What abt Mt Best fridge?

[Balanced View]

Nice ignoring the point.

1. Was Germany a 3rd world country when Hitler took over and took all
the guns?

2. Was Russia a 3rd world country when Stalin took over and took all
the guns?

Russia certainly was a third World nation, under the Czar the majority
of the population were uneducated serfs, and slaves
under the commies. Germany was a dictatorship under Hitler, why you want
to continue to compare a democratic republics and
parlimentary democracies with dictatorships is beyond understanding

 

[Balanced View]

Balanced View wrote:



Wow! I'm impressed by that logical retort.


NOT!

LOL....Then use English and a spell checker. Now, how about educating us
on the "retuning" of weapons, we all need to
make sure our hand guns and assault rifles are in perfect pitch........

 

[Balanced View]

Balanced View wrote:

... the government is not threatening to kill me if I [do] not wear
my seatbelt.

You must have missed the part where I said the Federal thugs were
spending $500 million on the "click it or ticket" program.

You know...? The one where they issue tickets for non-compliance with
a politician's command?

What happens if you ignore that ticket?

Not much, you get a fine. Nobody is going to shoot you for not wearing a
seat belt. Like it or not this is not 1776, according to you
blacks must still only count as half a person, and only male landowners
could vote?

Snippage of part time Limbaugh fill in Windbag Williams

 

[Balanced View]

The Weimar Republic
Germany's first democratic government, the Weimar Republic, was beset
by problems which included hyperinflation, crippling reparations and
the growth of extreme parties; it lasted between 1919 and 1933.
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/theweimarrepublic/The_Weimar_Republic.htm


The Weimar Republic or its official name German Reich (Deutsches
Reich) governed Germany from 1919 to 1933. This period of German
history is often called the Weimar period. The republic was named
after the city of Weimar, where a national assembly convened to
predict a new constitution (which became effective on August 11, 1919)
for the German Reich following the nation's defeat in World War I.

Despite its political form, the new Republic was still officially
known as the "Deutsches Reich" in German, while the half-translated
term "German Reich" was officially used in English. The name Weimar
Republic is an invention of historians, and was not used officially
during its existence. The Weimar Republic was established in February
1919 in defeated Germany and lasted until March 1933, when the state's
interior was replaced with Hitler's so-called "Third Reich" (see Nazi
Germany).

This first attempt to establish a liberal democracy in Germany
happened during a time of civil conflict, and failed with the ascent
of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Although technically the 1919
constitution was not invalidated until after World War II, the legal
measures taken by the Nazi government in 1933 (commonly known as
Gleichschaltung) destroyed the mechanisms of a typical democratic
system, so that year is cited as the end of the Weimar Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

Did you fail to even read your own cite**? Hitler was a dictator and was
never elected:

"**the legal measures taken by the Nazi government in 1933 (commonly
known as Gleichschaltung) destroyed the
mechanisms of a typical democratic system, so that year is cited as the
end of the Weimar Republic. "

 

[Balanced View]

Balanced View wrote:


... the government is not threatening to kill me if I [do] not wear
my seatbelt.


You must have missed the part where I said the Federal thugs were
spending $500 million on the "click it or ticket" program.

You know...? The one where they issue tickets for non-compliance
with a politician's command?

What happens if you ignore that ticket?

Not much, you get a fine.

And when I refuse to pay that fine?

I don't know about your state, but where I live you can't renew your
license sticker if you don't pay the fine.

That remains to be seen.


Here's the link for google groups.
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en

Please cite where I stated "blacks must still only count as half a
person, and only male landowners could vote?"

Failure to provide the link where I allegedly said this makes you a
lying gun grabbing dictator's sycophant, or was that dictator's
suckadick?

Quite being deliberately obtuse, if you believe the Constitution &
Declaration of Independence as being inviolate
documents, and the final authority to your rights, then you must also
believe that blacks must still only count as
half a person (actually 3/5ths) and only male landowners can vote**

**The constitution as it was originally signed did not allow blacks,
women or non land owners to vote.

 

[Balanced View]

Wow! I'm impressed by that logical retort also.... NOT!

Especially the part where you attribute the typo to me.

You responded, complaining about my rhetorical skills, so maybe you can
inform us about retuning firearms, since nospam
is probably off practicing with his b-flat baritone .44 .

 

[no spam]

If you want to compare the USA to the third world knock yourself out.

Not in Canada, you register your gun and that's that.

Hum. . . I thought that when Canada banned high capacity weapons people were
required to either turn them in or render them inoperable. So how bad is
the paper work to register a Colt AR15 or Mauser HCs in Canada. Oh wait,
you can't because ownership of those weapons are banned. But I think the
government might (I admit I'm not 100% sure) have allowed you to keep one if
you owned it before the ban went into effect. Could you if that's true?

And yet the largest city in Canada (over 3 million) has a homicide rate of
about 1.8 per 100,000 with full gun control.

As I have pointed out over and over check the numbers for simple assault
(i.e. assault where no weapon other than hands or feet are used) for the
countries and you will find that the US has more of those as well. Now just
how in the heck does having access to firearms have to do with more people
in the US beating the crap out of each other than the people in Canada with
almost no access to firearms? Nothing, it just points out that the US has a
more violent culture than Canada.

In 2004 the simple assault rate in the US was 291.1 per 100K. I could not
find the number for Canada for that year could you provide it for me?

I think it's more about income spread then gun control.

Being poor leads to crime? I don't think anyone could ever prove a causal
link. Personally I think it works the other way, people who have a tendency
toward crime also have a tendency to doing the things that keep them poor.

Germany in the 30's was a dictatorship. How many citizen have been killed
in the USA, Canada, France or
Britain by the government since World War Two?

How many of its people did Germany kill before 1936? Just because it hasn't
happened yet doesn't mean it can not nor will not happen in the future.
Let's see what's that quote about those who do not learn from history being
doomed to repeat it. . .

Think about how much control over your life the government has now and how
much it had 10 years ago. Does that make you think how much control they
will want 10 year from now? In some places in the US the government
controls what you are allowed to eat in a restaurant (no hollandaise sauce,
raw eggs MIGHT have salmonella, no medium done hamburgers, ground beef might
have e. coli in it. . .), how much water you can use in your own home to
shower (1.5 gal/min) or flush your toilet (1.5 gal/flush), where you may or
may not smoke, if you may allow smoking on your OWN PROPERTY and the list
goes on and on.

IIRC, in Canada the government controls who gets what medical attention.
Can a 65 year old person get a heart transplant in Canada? How about a
drinker getting a liver transplant?

Retuned?

Yes, the Americans were told if at all possible the firearms would be
returned to the original owners after the war. But AFAIK not a single
weapon was ever returned to the US. They were taken from the British
subjects, after all they are so dangerous or stupid that leaving weapons in
there hands would be a disaster, and destroyed.

 

[no spam]

Personally I think if you want to do something stupid; not wear a

Oh I see it coming " Why don't we just lock ourselves in our room"
argument. Laws are based on reasonable risk.

Then my point is even more valid. There MUST be a reasonable risk in using
ladders, just look at the number of warning stickers on them.

Work sites that involve overhead construction have covered walkways and
everyone wears hardhats and steel toed
boots. It's the element of and rate of risk that has determined the laws.

More proof for my point. Seeing as how people must be protected from
themselves by being forced to wear hardhats and steel toed boots even if the
people don't want to then shouldn't the government then force us to protect
ourselves from every other danger?

My point is if I'm a worker and I don't want to wear a hard hat that should
be MY choice. And if I get hurt when something hits me it my head then it
should be my problem. What right do you or anyone else have to tell me how
to live my life?

Just what I thought, "Why don't we just lock ourselves in our room"
argument

Nope, its just your logic pointed out to you to the extreme.

What's your stand on the government forcing you to buy a car with an air
bag? What if a car company said it wanted to build and sell a car w/o
airbags? You'd go screaming into the night about how the government HAS to
prevent this because it could get someone hurt. Yet when I point that there
are people dieing EVERY DAY and there death could be prevented you just
shrug it off.

Answer this question: If the government has the right to force you to buy a
car with air bags and seatbelts because these reduce your risk of being
injured or killed in an accident then why does it not have the right to
force you to buy a car with a roll cage, 6 point racing harness, automatic
fire suppression system and the other things that save the lives of NASCAR
drivers to reduce your risk of injury or death even more?

Again, you are not talking about reasonable risk ,the speed limit is 60
mph, not 150. With the advent of crush zones

First off a little math, 60 + 60 = 120 that means in a head on collision the
forces are equal to an impact with a stationary object at 120 mph.

airbags and seat belts you already have the equivalent of a full body
cage. Thousands more now walk away from
accidents than even ten years ago.

But people are STILL dieing every day because the cars are not built to a
high enough standard.

My point still is where does the government get the right to tell me what
risk I can and can not take and where does it stop?

As I said, it's the stupid people the laws protect us from, the ones that
insist in blowing smoke in your food and air,
putting poisonous shit in your food and water.

I see now, you are missing the point. I'm talking about PERSONAL risk where
you are putting yourself in danger not public risk where you are putting
others in danger. So, do you agree that if a person wants to do something
stupid than puts himself in danger that's his right?

 

[no spam]

... the government is not threatening to kill me if I [do] not wear my

Not much, you get a fine. Nobody is going to shoot you for not wearing a

Wrong. Let me tell you what happens if you ignore a ticket in the US. You
get what is called a bench warrant issued for you arrest. That is an arrest
warrant issued by a judge and there is no bail allowed for a bench warrant.
This means that you maybe arrested at any time and place in jail until you
can be brought before, in most areas, the judge who issued the bench
warrant. IIRC, a bench warrant arrest is much like a contempt of court
arrest you may be held until the judge releases you under what ever terms he
sets. There was one case where the US Congress stepped in and forced a
federal judge to release a person being held in contempt, after that person
had been in jail for almost 2 years with no charges against them (woman in a
child custody case refused to tell where the child was).

seat belt. Like it or not this is not 1776, according to you
blacks must still only count as half a person, and only male landowners
could vote?

Its a lot scarier in some respects now than then. I don't think back then
you would have seen the government taking private property from one person
and giving it to another using eminent domain. Nor having judges ruling
from the bench.

 

[no spam]

Where do we stop. How about you paid my mortage payment, after all if

I'm talking about other countries, most western nations have far more
social programs than the USA,
"And as a result are healthier, live longer, have less crime and are
better educated".

I, again, point out that the cultural differences have much more effect on
these than almost any government action. I will also point out that a lot
of these nations are not having problems supporting all of these social
programs. Seems the more people you having taking money from the government
the fewer you have paying into it.

I rest my case

What, that throwing tax money at a problem is the way to solve it? A lot of
these people are totally dependent on government hand outs.

Look at how other countries are doing it, they are doing a much better job
of it.

Like France? How long ago was it that they were having riots because people
felt that the government was not giving them enough money? Hasn't France,
Germany and England had to start 'rationing' the government support they
allow?

And one last small thing, France, Germany, England and the rest of these
counties lived for 50 years under the protection of the US which allowed
them to spend more of their money on these programs and less on their own
defense. How much more money do you think they would have had to have spent
if it had not been for US troops on the ground?

 

[Balanced View]

Hitler's Rise to Power
Once released from prison, Hitler decided to seize power
constitutionally rather than by force of arms. Using demagogic
oratory, Hitler spoke to scores of mass audiences, calling for the
German people to resist the yoke of Jews and Communists, and to create
a new empire which would rule the world for 1,000 years.
...
Rise to Power: 1930-1933
The Nazis gradually devised an electoral strategy to win northern
farmers and white collar voters in small towns, which produced a
landslide electoral victory in September 1930 (jump from roughly 3% to
18% of the votes cast) due to the depression. Refused a chance to form
a cabinet, and unwilling to share in a coalition regime, the Nazis
joined the Communists in violence and disorder between 1931 and 1933.
In 1932, Hitler ran for President and won 30% of the vote, forcing the
eventual victor, Paul von Hindenburg, into a runoff election. After a
bigger landslide in July 1932 (44%), their vote declined and their
movement weakened (Hitler lost the presidential election to WWI
veteran Paul von Hindenburg in April; elections of November 1932
roughly 42%), so Hitler decided to enter a coalition government as
chancellor in January 1933.

Upon the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler was the consensus
successor. With an improving economy, Hitler claimed credit and
consolidated his position as a dictator, having succeeded in
eliminating challenges from other political parties and government
institutions.
...
The Creation of the Nazi Dictatorship, 1933-1939
Phase One, 1933-1934
Nazi domestic policy can be broken into three phases beginning with
1933-34. During these years, Hitler consolidated his authority through
the destruction of all other political parties, "coordination" of all
aspects of German life, and the liquidation of dissent among Nazis and
conservatives. After taking office as chancellor, Hitler quickly out
maneuvered Papen and the conservative nationalists.

The Reichstag Fire, February 1933

A new Reichstag election was scheduled for early March 1933. Only a
few days before the election, on February 27, the Reichstag building
was partially destroyed by fire. The Nazis may well have set the
blaze, but they blamed the Communists, charging that the Communists
were plotting to seize power. Hitler convinced Hindenburg to take
strong action against the supposed Communist threat, and the president
suspended freedom of speech and the press and other civil liberties.

{Can you say 9/11?}
{Can you identify the object in the red oval?}
http://www.synapticsparks.info/911/1-767anomaly5.jpg
{Hint: Print the image out on a 9.5 X 11 piece of what paper. Rotated
and centered to fit}

March 1933 Election

The Nazis stepped up their harassment of their political opponents,
and the March 5 election was held in an atmosphere of fear and
intimidation. Polling 44 percent of the votes, the Nazis won 288 seats
in the Reichstag. With the support of their conservative nationalist
allies, who held 52 seats, the Nazis controlled a majority of the 647
member Reichstag. The Nazi majority was even more substantial, since
none of the 81 Communist deputies were allowed to take their seats.

The Enabling Act, March 1933

On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which gave
dictatorial authority to Hitler's cabinet for four years. Armed with
full powers, Hitler moved to eliminate all possible centers of
opposition. His policy is known as Gleichschaltung, which translates
literally as coordination. In this context, however, it meant more
precisely subordination, that is, subordinating all independent
institutions to the authority of Hitler and the Nazi Party.

{Can you say Patriot Act?}

It was the Enabling Act of March 23, 1933, which in a legal way
conferred dictatorial powers on Adolf Hitler. Only 94 Social
Democratic votes were cast against it. The date for its abrogation
(see Article 5) was never kept. Indeed, the Enabling Act is the last
measure which the Reichstag passed under the republican and democratic
Constitution of the Republic. It spelled its end and the beginning of
National Socialist dictatorship.
http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/hitler.html

Let me repeat that critical sentence:
"It was the Enabling Act of March 23, 1933, which in a legal way
conferred dictatorial powers on Adolf Hitler."

And then in a legal way, laws were passed to remove guns from the people.

Do you think those Jews would have died in those camps if they had
guns (Pistols, rifles, and shot guns)?

Now getting back to the point:
Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?

The Enabling Act was a special power allowed by the Weimar Constitution
to give the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree without the
involvement of the Reichstag. These special powers would remain in
effect for four years, after which time they were eligible to be
renewed. Under the existing Weimar constitution, under Article 48, the
President could rule by decree in times of emergency. Hitler burned down
the Reichstag, effectively removing any way of the democratic government
from rescinding it. In short he was a dictator, comparing Nazi Germany
to modern Europe is ludicrous

 

[Steve Spence]

Solar Flare wrote:


Nothing worth replying to.
This post is just so he knows I read his tripe.

And that's all that he needs to fulfill his need for human interaction and
self importance.

 

[Balanced View]

Context for this dialog:

Balanced View wrote:
Laws are based on reasonable risk.

Dale E wrote:
Laws are a politician's commands, backed by threat of force, up to,
and including killing you.

Balanced View wrote:

Dale E wrote:



Balanced View wrote:


... the government is not threatening to kill me if I [do] not
wear my seatbelt.



You must have missed the part where I said the Federal thugs were
spending $500 million on the "click it or ticket" program.

You know...? The one where they issue tickets for non-compliance
with a politician's command?

What happens if you ignore that ticket?



Not much, you get a fine.


And when I refuse to pay that fine?

I don't know about your state, but where I live you can't renew your
license sticker if you don't pay the fine.

And when I drive that vehicle anyway?

Then you are an idiot who has escalated a small fine into a much bigger
one and possible jail time.

 

[Balanced View]

You made the issue about a typo by using your "rhetorical skills".
Perhaps if instead of practicing your "rhetorical skills" you should
have spent more time practicing your "critical thinking skills" or
your "logical skills".

I'm done with this sub-thread. You may have the last word and
continue to spout gibberish... er, use your "rhetorical skills".

Everything I've posted as fact is factual, just because you don't agree
with it doesn't make it gibberish.

 

[Balanced View]

Then my point is even more valid. There MUST be a reasonable risk in using
ladders, just look at the number of warning stickers on them.

There is, but not enough to do more than put warning stickers on them.

More proof for my point. Seeing as how people must be protected from
themselves by being forced to wear hardhats and steel toed boots even if the
people don't want to then shouldn't the government then force us to protect
ourselves from every other danger?

My point is if I'm a worker and I don't want to wear a hard hat that should
be MY choice. And if I get hurt when something hits me it my head then it
should be my problem. What right do you or anyone else have to tell me how
to live my life?

Then that makes you one of the "Stupid People", job related injuries are
very high on construction sites.

Nope, its just your logic pointed out to you to the extreme.

What's your stand on the government forcing you to buy a car with an air
bag? What if a car company said it wanted to build and sell a car w/o
airbags? You'd go screaming into the night about how the government HAS to
prevent this because it could get someone hurt. Yet when I point that there
are people dieing EVERY DAY and there death could be prevented you just
shrug it off.

No, I wouldn't because I know because studies show
seatbelts/airbags/crush zones prevent death and
serious injury. BMW & Volvo, of which I've owned both, had crush zones
and proper seat belts long
before American companies were forced to install them.

Answer this question: If the government has the right to force you to buy a
car with air bags and seatbelts because these reduce your risk of being
injured or killed in an accident then why does it not have the right to
force you to buy a car with a roll cage, 6 point racing harness, automatic
fire suppression system and the other things that save the lives of NASCAR
drivers to reduce your risk of injury or death even more?

The government has not forced me to buy anything, if a car had all that
I'd buy it tomorrow. My 67 MGB
had all that, ( installed myself) 20 years ago.

First off a little math, 60 + 60 = 120 that means in a head on collision the
forces are equal to an impact with a stationary object at 120 mph.

There is no way to protect an occupant of a direct head on collision at
120mph, the instant deceleration from
that speed to 0 in a second causes brain damage, even if the compartment
remains reasonably intact. It's like
an egg in a shell, it gets scrambled, as they are now finding out in
bomb blasts in highly armored military vehicles,
where the occupants are wearing full body armor.

But people are STILL dieing every day because the cars are not built to a
high enough standard.

Not the case at all, it's stupid people exceeding the speed limit,
driving drunk/high or tired.

My point still is where does the government get the right to tell me what
risk I can and can not take and where does it stop?




I see now, you are missing the point. I'm talking about PERSONAL risk where
you are putting yourself in danger not public risk where you are putting
others in danger. So, do you agree that if a person wants to do something
stupid than puts himself in danger that's his right?

No, I'm not. Stupid people don't even consider the risk to others, over
even note that they are putting others at risk,
hence the laws. There is also the chance of your action having
unforeseen consequences, eg you driving without a seat belt,
being thrown from the car into oncoming traffic in an accident. Very
little of what any of us do is without consequences to
someone else.

 

[Balanced View]

... the government is not threatening to kill me if I [do] not wear my
seatbelt.

You must have missed the part where I said the Federal thugs were
spending $500 million on the "click it or ticket" program.

You know...? The one where they issue tickets for non-compliance with a
politician's command?

What happens if you ignore that ticket?

Not much, you get a fine. Nobody is going to shoot you for not wearing a

Wrong. Let me tell you what happens if you ignore a ticket in the US. You
get what is called a bench warrant issued for you arrest. That is an arrest
warrant issued by a judge and there is no bail allowed for a bench warrant.
This means that you maybe arrested at any time and place in jail until you
can be brought before, in most areas, the judge who issued the bench
warrant. IIRC, a bench warrant arrest is much like a contempt of court
arrest you may be held until the judge releases you under what ever terms he
sets. There was one case where the US Congress stepped in and forced a
federal judge to release a person being held in contempt, after that person
had been in jail for almost 2 years with no charges against them (woman in a
child custody case refused to tell where the child was).

Nobody is going to shoot you for a minor traffic violation, unless you
act like an asshole and pull a gun on
a police officer. You've just made the best case for gun control I've
ever heard, idiots should not have firearms.

Its a lot scarier in some respects now than then. I don't think back then
you would have seen the government taking private property from one person
and giving it to another using eminent domain. Nor having judges ruling
from the bench.

Yes, I'd have to admit George Bush is the scariest thing I've seen in
recent years.

 

[Balanced View]

I, again, point out that the cultural differences have much more effect on
these than almost any government action. I will also point out that a lot
of these nations are not having problems supporting all of these social
programs. Seems the more people you having taking money from the government
the fewer you have paying into it.

Canada has had a balance budget since 1996/97, a shrinking debt, and the
lowest debt to GDP in the G8.
You can't do that without tax payers.

What, that throwing tax money at a problem is the way to solve it? A lot of
these people are totally dependent on government hand outs.

You miss the point, you have to have programs in place for re-education
and income/ healthcare support while
they are retraining. This is what other countries are doing and it works.

Like France? How long ago was it that they were having riots because people
felt that the government was not giving them enough money? Hasn't France,
Germany and England had to start 'rationing' the government support they
allow?

And one last small thing, France, Germany, England and the rest of these
counties lived for 50 years under the protection of the US which allowed
them to spend more of their money on these programs and less on their own
defense. How much more money do you think they would have had to have spent
if it had not been for US troops on the ground?

An old and very tired argument, The USA has not spent this money to
protect Europe, but to control access
to resources for corporations

 

[Balanced View]

Balanced View wrote:




Silence speaks volumes.



Silence speaks volumes




Did the Enabling Act happen by political process or by gunpoint force?




Like the patriot act?




Did he get to decree what constituted an emergency like George "it's
just a goddamned piece of paper" Bush does?



In short he came to that dictatorial power via legal means.
In short be became a dictator over a Republic.

No he didn't, he removed all democratic oversight by burning down the
Reichstag. At that point he became a dictator.

Now getting back to the point:
Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?

No one. This is not Nazi Germany in the 1930's

 

[Balanced View]

Context for this dialog:

Balanced View wrote:
Laws are based on reasonable risk.

Dale E wrote:
Laws are a politician's commands, backed by threat of force, up to,
and including killing you.


Balanced View wrote:

Dale E wrote:



Balanced View wrote:

Dale E wrote:



Balanced View wrote:


... the government is not threatening to kill me if I [do] not
wear my seatbelt.




You must have missed the part where I said the Federal thugs
were spending $500 million on the "click it or ticket" program.

You know...? The one where they issue tickets for
non-compliance with a politician's command?

What happens if you ignore that ticket?




Not much, you get a fine.



And when I refuse to pay that fine?



I don't know about your state, but where I live you can't renew
your license sticker if you don't pay the fine.


And when I drive that vehicle anyway?

Then you are an idiot who has escalated a small fine into a much
bigger one and possible jail time.

And when I drive that vehicle anyway?

We have already determined that by doing so would make you an idiot.
That being the case, discussing anything
further with you would be a waste of time.......

 

[no spam]

... the government is not threatening to kill me if I [do] not wear my

Nobody is going to shoot you for a minor traffic violation, unless you act
like an asshole and pull a gun on
a police officer. You've just made the best case for gun control I've ever
heard, idiots should not have firearms.

Try reading EVERYTHING. You will note the first part of the quote, I'll
requote it for you here: "Not much, you get a fine."

I try to edit just enough to keep the length of the msg down. I don't edit
out everything that does not pertain to my response. Usually the person
reading the msg is intelligent enough to figure this out but some times
there is a problem with misreading. Seeing as you quickly went to name
calling I'm thinking its a problem with your intelligence. Please try to
find someone who is able to read the msg and explain it to you.

You low intelligence seems to be the reason you missed the point of the orig
poster. All laws are backed up with the power of the government which is
backed up with the possible use of force.