Suites Tampa Airport

4400 W. Cypress Street, Tampa

Hotel Phone number(for directions): 813-873-8675

6:30-7:30 ~ Reception with hors d'oeuvres & no-host bar

7:30-9:30 ~ Harry Browne "Libertarians Want You To Be Free"

Free of charge and open to the public

Invite a friend!

Business attire requested

To make reservations or get more info, mailto:RSVP@HarryBrowne2000.org

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7 ~ TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

Radisson Tallahassee

415 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee

Hotel Phone number (for directions): 850-224-6000

6:30-7:30 ~ Reception with hors d'oeuvres & no-host bar

7:30-9:30 ~ Harry Browne "Libertarians Want You To Be Free"

Free of charge and open to the public

Invite a friend!

Business attire requested

To make reservations or get more info, mailto:RSVP@HarryBrowne2000.org

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8 ~ JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

Jacksonville Marriott Hotel

4670 Salisbury Road, Jacksonville

Hotel Phone number (for directions only): 904-296-2222

6:30-7:30 ~ Reception with hors d'oeuvres & no-host bar

7:30-9:30 ~ Harry Browne "Libertarians Want You To Be Free"

Free of charge and open to the public

Invite a friend!

Business attire requested

To make reservations or get more info, mailto:RSVP@HarryBrowne2000.org

I will see you in West Palm Beach if you are interested, look for the tinfoil hat and the "Former Doomer" lapel pin.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 25, 2000

Answers

I'd love to see Browne as president, unfortunately at this point in time it is a wasted vote. You're going to have to vote for Gore in order to get campaign finance reform passed first, then in 2004 candidates like Browne or Nader might have a fighting chance. Otherwise, it's just going to be more of the same old 2 party bullshit.

-- (paradigm.shift@required.first), August 25, 2000.

Unk,

Sorry to step on your thread, but I heard you're off for two weeks. :) Have one heck of a time, and ENJOY!

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), August 25, 2000.


paradigm.shift,

I, too, would like to see a Libertarian as president. I also agree that at this point in time it appears that it is unlikely that it will happen. I disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion that voting for Gore will lead to the eventual desired outcome. Trusting Gore (or Bush, for that matter) to reform campaign finance is like trusting the fox to watch your chickens. With that said, I will vote for the major party candidate that lines up most closely with my Libertarian viewpoint.

It isn't the one who wants to put yet more laws on the books to make it harder for me to own firearms.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 26, 2000.

To be consistent, I'd think that the first job of a Libertarian President and Congress would be to undertake, as humanely as possible, the dismantling of the Federal leviathon. Is that their platform? What WOULD they do if, by some fluke, they were actually elected?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 26, 2000.

"Trusting Gore (or Bush, for that matter) to reform campaign finance is like trusting the fox to watch your chickens."

Gore has said repeatedly that campaign finance reform will be the first thing he signs into action. You have no other realistic choice but to trust him, because Bush has no intention of ever allowing Libertarian candidates to compete against his big money Republican comrades. If Bush is elected it will just be the same old story, over, and over, and over again... no third party stands a chance, and we may never get another candidate who is willing to reform this problem for decades to come.

As for the gun paranoia thing, I've heard enough of that stupidity. You radical extremists keep saying that everyone is trying to take your stupid guns away. Bullshit. You have a license to drive a car don't you? Both are killing machines, and SHOULD be licensed.

-- (paradigm@shift.required), August 26, 2000.



paradigm@shift,

As my post above shows, I was trying to be civil. Oh well.

You are a shallow-minded idiot if you truly believe that Al Gore will reform anything. I suppose you believed Bill Clinton when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky".

As for my "gun paranoia thing", I don't give a hoot what you think about my Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. You are apparently not astute enough to see that the Democrats want all guns banned. If I have to ask for permission to own a gun, it's not a RIGHT, it's a privilege.

By the way, didn't you say that you were a Libertarian? Libertarians are supposed to believe in LIBERTY.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 26, 2000.

"You are a shallow-minded idiot if you truly believe that Al Gore will reform anything."

At least he said he will try. That's more than I can say for Mr. NWO Bush. Bush is a dictator, the farthest thing from a Libertarian, and he will never allow other parties to have any influence in his political schemes. But you'll vote for him just because he won't make you license your gun. Guess you must have something to hide.

"I suppose you believed Bill Clinton when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"."

Yes, I TOTALLY believed him. You'd better ask your mommy to tell you about the birds and the bees, a blow job is NOT sexual intercourse. I've yet to see a girl get pregnant from swallowing sperm. Lol!

"As for my "gun paranoia thing", I don't give a hoot what you think about my Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms."

And I don't give a rat's ass what YOU think! I am currently voting Democrat, and I have no desire to ban guns. I just want to know who is using whose gun and where they got it, when your kid kills his classmates. If you don't have a license for your gun, I would LOVE to see the police take it from you, and throw your anti-social ass in jail.

It's called RESPONSIBILITY, and it comes with having RIGHTS. No one can have any LIBERTY as long as irresponsible criminals like you continue to practice your antisocial RIGHTS on innocent civilians without any fear of punishment.

-- (rednecks.are@so.fricking.ignorant), August 26, 2000.


If a blow job is not sex, then why don't entire families indulge in the pastime? Make it a freakin' picnic. Give me a break.

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), August 26, 2000.

"If a blow job is not sex, then why don't entire families indulge in the pastime?"

Haven't been out much lately, eh Oxy?? Have you seen the kids these days?

-- (incest.no@indulge.yes), August 26, 2000.


I find it interesting that supposedly bright, intelligent people can say "I would like to see a Libertarian President, but I won't vote for the Libertarian candidate." Just who in the hell is going to elect one if the folks who WANT one don't vote for him? And what makes you think that the two partys will EVER truly shrink the federal bloat if folks who want to see it shrunk in size keep voting for one of the Republicratic poster boys?

Honest to God, it reminds me of a farmer who says "Lord, if you give me a good crop this year I PROMISE that next year I will get around to planting seed."

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 26, 2000.



If Gore is so much for giving third parties a fair shake, I'm sure he'll fight for Nader, Buchanan, and Browne to be included in the debates.

-- living (in@.dream.world), August 26, 2000.

I find it simply amazing that given the choice(or lack of)between the Democreep Gore and the Republicon Bush that people aren't salivating to vote Libertarian or 3rd party in mass.

And to think that ANYONE believes that the D's and R's will reform ANYTHING is nothing short of laughable,it's like believing the fox is guarding the hen house.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), August 26, 2000.


Regarding those debates, I read something recently that said that there have been debate requirements in place [for some time now] that established that a given candidate must have 15% of the vote in order to participate. Perot made it in his first race for the Presidency, but he didn't make it in his second try. He tried to sue because he wasn't allowed in the debates on that second try, but the groundrules are set, and he lost the suit.

These rules are outside the control of ANY of the candidates running and any of the parties. If my memory were better, I'd remember the specific name for who established the rules.

While everyone would like to see their preferred candidate [or third party] partake in the debates, there are simply too many these days. Take a look at who is running for senate positions in states like Minnesota and Florida. There's the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Natural Law Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, and several independents. In MANY states, folks from these parties aren't even running.

All of these parties need more representatives from the LOCAL level. If California [with its 54 electoral college votes] and New York [with its 33 electoral college votes] and maybe Florida [with 25] and Pennsylvania [with 23] all start voting for third-party candidates in their local elections, and fill their own Congresses with these folks, the third parties could actually have a chance in a presidential election.

Right now I'll settle for campaign finance reform, which COULD help stop only those with wealthy connections get elected. The big money campaign coffers are intimidating to those with desires to compete. Here in Texas, Hutchinson has so much money in her campaign coffer that NO ONE felt they had a chance.

BTW, Oxy, there IS no such thing as oral sex. Fellatio is a form of mutual masturbation, and families don't typically engage in that either [at least MY mom and dad never tried it with us kids.]

Good luck, Unk. It's good to see someone involved.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 26, 2000.


Anita--

You said in part,

"While everyone would like to see their preferred candidate [or third party] partake in the debates, there are simply too many these days. Take a look at who is running for senate positions in states like Minnesota and Florida. There's the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Natural Law Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, and several independents. In MANY states, folks from these parties aren't even running."

To me, this is the best argument for a two-party system. The alternative is not a three party system; the alternative is a multi-party system where all elections are decided by a plurality and the government is constantly being re-formed by ever shifting coalitions. Our Maximum Leader would not be a President elected by the people but a Prime Minister elected by the pols. Wouldn't this necessitate a Constutional Convention in order to redefine the US as a parliamentary government?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 26, 2000.


Seems we have some very confused people here. Sure, those of us who stay on top of current information over the Internet are much more aware of the facts and realities, and we would love to see Harry Browne as president. But you are suffering from tunnel vision. Try to put yourself in the shoes of John Q. Public for a minute. Do you realize that probably 80% of the people in this country don't even know who Harry Browne is? He's not on the menu that they see! They come home from work, flip on the tube, and all they hear is Bush/Gore. The only place I have EVER seen Harry Browne mentioned in the media was Public Television! They are either tired and/or lazy, apathetic and/or stupid, and that's what their real choice comes down to, as far as they can tell. Out of sight, out of mind.

Now sure, you can make all the snide remarks you want about trusting Gore like trusting a fox, but look at your options...

UNTIL third parties get equal visibility in the media, and the sheeple become aware that these candidates have a REAL chance, the fact of the matter is that your vote would be ineffective in changing the reality, that the majority still feel they only have a choice of one of the 2 parties actually winning. You may not like it, but THAT is the reality.

So you don't trust Gore to follow through with his effort to provide an equal chance. Why? Because Clinton lied? Al Gore is not Bill Clinton, and he deserves a chance on his own. He has made this promise to millions of Americans, and the only thing that would prevent him from following through is a Republican congress.

So you think Bush is better? First of all, he has expressed little interest in giving the 3rd parties a chance at equal visibilty. As far as he is concerned, the golden rule should always be.. "he who has the most gold, rules." As for lying, wasn't it his father who said "read my lips, no new taxes"? Seems to me that Bush Jr. is more likely to follow in his father's footsteps than Al Gore is to follow in Bill Clinton's.

Bottom line... the soonest you can expect to see a 3rd party candidate have a REAL chance is in 2004, and that is ONLY if the campaign finance situation is reformed. Out of sight, out of mind... THAT is the REALITY of our current dilemma as it now stands. A vote for the Libertarian is a nice thought, but until the majority of the people are made aware of who Harry Browne is, it's a wasted vote. A vote for Bush is most definitely a wasted vote, because instead of improving this situation for the future, we will take another step backwards.

-- changes need to be made (one.step@a.time), August 26, 2000.



Hogwash.

A truly wasted vote is a vote not cast at all.

A wasted vote is a vote not cast for the man you would like to see elected.

"Honest Lord, I swear I'll plant seed next year, just give me a good harvest this year, I swear!"

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 26, 2000.


Lol Unk, that's easy to say for someone who took 2 weeks off to attend Harry browne conventions!

Try a little survey of your own... ask your neighbors, ask people at the grocery store, gas station, etc. if they know who Harry Browne is. Do you think they will vote for someone when they don't even know who he is? Lol!

Dreams are nice, but in order to make them a reality you've got to begin by altering the existing reality and making progress toward a new one.

-- (dreams.don't@just.happen), August 26, 2000.


Firstly, thank you Sheeple for your kind regards.

Secondly, I have taken only 10 days off, five of which will be spent cruising the Carribean, eating lobster and making a serious dent in the US Strategic Beer Reserve!

Now...

Of course most people have not heard of Harry Browne, and I suspect that very few people vote for candidates they do not know. However, IF those who do like Harry and what he has to say would get over the stupid "wasted vote" syndrome and actually VOTE for the guy that situation would reverse itself overnite. Everyone in America would know who Harry Browne is then. Even if Gush/Bore were elected the big news would be Harry Browne and his 15% showing on election day. Of that I am sure.

Dreams are nice, but in order to make them a reality you've got to begin by altering the existing reality and making progress toward a new one.

Please, tell me, how in the world does voting for one of the major party candidates begin altering the existing reality? Take your time with the answer.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 26, 2000.


Sheeple? Lol, nice try, brainless! I'm fed up with our 2 party system. I WANT Harry Browne for president, but I deal in reality, not dreams. I consider Gore to be the key that could open the door for Harry Browne's of the future. Until that is done, the door remains closed, simple as that. You can't change the awareness of the sheeple, they only know what they are fed on the boob tube.

"However, IF those who do like Harry and what he has to say would get over the stupid "wasted vote" syndrome and actually VOTE for the guy that situation would reverse itself overnite."

I agree, but that is a VERY BIG "IF"! You're just not thinking this thing through Unk, how do you propose to make that "IF" a reality? Are people going to listen to what Unk says, or what Ted Copple and Dan Rather tell them? I think we all know the unfortunate answer to that one. Again, you are refusing to accept the existing REALITY. Mr. Joe Six Pack (or in this case, Unk Six Pack) doesn't have a chance in hell of waking up the people to the alternatives unless he does it through the system. You've either got to give Browne the same amount of billboards and TV ads as Bush Junior, or you've got to put reasonable limits on the amount of corporate bucks that Junior can spend on his billboards.

"Please, tell me, how in the world does voting for one of the major party candidates begin altering the existing reality? Take your time with the answer. "

Lol, you must be REALLY thick! It has only been explained about 5 times so far on this thread. I'd suggest you lay off the beer reserves and let your brain cells recover for a change.

-- (drunken.stupor@far.from.reality), August 26, 2000.


paradigm (or whatever),

You take the stance that because I won't give up my rights, then I must have something to hide. So typical. No comrade, I don't have anything to hide. But I won't give up my rights without a fight, either.

As for Bill Clinton, you are delusional. The man perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition. Read the transcripts. The definition of "sex" was read to him to include other sexual activity besides intercourse, and still he denied it.

YOU may have no desire to ban guns, but the head honchos who run the Democratic party sure do. If you vote Democrat, you further their agenda. By the way, if Bush is a pawn of the NWO, how come he signed concealed carry into law as governor of Texas? Would an NWO puppet make it EASIER for Americans to carry concealed weapons?

Nice liberal tactic to throw that emotional "when your kid kills his classmates" crap into your rhetoric. When you are weak on facts, try emotion. It's a time-honored Democrat tactic.

I don't have a license for my gun. I don't NEED one. I live in a state that is FREE. It sounds like you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, or is it Illinois? Massachusetts? I'm glad you like living in a police state. Just be careful what you wish for, it might be one of the rights that you hold dear that Big Brother decides to do away with next.

Your last paragraph is a classic. You brand me an "irresponsible criminal" because I exercise one of my Constitutionally protected rights. A right YOU deem "antisocial". You are a buffoon. It is obvious from your blather that you know nothing about liberty. Liberty means fighting for someone else's rights that you don't particularly care for, because you realize that if the other person's rights go, yours could be next. You choose to only defend the rights that YOU deem important. You are far from a Libertarian, you are closer to a Nazi.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 26, 2000.

Access,

Thanks for the welcome back.

You really should drop the Dennis Olson bit, it makes you look like a fool.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 26, 2000.

Sheeple? Lol, nice try, brainless!

Ummmm, talk about brainless, look above Einstein, to the second response to this thread. Seems that even beer addled minds are clearer than yours.

Unk, Sorry to step on your thread, but I heard you're off for two weeks. :) Have one heck of a time, and ENJOY!

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), August 25, 2000.

And, since you seem unable to address my question, I'll chalk you up as one of those idiot whiners, the ones who wait for others to do the tough work of change. Have a nice day.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 26, 2000.


Sorry about the post addressed to Access.

Wrong thread.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 26, 2000.

"paradigm (or whatever),

You take the stance that because I won't give up my rights, then I must have something to hide. So typical. No comrade, I don't have anything to hide. But I won't give up my rights without a fight, either.

Here is where the paranoia of your mentality shines through. Who EVER said anything about taking your guns away, or your rights for that matter?? You still have a right to own a gun, with a license, just like the car that you drive, so that law enforcement can be more effective at knowing where the guns are coming from that are used in illegal crimes, and so that owners will be more responsible for their own weapons.

As for Bill Clinton, you are delusional. The man perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition. Read the transcripts. The definition of "sex" was read to him to include other sexual activity besides intercourse, and still he denied it.

Who is delusional here? You started by referring to a statement that was made in reference to Moncia Lewinsky, and I responded appropriately. Now you have completed changed the situation to a completely different one, in an entirely different context! Typical Republicrat maneuver.

YOU may have no desire to ban guns, but the head honchos who run the Democratic party sure do. If you vote Democrat, you further their agenda.

Your first statement above said that Democrats want ALL guns banned. Where's your proof?? Again, changing the facts to suit your needs, a typical right-wing extremist propoganda outright lie. Very convenient.

By the way, if Bush is a pawn of the NWO, how come he signed concealed carry into law as governor of Texas? Would an NWO puppet make it EASIER for Americans to carry concealed weapons?

Why don't you ask his dad, Mr. NWO himself! Do your homework. The New World Order isn't stupid enough to give a shit about guns, they are toys to keep idiots like you complacent. Their weapons are corporations, and Bush will help them advance their agenda BIG TIME.

Nice liberal tactic to throw that emotional "when your kid kills his classmates" crap into your rhetoric. When you are weak on facts, try emotion. It's a time-honored Democrat tactic.

What would you suggest, when we have 6 year old kids getting a hold of guns from their parents who are too irresponsible to keep them safely secured? You can't make stupid irresponsible people suddenly get intelligent, licensing is the only solution.

I don't have a license for my gun. I don't NEED one. I live in a state that is FREE. It sounds like you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, or is it Illinois? Massachusetts? I'm glad you like living in a police state. Just be careful what you wish for, it might be one of the rights that you hold dear that Big Brother decides to do away with next.

Again, this is a typical right-wing extremist lie to make people like you paranoid. No one has any intention of taking away your rights.

Your last paragraph is a classic. You brand me an "irresponsible criminal" because I exercise one of my Constitutionally protected rights. A right YOU deem "antisocial". You are a buffoon. It is obvious from your blather that you know nothing about liberty. Liberty means fighting for someone else's rights that you don't particularly care for, because you realize that if the other person's rights go, yours could be next. You choose to only defend the rights that YOU deem important. You are far from a Libertarian, you are closer to a Nazi.

You've either got your facts all screwed up, or you are afraid to get a gun license, which IMO, given the current dilemma we face in our society, is irresponsible and antisocial. Yeah right, everybody is a Nazi, and we're all going to take your guns away and put you in a concentration camp with barbed wire. Talk about delusional! LOL!!



-- Nazi (we're.coming@to.tak.you.away(hee-hee,ha-ha!)), August 26, 2000.


Nazi, or Dreamworld, or Changes, or Stupor, or whatever your real name is. (coward afraid to use a name?)

You ignore one single solitary concern that honest law abiding gun owners have, and that is the historic, proven, un-argueable precident that gun confiscation is ALWAYS preceded by gun registration. See history, it has always been thus. Nazi (you picked a good handle) Germany did it, the Soviet Union did it, Austrailia did it, England did it, etc etc.

This, of course, ignores the fact that the right to self defense is a NATURAL or God given right, one that needs not be legislated in favor of, but one that can only be legislated away.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 26, 2000.


Aren't you supposed to be leaving on a cruise or something? What a waste of vacation!

Nazi, or Dreamworld, or Changes, or Stupor, or whatever your real name is. (coward afraid to use a name?)

What difference does it make? Are you afraid to respond to someone based soley on their argument, rather than knowing who they are so you can manipulate them to your advantage? Huh, "coward"? HUH??

You ignore one single solitary concern that honest law abiding gun owners have, and that is the historic, proven, un-argueable precident that gun confiscation is ALWAYS preceded by gun registration.

So just because gun confiscation is preceded by registration you conclude that confiscation is always the result of registration? Wheew, that is some deductive reasoning you have there!

This, of course, ignores the fact that the right to self defense is a NATURAL or God given right, one that needs not be legislated in favor of, but one that can only be legislated away.

Boy, you and J are a couple of thick bricks! Again, again, AGAIN (for the final time!), who EVER said anything about taking away your right to self-defense? PLEASE, give me some facts on this, I'd love to hear them!

-- (gun.totin@yahoos.com), August 26, 2000.


One more time for the dull witted.

What difference does it make? Are you afraid to respond to someone based soley on their argument, rather than knowing who they are so you can manipulate them to your advantage?

Did I or did I not respond? Knowing who you are (a coward anon) makes no difference in how I deal with your arguement, some of us like to be able to establish a relationship with others of the non-cowardly kind, the type that use a name or handle from one post to the next.

So just because gun confiscation is preceded by registration you conclude that confiscation is always the result of registration?

Where did I conclude that? Point it out. Not only are you a coward, and wrong, you are unable to read.

Have a nice day.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 27, 2000.


Well, thank God for small miracles! Are you finally starting to get a grip on reality? Just because law enforcement needs to have a vehicle or a gun licensed by its owner, does NOT mean they are going to confiscate it.

Now maybe you can explain that to all the paranoids like J who think that electing Gore means that ALL guns will be banned, ALL rights will be taken away, and everyone will be hauled away to a Nazi prison camp!

-- (LMAO@paranoid.extremists), August 27, 2000.


paradigm(etc.),

You said, "Who EVER said anything about taking your guns away, or your rights for that matter"??

Here are three that I can think of off the top of my head: Sarah Brady, Charles Schumer, & Dianne Feinstein.

Your comparison of cars and guns is moot. The Constitution does not specifically guarantee me the right to keep and use a car. It does grant me that right for a gun.

Since you are so keen for the police to be "more effective" at solving crime, why don't you advocate a closed circuit tv camera in every home? That would surely make it easier for the police to solve cases, wouldn't it? Do you think that would be going too far? Why, do you have something to hide? By the way, don't say, "illegal crimes", it is redundant.

I take back my comment about you being delusional in regards to Bill Clinton. You are not delusional, you are just ignorant of the facts. Bill Clinton was asked during his deposition for the Paula Jones case if he had had sex (defined by the questioning attorney to include many more particular acts than just intercourse) with Monica Lewinsky. His answer was, "no". You see, I have not changed the situation at all. You just don't know enough about the situation that we are discussing to understand this fact.

Proof? You want proof?

"We must get rid of all the guns". Sarah Brady on the Donahue show, September 1994.

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission"! Charles Schumer on NBC, 12/08/93.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in', I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here". Dianne Feinstein on 60 Minutes, 02/05/95.

I agree that "you can't make stupid irresponsible people suddenly get intelligent". The fact that you expect to change THEIR behavior by restricting MY rights leads me to believe that you may be closer to their camp than you realize.

Either you really are ignorant of the facts, or you are just plain stupid. In California, certain semi-automatic rilfles have been BANNED. The Second Amendment states that, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Can't you get your little brain to understand that when certain guns are BANNED, then, by definition, the right to keep arms has been infringed?

I don't have my facts all screwed up. Your mythical "gun license" exists in your head, not in my state. You should take some time to think about the inconsistencies in your position before spouting off again.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 27, 2000.

Sorry J, I'm perfectly aware of the facts, you're the one who is small-brained and ignorant.

I suppose you're going to tell me that the framers of the constitution knew 200 years ago that there would even be such a thing as semi-automatic weapons, and they figured they would be a-ok, even though they are not designed for self-defense or hunting, but to slaughter dozens of people simultaneously.

Look, I'm tired of arguing with you. To me you represent a very sick individual, someone who is so paranoid that he thinks he needs an arsenal of killing machines in his home, and doesn't even want to take enough responsibility for them to register them in his name. Sicko, sicko, sicko, period. End of story, goodnight!

-- (have.fun@with.your.toys), August 27, 2000.


paradigm,

The framers of the Constitution did not have hunting or self-defense in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. They had defense against government tyranny in mind. Thus, I will tell you that I believe that they would think that semi-automatics are a- ok.

I refute all of your points, and you come back with, "Sicko, sicko, sicko, period". It is, indeed, the end of the story, and of the argument. Good night.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 27, 2000.

Rant full blast,

Fortunately It's not not up to alot of the folks here to make gun policy a way of life for everybody.The Constitution says we can protect ourselves and can own a gun(s) and you can't do a friggin' thing about it,laugh that off you half baked socialist wackos.

Nobody believes that the nazis will just all of a sudden show up to take away the firearms,instead it will be akin to the classic analogy that if you throw a frog into a boiling pot of water it will do it's best to get free but if you put it in and gradually turn up the heat the frog will stay,oblivious, until its demise.

Throughout history there have been people that had the backbone to fight back,also there have been people that easily succumbed to the Hitlers of their time,our forefathers saw this and built within our system a means of protection for the common man,if you read and study your history this is readily apparent.If you choose to be one of the non-protected so be it,but quit your goody two shoes crusade to save the rest of America,because in the end you will do well to save yourselves.

For all the talk about gun control,at least the most meaningful kind,that of criminals,is non-existent(both criminal control and criminal gun control).You know that the underground proliferation of weapons is unstoppable,yet in order to appease your sense of goal turn your sites on non-criminal gun ownership as though we are the scourge of the country.You site gun accidents and children who get hold of poorly guarded weapons as an excuse to further your agenda.If your cause is SO righteous why don't you go into the inner-city and demand that they forfeit their illegal weapons and when they ask why tell them it's for the children,I'm sure you'll get no argument and will walk away with more guns than you can carry and an apology for any misdeeds that may have been committed with those guns.

As of this moment I don't have to register my weapons,furthermore,in spite of what many state statutes are I don't need a concealed carry permit,my right to bear arms knows no limits unless I use (or intend to use) such a weapon to commit a crime.But why worry about what I'm doing with a gun,I am not a criminal,if you are worried about criminals with guns they are not hard to find,if you have the guts to seek THEM out.

BTW,when will you advocate the restriction of baseball bats and slingshots? If you are killed by one of those,the results are exactly the same,you're dead.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), August 27, 2000.


They had defense against government tyranny in mind. Thus, I will tell you that I believe that they would think that semi-automatics are a- ok.

LMAO!! Your ideas are ludicrous! Do you actually believe that you and your redneck looney toon friends can fight off a tyrannical government with your little tommy guns? You need to get out of your bunker and read the news once in a while!

Here's an update for you... The government has SLIGHTLY more powerful toys, and if people like you become a threat they could vaporize your entire neighborhood before you even have time to tuck your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

-- lol (picking.off.F-117.fighters@with.a rifle!), August 27, 2000.


If your cause is SO righteous why don't you go into the inner-city and demand that they forfeit their illegal weapons and when they ask why tell them it's for the children

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!! Someone here actually has a brain!! That is PRECISELY what law enforcement WILL be able to do, AS SOON as all law-abiding citizens register their guns. Anyone seen carrying a gun will be asked to show their license, if they don't have it, the gun goes bye-bye! Isn't that amazing how that works when you aren't paranoid!!

-- (we.have.an@einstein.among.us!), August 27, 2000.


As soon as they get America's guns, then it'll be Ho Ho Ho, NWO! Armed American people are the only real obstacle to the final takeover.

-- NWO (-@we'll.get.you.soon), August 27, 2000.

Hey MFB,

It's about time for you to weigh in here. In spite of all your Hawkish (and childish) profanity, you do seem to have something halfway meaningful to say.

-- Hawk Fan (anti@gunners.are.dupes), August 27, 2000.


Here's a link to information on Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

If one doesn't like the rules as established, there's even a place in that link wherein one could write their legislators to get the rules changed. Personally, I was unaware that 100 people were seeking the presidency of late. How would 100 people debate publicly? All at once, three at a time? The possibilities boggle my mind. Would the public be interested in listening to ALL of them?

It seems I lied about Perot having the 15% in 1992. He had 7% BEFORE the debates and 19% in November. Of course this brings up ANOTHER variable. What happens to a "third" party after the supporting base moves on? Perot was the supporting base for the Reform party, and now that party has split in two and is engaged in infighting over which REALLY deserves the campaign funds. Jesse Ventura left that party early this year and started another party. What happens to the Green Party if Nader chooses to move on? What happens to the Libertarian party if Browne chooses to move on? Will they all split into dissenting parties?

J: I know you like your guns, and I think you should vote for whoever you think represents YOU. I wouldn't concentrate too much, if I were you, on the constitution on this one, as the constitution has been defined as guaranteeing a woman's freedom to choose an abortion, and you don't agree with that definition. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court isn't interested in clarifying whether the 2nd amendment was intended to mean individuals or militia, so the debate on what was meant will continue until they do.

On the sex thing, Monica, herself, told Linda Tripp that she and Bill never had sex. I would think that someone who'd had a 5-year affair with a married college professor [and an abortion from a pregnancy resulting from same affair] would recognize the difference, and she did. Certainly sexual harrassment falls under a different definition.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 27, 2000.


"Armed American people are the only real obstacle to the final takeover."

ROTFLMAO!!

-- David Koresh (sorry.guys@it.isn't.quite.that.easy), August 27, 2000.


paradigm,

The more that you open your mouth, the more that you prove to the world that you are an idiot. Have you figured out the Paula Jones - Monica Lewinsky connection yet?

It appears that the Afghan rebels had no problem fighting off a much better armed Soviet military. The Chechen rebels had no problem the first time, either. It's called guerilla warfare. You are such a fool. Which neighborhood would they vaporize smart guy? From Main Street to First Avenue? Nothing like nuking Grandma Hazlenut to push all the fence sitters into the fray against you.

I suppose in your little version of reality all patriots go around town in full camouflage with "KILL A FED" bumper stickers on their pickups (with gun rack, of course). It's not that simple. However, it seems that you are.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 27, 2000.

Anita,

Individuals ARE the militia.

On the sex thing, Monica may have told Linda Tripp that she and Bill never had sex (meaning intercourse). The question posed to Clinton during the Paula Jones deposition, however, specifically included many additional sexual acts besides intercourse in a broad definition of "sex" about which he was being asked. Oral sex was included in that list. So was the fondling of breasts. This is important because later when caught "semen-stained" (the '90s version of "red-handed"), he claimed that he did not perform oral sex on her, only she on him, so that under the broad definition of sex that he had been questioned, he did not have sex with her, but that she had had sex with him.

Of course, this defense of his perjury should be disregarded by all as ludicrous, but amazingly, many Democrats forfeited any smidgeon of respectability that they may have had by actually buying into this farce. This is all a moot point in the end, because Monica Lewinsky testified that Bill Clinton had fondled her breasts. This was an act that was on the list defined as "sex" during the questioning, and this was an act that HE performed on HER. Therefore, Bill Clinton is GUILTY of perjury.

That will be his legacy. He will be the only American president to spend time in jail for a crime committed while in office.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 27, 2000.

paradigm,

Many women and children died at Waco. You must be a real lowlife to make fun of that tragedy.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 27, 2000.

"Armed American people are the only real obstacle to the final takeover...ROTFLMAO!!"

Try being the UNARMED only real obstacle to final takeover, and see where THAT gets you.

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), August 27, 2000.


"Try being the UNARMED only real obstacle to final takeover, and see where THAT gets you."

Most people ARE unarmed! What difference does it make?? If you think owning a gun is going to protect you from domination of your life by the New World Order, you've got another thing coming!

The New World Order doesn't need to use force to advance their agenda, they are much more insidious than that. They are gradually taking control of your lives away from you every single day, in ways that most naive sheeple like you are not even aware of. They'll let you keep your guns if it makes you think you still have your "freedom," allowing you to be so deluded just makes it that much easier for them.

I'm disappointed in the naivety of you sheeple, I thought you were more intelligent. Wake up, do your homework, and quit being such blind fools.

-- nwo (you.can.keep.your.guns@they.already.own.your.minds), August 27, 2000.


nwo,

"The New World Order doesn't need to use force to advance their agenda, they are much more insidious than that. They are gradually taking control of your lives away from you every single day, in ways that most naive sheeple like you are not even aware of. They'll let you keep your guns if it makes you think you still have your "freedom," allowing you to be so deluded just makes it that much easier for them."

QUIT SPILLING THE BEANS! You're right, of course.

-- NWO (we'll@win.without.firing.a.shot), August 27, 2000.


I thought we won years ago?

-- number 666 (illumin@ti.con), August 28, 2000.

In case anyone still doubted that Y2J=Dennis J. Olson, this thread provides your proof.

-- Samaritan (samaritan@samaritan.moc), August 28, 2000.

Samaritan,

Are you THE Samaritan?

Tell me, Samaritan, what "proof" do you have that I am Dennis Olson? I will be overjoyed to watch you make a fool of yourself trying to prove that which is not.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 28, 2000.

I'm not Samaritan, but I'll answer.

There were a lot of clues that you are Dennis. You have said before that you live in the mid west, you've implied recently that you have a personal arsenal, you speak with the same alternating logic and angry spew that you've always used. Your ego is so large that it comes through on almost any post you made. You were also the only one, both as Y2J and Dennis J. Olson, to call Samaritan a Nazi, an interesting and unique choice of words.

The absolute dead giveaway was when you said, on one of the Citizen Ruth threads, that you had taken in two children into your home who have no heat in theirs, that you fed them and clothed them until a family member could care for them. Observers will remember that the lack of heat was the driving factor behind the Y2K Baby Raffle last winter.

-- Eureka (figured@it.out), August 29, 2000.


Eureka,

I will answer your answer.

There are probably 30 million people or more in the midwest.

There are more than 200 million firearms in the U.S.

As far as my "alternating logic and angry spew", I never attack unless attacked first. Even then, I try not to attack. It's not Christ-like to do so, but I am human and still fail.

Don't confuse good grammar and English skills with a large ego.

As far as calling Samaritan a Nazi, I was unaware that Dennis Olson also called her that. That hardly proves that I am Dennis Olson, however. It is much more reasonable to conclude that her Nazi like behavior resulted in the label being applied by the both of us.

As far as your "absolute dead giveaway", I can only say that I will grant you that there is similarity between the Dennis Olson situation and the one in which I was involved. But with so many people in the midwest, and the fact that it gets cold in autumn and winter, I hardly think that these were the only two sets of two children that needed to have alternate shelter provided for them last year.

Anyway, you are wrong. Is that why you posted under "Eureka" instead of your normal handle? So that when it comes out that I am not Dennis Olson, you can just fade back into the woodwork without having to take responsibility for this mistake?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 29, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ