rigney

I don't quite understand you wanting me to rearrange the subject matter. Not once did I mention the word Jew, yet you injected the word 7 times in your reply. Might I ask why? While the holocaust may have been a scheme to get rid of a particular ethnic group, several other nationalities supplied much of the cannon fodder during the cleansing. As far as elaborating further, I don't know what else to tell you. My thoughts were not so much on the fact that 17,000,000 innocent people were murdered outright, but rather how easily it was accomplished.

Loved Rita, Gene, Fred and The BGs. Someone spent a lot of time putting this video together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=mz3CPzdCDws

On a train ride between Bremerhaven and Zweibrucken (about seven or eight hrs) at that time, and a few just days before my 21st birthday and Christmas of 1953, I was a naive hill billy kid struck by how similar the German countryside looked much like it did back home. So peaceful, beautiful and well manicured, I never once gave a thought to the guys who had just eight short years before, stormed the beaches at Normandy, or even why such an attack had been necesary. While it did take me a couple months to become acclimated and begin looking around, I soon found good reason to realize that ignorance only grows more pronounced if one allows themselves to be duped. I won't go into detail, but even after eight years, the Concertration (Death Camps) I had the privilage to visit still permeated with the smells of "HELL". Wish that little perverted Iranian bastard, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other disbelievers could have been there with me even 8 years after the fact to witness such stinking atrocities. Got this email today and thought it might be a good topic to discuss along with gun control.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2972691n

Listen to the bit about shooting victims. Didn't take long for the nazis to realize that a little sarin gas was less expensive. !7,000,000 people murdered and none of them with guns. How many might have been saved if firearms had been available? Perhaps none. Sheeple are simply sheeple until things get totally unbearable. But partisan guerilla tactics sure played hell on the Nazi economy once they got into high gear.

You're way beyond the capabilities of the software with that one. But I can tell you that when I run across a -1 that doesn't seem justified, I give it a +1 to void it out.

 

In fact, I did the same thing with the last election when I heard you voted for Romney, rigney.

But when a negative is given just for spite, there should be at least a bit of expaination to go along with that negative, If only to be constructive.

You get a green +, enough said. But a red - should require a short explination, but not to divulge the poster.

I still don't understand your pop bottle analogy. It sounds like you're either condemning the guys who didn't find the ring because they should have been looking for something more valuable, or you're saying that belief in God might turn out to be a diamond ring so it's foolish to waste your time looking for scientific pop bottles.

 

Had the guy not found the ring, would he have been any the worse for it?

 

I've grown cold lately on analogies, but I still describe science (to the uninterested) as a 3D jigsaw puzzle cut from the layers of an enormous onion. Each bit of information helps connect other bits on its own layer and on some further down as well, and we still have missing pieces. Religion, on the other hand, seems happy with just two pieces to their puzzle: Goddidit and Don't Ever Question That.

Religious people don't even try looking below the skin into the first layer. In their heart and mind, they know without question, it is an onion..

Are you seriously saying it was gods or leprechauns instead of his hard work that led him to the ring?!

No! Just saying, it has taken years of analysis, theory and research to amass the knowledge and expertise of the different fields getting us to where we are today. While most religious people utilize those advantages, they also believe in "something" to be far more powerful than medicine and science.

 

You love them strawmen don't you rigney? I'd like to see the big guy in the sky without having to die. how is that any less reasonable than wanting to see little green leprechauns? I doubt you'll find many scientists who would say "It's only what I believe to be a fact that really matters" science by definition would say "it's only what i can find testable evidence for that really matters" religion would be the one that says "only what I believe to be a fact that really matters". Empirical Reality... what a concept...

I can't and won't argue science vs religion with you Moon. But let's say that you and I have a $ buck each in our pockets from finding and selling empty soda pop bottles using the empirical method.. Now we run across a buddy who has been searching all day without finding a single bottle. Do we mock him for not looking in the right places where we found ours? What happens if after weeks of keeping his nose to the groung and finding no bottles, he comes across a diamond ring worth mega $$$? Believe me, I still love and believe in those little green leprechauns.

Quote Moontanman: I think we should stop calling these weapons assault rifles or insinuating they are more dangerous that other semi auto weapons... they are not. They are not military weapons either, no military would arm their men with these rifles.

I think the real problem with these guns is the false bravado that comes with them, protect the proletariat from the government, horse feathers... home protection... this is critical, no one should ever fire a high powered weapon inside a building, it's simply not fair to your neighbors who could be killed many houses away with a high powered rifle... Hunting... I have called these assault rifles high powered weapons but compared to a real hunting rifle they are not, a 30.06 packs much more fire power and kills much cleaner and if it is semi automatic can be fired just as fast as these pretend military riffles.

That leaves these "assault" weapons with only one real use, they are toys, collectors items fun for target practice but not much practical use for anything else...

That is, until they get into the wrong hands. Then, even a .177 air rifle can be lethal at close range. A .22 cal. or larger bore projectile fired from a rifle can travel over a mile and still be deadly.

No, I agree they're dangerous, and often equally so. That's why I think it is a red herring. Banning assault rifles wouldn't do it I'm quite sure.and very sad to say.

Guns are only guns until they are in the wrong hands and then they are killing machines. Mac Davis wrote this for Elvis more than 40 years ago but there is as much or more truth in it today as when it was written. Psychopaths seem to kill as if locked in a dream world closet filled totally with exasperation. Desperation and anger best describe this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ5EEdEehm8

1/28/13

Ran across it this morning A good old Texas boy named Mac Davis wrote it more than 40 years ago and passed it on to Elvis. Give it some thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ5EEdEehm8

Illiteracy is nothing to be ashamed of.

Wasting your time with that explanation Iggy. Illteracy can be corrected with help and time, but stupidity goes clean to the bone and forever. You might find this link interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKpLhNiC8zg

Even with the best of scientific knowledge, chances are earth could slip back into a "dark age" again, given the wrong set of directions. That would be on the order of world disorder in the form of; "Anarchy" Can't happen? Think about it!

1

to know as fact

Because I can't accept your exceedingly unlikely idea of an individual called 'God' as an infallible truth... I am closed minded?

I accept the possibility of such a being... hell, anything's possible... even an ocean controlling leprechaun. I think I am quite open minded actually. 'Closed minded'-ness to me is someone who 'believes' in one thing (an omnipotent, omnipresent God, for example) to the exclusion of any other possibility.

Anyone can make a case for just about anything they choose to endorse. But what really pisses me is when someone says: "It's only what I believe to be a fact that really matters". Such a statement, whether coming from a religious or scientific source is ignorance bordering on stupidity. Me, I like to think there is a supreme entity of some kind responsible for the creation of this universe or universes. Will we ever know for a fact? I doubt it..But I would really like to see one of those wee little green leprechauns.

 

Since the early 1900’s ALL “science” has been taken over by the Technology Culture of the religious Americans, represented by the trade-union-church AAAS. Plain and simple. There has not

been any science in the world since then except “religious-American-science”.

 

On the blissful religious science ignorance…:

 

USA-World Science Hegemony Is Science Blind

 

Since the early 2000s I have been posting many articles on science items surveyed and analyzed

by me, without religious background-concepts. I have been doing this because I was deeply disturbed by the religiosity of the 1848-founded AAAS trade-union and by the consequent religious background-tint of its extensive “scientific” publications and activities.

 

On my next birthday I’ll be 88-yrs old. I know that I’m deeply engaged in a Don Quixotic mission-war to extricate-free the USA and world Science from the clutches and consequences of the religious-trade-union-church AAAS, adopted strangely by the majority of scientifically ignorant religious god-trusting Americans and by their most other humanity following flocks…

 

But I am sincerely confident that only thus it is feasible and possible to embark on a new, rational, Human culture (Scientism) and on new more beneficial and effective technology courses for humanity…

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22^nd century)

link to external blog removed per SFN Rule 2.7

 

 

 

Well bless your heart! Being 88 years of age and believing in "anything" today is risky business. Myself, I'm 80 and quite vulnerable to conjecture at every crook and turn. But as an Agnostic, (com ce com sa), my glass isn't half empt, but half full. At least give yourself a break before breathing your last.

Not pursuing new technology is a mistake, such research takes up only a tiny fraction of what we spend as a nation. You are operating on a mistaken assumption that space travel research is enormously expensive and compared to what you or i make it is but compared to what the government spends it's a drop in the ocean....

I'm not working on the mistaken premise of expense, nor do I recommend "Stopping the space program". Read my words, not what you think I wrote. http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-57377062-239/nasa-budget-boosts-manned-space-cuts-mars-exploration/

Rigney, are you aware of just how little money is being spent on the space program compared to the GNP? Compared to the military budget?

 

BTW, this is what made your statement nonsensical "Instantaneous Transcendental Teleportation" what does transcendental mean?

I know Moon, and shortly there will be even less money available for space science. And our GNP! Got to keep big government fattened up and growing, you know. And the ITT thing, you're pulling my leg; right? You do believe in string theory, don't you?

Imagine a society where almost nobody has a gun. Only the armed forces and police carry guns, as well as (unfortunately) a few criminals. Most people have never seen a gun from up close. Imagine that.

 

In such society, should they change, and allow everybody to buy (and carry) a gun? Or, would it be better to leave things as they are?

 

Because I am not an American, and I actually live in the society which I just described. And I would argue that it is a good and stable situation that I find myself in, which needs no change.

 

I am curious to hear from the gun lovers whether they agree that there are two (or more) desirable situations, one being the one in the USA, the other the one for example in Europe? Or should Europe change, and do the gun lovers think that I'd be better off if everybody carried a gun here?

Sounds a bit like Shangri-La the way you describe it. Thing is though, I would never want to see Americans to go through again what they experienced in the 1860s or what Europeans suffered from early history up and through the mid 1940s. Beginning with bow and arrow on to lance and sword, eventually culmiating into a bunch of "Gun Nuts" that literally butchered Europe. Unless you are a history buff It can be quite easily forgetten what got you to this now Eutopic state you've settled into. The rest of the world had best pray America never gets so complacent. While I am not for the indiscriminate killing of a mouse, ant or carp, I believe each person has a moral and legal right to protect their property, family and themselves. If you think that makes me a gun lover, so be it.

 

Considering how much monetary return there has been on the space program and how big a part of our modern society is based in waste of time and money called rocketry I can see your point...

I'm not for a moment saying we should get out of the space program entirely. But, at this point we have amassed a tremendous amout of knowledge that can be built on by science, leading us into the future. Thing is, we can't be throwing mega-bucks into the well again. As much as green energy is distasteful to me because of the way it has been handled thus far, I would rather we push that game plan to its limit trying to help this planet, rather than looking for aliens or a new home????

 

 

My point is that no one could have predicted our extensive technological advances from the mineral magnetite. Sometimes even tiny things can turn out to be vastly important, you indicated this avenue of inquiry was worthless, you cannot know that...

As I previously stated, we've been into modern rocketry science since Von Braun first built them during WWII, with little to show for it monetary wise. Think of what might need to be spend on just the idea that this pipe dream has a remote chance of working? I'm not saying this theoritical physicist Kaku is "full of it", but it sure sounds like a bunch of hyperbole to me.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/warp-speed

You miss my point completely and what is ITT?

I really saw no point.that made sense.

 

 

Hmmm, what if electricity had been thought of that way, nothing will ever come of it, it takes far too much energy for it be useful... your link doesn't work btw...

Electricity is a fact with literally millions of applications and increasing daily. Warp speed, if there is such a thing, is still in its infancy. I hope someday it and ITT will be possible.

I think the video says they have solved the instability problems but the radiation would be a bit of a bummer. This drive would be good for sub light travel, it would pretty much open up the solar system and put the nearest stars within relatively reasonable time frames...

And to think! I used the phrase "Instantaneous Transcendental Teleportation" a couple years back, applying it to the series, Star Trek, for which you gave me a hefty portion of crow to eat. To me, "warp speed" is as nonsensical as conveying the notion that ITT is an answer. Even adding the ancient myth of Icarus, to the fifty+ years of our latest rocket age, we're still skating on iron wheeled roller skates. Since neither of these programs wii ever likely come to fruition, we might as well spend a few trillion bucks more on "pipe dreams" while the earth is settling itself into hell.

Thought this might be of interest while looking at warp speed.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm

And to think, after all of the dark and satanical information about gun killings, many people actually spend tons of bucks buying and enjoying them. Check out the other available link attachments. Some are enlightening, others just plain stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=OQnU1t7UzgM

This one is a Lu-Lu and shows what some people who are supposed to be responsible, don't know.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57528616/jerry-sandusky-receives-30-to-60-year-sentence/You might want to check again. For example it was spoon-fed to Rigney.

 

Anyway, as I pointed out, I was using hyperbole.

It really doesn't matter what sort of guns you use.

The point would have been valid if I had said

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her an anti tank gun." or

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a revolver." or even

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a pistol." or

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a shotgun."

 

So the ban on assault rifles doesn't actually affect my point.

The heart of the issue is that if you don't give people guns then, if they turn out to be nutters, at least they are not nutters with guns.

Since it's impossible to tell in advance who is going to flip (unless you have Rigney's magic gift for spotting a "wrong un") the only way to stop loonies getting guns is to stop anyone getting them.

Perhaps discussing pedofelia as a subject may be more to your liking? I'm looking at what seems to be a distinguished gentleman who is given 30 to 60 years in prison for "punking 10 and 12 year old boy" because in doing so it gave him a happy face and best of all, he didn't even need a gun. Sadly, he brought these young boys to their knees with gentle persuasion and in many ways ruined the balance of their lives. Yet, after all of the testimony given by these once innocent juveniles, defense attorneys swear there has been a miscarriage of justice. Well, kiss my ignorant ass. Only when we have finally determined how to corral those with such a mental illness, can you have our guns. After the final verdict on this sicko had been reached, the "son of a bitch" should have been given time to shave, take a good bath and then the rope. Without a better understanding of how justice should be meted out, we are wasting our time on gun bans and gun control.