On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:00:31 +0000, J. Clarke wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> Beyond that, the UK has an absolute ban on private possession of
> handguns. They also have a rising incidence of the use of handguns in
> crime. If an absolute ban does not help then how will licensing and
> training help?
Many of us see this as a charter to arm criminals against a background of now
more vulnerable disarmed citizenry. It seems to be very effective in this
regard. Of course the real reason for the legislation is that an oppressive /
occupying force / police state can only function if there is no chance of
effective revolution... think back to why the US constitution has the
"bearing arms" subject matter raised at all. Fear of Redcoats etc.
Gotta go.. the Bluecoats are coming..........
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:30:22 +0000, David G. Nagel wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
>
> The recent unpleasentness between England and America was over the fact
> that we Americans wanted to keep our guns. You all remember it, it was
> in all the papers.
>
> Dave N
Remind me? How recently? (seriously don't get the reference.)
Thanks.
On Jan 26, 6:11=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 5:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Jan 26, 2:54 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Robatoy wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 26, 2:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >>>>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>>>>>> Tom wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Americans better pay attention too!
> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What a chilling scenario!
> >>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Go to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyTq2NEUl=
hDE
> >>>>>>>> =A0Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogat=
e the second
> >>>>>>>> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do =
what they
> >>>>>>>> said.
> >>>>>>> Total bullshit, as usually. =A0 There is nothing in the Democrati=
c ticket that
> >>>>>>> calls for abolishing =A0(or abrogating) the second amendment.
> >>>>>>> I assume you're familiar with one of the strongest voices on Gun =
Control,
> >>>>>>> a republican by the name of James Brady.
> >>>>>>> Many, many democrats are gun owners and are perfectly happy with =
the
> >>>>>>> status quo.
> >>>>>>> scott
> >>>>>> Check out Comrade Obamessiah's voting on gun issues in IL. He is
> >>>>>> essentially perfect in his staunch support for pretty much every g=
un
> >>>>>> control bill put before him.
> >>>>>> Yes, there are many patriotic, gun owning, decent people that are
> >>>>>> Democrats. But they, like so much of the rest of the voting public=
,
> >>>>>> simply did not pay attention in the last election. Obama is a frau=
d.
> >>>>>> He got in without having answer any hard questions about his
> >>>>>> associates, ideas, and policies. He is product and willing child o=
f an
> >>>>>> immensely corrupt political machine.
> >>>>> You know what Timbo? Is that place you speak of is so corrupt, why
> >>>>> don't you leave?
> >>>>> Nooo.. not North.. SOUTH please....
> >>>> I'm planning on it. =A0Oh, and I already lived in your country...
> >>> Couldn't adjust to the kindness and warm hearts, eh Timbo?
> >> Couldn't adjust to the East Coast Communists. =A0Other than that,
> >> Canada is a lovely place full of very nice folks - excepting
> >> you and the other crazy here on the 'Wreck of course ...
>
> > What was that again, about name calling and losing arguments?
>
> It was a J-O-K-E ... no mean intentions whatsoever. =A0Sheesh ...
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
I can't look.... I must look away....Timbo just exploded....the
horror...the horror...
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>>
> >> Nope. Assume, for a moment that each state is in control of their
> >> own emissions standards. Now assume that the state next to yours
> >> sets their's unreasonably low and starts polluting *your* air.
> >> Your state should then *sue* the adjacent state for actual and
> >> compensatory damages. Litigation is a far better answer than
> >> central regulation because litigation deals with the claim of
> >> *actual* damages (as opposed to the potential damages addressed
> >> by regulatory law).
> >
> > And how exactly would they determine actual damages from pollution?
>
> By the showing the costs of the losses. This is done routinely
> when assessing damages in a won lawsuit.
>
> > Wait until people croak and then count the bodies and multiply by
> > dollars? Maybe they just start cleaning the soot off of cars, houses
>
> Exactly. Again - not a new concept - it's been done for years.
Of course you've determined that magical procedure that conclusively
determines that someone died from pollution, and where that pollution
came from. I'd hit USPTO and get that thing signed up now!
> > and trees and charge backcharge them for the cleanup costs?
>
> Something along those lines. "Because of your pollution, our
> state incurrent $x in cleanup costs and suffered $x in lost
> business and tourism revenue. We ask to court for that amount
> plus a multiplier of y to disincent the other state from ever doing
> this again." Like I said, a very normal legal activity that
> takes place regularly.
> >
> > You may have a point and a position but that example....bzzzzzzzzzzzt.
>
> I don't see why not - it's done every day. States might even choose
> to pay for insurance against such claims.
So, your solution to your objection to federal government is to have
the states fight it out in an already overburdened legal system using
magical systems of determination of cause and effect. Since states
operate without a need for taxation, all of the legal wrangling and
insurance premium paying would have no impact on people's
pocketbooks. Why didn't you just say so? Now it makes perfect
sense. ;)
You should just say - Government Sucks! - and leave it at that. You'd
be more likely to influence people that way.
R
On Feb 2, 7:21=A0pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry W wrote:
>
> =A0 > Personally I'd much rather have a nuclear reactor in my back yard
>
> > than a strip mine.
>
> Same here.
>
> I lived for years around 8 miles from a nuke plant. =A0 I didn't move,
> they decommissioned the plant.
>
> The radioactive materials that exist in coal, and are released into the
> atmosphere when the coal is burned, seem to get often ignored.
You see, Barry...or should I call you BARRY??.<G>... there are plenty
well-run safe nuclear power stations. It's when private industry
starts shaving off a buck here or there, that's when you get problems.
On Feb 3, 5:48=A0am, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:49:31 -0500, Mike Marlow cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom...:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:00:43 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearl=
s of
> > wisdom...:
>
> >> Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too
> >> much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
>
> > Now that is one of the stupidist statements I've seen you make. =A0So s=
orry
> > that those of us who live right next to nuclear plants are not as
> > "informed" as you. =A0Or maybe you're not as "informed" as you'd like
> > everybody to believe.
>
> Here - I'll reply to my own comment before I even see if you do. =A0That =
was
> not an appropriate reply to your statement.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
No problem. This is a sensitive topic. As such, passions rise. Mine
too.
At least you didn't blame everything on Obama. <G>
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> David G. Nagel wrote:
>
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> This is why my mother's fellow country men/women come to the US for
>>>> their critical operations.
>>> No one has ever claimed that the system was perfect, but it's far better
>>> than the alternative. I'd say your mother's friends have the best of both
>>> worlds. They can use the Canadian healthcare system when they choose to,
>>> or they can decide to pay for medical assistance in the US.
>>>
>>>
>> Usually they come to the US because they have an unconscionable wait for
>> the same operation back home.
>
> Take that one step further. After the implementation of Obamacare, when
> we also are going to have unconscionable waiting periods for needed care,
> procedures, and treatment, the ability of those who are suffering the same
> in Canada to avail themselves of needed care will be removed. I guess
> that's OK though because everyone will be suffering equally. Socialism:
> misery spread equally -- except to the leadership elite class of course.
> Our betters will always have access to the best of what is available.
>
It's called "Cost Containment".. :^(
J. Clarke wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>> B A R R Y,
>>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
>>
>> It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
>
> Recyclable? How? I want to see the specific uses for 98 percent of
> the components of radioactive waste from a reactor since you assert
> that it is "recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount". Put it
> in the form of a list, identifying the component, the percentage
> prevalence in the waste, and the use for it that allows recycling.
>
Radioactive waste from a power plant occupies a really an extremely
small volume. Consider that every gram of waste produced at all the
plants in the US is currently stored within the grounds of the plant
that generated it.
The vast majority of what is called "Radioactive Waste" is really
composed of items such as wipe rage, coveralls, materials used in
medicine and incidental contaminated hardware. These things are usually
not even contaminated but were used in conjunction with things
radioactive and as such are considered contaminated.
The majority of material from a power plant is unused base material. The
highly radioactive component of the waste is only a few percent of the
total. If they are cycled out of the matrix the base material can be
reformed into new fuel rods and used to generate more electricity. The
resultant waste is all that needs to be stored, albeit for a very long
time. If properly packaged and diluted there can be no danger from this
material.
Dave N
On Jan 25, 9:54=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Actually the US ranks very low in the violent crime rates, as
> > compared to other industrialized nations, and since their weapons
> > ban, the rate in Australia, has shot up considerably. =A0Check out
> > this
> > link:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D21902
>
> > Bullies tend to be cowards, and attack those less likely to defend
> > themselves.
>
> So explain the higher homicide rate.
>
Why-the-fuck are you always asking people to explain everything to
you?
Are you slow?
Robatoy wrote:
<SNIPPAGE' ... In A French Canadian Way>
>
> I can't look.... I must look away....Timbo just exploded....the
> horror...the horror...
I must be slow, I finally figured it out. You, LRod, and Upscale
are all the same person. This is the only possible explanation.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:00:43 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
>
> Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too
> much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
Now that is one of the stupidist statements I've seen you make. So sorry
that those of us who live right next to nuclear plants are not as
"informed" as you. Or maybe you're not as "informed" as you'd like
everybody to believe.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Jan 30, 2:41=A0am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> in 91458 20090130 031016 Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Bob Martin wrote:
>
> >> in 91335 20090129 042735 Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>Bob Martin wrote:
>
> >>>> in 91231 20090127 171404 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote=
:
> >>>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> >>>>>> As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that =
is
> >>>>>> exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit
> >>>>>> individual States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This =
is
> >>>>>> absolutely in the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equat=
ion
> >>>>>> and letting people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don'=
t
> >>>>>> like Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
>
> >>>>>Now THAT's a bad example. =A0If the West Coast states toss out emiss=
ion
> >>>>>controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. =A0A perfe=
ct
> >>>>>example of the need for federal control.
>
> >>>> No, that's a perfect example of the need for international control.
>
> >>>You don't see a problem with Russia, France, and China dictating emiss=
ion
> >>>control policies to the US?
>
> >> Somebody has to - your government won't do much otherwise!
> >> Russia and France have both ratified the Kyoto agreement and shown
> >> themselves to be more responsible.
>
> >> The point of my post was that pollution doesn't just drift across stat=
e
> >> boundaries,
> >> it affects other countries as well. =A0Britain gets it from Ireland an=
d
> >> Sweden gets it
> >> from Britain, for example. =A0Doesn't take much brain-power to see tha=
t it
> >> is clearly an international problem.
>
> >You're funny. =A0Kyoto has nothing to do with pollution, it was intended=
to
> >reduce CO2 emissions, the biproduct of perfect combustion, in an attempt=
to
> >destroy industrial nations under the guise of the hoax of global warming=
.
>
> Your definition of Kyoto is hilarious. =A0CO2 is a pollutant.
> BTW, did you know that the cement industry around Houston makes more CO2 =
than
> all of the world's airlines put together?
Not to pick nits, but it is a green-house gas. Fortunately, plant-life
munches on that stuff a lot...as long as there is plant-life: crops,
forests, which of course will be greatly reduced when the temperature
of the planet rises...being through our fault or just a solar thing.
CO2 is also found in beer. Therefore, we should ban beer.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that is
>> exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit individual
>> States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This is absolutely in
>> the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equation and letting
>> people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don't like
>> Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
>
> Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
> controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
> example of the need for federal control.
>
Nope. Assume, for a moment that each state is in control of their
own emissions standards. Now assume that the state next to yours
sets their's unreasonably low and starts polluting *your* air.
Your state should then *sue* the adjacent state for actual and
compensatory damages. Litigation is a far better answer than
central regulation because litigation deals with the claim of
*actual* damages (as opposed to the potential damages addressed
by regulatory law). Litigation is also better because the 50 several
States are likely to have more resources in total to fight about this
stuff than the Federal EPA bureaucracy. I'll say it again: Diffuse
power is more efficient and better at getting to good results than
concentrated power, which is usually both very inefficient and almost
always heavy handed and wrong.
> And this may surprise you Tim, but in general I'm in favor of states
> assuming more responsibility. But it's my understanding that they don't
> want to, it's easier to blame the feds for taxes, fees, etc. than it is
> to justify them to the local voters. And of course the states that
> receive more than their share of federal funds are vehemently opposed.
Yeah, and I'd like to not have to pay *my* bills. The only way we
get back to honest government is to insist on the Constitutional
limits on Federal power and drive the responsibility and action
back where it belongs - the the people in each locale'. That's why -
even though I think Obama's ideas mostly range from very foolish
to profoundly dangerous - I don't think Obama (or Bush, or Clinton,
or ...) are the problem. The lazy, greedy, population is the problem,
the vast majority of which wants to benefit individually but pay
nothing for it. Making States accountable for their own would go
a long way to fix this.
I am reminded of a friend who says that the way to fix water pollution
is to require the intakes for water to be down stream of the outflows,
whether in homes or factories. Local control and accountability would
work - it did for the first 150 or so years of our Republic...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I think I found a pledge you probably can get behind:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9RLP34
Here's one specially designed for you.
http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:21:55 -0500, B A R R Y cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> Larry W wrote:
>>
> > Personally I'd much rather have a nuclear reactor in my back yard
>> than a strip mine.
>
> Same here.
>
> I lived for years around 8 miles from a nuke plant. I didn't move,
> they decommissioned the plant.
>
> The radioactive materials that exist in coal, and are released into the
> atmosphere when the coal is burned, seem to get often ignored.
Ummmmmm... and the difference in degree is... what?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> Usually they come to the US because they have an unconscionable wait for
> the same operation back home.
I'm not suggesting it's a desirable option, just that it is another choice
should at home service be unavailable or too far off. That's better than
having no other choice than just to sit and do nothing.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:10:56 GMT, Han cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> <snipped>
>
> It does not seem clear to you that putting up some little hurdles to legal
> gun ownership would prevent a lot of illegal gun trading?
>
Not only does it not seem clear, it has never worked. In part, it won't
work because the amount of guns stolen from legal ownership is not as high
as you might believe in order to formulate your hypothesis that you can
curb illegal use by controlling legal use.
> How else are you going to discourage illegal gun ownership/usage?
> Issue guns to everyone and let them have it out?
>
Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:14:52 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>We Americans are demonstrably too stupid to pay attention.
>Look at who this nation just elected. Now look at this and
>get back to me on the mentality of this country:
>
> http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/01/that-creepy-obama-pledge.html
>
>Here's my pledge:
>
> I pledge to never patronize the so-called "art" of any of these
> self important windbags and to use all legal means at my disposal
> to thwart the agenda of the new Communist In Chief, Obamessiah.
I normally ignore you, as do most (your post on 19 December inquiring
as to what cars people bought netted not a single response), but you
need a reality check. Here it is:
Your republican machine was SO inept, SO corrupt and So
wildly unpopular that the Democrats managed to elect a black
dude with a Muslim name.
How embarrassing is that?
Not an original quote from me, but I wish it was.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:06:03 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> On Feb 2, 2:32 pm, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:27:01 +0000 (UTC), Larry W cast forth these pearls of
>> wisdom...:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Compared to the cost and damage from our inability to deal with waste
>>> generated rom coal mining and burning, nuclear waste does not seem
>>> like such a terrible problem.
>>
>> That does not seem like a terribly well thought through statement.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> [email protected]
>
> Trust me, it is spot on.
I'm sorry but I cannot trust you on this point. Nuclear waste is a
dramatic problem that far outweighs the issues we deal with today, in coal
and oil burning. I believe you are looking at one small aspect of the
problem and ignoring the overwhelming aspects of your proposed solutions.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 19:12:41 +0000 (UTC), Larry W cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
>
> In 1972 a similar dam failed and killed 125 people, as well as causing
> millions ( billions?) in property damage. In 2000 another coal waste
> dam failure released over 300 million gallons. Just recently, the fly
> ash spill in Tennessee illustrates that there is a disposal problem caused
> by burning coal, as well as from mining it. Since 1990 over 700 miners
> have died in US coal mine accidents. Take a look at an aerial photograph
> of mountaintop removal mines in W. Va or Kentucky, just seeing the
> damage to the environment is enough to sicken.
The total of which does not even approach the impact to areas surrounding
reactors and waste storage sites.
>
> Personally, I would much rather see this country pursue research into safely
> using nuclear energy rather than continue to burn coal. We have already
> proven how dangerous coal is.
>
And we have not proven how dangerous nuclear is?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:27:01 +0000 (UTC), Larry W cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
>
> Compared to the cost and damage from our inability to deal with waste
> generated rom coal mining and burning, nuclear waste does not seem
> like such a terrible problem.
>
That does not seem like a terribly well thought through statement.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Jan 30, 5:36=A0pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > We need electrified coast to coast wide-gauge trains. Obama want
> > infrastructure for the future? Look no further.
> > Nukes and Rails. There. All better.
>
> I'm disappointed that he's anti-nuke.
The fossil barons are doing a good job keeping people scared. The
bastards.
>
> Nuclear power might be the greenest electricity currently available.
In large quantities it certainly is. Today's technology has improved
Protection & Control immensely.
The waste issue is a relative one.
CANDU reactors are very safe, but a bit pricey. Pretty cool
though..and beautiful to look at.
On Jan 30, 2:25=A0pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> > Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> >> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>
> > That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
> > hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>
> > Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only wate=
r
> > vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>
> Or you could burn sodium in a pure chlorine environment and produce
> table salt.
That would make for interesting filling stations.
On Feb 3, 1:05=A0am, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ugh - I live within 20 miles of 3 of them - I think I know the difference=
.
See previous response.
>
[snip]
>
> It has nothing to do with coal and oil bastards. =A0Nuclear is a very
> dangerous generator and we have not made one inch of progress in dealing
> with the waste over the past 20 years. =A0This is not a problem that is g=
oing
> to magically go away just because you like to think it's better than
> fossile fuels. =A0
>
> > Even hydro electric dams have a negative environmental impact. What do
> > you think our children's children will say about Three Gorges by the
> > time that mess rears its ugly head.
>
> For the love of Pete - you're not seriously suggesting that you are leavi=
ng
> a better earth behind for your grandchildren by advocating nuclear, are
> you?
A lot better than "drill-baby-drill." That type of thinking has got to
stop.
>=A0Talk about being brainwashed by the industry - you've lost all
> perspective at the hands of the nuclear industry. =A0"Don't worry - those
> wastes are perfectly safe, and we have perfectly safe operations, with
> qualified and trained staff... and no financial motivation..."
>
What I am advocating is to get off those fossil fuels. They are
finite. They are controlled by enemies. They mess up the environment.
So what do we know about solutions? Not much, but in the meantime, we
can use a lesser of evils. I am in no way advocating that nukes are a
panacea, but they are a nice alternative to a problem which certainly
has no solutions at all.
And NOBODY that I know has ever said that the waste is safe. I know I
haven't said that. That shit will hurt you.
What I have said, is that it it can be managed safely. Just like your
country sits on thousands of nuclear warheads, safely. Radio-active
materials are handled by thousands every day in medicine
alone...safely. Sure nuke-waste is more intense, but we do know how to
handle it. The stuff getting belched out by a thousand oil and coal
fired power plants? Not so much.
The future holds many promises. I would like for my kids to get there.
Fossil fuels ain't good for children and other living things, to
paraphrase a line from the 60's.
Nukes may not be much better... but they are better.
I do appreciate where you're coming from, Mike, but your view of the
nuclear industry is disproportionate to reality.
David G. Nagel wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
>> "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> This is why my mother's fellow country men/women come to the US for
>>> their critical operations.
>>
>> No one has ever claimed that the system was perfect, but it's far better
>> than the alternative. I'd say your mother's friends have the best of both
>> worlds. They can use the Canadian healthcare system when they choose to,
>> or they can decide to pay for medical assistance in the US.
>>
>>
> Usually they come to the US because they have an unconscionable wait for
> the same operation back home.
Take that one step further. After the implementation of Obamacare, when
we also are going to have unconscionable waiting periods for needed care,
procedures, and treatment, the ability of those who are suffering the same
in Canada to avail themselves of needed care will be removed. I guess
that's OK though because everyone will be suffering equally. Socialism:
misery spread equally -- except to the leadership elite class of course.
Our betters will always have access to the best of what is available.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 4:14 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Look at who this nation just elected.
>>
>> Does the Troll Rating Index go below zero?
>>
>> How weak is that? Goodness, Timbo... shameful attempt. Shameful!
>
> Resist the temptation - this was just Tim's way of telling us that John
> Galt _still_ hasn't knocked on his door.
>
> Be patient, Tim. He'll either show up or he won't.
>
I'm don't need Galt to go on strike ... I'm already there.
Enjoy your collectivist paradise.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
in 91816 20090202 193234 Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:27:01 +0000 (UTC), Larry W cast forth these pearls of
>wisdom...:
>
>
>>
>> Compared to the cost and damage from our inability to deal with waste
>> generated rom coal mining and burning, nuclear waste does not seem
>> like such a terrible problem.
>>
>
>That does not seem like a terribly well thought through statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
But then, you yanks can't do what the French do ... ;-)
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I do not question your *legal* right to do this. I question your
> *moral* right to do it.
Funny, your dozens of repeated accusations of "thief" denote a legal
infringement. As usual, you're still a liar.
On Jan 30, 11:56=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>
> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>
> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water
> vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Well, coal is almost pure carbon, except the vanadium, sulfur, and the
all-time pond-filling favourite ash.
Clean coal, you know. Yup, really clean.
Hydrogen is the way to go. Hands down. As a transportable fuel that
is. Easy to make with nuclear powerstations. (Btw, daughter # 2 is now
learning how to fly a nuclear powerstation. Following in the footsteps
of the oldest (28))
Electric cars are possibly a temporary stop-gap, but most battery
technology is dirty.
We need electrified coast to coast wide-gauge trains. Obama want
infrastructure for the future? Look no further.
Nukes and Rails. There. All better.
Tom wrote:
> Americans better pay attention too!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> What a chilling scenario!
>
> Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
>
>
We Americans are demonstrably too stupid to pay attention.
Look at who this nation just elected. Now look at this and
get back to me on the mentality of this country:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/01/that-creepy-obama-pledge.html
Here's my pledge:
I pledge to never patronize the so-called "art" of any of these
self important windbags and to use all legal means at my disposal
to thwart the agenda of the new Communist In Chief, Obamessiah.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
>> Americans better pay attention too!
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> What a chilling scenario!
>>
>> Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
>
> Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second
> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
> said.
>
> Anybody who believed that bilge from the candidate exhorting his disciples
> to get in peoples' faces and tell them that He believed in the second
> amendment should really ask themselves what the @#$% they were thinking.
>
>
Even a causal inspection of Obamessiah's voting record here in Illinois
would have confirmed this. He was- and is, viruently anti-gun
(and generally anti-freedom, pro-socialist).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:11:34 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> It is clear that no amount of rot around the Obamessiah ever
>> sticks to him. This guy had a pastor that was the black equivalent
>> of a KKK Grand Dragon, kicked off his drive for the White House in
>> the home of a convicted domestic terrorist, and bought his own home
>> via shady dealings with a now-convicted felon. The U.S. voting
>> public's response? They shrugged and voted for "change". Like I
>> said in my initial response on this thread - at least half the
>> public is too stupid to pay attention - Obama's election proves
>> this.
>
> Even if I agreed with your far-wrong blatherings, which I don't, you
Assuming you even understood them ...
> still fail to accurately characterize the reason for Obama's victory.
> Put very simply, it was "anyone but Bush".
There is certainly some truth to this - another demonstration
of the profound stupidity of the voting public. They (well about
half of them) were so unhappy with a deeply flawed President,
that they chose an evil one to replace him.
>
> Very few believed that McCain was anything other than a clone, or if not,
> that he could go against the hawks and rapture-rats in his party.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:497C9123.1070406
> @tundraware.com:
>
>> Even a causal inspection of Obamessiah's voting record here in Illinois
>> would have confirmed this. He was- and is, viruently anti-gun
>> (and generally anti-freedom, pro-socialist).
>
> Just in case you have not already deduced this, I am not antigun, but would
> like there to be fewer around, and certainly not in the "wrong" hands.
We all would. Gun control of any sort is not the mechanism to achieve
this. Decriminalizing drugs (so as to empty the prisons of non violent
offenders who did nothing more than sell "contraband") thereby leaving
room for the violent and evil actors in society would be a step in the
right direction. Similarly, we need to cease making excuses for evil
action. We do not need to "understand" the criminal or have "empathy"
for them, or even act "compassionately." We need to separate those who
do evil from the rest of civil society. Doing so would markedly reduce
the level of gun violence since people inclined to do this would end
up in jail much sooner and for much longer than they do today.
Unfortunately, one of the durable cultural norms we've had put upon us
by the intellectual Left is a fundamental denial that evil even exists
... unless, of course, they're drooling on and on about those who do
not share their idiotic worldview.
>
> I am pro freedom of expression and also for other freedoms, unless they
I am too - for *all* citizens, not just the putative poor, downtrodden,
professional victims, and whiners (i.e. The base of the Democratic
party).
> adversely affect others' well-being and liberties. That means, I don't
Agreed. That's why I oppose wealth redistribution, most regulatory
actitivty, and government involvement in the private sector.
> care if you play your radio loudly when you are alone and have your
> environs sound-proofed, but I object against woodpeckers driving around
> busy and quiet neighborhoods with their radios full blast and the windows
> down.
Agreed. Try getting the politically correct bozos in your community
to actually enforce the noise ordinances. These people think
Kaye West is an "artist" ...
>
> I have no idea why you would be against a state being organized to protect
> the whole community, not only via military defense but also in economic
> ways. That does not mean robbing Peter to pay lazy Paul, but to distribute
> opportunity equally.
>
But therein lies the problem. The state organizing to protect
"economic ways" *always* involves robbing Peter to pay Paul (lazy or
otherwise). Government produces nothing. Its only weapon is that of
legal and/or physical force. The state should exist only to preserve
and expand liberty up to the boundaries you describe: Keeping people
maximally free until/unless their actions or threat of action deprives
their fellow citizen of _their_ liberties.
It is one thing to take a citizen's money to, say, defend the borders
of the nation, run the courts, and otherwise generally defend
everyone's liberty. This is a case of *common* benefit. But, for
instance, taking money from one citizen and then funding the
healthcare of another citizen with it is simply stealing. One citizen
benefits *at the expense* of another. It's immoral and should be
roundly condemned by all decent people. Nonetheless, you'll find all
manner of selfish citizens that defend exactly this sort of thing.
Notably, you'll find a few here on the 'Wreck that are just _outraged_
when their defense of stealing of this sort is aired publicly - They
much prefer to tell themselves it is "noble" or even "charity" all the
time while hiring the thugs of government to pay their own bills with
Other People's Money.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I have no idea why you would be against a state being organized to protect
>> the whole community, not only via military defense but also in economic
>> ways. That does not mean robbing Peter to pay lazy Paul, but to
> distribute
>> opportunity equally.
>
> Tim has absolutely no interest in distributing opportunity equally.
> (something he calls collectivism). He is very much in support of people
> keeping whatever they can take and everybody else can go screw themselves.
You are being dishonest and a fraud. I believe that every citizen
should have exactly the same access to the protections of their liberty
and equal standing before the law. *Without exception. You, OTOH,
believe in "categories" of citizens - some of whom get to keep what
they've worked for and others who do not.
>
> He also feels that Medicare should be supported solely by donation and
> anybody receiving such health assistance should be living at the poverty
> line before they'd qualify for that health care.
Again you demonstrate you innate immorality, in this case by
lying (then again lying and stealing are two sides of the same
coin). I believe that the government has NO place in providing
healthcare whatsoever, even and especially for moochers like you.
>
> In other words, Tim is an asshole who has one primary concern and that is
> himself. His frequent statement "Why should I have to pay?" is his mantra
> and is all one needs to know about Tim to know who and what he is.
You are such an incredible hypocrite. At the moment, I could use
some financial assistance for a particular matter of health for
a member of my family. Would you mind providing me with access
to YOUR bank account so I can spend YOUR money caring for them?
I'd sure appreciate it and we'd all get to see you actually put
your money where your considerable and vulgar mouth lives...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
LRod wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:11:15 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Tim has absolutely no interest in distributing opportunity equally.
>> (something he calls collectivism). He is very much in support of people
>> keeping whatever they can take and everybody else can go screw themselves.
>>
>> He also feels that Medicare should be supported solely by donation and
>> anybody receiving such health assistance should be living at the poverty
>> line before they'd qualify for that health care.
>>
>> In other words, Tim is an asshole who has one primary concern and that is
>> himself. His frequent statement "Why should I have to pay?" is his mantra
>> and is all one needs to know about Tim to know who and what he is.
>
> Even if his rants sounded remotely well thought out, he only comes to
> the bait on non-woodworking issues that he feels somehow threatens his
> hip pocket. Let me summarize his woodworking contributions with a list
> of links:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's why he's on my banned list. I know how to get him to post more
> drivel and vitriol, but I never bother reading them so he blathers in
> vain. I've gotten so I can pretty much guarantee he will hit the reply
> button just by who responds and how much they yank his chain.
>
> But frankly, folks, just as I counseled around election time; if you
> want him to go away, ignore him. He posted a query on 19 December that
> went utterly unanswered by anyone for a month. No replies means no
> spew.
>
> I freely acknowledge my own transgression in posting the response
> earlier and I apologize (but it was just too good a shot to pass up).
> Now I am in ignore mode: 100% for him, around 85% for a couple of
> other kool-aid drinking limboob losers who nevertheless occasionally
> have something wood to say. I still don't read or respond to them,
> though.
>
> I encourage all to join in.
>
> (PS don't bother to tell me what he says in his response to this,
> which is almost guaranteed to appear soon--it's mind over matter; I
> don't mind because he doesn't matter).
>
>
>
I can only hope that the fruits of the collectivism you espouse land
on your doorstep first.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Tim has absolutely no interest in distributing opportunity equally.
>>> (something he calls collectivism). He is very much in support of people
>>> keeping whatever they can take and everybody else can go screw
> themselves.
>
>> believe in "categories" of citizens - some of whom get to keep what
>> they've worked for and others who do not.
>
> It's healthcare we're talking about, not a car or some physical object. As
> always, you're unable to distinguish between the two. Except for the most
> indigent in Canada, everybody contributes to the healthcare system and all
> use its services.
Healthcare is no different than a car or house. People voluntarily
invest their time to learn the skills of medicine, make drugs,
make medical equipment and so on. Then you and the rest of
thieves come along and self-righteously declare their work
product a public good.
>
>> I believe that the government has NO place in providing
>> healthcare whatsoever, even and especially for moochers like you.
>
> So, I'm evil, a liar and now a mooch because I use our universal healthcare
> to stay well enough to work and be able to contribute back to the system
> through my taxes. Instead, you'd have me impoverished before I could receive
> healthcare and living on the welfare system, using additional public funds.
> Tell me Timbit, which method costs more?
It doesn't matter. Your method involves a level of theft and even
a subtle form of slavery. It makes no difference how good your
outcomes are -they are rooted in evil behavior.
>
> Intelligent as you are, your logic and calculation abilities are failing you
> miserably in this regard.
>
>> You are such an incredible hypocrite. At the moment, I could use
>> some financial assistance for a particular matter of health for
>> a member of my family. Would you mind providing me with access
>> to YOUR bank account so I can spend YOUR money caring for them?
>
> I see. You're fine with others being indigent before receiving public
> healthcare or charity paying for people who need healthcare, but when it
> comes to your own family, you'd like it if someone else paid for it.
No, I merely used this as an example of what an incredible hypocrite
*you* are - you're happy to defend theft because of the supposed
greater good you believe in. But, when faced with an opportunity to
actually do some good yourself, you backpeddle at light speed. You're
all for socialized everything so long as you don't have to pay any substantial
portion of the burden.
>
> For months and months, you've been ranting and even restated above about how
> government should stay out of the healthcare business, so now it's time for
> you to live up to your rants. Pay for your own healthcare or perhaps watch a
> member of your family go completely broke trying to survive. If it happens,
> come back and tell us how you enjoyed it.
I do and will continue to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:33 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped the usual]
>
> If you were in a car accident, you'd expect assistance from your
> insurance company, right?
> Why? Because you paid into it.
Correct. The car insurance company - a private institution - and I
entered into a private agreement as to each of our respective
responsibilities.
>
> Does that make you a thief, Timbo?
Of course not. The transaction was private, voluntary, and spelled
out from the beginning. Either party has the perfect right to
terminate the agreement as they see fit. Well ... I have that right.
The various government regulatory and legislative bodies - doing the
bidding of the various moochers in the state - have imposed fairly
draconian rules concerning just when, where, and how the insurance
company can step away from the agreement.
>
> We, as a free people, have mandated our government, to divert some of
> our tax moneys to pay for health insurance. That is what we wanted,
> that is what we got.
I do not question your *legal* right to do this. I question your
*moral* right to do it.
>
> Before you get into the part that we are legislated into participation
> of our system, are you allowed to drive in the state of Blago without
> insurance?
> And if you opted out of car insurance, and you crippled somebody, all
> they would have to get from you is some home-made wine?
>
> Nice guy.
OK, hold on a moment. You're buying into Upscale's foaming rants. I
will summarize what I think in this matter:
1) If you are forced to participate in a government mandated
insurance system, it is not fraudulent to collect the benefits
thereof. I have no problem with Upscale, you or anyone else
therefore taking benefits from a system that is required by law
and that you *have* to pay into.
2) What I do have a problem with is *defending* such forced government
action as moral, "doing good", or any of the other appellations given
theft by its defenders. Honest people should seek to remove such
acts of government force from their lives, not defend theft because
they happen to personally benefit from them. The family member
I mentioned in a previous post that currently is in need of medical
care would certainly benefit directly if the U.S. forced Bill Gates
to pay $10B into the system "because he can afford it." This would
not make such an action moral or OK.
3) As to car insurance. The Communists here in the People's Republic
of IL require car insurance by law. They do not, however, require you
to buy it *from* the government nor do they tax everyone around the
state to pay for it. You're simply required to carry car insurance -
at your own expense - if you wish to drive on public roads. That's
very different than making, say, Richie Rich pay into a state run
car insurance program that I then get to use at a discounted rate
because I am not rich.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> It was a J-O-K-E ... no mean intentions whatsoever. Sheesh ...
>
> Of course. That means every time I've called you a fucking asshole, I was
> joking too.
Hmmm, I sort of doubt that, but OK.
>
> You're a wing nut of the first degree. You don't have a sense of humour and
> lack any possible comprehension of what the word means.
So angry. So bitter.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that is
>> exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit individual
>> States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This is absolutely in
>> the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equation and letting
>> people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don't like
>> Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
>
> Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
> controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
> example of the need for federal control.
>
Nope. Assume, for a moment that each state is in control of their
own emissions standards. Now assume that the state next to yours
sets their's unreasonably low and starts polluting *your* air.
Your state should then *sue* the adjacent state for actual and
compensatory damages. Litigation is a far better answer than
central regulation because litigation deals with the claim of
*actual* damages (as opposed to the potential damages addressed
by regulatory law). Litigation is also better because the 50 several
States are likely to have more resources in total to fight about this
stuff than the Federal EPA bureaucracy. I'll say it again: Diffuse
power is more efficient and better at getting to good results than
concentrated power, which is usually both very inefficient and almost
always heavy handed and wrong.
> And this may surprise you Tim, but in general I'm in favor of states
> assuming more responsibility. But it's my understanding that they don't
> want to, it's easier to blame the feds for taxes, fees, etc. than it is
> to justify them to the local voters. And of course the states that
> receive more than their share of federal funds are vehemently opposed.
Yeah, and I'd like to not have to pay *my* bills. The only way we
get back to honest government is to insist on the Constitutional
limits on Federal power and drive the responsibility and action
back where it belongs - the the people in each locale'. That's why -
even though I think Obama's ideas mostly range from very foolish
to profoundly dangerous - I don't think Obama (or Bush, or Clinton,
or ...) are the problem. The lazy, greedy, population is the problem,
the vast majority of which wants to benefit individually but pay
nothing for it. Making States accountable for their own would go
a long way to fix this.
I am reminded of a friend who says that the way to fix water pollution
is to require the intakes for water to be down stream of the outflows,
whether in homes or factories. Local control and accountability would
work - it did for the first 150 or so years of our Republic...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 24, 4:14 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Look at who this nation just elected.
>
> Does the Troll Rating Index go below zero?
>
> How weak is that? Goodness, Timbo... shameful attempt. Shameful!
Resist the temptation - this was just Tim's way of telling us that John
Galt _still_ hasn't knocked on his door.
Be patient, Tim. He'll either show up or he won't.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>Tom wrote:
>
>> Americans better pay attention too!
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> What a chilling scenario!
>>
>> Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
>
> Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second
>amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
>said.
Total bullshit, as usually. There is nothing in the Democratic ticket that
calls for abolishing (or abrogating) the second amendment.
I assume you're familiar with one of the strongest voices on Gun Control,
a republican by the name of James Brady.
Many, many democrats are gun owners and are perfectly happy with the
status quo.
scott
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>Upscale wrote:
>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> It was a J-O-K-E ... no mean intentions whatsoever. Sheesh ...
>>
>> Of course. That means every time I've called you a fucking asshole, I was
>> joking too.
>
>Hmmm, I sort of doubt that, but OK.
>
>>
>> You're a wing nut of the first degree. You don't have a sense of humour and
>> lack any possible comprehension of what the word means.
>
>So angry. So bitter.
This from the guy that uses terms like "Obamamessiah", "socialist", "gunthief", etc.
(None of which are accurate, all of which are labels designed to inflame).
Talk about both angry and bitter.
scott
RicodJour wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> Nope. Assume, for a moment that each state is in control of their
>>>> own emissions standards. Now assume that the state next to yours
>>>> sets their's unreasonably low and starts polluting *your* air.
>>>> Your state should then *sue* the adjacent state for actual and
>>>> compensatory damages. Litigation is a far better answer than
>>>> central regulation because litigation deals with the claim of
>>>> *actual* damages (as opposed to the potential damages addressed
>>>> by regulatory law).
>>> And how exactly would they determine actual damages from pollution?
>> By the showing the costs of the losses. This is done routinely
>> when assessing damages in a won lawsuit.
>>
>>> Wait until people croak and then count the bodies and multiply by
>>> dollars? Maybe they just start cleaning the soot off of cars, houses
>> Exactly. Again - not a new concept - it's been done for years.
>
> Of course you've determined that magical procedure that conclusively
> determines that someone died from pollution, and where that pollution
> came from. I'd hit USPTO and get that thing signed up now!
Uh ... this is a moot issue. I cannot exactly specify this
cause-and-effect relationship (that's why why have courts
and juries to judge the merits of such claims). But no
one else can come up with a complementary formula to use
when setting regulatory guidelines. In either case, someone's
judgment is needed. I'd prefer a set of courts and juries that
are under public scrutiny than a bunch of career bureaucrats
in the Federal government.
>
>>> and trees and charge backcharge them for the cleanup costs?
>> Something along those lines. "Because of your pollution, our
>> state incurrent $x in cleanup costs and suffered $x in lost
>> business and tourism revenue. We ask to court for that amount
>> plus a multiplier of y to disincent the other state from ever doing
>> this again." Like I said, a very normal legal activity that
>> takes place regularly.
>>> You may have a point and a position but that example....bzzzzzzzzzzzt.
>> I don't see why not - it's done every day. States might even choose
>> to pay for insurance against such claims.
>
> So, your solution to your objection to federal government is to have
> the states fight it out in an already overburdened legal system using
> magical systems of determination of cause and effect. Since states
No more more magical than today's regulation schemes -likely far less
magical
> operate without a need for taxation, all of the legal wrangling and
> insurance premium paying would have no impact on people's
> pocketbooks. Why didn't you just say so? Now it makes perfect
> sense. ;)
There is still a need for taxation - it just happens at the State level -
a place where government goobers can be held to account much more easily.
>
> You should just say - Government Sucks! - and leave it at that. You'd
> be more likely to influence people that way.
I don't think that. I think that strong, central, government sucks
and is very dangerous if history is any indication.
> R
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
basilisk wrote:
> Using this scenario, each state would have to have a lawsuit against their
> neighbors that
> lay to the immediate west of them, the end result would be that all cars and
> heavy industry
> could only be on the east coast, where there would be no one to sue.
>
Which would be perfect ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water
vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Robatoy wrote:
> Electric cars are possibly a temporary stop-gap, but most battery
> technology is dirty.
Yuppers - we're in need of a breakthrough for short-haul transportation.
Let's hope it comes reasonably soon.
> We need electrified coast to coast wide-gauge trains. Obama want
> infrastructure for the future? Look no further.
> Nukes and Rails. There. All better.
Heh - you had me dreaming of taking the TGV from Des Moines to Detroit,
then locals to Port Huron and Sarnia. It'd probably be a three-hour trip.
One of the Des Moines TV stations sent a reporter out to ask people on
the street what infrastructure changes they thought would improve the
Des Moines metro area. It knocked my socks off when three out of five
people answered: "Monorail".
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
"CW" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I'll grant that. Should have said perfect combustion of carbon-based
>> fuels. Nuclear reactions are even more perfect, producing only steam.
>
>Nuclear reactions produce heat, not steam.
>
Nuclear reactions produce neutrons. Neutron capture causes fission, which
releases a large amount of energy, some of which is heat, some is ionizing
radiation, some of which is more neutrons (which sustains the reaction).
The heat is captured and used to generate steam.
Some nuclear batteries and radioisotope thermal generators use a solid state
means to convert the heat to electricity bypassing the thermal cycle.
Most civilian reactors use water as a medium to harness the heat energy and
feed the resulting steam into standard generators.
Military reactors often use liquid sodium instead.
The remnants of the fuel capsule are radiotoxic and highly radioactive, but
can be reprocessed into more fuel (either through standard reprocessing such
as that used by France and Japan (and the US Prior to 1980), or through
the new fusion-fission hybrid technology developed in Texas).
Thorium fuel cycles can be designed such that the resulting waste cannot be
used for explosive devices even with reprocessing.
scott
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>
>>>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>>> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
>>> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>>>
>>> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water
>>> vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>>>
>> I'll grant that. Should have said perfect combustion of carbon-based
>> fuels. Nuclear reactions are even more perfect, producing only steam.
>
> Fine, for the AR among us, I should have specified that nuclear reactions
> produce heat and from the heat, steam is produced.
Not to overdo the AR aspect, but I make a living by using such heat
directly - without producing any steam at all. <g>
Just this morning I was contemplating how pleasant it would be to travel
a bit closer to the reaction so as to allow my skin to be discolored by
the radiation and the ache to be baked from my knee...
http://www.sunshinenevis.com/
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
B A R R Y wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>
>> The accident at Chernobyl was a spin-down station-service test that
>> wasn't thought through very well.
>> Incompetence, human error, call it what you will, but to draw
>> parallels between how we do things here and how they were done there,
>> is absurd.
>> A nuclear power station comes with a lot of responsibility. You just
>> don't hand one over to just anybody.
>
> Right!
>
> And ours have containment buildings and everything!
And don't use graphite modulators (except possibly for Hanford which
is/was not used for power gen an may not even be in use anymore) that
can catch fire and spread radioactive contaminated smoke into the air.
The most severe "event" in a U.S. power gen site was Three Mile Island
that had *zero* human radiation-related casualites or deaths. This was
confirmed later when a court threw out some wildeyed claims to the
contrary.
The lack of nuke power in this country is a tribute to the lousy
science "education" of the educational madrassas on the one hand and the
effectiveness of the environmentalist lunacy on the other. There is a
predictable health consequence to the outgassing of coal fired plants
that appears to be OK with the Sheeple, but a clean, contained nuke
plant scares them. We have met the enemy and he is us...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
It is simply called a Breeder Reactor.
It takes anything in and processes as you want e.g. power fuel pellets.
These were designed an proved to work - in the 60's. The long forgotten
lab in Tenn. did the work. They processed the first metal in the first place.
France has them up and running as well as Japan and another maybe.
We in the US have been hampered with false diatribe on the dangers
which shut down the nuke power plants.
Simply said, soft coal power plants put out more nuke foul stuff than
nuke plants. EVEN the one in N.J.
Martin
J. Clarke wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>>> Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>>>> B A R R Y,
>>>>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
>>>> It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
>>> Recyclable? How?
>> Wrong word.
>>
>> Reprocessable.
>>
>> <http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml>
>
> In other words prepared for storage. From your fact sheet:
> "High-level reprocessed waste is vitrified (solidified) and stored at
> La Hague for several decades, where it awaits final geologic
> disposal."
>
> Not at all the same thing as recycling, unless you consider putting
> something in a plastic bag so that it may be more easily transported
> to the landfill "recycling".
>
"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> To be honest I can't compare Alberta with Illinois. Haven't been to
> Alberta but I have been to Illinois. There can't be any comparison.
Well hell, Timbit lives there right? That drops the state several notches
from the get go.
On Feb 2, 11:21=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> ... snip
>
> > Nuke stuff is worrisome because people don't know anything about it.
> > They're perpetuating bad information.
> > Google for a paper called The Health Hazards Of Not Going
> > Nuclear.....then get back to me.
>
> > Start here:
> >http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25019125
>
> > I assure you that Dr. Petr Beckmann is not a kook.
>
> =A0 I had Dr. Beckmann for my Intro to Probability course for my EE
> undergraduate degree. =A0He was a very brilliant guy with a great sense o=
f
> humor, but also a strong grasp of real world practicality. =A0
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Did you understand anything he wrote on the hazards of not going
nuclear?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:22:55 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I inadvertently hit "Reply All" to one of your posts. That's that
>> grand total of my suspicious behavior. Methinks you're getting
>> desperate for material to make your nonexistent case - the sign of
>> a truly lost argument.
>
>You did it twice on the two past consecutive days. Shall I post the headers
>to show that as usual, you're a liar?
You can back away with all the dignity and respect from wreckers you
may desire right now. Doing so will diminish markedly the number of
posts from the village idiot. Remember one thing: when you roll around
with a pig, both of you get dirty--but the pig likes it.
With the possible exception of a couple of his kool aiid buddies, you
can walk away now wiith your head held high. I'll respect you, Robatoy
will respect you, and all the other true wood posting wreckers will
respect you.
Trust me. You'll feel better. And we're there for you.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
On Jan 30, 2:27=A0pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 11:56 am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
> >> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
> >> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>
> >> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only wat=
er
> >> vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>
> >> --
> >> Morris Dovey
> >> DeSoto Solar
> >> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
>
> > Well, coal is almost pure carbon, except the vanadium, sulfur, and the
> > all-time pond-filling favourite ash.
> > Clean coal, you know. Yup, really clean.
>
> > =A0Hydrogen is the way to go. Hands down. As a transportable fuel that
> > is. Easy to make with nuclear powerstations. (Btw, daughter # 2 is now
> > learning how to fly a nuclear powerstation. Following in the footsteps
> > of the oldest (28))
>
> > Electric cars are possibly a temporary stop-gap, but most battery
> > technology is dirty.
>
> > We need electrified coast to coast wide-gauge trains. Obama want
> > infrastructure for the future? Look no further.
> > Nukes and Rails. There. All better.
>
> Lets see to produce hydrogen you pass electricity through a hydrogen
> rich material and break down the hydrogen bonds. To make electricity
> your burn hydrogen in an oxygen rich environment producing water ash.
Water ash is easy to sweep up.
On Jan 23, 8:34=A0am, "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Americans better pay attention too!
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What a chilling scenario!
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Go to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyTq2NEUlhDE
If you take away the guns from honest people, only the politicians
will have guns.
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Trust me. You'll feel better. And we're there for you.
Thanks. Do you clean windows? :)
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:gKednbz6i9T95-
> Kind of like cutting off your hand to get rid of the wart on your finger.
Well, you've heard the old saying. 'All it takes for evil to triumph is for
good men to do nothing' (or words to that effect). An attempt to do
something is better than doing nothing as far as I'm concerned. And by that
doing something, I'm not talking about arming everybody.
I wonder what kind of death rate by gun there was in the old west where
everybody was armed. My guess would be that the population ratio versus gun
death of responsible citizens was much higher than it is now.
On Jan 26, 2:54=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 2:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>> Tom wrote:
> >>>>> Americans better pay attention too!
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What a chilling scenario!
> >>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Go to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyTq2NEUlhDE
> >>>> =A0Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate th=
e second
> >>>> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what=
they
> >>>> said.
> >>> Total bullshit, as usually. =A0 There is nothing in the Democratic ti=
cket that
> >>> calls for abolishing =A0(or abrogating) the second amendment.
> >>> I assume you're familiar with one of the strongest voices on Gun Cont=
rol,
> >>> a republican by the name of James Brady.
> >>> Many, many democrats are gun owners and are perfectly happy with the
> >>> status quo.
> >>> scott
> >> Check out Comrade Obamessiah's voting on gun issues in IL. He is
> >> essentially perfect in his staunch support for pretty much every gun
> >> control bill put before him.
>
> >> Yes, there are many patriotic, gun owning, decent people that are
> >> Democrats. But they, like so much of the rest of the voting public,
> >> simply did not pay attention in the last election. Obama is a fraud.
> >> He got in without having answer any hard questions about his
> >> associates, ideas, and policies. He is product and willing child of an
> >> immensely corrupt political machine.
>
> > You know what Timbo? Is that place you speak of is so corrupt, why
> > don't you leave?
> > Nooo.. not North.. SOUTH please....
>
> I'm planning on it. =A0Oh, and I already lived in your country...
>
Couldn't adjust to the kindness and warm hearts, eh Timbo?
On Jan 30, 2:08=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Electric cars are possibly a temporary stop-gap, but most battery
> > technology is dirty.
>
> Yuppers - we're in need of a breakthrough for short-haul transportation.
> Let's hope it comes reasonably soon.
>
> > We need electrified coast to coast wide-gauge trains. Obama want
> > infrastructure for the future? Look no further.
> > Nukes and Rails. There. All better.
>
> Heh - you had me dreaming of taking the TGV from Des Moines to Detroit,
> then locals to Port Huron and Sarnia. It'd probably be a three-hour trip.
>
> One of the Des Moines TV stations sent a reporter out to ask people on
> the street what infrastructure changes they thought would improve the
> Des Moines metro area. It knocked my socks off when three out of five
> people answered: "Monorail".
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
One big impression, when I was still a puppy, was a trip on the
monorail in Westfalen Germany.
My dad, even though he was a pencil pusher (accountant) has a love for
steam locomotives, and trains in general.
He dragged me all over Europe to look at trains. Steam was his
favourite and still plentiful back then. Him and I spent a whole day
at the train station in Fulda.
But I remember thinking, that that monorail was so smart. People
farmed under it, no railroad crossings, it took the same path as a
small river. Just a clever idea.
I would imagine a tad costly, and no benefit for the big, long
stretches. They would also not be suitable for freight.
Monorails are cool for uneven terrain. You just lengthen and shorten
the legs as needed.
J. Clarke wrote:
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:1hn8ttx0ovy8s
>>>>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
>>>>>>> If the underlying problem is not too many guns of questionable
>>>>>>> ownership, the what is the underlying problem? That people
>>>>>>> tend
>>>>>>> NOT to do the right thing?
>>>>>> Therein lies the problem. Nobody has been able to determine why
>>>>>> people in the US are more likely to kill each other than are
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> in other countries. But even if you deduct all deaths involving
>>>>>> firearms from the total, the US still has a much higher homocide
>>>>>> rate than the UK or Japan or many other nations.
>>>> Actually, there was a study by sociologist Glenn Deane some years
>>>> ago
>>>> that was quite conclusive. Glenn did a cross-national analysis of
>>>> homicide statistics and the dominant variables were gender and
>>>> age.
>>>> Basically, the relative number of young males in the population
>>>> had
>>>> the biggest impact on homicide rates--regardless of method. That
>>>> is,
>>>> countries with relatively large proportions of young males
>>>> generally
>>>> have higher rates of homicide and those with relatively small
>>>> proportions of young males have lower rates.
>>>>
>>>> I suggested to Glenn that perhaps a mandatory military draft along
>>>> with constant conflict abroad would be the most efficient way to
>>>> cut
>>>> down on homicide in the U.S. He didn't disagree with me that that
>>>> was
>>>> a reasonable conclusion but he was quick to note, and I didn't
>>>> disagree with him, that it presented a lot of other social costs.
>>>>
>>>> If you Google me and Jeff Chan together you'll find a bunch of
>>>> firearms regulation related research that I, or Don B. Kates Jr.,
>>>> obtained permission to distribute on the computer networks--keep
>>>> in
>>>> mind that there were computer networks before the WWW ;~) Some of
>>>> this work was groundwork leading up to the Heller case.
>>> Let's play Fun With Numbers. Looking at young males in the US, the
>>> UK, and Canada, and defining "young male" as being under 20, I find
>>> that for the US, UK, and Canada the percentages are 0.118, 0.121,
>>> and
>>> 0.121. The homicide rates appear to be 0.043, 0.0148, and 0.0149
>>> per
>>> thousand respectively. So despite having a slightly lower
>>> percentage
>>> of "young males", the US has a homicide rate three times higher
>>> than
>>> that of Canada or the UK.
>>>
>>> Still want to try to tell us that the cause of the high homicide
>>> rate
>>> in the US is "the percentage of young males"? If so, can you
>>> explain
>>> why an even higher percentage is not causing a similar homicide
>>> rate
>>> in the UK and Canada?
>>>
>>> While there may be a correlation, that does not mean that there is
>>> causation. And where does the US lie in relation to other nations
>>> on
>>> the curve? Is it right on the curve or is it way off it?
>> That's why you need to go read the study... ;~) It covers more than
>> 3
>> countries,
>
> It can cover three bazillion of them but if it doesn't explain why two
> countries with the same percentage of young males have homicide rates
> differening by a factor of three it doesn't tell us anything about
> fixing the problem in the US.
>
>> at a point in time (1980), and adjusts the rates for
>> gender and age.
>
> Huh? How does one "adjust the rates for gender and age"? Does
> killing a woman somehow count less than killing a man or some such?
> Sounds like he fudged the numbers to get the result he wanted.
>
>> Do the cross-national figures look exactly the same
>> today? Probably not... economic, political and reproduction rates
>> have certainly changed...
>
>
> Well, now, it was well known in 1980 that the US had a significantly
> higher homicide rate than the UK and Canada--were the relative
> percentages of "young males" the same then?
>
>> and the gangs have certainly expanded their
>> areas of operations.
>
> Which has exactly what do do with anything if the cause is "percentage
> of young males" and not "gangs"?
>
>> Perhaps some
>> grad student has replicated the study recently and can tell us.
>> There
>> could be one or more additional variables now that explain
>> significant parts of the rates (e.g., violence in film/music, school
>> drop out rates, immigration rates and what type of immigration, new
>> ways to diss and disenfranchise people, demise of
>> institutionalization for some ills/behaviors, etc.)
>
> So find one that explains the 3x difference between the US and the
> UK/Canada.
>
A tad bit might be due to 10 - 20% of the population of a foreign
country being in the US illegally and contributing disproportionately to
the crime and murder rate.
On Jan 30, 2:41=A0am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> in 91458 20090130 031016 Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Bob Martin wrote:
>
> >> in 91335 20090129 042735 Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>Bob Martin wrote:
>
> >>>> in 91231 20090127 171404 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote=
:
> >>>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> >>>>>> As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that =
is
> >>>>>> exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit
> >>>>>> individual States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This =
is
> >>>>>> absolutely in the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equat=
ion
> >>>>>> and letting people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don'=
t
> >>>>>> like Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
>
> >>>>>Now THAT's a bad example. =A0If the West Coast states toss out emiss=
ion
> >>>>>controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. =A0A perfe=
ct
> >>>>>example of the need for federal control.
>
> >>>> No, that's a perfect example of the need for international control.
>
> >>>You don't see a problem with Russia, France, and China dictating emiss=
ion
> >>>control policies to the US?
>
> >> Somebody has to - your government won't do much otherwise!
> >> Russia and France have both ratified the Kyoto agreement and shown
> >> themselves to be more responsible.
>
> >> The point of my post was that pollution doesn't just drift across stat=
e
> >> boundaries,
> >> it affects other countries as well. =A0Britain gets it from Ireland an=
d
> >> Sweden gets it
> >> from Britain, for example. =A0Doesn't take much brain-power to see tha=
t it
> >> is clearly an international problem.
>
> >You're funny. =A0Kyoto has nothing to do with pollution, it was intended=
to
> >reduce CO2 emissions, the biproduct of perfect combustion, in an attempt=
to
> >destroy industrial nations under the guise of the hoax of global warming=
.
>
> Your definition of Kyoto is hilarious. =A0CO2 is a pollutant.
> BTW, did you know that the cement industry around Houston makes more CO2 =
than
> all of the world's airlines put together?
Yes, M&J's definition of Kyoto is hilarious. Totally tin-foil hat
material. But unless the oil and coal barons are making huge profits,
the neo-cons will run out of contributions TO RISE AGAIN!! *clicks
heels*
On Jan 31, 10:14=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>
> > Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>
> >> B A R R Y,
> >> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
>
> > It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
>
> Recyclable? =A0How? =A0I want to see the specific uses for 98 percent of
> the components of radioactive waste from a reactor since you assert
> that it is "recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount". =A0Put it
> in the form of a list, identifying the component, the percentage
> prevalence in the waste, and the use for it that allows recycling.
>
AKA a troll.
On Jan 24, 7:34=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 4:14 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Look at who this nation just elected. =A0
>
> > Does the Troll Rating Index go below zero?
>
> > How weak is that? Goodness, Timbo... shameful attempt. Shameful!
>
> I didn't produce this piece of fine video. =A0I merely reported it.
> Yes, the troll index does go subzero - every time you demonstrate
> your racial bigotry and then pretend you just are expressing a
> thoughtful viewpoint.
>
That accusation is as false as it is stale. Oh, before I forget.... go
fuck yourself Timbo. :-)
On Jan 25, 4:11=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:497C9123.1070406
> @tundraware.com:
>
> > Even a causal inspection of Obamessiah's voting record here in Illinois
> > would have confirmed this. =A0He was- and is, viruently anti-gun
> > (and generally anti-freedom, pro-socialist).
>
> Just in case you have not already deduced this, I am not antigun, but wou=
ld
> like there to be fewer around, and certainly not in the "wrong" hands.
>
> I am pro freedom of expression and also for other freedoms, unless they
> adversely affect others' well-being and liberties. =A0That means, I don't
> care if you play your radio loudly when you are alone and have your
> environs sound-proofed, but I object against woodpeckers driving around
> busy and quiet neighborhoods with their radios full blast and the windows
> down.
>
> I have no idea why you would be against a state being organized to protec=
t
> the whole community, not only via military defense but also in economic
> ways. =A0That does not mean robbing Peter to pay lazy Paul, but to distri=
bute
> opportunity equally.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
You problem is that you make sense. Sense that doesn't fit the play-
book of those who want to keep people scared and un-armed.
All they want is your taxes so they can build big war machines so they
can pillage other nations for their resources and yet another crop of
peasants to take taxes from.
Keep your eye on the ball...follow the money. The rest is window
dressing and bullshit.
The whole glorified advert of 'Freedom' has completely lost its
meaning. We know we want it, but we don't know what it is anymore.
Who, in the western world is really free? All you have to do is take
one step out-of-synch with the 'mantra-of-the-day' and you're
immediately outcast. Nobody wants you to make a blend of what is right
from either political party. They want to keep us apart. The division
is what is important. It is what keeps us electing the opposite party
at opposite times. It is what makes us feel we have actually
accomplished something in the name of democracy, while in fact we have
played into the hands of those who want to keep us divided.
The only thing that Obama has to offer is that he is not Bush. And all
Bush did, was soften up your nation, and squeezed whatever liquidity
there was and handed it over to those who allowed him to play
president for 8 years.
You've been had.
What I see, is that piece of black & white film footage of that
nuclear bomb test. It shows a house getting pushed by a shockwave. a
momentary moment of recovery, then the back-draft bends the whole mess
back and blows it to smithereens before the heatwave hits it and
completely disintegrates it.
You have had 7 years of shockwave. Now a momentary breather/ a bit of
artificial bliss.... brace yourself... the back-draft is coming.
Be scared!!
Meanwhile, pay your taxes and hand in your guns.
On Feb 3, 12:49=A0am, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:00:43 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls =
of
> wisdom...:
>
>
>
> > Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too
> > much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
>
> Now that is one of the stupidist statements I've seen you make. =A0So sor=
ry
> that those of us who live right next to nuclear plants are not as
> "informed" as you. =A0Or maybe you're not as "informed" as you'd like
> everybody to believe.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
That's right, Mike... you live close to a nuke and you know what
you're talking about. Can you see Russia from your house too?
Actually, in relative terms, I am quite well informed on the topic.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I have no idea why you would be against a state being organized to protect
> the whole community, not only via military defense but also in economic
> ways. That does not mean robbing Peter to pay lazy Paul, but to
distribute
> opportunity equally.
Tim has absolutely no interest in distributing opportunity equally.
(something he calls collectivism). He is very much in support of people
keeping whatever they can take and everybody else can go screw themselves.
He also feels that Medicare should be supported solely by donation and
anybody receiving such health assistance should be living at the poverty
line before they'd qualify for that health care.
In other words, Tim is an asshole who has one primary concern and that is
himself. His frequent statement "Why should I have to pay?" is his mantra
and is all one needs to know about Tim to know who and what he is.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Beyond that, the UK has an absolute ban on private possession of
> handguns. They also have a rising incidence of the use of handguns in
> crime. If an absolute ban does not help then how will licensing and
> training help?
The only comment I can make on that statement is that the rigours needed to
get licensed for a firearm might discourage some from doing so, resulting in
fewer legal gun ownerships and fewer being stolen. While many guns are
smuggled up to Canada from the US, a significant number of them are obtained
by way of theft.
Certainly not a perfect solution, but one of many ways to prevent the
obtaining of a gun for criminal purposes.
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> :> Or, since towns are kinda big, neighborhoods?
> :>
> :> -- Andy Barss
>
> : It has something to do with the fomative law of the land -
> : the U.S. Constitution, which document makes exactly three
> : distinctions: Federal, State, and The People.
>
> : Moving power back to the States would be imperfect but at least it
> : would be something wherein the citizens would actually have:
>
> : a) More probability of having a voice in the decisions made.
> : b) The ability to move to the state that best matched their
> : own values and interest.
>
> Not a convincing argument. But I do understand you hold to it very, uh,
> fervently.
>
> -- Andy Barss
I hold it in the absence of a better alternative ... though I am open
to better alternatives always.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Larry W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Compared to the cost and damage from our inability to deal with waste
> generated rom coal mining and burning, nuclear waste does not seem
> like such a terrible problem.
Except that in a worst case scenario, nuclear waste has longer lasting and
excessively serious health risks.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I inadvertently hit "Reply All" to one of your posts. That's that
> grand total of my suspicious behavior. Methinks you're getting
> desperate for material to make your nonexistent case - the sign of
> a truly lost argument.
You did it twice on the two past consecutive days. Shall I post the headers
to show that as usual, you're a liar?
On Jan 31, 9:38=A0pm, "Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> It is simply called a Breeder Reactor.
> It takes anything in and processes as you want e.g. power fuel pellets.
>
> These were designed an proved to work - in the 60's. =A0The long forgotte=
n
> lab in Tenn. did the work. =A0They processed the first metal in the first=
place.
>
> France has them up and running as well as Japan and another maybe.
> We in the US have been hampered with false diatribe on the dangers
> which shut down the nuke power plants.
>
> Simply said, soft coal power plants put out more nuke foul stuff than
> nuke plants. =A0EVEN the one in N.J.
>
> Martin
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > B A R R Y wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> B A R R Y wrote:
> >>>> Kerry Montgomery wrote:
> >>>>> B A R R Y,
> >>>>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
> >>>> It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
> >>> Recyclable? =A0How?
> >> Wrong word.
>
> >> Reprocessable.
>
> >> <http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml>
>
> > In other words prepared for storage. =A0From your fact sheet:
> > "High-level reprocessed waste is vitrified (solidified) and stored at
> > La Hague for several decades, where it awaits final geologic
> > disposal."
>
> > Not at all the same thing as recycling, unless you consider putting
> > something in a plastic bag so that it may be more easily transported
> > to the landfill "recycling".
We used to monitor coal flow with a Geiger counter. No ticki ticki, no
coal on the belt to the pulverizers.
Coal is awful stuff. Nobody ever talks about the nasty metals, like
vanadium and such... or the NOx...
We installed scrubbers to get rid of the sulphur compounds...so we
ended up wit a pond full of dirty sulphur.
And what DO you do with a few million tons of fly-ash? Clinkers? Coal
mining related health/safety issues (Sago)? EVERY day?
It all makes a few thimbles of spent nuclear fuel seem rather easy to
manage.
Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too
much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
LRod wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:14:52 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> We Americans are demonstrably too stupid to pay attention.
>> Look at who this nation just elected. Now look at this and
>> get back to me on the mentality of this country:
>>
>> http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/01/that-creepy-obama-pledge.html
>>
>> Here's my pledge:
>>
>> I pledge to never patronize the so-called "art" of any of these
>> self important windbags and to use all legal means at my disposal
>> to thwart the agenda of the new Communist In Chief, Obamessiah.
>
> I normally ignore you, as do most (your post on 19 December inquiring
Please continue doing so. I have a limited number of small words
at my disposal for response to posts like yours.
> as to what cars people bought netted not a single response), but you
> need a reality check. Here it is:
>
> Your republican machine was SO inept, SO corrupt and So
> wildly unpopular that the Democrats managed to elect a black
> dude with a Muslim name.
>
> How embarrassing is that?
>
> Not an original quote from me, but I wish it was.
>
>
>
Sorry Junior, I'm not a Republican and rarely vote that way.
Obama's election is an embarrassment for the Democrats - they
scraped the very bottom of the barrel to come up with this
fleabag.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Limiting the Feds to their Constitutionally mandated role would
> : enable each State to do what made sense locally.
>
>
> Why do you, and others who I've seen with similar beliefs, think
> that the state level is the local level? I find the ubiquitous
> federal/nonfederal dictotomy very puzzling.
>
> Why not restrict or eliminate state power while you're at it,
> and give the majority of power to the counties? Or hell, to each
> separate town? That way, one town can decide how much to spend on its roads,
> and if you don't like the way they build them, move to another town.
>
> Or, since towns are kinda big, neighborhoods?
>
> -- Andy Barss
It has something to do with the fomative law of the land -
the U.S. Constitution, which document makes exactly three
distinctions: Federal, State, and The People.
Moving power back to the States would be imperfect but at least it
would be something wherein the citizens would actually have:
a) More probability of having a voice in the decisions made.
b) The ability to move to the state that best matched their
own values and interest.
But we can't have that, can we?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Sorry Junior, I'm not a Republican and rarely vote that way.
> Obama's election is an embarrassment for the Democrats - they
> scraped the very bottom of the barrel to come up with this
> fleabag.
So, you didn't vote Republican and your criticism of Obama means you didn't
vote Democrat. That makes you what? ~ A nothing. As in your utter failure to
contribute *anything* even remotely worthwhile to this newsgroup, you fail
just as miserably to fill your obligation to your country by voting. Unless
of course you voted for some fringe lunatic group. *That* wouldn't surprise
me at all.
You're the quintessential armchair quarterback with absolutely nothing to
contribute other than your meaningless blather.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
> > controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
> > example of the need for federal control.
> >
>
> Nope. Assume, for a moment that each state is in control of their
> own emissions standards. Now assume that the state next to yours
> sets their's unreasonably low and starts polluting *your* air.
> Your state should then *sue* the adjacent state for actual and
> compensatory damages. Litigation is a far better answer than
> central regulation because litigation deals with the claim of
> *actual* damages (as opposed to the potential damages addressed
> by regulatory law).
And how exactly would they determine actual damages from pollution?
Wait until people croak and then count the bodies and multiply by
dollars? Maybe they just start cleaning the soot off of cars, houses
and trees and charge backcharge them for the cleanup costs?
You may have a point and a position but that example....bzzzzzzzzzzzt.
R
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I inadvertently hit "Reply All" to one of your posts. That's that
>> grand total of my suspicious behavior. Methinks you're getting
>> desperate for material to make your nonexistent case - the sign of
>> a truly lost argument.
>
> You did it twice on the two past consecutive days. Shall I post the headers
> to show that as usual, you're a liar?
>
>
>
Then both were inadvertent. I ordinarily hit "Reply All" to email
and USENET postings. I keep forgetting to not do so here on the
'Wreck. You need to seriously lighten up. While I find your
ideas and your style both obnoxious, I really don't harbor
any ill will towards you personally - I don't take USENET
posting personally or all that seriously. Take a deep breath and
relax.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> It was a J-O-K-E ... no mean intentions whatsoever. Sheesh ...
>>> Of course. That means every time I've called you a fucking asshole, I was
>>> joking too.
>> Hmmm, I sort of doubt that, but OK.
>>
>>> You're a wing nut of the first degree. You don't have a sense of humour and
>>> lack any possible comprehension of what the word means.
>> So angry. So bitter.
>
> This from the guy that uses terms like "Obamamessiah", "socialist", "gunthief", etc.
> (None of which are accurate, all of which are labels designed to inflame).
They are *precisely* accurate:
His rabid followers treat him with Messianic reverence and devotion.
The fawning adoration is revolting, up to, and including watching
the Hollyweirdos in an Oprah Production of "I pledge allegiance to
Obama." The last time I saw anything like it, the Great Leader had
the kids running around in brown shirts and jackboots. Nationalism
or Leader Worship in any of their forms is incredible dangerous and
ought to be frightening to people that value liberty. But not you
guys. You just *love* your Dearly Beloved Leader. It's not so much
his fault as it is the fault of his silly, ignorant, and puerile
voting base.
He is a self-proclaimed socialist with both a history of- and associations
with- wealth redistribution schemes and people. *He's* the one
that hangs out with radicals, bombers, racist ministers and then -
with astonishing gall - proclaims his support for wealth
redistribution.
He is a demonstrable gun grabber who voted consistently in support of
all anti-gun legislation before the IL Senate. This is a matter of
public record, not my opinion. I couldn't care less what you
or the rest of the rabble here think of me personally. You might
want to inspect objective Reality now and then instead of killing
the messenger, however.
Before you blather, you might do some elementary homework about your
guy. You can worship him all you want, but in the spirit of
"open and transparent government" you might want to deal with the
reality of who this guy actually is instead of waiting for the
Obama Fairy Dust to kick in and save your soul.
>
> Talk about both angry and bitter.
I am neither. I am speaking in a calm, cautionary voice in some vain
hope that reason can be reestablished among the U.S. electorate
before they turn this marvelous Republic in a European Socialist
State (or France).
> scott
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
[email protected] wrote:
> The Second Amendment to the Constitution was written by a Congress, that was
> composed to a man of those who had successfully revolted through force of
> arms, against a government they thought unjust.
>
> The Second Amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights for that matter, was
> written in reaction to things that had happened since their revolution.
> Several of the States had tried to impress unjust taxes, and collect them
> from members of the Continental Army who had been unable to farm or work and
> earn enough money to pay taxes since they were in the field with the army.
> They had successfully organized, and fought off the agents of the state
> through the force of arms.
>
> The British, in response to our armed insurgency had passed the Gun Powder
> Act, and the Weapons Act, and enforced them in their territories to prevent
> any further revolutions. Both acts, carried a death penalty, and in the
> case of the Weapons Act, the definition of weapon was left to the discretion
> of the ranking British officer on the scene. Those found guilty by a
> military tribunal, could be executed on the scene.
>
> The intent of the Second Amendment is clear if you look at it in historical
> perspective: It was written by a group of men who had successfully revolted
> against an unjust government, and felt that it was not only a right of the
> populace, but a duty, to over throw an unjust government. They decided that
> since the States, and the Federal government, were going to have armed
> forces, (police and "militias"), that the citizenry should also be armed, to
> a level that they could successfully revolt if the need should ever arise.
>
> The licensing of gun owners would be counter to that goal. Because, an
> unjust, or corrupt government would then know exactly the information it
> would require to disarm the populace, and control it by force of arms.
If you saw the movie RED DAWN, which is about a Soviet invasion of the
USA in Montana, there is a scene in the early part of the movie where
the Cuban adviser to the Soviet commander instructs someone to go to the
sporting goods store and get the firearms permit applications. This was
so they could confiscate all the firearms in town.
Dave N
The Second Amendment to the Constitution was written by a Congress, that was
composed to a man of those who had successfully revolted through force of
arms, against a government they thought unjust.
The Second Amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights for that matter, was
written in reaction to things that had happened since their revolution.
Several of the States had tried to impress unjust taxes, and collect them
from members of the Continental Army who had been unable to farm or work and
earn enough money to pay taxes since they were in the field with the army.
They had successfully organized, and fought off the agents of the state
through the force of arms.
The British, in response to our armed insurgency had passed the Gun Powder
Act, and the Weapons Act, and enforced them in their territories to prevent
any further revolutions. Both acts, carried a death penalty, and in the
case of the Weapons Act, the definition of weapon was left to the discretion
of the ranking British officer on the scene. Those found guilty by a
military tribunal, could be executed on the scene.
The intent of the Second Amendment is clear if you look at it in historical
perspective: It was written by a group of men who had successfully revolted
against an unjust government, and felt that it was not only a right of the
populace, but a duty, to over throw an unjust government. They decided that
since the States, and the Federal government, were going to have armed
forces, (police and "militias"), that the citizenry should also be armed, to
a level that they could successfully revolt if the need should ever arise.
The licensing of gun owners would be counter to that goal. Because, an
unjust, or corrupt government would then know exactly the information it
would require to disarm the populace, and control it by force of arms.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> <snipped>
>
> It does not seem clear to you that putting up some little hurdles to legal
> gun ownership would prevent a lot of illegal gun trading?
>
> How else are you going to discourage illegal gun ownership/usage?
> Issue guns to everyone and let them have it out?
>
> Jeez ...
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
You make a good point. Since they made a law against robbery, not a single
gas station or store has been robbed. Banks lo longer need vaults.
There are plenty of hurdles. Law abiding people abide by them, others won't
no matter how many or how high they are. Passing laws does not prevent
crime, it only prescribes the punishment. Responsible gun owners seek
training and learn how to use them properly.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 2, 11:18 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Feb 2, 7:21 pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Larry W wrote:
>>>>> Personally I'd much rather have a nuclear reactor in my back yard
>>>>> than a strip mine.
>>>> Same here.
>>>> I lived for years around 8 miles from a nuke plant. I didn't move,
>>>> they decommissioned the plant.
>>>> The radioactive materials that exist in coal, and are released into the
>>>> atmosphere when the coal is burned, seem to get often ignored.
>>> You see, Barry...or should I call you BARRY??.<G>... there are plenty
>>> well-run safe nuclear power stations. It's when private industry
>>> starts shaving off a buck here or there, that's when you get problems.
>> Yeah, that private industry debacle at Chernobyl, Soviet Union was really
>> a wake-up call for what happens when you let corporations shave costs and
>> cut corners. Too bad it wasn't the Soviet government running that plant,
>> then all safety procedures would have been properly followed, there would
>> have been multiple checks and double-checks before anybody tried doing
>> anything stupid, and no problems would have occurred. Live and learn I
>> guess.
>>
>> --
>> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>
> Yup, as competent as the Morton Thiokol engineering department. (O-
> ring division).
>
> The accident at Chernobyl was a spin-down station-service test that
> wasn't thought through very well.
> Incompetence, human error, call it what you will, but to draw
> parallels between how we do things here and how they were done there,
> is absurd.
> A nuclear power station comes with a lot of responsibility. You just
> don't hand one over to just anybody.
> But if you want to put your government's conscientiousness at par with
> the Soviets, go for it, I know that the regulatory systems in place
> here in Canada are far more sophisticated than that. A test like that
> would never have been approved here.
> But, I am wasting my typing skills here. You're anti-government now
> because this new guy isn't bouncing around on his pogo stick yelling:
> "drill, baby, drill!!"
IRCC the test at Chernobly was turned down also but the EXPERTS went
ahead and did it anyway. Also the reactor was not housed in a
containment facility. It was constructed inside an ordinary, albeit
large, power plant building.
Bob Martin wrote:
> in 91335 20090129 042735 Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Bob Martin wrote:
>>
>>> in 91231 20090127 171404 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that is
>>>>> exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit
>>>>> individual States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This is
>>>>> absolutely in the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equation
>>>>> and letting people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don't
>>>>> like Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
>>>>
>>>>Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
>>>>controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
>>>>example of the need for federal control.
>>>
>>> No, that's a perfect example of the need for international control.
>>
>>You don't see a problem with Russia, France, and China dictating emission
>>control policies to the US?
>
> Somebody has to - your government won't do much otherwise!
> Russia and France have both ratified the Kyoto agreement and shown
> themselves to be more responsible.
>
> The point of my post was that pollution doesn't just drift across state
> boundaries,
> it affects other countries as well. Britain gets it from Ireland and
> Sweden gets it
> from Britain, for example. Doesn't take much brain-power to see that it
> is clearly an international problem.
You're funny. Kyoto has nothing to do with pollution, it was intended to
reduce CO2 emissions, the biproduct of perfect combustion, in an attempt to
destroy industrial nations under the guise of the hoax of global warming.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Bob Martin wrote:
> in 91458 20090130 031016 Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Bob Martin wrote:
>>
>>> in 91335 20090129 042735 Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Bob Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> in 91231 20090127 171404 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>>>
... snip
>>>>>>example of the need for federal control.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's a perfect example of the need for international control.
>>>>
>>>>You don't see a problem with Russia, France, and China dictating
>>>>emission control policies to the US?
>>>
>>> Somebody has to - your government won't do much otherwise!
>>> Russia and France have both ratified the Kyoto agreement and shown
>>> themselves to be more responsible.
>>>
>>> The point of my post was that pollution doesn't just drift across state
>>> boundaries,
>>> it affects other countries as well. Britain gets it from Ireland and
>>> Sweden gets it
>>> from Britain, for example. Doesn't take much brain-power to see that it
>>> is clearly an international problem.
>>
>>You're funny. Kyoto has nothing to do with pollution, it was intended to
>>reduce CO2 emissions, the biproduct of perfect combustion, in an attempt
>>to destroy industrial nations under the guise of the hoax of global
>>warming.
>
> Your definition of Kyoto is hilarious. CO2 is a pollutant.
> BTW, did you know that the cement industry around Houston makes more CO2
> than all of the world's airlines put together?
My definition of Kyoto is spot-on. If Kyoto were really concerned about
reducing emissions, the heavy emitters from the emerging industrialized
nations would have been included, not exempted.
Defining CO2 as a pollutant is interesting in that by doing so, every
living thing is now a polluter, and therefore subject to regulation. The
simple act of breathing releases this "pollutant". Further, by so defining
CO2, the stage is set for regulating and limiting industrial output because
even a system with perfect combustion (i.e, the output of perfect
combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor) will yield CO2 as a bi-product,
therefore, no matter how efficient the industry, it's yield will be subject
to regulation and limitation.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>> Americans better pay attention too!
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> What a chilling scenario!
>>>
>>> Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
>>
>> Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the
>> second
>>amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
>>said.
>
> Total bullshit, as usually. There is nothing in the Democratic ticket
> that
> calls for abolishing (or abrogating) the second amendment.
You really are pretty clueless, aren't you? You bought the rhetoric and
failed to look at the record. Who pushed through the FIRST assault weapons
ban? Your beloved Joe Biden. Think he's changed his stance? Obama made a
big deal of supporting the second amendment during the campaign because he
needed the clueless democrat gun owner vote. His record in the Illinois
legislature was 100% anti-gun owner. He supported several bills including
one that would prosecute homeowners for self-defense in their own homes.
>
> I assume you're familiar with one of the strongest voices on Gun Control,
> a republican by the name of James Brady.
Sarah and James Brady haven't been real Republicans in a long time. I
don't even know, nor care if they are registered as Republicans or not.
They fall in the same class as Lincoln Chafee or Chuck Hagel.
>
> Many, many democrats are gun owners and are perfectly happy with the
> status quo.
>
... and yet they ignored the NRA's documented facts on Obama's record and
voted for him anyway. I guess they were just hoping he would be changing
his position. [ Yes, I said NRA, you can excoriate them all you want for
their positions, but they published documented facts on Obama's record that
the rest of the media was too inept to bother to report.]
Better take a look at the O's plans:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/>
"... They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this
country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault
Weapons Ban permanent."
The "gun show loophole" that doesn't exist will basically make it illegal
for private citizens to buy, sell, or trade firearms. Assault weapons ban?
Who decides what constitutes and "assault weapon"? Just because to some a
gun looks big and scary? Number of crimes committed with this mythical
class of gun is vanishingly small -- it's just a feel-good first step
expanded gun restrictions. If they can make that stick, then they can go
after some other imagined public danger and so on until they get complete
confiscation.
Not a whole lot of "status quo" in that paragraph.
> scott
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Robatoy wrote:
... snip
> Nuke stuff is worrisome because people don't know anything about it.
> They're perpetuating bad information.
> Google for a paper called The Health Hazards Of Not Going
> Nuclear.....then get back to me.
>
> Start here:
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25019125
>
> I assure you that Dr. Petr Beckmann is not a kook.
I had Dr. Beckmann for my Intro to Probability course for my EE
undergraduate degree. He was a very brilliant guy with a great sense of
humor, but also a strong grasp of real world practicality.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 2, 7:21Â pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry W wrote:
>>
>> > Personally I'd much rather have a nuclear reactor in my back yard
>>
>> > than a strip mine.
>>
>> Same here.
>>
>> I lived for years around 8 miles from a nuke plant. Â I didn't move,
>> they decommissioned the plant.
>>
>> The radioactive materials that exist in coal, and are released into the
>> atmosphere when the coal is burned, seem to get often ignored.
>
> You see, Barry...or should I call you BARRY??.<G>... there are plenty
> well-run safe nuclear power stations. It's when private industry
> starts shaving off a buck here or there, that's when you get problems.
Yeah, that private industry debacle at Chernobyl, Soviet Union was really
a wake-up call for what happens when you let corporations shave costs and
cut corners. Too bad it wasn't the Soviet government running that plant,
then all safety procedures would have been properly followed, there would
have been multiple checks and double-checks before anybody tried doing
anything stupid, and no problems would have occurred. Live and learn I
guess.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:45:31 -0800, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
> "B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> We need electrified coast to coast wide-gauge trains. Obama want
>>> infrastructure for the future? Look no further. Nukes and Rails.
>>> There. All better.
>>
>>
>> I'm disappointed that he's anti-nuke.
>>
>> Nuclear power might be the greenest electricity currently available.
>>
>>
> B A R R Y,
> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste. Kerry
From everything I've seen, the next generation or two should see reactors
that will actually take todays waste in as fuel and churn out barely-
radioactive 'waste' at the end of it.
So maybe we should be going nuclear big time and planning 200 year
storage with easy access instead of 10,000 year storage that nobody can
get to?
Actually, if you remember when Florida had all the problems with the thugs
robbing, shooting, and killing tourists, it was caused by liberalization of
Florida's concealed carry, and liability laws.
It wasn't safe for the thieves to random pick a Florida resident as a
victim, because suddenly they tended to be armed. So, they started preying
on the tourists, because they knew they wouldn't be armed.
As to rates of homicide, and gun ownership in the "Old West", there aren't
any good statistics, but it should be remembered that a large portion of the
adult male population were veterans of the civil war, and were not only
armed but trained, and veterans of some of the bloodiest fighting ever seen.
I doubt any of them took much guff from anyone, or allowed bullies to exist
with impunity. The movie scenes where the "bad guys" ride into town, and
terrorize the populace just didn't happen. They would have been cut down in
minutes.
Here's one I just received:
> Actually, if you remember when Florida had all the problems with the thugs
> robbing, shooting, and killing tourists, it was caused by liberalization
> of
> Florida's concealed carry, and liability laws.
<snippage>
This is a poll as to whether or not we believe guns should be banned after
this shooting. Hit it, we are barely winning. Anytime one of these polls
comes up anywhere in the nation there should be emails sent to every member
of the NRA and anyone who doesn't want their constitutional rights stepped
on.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-0124-miami-shooting-poll,0,2714959,post.poll
And a word from Down Under:
Australian Gun Law Update
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts . ...
..
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the now
available data from Down Under.
It has now been one year (12 months) since gun owners in Australia were
forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed
by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million dollars.
The first year results are now available:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent;
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
(yes, 44 percent);
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent as compared with the last one year period when private ownership of
a firearm was legal.
(NOTE: the law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms, the
criminal element did not and thus criminals in Australia still possess their
guns.)
While data for the 25 years preceding the confiscation of privately owned
guns showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has
changed drastically upward in the past 12 months as criminals now are
assured their victims will be unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
'successfully ridding Australian society of guns.'
This story of well-intentioned government intervention in the rights of
lawful individuals to own and possess firearms won't be seen in the
mainstream US media or on the American evening news. Senator Obama who
advocates a similar confiscation in the US will not be reporting any of this
to you.
But, the Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of
honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect
only the law-abiding citizens. Americans may want to take note before it's
too late!
Tom
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'll grant that. Should have said perfect combustion of carbon-based
> fuels. Nuclear reactions are even more perfect, producing only steam.
Nuclear reactions produce heat, not steam.
<snippage>
>
> Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second
> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
> said.
>
> Anybody who believed that bilge from the candidate exhorting his
> disciples
> to get in peoples' faces and tell them that He believed in the second
> amendment should really ask themselves what the @#$% they were thinking.
>
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Amen to both the body and the signature!
Larry W wrote:
>
> Personally I'd much rather have a nuclear reactor in my back yard
> than a strip mine.
Same here.
I lived for years around 8 miles from a nuke plant. I didn't move,
they decommissioned the plant.
The radioactive materials that exist in coal, and are released into the
atmosphere when the coal is burned, seem to get often ignored.
In article <d58f93e7-956a-49a2-a74a-1fa68915cb17
@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> On Jan 23, 10:25=A0am, "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > If you take away the guns from honest people, only the politicians
> > will have guns.
> >
> > Politicians are a synonym for crook, right?
> > Tom
>=20
> Not always. The power structure that supports them is.
>=20
kleptocracy.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>>>> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
>>>> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>>>>
>>>> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only
>>>> water vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>>>>
>>> I'll grant that. Should have said perfect combustion of carbon-based
>>> fuels. Nuclear reactions are even more perfect, producing only steam.
>>
>> Fine, for the AR among us, I should have specified that nuclear
>> reactions
>> produce heat and from the heat, steam is produced.
>
> Not to overdo the AR aspect, but I make a living by using such heat
> directly - without producing any steam at all. <g>
>
> Just this morning I was contemplating how pleasant it would be to travel
> a bit closer to the reaction so as to allow my skin to be discolored by
> the radiation and the ache to be baked from my knee...
>
> http://www.sunshinenevis.com/
>
Well, no surfside here (our beach is about 400 miles deep :-) ), however,
today we had the windows open and I got kind of warm putting filler into
the woodpecker holes on the shop. Still have about half a crop of the
oranges on the tree as well.
I feel for ya'll, I spend a bit of time on the yesterday's tractors web
pages with photo ads. Seeing some of those pictures with the tractors
buried up to their hubs in snow and the shadows from evening sky just
screams cold. I remember those scenes from real life while growing up in
Colorado.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>
> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>
> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water
> vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>
Or you could burn sodium in a pure chlorine environment and produce
table salt.
[email protected] wrote:
> Actually, if you remember when Florida had all the problems with the thugs
> robbing, shooting, and killing tourists, it was caused by liberalization of
> Florida's concealed carry, and liability laws.
>
> It wasn't safe for the thieves to random pick a Florida resident as a
> victim, because suddenly they tended to be armed. So, they started preying
> on the tourists, because they knew they wouldn't be armed.
>
> As to rates of homicide, and gun ownership in the "Old West", there aren't
> any good statistics, but it should be remembered that a large portion of the
> adult male population were veterans of the civil war, and were not only
> armed but trained, and veterans of some of the bloodiest fighting ever seen.
> I doubt any of them took much guff from anyone, or allowed bullies to exist
> with impunity. The movie scenes where the "bad guys" ride into town, and
> terrorize the populace just didn't happen. They would have been cut down in
> minutes.
Which is just what happened to the Jessie James gang when they tried to
rob a bank in Minnisota.
Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:497C9123.1070406
> @tundraware.com:
>
>> Even a causal inspection of Obamessiah's voting record here in Illinois
>> would have confirmed this. He was- and is, viruently anti-gun
>> (and generally anti-freedom, pro-socialist).
>
> Just in case you have not already deduced this, I am not antigun, but
> would like there to be fewer around, and certainly not in the "wrong"
> hands.
>
I can't think of any law abiding citizen who wants guns in the hands of
criminals. However, taking guns away from law abiding citizens (or
restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to obtain guns) does
nothing to prevent people who are breaking the law from breaking another
law. What those restrictions do is provide a criminal-friendly environment
in which your typical lawbreaker has free reign to do pretty much what they
please with society as long as they run away fast enough not to get caught
when Johnny-Law shows up.
In the US, it is firmly established by law and court decision that the
police do not have an obligation to protect *you*, only to protect society
as a whole. That means that if you are robbed or a victim of any other
violent crime, the police are obligated to investigate and attempt to catch
the perpetrator in order to stop him from harming anyone else -- if they
didn't get to you in time, it's tragic, but not an indication of failure on
their part. For myself, I would like to at least have the option of being
able to stop or keep the perps at bay before they can harm my family or
myself. Waving a golf-club in the air doesn't do that for me.
> I am pro freedom of expression and also for other freedoms, unless they
> adversely affect others' well-being and liberties. That means, I don't
> care if you play your radio loudly when you are alone and have your
> environs sound-proofed, but I object against woodpeckers driving around
> busy and quiet neighborhoods with their radios full blast and the windows
> down.
>
> I have no idea why you would be against a state being organized to protect
> the whole community, not only via military defense but also in economic
> ways. That does not mean robbing Peter to pay lazy Paul, but to
> distribute opportunity equally.
>
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
>> Americans better pay attention too!
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> What a chilling scenario!
>>
>> Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
>
> Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second
> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
> said.
>
> Anybody who believed that bilge from the candidate exhorting his disciples
> to get in peoples' faces and tell them that He believed in the second
> amendment should really ask themselves what the @#$% they were thinking.
>
>
The recent unpleasentness between England and America was over the fact
that we Americans wanted to keep our guns. You all remember it, it was
in all the papers.
Dave N
J. Clarke wrote:
> David G. Nagel wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> The Second Amendment to the Constitution was written by a Congress,
>>> that was composed to a man of those who had successfully revolted
>>> through force of arms, against a government they thought unjust.
>>>
>>> The Second Amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights for that
>>> matter,
>>> was written in reaction to things that had happened since their
>>> revolution. Several of the States had tried to impress unjust
>>> taxes,
>>> and collect them from members of the Continental Army who had been
>>> unable to farm or work and earn enough money to pay taxes since
>>> they
>>> were in the field with the army. They had successfully organized,
>>> and fought off the agents of the state through the force of arms.
>>>
>>> The British, in response to our armed insurgency had passed the Gun
>>> Powder Act, and the Weapons Act, and enforced them in their
>>> territories to prevent any further revolutions. Both acts, carried
>>> a death penalty, and in the case of the Weapons Act, the definition
>>> of weapon was left to the discretion of the ranking British officer
>>> on the scene. Those found guilty by a military tribunal, could be
>>> executed on the scene.
>>>
>>> The intent of the Second Amendment is clear if you look at it in
>>> historical perspective: It was written by a group of men who had
>>> successfully revolted against an unjust government, and felt that
>>> it
>>> was not only a right of the populace, but a duty, to over throw an
>>> unjust government. They decided that since the States, and the
>>> Federal government, were going to have armed forces, (police and
>>> "militias"), that the citizenry should also be armed, to a level
>>> that they could successfully revolt if the need should ever arise.
>>>
>>> The licensing of gun owners would be counter to that goal.
>>> Because, an unjust, or corrupt government would then know exactly
>>> the information it would require to disarm the populace, and
>>> control
>>> it by force of arms.
>> If you saw the movie RED DAWN, which is about a Soviet invasion of
>> the
>> USA in Montana, there is a scene in the early part of the movie
>> where
>> the Cuban adviser to the Soviet commander instructs someone to go to
>> the sporting goods store and get the firearms permit applications.
>> This was so they could confiscate all the firearms in town.
>
> When did sporting goods stores in Montana start stocking firearms
> permit applications? Around here if you need a permit for something
> you go to the police station or town hall.
>
> The bound book is more likely to be useful.
>
>
Hay it's a movie. Since when has Hollywood gotten anything right. The
point I was trying to make is that where there is paperwork for firearms
there is the easy source of who has what and where do they live.
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>> We need electrified coast to coast wide-gauge trains. Obama want
>> infrastructure for the future? Look no further.
>> Nukes and Rails. There. All better.
>
>
> I'm disappointed that he's anti-nuke.
>
> Nuclear power might be the greenest electricity currently available.
>
B A R R Y,
If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
Kerry
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 30, 11:56 am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
>> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>>
>> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water
>> vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>>
>> --
>> Morris Dovey
>> DeSoto Solar
>> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
>
> Well, coal is almost pure carbon, except the vanadium, sulfur, and the
> all-time pond-filling favourite ash.
> Clean coal, you know. Yup, really clean.
>
> Hydrogen is the way to go. Hands down. As a transportable fuel that
> is. Easy to make with nuclear powerstations. (Btw, daughter # 2 is now
> learning how to fly a nuclear powerstation. Following in the footsteps
> of the oldest (28))
>
> Electric cars are possibly a temporary stop-gap, but most battery
> technology is dirty.
>
> We need electrified coast to coast wide-gauge trains. Obama want
> infrastructure for the future? Look no further.
> Nukes and Rails. There. All better.
Lets see to produce hydrogen you pass electricity through a hydrogen
rich material and break down the hydrogen bonds. To make electricity
your burn hydrogen in an oxygen rich environment producing water ash.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:1hn8ttx0ovy8s
>>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the underlying problem is not too many guns of questionable
>>>>> ownership, the what is the underlying problem? That people tend
>>>>> NOT to do the right thing?
>>>>
>>>> Therein lies the problem. Nobody has been able to determine why
>>>> people in the US are more likely to kill each other than are
>>>> people
>>>> in other countries. But even if you deduct all deaths involving
>>>> firearms from the total, the US still has a much higher homocide
>>>> rate than the UK or Japan or many other nations.
>>
>> Actually, there was a study by sociologist Glenn Deane some years
>> ago
>> that was quite conclusive. Glenn did a cross-national analysis of
>> homicide statistics and the dominant variables were gender and age.
>> Basically, the relative number of young males in the population had
>> the biggest impact on homicide rates--regardless of method. That is,
>> countries with relatively large proportions of young males generally
>> have higher rates of homicide and those with relatively small
>> proportions of young males have lower rates.
>>
>> I suggested to Glenn that perhaps a mandatory military draft along
>> with constant conflict abroad would be the most efficient way to cut
>> down on homicide in the U.S. He didn't disagree with me that that
>> was
>> a reasonable conclusion but he was quick to note, and I didn't
>> disagree with him, that it presented a lot of other social costs.
>>
>> If you Google me and Jeff Chan together you'll find a bunch of
>> firearms regulation related research that I, or Don B. Kates Jr.,
>> obtained permission to distribute on the computer networks--keep in
>> mind that there were computer networks before the WWW ;~) Some of
>> this work was groundwork leading up to the Heller case.
>
> Let's play Fun With Numbers. Looking at young males in the US, the
> UK, and Canada, and defining "young male" as being under 20, I find
> that for the US, UK, and Canada the percentages are 0.118, 0.121, and
> 0.121. The homicide rates appear to be 0.043, 0.0148, and 0.0149 per
> thousand respectively. So despite having a slightly lower percentage
> of "young males", the US has a homicide rate three times higher than
> that of Canada or the UK.
>
> Still want to try to tell us that the cause of the high homicide rate
> in the US is "the percentage of young males"? If so, can you explain
> why an even higher percentage is not causing a similar homicide rate
> in the UK and Canada?
>
> While there may be a correlation, that does not mean that there is
> causation. And where does the US lie in relation to other nations on
> the curve? Is it right on the curve or is it way off it?
That's why you need to go read the study... ;~) It covers more than 3
countries, at a point in time (1980), and adjusts the rates for gender and
age. Do the cross-national figures look exactly the same today? Probably
not... economic, political and reproduction rates have certainly changed...
and the gangs have certainly expanded their areas of operations. Perhaps
some
grad student has replicated the study recently and can tell us. There could
be one or more additional variables now that explain significant parts of
the rates (e.g., violence in film/music, school drop out rates, immigration
rates and what type of immigration, new ways to diss and disenfranchise
people, demise of institutionalization for some ills/behaviors, etc.)
John
Tom wrote:
> Americans better pay attention too!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> What a chilling scenario!
>
> Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second
amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
said.
Anybody who believed that bilge from the candidate exhorting his disciples
to get in peoples' faces and tell them that He believed in the second
amendment should really ask themselves what the @#$% they were thinking.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> And it wouldn't hurt to try and recruit as many as possible to the NRA
> and donate what is allowable by your means to the Political fight
> funds. Tom
>
My money will go to Carolyn McCarthy. I have no objection to gun
ownership, if the owners are properly licensed and trained. I don't like
crooks, crazies, and kids to have guns they don't know how to use. I'm 64
and still haven't learned, and I won't likely learn to use a gun either.
I'm too hotheaded.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:gle07i02i72
@news6.newsguy.com:
> Han wrote:
>> "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> And it wouldn't hurt to try and recruit as many as possible to the
>>> NRA and donate what is allowable by your means to the Political
>>> fight
>>> funds. Tom
>>>
>> My money will go to Carolyn McCarthy. I have no objection to gun
>> ownership, if the owners are properly licensed and trained. I don't
>> like crooks, crazies, and kids to have guns they don't know how to
>> use. I'm 64 and still haven't learned, and I won't likely learn to
>> use a gun either. I'm too hotheaded.
>
> So what would you consider to be "properly licensed and trained"?
I have no real good idea, but in order to be able to drive legally, you
need to provide evidence of knowledge and ability to drive. Moreover,
you need to have a vehicle that is registered and inspected. Why not the
same with guns?
At a minimum, possession of a fireweapon should be allowed only upon
demonstrated know how of its workings and ability to properly utilize it.
In addition, you should be able to show how you came into possession of
it.
I know this may go against the frontier mentality of some in the US, but
we are not living in the 1600's anymore.
And I agree, it will be almost impossible to legislate and protect
against all aberrant behavior, as shown by the 20 year-old who entered a
day care center in Dendermonde, Belgium and knifed 2 babies and an adult
to death.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_re_eu/eu_belgium_stabbings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendermonde_nursery_attack
I couldn't possibly imagine what drove someone to do that.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snipped>
It does not seem clear to you that putting up some little hurdles to legal
gun ownership would prevent a lot of illegal gun trading?
How else are you going to discourage illegal gun ownership/usage?
Issue guns to everyone and let them have it out?
Jeez ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:glfhf901dg7
@news3.newsguy.com:
> How about we arrest people who illegally own or use guns and put them
> in jail? Or is that too old fashioned for you? Was tried under
> Reagan, seemed to be having an effect, but Clinton decided to
> discontinue the program. IIRC Janet Reno wanted to continue it. The
> deal was that any criminal caught with a firearm went directly to
> Federal court, did not pass go, did not collect 200 dollars, and did
> not get out of jail until his sentence under Federal firearms charges
> was up, at which time he could _then_ begin serving his state sentence
> for whatever other crime he committed.
That seems indeed like a good idea. Let's all support that. In the mean
time let's also prosecute and jail those that sell illegally, and include
those manufacturers that look away when they sense illegal distribution.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> You make a good point. Since they made a law against robbery, not a
> single gas station or store has been robbed. Banks lo longer need
> vaults.
I recognize sarcasm, sometimes ...
> There are plenty of hurdles. Law abiding people abide by them, others
> won't no matter how many or how high they are. Passing laws does not
> prevent crime, it only prescribes the punishment. Responsible gun
> owners seek training and learn how to use them properly.
Let's apply the laws and finetune them to catch criminals, not enhance
commerce by looking away. (see my other response).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in news:1hn8ttx0ovy8s
[email protected]:
> Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
If the underlying problem is not too many guns of questionable ownership,
the what is the underlying problem? That people tend NOT to do the right
thing?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:497C9123.1070406
@tundraware.com:
> Even a causal inspection of Obamessiah's voting record here in Illinois
> would have confirmed this. He was- and is, viruently anti-gun
> (and generally anti-freedom, pro-socialist).
Just in case you have not already deduced this, I am not antigun, but would
like there to be fewer around, and certainly not in the "wrong" hands.
I am pro freedom of expression and also for other freedoms, unless they
adversely affect others' well-being and liberties. That means, I don't
care if you play your radio loudly when you are alone and have your
environs sound-proofed, but I object against woodpeckers driving around
busy and quiet neighborhoods with their radios full blast and the windows
down.
I have no idea why you would be against a state being organized to protect
the whole community, not only via military defense but also in economic
ways. That does not mean robbing Peter to pay lazy Paul, but to distribute
opportunity equally.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy wrote:
>
>
> The accident at Chernobyl was a spin-down station-service test that
> wasn't thought through very well.
> Incompetence, human error, call it what you will, but to draw
> parallels between how we do things here and how they were done there,
> is absurd.
> A nuclear power station comes with a lot of responsibility. You just
> don't hand one over to just anybody.
Right!
And ours have containment buildings and everything!
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David G. Nagel wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>
>>>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>>>
>>>
>>> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
>>> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>>>
>>> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water
>>> vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>>>
>>
>> Or you could burn sodium in a pure chlorine environment and produce table
>> salt.
>>
>
> Researchers are looking into the possibility of burning salt water. See:
>
> http://www.californiagreensolutions.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=967
If only the second law of thermodynamics could be repealed, this might
actually be useful.
todd
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And from you, all I get is more vague bullshit, no numbers. Do you
> have the numbers? If so please present them. If not, what relevance
> to the question posed do you believe your pile of bafflegab to have?
You've been trolled.
On Jan 23, 8:34=A0am, "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Americans better pay attention too!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What a chilling scenario!
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Go to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyTq2NEUlhDE- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not to worry the Junior Senator from NY is on the right side of this
issue.
On Jan 26, 4:37=A0pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 10:33 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [snipped the usual]
>
> > If you were in a car accident, you'd expect assistance from your
> > insurance company, right?
> > Why? Because you paid into it.
>
> > Does that make you a thief, Timbo?
>
> > We, as a free people, have mandated our government, to divert some of
> > our tax moneys to pay for health insurance. That is what we wanted,
> > that is what we got.
>
> > Before you get into the part that we are legislated into participation
> > of our system, are you allowed to drive in the state of Blago without
> > insurance?
> > And if you opted out of car insurance, and you crippled somebody, all
> > they would have to get from you is some home-made wine?
>
> > Nice guy.
>
> Nice guy;
>
> Several years ago I read a news article where in it was reported that
> the Premier of Alberta proudly reported that the BACK LOG of patients
> requiring heart bypass operations was down to ONLY 400. This was a 50
> percent improvement over the list only a couple of years previous.
>
> This is why my mother's fellow country men/women come to the US for
> their critical operations.
>
> Both my wife and myself have had open heart operations. Hers was a
> triple bypass and I had a valve repair. Both of us would be long dead
> and buried in Alberta.
>
Comparing Alberta to the rest of Canada is like saying that all of the
USA is like Illinois... wait...lemme rephrase that..
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:33 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped the usual]
>
> If you were in a car accident, you'd expect assistance from your
> insurance company, right?
> Why? Because you paid into it.
>
> Does that make you a thief, Timbo?
>
> We, as a free people, have mandated our government, to divert some of
> our tax moneys to pay for health insurance. That is what we wanted,
> that is what we got.
>
> Before you get into the part that we are legislated into participation
> of our system, are you allowed to drive in the state of Blago without
> insurance?
> And if you opted out of car insurance, and you crippled somebody, all
> they would have to get from you is some home-made wine?
>
> Nice guy.
Nice guy;
Several years ago I read a news article where in it was reported that
the Premier of Alberta proudly reported that the BACK LOG of patients
requiring heart bypass operations was down to ONLY 400. This was a 50
percent improvement over the list only a couple of years previous.
This is why my mother's fellow country men/women come to the US for
their critical operations.
Both my wife and myself have had open heart operations. Hers was a
triple bypass and I had a valve repair. Both of us would be long dead
and buried in Alberta.
This is one reason why a great many of us in the USA are against
National Health Insurance of any kind.
The only problem I have with the US system is that to many Insurance
Companies have a tendency to refuse expensive procedures that they
consider experimental because only a couple operations have occurred and
have no track records.
Dave N
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> a position is likely to get you strung up around here. There are
> many do-gooders who don't like having their inconsistency, poor
> moral values, and blindness to this sort of stuff pointed out in a
> public forum.
Is that the same as you harassing me privately now Tim? Obviously, you can't
handle our "discussion" in a public forum, so now you're directing your
sights on my inbox. As well as being an asshole, your lack of ethics and
missing integrity have shown themselves exactly for what they are.
Can you even spell "Hypocrite"?
From your website:
"I don't want to tell other people how to run their lives - I'd appreciate
it if they'd do the same for me."
Yet, here you are trying to tell me how I should live and worse, telling the
world how you feel about my country's policies with things like healthcare.
Is this what you call a hands off approach? You are a proven liar and can't
even live up to your own "credo" printed for all to see on your website.
http://www.tundraware.com/Musings/What-I-Want/What-I-Want.html
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:43:51 +0000, Bored Borg
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:30:22 +0000, David G. Nagel wrote
>(in article <[email protected]>):
>
>>
>> The recent unpleasentness between England and America was over the fact
>> that we Americans wanted to keep our guns. You all remember it, it was
>> in all the papers.
>>
>> Dave N
>
>Remind me? How recently? (seriously don't get the reference.)
>
>Thanks.
I'm pretty sure that the incident being referred to happened only
about 234 years ago or so.... Somewhere around Concorde if memory
serves...
On Jan 31, 10:54=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
> > It is simply called a Breeder Reactor.
> > It takes anything in and processes as you want e.g. power fuel
> > pellets.
>
> Anything? =A0You mean it can take dirty laundry and turn it into fuel
> pellets?
>
Ohh for fuck sakes.......
On Jan 26, 2:22=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
> >> Tom wrote:
>
> >>> Americans better pay attention too!
>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What a chilling scenario!
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Go to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyTq2NEUlhDE
> >> =A0Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the =
second
> >> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what t=
hey
> >> said.
>
> > Total bullshit, as usually. =A0 There is nothing in the Democratic tick=
et that
> > calls for abolishing =A0(or abrogating) the second amendment.
>
> > I assume you're familiar with one of the strongest voices on Gun Contro=
l,
> > a republican by the name of James Brady.
>
> > Many, many democrats are gun owners and are perfectly happy with the
> > status quo.
>
> > scott
>
> Check out Comrade Obamessiah's voting on gun issues in IL. He is
> essentially perfect in his staunch support for pretty much every gun
> control bill put before him.
>
> Yes, there are many patriotic, gun owning, decent people that are
> Democrats. But they, like so much of the rest of the voting public,
> simply did not pay attention in the last election. Obama is a fraud.
> He got in without having answer any hard questions about his
> associates, ideas, and policies. He is product and willing child of an
> immensely corrupt political machine.
>
You know what Timbo? Is that place you speak of is so corrupt, why
don't you leave?
Nooo.. not North.. SOUTH please....
On Jan 27, 12:50=A0pm, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:14:43 -0600, Markem
>
> <markem(sixoneeight)@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:00:47 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>I must be slow, I finally figured it out. =A0You, LRod, and Upscale
> >>are all the same person. =A0 This is the only possible explanation.
>
> >Yes you are slow.
>
> Damn, we've been found out. Let's see, Upscale's a Canadian, I'm
> married to a Canadian, you can probably spell Canada (C, eh, N, eh, D,
> eh). All that's missing in the equation is Robatoy...
And remain missing, I shall. A Canuckistani to the core, I have, via
family, friendship and business, many links to my southern neighbours.
I respect many, and a few I don't. You all know who you are.
Good luck with the new president, I hope the true power on this planet
(the money lenders) will cut him some slack. The natives are getting
restless by being squeezed this hard.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:14:43 -0600, Markem
<markem(sixoneeight)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:00:47 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I must be slow, I finally figured it out. You, LRod, and Upscale
>>are all the same person. This is the only possible explanation.
>
>Yes you are slow.
Damn, we've been found out. Let's see, Upscale's a Canadian, I'm
married to a Canadian, you can probably spell Canada (C, eh, N, eh, D,
eh). All that's missing in the equation is Robatoy...
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
On Jan 26, 11:53=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 10:33 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [snipped the usual]
>
> > If you were in a car accident, you'd expect assistance from your
> > insurance company, right?
> > Why? Because you paid into it.
>
> Correct. =A0The car insurance company - a private institution - and I
> entered into a private agreement as to each of our respective
> responsibilities.
>
>
>
> > Does that make you a thief, Timbo?
>
As you so quickly label a viewpoint a 'foaming rant', simply because
it shows how precarious your own position is, allow me to ask you what
the 'morality' of the following example is.
A soldier comes home, has no medical insurance, freezes to death under
a bridge because there is no place to cure him from either physical or
mental damage.
IF he were to accept help from the US safety net Medicaid (whatever
you guys call it) he's a thief? Really? If he gets treated by the
military (tax payer money) he is a thief also? Oh, a soldier serves
his country, you say? Well, so does every tax payer in one way or
another.
I fully understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, selfishness to
that degree is difficult for me to get my head around. The way you
register on my 'Human Meter' is that you're a coldhearted, pitifully
misguided man who has ice-water running through his veins.
Just like the aromatic they put in lacquer, as a warning system,
people become more sensitive to it the more they're exposed to it. In
extreme cases, just a whiff can make a man puke. Your presence here is
like that. The 'Timbo First' doctrine has an aroma to it.
On Feb 2, 2:32=A0pm, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:27:01 +0000 (UTC), Larry W cast forth these pearls =
of
> wisdom...:
>
>
>
> > Compared to the cost and damage from our inability to deal with waste
> > generated rom coal mining and burning, nuclear waste does not seem
> > like such a terrible problem.
>
> That does not seem like a terribly well thought through statement.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
Trust me, it is spot on.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:27 pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 11:56 am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>>>> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
>>>> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>>>> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water
>>>> vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>>>> --
>>>> Morris Dovey
>>>> DeSoto Solar
>>>> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
>>> Well, coal is almost pure carbon, except the vanadium, sulfur, and the
>>> all-time pond-filling favourite ash.
>>> Clean coal, you know. Yup, really clean.
>>> Hydrogen is the way to go. Hands down. As a transportable fuel that
>>> is. Easy to make with nuclear powerstations. (Btw, daughter # 2 is now
>>> learning how to fly a nuclear powerstation. Following in the footsteps
>>> of the oldest (28))
>>> Electric cars are possibly a temporary stop-gap, but most battery
>>> technology is dirty.
>>> We need electrified coast to coast wide-gauge trains. Obama want
>>> infrastructure for the future? Look no further.
>>> Nukes and Rails. There. All better.
>> Lets see to produce hydrogen you pass electricity through a hydrogen
>> rich material and break down the hydrogen bonds. To make electricity
>> your burn hydrogen in an oxygen rich environment producing water ash.
>
> Water ash is easy to sweep up.
MOP?
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Limiting the Feds to their Constitutionally mandated role would
> : enable each State to do what made sense locally.
>
>
> Why do you, and others who I've seen with similar beliefs, think
> that the state level is the local level? I find the ubiquitous
> federal/nonfederal dictotomy very puzzling.
>
> Why not restrict or eliminate state power while you're at it,
> and give the majority of power to the counties? Or hell, to each
> separate town? That way, one town can decide how much to spend on its roads,
> and if you don't like the way they build them, move to another town.
>
> Or, since towns are kinda big, neighborhoods?
That's the way it works now for roads - for the most part. Interstates
by the Feds, state highways by the states, county roads by the counties,
city roads by the cities and many housing developments pay for and
maintain their own roads.
LRod wrote:
... snip
> Your republican machine was SO inept, SO corrupt
That comment is so ridiculous it requires a response. Excuse me, the
REPUBLICAN machine was corrupt? What have you been smoking? Ever heard of
ACORN? You know, that organization that registers DEMOCRATS? Multiple
times? Some of whom either don't exist or would register other ways?
(e.g., Mickey Mouse, the Dallas Cowboys front line). 200,000 questionable
registrations in the state of Ohio and the DEMOCRAT secretary of state
would not share the list with county election judges so that they could
ensure that only legal voters were able to cast a ballot? Or the recent
debacle in Minnesota in which the DEMOCRAT controlled election board has
applied different criteria regarding which ballots are counted or rejected
(kept votes for Franken while rejecting votes similarly marked for
Coleman), doesn't see a problem with certain precincts having more votes
cast than voters who signed in, and applied criteria depending upon result.
Or even more recently, the case as Kuchera that just happened to donate
huge amounts to DEMOCRAT Jack Murtha and received targeted earmarks? With
its standard objectivity, the media has reported that Kuchera also donated
to Republicans like Arlen Specter (using a search at OpenSecrets.com, this
is true, employees of Kuchera donated to Specter -- two $500 donations in
2003).
> and So
> wildly unpopular that the Democrats managed to elect a black
> dude with a Muslim name.
>
Yeah, the RNC was so inept it actually listened to the left and the media
and nominated a candidate that could have been the Democrat nominee. The
Republicans let the media and cross-over Democrats determine its nominee.
Now the Republican nominee and his buds like Lindsay Gramnesty are making
themselves Obama's lapdogs -- That's embarrassing.
> How embarrassing is that?
>
Not near as embarrassing as the results that we are going to see from that
election. Diminished freedoms, federal takeover of private business,
soaring taxes and deficits (but now, the deficits don't seem to matter to
all of those quaking in their boots at the thought of deficits several
years ago).
> Not an original quote from me, but I wish it was.
>
>
>
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 4:14 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Look at who this nation just elected.
>>
>> Does the Troll Rating Index go below zero?
>>
>> How weak is that? Goodness, Timbo... shameful attempt. Shameful!
>
> Resist the temptation - this was just Tim's way of telling us that John
> Galt _still_ hasn't knocked on his door.
>
> Be patient, Tim. He'll either show up or he won't.
>
All your sniping aside, you should watch that video. It is chilling in its
implications. "I pledge to be Barack Obama's servant"
Any freedom-loving American should feel the hair on the back of their neck
stand on end when hearing such fawning devotion.
No supporter ever said that to Reagan or Bush 1 or 2. Their focus was on
maintaining and preserving freedom and self-determination -- not pledging
fealty to a charismatic demagogue.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Jan 26, 10:33=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped the usual]
If you were in a car accident, you'd expect assistance from your
insurance company, right?
Why? Because you paid into it.
Does that make you a thief, Timbo?
We, as a free people, have mandated our government, to divert some of
our tax moneys to pay for health insurance. That is what we wanted,
that is what we got.
Before you get into the part that we are legislated into participation
of our system, are you allowed to drive in the state of Blago without
insurance?
And if you opted out of car insurance, and you crippled somebody, all
they would have to get from you is some home-made wine?
Nice guy.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> It was a J-O-K-E ... no mean intentions whatsoever. Sheesh ...
Of course. That means every time I've called you a fucking asshole, I was
joking too.
You're a wing nut of the first degree. You don't have a sense of humour and
lack any possible comprehension of what the word means.
On Feb 2, 11:18=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 7:21=A0pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Larry W wrote:
>
> >> > Personally I'd much rather have a nuclear reactor in my back yard
>
> >> > than a strip mine.
>
> >> Same here.
>
> >> I lived for years around 8 miles from a nuke plant. =A0 I didn't move,
> >> they decommissioned the plant.
>
> >> The radioactive materials that exist in coal, and are released into th=
e
> >> atmosphere when the coal is burned, seem to get often ignored.
>
> > You see, Barry...or should I call you BARRY??.<G>... there are plenty
> > well-run safe nuclear power stations. It's when private industry
> > starts shaving off a buck here or there, that's when you get problems.
>
> =A0 Yeah, that private industry debacle at Chernobyl, Soviet Union was re=
ally
> a wake-up call for what happens when you let corporations shave costs and
> cut corners. =A0Too bad it wasn't the Soviet government running that plan=
t,
> then all safety procedures would have been properly followed, there would
> have been multiple checks and double-checks before anybody tried doing
> anything stupid, and no problems would have occurred. =A0Live and learn I
> guess.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Yup, as competent as the Morton Thiokol engineering department. (O-
ring division).
The accident at Chernobyl was a spin-down station-service test that
wasn't thought through very well.
Incompetence, human error, call it what you will, but to draw
parallels between how we do things here and how they were done there,
is absurd.
A nuclear power station comes with a lot of responsibility. You just
don't hand one over to just anybody.
But if you want to put your government's conscientiousness at par with
the Soviets, go for it, I know that the regulatory systems in place
here in Canada are far more sophisticated than that. A test like that
would never have been approved here.
But, I am wasting my typing skills here. You're anti-government now
because this new guy isn't bouncing around on his pogo stick yelling:
"drill, baby, drill!!"
On Feb 2, 2:37=A0pm, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 19:12:41 +0000 (UTC), Larry W cast forth these pearls =
of
> wisdom...:
>
>
>
> > In 1972 a similar dam failed and killed 125 people, as well as causing
> > millions ( billions?) in property damage. In 2000 another coal waste
> > dam failure released over 300 million gallons. Just recently, the fly
> > ash spill in Tennessee illustrates that there is a disposal problem cau=
sed
> > by burning coal, as well as from mining it. Since 1990 over 700 miners
> > have died in US coal mine accidents. Take a look at an aerial photograp=
h
> > of mountaintop removal mines in W. Va or Kentucky, just seeing the
> > damage to the environment is enough to sicken.
>
> The total of which does not even approach the impact to areas surrounding
> reactors and waste storage sites.
>
>
>
> > Personally, I would much rather see this country pursue research into s=
afely
> > using nuclear energy rather than continue to burn coal. We have already
> > proven how dangerous coal is.
>
> And we have not proven how dangerous nuclear is?
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
You have to look at the comparison on a MW per environmental and human
cost basis....
Coal kills people every day, all day. The death rate due to nuclear
environmental impact barely registers in comparison.
We are talking about power generators..not nuclear bombs. So many
people think they're one and the same.... and the coal and oil
bastards will do all they can to keep you believing that.
Even hydro electric dams have a negative environmental impact. What do
you think our children's children will say about Three Gorges by the
time that mess rears its ugly head.
On Jan 26, 5:26=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 2:54 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Jan 26, 2:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>>>> Tom wrote:
> >>>>>>> Americans better pay attention too!
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What a chilling scenario!
> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Go to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyTq2NEUlhD=
E
> >>>>>> =A0Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate =
the second
> >>>>>> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do wh=
at they
> >>>>>> said.
> >>>>> Total bullshit, as usually. =A0 There is nothing in the Democratic =
ticket that
> >>>>> calls for abolishing =A0(or abrogating) the second amendment.
> >>>>> I assume you're familiar with one of the strongest voices on Gun Co=
ntrol,
> >>>>> a republican by the name of James Brady.
> >>>>> Many, many democrats are gun owners and are perfectly happy with th=
e
> >>>>> status quo.
> >>>>> scott
> >>>> Check out Comrade Obamessiah's voting on gun issues in IL. He is
> >>>> essentially perfect in his staunch support for pretty much every gun
> >>>> control bill put before him.
> >>>> Yes, there are many patriotic, gun owning, decent people that are
> >>>> Democrats. But they, like so much of the rest of the voting public,
> >>>> simply did not pay attention in the last election. Obama is a fraud.
> >>>> He got in without having answer any hard questions about his
> >>>> associates, ideas, and policies. He is product and willing child of =
an
> >>>> immensely corrupt political machine.
> >>> You know what Timbo? Is that place you speak of is so corrupt, why
> >>> don't you leave?
> >>> Nooo.. not North.. SOUTH please....
> >> I'm planning on it. =A0Oh, and I already lived in your country...
>
> > Couldn't adjust to the kindness and warm hearts, eh Timbo?
>
> Couldn't adjust to the East Coast Communists. =A0Other than that,
> Canada is a lovely place full of very nice folks - excepting
> you and the other crazy here on the 'Wreck of course ...
>
What was that again, about name calling and losing arguments?
On Feb 2, 8:15=A0pm, "PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:fdea7e86-62ef-43=
[email protected]...
>
> On Feb 2, 7:14 pm, "PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:8983f2c7-ca7b-=
[email protected]...
>
> > =A0<SNIP>
> > Coal is awful stuff. Nobody ever talks about the nasty metals, like
> > vanadium and such... or the NOx...
> > We installed scrubbers to get rid of the sulphur compounds...so we
> > ended up wit a pond full of dirty sulphur.
> > And what DO you do with a few million tons of fly-ash? Clinkers? Coal
> > mining related health/safety issues (Sago)? EVERY day?
>
> > It all makes a few thimbles of spent nuclear fuel seem rather easy to
> > manage.
>
> > Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too
> > much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > IIRC it seems to me that those who mess with brown coal and some of the=
lesser bitumens are pretty much getting what they asked for.
>
> > I remember having to fire the family furnace as a kid. Whenever we used=
anthracite we had no smog problems and when we had to use the lesser coals=
we had lots of klinkers and smell.
>
> > It would seem that it is mostly a matter of economics: Brown is cheap a=
nd hard is expensive so use brown and pocket the difference. Not to worry a=
bout the effluvia as someone else will do that for us.
>
> > That nuke stuff is far more worrisome as it only has a half-life of upw=
ards of 10,000 years.
>
> > P D Q
>
> Nuke stuff is worrisome because people don't know anything about it.
> They're perpetuating bad information.
> Google for a paper called The Health Hazards Of Not Going
> Nuclear.....then get back to me.
>
> Start here:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25019125
>
> I assure you that Dr. Petr Beckmann is not a kook.
>
> No. He is a dead electrical engineer.
>
> I guess, if one is wont to play that game, one ought to be really interes=
ted in Solar, Wind, and Geothermal as a potential, if not probable, alterna=
tive to further polluting via unstable elements.
When you have a 20,000 MW base load (like in my area), the solutions
need a big hammer. Plants like the ones where 2 of my daughters work,
are solving those kind of needs 3000MW at a crack. Nukes are big
baseload machines, something that neither wind, or solar can offer. At
least not in any way we can see. The geothermal thing, I'm not really
familiar with, but at least that wouldn't be weather dependent.
It absolutely goes without saying that super-clean power such as solar
and wind is preferred even over a nuke.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:53 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 10:33 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [snipped the usual]
>>> If you were in a car accident, you'd expect assistance from your
>>> insurance company, right?
>>> Why? Because you paid into it.
>> Correct. The car insurance company - a private institution - and I
>> entered into a private agreement as to each of our respective
>> responsibilities.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Does that make you a thief, Timbo?
>
> As you so quickly label a viewpoint a 'foaming rant', simply because
Upscale is unable to respond to an idea without attacking the speaker.
I attack Upscale's ideas and values, but I've never remotely launched
the profanity soaked personal invective he think passes for dialog.
He foams and he rants because he cannot argue his own position
with any articulation.
> it shows how precarious your own position is, allow me to ask you what
> the 'morality' of the following example is.
> A soldier comes home, has no medical insurance, freezes to death under
> a bridge because there is no place to cure him from either physical or
> mental damage.
> IF he were to accept help from the US safety net Medicaid (whatever
> you guys call it) he's a thief? Really? If he gets treated by the
> military (tax payer money) he is a thief also? Oh, a soldier serves
> his country, you say? Well, so does every tax payer in one way or
> another.
A soldier has provided a service to his country (all of us citizens).
He is entitled to whatever level of support - financial, healthcare,
and so on - that was agreed-to at the time of his enlistment.
This is part of the "salary" he agreed to in order to risk life
and limb for his country. IOW, there is a voluntary exchange of
value between the nation and its defenders in such a situation.
This is no different that any other employer that offers healthcare
benefits to its employees as an inducement to work for them.
This situation is also quite different than private sector wealth
redistribution for another reason: Soldiering is part of the legitimate
purview of government insofar as defending the nation and its borders
is one of the very few things government is legitimately entitled to do.
>
> I fully understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, selfishness to
> that degree is difficult for me to get my head around. The way you
> register on my 'Human Meter' is that you're a coldhearted, pitifully
> misguided man who has ice-water running through his veins.
You're entitled to your view and quite wrong. It is not charitable,
warmhearted, kind, or compassionate to hire the government to steal
money from the richer citizens and then give it to you. This is
effectively what all socialist systems depend upon: That there will be
far more beneficiaries who vote than contributors. Your argument for
this sort of nonsense is essentially utilitarian and outcome based: We
should redistribute wealth because it helps more people than it harms.
This *exact* ideation has been the basis for every single despot,
dicatorship and murderous regime throughout the past several hundred
years (and most of them through history).
As I have said repeatedly: The voluntary participation in genuine
charity is one of the greatest things a human can ever do. It is
incredibly rewarding for both the recipient and the donor. But what
you espouse is forced altruism at the point of the government's gun.
Altruism is a scam used by the masses to get what they cannot earn for
themselves. It is NOT charity. It is NOT kind. It is NOT noble. It is
NOT a blessing. It is evil.
>
> Just like the aromatic they put in lacquer, as a warning system,
> people become more sensitive to it the more they're exposed to it. In
> extreme cases, just a whiff can make a man puke. Your presence here is
> like that. The 'Timbo First' doctrine has an aroma to it.
The doctrine I espouse is not mine by a long shot - I'm not that smart.
It is a doctrine borne in the Enlightenment by intellectual giants
like Locke and Smith, and later realized by political giants like
Jefferson, Madison, Adams (both of 'em), Franklin, and Paine.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:24:12 -0600, Tom wrote:
> <snip>
>> Sorry, Dude ... few Americans are capable of paying attention.
>>
>> ... unless it's to the latest reality TV, that is.
>>
> I know, but I'm an eternally optimistic cynic.
>
> If we (ones that DO pay attention) continually beat the others over the
> head with the truth, maybe some will sink in!) Tom
Hasn't worked yet.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> Tom wrote:
>>>>> Americans better pay attention too!
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> What a chilling scenario!
>>>>> Go to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
>>>> Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second
>>>> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
>>>> said.
>>> Total bullshit, as usually. There is nothing in the Democratic ticket that
>>> calls for abolishing (or abrogating) the second amendment.
>>> I assume you're familiar with one of the strongest voices on Gun Control,
>>> a republican by the name of James Brady.
>>> Many, many democrats are gun owners and are perfectly happy with the
>>> status quo.
>>> scott
>> Check out Comrade Obamessiah's voting on gun issues in IL. He is
>> essentially perfect in his staunch support for pretty much every gun
>> control bill put before him.
>>
>> Yes, there are many patriotic, gun owning, decent people that are
>> Democrats. But they, like so much of the rest of the voting public,
>> simply did not pay attention in the last election. Obama is a fraud.
>> He got in without having answer any hard questions about his
>> associates, ideas, and policies. He is product and willing child of an
>> immensely corrupt political machine.
>>
> You know what Timbo? Is that place you speak of is so corrupt, why
> don't you leave?
> Nooo.. not North.. SOUTH please....
>
I'm planning on it. Oh, and I already lived in your country...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Actually the US ranks very low in the violent crime rates, as compared to
other industrialized nations, and since their weapons ban, the rate in
Australia, has shot up considerably. Check out this link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
Bullies tend to be cowards, and attack those less likely to defend
themselves.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Tim has absolutely no interest in distributing opportunity equally.
> > (something he calls collectivism). He is very much in support of people
> > keeping whatever they can take and everybody else can go screw
themselves.
> believe in "categories" of citizens - some of whom get to keep what
> they've worked for and others who do not.
It's healthcare we're talking about, not a car or some physical object. As
always, you're unable to distinguish between the two. Except for the most
indigent in Canada, everybody contributes to the healthcare system and all
use its services.
> I believe that the government has NO place in providing
> healthcare whatsoever, even and especially for moochers like you.
So, I'm evil, a liar and now a mooch because I use our universal healthcare
to stay well enough to work and be able to contribute back to the system
through my taxes. Instead, you'd have me impoverished before I could receive
healthcare and living on the welfare system, using additional public funds.
Tell me Timbit, which method costs more?
Intelligent as you are, your logic and calculation abilities are failing you
miserably in this regard.
> You are such an incredible hypocrite. At the moment, I could use
> some financial assistance for a particular matter of health for
> a member of my family. Would you mind providing me with access
> to YOUR bank account so I can spend YOUR money caring for them?
I see. You're fine with others being indigent before receiving public
healthcare or charity paying for people who need healthcare, but when it
comes to your own family, you'd like it if someone else paid for it.
For months and months, you've been ranting and even restated above about how
government should stay out of the healthcare business, so now it's time for
you to live up to your rants. Pay for your own healthcare or perhaps watch a
member of your family go completely broke trying to survive. If it happens,
come back and tell us how you enjoyed it.
Oh, by the way. Don't email me privately again.
On Jan 23, 10:25=A0am, "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> If you take away the guns from honest people, only the politicians
> will have guns.
>
> Politicians are a synonym for crook, right?
> Tom
Not always. The power structure that supports them is.
911 don't work?? Try .357
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:11:34 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> It is clear that no amount of rot around the Obamessiah ever
> sticks to him. This guy had a pastor that was the black equivalent
> of a KKK Grand Dragon, kicked off his drive for the White House in
> the home of a convicted domestic terrorist, and bought his own home
> via shady dealings with a now-convicted felon. The U.S. voting
> public's response? They shrugged and voted for "change". Like I
> said in my initial response on this thread - at least half the
> public is too stupid to pay attention - Obama's election proves
> this.
Even if I agreed with your far-wrong blatherings, which I don't, you
still fail to accurately characterize the reason for Obama's victory.
Put very simply, it was "anyone but Bush".
Very few believed that McCain was anything other than a clone, or if not,
that he could go against the hawks and rapture-rats in his party.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
CW wrote:
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I wonder what kind of death rate by gun there was in the old west where
>> everybody was armed. My guess would be that the population ratio versus
> gun
>> death of responsible citizens was much higher than it is now.
>
>
> Much lower.
>
>
The biggest problem the bad guys had in the old west were the civil war
vets. They had experience at being shot at and shooting back.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 24, 7:34 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jan 24, 4:14 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Look at who this nation just elected.
>>> Does the Troll Rating Index go below zero?
>>> How weak is that? Goodness, Timbo... shameful attempt. Shameful!
>> I didn't produce this piece of fine video. I merely reported it.
>> Yes, the troll index does go subzero - every time you demonstrate
>> your racial bigotry and then pretend you just are expressing a
>> thoughtful viewpoint.
>>
>
> That accusation is as false as it is stale. Oh, before I forget.... go
> fuck yourself Timbo. :-)
I think I found a pledge you probably can get behind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9RLP34
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I think I found a pledge you probably can get behind:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9RLP34
>
> Here's one specially designed for you.
>
> http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/
>
>
Right back atcha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9RLP34
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Perhaps we should be looking somewhere other than guns? And other
> than "percentage of young males in the population"?
In all honesty, I think it has much to do with an attitude change over the
years. Forty years ago, I remember if you got into a fight, you used your
fists and that was it. And, the fight was usually forgotten just as quickly.
Fast forward to our society today and if you even look at someone the wrong
way, you might be 'disrespecting' them and get shot for it.
More so with the USA which I think most would agree has accorded their
citizens the most rights and entitlements, but also prevalent in Canada and
the UK, younger people have taken this permissiveness and incorporated it in
all areas of thought. Some of which, must surely filter down to fighting and
aggression. Unconsciously, this attitude of permissiveness might make them
feel that it's allowed to shoot someone for almost any transgression.
Maybe that's where we should be looking?
"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> This is why my mother's fellow country men/women come to the US for
> their critical operations.
No one has ever claimed that the system was perfect, but it's far better
than the alternative. I'd say your mother's friends have the best of both
worlds. They can use the Canadian healthcare system when they choose to, or
they can decide to pay for medical assistance in the US.
On Jan 31, 1:33=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> David G. Nagel wrote:
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> >> B A R R Y wrote:
> >>> Kerry Montgomery wrote:
> >>>> B A R R Y,
> >>>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
>
> >>> It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
>
> >> Recyclable? =A0How? =A0I want to see the specific uses for 98 percent
> >> of
> >> the components of radioactive waste from a reactor since you assert
> >> that it is "recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount". =A0Put
> >> it
> >> in the form of a list, identifying the component, the percentage
> >> prevalence in the waste, and the use for it that allows recycling.
>
> > Radioactive waste from a power plant occupies a really an extremely
> > small volume.
>
> That's nice. =A0But the quantity was not at issue, the assertion that it
> can be "recycled down to an incredibly tiny amount" is at issue. =A0If
> it can I want to know how tiny and in what ways it is recycled.
>
> > Consider that every gram of waste produced at all the
> > plants in the US is currently stored within the grounds of the plant
> > that generated it.
>
> Take a look athttp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=3D37.138972,-76.643733&z=3D1=
8&t=3Dh&hl=3Den.
> The ship on the left with the green decks is the SS Savannah. =A0If you
> find that location in Google Earth and zoom out you will see that it
> is well within the confines of the United States. =A0If you google the
> name of the ship you will find that the fuel has long since been
> removed from the reactor. =A0It is your assertion that every gram of
> radioactive waste associated with that removal is stored on the ship?
> And how about the nuclear waste from the numerous nuclear powered
> warships that have been decommissioned and scrapped out?
>
> > The vast majority of what is called "Radioactive Waste" is really
> > composed of items such as wipe rage, coveralls, materials used in
> > medicine and incidental contaminated hardware.
>
> So how are you going to recycle them?
>
> > These things are
> > usually not even contaminated but were used in conjunction with
> > things
> > radioactive and as such are considered contaminated.
>
> So how are you going to recycle them? =A0Run a geiger counter over them
> and if doesn't click put them in a bag and ship them to Harbor
> Freight?
>
> > The majority of material from a power plant is unused base material.
>
> Uh, please define "unused base material". =A0Do you mean "enriched
> uranium"?
>
> > The highly radioactive component of the waste is only a few percent
> > of the total.
>
> Well that's nice, how do you recycle it?
>
> > If they are cycled out of the matrix the base material
> > can be reformed into new fuel rods and used to generate more
> > electricity.
>
> Why do they need to be "cycled out of the matrix"? =A0The reason that
> the fuel needs to be replace is not "high level radioactive compoents"
> but the accumulation of "neutron poisons" that interfere with the
> reaction. =A0The high level radioactive components are an obstacle to
> the chemical removal of those neutron poisons.
>
> > The resultant waste is all that needs to be stored,
> > albeit for a very long time.
>
> So of the total amount of radioctive waste produced by a reactor, what
> percentage does this constitute?
>
> > If properly packaged and diluted there
> > can be no danger from this material.
>
> Who said anything about danger? =A0The question was not about safety,
> the question was "show me the numbers".
>
> And from you, all I get is more vague bullshit, no numbers. =A0Do you
> have the numbers? =A0If so please present them. =A0If not, what relevance
> to the question posed do you believe your pile of bafflegab to have?
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Troll
On Jan 25, 11:29=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 7:34 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Jan 24, 4:14 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Look at who this nation just elected. =A0
> >>> Does the Troll Rating Index go below zero?
> >>> How weak is that? Goodness, Timbo... shameful attempt. Shameful!
> >> I didn't produce this piece of fine video. =A0I merely reported it.
> >> Yes, the troll index does go subzero - every time you demonstrate
> >> your racial bigotry and then pretend you just are expressing a
> >> thoughtful viewpoint.
>
> > That accusation is as false as it is stale. Oh, before I forget.... go
> > fuck yourself Timbo. :-)
>
> I think I found a pledge you probably can get behind:
>
> =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZMVql9RLP34
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Oh suuuuuure... I'll click on that right away!! LOL
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 24, 4:14 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Look at who this nation just elected.
>
> Does the Troll Rating Index go below zero?
>
> How weak is that? Goodness, Timbo... shameful attempt. Shameful!
I didn't produce this piece of fine video. I merely reported it.
Yes, the troll index does go subzero - every time you demonstrate
your racial bigotry and then pretend you just are expressing a
thoughtful viewpoint.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
David G. Nagel wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>>
>>
>> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
>> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>>
>> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only
>> water vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>>
>
> Or you could burn sodium in a pure chlorine environment and produce
> table salt.
>
Researchers are looking into the possibility of burning salt water. See:
http://www.californiagreensolutions.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=967
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in news:1hn8ttx0ovy8s
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
>>>
>>> If the underlying problem is not too many guns of questionable
>>> ownership, the what is the underlying problem? That people tend NOT
>>> to do the right thing?
>>
>> Therein lies the problem. Nobody has been able to determine why
>> people in the US are more likely to kill each other than are people in
>> other countries. But even if you deduct all deaths involving firearms
>> from the total, the US still has a much higher homocide rate than the
>> UK or Japan or many other nations.
Actually, there was a study by sociologist Glenn Deane some years ago that
was quite conclusive. Glenn did a cross-national analysis of homicide
statistics and the dominant variables were gender and age. Basically, the
relative number of young males in the population had the biggest impact on
homicide rates--regardless of method. That is, countries with relatively
large proportions of young males generally have higher rates of homicide and
those with relatively small proportions of young males have lower rates.
I suggested to Glenn that perhaps a mandatory military draft along with
constant conflict abroad would be the most efficient way to cut down on
homicide in the U.S. He didn't disagree with me that that was a reasonable
conclusion but he was quick to note, and I didn't disagree with him, that it
presented a lot of other social costs.
If you Google me and Jeff Chan together you'll find a bunch of firearms
regulation related research that I, or Don B. Kates Jr., obtained permission
to distribute on the computer networks--keep in mind that there were
computer networks before the WWW ;~) Some of this work was groundwork
leading up to the Heller case.
John
Deane, Glenn D. 1987. "Cross-National Comparison of Homicide:
Age/Sex-Adjusted Rates
Using the 1980 U.S. Homicide Experience as a Standard." Journal of
Quantitative
Criminology 3:215-227.
http://www.irss.unc.edu/odum/content/pdf/CVDean.pdf for his Curriculum
Vitae
On Jan 24, 4:14=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Look at who this nation just elected. =A0
Does the Troll Rating Index go below zero?
How weak is that? Goodness, Timbo... shameful attempt. Shameful!
On Jan 25, 11:11=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Markem wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:14:52 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Here's my pledge:
>
> >> =A0I pledge to never patronize the so-called "art" of any of these
> >> =A0self important windbags and to use all legal means at my disposal
> >> =A0to thwart the agenda of the new Communist In Chief, Obamessiah.
>
> > Be happy for the good things Tim, Blago will soon be hung.
>
> > Mark
>
> Yes, but even that silver lining has a cloud. =A0By indicting Blago
> when he did, Fitzgerald (the U.S. Attorney) essentially stopped
> further investigation. =A0 That is, he apparently believes he has
> enough to convict Blago. =A0The problem is that he is thus not digging
> further under the Illinois political dirt to get the whole story
> of corruption that encircles Rham Emmanuel, Richard Daley, and
> the Obamessiah himself. =A0Obama could never have gotten to his
> current job without the support and approval of the utterly corrupt
> Chicago political machine. =A0I, for one, would like to see this
> relationships aired in public.***
..and what if Fitzgerald had found nothing out of the ordinary? Would
it shut the likes of you up?
>
> Some people have speculated that Fitzgerald stopped the indictment
> intentionally at this time so as to specifically protect Obama.
> They argue that Fitzgerald is headed for bigger and better things
> in the Obama DOJ and doesn't want to embarrass his boss.
> I have no clue as to whether this is so or not - it *is* just a
> speculation =A0- but nothing is outside the realm of possibility
> in the malignant world of Chicago politics.
Conjecture with the hope that some of it sticks. Maybe you have wet
dreams about Nancy Grace and Janet Reno in a three-some as well?...
just speculating about your seminary school sexual training... just
speculating..
>
> *** It is clear that no amount of rot around the Obamessiah ever
> =A0 =A0 sticks to him. =A0This guy had a pastor that was the black
> =A0 =A0 equivalent of a KKK Grand Dragon, kicked off his drive for
> =A0 =A0 the White House in the home of a convicted domestic terrorist,
> =A0 =A0 and bought his own home via shady dealings with a now-convicted
> =A0 =A0 felon. =A0The U.S. voting public's response? =A0They shrugged
> =A0 =A0 and voted for "change". =A0 Like I said in my initial response
> =A0 =A0 on this thread - at least half the public is too stupid to
> =A0 =A0 pay attention - Obama's election proves this.
Nothing but conjecture and Repuglican party talking points. Maybe you
should start a tabloid, Timbo.
Call it "TIMBO", all the news that is fitted (made up) to print.
Oh, and that link you left for me? I'll waste no time clicking on it.
PS.. I'm bored with you already, same old, same old.. *yawn*
LRod wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:06:04 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just like the aromatic they put in lacquer, as a warning system,
>> people become more sensitive to it the more they're exposed to it. In
>> extreme cases, just a whiff can make a man puke. Your presence here is
>> like that. The 'Timbo First' doctrine has an aroma to it.
>
> Ever wonder what one of his woodworking posts smells like? Here's a
> list of them to try out:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nice selection, eh?
>
>
>
Hey - if you don't know - let me be the first to clue you in:
This is an OT thread with political content.
I do not start OT threads, and certainly not political ones (at
least I haven't for a very long time). I didn't start this
one or even join it near its inception.
Given that this NG has a long tradition of OT threads - including
political ones - I'll feel quite free to jump into the ones already
underway if I wish. This will happen no matter how much you
hold your breath, throw temper tantrums, turn blue, and generally
whine as I (and probably others) confront your silly little
political ideas.
When I have something that is on topic to add, I'll do that to. But
my grasp of WWing is fairly elementary compared to a good many
experts here. If there were no OT political threads, I'd be quite
happy to lurk and learn. Since you/Robo/Upscale/<Cast of thousands>
feel that politics is in bounds, don't get your panties in a wad
when someone that disagrees with you jumps in to say so.
Your clueing-in is now complete.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:06:04 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Just like the aromatic they put in lacquer, as a warning system,
>people become more sensitive to it the more they're exposed to it. In
>extreme cases, just a whiff can make a man puke. Your presence here is
>like that. The 'Timbo First' doctrine has an aroma to it.
Ever wonder what one of his woodworking posts smells like? Here's a
list of them to try out:
Nice selection, eh?
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
On Feb 2, 7:14=A0pm, "PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:8983f2c7-ca7b-49=
[email protected]...
>
> On Jan 31, 9:38 pm, "Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is simply called a Breeder Reactor.
> > It takes anything in and processes as you want e.g. power fuel pellets.
>
> > These were designed an proved to work - in the 60's. The long forgotten
> > lab in Tenn. did the work. They processed the first metal in the first =
place.
>
> > France has them up and running as well as Japan and another maybe.
> > We in the US have been hampered with false diatribe on the dangers
> > which shut down the nuke power plants.
>
> > Simply said, soft coal power plants put out more nuke foul stuff than
> > nuke plants. EVEN the one in N.J.
>
> > Martin
>
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> > > B A R R Y wrote:
> > >> J. Clarke wrote:
> > >>> B A R R Y wrote:
> > >>>> Kerry Montgomery wrote:
> > >>>>> B A R R Y,
> > >>>>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
> > >>>> It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
> > >>> Recyclable? How?
> > >> Wrong word.
>
> > >> Reprocessable.
>
> > >> <http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml>
>
> > > In other words prepared for storage. From your fact sheet:
> > > "High-level reprocessed waste is vitrified (solidified) and stored at
> > > La Hague for several decades, where it awaits final geologic
> > > disposal."
>
> > > Not at all the same thing as recycling, unless you consider putting
> > > something in a plastic bag so that it may be more easily transported
> > > to the landfill "recycling".
>
> We used to monitor coal flow with a Geiger counter. No ticki ticki, no
> coal on the belt to the pulverizers.
> Coal is awful stuff. Nobody ever talks about the nasty metals, like
> vanadium and such... or the NOx...
> We installed scrubbers to get rid of the sulphur compounds...so we
> ended up wit a pond full of dirty sulphur.
> And what DO you do with a few million tons of fly-ash? Clinkers? Coal
> mining related health/safety issues (Sago)? EVERY day?
>
> It all makes a few thimbles of spent nuclear fuel seem rather easy to
> manage.
>
> Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too
> much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> IIRC it seems to me that those who mess with brown coal and some of the l=
esser bitumens are pretty much getting what they asked for.
>
> I remember having to fire the family furnace as a kid. =A0Whenever we use=
d anthracite we had no smog problems and when we had to use the lesser coal=
s we had lots of klinkers and smell.
>
> It would seem that it is mostly a matter of economics: =A0Brown is cheap =
and hard is expensive so use brown and pocket the difference. =A0Not to wor=
ry about the effluvia as someone else will do that for us.
>
> That nuke stuff is far more worrisome as it only has a half-life of upwar=
ds of 10,000 years.
>
> P D Q
Nuke stuff is worrisome because people don't know anything about it.
They're perpetuating bad information.
Google for a paper called The Health Hazards Of Not Going
Nuclear.....then get back to me.
Start here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25019125
I assure you that Dr. Petr Beckmann is not a kook.
RicodJour wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
>>> controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
>>> example of the need for federal control.
>>>
>> Nope. Assume, for a moment that each state is in control of their
>> own emissions standards. Now assume that the state next to yours
>> sets their's unreasonably low and starts polluting *your* air.
>> Your state should then *sue* the adjacent state for actual and
>> compensatory damages. Litigation is a far better answer than
>> central regulation because litigation deals with the claim of
>> *actual* damages (as opposed to the potential damages addressed
>> by regulatory law).
>
> And how exactly would they determine actual damages from pollution?
By the showing the costs of the losses. This is done routinely
when assessing damages in a won lawsuit.
> Wait until people croak and then count the bodies and multiply by
> dollars? Maybe they just start cleaning the soot off of cars, houses
Exactly. Again - not a new concept - it's been done for years.
> and trees and charge backcharge them for the cleanup costs?
Something along those lines. "Because of your pollution, our
state incurrent $x in cleanup costs and suffered $x in lost
business and tourism revenue. We ask to court for that amount
plus a multiplier of y to disincent the other state from ever doing
this again." Like I said, a very normal legal activity that
takes place regularly.
>
> You may have a point and a position but that example....bzzzzzzzzzzzt.
I don't see why not - it's done every day. States might even choose
to pay for insurance against such claims.
>
> R
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:11:15 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Tim has absolutely no interest in distributing opportunity equally.
>(something he calls collectivism). He is very much in support of people
>keeping whatever they can take and everybody else can go screw themselves.
>
>He also feels that Medicare should be supported solely by donation and
>anybody receiving such health assistance should be living at the poverty
>line before they'd qualify for that health care.
>
>In other words, Tim is an asshole who has one primary concern and that is
>himself. His frequent statement "Why should I have to pay?" is his mantra
>and is all one needs to know about Tim to know who and what he is.
Even if his rants sounded remotely well thought out, he only comes to
the bait on non-woodworking issues that he feels somehow threatens his
hip pocket. Let me summarize his woodworking contributions with a list
of links:
That's why he's on my banned list. I know how to get him to post more
drivel and vitriol, but I never bother reading them so he blathers in
vain. I've gotten so I can pretty much guarantee he will hit the reply
button just by who responds and how much they yank his chain.
But frankly, folks, just as I counseled around election time; if you
want him to go away, ignore him. He posted a query on 19 December that
went utterly unanswered by anyone for a month. No replies means no
spew.
I freely acknowledge my own transgression in posting the response
earlier and I apologize (but it was just too good a shot to pass up).
Now I am in ignore mode: 100% for him, around 85% for a couple of
other kool-aid drinking limboob losers who nevertheless occasionally
have something wood to say. I still don't read or respond to them,
though.
I encourage all to join in.
(PS don't bother to tell me what he says in his response to this,
which is almost guaranteed to appear soon--it's mind over matter; I
don't mind because he doesn't matter).
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> The only comment I can make on that statement is that the rigours needed
to
> get licensed for a firearm might discourage some from doing so, resulting
in
> fewer legal gun ownerships and fewer being stolen. While many guns are
> smuggled up to Canada from the US, a significant number of them are
obtained
> by way of theft.
>
> Certainly not a perfect solution, but one of many ways to prevent the
> obtaining of a gun for criminal purposes.
Kind of like cutting off your hand to get rid of the wart on your finger.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 4:37 pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 10:33 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [snipped the usual]
>>> If you were in a car accident, you'd expect assistance from your
>>> insurance company, right?
>>> Why? Because you paid into it.
>>> Does that make you a thief, Timbo?
>>> We, as a free people, have mandated our government, to divert some of
>>> our tax moneys to pay for health insurance. That is what we wanted,
>>> that is what we got.
>>> Before you get into the part that we are legislated into participation
>>> of our system, are you allowed to drive in the state of Blago without
>>> insurance?
>>> And if you opted out of car insurance, and you crippled somebody, all
>>> they would have to get from you is some home-made wine?
>>> Nice guy.
>> Nice guy;
>>
>> Several years ago I read a news article where in it was reported that
>> the Premier of Alberta proudly reported that the BACK LOG of patients
>> requiring heart bypass operations was down to ONLY 400. This was a 50
>> percent improvement over the list only a couple of years previous.
>>
>> This is why my mother's fellow country men/women come to the US for
>> their critical operations.
>>
>> Both my wife and myself have had open heart operations. Hers was a
>> triple bypass and I had a valve repair. Both of us would be long dead
>> and buried in Alberta.
>>
>
> Comparing Alberta to the rest of Canada is like saying that all of the
> USA is like Illinois... wait...lemme rephrase that..
>
To be honest I can't compare Alberta with Illinois. Haven't been to
Alberta but I have been to Illinois. There can't be any comparison.
Dave N
In this vein I submit the following tale. I hope is properly explains =
the nature of a "politician".
P D Q
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked =
about his bill and the barber replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. =
I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left =
the shop.
When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there is a 'thank =
you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, =
the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing =
community service this week.' The cop is happy and leaves the shop.
Wednesday morning when the barber goes to open up there is a 'thank you' =
card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he =
tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money =
from you. I'm doing community service this week. ' The professor is very =
happy and leaves the shop.
Thursday morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a 'thank you' =
card and a dozen different books, such as 'How to Improve Your Business' =
and 'Becoming More Successful.
'Then, a MP comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the =
barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing =
community service this week.' The MP is very happy and leaves the shop.
Friday morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen MP's =
lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the =
citizens of our country and the members of our Parliament.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"phorbin" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
In article <d58f93e7-956a-49a2-a74a-1fa68915cb17
@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> On Jan 23, 10:25 am, "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > If you take away the guns from honest people, only the politicians
> > will have guns.
> >
> > Politicians are a synonym for crook, right?
> > Tom
>=20
> Not always. The power structure that supports them is.
>=20
kleptocracy.
Han wrote:
> "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> And it wouldn't hurt to try and recruit as many as possible to the
>> NRA and donate what is allowable by your means to the Political
>> fight
>> funds. Tom
>>
> My money will go to Carolyn McCarthy. I have no objection to gun
> ownership, if the owners are properly licensed and trained. I don't
> like crooks, crazies, and kids to have guns they don't know how to
> use. I'm 64 and still haven't learned, and I won't likely learn to
> use a gun either. I'm too hotheaded.
So what would you consider to be "properly licensed and trained"?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:gle07i02i72
> @news6.newsguy.com:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And it wouldn't hurt to try and recruit as many as possible to
>>>> the
>>>> NRA and donate what is allowable by your means to the Political
>>>> fight
>>>> funds. Tom
>>>>
>>> My money will go to Carolyn McCarthy. I have no objection to gun
>>> ownership, if the owners are properly licensed and trained. I
>>> don't
>>> like crooks, crazies, and kids to have guns they don't know how to
>>> use. I'm 64 and still haven't learned, and I won't likely learn
>>> to
>>> use a gun either. I'm too hotheaded.
>>
>> So what would you consider to be "properly licensed and trained"?
>
> I have no real good idea, but in order to be able to drive legally,
> you need to provide evidence of knowledge and ability to drive.
And every day people who have provided that evidence are involved in
collisions that result in loss of life. We do not in general require
licenses to ride "pedalcycles" however if you check the numbers you
will find that more people die every year in "pedalcycle" accidents
than in firearms accidents. So if there is a need for licensing and
training of operators of firearms there is even more need for
licensing and training of operators of "pedalcycles".
Further, training is no guarantee that there will be no accidents.
Read the papers and you will find that police, who I think you will
agree are "trained", experience firearms accidents with some
regularity.
Most deaths involving firearms are the result of deliberate,
intentional, and unlawful misuse of firearms. Can you explain to us
how licensing and training will prevent such misuse?
Beyond that, the UK has an absolute ban on private possession of
handguns. They also have a rising incidence of the use of handguns in
crime. If an absolute ban does not help then how will licensing and
training help?
> Moreover, you need to have a vehicle that is registered and
> inspected. Why not the same with guns?
Registration of vehicles is primarily for tax purposes. We have
enough damn taxes in our society already. There is a secondary
identification function but that is useful mainly because the marker
plate is large enough to be read from a distance. Are you proposing
that anyone who owns a firearm hang a marker plate on his back or
something? If not then what, exactly, is the function that you
believe that such registration will serve?
As for inspection, inspection is primarily for emissions, not safety.
Is there some epidemic of air pollution from firearms that Al Gore has
not yet discovered? But even if the inspection is for safety, is
there some epidemic of injuries or deaths due to malfunctioning
firearms? If not then what purpose will be served by such
inspections? And how often do you think they should be performed?
And by who?
> At a minimum, possession of a fireweapon should be allowed only upon
> demonstrated know how of its workings and ability to properly
> utilize
> it.
And what societal problem will this solve? Personally I would prefer
that criminals in possession of "fireweapons" _not_ know how to
properly utilize them. As for "know how of its workings", what kind
of "know how" do you mean?
> In addition, you should be able to show how you came into
> possession of it.
And how will our society be better off because someone has a sales
receipt?
> I know this may go against the frontier mentality of some in the US,
> but we are not living in the 1600's anymore.
It has nothing to do with "frontier mentality". Show us how your
proposed requirements will make our society better in some way.
Criminals don't obey the law. That's what makes them criminals.
Licensing and registration affect the law abiding, they do not affect
criminals.
> And I agree, it will be almost impossible to legislate and protect
> against all aberrant behavior, as shown by the 20 year-old who
> entered a day care center in Dendermonde, Belgium and knifed 2
> babies
> and an adult to death.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_re_eu/eu_belgium_stabbings
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendermonde_nursery_attack
>
> I couldn't possibly imagine what drove someone to do that.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> <snipped>
>
> It does not seem clear to you that putting up some little hurdles to
> legal gun ownership would prevent a lot of illegal gun trading?
Has it ever done so anywhere? Iraq is under military occupation and
martial law and yet the criminals seem to be having little difficulty
obtaining weapons that pose a threat to armored vehicles.
The UK has an outright ban on handguns. That hasn't prevented their
use in crime.
Please tell us of ONE place where there was a decrease in the use of
firearms in crime subsequent to the implementation of the restrictions
you propose.
If your "little hurdles" were likely to accomplish anything other than
annoy the law abiding it would be one thing, but they have not proven
to be effective so why continue to waste time and effort implementing
them.
> How else are you going to discourage illegal gun ownership/usage?
> Issue guns to everyone and let them have it out?
How about we arrest people who illegally own or use guns and put them
in jail? Or is that too old fashioned for you? Was tried under
Reagan, seemed to be having an effect, but Clinton decided to
discontinue the program. IIRC Janet Reno wanted to continue it. The
deal was that any criminal caught with a firearm went directly to
Federal court, did not pass go, did not collect 200 dollars, and did
not get out of jail until his sentence under Federal firearms charges
was up, at which time he could _then_ begin serving his state sentence
for whatever other crime he committed.
> Jeez ...
Please explain how making the law abiding jump through hoops
inconveniences criminals.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bored Borg wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:30:22 +0000, David G. Nagel wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>>
>> The recent unpleasentness between England and America was over the
>> fact that we Americans wanted to keep our guns. You all remember
>> it,
>> it was in all the papers.
>>
>> Dave N
>
> Remind me? How recently? (seriously don't get the reference.)
To some people the Punic War is "the recent unpleasantness".
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
...
> Let's apply the laws and finetune them to catch criminals, not enhance
> commerce by looking away. (see my other response).
There are sufficient laws in place that if folks followed them there
would be very little to complain of.
Hence, it's clear adding laws isn't the solution.
Enforcement is an issue primarily of criminals exist by evading arrest
else they're not particularly effective in their chosen endeavor.
Beyond that it's one of sufficient resources primarily. What percentage
is owing to graft, etc., that would seem to be your above target is,
while not zero, a minute fraction of the total problem overall albeit it
may be a significant issue in certain specific jurisdictions.
The upshot is that more laws don't fix problems once a minimum number
are in place. Those who advocate them as a solution simply are wishing
for something that can't and won't happen.
--
Han wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> You make a good point. Since they made a law against robbery, not
>> a
>> single gas station or store has been robbed. Banks lo longer need
>> vaults.
>
> I recognize sarcasm, sometimes ...
>
>> There are plenty of hurdles. Law abiding people abide by them,
>> others won't no matter how many or how high they are. Passing laws
>> does not prevent crime, it only prescribes the punishment.
>> Responsible gun owners seek training and learn how to use them
>> properly.
>
> Let's apply the laws and finetune them to catch criminals, not
> enhance
> commerce by looking away. (see my other response).
Who is "enhancing commerce by looking away"?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:glfhf901dg7
> @news3.newsguy.com:
>
>> How about we arrest people who illegally own or use guns and put
>> them
>> in jail? Or is that too old fashioned for you? Was tried under
>> Reagan, seemed to be having an effect, but Clinton decided to
>> discontinue the program. IIRC Janet Reno wanted to continue it.
>> The
>> deal was that any criminal caught with a firearm went directly to
>> Federal court, did not pass go, did not collect 200 dollars, and
>> did
>> not get out of jail until his sentence under Federal firearms
>> charges
>> was up, at which time he could _then_ begin serving his state
>> sentence for whatever other crime he committed.
>
> That seems indeed like a good idea. Let's all support that.
Very good. Perhaps you should join the NRA, as the NRA did and does
support that.
> In the
> mean time let's also prosecute and jail those that sell illegally,
Certainly. The trouble is catching them.
> and include those manufacturers that look away when they sense
> illegal distribution.
Which manufacturers "look away when they sense illegal distribution"?
How do they "sense" this distribution? Certainly if a manufacturer is
colluding in unlawful activities action should be taken against them,
however firearms manufacturers in general sell only to the government
and to companies and individuals who hold Federal Firearms Licenses,
so they have precious little room for "illegal distribution". If
those licensees are violating the law, it is the responsibility of the
government and not the firearms manufacturers to police them.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 4:14 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Look at who this nation just elected.
>>
>> Does the Troll Rating Index go below zero?
>>
>> How weak is that? Goodness, Timbo... shameful attempt. Shameful!
>
> Resist the temptation - this was just Tim's way of telling us that
> John Galt _still_ hasn't knocked on his door.
>
> Be patient, Tim. He'll either show up or he won't.
Who is John Galt?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in news:1hn8ttx0ovy8s
> [email protected]:
>
>> Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
>
> If the underlying problem is not too many guns of questionable
> ownership, the what is the underlying problem? That people tend NOT
> to do the right thing?
Therein lies the problem. Nobody has been able to determine why
people in the US are more likely to kill each other than are people in
other countries. But even if you deduct all deaths involving firearms
from the total, the US still has a much higher homocide rate than the
UK or Japan or many other nations.
Whatever the problem is, "too many guns of questionable ownership"
doesn't seem to be it. The main effect of firearms regulations seems
to be to waste police time on matters peripheral to the real issue.
It doesn't help that the agency charged with enforcing the Federal
laws has a cowboy mentality.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
John Grossbohlin wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:1hn8ttx0ovy8s
>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
>>>>
>>>> If the underlying problem is not too many guns of questionable
>>>> ownership, the what is the underlying problem? That people tend
>>>> NOT to do the right thing?
>>>
>>> Therein lies the problem. Nobody has been able to determine why
>>> people in the US are more likely to kill each other than are
>>> people
>>> in other countries. But even if you deduct all deaths involving
>>> firearms from the total, the US still has a much higher homocide
>>> rate than the UK or Japan or many other nations.
>
> Actually, there was a study by sociologist Glenn Deane some years
> ago
> that was quite conclusive. Glenn did a cross-national analysis of
> homicide statistics and the dominant variables were gender and age.
> Basically, the relative number of young males in the population had
> the biggest impact on homicide rates--regardless of method. That is,
> countries with relatively large proportions of young males generally
> have higher rates of homicide and those with relatively small
> proportions of young males have lower rates.
>
> I suggested to Glenn that perhaps a mandatory military draft along
> with constant conflict abroad would be the most efficient way to cut
> down on homicide in the U.S. He didn't disagree with me that that
> was
> a reasonable conclusion but he was quick to note, and I didn't
> disagree with him, that it presented a lot of other social costs.
>
> If you Google me and Jeff Chan together you'll find a bunch of
> firearms regulation related research that I, or Don B. Kates Jr.,
> obtained permission to distribute on the computer networks--keep in
> mind that there were computer networks before the WWW ;~) Some of
> this work was groundwork leading up to the Heller case.
Let's play Fun With Numbers. Looking at young males in the US, the
UK, and Canada, and defining "young male" as being under 20, I find
that for the US, UK, and Canada the percentages are 0.118, 0.121, and
0.121. The homicide rates appear to be 0.043, 0.0148, and 0.0149 per
thousand respectively. So despite having a slightly lower percentage
of "young males", the US has a homicide rate three times higher than
that of Canada or the UK.
Still want to try to tell us that the cause of the high homicide rate
in the US is "the percentage of young males"? If so, can you explain
why an even higher percentage is not causing a similar homicide rate
in the UK and Canada?
While there may be a correlation, that does not mean that there is
causation. And where does the US lie in relation to other nations on
the curve? Is it right on the curve or is it way off it?
Sources:
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2007/NC-EST2007-01.xls
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/KPVS33_2006/FINAL_KPVS2006-web.pdf
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo10a-eng.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
> John
>
> Deane, Glenn D. 1987. "Cross-National Comparison of Homicide:
> Age/Sex-Adjusted Rates
> Using the 1980 U.S. Homicide Experience as a Standard." Journal of
> Quantitative
> Criminology 3:215-227.
>
> http://www.irss.unc.edu/odum/content/pdf/CVDean.pdf for his
> Curriculum Vitae
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
John Grossbohlin wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:1hn8ttx0ovy8s
>>>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the underlying problem is not too many guns of questionable
>>>>>> ownership, the what is the underlying problem? That people
>>>>>> tend
>>>>>> NOT to do the right thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Therein lies the problem. Nobody has been able to determine why
>>>>> people in the US are more likely to kill each other than are
>>>>> people
>>>>> in other countries. But even if you deduct all deaths involving
>>>>> firearms from the total, the US still has a much higher homocide
>>>>> rate than the UK or Japan or many other nations.
>>>
>>> Actually, there was a study by sociologist Glenn Deane some years
>>> ago
>>> that was quite conclusive. Glenn did a cross-national analysis of
>>> homicide statistics and the dominant variables were gender and
>>> age.
>>> Basically, the relative number of young males in the population
>>> had
>>> the biggest impact on homicide rates--regardless of method. That
>>> is,
>>> countries with relatively large proportions of young males
>>> generally
>>> have higher rates of homicide and those with relatively small
>>> proportions of young males have lower rates.
>>>
>>> I suggested to Glenn that perhaps a mandatory military draft along
>>> with constant conflict abroad would be the most efficient way to
>>> cut
>>> down on homicide in the U.S. He didn't disagree with me that that
>>> was
>>> a reasonable conclusion but he was quick to note, and I didn't
>>> disagree with him, that it presented a lot of other social costs.
>>>
>>> If you Google me and Jeff Chan together you'll find a bunch of
>>> firearms regulation related research that I, or Don B. Kates Jr.,
>>> obtained permission to distribute on the computer networks--keep
>>> in
>>> mind that there were computer networks before the WWW ;~) Some of
>>> this work was groundwork leading up to the Heller case.
>>
>> Let's play Fun With Numbers. Looking at young males in the US, the
>> UK, and Canada, and defining "young male" as being under 20, I find
>> that for the US, UK, and Canada the percentages are 0.118, 0.121,
>> and
>> 0.121. The homicide rates appear to be 0.043, 0.0148, and 0.0149
>> per
>> thousand respectively. So despite having a slightly lower
>> percentage
>> of "young males", the US has a homicide rate three times higher
>> than
>> that of Canada or the UK.
>>
>> Still want to try to tell us that the cause of the high homicide
>> rate
>> in the US is "the percentage of young males"? If so, can you
>> explain
>> why an even higher percentage is not causing a similar homicide
>> rate
>> in the UK and Canada?
>>
>> While there may be a correlation, that does not mean that there is
>> causation. And where does the US lie in relation to other nations
>> on
>> the curve? Is it right on the curve or is it way off it?
>
> That's why you need to go read the study... ;~) It covers more than
> 3
> countries,
It can cover three bazillion of them but if it doesn't explain why two
countries with the same percentage of young males have homicide rates
differening by a factor of three it doesn't tell us anything about
fixing the problem in the US.
> at a point in time (1980), and adjusts the rates for
> gender and age.
Huh? How does one "adjust the rates for gender and age"? Does
killing a woman somehow count less than killing a man or some such?
Sounds like he fudged the numbers to get the result he wanted.
> Do the cross-national figures look exactly the same
> today? Probably not... economic, political and reproduction rates
> have certainly changed...
Well, now, it was well known in 1980 that the US had a significantly
higher homicide rate than the UK and Canada--were the relative
percentages of "young males" the same then?
> and the gangs have certainly expanded their
> areas of operations.
Which has exactly what do do with anything if the cause is "percentage
of young males" and not "gangs"?
> Perhaps some
> grad student has replicated the study recently and can tell us.
> There
> could be one or more additional variables now that explain
> significant parts of the rates (e.g., violence in film/music, school
> drop out rates, immigration rates and what type of immigration, new
> ways to diss and disenfranchise people, demise of
> institutionalization for some ills/behaviors, etc.)
So find one that explains the 3x difference between the US and the
UK/Canada.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
[email protected] wrote:
> Actually the US ranks very low in the violent crime rates, as
> compared to other industrialized nations, and since their weapons
> ban, the rate in Australia, has shot up considerably. Check out
> this
> link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
>
> Bullies tend to be cowards, and attack those less likely to defend
> themselves.
So explain the higher homicide rate.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
John Grossbohlin wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>>
>>> That's why you need to go read the study... ;~) It covers more
>>> than
>>> 3
>>> countries,
>>
>> It can cover three bazillion of them but if it doesn't explain why
>> two countries with the same percentage of young males have homicide
>> rates differening by a factor of three it doesn't tell us anything
>> about fixing the problem in the US.
>
> That's the nature of sociology findings... they don't explain the
> behavior of any one or two entities they yield an expectation about
> the behaviors of a population. Any given entity is likely to vary
> from the expected behavior. If you are looking for the certainty of
> a
> chemical reaction it isn't going to be found in the social sciences.
> ;~)
Then what good are they?
> I also find it a bit amusing that people think they can fix a
> problem
> like violence on a large scale.
Are you saying that it is not possible to do so and that the US, just
by divine writ, will always have three times the homicide rate of the
UK and Canada?
> About 11-12 years ago I worked as a
> program evaluator on a juvenile crime prevention initiative in the
> state of CA. It was a high profile, big buck venture, e.g., on one
> trip to Asilomar for a conference I had breakfast with the head of
> social services for the state of CA.
>
> The idea was to keep kids out of the gangs. Interventions were
> family,
> community and school based and started with pre-school kids.
> Multiple
> interventions were used with each family and attempts were made to
> match the most appropriate interventions with each family's needs.
> Most of the families were train wrecks... grandparents who failed as
> parents raising their grand children; 6, 8, 10 different last names
> in a home; all generations having criminal records; no generations
> having completed high school; no responsible father present; gang
> members as relatives/parents; young teens pregnant, you name
> something dysfunctional and we saw it. There were few social
> controls... What makes anyone think that banning or further
> restricting firearms would do anything to stop violence in the face
> of those problems?
Who said anything about "banning or further restricting firearms"?
Not me.
> Taking weapon substitution into account the lethal violence would
> still exist... A total ban on and elimination of handguns would
> leave
> the thugs using more lethal weapons. Close range shotgun wounds are
> referred to as "rat hole wounds" in the literature and almost always
> fatal whereas handgun wounds are almost always survivable. Center
> fire rifles with hunting ammo (remember non-expanding ammo is a
> no-no) are far more lethal than handguns also.
>
> In short, there are no simple answers to violence regardless of the
> means of that violence. Enforcement of existing laws that are
> intended to keep guns out of the hands of violence prone and
> mentally
> incompetent people work up to the point where they abide by the
> laws.
> Perhaps the best we can hope for...
Perhaps we should be looking somewhere other than guns? And other
than "percentage of young males in the population"?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
David G. Nagel wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> The Second Amendment to the Constitution was written by a Congress,
>> that was composed to a man of those who had successfully revolted
>> through force of arms, against a government they thought unjust.
>>
>> The Second Amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights for that
>> matter,
>> was written in reaction to things that had happened since their
>> revolution. Several of the States had tried to impress unjust
>> taxes,
>> and collect them from members of the Continental Army who had been
>> unable to farm or work and earn enough money to pay taxes since
>> they
>> were in the field with the army. They had successfully organized,
>> and fought off the agents of the state through the force of arms.
>>
>> The British, in response to our armed insurgency had passed the Gun
>> Powder Act, and the Weapons Act, and enforced them in their
>> territories to prevent any further revolutions. Both acts, carried
>> a death penalty, and in the case of the Weapons Act, the definition
>> of weapon was left to the discretion of the ranking British officer
>> on the scene. Those found guilty by a military tribunal, could be
>> executed on the scene.
>>
>> The intent of the Second Amendment is clear if you look at it in
>> historical perspective: It was written by a group of men who had
>> successfully revolted against an unjust government, and felt that
>> it
>> was not only a right of the populace, but a duty, to over throw an
>> unjust government. They decided that since the States, and the
>> Federal government, were going to have armed forces, (police and
>> "militias"), that the citizenry should also be armed, to a level
>> that they could successfully revolt if the need should ever arise.
>>
>> The licensing of gun owners would be counter to that goal.
>> Because, an unjust, or corrupt government would then know exactly
>> the information it would require to disarm the populace, and
>> control
>> it by force of arms.
>
> If you saw the movie RED DAWN, which is about a Soviet invasion of
> the
> USA in Montana, there is a scene in the early part of the movie
> where
> the Cuban adviser to the Soviet commander instructs someone to go to
> the sporting goods store and get the firearms permit applications.
> This was so they could confiscate all the firearms in town.
When did sporting goods stores in Montana start stocking firearms
permit applications? Around here if you need a permit for something
you go to the police station or town hall.
The bound book is more likely to be useful.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:1hn8ttx0ovy8s
>>>>>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why not address the underlying problem instead of the
>>>>>>>>> symptom?
>>>>>>>> If the underlying problem is not too many guns of
>>>>>>>> questionable
>>>>>>>> ownership, the what is the underlying problem? That people
>>>>>>>> tend
>>>>>>>> NOT to do the right thing?
>>>>>>> Therein lies the problem. Nobody has been able to determine
>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>> people in the US are more likely to kill each other than are
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> in other countries. But even if you deduct all deaths
>>>>>>> involving
>>>>>>> firearms from the total, the US still has a much higher
>>>>>>> homocide
>>>>>>> rate than the UK or Japan or many other nations.
>>>>> Actually, there was a study by sociologist Glenn Deane some
>>>>> years
>>>>> ago
>>>>> that was quite conclusive. Glenn did a cross-national analysis
>>>>> of
>>>>> homicide statistics and the dominant variables were gender and
>>>>> age.
>>>>> Basically, the relative number of young males in the population
>>>>> had
>>>>> the biggest impact on homicide rates--regardless of method. That
>>>>> is,
>>>>> countries with relatively large proportions of young males
>>>>> generally
>>>>> have higher rates of homicide and those with relatively small
>>>>> proportions of young males have lower rates.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggested to Glenn that perhaps a mandatory military draft
>>>>> along
>>>>> with constant conflict abroad would be the most efficient way to
>>>>> cut
>>>>> down on homicide in the U.S. He didn't disagree with me that
>>>>> that
>>>>> was
>>>>> a reasonable conclusion but he was quick to note, and I didn't
>>>>> disagree with him, that it presented a lot of other social
>>>>> costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you Google me and Jeff Chan together you'll find a bunch of
>>>>> firearms regulation related research that I, or Don B. Kates
>>>>> Jr.,
>>>>> obtained permission to distribute on the computer networks--keep
>>>>> in
>>>>> mind that there were computer networks before the WWW ;~) Some
>>>>> of
>>>>> this work was groundwork leading up to the Heller case.
>>>> Let's play Fun With Numbers. Looking at young males in the US,
>>>> the
>>>> UK, and Canada, and defining "young male" as being under 20, I
>>>> find
>>>> that for the US, UK, and Canada the percentages are 0.118, 0.121,
>>>> and
>>>> 0.121. The homicide rates appear to be 0.043, 0.0148, and 0.0149
>>>> per
>>>> thousand respectively. So despite having a slightly lower
>>>> percentage
>>>> of "young males", the US has a homicide rate three times higher
>>>> than
>>>> that of Canada or the UK.
>>>>
>>>> Still want to try to tell us that the cause of the high homicide
>>>> rate
>>>> in the US is "the percentage of young males"? If so, can you
>>>> explain
>>>> why an even higher percentage is not causing a similar homicide
>>>> rate
>>>> in the UK and Canada?
>>>>
>>>> While there may be a correlation, that does not mean that there
>>>> is
>>>> causation. And where does the US lie in relation to other
>>>> nations
>>>> on
>>>> the curve? Is it right on the curve or is it way off it?
>>> That's why you need to go read the study... ;~) It covers more
>>> than
>>> 3
>>> countries,
>>
>> It can cover three bazillion of them but if it doesn't explain why
>> two countries with the same percentage of young males have homicide
>> rates differening by a factor of three it doesn't tell us anything
>> about fixing the problem in the US.
>>
>>> at a point in time (1980), and adjusts the rates for
>>> gender and age.
>>
>> Huh? How does one "adjust the rates for gender and age"? Does
>> killing a woman somehow count less than killing a man or some such?
>> Sounds like he fudged the numbers to get the result he wanted.
>>
>>> Do the cross-national figures look exactly the same
>>> today? Probably not... economic, political and reproduction rates
>>> have certainly changed...
>>
>>
>> Well, now, it was well known in 1980 that the US had a
>> significantly
>> higher homicide rate than the UK and Canada--were the relative
>> percentages of "young males" the same then?
>>
>>> and the gangs have certainly expanded their
>>> areas of operations.
>>
>> Which has exactly what do do with anything if the cause is
>> "percentage of young males" and not "gangs"?
>>
>>> Perhaps some
>>> grad student has replicated the study recently and can tell us.
>>> There
>>> could be one or more additional variables now that explain
>>> significant parts of the rates (e.g., violence in film/music,
>>> school
>>> drop out rates, immigration rates and what type of immigration,
>>> new
>>> ways to diss and disenfranchise people, demise of
>>> institutionalization for some ills/behaviors, etc.)
>>
>> So find one that explains the 3x difference between the US and the
>> UK/Canada.
>>
>
> A tad bit might be due to 10 - 20% of the population of a foreign
> country being in the US illegally and contributing
> disproportionately
> to the crime and murder rate.
That might be the case or might not. Be interesting to see some
research intended to find out. Uniform Crime Reports doesn't break
out "illegal alien" or "hispanic" but if you combine "other" and
"unknown" and attribute it _all_ to illegal aliens then you're still
more than twice as high as Canada and the UK.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Using this scenario, each state would have to have a lawsuit against their
neighbors that
lay to the immediate west of them, the end result would be that all cars and
heavy industry
could only be on the east coast, where there would be no one to sue.
basilisk
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> RicodJour wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
>>>> controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
>>>> example of the need for federal control.
>>>>
>>> Nope. Assume, for a moment that each state is in control of their
>>> own emissions standards. Now assume that the state next to yours
>>> sets their's unreasonably low and starts polluting *your* air.
>>> Your state should then *sue* the adjacent state for actual and
>>> compensatory damages. Litigation is a far better answer than
>>> central regulation because litigation deals with the claim of
>>> *actual* damages (as opposed to the potential damages addressed
>>> by regulatory law).
>>
>> And how exactly would they determine actual damages from pollution?
>
> By the showing the costs of the losses. This is done routinely
> when assessing damages in a won lawsuit.
>
>> Wait until people croak and then count the bodies and multiply by
>> dollars? Maybe they just start cleaning the soot off of cars, houses
>
> Exactly. Again - not a new concept - it's been done for years.
>
>> and trees and charge backcharge them for the cleanup costs?
>
> Something along those lines. "Because of your pollution, our
> state incurrent $x in cleanup costs and suffered $x in lost
> business and tourism revenue. We ask to court for that amount
> plus a multiplier of y to disincent the other state from ever doing
> this again." Like I said, a very normal legal activity that
> takes place regularly.
>>
>> You may have a point and a position but that example....bzzzzzzzzzzzt.
>
> I don't see why not - it's done every day. States might even choose
> to pay for insurance against such claims.
>
>>
>> R
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
basilisk wrote:
> Using this scenario, each state would have to have a lawsuit against
> their neighbors that
> lay to the immediate west of them, the end result would be that all
> cars and heavy industry
> could only be on the east coast, where there would be no one to sue.
The upshot is likely to be "the pollution moved in interstate
commerce, over which the Fed has sole jurisdiction, if no federal laws
or regulations were violated then there are no grounds, case
dismissed".
> basilisk
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>> Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out
>>>>> emission controls the entire country will breathe their
>>>>> pollution. A perfect example of the need for federal control.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope. Assume, for a moment that each state is in control of
>>>> their
>>>> own emissions standards. Now assume that the state next to yours
>>>> sets their's unreasonably low and starts polluting *your* air.
>>>> Your state should then *sue* the adjacent state for actual and
>>>> compensatory damages. Litigation is a far better answer than
>>>> central regulation because litigation deals with the claim of
>>>> *actual* damages (as opposed to the potential damages addressed
>>>> by regulatory law).
>>>
>>> And how exactly would they determine actual damages from
>>> pollution?
>>
>> By the showing the costs of the losses. This is done routinely
>> when assessing damages in a won lawsuit.
>>
>>> Wait until people croak and then count the bodies and multiply by
>>> dollars? Maybe they just start cleaning the soot off of cars,
>>> houses
>>
>> Exactly. Again - not a new concept - it's been done for years.
>>
>>> and trees and charge backcharge them for the cleanup costs?
>>
>> Something along those lines. "Because of your pollution, our
>> state incurrent $x in cleanup costs and suffered $x in lost
>> business and tourism revenue. We ask to court for that amount
>> plus a multiplier of y to disincent the other state from ever doing
>> this again." Like I said, a very normal legal activity that
>> takes place regularly.
>>>
>>> You may have a point and a position but that
>>> example....bzzzzzzzzzzzt.
>>
>> I don't see why not - it's done every day. States might even
>> choose
>> to pay for insurance against such claims.
>>
>>>
>>> R
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
Limiting the Feds to their Constitutionally mandated role would
: enable each State to do what made sense locally.
Why do you, and others who I've seen with similar beliefs, think
that the state level is the local level? I find the ubiquitous
federal/nonfederal dictotomy very puzzling.
Why not restrict or eliminate state power while you're at it,
and give the majority of power to the counties? Or hell, to each
separate town? That way, one town can decide how much to spend on its roads,
and if you don't like the way they build them, move to another town.
Or, since towns are kinda big, neighborhoods?
-- Andy Barss
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
:> Or, since towns are kinda big, neighborhoods?
:>
:> -- Andy Barss
: It has something to do with the fomative law of the land -
: the U.S. Constitution, which document makes exactly three
: distinctions: Federal, State, and The People.
: Moving power back to the States would be imperfect but at least it
: would be something wherein the citizens would actually have:
: a) More probability of having a voice in the decisions made.
: b) The ability to move to the state that best matched their
: own values and interest.
Not a convincing argument. But I do understand you hold to it very, uh,
fervently.
-- Andy Barss
"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>>
>> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
>> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>>
>> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water
>> vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>>
>
> Or you could burn sodium in a pure chlorine environment and produce table
> salt.
>
Wouldn't have to salt the roads then, drive and deice, nice.
basilisk
Nova wrote:
> David G. Nagel wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>
>>>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water
>>>> vapor)
>>>
>>>
>>> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of
>>> carbon,
>>> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>>>
>>> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only
>>> water vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>>>
>>
>> Or you could burn sodium in a pure chlorine environment and produce
>> table salt.
>>
>
> Researchers are looking into the possibility of burning salt water.
> See:
>
> http://www.californiagreensolutions.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=967
Well, actually what they're talking about is a novel form of
electrolysis using RF rather than direct electrical contact. You
still have to put more energy in than you get out, and don't end up
with storable fuel in the interim, so it's really more of a laboratory
curiosity than anything suitable for powering vehicles or power
plants.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
CW wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I'll grant that. Should have said perfect combustion of
>> carbon-based fuels. Nuclear reactions are even more perfect,
>> producing only steam.
>
> Nuclear reactions produce heat, not steam.
And their own set of very unpleasant reaction products, which,
fortunately, are produced in manageable quantities.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
B A R R Y wrote:
> Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>
>> B A R R Y,
>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
>
>
> It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
Recyclable? How? I want to see the specific uses for 98 percent of
the components of radioactive waste from a reactor since you assert
that it is "recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount". Put it
in the form of a list, identifying the component, the percentage
prevalence in the waste, and the use for it that allows recycling.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
David G. Nagel wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>> Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>>> B A R R Y,
>>>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
>>>
>>> It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
>>
>> Recyclable? How? I want to see the specific uses for 98 percent
>> of
>> the components of radioactive waste from a reactor since you assert
>> that it is "recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount". Put
>> it
>> in the form of a list, identifying the component, the percentage
>> prevalence in the waste, and the use for it that allows recycling.
>>
>
> Radioactive waste from a power plant occupies a really an extremely
> small volume.
That's nice. But the quantity was not at issue, the assertion that it
can be "recycled down to an incredibly tiny amount" is at issue. If
it can I want to know how tiny and in what ways it is recycled.
> Consider that every gram of waste produced at all the
> plants in the US is currently stored within the grounds of the plant
> that generated it.
Take a look at
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.138972,-76.643733&z=18&t=h&hl=en.
The ship on the left with the green decks is the SS Savannah. If you
find that location in Google Earth and zoom out you will see that it
is well within the confines of the United States. If you google the
name of the ship you will find that the fuel has long since been
removed from the reactor. It is your assertion that every gram of
radioactive waste associated with that removal is stored on the ship?
And how about the nuclear waste from the numerous nuclear powered
warships that have been decommissioned and scrapped out?
> The vast majority of what is called "Radioactive Waste" is really
> composed of items such as wipe rage, coveralls, materials used in
> medicine and incidental contaminated hardware.
So how are you going to recycle them?
> These things are
> usually not even contaminated but were used in conjunction with
> things
> radioactive and as such are considered contaminated.
So how are you going to recycle them? Run a geiger counter over them
and if doesn't click put them in a bag and ship them to Harbor
Freight?
> The majority of material from a power plant is unused base material.
Uh, please define "unused base material". Do you mean "enriched
uranium"?
> The highly radioactive component of the waste is only a few percent
> of the total.
Well that's nice, how do you recycle it?
> If they are cycled out of the matrix the base material
> can be reformed into new fuel rods and used to generate more
> electricity.
Why do they need to be "cycled out of the matrix"? The reason that
the fuel needs to be replace is not "high level radioactive compoents"
but the accumulation of "neutron poisons" that interfere with the
reaction. The high level radioactive components are an obstacle to
the chemical removal of those neutron poisons.
> The resultant waste is all that needs to be stored,
> albeit for a very long time.
So of the total amount of radioctive waste produced by a reactor, what
percentage does this constitute?
> If properly packaged and diluted there
> can be no danger from this material.
Who said anything about danger? The question was not about safety,
the question was "show me the numbers".
And from you, all I get is more vague bullshit, no numbers. Do you
have the numbers? If so please present them. If not, what relevance
to the question posed do you believe your pile of bafflegab to have?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
B A R R Y wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>> Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>>> B A R R Y,
>>>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
>>>
>>> It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
>>
>> Recyclable? How?
>
> Wrong word.
>
> Reprocessable.
>
> <http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml>
In other words prepared for storage. From your fact sheet:
"High-level reprocessed waste is vitrified (solidified) and stored at
La Hague for several decades, where it awaits final geologic
disposal."
Not at all the same thing as recycling, unless you consider putting
something in a plastic bag so that it may be more easily transported
to the landfill "recycling".
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
> It is simply called a Breeder Reactor.
> It takes anything in and processes as you want e.g. power fuel
> pellets.
Anything? You mean it can take dirty laundry and turn it into fuel
pellets?
> These were designed an proved to work - in the 60's. The long
> forgotten
> lab in Tenn. did the work. They processed the first metal in the
> first place.
Was that "long forgotten lab in Tenn." anywhere near Oak Ridge
National Laboratories?
> France has them up and running as well as Japan and another maybe.
Has what up and running? Some way to turn dirty sweat socks into fuel
pellets?
> We in the US have been hampered with false diatribe on the dangers
> which shut down the nuke power plants.
"False diatribe"? I think this word does not mean what you think it
means.
> Simply said, soft coal power plants put out more nuke foul stuff
> than
> nuke plants. EVEN the one in N.J.
Which has still not answered the question.
Hint--breeders don't do what you seem to think they do. They don't
"take in anything", they take in either uranium 238 or Thorium 232 and
turn them into Plutonium 239 or Uranium 233 respectively. After that
you use that uranium or plutonium in a reactor just like any other
uranium or plutonium.
Yes, U-238 from spent reactor fuel can be bred into plutonium, but
once you've used the plutonium you still have an equal mass of
reaction products to deal with.
> Martin
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>>>> Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>>>>> B A R R Y,
>>>>>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
>>>>> It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
>>>> Recyclable? How?
>>> Wrong word.
>>>
>>> Reprocessable.
>>>
>>> <http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml>
>>
>> In other words prepared for storage. From your fact sheet:
>> "High-level reprocessed waste is vitrified (solidified) and stored
>> at
>> La Hague for several decades, where it awaits final geologic
>> disposal."
>>
>> Not at all the same thing as recycling, unless you consider putting
>> something in a plastic bag so that it may be more easily
>> transported
>> to the landfill "recycling".
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
In article <[email protected]>,
B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>
>> B A R R Y,
>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
>
>
>It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
Compared to the cost and damage from our inability to deal with waste
generated rom coal mining and burning, nuclear waste does not seem
like such a terrible problem.
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
In article <[email protected]>,
Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Larry W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Compared to the cost and damage from our inability to deal with waste
>> generated rom coal mining and burning, nuclear waste does not seem
>> like such a terrible problem.
>
>Except that in a worst case scenario, nuclear waste has longer lasting and
>excessively serious health risks.
>
>
I certainly would not dispute that nuclear waste is dangerous and disposal
is a real problem. However, by way of comparison, there is a single
slurry impoundment it West Virginia that holds 9 BILLION gallons of
sludge created from processing coal. Like most of those in the eastern
coal mining states, it was created by damming up a valley between 2 hills
where coal is being mined. This particular dam is close to an elementary
school. It has been cited for engineering and design problems but no
action taken.
In 1972 a similar dam failed and killed 125 people, as well as causing
millions ( billions?) in property damage. In 2000 another coal waste
dam failure released over 300 million gallons. Just recently, the fly
ash spill in Tennessee illustrates that there is a disposal problem caused
by burning coal, as well as from mining it. Since 1990 over 700 miners
have died in US coal mine accidents. Take a look at an aerial photograph
of mountaintop removal mines in W. Va or Kentucky, just seeing the
damage to the environment is enough to sicken.
Personally, I would much rather see this country pursue research into safely
using nuclear energy rather than continue to burn coal. We have already
proven how dangerous coal is.
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
Larry W wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Larry W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Compared to the cost and damage from our inability to deal with
>>> waste generated rom coal mining and burning, nuclear waste does
>>> not
>>> seem like such a terrible problem.
>>
>> Except that in a worst case scenario, nuclear waste has longer
>> lasting and excessively serious health risks.
>>
>>
>
> I certainly would not dispute that nuclear waste is dangerous and
> disposal is a real problem. However, by way of comparison, there is
> a
> single
> slurry impoundment it West Virginia that holds 9 BILLION gallons of
> sludge created from processing coal. Like most of those in the
> eastern
> coal mining states, it was created by damming up a valley between 2
> hills where coal is being mined. This particular dam is close to an
> elementary school. It has been cited for engineering and design
> problems but no
> action taken.
>
> In 1972 a similar dam failed and killed 125 people, as well as
> causing
> millions ( billions?) in property damage. In 2000 another coal waste
> dam failure released over 300 million gallons. Just recently, the
> fly
> ash spill in Tennessee illustrates that there is a disposal problem
> caused by burning coal, as well as from mining it. Since 1990 over
> 700 miners
> have died in US coal mine accidents. Take a look at an aerial
> photograph
> of mountaintop removal mines in W. Va or Kentucky, just seeing the
> damage to the environment is enough to sicken.
>
> Personally, I would much rather see this country pursue research
> into
> safely using nuclear energy rather than continue to burn coal. We
> have already proven how dangerous coal is.
And that's before anybody tries to capture the CO2 emissions and store
them, as is the latest hare-brained scheme from the coal miners.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:8983f2c7-ca7b-49fd-8205-e6d726ccd76f@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...=
On Jan 31, 9:38 pm, "Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> It is simply called a Breeder Reactor.
> It takes anything in and processes as you want e.g. power fuel =
pellets.
>
> These were designed an proved to work - in the 60's. The long =
forgotten
> lab in Tenn. did the work. They processed the first metal in the first =
place.
>
> France has them up and running as well as Japan and another maybe.
> We in the US have been hampered with false diatribe on the dangers
> which shut down the nuke power plants.
>
> Simply said, soft coal power plants put out more nuke foul stuff than
> nuke plants. EVEN the one in N.J.
>
> Martin
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > B A R R Y wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> B A R R Y wrote:
> >>>> Kerry Montgomery wrote:
> >>>>> B A R R Y,
> >>>>> If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste.
> >>>> It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
> >>> Recyclable? How?
> >> Wrong word.
>
> >> Reprocessable.
>
> >> <http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml>
>
> > In other words prepared for storage. From your fact sheet:
> > "High-level reprocessed waste is vitrified (solidified) and stored =
at
> > La Hague for several decades, where it awaits final geologic
> > disposal."
>
> > Not at all the same thing as recycling, unless you consider putting
> > something in a plastic bag so that it may be more easily transported
> > to the landfill "recycling".
We used to monitor coal flow with a Geiger counter. No ticki ticki, no
coal on the belt to the pulverizers.
Coal is awful stuff. Nobody ever talks about the nasty metals, like
vanadium and such... or the NOx...
We installed scrubbers to get rid of the sulphur compounds...so we
ended up wit a pond full of dirty sulphur.
And what DO you do with a few million tons of fly-ash? Clinkers? Coal
mining related health/safety issues (Sago)? EVERY day?
It all makes a few thimbles of spent nuclear fuel seem rather easy to
manage.
Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too
much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IIRC it seems to me that those who mess with brown coal and some of the =
lesser bitumens are pretty much getting what they asked for.
I remember having to fire the family furnace as a kid. Whenever we used =
anthracite we had no smog problems and when we had to use the lesser =
coals we had lots of klinkers and smell.
It would seem that it is mostly a matter of economics: Brown is cheap =
and hard is expensive so use brown and pocket the difference. Not to =
worry about the effluvia as someone else will do that for us.
That nuke stuff is far more worrisome as it only has a half-life of =
upwards of 10,000 years.
P D Q
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:fdea7e86-62ef-4348-a125-a5731465b7c3@v15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...=
On Feb 2, 7:14 pm, "PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in =
messagenews:[email protected]=
.com...
>
> <SNIP>
> Coal is awful stuff. Nobody ever talks about the nasty metals, like
> vanadium and such... or the NOx...
> We installed scrubbers to get rid of the sulphur compounds...so we
> ended up wit a pond full of dirty sulphur.
> And what DO you do with a few million tons of fly-ash? Clinkers? Coal
> mining related health/safety issues (Sago)? EVERY day?
>
> It all makes a few thimbles of spent nuclear fuel seem rather easy to
> manage.
>
> Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too
> much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> IIRC it seems to me that those who mess with brown coal and some of =
the lesser bitumens are pretty much getting what they asked for.
>
> I remember having to fire the family furnace as a kid. Whenever we =
used anthracite we had no smog problems and when we had to use the =
lesser coals we had lots of klinkers and smell.
>
> It would seem that it is mostly a matter of economics: Brown is cheap =
and hard is expensive so use brown and pocket the difference. Not to =
worry about the effluvia as someone else will do that for us.
>
> That nuke stuff is far more worrisome as it only has a half-life of =
upwards of 10,000 years.
>
> P D Q
Nuke stuff is worrisome because people don't know anything about it.
They're perpetuating bad information.
Google for a paper called The Health Hazards Of Not Going
Nuclear.....then get back to me.
Start here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25019125
I assure you that Dr. Petr Beckmann is not a kook.
No. He is a dead electrical engineer.
I guess, if one is wont to play that game, one ought to be really =
interested in Solar, Wind, and Geothermal as a potential, if not =
probable, alternative to further polluting via unstable elements.
P D Q
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:ca1e28ad-793b-4a6e-8abe-4a1d8e3532c0@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...=
On Feb 2, 8:15 pm, "PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in =
messagenews:[email protected]=
.com...
>
> On Feb 2, 7:14 pm, "PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in =
messagenews:[email protected]=
.com...
>
> > <SNIP>
> > Coal is awful stuff. Nobody ever talks about the nasty metals, like
> > vanadium and such... or the NOx...
> > We installed scrubbers to get rid of the sulphur compounds...so we
> > ended up wit a pond full of dirty sulphur.
> > And what DO you do with a few million tons of fly-ash? Clinkers? =
Coal
> > mining related health/safety issues (Sago)? EVERY day?
>
> > It all makes a few thimbles of spent nuclear fuel seem rather easy =
to
> > manage.
>
> > Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY =
too
> > much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > IIRC it seems to me that those who mess with brown coal and some of =
the lesser bitumens are pretty much getting what they asked for.
>
> > I remember having to fire the family furnace as a kid. Whenever we =
used anthracite we had no smog problems and when we had to use the =
lesser coals we had lots of klinkers and smell.
>
> > It would seem that it is mostly a matter of economics: Brown is =
cheap and hard is expensive so use brown and pocket the difference. Not =
to worry about the effluvia as someone else will do that for us.
>
> > That nuke stuff is far more worrisome as it only has a half-life of =
upwards of 10,000 years.
>
> > P D Q
>
> Nuke stuff is worrisome because people don't know anything about it.
> They're perpetuating bad information.
> Google for a paper called The Health Hazards Of Not Going
> Nuclear.....then get back to me.
>
> Start =
here:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25019125
>
> I assure you that Dr. Petr Beckmann is not a kook.
>
> No. He is a dead electrical engineer.
>
> I guess, if one is wont to play that game, one ought to be really =
interested in Solar, Wind, and Geothermal as a potential, if not =
probable, alternative to further polluting via unstable elements.
When you have a 20,000 MW base load (like in my area), the solutions
need a big hammer. Plants like the ones where 2 of my daughters work,
are solving those kind of needs 3000MW at a crack. Nukes are big
baseload machines, something that neither wind, or solar can offer. At
least not in any way we can see. The geothermal thing, I'm not really
familiar with, but at least that wouldn't be weather dependent.
It absolutely goes without saying that super-clean power such as solar
and wind is preferred even over a nuke.
Now I'll agree with you. =20
All we have to do is get the solar converters up from about 16% to =
something more useful, the wind to be more consistent (the big vane =
generate in a 2 mph gale), the geothermal to be more cost-effective; and =
we will be able to let the coal lie (if we will stop turning coal into =
gas and tar),and the Arabs go dry.
Not a really big deal is it (he writ facetiously)? <g>
Let me know how you make out with your new wall.=20
P D Q
David G. Nagel wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 11:18 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>> On Feb 2, 7:21 pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Larry W wrote:
>>>>>> Personally I'd much rather have a nuclear reactor in my back
>>>>>> yard
>>>>>> than a strip mine.
>>>>> Same here.
>>>>> I lived for years around 8 miles from a nuke plant. I didn't
>>>>> move, they decommissioned the plant.
>>>>> The radioactive materials that exist in coal, and are released
>>>>> into the atmosphere when the coal is burned, seem to get often
>>>>> ignored.
>>>> You see, Barry...or should I call you BARRY??.<G>... there are
>>>> plenty well-run safe nuclear power stations. It's when private
>>>> industry starts shaving off a buck here or there, that's when you
>>>> get problems.
>>> Yeah, that private industry debacle at Chernobyl, Soviet Union
>>> was really a wake-up call for what happens when you let
>>> corporations shave costs and cut corners. Too bad it wasn't the
>>> Soviet government running that plant, then all safety procedures
>>> would have been properly followed, there would have been multiple
>>> checks and double-checks before anybody tried doing anything
>>> stupid, and no problems would have occurred. Live and learn I
>>> guess.
>>>
>>> --
>>> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>>
>> Yup, as competent as the Morton Thiokol engineering department. (O-
>> ring division).
>>
>> The accident at Chernobyl was a spin-down station-service test that
>> wasn't thought through very well.
>> Incompetence, human error, call it what you will, but to draw
>> parallels between how we do things here and how they were done
>> there,
>> is absurd.
>> A nuclear power station comes with a lot of responsibility. You
>> just
>> don't hand one over to just anybody.
>> But if you want to put your government's conscientiousness at par
>> with the Soviets, go for it, I know that the regulatory systems in
>> place here in Canada are far more sophisticated than that. A test
>> like that would never have been approved here.
>> But, I am wasting my typing skills here. You're anti-government now
>> because this new guy isn't bouncing around on his pogo stick
>> yelling:
>> "drill, baby, drill!!"
>
> IRCC the test at Chernobly was turned down also but the EXPERTS went
> ahead and did it anyway. Also the reactor was not housed in a
> containment facility. It was constructed inside an ordinary, albeit
> large, power plant building.
A whole chain of things happened at Chernobyl.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:02:29 GMT, Han cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:
>
> That seems indeed like a good idea. Let's all support that. In the mean
> time let's also prosecute and jail those that sell illegally, and include
> those manufacturers that look away when they sense illegal distribution.
Oh please... more of the manufacturer's responsiblity gibberish. Ok...
something to back up this notion that manufacturers are "looking the other
way" when they "sense illegal distribution". The problem with your
proposals is that they can often sound like they hold a certain
resonableness - but they don't once you realize they are based on
rhetorical nonsense.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:13:48 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
>
> You have to look at the comparison on a MW per environmental and human
> cost basis....
Only to the point that the ineveitable will happen again. Three Mile
Island was only a taste of what can be, and the issues of waste are far
from resolved, let alone properly being dealt with.
> Coal kills people every day, all day. The death rate due to nuclear
> environmental impact barely registers in comparison.
Yes - but that one occurance will more than make up for it. But more
important than the scare tactic is the question of what to do with the
waste? It's great as long as you're not living next to it and someone else
is. Tomorrow's news will just be a "so-sorry" for you, but it will present
much larger problems for a lot of people than today's coal problems
present.
> We are talking about power generators..not nuclear bombs.
Ugh - I live within 20 miles of 3 of them - I think I know the difference.
> So many
> people think they're one and the same....
No - you've got it wrong. The advocates of nuclear like to accuse everyone
arond them of not knowing the difference, but think about it - how many
people do you really know who do not know the difference between the bomb
and the reactor down the road? Answer - none.
> and the coal and oil
> bastards will do all they can to keep you believing that.
It has nothing to do with coal and oil bastards. Nuclear is a very
dangerous generator and we have not made one inch of progress in dealing
with the waste over the past 20 years. This is not a problem that is going
to magically go away just because you like to think it's better than
fossile fuels.
> Even hydro electric dams have a negative environmental impact. What do
> you think our children's children will say about Three Gorges by the
> time that mess rears its ugly head.
For the love of Pete - you're not seriously suggesting that you are leaving
a better earth behind for your grandchildren by advocating nuclear, are
you? Talk about being brainwashed by the industry - you've lost all
perspective at the hands of the nuclear industry. "Don't worry - those
wastes are perfectly safe, and we have perfectly safe operations, with
qualified and trained staff... and no financial motivation..."
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Tom wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Robatoy wrote:
> "major snippage>>
>> Not a *single* word about Obamessiah's background I cited is
>> "conjecture". Every single point has been verified repeatedly by the
>> IL press, Obama's political opponents, and even the national media
>> (what's left of it). The guy is a political scumbag, the public
>> doesn't care. Obama's not the bad guy here, the voting sheeple are in
>> their incredible stupidity and greed.
>
> I'm gonna be brave and stick my head out on this one: Tim, I agree the scope
> of coverups in this election is beyond belief, and the stupidy of all the
> "voters" they recruited is the same in scope.
> Media is bought and paid for; graft and corruption is rampant at every level
> in government and unfortunately in law enforcement as well (my uncle was a
> Lieutenant The Miami MetropDade Sheriff's Dept. and had his car sabotaged by
> the bad cops he was about to bring down... he was medicalled out due to his
> injuries when the brakes "failed").
> Tom
I appreciate the support. Be aware that merely agreeing with such
a position is likely to get you strung up around here. There are
many do-gooders who don't like having their inconsistency, poor
moral values, and blindness to this sort of stuff pointed out in a
public forum.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>>
>> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
>> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>>
>> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water
>> vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>>
>
> I'll grant that. Should have said perfect combustion of carbon-based
> fuels. Nuclear reactions are even more perfect, producing only steam.
>
>
Fine, for the AR among us, I should have specified that nuclear reactions
produce heat and from the heat, steam is produced.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:37:32 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> defending the nation and its borders is one of the very few things
>> government is legitimately entitled to do.
>
> Welcome to Daneliuk Land - set your watch back 200 years :-).
>
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:37:32 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> defending the nation and its borders is one of the very few things
>> government is legitimately entitled to do.
>
> Welcome to Daneliuk Land - set your watch back 200 years :-).
>
No. I don't believe in slavery. Today, such beliefs are the sole
province of the KKK and the political Left.
On a more serious note ... Why on earth does the political Left object
to more power for the States and less for the Feds? Virtually every
beef any of us - Right, Left, Libertarian - have with the government
is directed mostly at our Federal system. The Left disdained the Feds
under Bush and Reagan. The Right similarly disliked Carter, Clinton,
and, now, Obama. We Libertarians are in despair over some of the
policies of all the above. The fact is that we cannot take the
"average" of these positions and come up with a satisfactory,
effective, and efficient central government. Why not return power to
the States where it was intended to be in the first place?
Our Founders understood that a powerful central government would be
subject to considerable influence peddling and abuse - and they were
right. Limiting the Feds to their Constitutionally mandated role would
enable each State to do what made sense locally. More importantly, it
would allow us each as citizens to have far more influence in how
"our" government works and spends money.
As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that is
exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit
individual States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This is
absolutely in the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equation
and letting people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don't
like Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
History has ample demonstration that central power is corruptive, out
of touch with reality, and generally tends towards abuse. Diffusing
power makes our government flexible, resilient, and trending toward
faster local control. I cannot fathom objections to this. I'd much
rather be having a policy debate with my neighbors than 300 million
fellow citizens that have unique conditions and needs on a
State-by-State basis. You want "progressive" political policy? Fine,
live in a State that embraces this. You want cultural and political
conservatism? Great. Live in place that affirms this. *Everyone* wins
in this kind of Constitutionally mandated system.
It's the greatest possible horserace - each community can try - and
refine - the ideas they think would work for them and we can all see
what does- and does not work over time. The current powerful central
Federal system is not only an abomination before the intent of the
Constitution, it is an imposition - by implicit force - of "outsiders"
telling each of us what we should do. I would think that all of us -
Left, Right, Center, Liberarian, Communist, Rational Anarchist, and
Indifferent - would be better served by the diffusion of power back
into the hands of local people.
We are a nation of mutts. We come from a breadth of beliefs,
traditions, ethnicities and practices. Yet, until about 60 years ago,
we managed to make it work and delivered more liberty for more people
faster than any recorded human civilization. It wasn't perfect, but it
was magnificent. But we're in major trouble. Our freedoms are under
assault, our economy is crippled, our faith in each other is gutted.
It wasn't Rightwing, Leftwing, or Libertarian politics that got us
here - at least not in the first order. It was the Leviathan of a
powerful centralized government that did it. Whoever happens to be
in power, names the tune. This means that half the country is
disenfranchised, marginalized, and angry.
We lost our sense of connection to and control over our government
that got us in this mess. This same powerful Federal system is trying
to peddle the idea that it was the banks that cratered our economy,
that a lack of central power fouled our freedoms, and that the central
government alone can restore our faith in each other and the system as
a whole. It's a scam. In actual fact, our current mess is directly
attributable to the disconnection the average citizen feels as regards
to their government. The Feds ran amok and we - the Concerned Citizens -
couldn't do much about it. Most all of us know - at least at some visceral
level - that we have precious little influence on the Bozos In
Washington. Mark Twain was right, the U.S. has no indigenous criminal
class, except perhaps for the Congress. Lefties, Righties, and
Libertarians ought to covenant together to return power to the people
by giving it back to the States and local governments where we can
actually be heard and make a difference in a way that makes sense
locally.
I proudly embrace the intent of the Framers and the expression of the
Constitution. Outside defending the national borders, running the
requisite DOJ and military required to do this, ensuring there are no
trade barriers between states, and so forth, We The Sheeple should
tell the Feds to butt out of our lives and let us live locally as we
see fit. Sadly, the Sheeple keep voting as if choosing one side or the
other of the usual political spectrum will make things better. It will
not. Only a large pruning of central Federal power will work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected] PGP Key:
http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:33 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped the usual]
>
> If you were in a car accident, you'd expect assistance from your
> insurance company, right?
> Why? Because you paid into it.
Correct. The car insurance company - a private institution - and I
entered into a private agreement as to each of our respective
responsibilities.
>
> Does that make you a thief, Timbo?
Of course not. The transaction was private, voluntary, and spelled
out from the beginning. Either party has the perfect right to
terminate the agreement as they see fit. Well ... I have that right.
The various government regulatory and legislative bodies - doing the
bidding of the various moochers in the state - have imposed fairly
draconian rules concerning just when, where, and how the insurance
company can step away from the agreement.
>
> We, as a free people, have mandated our government, to divert some of
> our tax moneys to pay for health insurance. That is what we wanted,
> that is what we got.
I do not question your *legal* right to do this. I question your
*moral* right to do it.
>
> Before you get into the part that we are legislated into participation
> of our system, are you allowed to drive in the state of Blago without
> insurance?
> And if you opted out of car insurance, and you crippled somebody, all
> they would have to get from you is some home-made wine?
>
> Nice guy.
OK, hold on a moment. You're buying into Upscale's foaming rants. I
will summarize what I think in this matter:
1) If you are forced to participate in a government mandated
insurance system, it is not fraudulent to collect the benefits
thereof. I have no problem with Upscale, you or anyone else
therefore taking benefits from a system that is required by law
and that you *have* to pay into.
2) What I do have a problem with is *defending* such forced government
action as moral, "doing good", or any of the other appellations given
theft by its defenders. Honest people should seek to remove such
acts of government force from their lives, not defend theft because
they happen to personally benefit from them. The family member
I mentioned in a previous post that currently is in need of medical
care would certainly benefit directly if the U.S. forced Bill Gates
to pay $10B into the system "because he can afford it." This would
not make such an action moral or OK.
3) As to car insurance. The Communists here in the People's Republic
of IL require car insurance by law. They do not, however, require you
to buy it *from* the government nor do they tax everyone around the
state to pay for it. You're simply required to carry car insurance -
at your own expense - if you wish to drive on public roads. That's
very different than making, say, Richie Rich pay into a state run
car insurance program that I then get to use at a discounted rate
because I am not rich.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 5:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 2:54 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 26, 2:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>>> Tom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Americans better pay attention too!
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> What a chilling scenario!
>>>>>>>>> Go to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
>>>>>>>> Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second
>>>>>>>> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
>>>>>>>> said.
>>>>>>> Total bullshit, as usually. There is nothing in the Democratic ticket that
>>>>>>> calls for abolishing (or abrogating) the second amendment.
>>>>>>> I assume you're familiar with one of the strongest voices on Gun Control,
>>>>>>> a republican by the name of James Brady.
>>>>>>> Many, many democrats are gun owners and are perfectly happy with the
>>>>>>> status quo.
>>>>>>> scott
>>>>>> Check out Comrade Obamessiah's voting on gun issues in IL. He is
>>>>>> essentially perfect in his staunch support for pretty much every gun
>>>>>> control bill put before him.
>>>>>> Yes, there are many patriotic, gun owning, decent people that are
>>>>>> Democrats. But they, like so much of the rest of the voting public,
>>>>>> simply did not pay attention in the last election. Obama is a fraud.
>>>>>> He got in without having answer any hard questions about his
>>>>>> associates, ideas, and policies. He is product and willing child of an
>>>>>> immensely corrupt political machine.
>>>>> You know what Timbo? Is that place you speak of is so corrupt, why
>>>>> don't you leave?
>>>>> Nooo.. not North.. SOUTH please....
>>>> I'm planning on it. Oh, and I already lived in your country...
>>> Couldn't adjust to the kindness and warm hearts, eh Timbo?
>> Couldn't adjust to the East Coast Communists. Other than that,
>> Canada is a lovely place full of very nice folks - excepting
>> you and the other crazy here on the 'Wreck of course ...
>>
> What was that again, about name calling and losing arguments?
>
>
>
It was a J-O-K-E ... no mean intentions whatsoever. Sheesh ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:54 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 2:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>> Tom wrote:
>>>>>>> Americans better pay attention too!
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> What a chilling scenario!
>>>>>>> Go to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
>>>>>> Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second
>>>>>> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
>>>>>> said.
>>>>> Total bullshit, as usually. There is nothing in the Democratic ticket that
>>>>> calls for abolishing (or abrogating) the second amendment.
>>>>> I assume you're familiar with one of the strongest voices on Gun Control,
>>>>> a republican by the name of James Brady.
>>>>> Many, many democrats are gun owners and are perfectly happy with the
>>>>> status quo.
>>>>> scott
>>>> Check out Comrade Obamessiah's voting on gun issues in IL. He is
>>>> essentially perfect in his staunch support for pretty much every gun
>>>> control bill put before him.
>>>> Yes, there are many patriotic, gun owning, decent people that are
>>>> Democrats. But they, like so much of the rest of the voting public,
>>>> simply did not pay attention in the last election. Obama is a fraud.
>>>> He got in without having answer any hard questions about his
>>>> associates, ideas, and policies. He is product and willing child of an
>>>> immensely corrupt political machine.
>>> You know what Timbo? Is that place you speak of is so corrupt, why
>>> don't you leave?
>>> Nooo.. not North.. SOUTH please....
>> I'm planning on it. Oh, and I already lived in your country...
>>
> Couldn't adjust to the kindness and warm hearts, eh Timbo?
>
Couldn't adjust to the East Coast Communists. Other than that,
Canada is a lovely place full of very nice folks - excepting
you and the other crazy here on the 'Wreck of course ...
Actually, I lived there as a child, and leaving was not my decision.
OTOH, I've been back many times to visit family and always walk
away pretty positively impressed with people and the country.
Then again, I go to .... wait for it ... Alberta and B.C.
Q: What's the difference between Moscow, Russia and Ottawa, Canada?
A: There are no Communists left in Moscow.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
in 91231 20090127 171404 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that is
>> exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit individual
>> States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This is absolutely in
>> the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equation and letting
>> people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don't like
>> Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
>
>Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
>controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
>example of the need for federal control.
No, that's a perfect example of the need for international control.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>>> Americans better pay attention too!
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> What a chilling scenario!
>>>
>>> Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
>> Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second
>> amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
>> said.
>
> Total bullshit, as usually. There is nothing in the Democratic ticket that
> calls for abolishing (or abrogating) the second amendment.
>
> I assume you're familiar with one of the strongest voices on Gun Control,
> a republican by the name of James Brady.
>
> Many, many democrats are gun owners and are perfectly happy with the
> status quo.
>
> scott
Check out Comrade Obamessiah's voting on gun issues in IL. He is
essentially perfect in his staunch support for pretty much every gun
control bill put before him.
Yes, there are many patriotic, gun owning, decent people that are
Democrats. But they, like so much of the rest of the voting public,
simply did not pay attention in the last election. Obama is a fraud.
He got in without having answer any hard questions about his
associates, ideas, and policies. He is product and willing child of an
immensely corrupt political machine.
Given any opportunity to do so, watch Obamessiah work to appoint
anti-Constitution, anti-Gun Federal judges in an attempt to roll back
the major gun victories in the current SCOTUS.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:00:47 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I must be slow, I finally figured it out. You, LRod, and Upscale
>are all the same person. This is the only possible explanation.
Yes you are slow.
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Look at who this nation just elected.
You're a moron.
He's the President for at least 4 years, we are in deep shit, and he is
actually TRYING. Unlike what we've had recently. Maybe we should TRY
to pull together and move forward?
The Repubs are doing so well, that for the first time in 43 years, I
voted for a Democrat for President. An intelligent, educated,
pro-science, pro-personal responsibility Democrat. A guy that might
just make being intelligent cool again.
I try to ignore political crap, as well as you. Have you posted
ANYTHING related to woodworking lately.
Upscale wrote:
> "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> This is why my mother's fellow country men/women come to the US for
>> their critical operations.
>
> No one has ever claimed that the system was perfect, but it's far better
> than the alternative. I'd say your mother's friends have the best of both
> worlds. They can use the Canadian healthcare system when they choose to, or
> they can decide to pay for medical assistance in the US.
>
>
Usually they come to the US because they have an unconscionable wait for
the same operation back home.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor)
>
> That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon,
> hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
>
> Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water
> vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
>
I'll grant that. Should have said perfect combustion of carbon-based
fuels. Nuclear reactions are even more perfect, producing only steam.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
J. Clarke wrote:
> Han wrote:
>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in news:1hn8ttx0ovy8s
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
>>
>> If the underlying problem is not too many guns of questionable
>> ownership, the what is the underlying problem? That people tend NOT
>> to do the right thing?
>
> Therein lies the problem. Nobody has been able to determine why
> people in the US are more likely to kill each other than are people in
> other countries. But even if you deduct all deaths involving firearms
> from the total, the US still has a much higher homocide rate than the
> UK or Japan or many other nations.
>
I don't have the link anymore, but I read several years ago that if you
take out the inner-city gang-banger related deaths (inter-gang rivalry, not
other victims IIRC), the statistic is actually not any worse than other
countries. The gang-related and drug-related crimes are what drive the
statistic up.
> Whatever the problem is, "too many guns of questionable ownership"
> doesn't seem to be it. The main effect of firearms regulations seems
> to be to waste police time on matters peripheral to the real issue.
> It doesn't help that the agency charged with enforcing the Federal
> laws has a cowboy mentality.
>
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:14:52 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Here's my pledge:
>
> I pledge to never patronize the so-called "art" of any of these
> self important windbags and to use all legal means at my disposal
> to thwart the agenda of the new Communist In Chief, Obamessiah.
Be happy for the good things Tim, Blago will soon be hung.
Mark
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I do not question your *legal* right to do this. I question your
>> *moral* right to do it.
>
> Funny, your dozens of repeated accusations of "thief" denote a legal
> infringement. As usual, you're still a liar.
>
>
A "thief" is a person who steals or supports stealing.
Stealing is both a legal and moral construct. So is
coveting and lying. cf The Ten Commandments for one
of the earlier prohibitions on all three. Most other
religions also object to them on *moral* grounds.
In fact, all legal systems are a codification of some
kind of moral code, religious or otherwise. Clearer now?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Markem wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:14:52 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Here's my pledge:
>>
>> I pledge to never patronize the so-called "art" of any of these
>> self important windbags and to use all legal means at my disposal
>> to thwart the agenda of the new Communist In Chief, Obamessiah.
>
> Be happy for the good things Tim, Blago will soon be hung.
>
> Mark
Yes, but even that silver lining has a cloud. By indicting Blago
when he did, Fitzgerald (the U.S. Attorney) essentially stopped
further investigation. That is, he apparently believes he has
enough to convict Blago. The problem is that he is thus not digging
further under the Illinois political dirt to get the whole story
of corruption that encircles Rham Emmanuel, Richard Daley, and
the Obamessiah himself. Obama could never have gotten to his
current job without the support and approval of the utterly corrupt
Chicago political machine. I, for one, would like to see this
relationships aired in public.***
Some people have speculated that Fitzgerald stopped the indictment
intentionally at this time so as to specifically protect Obama.
They argue that Fitzgerald is headed for bigger and better things
in the Obama DOJ and doesn't want to embarrass his boss.
I have no clue as to whether this is so or not - it *is* just a
speculation - but nothing is outside the realm of possibility
in the malignant world of Chicago politics.
*** It is clear that no amount of rot around the Obamessiah ever
sticks to him. This guy had a pastor that was the black
equivalent of a KKK Grand Dragon, kicked off his drive for
the White House in the home of a convicted domestic terrorist,
and bought his own home via shady dealings with a now-convicted
felon. The U.S. voting public's response? They shrugged
and voted for "change". Like I said in my initial response
on this thread - at least half the public is too stupid to
pay attention - Obama's election proves this.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
in 91458 20090130 031016 Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bob Martin wrote:
>
>> in 91335 20090129 042735 Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Bob Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> in 91231 20090127 171404 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that is
>>>>>> exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit
>>>>>> individual States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This is
>>>>>> absolutely in the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equation
>>>>>> and letting people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don't
>>>>>> like Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
>>>>>controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
>>>>>example of the need for federal control.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's a perfect example of the need for international control.
>>>
>>>You don't see a problem with Russia, France, and China dictating emission
>>>control policies to the US?
>>
>> Somebody has to - your government won't do much otherwise!
>> Russia and France have both ratified the Kyoto agreement and shown
>> themselves to be more responsible.
>>
>> The point of my post was that pollution doesn't just drift across state
>> boundaries,
>> it affects other countries as well. Britain gets it from Ireland and
>> Sweden gets it
>> from Britain, for example. Doesn't take much brain-power to see that it
>> is clearly an international problem.
>
>You're funny. Kyoto has nothing to do with pollution, it was intended to
>reduce CO2 emissions, the biproduct of perfect combustion, in an attempt to
>destroy industrial nations under the guise of the hoax of global warming.
Your definition of Kyoto is hilarious. CO2 is a pollutant.
BTW, did you know that the cement industry around Houston makes more CO2 than
all of the world's airlines put together?
B A R R Y wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> Look at who this nation just elected.
>
> You're a moron.
>
> He's the President for at least 4 years, we are in deep shit, and he is
> actually TRYING. Unlike what we've had recently. Maybe we should TRY
> to pull together and move forward?
So we can all join the socialist sewer at once? No thanks.
>
> The Repubs are doing so well, that for the first time in 43 years, I
> voted for a Democrat for President. An intelligent, educated,
> pro-science, pro-personal responsibility Democrat. A guy that might
> just make being intelligent cool again.
I agree. The Republicans are disaster, that's why I almost never
vote for them. The Democrats are even worse. Obama is the the
very bottom of the barrel.
>
> I try to ignore political crap, as well as you. Have you posted
> ANYTHING related to woodworking lately.
I responded to an OT post in an already political thread. I'm sorry
you cannot cope with counterpoint. Please killfile me - I'd hate to
be responsible for you actually having to think for yourself.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Bored Borg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:30:22 +0000, David G. Nagel wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>>
>> The recent unpleasentness between England and America was over the fact
>> that we Americans wanted to keep our guns. You all remember it, it was
>> in all the papers.
>>
>> Dave N
>
> Remind me? How recently? (seriously don't get the reference.)
>
> Thanks.
>
I think is was around 1775 or 1776. I'd have to dig out the old newspapers
to see exactly when it was, but they may be in the recycle bin by now.
in 91335 20090129 042735 Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bob Martin wrote:
>
>> in 91231 20090127 171404 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that is
>>>> exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit individual
>>>> States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This is absolutely in
>>>> the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equation and letting
>>>> people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don't like
>>>> Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
>>>
>>>Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
>>>controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
>>>example of the need for federal control.
>>
>> No, that's a perfect example of the need for international control.
>
>You don't see a problem with Russia, France, and China dictating emission
>control policies to the US?
Somebody has to - your government won't do much otherwise!
Russia and France have both ratified the Kyoto agreement and shown themselves to
be more responsible.
The point of my post was that pollution doesn't just drift across state boundaries,
it affects other countries as well. Britain gets it from Ireland and Sweden gets it
from Britain, for example. Doesn't take much brain-power to see that it is clearly
an international problem.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that is
> exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit individual
> States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This is absolutely in
> the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equation and letting
> people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don't like
> Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
example of the need for federal control.
And this may surprise you Tim, but in general I'm in favor of states
assuming more responsibility. But it's my understanding that they don't
want to, it's easier to blame the feds for taxes, fees, etc. than it is
to justify them to the local voters. And of course the states that
receive more than their share of federal funds are vehemently opposed.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I wonder what kind of death rate by gun there was in the old west where
> everybody was armed. My guess would be that the population ratio versus
gun
> death of responsible citizens was much higher than it is now.
Much lower.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Sorry Junior, I'm not a Republican and rarely vote that way.
>> Obama's election is an embarrassment for the Democrats - they
>> scraped the very bottom of the barrel to come up with this
>> fleabag.
>
> So, you didn't vote Republican and your criticism of Obama means you didn't
> vote Democrat. That makes you what? ~ A nothing. As in your utter failure to
> contribute *anything* even remotely worthwhile to this newsgroup, you fail
> just as miserably to fill your obligation to your country by voting. Unless
> of course you voted for some fringe lunatic group. *That* wouldn't surprise
> me at all.
>
> You're the quintessential armchair quarterback with absolutely nothing to
> contribute other than your meaningless blather.
>
>
>
I voted for someone who still upholds the Constitution. I refuse to
participate in my own oppression whether by right- or (more usually)
left-wing means.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 06:02:12 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
>
> A lot better than "drill-baby-drill." That type of thinking has got to
> stop.
I'm not so sure about that. Every alternative has its own drawbacks. As
long as there are humans growing in population on earth, the basic human
needs are going to have an impact on the environment. The potential for
large scale disaster with nuclear waste is far greater than "drill baby
drill".
> What I am advocating is to get off those fossil fuels. They are
> finite. They are controlled by enemies.
Only the current forms. Shale oil still holds huge promise for us, at very
high levels of abundance, and affordable means of extraction. Fossil is
indeed finite, but it is not a four letter word.
> They mess up the environment.
So do nuclear wastes and nuclear accidents.
> So what do we know about solutions? Not much, but in the meantime, we
> can use a lesser of evils. I am in no way advocating that nukes are a
> panacea, but they are a nice alternative to a problem which certainly
> has no solutions at all.
It's on that point of them being a "nice" alternative that we are not in
complete agreement. I see greater risk in nuclear than you do.
> And NOBODY that I know has ever said that the waste is safe. I know I
> haven't said that. That shit will hurt you.
Yet, it seems to be ignored by your position that nuclear is the prefered
wave of the future.
> What I have said, is that it it can be managed safely. Just like your
> country sits on thousands of nuclear warheads, safely. Radio-active
> materials are handled by thousands every day in medicine
> alone...safely. Sure nuke-waste is more intense, but we do know how to
> handle it. The stuff getting belched out by a thousand oil and coal
> fired power plants? Not so much.
I'd rather see more efforts to control emissions than wholesale chasing
after nuclear energy.
>
> The future holds many promises. I would like for my kids to get there.
> Fossil fuels ain't good for children and other living things, to
> paraphrase a line from the 60's.
> Nukes may not be much better... but they are better.
> I do appreciate where you're coming from, Mike, but your view of the
> nuclear industry is disproportionate to reality.
Your last statement is baseless. I don't make assertions on this topic
that are beyond my level of understanding and so far have only commented on
concerns for waste and the recognized dangers of nuclear power. We have
seen first hand the dangers of it. I think your position is missing the
reality of the dangers of nuclear - both long term and in the immediate.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>
>> That's why you need to go read the study... ;~) It covers more than
>> 3
>> countries,
>
> It can cover three bazillion of them but if it doesn't explain why two
> countries with the same percentage of young males have homicide rates
> differening by a factor of three it doesn't tell us anything about
> fixing the problem in the US.
That's the nature of sociology findings... they don't explain the behavior
of any one or two entities they yield an expectation about the behaviors of
a population. Any given entity is likely to vary from the expected behavior.
If you are looking for the certainty of a chemical reaction it isn't going
to be found in the social sciences. ;~)
I also find it a bit amusing that people think they can fix a problem like
violence on a large scale. About 11-12 years ago I worked as a program
evaluator on a juvenile crime prevention initiative in the state of CA. It
was a high profile, big buck venture, e.g., on one trip to Asilomar for a
conference I had breakfast with the head of social services for the state of
CA.
The idea was to keep kids out of the gangs. Interventions were family,
community and school based and started with pre-school kids. Multiple
interventions were used with each family and attempts were made to match the
most appropriate interventions with each family's needs. Most of the
families were train wrecks... grandparents who failed as parents raising
their grand children; 6, 8, 10 different last names in a home; all
generations having criminal records; no generations having completed high
school; no responsible father present; gang members as relatives/parents;
young teens pregnant, you name something dysfunctional and we saw it. There
were few social controls... What makes anyone think that banning or further
restricting firearms would do anything to stop violence in the face of those
problems?
Taking weapon substitution into account the lethal violence would still
exist... A total ban on and elimination of handguns would leave the thugs
using more lethal weapons. Close range shotgun wounds are referred to as
"rat hole wounds" in the literature and almost always fatal whereas handgun
wounds are almost always survivable. Center fire rifles with hunting ammo
(remember non-expanding ammo is a no-no) are far more lethal than handguns
also.
In short, there are no simple answers to violence regardless of the means of
that violence. Enforcement of existing laws that are intended to keep guns
out of the hands of violence prone and mentally incompetent people work up
to the point where they abide by the laws. Perhaps the best we can hope
for...
John
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> basilisk wrote:
>> Using this scenario, each state would have to have a lawsuit against
>> their neighbors that
>> lay to the immediate west of them, the end result would be that all cars
>> and heavy industry
>> could only be on the east coast, where there would be no one to sue.
>>
>
> Which would be perfect ...
>
Seems like scenarios like this is what led to the demise of the
Confederation of States and the implementation of the Federal system via
the Constitution. One of the biggest innovations in the Constitution was
the allocation of regulating interstate and foreign commerce solely to the
federal government. Prior to this, there were significant issues with
states imposing tariffs upon one another.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Bob Martin wrote:
> in 91231 20090127 171404 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that is
>>> exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit individual
>>> States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This is absolutely in
>>> the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equation and letting
>>> people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don't like
>>> Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
>>
>>Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission
>>controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect
>>example of the need for federal control.
>
> No, that's a perfect example of the need for international control.
You don't see a problem with Russia, France, and China dictating emission
control policies to the US?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
"major snippage>>
> Not a *single* word about Obamessiah's background I cited is
> "conjecture". Every single point has been verified repeatedly by the
> IL press, Obama's political opponents, and even the national media
> (what's left of it). The guy is a political scumbag, the public
> doesn't care. Obama's not the bad guy here, the voting sheeple are in
> their incredible stupidity and greed.
I'm gonna be brave and stick my head out on this one: Tim, I agree the scope
of coverups in this election is beyond belief, and the stupidy of all the
"voters" they recruited is the same in scope.
Media is bought and paid for; graft and corruption is rampant at every level
in government and unfortunately in law enforcement as well (my uncle was a
Lieutenant The Miami MetropDade Sheriff's Dept. and had his car sabotaged by
the bad cops he was about to bring down... he was medicalled out due to his
injuries when the brakes "failed").
Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
<snip>
> My money will go to Carolyn McCarthy. I have no objection to gun
> ownership, if the owners are properly licensed and trained. I don't like
> crooks, crazies, and kids to have guns they don't know how to use. I'm 64
> and still haven't learned, and I won't likely learn to use a gun either.
> I'm too hotheaded.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
The people you don't want to have them DO have them, or the rest of us
wouldn't need them... licensure isn't necessary, just morality and cool
headedness.
Tom
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 25, 11:11 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Markem wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:14:52 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Here's my pledge:
>>>> I pledge to never patronize the so-called "art" of any of these
>>>> self important windbags and to use all legal means at my disposal
>>>> to thwart the agenda of the new Communist In Chief, Obamessiah.
>>> Be happy for the good things Tim, Blago will soon be hung.
>>> Mark
>> Yes, but even that silver lining has a cloud. By indicting Blago
>> when he did, Fitzgerald (the U.S. Attorney) essentially stopped
>> further investigation. That is, he apparently believes he has
>> enough to convict Blago. The problem is that he is thus not digging
>> further under the Illinois political dirt to get the whole story
>> of corruption that encircles Rham Emmanuel, Richard Daley, and
>> the Obamessiah himself. Obama could never have gotten to his
>> current job without the support and approval of the utterly corrupt
>> Chicago political machine. I, for one, would like to see this
>> relationships aired in public.***
>
>
> ..and what if Fitzgerald had found nothing out of the ordinary? Would
> it shut the likes of you up?
I live in Illinois. The "ordinary" here is corruption at
a breathtaking scale. Finding the "ordinary" would mean finding
considerable evidence of cronyism, payoffs, backroom deals,
political clout, and mob ties. This is the U.S. President's
political and moral legacy. It makes me very proud.
>
>> Some people have speculated that Fitzgerald stopped the indictment
>> intentionally at this time so as to specifically protect Obama.
>> They argue that Fitzgerald is headed for bigger and better things
>> in the Obama DOJ and doesn't want to embarrass his boss.
>> I have no clue as to whether this is so or not - it *is* just a
>> speculation - but nothing is outside the realm of possibility
>> in the malignant world of Chicago politics.
>
> Conjecture with the hope that some of it sticks. Maybe you have wet
> dreams about Nancy Grace and Janet Reno in a three-some as well?...
I do not fantasize about pigs rutting.
> just speculating about your seminary school sexual training... just
> speculating..
I was quite clear that this is just a guess on some folks' part.
It is not the speculation that is noteworthy. It is noteworthy
that the political environment in IL - the state that spewed forth
the political career of the Obamessiah - is such the this kind of
speculation is entirely plausible. It should bother people but it
mostly doesn't since liberty has now been overrun by "change".
>> *** It is clear that no amount of rot around the Obamessiah ever
>> sticks to him. This guy had a pastor that was the black
>> equivalent of a KKK Grand Dragon, kicked off his drive for
>> the White House in the home of a convicted domestic terrorist,
>> and bought his own home via shady dealings with a now-convicted
>> felon. The U.S. voting public's response? They shrugged
>> and voted for "change". Like I said in my initial response
>> on this thread - at least half the public is too stupid to
>> pay attention - Obama's election proves this.
>
> Nothing but conjecture and Repuglican party talking points. Maybe you
> should start a tabloid, Timbo.
Not a *single* word about Obamessiah's background I cited is
"conjecture". Every single point has been verified repeatedly by the
IL press, Obama's political opponents, and even the national media
(what's left of it). The guy is a political scumbag, the public
doesn't care. Obama's not the bad guy here, the voting sheeple are in
their incredible stupidity and greed.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:38:44 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> To be honest I can't compare Alberta with Illinois. Haven't been to
>> Alberta but I have been to Illinois. There can't be any comparison.
>
>Well hell, Timbit lives there right? That drops the state several notches
>from the get go.
>
Grumble, he ain't in charge.
Mark
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:49:31 -0500, Mike Marlow cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:00:43 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom...:
>
>
>>
>> Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too
>> much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
>
> Now that is one of the stupidist statements I've seen you make. So sorry
> that those of us who live right next to nuclear plants are not as
> "informed" as you. Or maybe you're not as "informed" as you'd like
> everybody to believe.
Here - I'll reply to my own comment before I even see if you do. That was
not an appropriate reply to your statement.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> a position is likely to get you strung up around here. There are
>> many do-gooders who don't like having their inconsistency, poor
>> moral values, and blindness to this sort of stuff pointed out in a
>> public forum.
>
> Is that the same as you harassing me privately now Tim? Obviously, you can't
I have never harrassed you privately or publicly. You're being childish.
(Now there's a shock.) Either that, or your state-funded meds
are wearing off.
> handle our "discussion" in a public forum, so now you're directing your
> sights on my inbox. As well as being an asshole, your lack of ethics and
I inadvertently hit "Reply All" to one of your posts. That's that
grand total of my suspicious behavior. Methinks you're getting
desperate for material to make your nonexistent case - the sign of
a truly lost argument.
> missing integrity have shown themselves exactly for what they are.
>
> Can you even spell "Hypocrite"?
>
> From your website:
> "I don't want to tell other people how to run their lives - I'd appreciate
> it if they'd do the same for me."
>
> Yet, here you are trying to tell me how I should live and worse, telling the
No I'm not. I don't care how (or how long) you live. I condemn
your support for theft that benefits you but harms others. This is not
telling you "what to do", it's calling you out for evil behavior. Following
your "logic" above, it would be "telling someone what to do" if I condemned
rapists, murderers, and child molesters. After all, if I can't condemn theft
and/or the people who support theft as morally OK, then pretty much no
invasion of other people's lives should be open to comment. As I said,
you're being puerile, whether by personality disorder or simply because
the limit of your discussion skills is unclear.
> world how you feel about my country's policies with things like healthcare.
Just as you and any number of your countrymen bleated on and on (and on
and on) here and elsewhere about my country's foreign policy over the past
eight years. That, Sparky, is what a political conversation entails. You
don't just get to vomit your ideas and then scream "hands off"
when someone pushes back on them. Not once have you ever seen me demand
that "foreigners" not comment on U.S. policy. However, when the tables
are turned, you blow a gasket.
> Is this what you call a hands off approach? You are a proven liar and can't
> even live up to your own "credo" printed for all to see on your website.
>
> http://www.tundraware.com/Musings/What-I-Want/What-I-Want.html
My credo remains the same. So does yours. My asks for privacy, the rule-of-
law and property rights. Yours is a neverending whine for access to the
assets of others. I prefer mine.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/