Is "failed" the same as "opposite of stated effect"?

Remember the uproar about Rush Limbaugh wanting Obama to
fail? I'm with Rush, I want Obama's attempts to destroy
America to fail.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


QUINNs FIRST LAW:

Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its
stated intent.

Heybub's corollary: Most problems in society can be traced
to an upstream
liberal program that failed.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Further, there is the assumed premise that these suicides are a bad
thing.

As a child were you known for torturing animals?

Er, no. Why do you ask?

Because you either have or affect to have an indifference towards others
that if real is quite unhealthy.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

(Then again, what is warfare?)

A continuation of politics by other means.

The original statement Carl von Clausewitz stated it was policy by
other means...

Close enough for government work.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...

What do you consider a non-silly weapon for home defense?

Anything that puts a rifle or shotgun cartridge in a handgun qualifies as
silly for self-defense--guns like that are designed to appeal to
teenagers-for-life who get an emotional reward just from owning such
artillery. On the other hand a close match to what your local police rely
on is probably a good choice, i.e. a .40 semi-auto pistol or perhaps a 12
ga. pump gun if you're comfortable with that. A fellow I knew years ago who
worked as a bounty hunter used that sort of handgun because not only would
it be entirely effective if he ever needed to fire it, but it would also
help avoid legal difficulties.

A safe room and a telephone to call the cops with? You can even have a
CCTV system
so you can watch the bipedal vermin tear apart your home then set it on
fire while you're waiting for police to show up. ^_^

I like a Glock 35 with an Insight Tech. light on the rail and a magazine
full of Federal Hydroshocks, but in my experience alarm signs and a couple
of big dogs do a pretty good job of keeping the vermin from even stopping
their vehicle. Sorry if that spoils you fantasy.

I caught a burglar in my business one night and when he threw a brick at
my face and missed, I stomped him until he quit twitching. I thought he
was dead because 375lbs driving a pair of size 14 stomping shoes will do
a lot of damage to the abdomen of your average burglar. I believed the rat
was dead and I decided to throw the corpse into the nearest dumpster
and not report it. When I went to drag the body to the truck, he came to
with a "Oh ****, what have I done?" look on his face. I made him crawl out
the front door into the middle of the street, walked back in
to the shop, shut the door and didn't call it in. A while later I heard
sirens and a fleet of fire trucks and police cars were at the office
building in the middle of the next block tending to a severely injured
two legged predator who had one hell of a story about a pickup truck
load of crazy honkeys wearing Rebel Flag T shirts who jumped him for no
reason. I had no more break ins after that, word got out. :-)

You read too many comic books. Either that or you're into the cooking
sherry again, either way your fairly tales are at least worth a laugh.

On Jul 11, 3:12*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Is "failed" the same as "opposite of stated effect"?

Remember the uproar about Rush Limbaugh wanting Obama to
fail? I'm with Rush, I want Obama's attempts to destroy
America to fail.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"HeyBub" wrote in message

...



QUINNs FIRST LAW:

Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its
stated intent.

Heybub's corollary: Most problems in society can be traced
to an upstream
liberal program that failed.

Too late. Bush and the bankers have already done it. You have already
gone over the precipice.
Your corporate looters have destroyed America.
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...+keiser+dollar

On 7/10/2011 11:41 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...

What do you consider a non-silly weapon for home defense?

Anything that puts a rifle or shotgun cartridge in a handgun qualifies
as silly for self-defense--guns like that are designed to appeal to
teenagers-for-life who get an emotional reward just from owning such
artillery. On the other hand a close match to what your local police
rely on is probably a good choice, i.e. a .40 semi-auto pistol or
perhaps a 12 ga. pump gun if you're comfortable with that. A fellow I
knew years ago who worked as a bounty hunter used that sort of handgun
because not only would it be entirely effective if he ever needed to
fire it, but it would also help avoid legal difficulties.

A safe room and a telephone to call the cops with? You can even have a
CCTV system
so you can watch the bipedal vermin tear apart your home then set it on
fire while you're waiting for police to show up. ^_^

I like a Glock 35 with an Insight Tech. light on the rail and a magazine
full of Federal Hydroshocks, but in my experience alarm signs and a
couple of big dogs do a pretty good job of keeping the vermin from even
stopping their vehicle. Sorry if that spoils you fantasy.

I caught a burglar in my business one night and when he threw a brick at
my face and missed, I stomped him until he quit twitching. I thought he
was dead because 375lbs driving a pair of size 14 stomping shoes will do
a lot of damage to the abdomen of your average burglar. I believed the
rat was dead and I decided to throw the corpse into the nearest dumpster
and not report it. When I went to drag the body to the truck, he came
to with a "Oh ****, what have I done?" look on his face. I made him
crawl out the front door into the middle of the street, walked back in
to the shop, shut the door and didn't call it in. A while later I heard
sirens and a fleet of fire trucks and police cars were at the office
building in the middle of the next block tending to a severely injured
two legged predator who had one hell of a story about a pickup truck
load of crazy honkeys wearing Rebel Flag T shirts who jumped him for no
reason. I had no more break ins after that, word got out. :-)

You read too many comic books. Either that or you're into the cooking
sherry again, either way your fairly tales are at least worth a laugh.

It actually happened just like that Bubbles. I told my cop buddies what
happened and it had them laughing their butts off. After almost killing
the guy with my bare hands, I decided to get a big can of pepper spray
and wound up giving a number of varmints around there a bath with pepper
spray. One of the critters was breaking into my van when I sprayed him
down. It turned out to be his third felony but I think he plead out to
something less. The Affirmative Action morons doing the paperwork for
the court system never called me to testify and I would have demanded
the perp be sent away forever. I wish I still had a picture of the brick
embedded in the wall of the hallway where I left it as a sort of trophy.

#1: I don't read many comic books anymore. The last thing I read fitting
that description was "Heavy Metal" magazine which I really enjoy.

#2: I've never consumed an alcoholic beverage in my life. I think the
only thing I ever swallowed that had any alcohol in it was medicine and
I avoid any cough syrups or cold medicine containing alcohol. Sorry to
pop another bubble for you Mr Bubbles.

#3: I damn near killed a man with my bear hands without thinking and it
kind of shook me up so I equipped myself with a big can of police issue
pepper spray to keep me from possibly killing someone or injuring myself
the way I did when I stomped the hell out of the burglar. You don't feel
the sprains and contusions until much later when the adrenalin wears
off. Oh darn, I just burst another of your bubbles there Mr Bubbles. Of
course you could always come to Birmingham and bang on my door then
threaten me, we have top notch trauma care at the
university medical center. That's if you really doubt whether I can bust
somebody up or not. Oh my, it would sound like a sheet of bubble
wrap being stomped on with all those bubbles popping. ^_^

TDD

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Lets make suicide a felony, capital crime, punishable by
death?

There was a short time in Indiana when it was not illegal to attempt
to commit suicide, but it WAS illegal to succeed. I figured that they
had this REALLY big freezer in the prison at Michigan City.
There was a time in the early 70s when they changed the age of
consent for girls to 18, but forgot about the boys and left them at 21.
For about 6 months, my gf (now my wife) was committing statutory rape..
not that I minded you understand.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Jul 10, 9:12*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Is "failed" the same as "opposite of stated effect"?

Remember the uproar about Rush Limbaugh wanting Obama to
fail? I'm with Rush, I want Obama's attempts to destroy
America to fail.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"HeyBub" wrote in message

...



QUINNs FIRST LAW:

Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its
stated intent.

Heybub's corollary: Most problems in society can be traced
to an upstream
liberal program that failed.


I would rather that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and the
rest of Fox News scum attempt to destroy the United States fail.

-C-

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Further, there is the assumed premise that these suicides are a bad
thing.

As a child were you known for torturing animals?

Er, no. Why do you ask?

Because you either have or affect to have an indifference towards
others that if real is quite unhealthy.

Not indifference exactly, but I believe in "The Invisible Hand" theory that
if everyone does what is best* for himself, society as a whole will prosper.

---
* Wide and personal definition of "best." If someone enjoys helping others,
he is doing what is best for himself.

"harry" wrote in message
...


Too late. Bush and the bankers have already done it. You have already
gone over the precipice.
Your corporate looters have destroyed America.

Well look who is back. Hey, Harry, got anything else to say about the
wonderful British news media and how responsible and law-abiding they are?

Bwahahahahahaha.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Because you either have or affect to have an indifference towards
others that if real is quite unhealthy.

Not indifference exactly, but I believe in "The Invisible Hand" theory
that if everyone does what is best* for himself, society as a whole will
prosper.

Right up there with the Easter Bunny when it comes to beliefs that ignore
reality.

The jerks on Wall St. who made millions for themselves making reckless
investments which steered their companies into the ground which helped to
trash the whole economy, which part of this invisible hand do they
represent?

The drug companies that conceal studies showing their products have
dangerous side-effects, the companies that import and sell toxic drywall
from China, Ford not recalling Pintos because it was cheaper to pay off the
families of Pinto drivers who burned to death, the guy who makes money
selling meth down the street from your kids' school and so on down the
line--they're all taking care of themselves, yet somehow the claim that
society is improved by their activities rings hollow.

As for the view that maybe a soldier committing suicide after his fourth or
fifth deployment to Afghanistan and a lack of psychological help from the
Army might be a good thing, try telling that story at the funeral of such a
soldier. Talking such trash is easy online, isn't it. Not so easy in the
real world.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...


You read too many comic books. Either that or you're into the cooking
sherry again, either way your fairly tales are at least worth a laugh.

It actually happened just like that Bubbles. I told my cop buddies what
happened and it had them laughing their butts off. After almost killing
the guy with my bare hands,

Sure it did, gramps. Reminds me of the time I took on these ten bikers who
had chainsaws and nail guns. No, really, I stomped them good and then....

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:01:04 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Lets make suicide a felony, capital crime, punishable by
death?

There was a short time in Indiana when it was not illegal to attempt
to commit suicide, but it WAS illegal to succeed. I figured that they
had this REALLY big freezer in the prison at Michigan City.
There was a time in the early 70s when they changed the age of
consent for girls to 18, but forgot about the boys and left them at 21.
For about 6 months, my gf (now my wife) was committing statutory rape..
not that I minded you understand.

Not unusual. I had to have parental consent to get married. My wife didn't.
That was 40 years ago. ;-)

On 7/11/2011 3:28 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...


You read too many comic books. Either that or you're into the cooking
sherry again, either way your fairly tales are at least worth a laugh.

It actually happened just like that Bubbles. I told my cop buddies what
happened and it had them laughing their butts off. After almost killing
the guy with my bare hands,

Sure it did, gramps. Reminds me of the time I took on these ten bikers
who had chainsaws and nail guns. No, really, I stomped them good and
then....

Sorry Mr Bubbles, if you don't want to believe it that's your problem. I
really was shaken up by the fact that I almost killed the guy with my
bare hands by reflex. I was never a black belt but I had studied and
taken classes in several different forms of martial arts where I got the
wind knocked out of me more than once and landed on my butt numerous
times before learning how to block kicks and punches. You remind me of a
typical Commiecrat by the way you edit posts. Of course a lot of what
you post is complete codswallop but that's your thing and I wouldn't
dare demand that you change your behavior, it's too funny. ^_^

TDD

On Jul 11, 11:50*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 7/11/2011 3:28 PM, DGDevin wrote:



"The Daring Dufas" wrote in ...

You read too many comic books. Either that or you're into the cooking
sherry again, either way your fairly tales are at least worth a laugh..

It actually happened just like that Bubbles. I told my cop buddies what
happened and it had them laughing their butts off. After almost killing
the guy with my bare hands,

Sure it did, gramps. Reminds me of the time I took on these ten bikers
who had chainsaws and nail guns. No, really, I stomped them good and
then....

Sorry Mr Bubbles, if you don't want to believe it that's your problem. I
really was shaken up by the fact that I almost killed the guy with my
bare hands by reflex. I was never a black belt but I had studied and
taken classes in several different forms of martial arts where I got the
wind knocked out of me more than once and landed on my butt numerous
times before learning how to block kicks and punches. You remind me of a
typical Commiecrat by the way you edit posts. Of course a lot of what
you post is complete codswallop but that's your thing and I wouldn't
dare demand that you change your behavior, it's too funny. ^_^

TDD

HE STILL BELIEVES HE STOMPED THEM, BUT HE IS JUST A JAR OF BRAIN
MATTER IN SOME SOPHISTICATED LABORATORY.
BEATS ME HOW HE GOT ONLINE AGAIN....BOOWAHAHAHAHA !
PATECUM

On Jul 11, 9:13*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

Too late. Bush and the bankers have already done it. You have already
gone over the precipice.
Your corporate looters have destroyed America.

Well look who is back. *Hey, Harry, got anything else to say about the
wonderful British news media and how responsible and law-abiding they are?

Bwahahahahahaha.

We hold ours to account.
Murdock is based in America anyway. Home of most of the world's
crooks and terrorists.

If you could have only one cartridge size, for all your
shooting needs. Which would you choose?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Is 5.56 x 45 suitable for military rifles? Does it lack
power, and is it ineffective?

I had a video, of a couple US guys in the Sandbox, shooting
a dog with M-16. The dog (smaller dog, too) took several
hits, and kept going.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 8:16 AM
Subject: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...pJz5QD9FR4EL80

http://tinyurl.com/36wwxbk

Hosted by Back to Google News
US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills
By SLOBODAN LEKIC (AP) - 2 days ago

KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military's work
horse rifle - used in battle for the last 40 years -
is proving less effective in Afghanistan against
the Taliban's more primitive but longer range
weapons.

As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the perform-
ance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a
switch to weapons that fire a larger round
largely discarded in the 1960s.

The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16,
which was designed for close quarters combat
in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much
of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad,
Ramadi and Fallujah.

But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm
bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity
at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to
kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan,
NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to
2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes
against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842
British-Afghan war, the British found that their
Brown Bess muskets could not reach insurgent
sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail
flintlocks.

Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their
AK-47 rifles could not match the World War
II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles
used by mujahedeen rebels.

"These are important considerations in
Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently
attacked by insurgents using ... sharpshooter's
rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered
cartridge which dates back to the 1890s," said
Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial
War Museum in London.

The heavier bullets enable Taliban militants to
shoot at U.S. and NATO soldiers from positions
well beyond the effective range of the
coalition's rifles.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is
designating nine soldiers in each infantry
company to serve as sharpshooters, according
to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army
study. They are equipped with the new M-110
sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round
and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet (800 meters).

At the heart of the debate is whether a soldier
is better off with the more-rapid firepower of
the 5.56mm bullets or with the longer range of
the 7.62 mm bullets.

"The reason we employ the M-4 is because it's
a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-
house fighting in many situations," said Lt.
Col. Denis J. Riel, a NATO spokesman.

He added that each squad also has light machine
guns and automatic grenade launchers for the
long-range engagements common in Afghanistan.

In the early years of the Vietnam War, the Army's
standard rifle was the M-14, which fired a 7.62
mm bullet. The gun had too much recoil to be
controllable during automatic firing and was
considered too unwieldily for close-quarter
jungle warfare. The M-16 replaced it in the mid-
1960s.

Lighter bullets also meant soldiers could carry
more ammunition on lengthy jungle patrols.

The M-16 started a general trend toward smaller
cartridges. Other weapons such as the French
FAMAS and the British L85A1 adopted them,
and the round became standardized as the
"5.56mm NATO."

The Soviet Union, whose AK-47 already used
a shorter 7.62 mm bullet that was less powerful
but more controllable, created a smaller 5.45mm
round for its replacement AK-74s.

"The 5.56 mm caliber is more lethal since it can
put more rounds on target," said Col. Douglas
Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army
firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.
"But at 500-600 meters (1,600-2,000 feet), the
round doesn't have stopping power, since the
weapon system was never designed for that."

The arsenal, which is the Army's center for
small-arms development, is trying to find a
solution.

A possible compromise would be an interim-
caliber round combining the best character-
istics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges,
Tamilio said.

The challenge is compounded by the fact that
in flat areas of Afghanistan, most firefights take
place at shorter ranges of up to 1,000 feet
(300 meters), where the M-4 performs well.

U.S. soldiers in militant-infested Zhari district
in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province
said they haven't experienced problems with
the range of their M-4 rifles.

Lt. Scott Doyle, a platoon commander in Zhari,
said his troops are usually facing Taliban AK-47s.

"When the Taliban get past 300 meters (1,000
feet) with an AK-47, they are just spraying and
praying," he said.

Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended
the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate
performance on its short barrel, which makes it
easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern
armored vehicles.

"Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the
M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Fackler said.
"It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they've
done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that
they've lost a lot of velocity."

Associated Press correspondent Sebastian
Abbot in Lako Khel, Afghanistan contributed
to this report.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press.
All rights reserved.

Related articles
a.. Workhorse rifle 'failing US troops in Afghanistan'
Independent - 1 day ago
b.. US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills
The Associated Press - 2 days ago
c.. More coverage (1) »
Add News to your Google Homepage

Photo 1 of 3

In this photo taken Friday, March 19, 2010, Lance Cpl.
Ruben
Herrera of Memphis, Tenn., with the First Battalion, Sixth
Marine
Regiment, Alpha company, scans the area with his M-16 rifle
in Marjah,
Afghanistan. The U.S. military's workhorse rifle, used in
battle for
the last 40 years, is proving less effective in Afghanistan,
where the
Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons can
threaten NATO
forces at distances too great for American soldiers to
return fire
effectively. (AP Photo/Dusan Vranic)





Map

©2010 Google - About Google News - Blog - Help Center - Help
for
Publishers - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Google Home

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Because you either have or affect to have an indifference towards
others that if real is quite unhealthy.

Not indifference exactly, but I believe in "The Invisible Hand"
theory that if everyone does what is best* for himself, society as a
whole will prosper.

Right up there with the Easter Bunny when it comes to beliefs that
ignore reality.

It is, admittedly, a lonely religion. There are so many more "It's for the
children!" true believers, I sometimes despair.


The jerks on Wall St. who made millions for themselves making reckless
investments which steered their companies into the ground which
helped to trash the whole economy, which part of this invisible hand
do they represent?

The middle finger?


As for the view that maybe a soldier committing suicide after his
fourth or fifth deployment to Afghanistan and a lack of psychological
help from the Army might be a good thing, try telling that story at
the funeral of such a soldier. Talking such trash is easy online,
isn't it. Not so easy in the real world.

I can't imagine a soldier committing suicide after his 4th or 5th
deployment. If you know of such, I'd be happy to hear about it.

The last statistic I heard, was that fully 85% of the military who've
deployed to a war zone re-inlist at the first opportunity. The remaining
15%, I figure, retired, were invalided out, or married harridans.

As for "psychological help," it's really not necessary. Those already
disposed to killing people and blowing things up self-selected by joining
the military in the first place. Those so overcome with mental anguish as to
self-destruct are, I'll bet, afflicted with tensions generally unrelated to
military service (spousal problems, money difficulties, socks the wrong
color, etc.).

On 7/11/2011 10:48 AM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

Further, there is the assumed premise that these suicides are a bad
thing.

As a child were you known for torturing animals?

Er, no. Why do you ask?

Because you either have or affect to have an indifference towards
others that if real is quite unhealthy.

Not indifference exactly, but I believe in "The Invisible Hand" theory that
if everyone does what is best* for himself, society as a whole will prosper.

That's because you think the individual is wonderful, capable, viable
thing, whilst the socialist *******s amongst us think the individual is
a piece of ****, can't take care of himself, and needs a strong left
hand to control his sorry ass.

They've only killed around 100 million last century "caring for others"

--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ====== Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...

I was never a black belt but I had studied and taken classes in several
different forms of martial arts where I got the
wind knocked out of me more than once and landed on my butt numerous times
before learning how to block kicks and punches.

It's a shame you never took classes to teach you to think critically, and to
express your views in a rational manner. I enjoy arguing with someone who
knows how to back up what he has to say no matter how much I disagree with
his point of view. But you can't begin to do that, take away the cheap
insults and name-calling and you have nothing left.

You remind me of a typical Commiecrat by the way you edit posts. Of course
a lot of what you post is complete codswallop but that's your thing and I
wouldn't dare demand that you change your behavior, it's too funny. ^_^

The way it's supposed to be done is you post convincing evidence that my
position is mistaken, you demonstrate that the facts don't support what I
say or that my position is illogical or otherwise unreasonable. But instead
you fall back on childish name-calling, that's your go-to technique when you
disagree with someone. You're free to believe anything you please, but an
inability to defend your beliefs naturally raises the question of why you
believe something in the first place.

"Commiecrat"--labels are sure easier than thinking, aren't they.

"harry" wrote in message
...

Well look who is back. Hey, Harry, got anything else to say about the
wonderful British news media and how responsible and law-abiding they
are?

Bwahahahahahaha.

We hold ours to account.

Apparently you haven't been following the news lately. It is clear that the
cops had a very cozy relationship with the News Of The World for years, the
investigation they supposedly conducted consisted of looking through one
reporter's desk after which they said all abuses had been dealt with. So
after years of complaints about press misconduct a couple of sacrificial
lambs went to jail and the papers kept right on committing acts that in
America would have resulted not only in criminal prosecution but massive
lawsuits. The (now former) editor of TNOTW hasn't even lost her job despite
being in charge when much of this conduct was happening. It's also very
clear that government after government did nothing because they were afraid
of Murdoch, they couldn't get elected if he opposed them--some democracy.
Every week there are new revelations about sickening intrusions into the
lives of people who were victims of horrible crimes--"We hold ours to
account"--what a joke.

Murdock is based in America anyway.

And yet he doesn't get away with that crap here, only in Britain.

Home of most of the world's
crooks and terrorists.

But not the world's most crooked newspapers, those are found in Britain,
along with some particularly foolish and dishonest Usenet trolls.

On Jul 12, 10:43*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

Well look who is back. *Hey, Harry, got anything else to say about the
wonderful British news media and how responsible and law-abiding they
are?

Bwahahahahahaha.
We hold ours to account.

Apparently you haven't been following the news lately. *It is clear that the
cops had a very cozy relationship with the News Of The World for years, the
investigation they supposedly conducted consisted of looking through one
reporter's desk after which they said all abuses had been dealt with. *So
after years of complaints about press misconduct a couple of sacrificial
lambs went to jail and the papers kept right on committing acts that in
America would have resulted not only in criminal prosecution but massive
lawsuits. *The (now former) editor of TNOTW hasn't even lost her job despite
being in charge when much of this conduct was happening. *It's also very
clear that government after government did nothing because they were afraid
of Murdoch, they couldn't get elected if he opposed them--some democracy.
Every week there are new revelations about sickening intrusions into the
lives of people who were victims of horrible crimes--"We hold ours to
account"--what a joke.

Murdock is based in America anyway.

And yet he doesn't get away with that crap here, only in Britain.

*Home of most of the world's
crooks and terrorists.

But not the world's most crooked newspapers, those are found in Britain,
along with some particularly foolish and dishonest Usenet trolls.

On the news this morning, Murdock is to be investigated for suspected
similar offences in the US.
You mean to tell me Fox News (Murdock again) is an entirely
respectable source of news?
Aren't they the ones have now legally established that it's OK for
lies to be published as fact in America?


Ah yes, here we are. A whole raft of lies.
http://uk.ask.com/web?q=fox+news+lie...rc=0&o=0&l=dir

On 7/13/2011 12:37 AM, harry wrote:
On Jul 12, 10:43 pm, wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

Well look who is back. Hey, Harry, got anything else to say about the
wonderful British news media and how responsible and law-abiding they
are?

Bwahahahahahaha.
We hold ours to account.

Apparently you haven't been following the news lately. It is clear that the
cops had a very cozy relationship with the News Of The World for years, the
investigation they supposedly conducted consisted of looking through one
reporter's desk after which they said all abuses had been dealt with. So
after years of complaints about press misconduct a couple of sacrificial
lambs went to jail and the papers kept right on committing acts that in
America would have resulted not only in criminal prosecution but massive
lawsuits. The (now former) editor of TNOTW hasn't even lost her job despite
being in charge when much of this conduct was happening. It's also very
clear that government after government did nothing because they were afraid
of Murdoch, they couldn't get elected if he opposed them--some democracy.
Every week there are new revelations about sickening intrusions into the
lives of people who were victims of horrible crimes--"We hold ours to
account"--what a joke.

Murdock is based in America anyway.

And yet he doesn't get away with that crap here, only in Britain.

Home of most of the world's
crooks and terrorists.

But not the world's most crooked newspapers, those are found in Britain,
along with some particularly foolish and dishonest Usenet trolls.

On the news this morning, Murdock is to be investigated for suspected
similar offences in the US.
You mean to tell me Fox News (Murdock again) is an entirely
respectable source of news?
Aren't they the ones have now legally established that it's OK for
lies to be published as fact in America?


Ah yes, here we are. A whole raft of lies.
http://uk.ask.com/web?q=fox+news+lie...rc=0&o=0&l=dir

Harry, did you know that her in The US it's perfectly legal for our
lawmakers and law enforcement agents to lie to Joe Citizen but it's
a crime for Joe Citizen to lie to them. If Joe Citizen is called before
a Congressional hearing and swears to tell the truth and doesn't, he is
charged with the crime of perjury. If police are interrogating Joe
Citizen, the police can lie to him but if Joe Citizen lies in return, he
is charged with a crime. Poor Joe Citizen, he has it rough at times
but Joe Citizen does have a right to remain silent guaranteed by our
Constitution. I wonder, does Harry Citizen have the same sort of right
in The UK? I wouldn't worry too much about Fox News because every news
organization lies no matter what their political leanings are. The worst
liars of all are those making up the governments of the world. :-)

TDD

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:


charged with the crime of perjury. If police are interrogating Joe
Citizen, the police can lie to him but if Joe Citizen lies in return, he
is charged with a crime.
Last time I checked (and it was about 5 years ago) it was only a crime
to lie to a federal law enforcement officer.
You could (technically) be threatened with something weird like
obstruction of justice by the locals, but can't remember ever seeing it
happen in real life.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:


charged with the crime of perjury. If police are interrogating Joe
Citizen, the police can lie to him but if Joe Citizen lies in
return, he is charged with a crime.
Last time I checked (and it was about 5 years ago) it was only a crime
to lie to a federal law enforcement officer.
You could (technically) be threatened with something weird like
obstruction of justice by the locals, but can't remember ever seeing
it happen in real life.

Casey Anthony just got convicted of four counts of lying to (local) police
investigators.

Ultimately she will probably be sued for the hundreds of thousands of
dollars in investigative costs associated with her false statements (child
kidnapped, in the care of a fictitious baby-sitter, etc.).

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Harry, did you know that her in The US it's perfectly legal for our
lawmakers and law enforcement agents to lie to Joe Citizen but it's
a crime for Joe Citizen to lie to them. If Joe Citizen is called
before a Congressional hearing and swears to tell the truth and
doesn't, he is charged with the crime of perjury. If police are
interrogating Joe Citizen, the police can lie to him but if Joe
Citizen lies in return, he is charged with a crime. Poor Joe Citizen,
he has it rough at times

Which underscores the notion that you should say NOTHING to the cops, even
if you believe it to be the truth.

"What do you know about the bank robbery on 1st Street?"
"Nothing. I've never even BEEN on 1st Street!"
(later)
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant claimed in a police
interview that he'd never been on 1st Street near the location of the
robbery. You've just seen footage from a security camera clearly showing the
defendant driving down 1st Street in 1982! He was clearly lying during the
police interview and you can legitimately infer he was lying when he claimed
he was not involved in the robbery..."

but Joe Citizen does have a right to remain silent guaranteed by our
Constitution. I wonder, does Harry Citizen have the same sort of right
in The UK?

No. If a suspect clams up, that silence may be offered in evidence against
him at trial.

On 7/13/2011 8:05 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Harry, did you know that her in The US it's perfectly legal for our
lawmakers and law enforcement agents to lie to Joe Citizen but it's
a crime for Joe Citizen to lie to them. If Joe Citizen is called
before a Congressional hearing and swears to tell the truth and
doesn't, he is charged with the crime of perjury. If police are
interrogating Joe Citizen, the police can lie to him but if Joe
Citizen lies in return, he is charged with a crime. Poor Joe Citizen,
he has it rough at times

Which underscores the notion that you should say NOTHING to the cops, even
if you believe it to be the truth.

"What do you know about the bank robbery on 1st Street?"
"Nothing. I've never even BEEN on 1st Street!"
(later)
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant claimed in a police
interview that he'd never been on 1st Street near the location of the
robbery. You've just seen footage from a security camera clearly showing the
defendant driving down 1st Street in 1982! He was clearly lying during the
police interview and you can legitimately infer he was lying when he claimed
he was not involved in the robbery..."

but Joe Citizen does have a right to remain silent guaranteed by our
Constitution. I wonder, does Harry Citizen have the same sort of right
in The UK?

No. If a suspect clams up, that silence may be offered in evidence against
him at trial.



Darn HB, I wanted Harry to dance around that one. I know you have a
great deal of legal knowledge. I remember you writing about being a
LEO for a while but didn't you also teach law at a college?

TDD

On Jul 13, 7:03*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 7/13/2011 12:37 AM, harry wrote:





On Jul 12, 10:43 pm, *wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

....

Well look who is back. *Hey, Harry, got anything else to say about the
wonderful British news media and how responsible and law-abiding they
are?

Bwahahahahahaha.
We hold ours to account.

Apparently you haven't been following the news lately. *It is clear that the
cops had a very cozy relationship with the News Of The World for years, the
investigation they supposedly conducted consisted of looking through one
reporter's desk after which they said all abuses had been dealt with. *So
after years of complaints about press misconduct a couple of sacrificial
lambs went to jail and the papers kept right on committing acts that in
America would have resulted not only in criminal prosecution but massive
lawsuits. *The (now former) editor of TNOTW hasn't even lost her job despite
being in charge when much of this conduct was happening. *It's also very
clear that government after government did nothing because they were afraid
of Murdoch, they couldn't get elected if he opposed them--some democracy.
Every week there are new revelations about sickening intrusions into the
lives of people who were victims of horrible crimes--"We hold ours to
account"--what a joke.

Murdock is based in America anyway.

And yet he doesn't get away with that crap here, only in Britain.

* Home of most of the world's
crooks and terrorists.

But not the world's most crooked newspapers, those are found in Britain,
along with some particularly foolish and dishonest Usenet trolls.

On the news this morning, Murdock is to be investigated for suspected
similar offences in the US.
You mean to tell me Fox News (Murdock again) is an entirely
respectable source of news?
Aren't they the ones have now legally established that it's OK for
lies to be published as fact in America?

Ah yes, here we are. A whole raft of lies.
http://uk.ask.com/web?q=fox+news+lie...rc=0&o=0&l=dir

Harry, did you know that her in The US it's perfectly legal for our
lawmakers and law enforcement agents to lie to Joe Citizen but it's
a crime for Joe Citizen to lie to them. If Joe Citizen is called before
a Congressional hearing and swears to tell the truth and doesn't, he is
charged with the crime of perjury. If police are interrogating Joe
Citizen, the police can lie to him but if Joe Citizen lies in return, he
is charged with a crime. Poor Joe Citizen, he has it rough at times
but Joe Citizen does have a right to remain silent guaranteed by our
Constitution. I wonder, does Harry Citizen have the same sort of right
in The UK? I wouldn't worry too much about Fox News because every news
organization lies no matter what their political leanings are. The worst
liars of all are those making up the governments of the world. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well it's the same over here. It has also been established that a
defendant in court can legally tell lies when under oath. But a
witness can't. Weird eh?
You almost invariably go to jail for perjury over here too.
Our libel laws prevent many lies in the press over here. Murdoch
might get to find this out.
MPs are working themselves into a frenzy over this business over here.

On Jul 13, 2:05*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Harry, did you know that her in The US it's perfectly legal for our
lawmakers and law enforcement agents to lie to Joe Citizen but it's
a crime for Joe Citizen to lie to them. If Joe Citizen is called
before a Congressional hearing and swears to tell the truth and
doesn't, he is charged with the crime of perjury. If police are
interrogating Joe Citizen, the police can lie to him but if Joe
Citizen lies in return, he is charged with a crime. Poor Joe Citizen,
he has it rough at times

Which underscores the notion that you should say NOTHING to the cops, even
if you believe it to be the truth.

"What do you know about the bank robbery on 1st Street?"
"Nothing. I've never even BEEN on 1st Street!"
(later)
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant claimed in a police
interview that he'd never been on 1st Street near the location of the
robbery. You've just seen footage from a security camera clearly showing the
defendant driving down 1st Street in 1982! He was clearly lying during the
police interview and you can legitimately infer he was lying when he claimed
he was not involved in the robbery..."

but Joe Citizen does have a right to remain silent guaranteed by our
Constitution. I wonder, does Harry Citizen have the same sort of right
in The UK?

No. If a suspect clams up, that silence may be offered in evidence against
him at trial.

That is true. This is a recent change. The idea is that a suspect
can immediately clear himself.

On 7/13/2011 9:45 AM, harry wrote:
On Jul 13, 7:03 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 7/13/2011 12:37 AM, harry wrote:





On Jul 12, 10:43 pm, wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

Well look who is back. Hey, Harry, got anything else to say about the
wonderful British news media and how responsible and law-abiding they
are?

Bwahahahahahaha.
We hold ours to account.

Apparently you haven't been following the news lately. It is clear that the
cops had a very cozy relationship with the News Of The World for years, the
investigation they supposedly conducted consisted of looking through one
reporter's desk after which they said all abuses had been dealt with. So
after years of complaints about press misconduct a couple of sacrificial
lambs went to jail and the papers kept right on committing acts that in
America would have resulted not only in criminal prosecution but massive
lawsuits. The (now former) editor of TNOTW hasn't even lost her job despite
being in charge when much of this conduct was happening. It's also very
clear that government after government did nothing because they were afraid
of Murdoch, they couldn't get elected if he opposed them--some democracy.
Every week there are new revelations about sickening intrusions into the
lives of people who were victims of horrible crimes--"We hold ours to
account"--what a joke.

Murdock is based in America anyway.

And yet he doesn't get away with that crap here, only in Britain.

Home of most of the world's
crooks and terrorists.

But not the world's most crooked newspapers, those are found in Britain,
along with some particularly foolish and dishonest Usenet trolls.

On the news this morning, Murdock is to be investigated for suspected
similar offences in the US.
You mean to tell me Fox News (Murdock again) is an entirely
respectable source of news?
Aren't they the ones have now legally established that it's OK for
lies to be published as fact in America?

Ah yes, here we are. A whole raft of lies.
http://uk.ask.com/web?q=fox+news+lie...rc=0&o=0&l=dir

Harry, did you know that her in The US it's perfectly legal for our
lawmakers and law enforcement agents to lie to Joe Citizen but it's
a crime for Joe Citizen to lie to them. If Joe Citizen is called before
a Congressional hearing and swears to tell the truth and doesn't, he is
charged with the crime of perjury. If police are interrogating Joe
Citizen, the police can lie to him but if Joe Citizen lies in return, he
is charged with a crime. Poor Joe Citizen, he has it rough at times
but Joe Citizen does have a right to remain silent guaranteed by our
Constitution. I wonder, does Harry Citizen have the same sort of right
in The UK? I wouldn't worry too much about Fox News because every news
organization lies no matter what their political leanings are. The worst
liars of all are those making up the governments of the world. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well it's the same over here. It has also been established that a
defendant in court can legally tell lies when under oath. But a
witness can't. Weird eh?
You almost invariably go to jail for perjury over here too.
Our libel laws prevent many lies in the press over here. Murdoch
might get to find this out.
MPs are working themselves into a frenzy over this business over here.

My new favorite saying: "It's the pot calling the kettle tarnished." :-)

TDD

"harry" wrote in message
...


On the news this morning, Murdock is to be investigated for suspected
similar offences in the US.

Which *might* perhaps possibly maybe reveal similar antics in the U.S.--but
that is speculation. On the other hand we know for a dead-certain fact what
his newspapers (and others) have been doing in Britain for many years
despite the authorities repeatedly being made aware of it. Your government
has been afraid to deal with the issue because no party wants Murdoch
backing the other side in an election, so this power-hungry thug got away
with outrageous behavior for years and years--and you have the nerve to
claim, "We hold ours to account". Clearly that is a false statement given
the undeniable fact that successive British governments turned a deliberate
blind eye to these abuses. If not for public outrage over ordinary citizens
being targeted (as opposed to celebrities) Murdoch and the other tabloid
slimeballs in your country would still be laughing all the way to the bank.

You mean to tell me Fox News (Murdock again) is an entirely
respectable source of news?

A) Could you at least spell his name correctly? B) Fox is widely regarded
as a heavily-biased news organization, but just as in your nation there are
plenty of people in the U.S. who are not especially interested in accurate
news, they'd rather hear something that supports what they already believe.

Aren't they the ones have now legally established that it's OK for
lies to be published as fact in America?

Fox went to court over the issue of whether or not they could report the
news inaccurately. They won in part because the Constitution prevents the
government from interfering in the free operation of the news media, the
principle being that a free press is more important than some media outlets
getting it wrong. However unlike in your nation Murdoch's company hasn't
been immune to criticism from politicians because all the parties are afraid
to lose the support of the network--big difference.

On Jul 13, 6:16*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

On the news this morning, Murdock is to be investigated for suspected
similar offences in the US.

Which *might* perhaps possibly maybe reveal similar antics in the U.S.--but
that is speculation. *On the other hand we know for a dead-certain fact what
his newspapers (and others) have been doing in Britain for many years
despite the authorities repeatedly being made aware of it. *Your government
has been afraid to deal with the issue because no party wants Murdoch
backing the other side in an election, so this power-hungry thug got away
with outrageous behavior for years and years--and you have the nerve to
claim, "We hold ours to account". *Clearly that is a false statement given
the undeniable fact that successive British governments turned a deliberate
blind eye to these abuses. *If not for public outrage over ordinary citizens
being targeted (as opposed to celebrities) Murdoch and the other tabloid
slimeballs in your country would still be laughing all the way to the bank.

You mean to tell me Fox News (Murdock again) is an entirely
respectable source of news?

A) Could you at least spell his name correctly? *B) Fox is widely regarded
as a heavily-biased news organization, but just as in your nation there are
plenty of people in the U.S. who are not especially interested in accurate
news, they'd rather hear something that supports what they already believe.

Aren't they the ones have now legally established that it's OK for
lies to be published as fact in America?

Fox went to court over the issue of whether or not they could report the
news inaccurately. *They won in part because the Constitution prevents the
government from interfering in the free operation of the news media, the
principle being that a free press is more important than some media outlets
getting it wrong. *However unlike in your nation Murdoch's company hasn't
been immune to criticism from politicians because all the parties are afraid
to lose the support of the network--big difference.

So far as you know that is.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...


If police are interrogating Joe Citizen, the police can lie to him but if
Joe Citizen lies in return, he is charged with a crime.

If Joe Citizen has a brain in his head his first and only words to the cops
will be, "I want a lawyer". The instant you realize the cops are looking at
you as a suspect the only thing you should say is, "I want a lawyer" and
that is it. Even if the cops are just wrong rather than malicious, you can
put yourself into a deep hole by trying to explain to them why they're
wrong.

Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

cling to the underlying belief that led you to make the mistaken claim. So
even though you (now) know that during the Bush administration the federal
debt doubled (something you were initially reluctant to accept) I have no
doubt you still believe that *really* the Democrats are the party of deficit
spending even though the last President to actually deliver a balanced
budget was a Democrat and the last Republican controlled Congress spent like
drunken sailors.

If you look at the actual budgets submitted by Clinton, none of them
were balanced on submission. Reality intervened and for a few brief
shining moments, money came in faster than could be spent. Not that both
sides did not try, you understand. The surplus (which was there only
because of the excess SS tax income and only in DC where a long-term
liability (the extra went into non-marketable treasury securities can be
counted as a short term asset) had topped out by FY 1999 and had
disappeared by FY 2002, the first Bush budget since FY 2001 had started
in October of 2000. Even in the salad days, there was no great change
in the %age gain year over year in spending. It was very much an
accidental surplus.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:13:11 -0700, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...


If police are interrogating Joe Citizen, the police can lie to him but if
Joe Citizen lies in return, he is charged with a crime.

If Joe Citizen has a brain in his head his first and only words to the cops
will be, "I want a lawyer". The instant you realize the cops are looking at
you as a suspect the only thing you should say is, "I want a lawyer" and
that is it. Even if the cops are just wrong rather than malicious, you can
put yourself into a deep hole by trying to explain to them why they're
wrong.

Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Exactly! A Las Vegas man went to prison BECAUSE he took a plea deal
-- even knowing he was innocent.

He has since been released and his record is now being cleared.

_LVMPD DNA Mistake_

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLs2adq7DW8

The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 7/13/2011 8:05 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Harry, did you know that her in The US it's perfectly legal for our
lawmakers and law enforcement agents to lie to Joe Citizen but it's
a crime for Joe Citizen to lie to them. If Joe Citizen is called
before a Congressional hearing and swears to tell the truth and
doesn't, he is charged with the crime of perjury. If police are
interrogating Joe Citizen, the police can lie to him but if Joe
Citizen lies in return, he is charged with a crime. Poor Joe
Citizen, he has it rough at times

Which underscores the notion that you should say NOTHING to the
cops, even if you believe it to be the truth.

"What do you know about the bank robbery on 1st Street?"
"Nothing. I've never even BEEN on 1st Street!"
(later)
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant claimed in a police
interview that he'd never been on 1st Street near the location of the
robbery. You've just seen footage from a security camera clearly
showing the defendant driving down 1st Street in 1982! He was
clearly lying during the police interview and you can legitimately
infer he was lying when he claimed he was not involved in the
robbery..."
but Joe Citizen does have a right to remain silent guaranteed by our
Constitution. I wonder, does Harry Citizen have the same sort of
right in The UK?

No. If a suspect clams up, that silence may be offered in evidence
against him at trial.



Darn HB, I wanted Harry to dance around that one. I know you have a
great deal of legal knowledge. I remember you writing about being a
LEO for a while but didn't you also teach law at a college?

No, not law. I did go to law school, but never took the bar exam ("My
lawyer's a prince and yours is a nice guy, but the rest of them are
thieves"). I taught computer science and mathematics at both the university
and community college.

And, yeah, I was a deputy sheriff in my youth. I learned right away that
police work is not like it's mad out to be. It's more like being a Boy
Scout. With a gun. To a cop, taking a residence burglary or stolen car
report is routine - you can do it in your sleep. To the citizen whose home
was burglarized or whose car was stolen, it's often a life-changing event!

Maybe this will put things in perspective: The cop seldom sees the perp, but
the cop ALWAYS sees the victim.

On 7/13/2011 3:06 PM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 7/13/2011 8:05 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Harry, did you know that her in The US it's perfectly legal for our
lawmakers and law enforcement agents to lie to Joe Citizen but it's
a crime for Joe Citizen to lie to them. If Joe Citizen is called
before a Congressional hearing and swears to tell the truth and
doesn't, he is charged with the crime of perjury. If police are
interrogating Joe Citizen, the police can lie to him but if Joe
Citizen lies in return, he is charged with a crime. Poor Joe
Citizen, he has it rough at times

Which underscores the notion that you should say NOTHING to the
cops, even if you believe it to be the truth.

"What do you know about the bank robbery on 1st Street?"
"Nothing. I've never even BEEN on 1st Street!"
(later)
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant claimed in a police
interview that he'd never been on 1st Street near the location of the
robbery. You've just seen footage from a security camera clearly
showing the defendant driving down 1st Street in 1982! He was
clearly lying during the police interview and you can legitimately
infer he was lying when he claimed he was not involved in the
robbery..."
but Joe Citizen does have a right to remain silent guaranteed by our
Constitution. I wonder, does Harry Citizen have the same sort of
right in The UK?

No. If a suspect clams up, that silence may be offered in evidence
against him at trial.



Darn HB, I wanted Harry to dance around that one. I know you have a
great deal of legal knowledge. I remember you writing about being a
LEO for a while but didn't you also teach law at a college?

No, not law. I did go to law school, but never took the bar exam ("My
lawyer's a prince and yours is a nice guy, but the rest of them are
thieves"). I taught computer science and mathematics at both the university
and community college.

And, yeah, I was a deputy sheriff in my youth. I learned right away that
police work is not like it's mad out to be. It's more like being a Boy
Scout. With a gun. To a cop, taking a residence burglary or stolen car
report is routine - you can do it in your sleep. To the citizen whose home
was burglarized or whose car was stolen, it's often a life-changing event!

Maybe this will put things in perspective: The cop seldom sees the perp, but
the cop ALWAYS sees the victim.


Well, my mistake, perhaps I read about you teaching and bestowed super
powers upon you that you did not possess. That's why I asked, I'm sure
Mr Bubbles will butt in and accuse me of lying. I had law enforcement
folks in the family. My father was a Regular Army MP sergeant during
WWII, he got royalties from DOD for cuss words he invented and he yelled
every single one of them at me when I put a JFK For President bumper
sticker on his '51 Dodge. The Irish nuns at the Catholic Parochial Gulag
had given them to us kids to distribute. I didn't know
what a Southern Republican was. Dad made Yankee Republicans look like
fairies and I may be worse now than he ever was. :-)

TDD

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


I agree that name-calling is a scoundrel's refuge. But cut the guy
some slack - you read enough progressive posts and you sorta buy
into their technique.

The difference between you and Dufas is when I post proof you were
wrong about something you've been known to admit you were mistaken.

But the similarity between you two is no matter how much evidence is
presented, and even if intellectually you know you're wrong, you both
still cling to the underlying belief that led you to make the
mistaken claim. So even though you (now) know that during the Bush
administration the federal debt doubled (something you were initially
reluctant to accept) I have no doubt you still believe that *really*
the Democrats are the party of deficit spending even though the last
President to actually deliver a balanced budget was a Democrat and
the last Republican controlled Congress spent like drunken sailors.


I admit that under Bush the federal debt zoomed. But we had two wars,
Katrina, and 9/11 to deal with. Further, I have no doubt that a robust
economy - such as we had during the first six years of the Bush
administration (until the Democrats took over Congress) - could have
mitigated much of that debt.

Conversely, the Obama administration matched the $800 billion Bush years'
deficit in their VERY FIRST MONTH in office. We are now, what, $4 trillion
more in debt than we were at the end of the Bush administration?

I don't hold up previous Republican congresses as models of fiscal
restraint. You should not hold up the current administration as the exemplar
of sound policy.