If no one had guns. Someone would use a KNIFE. We can't eliminate every
weapon. And even if we did- guys with muscle would beat on the guys
without. And women, of course, would be worse off still. Not that this
doesn't happen anyways.


The only way crime stops is when victims fight back. It's just that
simple.

Ah. But nukes in everyone's hands WOULD have a stabilizing effect. It
would essentially halt any military aspirations of all nations on earth.

Except for the occasional true lunatic. Nukes, as with guns, will
always come with some crazy people. Thus far, none of the nuts (except
maybe Kim Jung Il) have gotten ahold of a nuke.

If we could limit guns so thoroughly that only a few people on earth
could have them (and make it *stick*)- then gun laws would work.

If we lived in a world where every rogue lunatic could get ahold of
nukes, it would make no sence to disallow a nation to having them.


The one operational difference, though, is that a lunatic with a gun
can't potentially cause the extinction of the entire human race. And
there are a LOT more guns. We can't cork firearms- a crude gun could be
made by anyone with a junk car to cut apart and a hillbilly's garage.

And since they're available to the criminals, no matter what we do, we
should make them available to honest and legitimate people.

You know, izzie, that'd make me your long lost half brother.

You know. We could always spike his booze with holy water. If he bursts
into flames- it'll be a definitive answer.

Ok. They have a long, proud, and innordinately successful herritage.
But what's the thread about, exactly? Are we supposed to congradulate
them? State our opinions of their history? What exactly?

Will you cut the crap. Seriously. It's getting old.

I was honestly expecting (as the experts, on both sides of the
political fence, did) a 70% or so democratic winning spree. They got a
bit over 50%. Guess democrats just don't vote as much as republicans. Or
something.


Of course, I don't for a second believe the voter devices were actually
RIGGED.

Wouldn't have mattered. The circuitry and programming was all done in
the sates. There's no sabotage they could have pulled off. Unless the
machines were designed collapsed and kill voters. For whatever good that
might do.


And I'm ready to believe that the votes, if rigged, were in the
Republican's favor. Because they did SURPRISINGLY well, considering the
negative impact an unpopular war has on the President's party.

Oh- I'm not saying there WERE no WMDs. Or that they weren't trying to
make them (it's quite reasonable they never had the chance to finish the
projects). I wouldn't put WMDs out of Saddam's insanity. He'd have
gotten them if he could- and he'd have used them if he had the chance.

I'm just saying it's the one, and only, viable argument anyone might
have against the war in Iraq is in us not finding those weapons.


Of course, that's like saying your urine is the only water to drink in
the desert.

At least I ANSWERED your accusations. You've yet to even come close to
that with me. Now get over yourself or get some decent points. Take your
pick. I went with the later. (At least I'm honest)

Flies better than anything you've come up with. I've gotta be up
somewhere around hang glider, at least.

Oh. We could have defended from the "kids with box cutters"- if we'd
known we had to. An 8yo can take out an adult if he's not paying too
much attention and the kid hits him hard enough in the nuts.

And stop dragging other threads into this one. Or at least acknowlege
that your point has already been addressed with accuracy, effectiveness,
and you've yet to beat the counterpoint.

Sat 04/21/07 03:12 PM
To PA

can you show me the lies that you posted too.

.... nope, I've lied nowhere, any errors I may have posted were just
that, errors....


you said
And we told you repeatedly why the money means nothing. Because it's a
LIE.

.... It *is* a lie. They'd never surrender it, no matter the amount of
proof you provide. One doesn't PAY someone to prove them wrong. They pay
them to prove them right. (basically mocking example- I'll give you a
million dollars to PROVE I'm not God) See how that works....


In another thread you said I called you names but I never did.

just who is lying?

.... I already showed you the insults you slung at me. Don't recall ever
saying you called me names. Just accused you of hurling insults and
mud-slinging. If I actually said you "called me names"- then I was
probably mistaken- but you'll have to point out exactly where I said
that, first....

The point is- from this moment on- Bin Laden can't do much in the
world. He's as good as dead, if not already.

Not really. He was, at least in part, responsible for 9/11. He is/was
the leader of the Taliban, which has committed enough attacks against
America to warrent what we did even WITHOUT 9/11.

Uh... did you mean "designed for failure".... or was that a mistype of
"destined"? There's a very, very extreme difference of interpretation
between the two. And it needs to be clarified before we move on.

Point taken. Dead or alive, he really doesn't amount for much anymore.
Some things out live their creators. And out perform any expectations.

Like I said- in the same way that a card can sit upon a house of cards,
and be above them, despite the fact that removing even a single support
brings the entire thing down.


How about this as a difference- *WE* are irreplaceable. Thus far,
unique in the known universe. If not us, what would explore the stars.
Record the history of the world? Discover that which occured before any
human lived? All other creatures can be replaced. Something else can do
what they do. Maybe not everything they do, but there's always an equal
in some area or another. We're the only ones for which there is no
equal, or even close competitor.


Hey. I'm always constructive. Or at least neutral. And I wasn't being
humorous anywhere in here. Nor was I being insulting. I make a
statement. It has no more or less value than the words. When I do irony-
I say I'm being ironic. Any who reads between the lines when I say
something, will find -if anything- something that doesn't exist. It
isn't in my nature to "imply". To read between lines is to assume....
that is, to make an --- out of "u" and "me".



And I never said we weren't connected. We're all a part of the cycle.
My religion says quite clearly that our soul is part of the Goddess. A
piece of Her broken off and given to us. As we live, it is within us- as
it's within all things. And when we die, it returns to Her, as our flesh
returns to the earth.


But, while we have it, it makes us seperate- unique- *special*. Not
independent, not by any joke of a meaning. But just as a human body
means more than 200 or so lbs of mud- a human spirit means more than
what surrounds it.

Wow. Alada. Remind me to NEVER get on your bad side. I like my
reproductive attached to the rest of me.

I agree, Shadow. This is a waste of time. Now, back to the game. I
still say that this war was a mistake. We went into it for viable
reasons- not having anything to do with 9/11- but we'd have been better
off as a nation just ignoring Saddam.

If things had gone as planned (as if they ever)- we'd have already
happily washed our hands of all this. The war and rebuilding effort was
poorly planned, poorly fought, and poorly managed.


And as far as I understand it- the gassing was never challenged
anywhere in the international community. If it didn't happen (which
would be a matter of gross misinformation).... heh. However, Saddam did
commit acts of horrible cruelty against kurds that had nothing to do
with chemical weaponry. Does it matter if it's the ordered torching of a
village, or the gassing of it.... genocide is genocide.


We screwed up with the Iraq war. Of that, there is no doubt. But Saddam
was still a monster.

That's also VERY possible.


The thing is- Bin Laden is fairly old. In his 60s, if I recall
correctly. He's not in the best of health. And his (current) lifestyle
isn't going help him much. He'll die soon enough, if not already. Just-
will we find his body? That's far, far less likely.