Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 14 Jun 2003 14:51:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
894 times
|
| |
|
|
[snip]
> > But what was the motivation? All we know is what the Government tells us.
>
> Does it matter? (If you think so, why?)
> If all they had were motivation, they'd still be looking after the means to
> kill. Endlessly, or at least with a high chance they'd never actually "act".
You can make a bomb with common household cleaners, not to mention you can
pretty much buy anything on the black market. What I want to know is why they
did it. I don't buy the governments story that they were just crazy.
[snip]
> > So what is your recourse if the Government breaks the law?
>
> I don't know if I can provide an answer to that... {why} would a government
> break the law, if they're in a position to make new ones? :-)
Just because they make a new law doesn't mean it is constitutional.
[snip]
> > Besides so long as a
> > single manufacturer of guns exists on the planet, criminals will always >>have
> > them. The police actually stop criminals less than 0.01 percent of the >>time.
> > Mainly they investigate after the fact or are the criminals themselves.
>
> You can't prove that. And I think you're wrong, or else you're living in a >real creepy environment...
No, it is a matter of public record, read the paper sometime. The police
virtually never prevent a crime they simply investigate and arrest the
perpatrator after the fact.
[snip]
> > I belive people are responsible for their own actions. If they choose to >>live on
> > that island they should be made to pay the cost.
>
> What if they were born there... don't they have a right to live in their
> homeland? Come on!
They have a right to live where ever they want, but I belive it is their
responsiblity to provide for their well being, not the government's.
[snip]
> > Well that is what it means in the US. The only cases of starvation or true
> > poverty are either cases of abuse or self-imposed.
>
> And how many of those are there?
> I think you're deliberately choosing to ignore a population that does not fit
> your view of the poor...
A few dozen cases a year out of over 280 million isn't exactly a "population" I
am ignoring. It is as I said cases of abuse or the odd nut-ball who imposes it
on himself.
[snip]
> > Well I don't know the average income but I do know that "poor" people are
> > ten times more likely to be overweight in the US.
>
> That hardly proves anything. Overweight people also tend to die of heart
> diseases a lot more than skinny ones.
It means that the idea that poor people are starving is completly untrue in the
US. In the US being poor means you can't afford a DVD player to go with your TV.
[snip]
> Aren't you being pessimistic?
If that is what you call realistic then yes.
> Relax... chances are that you won't ever have to revolt against the
> government: for every thing they do which you dislike, you can always come up
> with something they can't bear, and the balance is guaranteed in the long run
> - life would be so boring otherwise! :-D
Well one can always hope they will spontaneously reinstate the constitution as
our basis of government and stop trying run everyone's life for them.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
