Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:47:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1065 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
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,
|
I know that I can. I also can make my own smoothbore rifle in much the same way
- it’s not great, but it can still kill. However, it takes time and work to do
such a thing; luckily, the majority of people with an issue are just too lazy.
| |
not to mention you can
pretty much buy anything on the black market.
|
Ergo, comitting a crime in the process of acquiring the means, and therefore
allowing for the intervention of police before the “bigger crime” gets done.
| |
What I want to know is why they
did it. I don’t buy the governments story that they were just crazy.
|
You are of course entitled to that opinion, and I’m not even sure if I disagree
with your view. Of course, that may be because I lack information and interest
about those cases, having already been taken care of in due place (conveniently
*far* from where I stand ;-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Ok, that is a good point. However, the constitution has been added ammendments
in the past, including at least one that revoked another. As such, the
constitution is also subject to circumvention - I certainly wouldn’t trust it
blindly!
| |
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.
|
(FTR, I read at least 5 papers from different places every day - please
understand that I cannot read the “local” section of all :-)
You are of course correct in your claim: the police can only act when faced with
a crime already commited (or being attempted, in some lucky cases). What you are
leaving out of the equation is that some crimes are irreversible (ie, murder)
and others are conveniently preventive (illegal gun ownership, DUI, etc). The
latter isn’t in itself anything wrong, but provide means to avoid the
irreversible kind. It’s not perfect as a system, but works better than anything
else I’m aware of...
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Unless of course those 300 people, by the mere fact of living there, grant the
country some thousands of square miles worth of seazone, that benefits the
entire national fishing fleet :-) No community lives isolated, so it’s probably
better to take care of each other...
(The island I was referring to is Corvo Is, in the Azores Archipelago, if you’re
curious)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
“A few dozen cases”. Is that how the statisticians refer to that
“non-population”, or your description of what’s happening? I’m sure you won’t
be surprised to know that across the pond we get a different picture...
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I did not say anyone was starving - I implied that you can save money by eating
junk food, and let yourself gain weight and cholesterol over time, shortening
your lifespan. Will I get lucky by crossing the data between average income and
risk of death by heart disease? Hmmm...
| |
| |
Aren’t you being pessimistic?
|
If that is what you call realistic then yes.
|
Reality is perceived differently by everyone, or so I was told in Philosophy
classes. Especially important in that perception is the environment around the
person - I must be living in a far cosier place than you are!
| |
| |
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.
|
Huh-hum.
You do realize that such thing would make the USA a “constitutiocracy”, that
would differ fronm a theocracy only in the nature of the sacred text... Having
said that, I’d like to point out that the US constitution hasn’t got any
fundamental defect in my POV, but you seem to take it as a sacred text which it
was not intended to be by those who wrote it!
Pedro
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
