Looking back at the election

[Ursa_Eagle]

trask, you never said where you got that data. my guess would be your

 

oh, and

[rbw1966]

Fence_Sitter said:

you see i was jsut bringing to attention the level at which partisan politics has corrupted all of our minds. i think boh fuckers fucked up... you think only one fucker fucked up. why blame one and not the other? i know why... and i think you do to...

 

Fence shitter--where did anyone say one side was better than the other? I re-read this entire thread and am at a loss as to how you came to that conclusion.

 

What branch of service were you in?

[AlpineK]

He wasn't actually in the military. He droped out of ROTC

[rbw1966]

Its easy to be a flag waving "patriot" when your ass isn't on the line.

 

[allthumbs]

Ursa_Eagle said:

trask, you never said where you got that data. my guess would be your

 

oh, and

I rcv'd. it via email from a friend that lives in Texas. Satisfied now, fukka?

 

[glassgowkiss]

trask said:

Ursa_Eagle said:

trask, you never said where you got that data. my guess would be your

 

oh, and

I rcv'd. it via email from a friend that lives in Texas. Satisfied now, fukka?

texas how many texans does it take..........

did he pulled it out of his ass ?

[Ursa_Eagle]

oh, so it was in an email! well, you know they can't lie in an email, so it must be true! They can't post misleading or wrong information on the internet!

[AlpineK]

Here I sit,

Ass a-flexan,

Giving birth to another Texan.

[glassgowkiss]

rbw1966 said:

Fence_Sitter said:

you see i was jsut bringing to attention the level at which partisan politics has corrupted all of our minds. i think boh fuckers fucked up... you think only one fucker fucked up. why blame one and not the other? i know why... and i think you do to...

 

Fence shitter--where did anyone say one side was better than the other? I re-read this entire thread and am at a loss as to how you came to that conclusion.

 

What branch of service were you in?

i bet he's with chuck norris in texas rangers unit#2. sorry it's the number of the psych-ward he's in

[Greg_W]

Gaston_Lagaffe said:

Since crime follows poverty, and Republicans are not known for fighting for the rights of low income workers, could one not deduce instead that the reason crime is high in non-Rep. counties is because the low income people don't vote Rep?

 

I mean, you stating that more guns mean less murder is kinda silly, since no guns would mean no murders(with a gun), no? By your argument, if everyone had a gun, then there would be no murders, and the WWWest has already proven you wrong.

 

Gaston;

 

I understand that you would think this way, coming from socialist anti-gun Europe. Crime doesn't only follow poverty, but it also follows an unarmed populace. This has been statistically proven; good reference on this is "More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott, an economist. To refute your assertion, look at the rising violent crime rates in Britain where handguns were banned in 1995 (or 1996); look also at violent crime rates in rural communities where there are quite a few guns. There will always be murder, just new and different implements - that is a human issue, unfortunately.

 

I'd be happy to discuss this over beers with you sometime. By the way, did you ever do that retro-bolting work up at Static?

 

Greg W

[cj001f]

Greg_W said:

Gaston_Lagaffe said:

Since crime follows poverty, and Republicans are not known for fighting for the rights of low income workers, could one not deduce instead that the reason crime is high in non-Rep. counties is because the low income people don't vote Rep?

 

I mean, you stating that more guns mean less murder is kinda silly, since no guns would mean no murders(with a gun), no? By your argument, if everyone had a gun, then there would be no murders, and the WWWest has already proven you wrong.

 

Gaston;

 

I understand that you would think this way, coming from socialist anti-gun Europe. Crime doesn't only follow poverty, but it also follows an unarmed populace. This has been statistically proven; good reference on this is "More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott, an economist. To refute your assertion, look at the rising violent crime rates in Britain where handguns were banned in 1995 (or 1996); look also at violent crime rates in rural communities where there are quite a few guns. There will always be murder, just new and different implements - that is a human issue, unfortunately.

 

I'd be happy to discuss this over beers with you sometime. By the way, did you ever do that retro-bolting work up at Static?

 

Greg W

Greg-

I seem to remember prior arguments comparing the murder rates in Richmond, Va; Baltimore, MD; and Washington, DC which came to a not so clear conclusion. (Namely their murder rates are all similar, but there gun policies are vastly different).

[Greg_W]

Gaston_Lagaffe said:

What I was trying to point out is that his statement about gun ownership has very little to do with murder rates.

 

Oh, but you are mistaken, Gaston. I can prevent my own murder, and that of those around me, if so confronted BECAUSE I carry a gun to defend myself. Wouldn't that have an effect on the murder rate (i.e., murder prevention)?

[JoshK]

Greg_W said:

Gaston_Lagaffe said:

Since crime follows poverty, and Republicans are not known for fighting for the rights of low income workers, could one not deduce instead that the reason crime is high in non-Rep. counties is because the low income people don't vote Rep?

 

I mean, you stating that more guns mean less murder is kinda silly, since no guns would mean no murders(with a gun), no? By your argument, if everyone had a gun, then there would be no murders, and the WWWest has already proven you wrong.

 

Gaston;

 

I understand that you would think this way, coming from socialist anti-gun Europe. Crime doesn't only follow poverty, but it also follows an unarmed populace. This has been statistically proven; good reference on this is "More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott, an economist. To refute your assertion, look at the rising violent crime rates in Britain where handguns were banned in 1995 (or 1996); look also at violent crime rates in rural communities where there are quite a few guns. There will always be murder, just new and different implements - that is a human issue, unfortunately.

 

I'd be happy to discuss this over beers with you sometime. By the way, did you ever do that retro-bolting work up at Static?

 

Greg W

 

Greg, the rural argument is silly. Population denisity plays into the whole factor a lot. Saying the large amount of guns in Montana is why there isn't much crime there would be pretty BS, don't you think? Also, the populace is heavily armed in many 3rd world nations, so that's why there is such a low crime rate in them, right? Oh...wait...errr...no

 

You like guns, that's fine, but don't pull out the "statistically proven" stuff. Statistics can be used to prove practically everything, and simply because John Lott, an economist, says that his numbers prove that arming everybody with an AK-47 would make this country a safe place to live doesn't make it so.

[Greg_W]

rbw1966 said:

Trask--couple of questions:

 

1. Where did you get that data? Just curious.

 

2. 29+19=48. What happened with the remaining two states?

 

Thanks

 

Oh, and Bush should be impeached if they find no weapons of mass destruction. Misleading the public with respect to justification to send troops to foreign lands and die is far worse than getting blown by an intern in the oval office--and impeachment proceedings followed that little pecadillo.

 

Two points:

 

One, Bush doesn't need permission from the "public" to send troops into a foreign land.

 

Two, impeachment was due to lying under oath; don't misconstrue the issue there.

[allthumbs]

You know it's funny, all joking aside, if someone could find the real source of those stats I posted, I'll bet you'd find them accurate. Laugh all you want - no hair off my ass. Hey Bob, go chug some cock.

[Greg_W]

Fence_Sitter said:

What I was trying to point out is that his statement about gun ownership has very little to do with murder rates.

 

taht is precisely my point as well numb nuts...

 

Fence, shut the fuck up or debate intelligently. Sheeeeit, you're giving conservatives a bad name here.

[JoshK]

Greg_W said:

rbw1966 said:

Trask--couple of questions:

 

1. Where did you get that data? Just curious.

 

2. 29+19=48. What happened with the remaining two states?

 

Thanks

 

Oh, and Bush should be impeached if they find no weapons of mass destruction. Misleading the public with respect to justification to send troops to foreign lands and die is far worse than getting blown by an intern in the oval office--and impeachment proceedings followed that little pecadillo.

 

Two points:

 

One, Bush doesn't need permission from the "public" to send troops into a foreign land.

 

Two, impeachment was due to lying under oath; don't misconstrue the issue there.

 

Greg, please explain to me how lying under oath about having a personal affair with an intern is worse than lying to the public, congress, the UN, etc. about the reasons for starting a war, killing our soliders and killing innocent civilians. Please, this should be good...

[glassgowkiss]

gregw, so how come every police organization and union wants to limmit gun sales, ban assult weapons. maybe england or other countries have gun related crime on the rise, but the problem is no near the scale faced in the us. and remember that a lot of gun victims in this country are caused by accidental discharge of the firearms owned by "responsible citizens".

[Greg_W]

cj001f said:

Greg_W said:

Gaston_Lagaffe said:

Since crime follows poverty, and Republicans are not known for fighting for the rights of low income workers, could one not deduce instead that the reason crime is high in non-Rep. counties is because the low income people don't vote Rep?

 

I mean, you stating that more guns mean less murder is kinda silly, since no guns would mean no murders(with a gun), no? By your argument, if everyone had a gun, then there would be no murders, and the WWWest has already proven you wrong.

 

Gaston;

 

I understand that you would think this way, coming from socialist anti-gun Europe. Crime doesn't only follow poverty, but it also follows an unarmed populace. This has been statistically proven; good reference on this is "More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott, an economist. To refute your assertion, look at the rising violent crime rates in Britain where handguns were banned in 1995 (or 1996); look also at violent crime rates in rural communities where there are quite a few guns. There will always be murder, just new and different implements - that is a human issue, unfortunately.

 

I'd be happy to discuss this over beers with you sometime. By the way, did you ever do that retro-bolting work up at Static?

 

Greg W

Greg-

I seem to remember prior arguments comparing the murder rates in Richmond, Va; Baltimore, MD; and Washington, DC which came to a not so clear conclusion. (Namely their murder rates are all similar, but there gun policies are vastly different).

 

Actually, Baltimore (and Maryland as a whole) and DC are VERY restrictive on handguns; almost an outright ban in Balt. and a ban in DC. Both have high murder rates. Can't speak to Richmond, but I know the Project Exile program has been very successful there.

[AlpineK]

Greg_W said:

Fence_Sitter said:

What I was trying to point out is that his statement about gun ownership has very little to do with murder rates.

 

taht is precisely my point as well numb nuts...

 

Fence, shut the fuck up or debate intelligently. Sheeeeit, you're giving conservatives a bad name here.

 

[allthumbs]

here's the Texas email in question

 

The People Of Texas Speak

Disclaimer: This is an E-Mail i recieved!

 

Texas has given all those complainers plenty of time to get used to the results. After seeing the whiners along the inauguration route, the folks from Texas have decided that we might just take matters into our own hands. Here is our solution:

 

#1: Let Al Gore become President of the United States (all 49 states).

 

#2: George W. Bush becomes the President of the Republic of Texas. So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?

 

NASA in Houston, Texas (we will control the space industry).

 

We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States

 

Defense Industry (we have over 65% of it). The term "Don't mess with Texas," will take on a whole new meaning.

 

Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. Yankee states? Sorry about that.

 

Natural Gas - Again we have all we need and it's too bad about those northern states. Al Gore will figure a way to keep them warm....

 

Computer Industry - we currently lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications: Small places like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Semiconductor, Dallas Semiconductor, Delphi, Nortel, Alcatel, Etc, Etc. The list goes on and on.

 

Health Centers - We have the largest research centers for Cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world, and other large health planning centers.

 

We have enough colleges to keep us going: UT, Texas A&M, Rice, SMU, University of Houston, Baylor, UNT, Texas Women's University, etc. Ivy grows better in the south anyway.

 

We have a ready supply of workers (just open the border when we need some more.

 

We have control of the paper industry, plastics, insurance, etc.

 

In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. We don't have an army but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an army in 24 hours if we need it. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over a couple Texas Rangers.

 

We are totally self sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs and vegetable produce and everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don't need any food.

 

This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic of Texas in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need and don't have.

 

Now to the rest of the United States under President Gore: Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only President Gore will be able to drive around in his 9 mile per gallon SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.

 

You won't have any TV as the space center in Houston will cut off your communications. You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes but since Mr. Gore has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas.

 

Just a few notes on REAL election results:

 

Total Counties won by Bush: 2,434 Total Counties won by Gore: 677

 

Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million

 

Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000 Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000

 

States won by Bush: 29 States won by Gore: 19

 

And an even more remarkable finding...

 

Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 0.1 Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2

 

Researchers found one more interesting fact that might help explain these disparate murder rates.

 

Gun ownership in the counties won by Mr. Bush is much higher than in the counties won by Mr. Gore.

 

Signed, The People in Texas

 

[chucK]

Which do you consider worse?

 

a) Lying about something that is really nobody's business but yours

 

b) Lying about something that is going to cost billions of dollars and many lives?

 

 

And BTW, I was up at Static the other day. Two of the three or four bolts at the belay above the 4th pitch on Online that offended a few here are 3/8" and look pretty good, though they are quite rusty. If you wanna help out, replace or put another bolt in at the belay above the 5th pitch.

[Greg_W]

glassgowkiss said:

gregw, so how come every police organization and union wants to limmit gun sales, ban assult weapons. maybe england or other countries have gun related crime on the rise, but the problem is no near the scale faced in the us. and remember that a lot of gun victims in this country are caused by accidental discharge of the firearms owned by "responsible citizens".

 

You're misguided and wrong. Let's get together and I'll show you my information. Please cite references for everything you've stated here; it's all bullshit. "Accidental discharge" injuries make up "a lot of gun victims"? Hardly.

[Kiwi]

JoshK said:

Greg, please explain to me how lying under oath about having a personal affair with an intern is worse than lying to the public, congress, the UN, etc. about the reasons for starting a war, killing our soliders and killing innocent civilians. Please, this should be good...

Maybe cuz Clinton violated a real concrete law, whereas Bush didn't. I don't think it's an issue of which is worse than the other, but which can be pursued by the law.

 

 

(I'm not defending Bush)

[JoshK]

Kiwi said:

JoshK said:

Greg, please explain to me how lying under oath about having a personal affair with an intern is worse than lying to the public, congress, the UN, etc. about the reasons for starting a war, killing our soliders and killing innocent civilians. Please, this should be good...

Maybe cuz Clinton violated a real concrete law, whereas Bush didn't. I don't think it's an issue of which is worse than the other, but which can be pursued by the law.

 

 

(I'm not defending Bush)

 

Articles of impeachment are designed to remove a standing president in the case that his actions undermined the greater good of the country as a whole. Clinton's lying under oath about getting a blowjob from the intern did nothing to affect the security, prosperity or soverignty of this nation. You could make a case much easier than Bush's actions did.