| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gregory Gadow" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2003 10:38:58 AM |
| Object: |
My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I didn't speak up because I wanted security in my country.
Then they came for other foreigners.
I didn't speak up because I was a citizen.
Then they came for the anti-war protestors.
I didn't speak up because I supported our troops.
Then they came for the homosexuals.
I didn't speak up because I believe gay marriage is wrong.
Then they came for the atheists.
I didn't speak up because this country was founded on Christian
principles.
Then they came for the unionists.
I didn't speak up because free-enterprise capitalism will keep America
strong.
Then they came for the feminists.
I didn't speak up because a woman's place is in the home.
Then they came for the Democrats.
I didn't speak up because I had voted Republican.
Then they came for me.
And no one was left to speak up.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
04 Dec 2003 06:13:36 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3FC23422.3798E2D2@serv.net>...
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I didn't speak up because I wanted security in my country.
The terrorists came for Americans.
Because the CIA taught them how to be terrorists.
The government came for Americans' rights.
Because Americans didn't bother using them.
The corporations came for Americans' money.
Because Americans believed "spending equals freedom".
The government came for Americans' brains.
Because Americans didn't think for themselves.
The fascists came for the media.
Because American people didn't want to be informed.
The vainglorious came for the microphones.
Because Americans wouldn't speak for themselves.
President Shrub came for Americans.
Because no other jerkoff could ***** up that much.
The terrorism came to America.
Because the American government brought it home.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
24 Nov 2003 10:59:02 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom" for "security".
Then the terrorists came for me.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
24 Nov 2003 11:10:02 AM |
|
|
2003-11-24, 05:59:02 PM, Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom" for "security".
Then the terrorists came for me.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
If it is true that terrorists attacked USA because they hate the
freedom, then I guess getting rid of freedom is a kind of defense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
24 Nov 2003 11:24:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:10:02 GMT in alt.atheism, Maverick ("Maverick"
<insensitive_clod@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
2003-11-24, 05:59:02 PM, Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom" for "security".
Then the terrorists came for me.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
If it is true that terrorists attacked USA because they hate the
freedom, then I guess getting rid of freedom is a kind of defense.
Lol. Excellent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hanover Fist" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 01:21:53 AM |
|
|
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<KXqwb.4934$uv1.3763@nntpserver.swip.net>...
2003-11-24, 05:59:02 PM, Fred Stone wrote:
If it is true that terrorists attacked USA because they hate the
freedom, then I guess getting rid of freedom is a kind of defense.
Perfect quote!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anonymous Nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
24 Nov 2003 12:48:35 PM |
|
|
In article <KXqwb.4934$uv1.3763@nntpserver.swip.net>, Maverick
<insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote:
2003-11-24, 05:59:02 PM, Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom" for "security".
Then the terrorists came for me.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
If it is true that terrorists attacked USA because they hate the
freedom, then I guess getting rid of freedom is a kind of defense.
I think I read somewhere that Osama said he wouldn't mind if the US
became a "truly" Christian nation. The things you can get a cartoon
character to say.
Sean C
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 12:57:45 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:10:02 GMT the ET form known as
Maverick<insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
2003-11-24, 05:59:02 PM, Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom" for "security".
Then the terrorists came for me.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
If it is true that terrorists attacked USA because they hate the
freedom, then I guess getting rid of freedom is a kind of defense.
Kind of hard to explain the bombings in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, in
terms of "they hate freedom". Not a lot of freedom in SA to hate. I
guess the "they hate freedom" line of analysis is just simplistic
nonsense.
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 03:01:06 PM |
|
|
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a2da170fb2a2ac1989c72@news.optusnet.com.au>...
I guess the "they hate freedom" line of analysis
is just simplistic nonsense.
Your is the only post in this thread that doesn't seem to be
simplistic nonsense. I mean, it starts with a slippery slope fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
26 Nov 2003 03:39:42 PM |
|
|
<alt.atheism.holysmoke removed>
On 25 Nov 2003 13:01:06 -0800 the ET form known as Hector
Plasmic<hec@hectorplasmic.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a2da170fb2a2ac1989c72@news.optusnet.com.au>...
I guess the "they hate freedom" line of analysis
is just simplistic nonsense.
Your is the only post in this thread that doesn't seem to be
simplistic nonsense. I mean, it starts with a slippery slope fallacy.
????
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
26 Nov 2003 08:12:54 AM |
|
|
Hector Plasmic wrote:
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a2da170fb2a2ac1989c72@news.optusnet.com.au>...
I guess the "they hate freedom" line of analysis
is just simplistic nonsense.
Your is the only post in this thread that doesn't seem to be
simplistic nonsense. I mean, it starts with a slippery slope fallacy.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is the one slipping down the slope. They *did* come for people who were merely suspected of terrorist
activities. Then they *did* come for people with no terrorist ties but who were simply from a long list of countries. Now they *are* going after
anti-war protesters and other political opponents.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy when there is an established pattern of sliding on the scree.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
26 Nov 2003 12:16:09 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3FC4B4E6.93DB39F0@serv.net>...
I guess the "they hate freedom" line of analysis
is just simplistic nonsense.
Your is the only post in this thread that doesn't
seem to be simplistic nonsense. I mean, it starts
with a slippery slope fallacy.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is the one slipping
down the slope. They *did* come for people who were merely
suspected of terrorist activities. Then they *did* come for
people with no terrorist ties but who were simply from a long
list of countries. Now they *are* going after anti-war
protesters and other political opponents.
Documentation on all charges, please. Thanks in advance. And you can
skip the usual "baby-killing fascist" rhetoric -- if you can't make a
case with straight facts, I'm just not interested.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 03:01:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:27:45 +1030, Meteorite Debris
<epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:10:02 GMT the ET form known as
Maverick<insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
2003-11-24, 05:59:02 PM, Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom" for "security".
Then the terrorists came for me.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
If it is true that terrorists attacked USA because they hate the
freedom, then I guess getting rid of freedom is a kind of defense.
Kind of hard to explain the bombings in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, in
terms of "they hate freedom". Not a lot of freedom in SA to hate. I
guess the "they hate freedom" line of analysis is just simplistic
nonsense.
Obviously. The sad thing is that so many people fall for it. And that
our leaders knowingly lie about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 04:27:52 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vs4e5e87rujb96@news.supernews.com>...
Gregory Gadow wrote:
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom" for "security".
Then the terrorists came for me.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
That's what the Nazis said for killing the Jewish 'terrorists' in
Warsaw Ghetto.
Warsaw Ghetto
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Warsaw+Ghetto%22&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Warsaw+Ghetto%22&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Warsaw+Ghetto%22&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Warsaw%20Ghetto&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 03:02:46 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vs4e5e87rujb96@news.supernews.com>...
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom"
for "security".
Well, Ben Franklin applauds you.
Then the terrorists came for me.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
I believe there's a difference between standing up for freedom and
lying down for terror, Fred.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 04:10:36 PM |
|
|
Hector Plasmic wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vs4e5e87rujb96@news.supernews.com>...
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom"
for "security".
Well, Ben Franklin applauds you.
Then the terrorists came for me.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
I believe there's a difference between standing up for freedom and
lying down for terror, Fred.
I'm sure you do. Can you explain why they sound the same on TV?
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
26 Nov 2003 08:16:16 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vs7kqkqclthr99@news.supernews.com>...
I believe there's a difference between
standing up for freedom and lying down
for terror, Fred.
I'm sure you do. Can you explain why they
sound the same on TV?
That makes little sense at all.
If you feel we must give up freedom for security, Fred, I'm afraid, as
Franklin said, that you deserve neither.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
26 Nov 2003 11:15:11 AM |
|
|
Hector Plasmic wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vs7kqkqclthr99@news.supernews.com>...
I believe there's a difference between
standing up for freedom and lying down
for terror, Fred.
I'm sure you do. Can you explain why they
sound the same on TV?
That makes little sense at all.
If you feel we must give up freedom for security, Fred, I'm afraid, as
Franklin said, that you deserve neither.
I don't feel that. I feel that those who *say* that are exaggerating the
practical effects of the Patriot Act and the other policies of the War
on Terror. Grossly exaggerating, for political effect (Presidential
mudslinging politics). And therefore what they say on TV sounds as if
they would rather lie down for the terrorists than fight them.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
28 Nov 2003 07:05:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:11 -0500, Fred Stone wrote:
If you feel we must give up freedom for security, Fred, I'm afraid, as
Franklin said, that you deserve neither.
I don't feel that. I feel that those who *say* that are exaggerating the
practical effects of the Patriot Act and the other policies of the War
on Terror.
Quite odd, since it's said often by NRA spokesmen, prominent Republicans,
radio talk show hosts and television pundits like Rush and Hannity and
O'Reilly. Those the sort of people you meant?
Your problem is that you are defending the Patriot Act "by any means
necessary" rather than addressing what's actually being said -- often as
big a problem for people a bit too dedicated to the right as those too
dedicated to the left.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
28 Nov 2003 09:28:04 PM |
|
|
Hector Plasmic wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:11 -0500, Fred Stone wrote:
If you feel we must give up freedom for security, Fred, I'm afraid, as
Franklin said, that you deserve neither.
I don't feel that. I feel that those who *say* that are exaggerating the
practical effects of the Patriot Act and the other policies of the War
on Terror.
Quite odd, since it's said often by NRA spokesmen, prominent Republicans,
radio talk show hosts and television pundits like Rush and Hannity and
O'Reilly. Those the sort of people you meant?
Yes, I'm sure they use the same historical quote for their own purposes
having nothing to do with the left's hysterical exaggerations about the
Patriot Act and the other policies of the War on Terror, such as the
exercise in silliness called a "take" on Niemoller's famous slippery slope.
Your problem is that you are defending the Patriot Act "by any means
necessary" rather than addressing what's actually being said -- often as
big a problem for people a bit too dedicated to the right as those too
dedicated to the left.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
01 Dec 2003 09:17:25 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vsg4hamc3gfk0d@news.supernews.com>...
Yes, I'm sure they use the same historical quote
for their own purposes having nothing to do with
the left's hysterical exaggerations about the
Patriot Act
Actually, you'll find an awful lot of folks on the right who are
against some portions of the Patriot Act. I'm one of them. So are
people like Rush and Hannity. One of the reasons Rush gave is that
he's worried what'll be done with some of those powers when the next
Clinton gets into office, which is actually one of the smarter things
out of Mt. Addiction's mouth lately. Again:
Your problem is that you are defending the Patriot Act "by any
means necessary" rather than addressing what's actually being
said -- often as big a problem for people a bit too dedicated
to the right as those too dedicated to the left.
Hec
http://hectorplasmic.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
24 Nov 2003 11:07:52 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom" for "security".
Then the terrorists came for me.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
<THUD>
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
24 Nov 2003 07:47:58 PM |
|
|
In article <vs4e5e87rujb96@news.supernews.com>,
says...
Gregory Gadow wrote:
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom" for "security".
Then the terrorists came for me.
But I wasn't a *****-***** little grovelling coward, who pretends to be
tough when not wetting his pants. I shot the terrorists down in self-
defense and I wasn't worried about anthrax because I had a dust mask
and/or antibiotics. I demanded that my government take real steps to
provide for my physical safety instead of running around like keystone
cops and trying to play "whack a mole" with the billions of other
potential "terrorists" who might not agree with all US policies. I
made sure that my government got real airline security measures in place,
instead of the horseshit half-measures George W. tried to foist after
billions of dollars of senseless giveaways.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
You mean you can't defend yourself? You aren't very deserving of life in
the first place if that's the case. You may think that a police state is
the only thing that can protect your sorry *****, but the rest of us won't
live that way. The problem isn't us. It's your sorry *****.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
24 Nov 2003 08:39:12 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <vs4e5e87rujb96@news.supernews.com>,
says...
Gregory Gadow wrote:
First they came for the suspected terrorists.
I spoke up because I won't give up my "freedom" for "security".
Then the terrorists came for me.
But I wasn't a *****-***** little grovelling coward, who pretends to be
tough when not wetting his pants. I shot the terrorists down in self-
defense
And then you were arrested for using excessive force.
and I wasn't worried about anthrax because I had a dust mask
and/or antibiotics.
Whoops, they used nerve gas. You don't have a MOPP suit.
I demanded that my government take real steps to
provide for my physical safety instead of running around like keystone
cops and trying to play "whack a mole" with the billions of other
potential "terrorists" who might not agree with all US policies.
Then you whined about how "tyrannical" they were for doing what you
demanded.
I made sure that my government got real airline security measures in place,
Then you whined about "racial profiling" when they searched middle
eastern types instead of old grandmothers.
instead of the horseshit half-measures George W. tried to foist after
billions of dollars of senseless giveaways.
Ah, politics. Your party didn't get the credit for spending it, so it
must be senseless giveaways.
I didn't speak up because I was dead.
You mean you can't defend yourself?
From a suicide bomber? Or an aerosol can of anthrax at the mall? Tell
me, how were the folks on the 103rd floor of the WTC supposed to defend
themselves?
Hell, with your gun control advocates around, I can't even defend myself
from a crackhead with a kitchen knife.
You aren't very deserving of life in
the first place if that's the case.
You're a moron if you think you can defend yourself better than the
government we *pay* to defend you, if you didn't hamstring the
government because you're more afraid of your Orwellian wet dreams than
you are of the real bad guys.
You may think that a police state is
the only thing that can protect your sorry *****, but the rest of us won't
live that way. The problem isn't us. It's your sorry *****.
Oh yawn. The police state is between your ears. And yes, it's you who're
the problem. The bad guys hear whiners like you and figure, hey, we just
have to hold out for a little while longer and Quibbler will give us
everything we ever wanted, just so he doesn't have to worry about The
Great Demonic Ashcroft seeing his library reading list.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
24 Nov 2003 09:58:40 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vs5g6hqsrtij3e@news.supernews.com...
quibbler wrote:
[...]
You mean you can't defend yourself?
From a suicide bomber? Or an aerosol can of anthrax at the mall? Tell
me, how were the folks on the 103rd floor of the WTC supposed to defend
themselves?
Hell, with your gun control advocates around, I can't even defend myself
from a crackhead with a kitchen knife.
This isn't true, Fred, and you know it. Who has prevented you from
purchasing a gun if you wish? Do you think a background check or a waiting
period is equivalent to outright denying you that right?
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 08:58:43 AM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vs5g6hqsrtij3e@news.supernews.com...
quibbler wrote:
[...]
You mean you can't defend yourself?
From a suicide bomber? Or an aerosol can of anthrax at the mall? Tell
me, how were the folks on the 103rd floor of the WTC supposed to defend
themselves?
Hell, with your gun control advocates around, I can't even defend myself
from a crackhead with a kitchen knife.
This isn't true, Fred, and you know it. Who has prevented you from
purchasing a gun if you wish? Do you think a background check or a waiting
period is equivalent to outright denying you that right?
This is strawman lala land in this thread, so I'm exaggerating just like
quibbler did. The gun controllers haven't got their way *yet*.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 12:14:40 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vs6rhgdou1jt78@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vs5g6hqsrtij3e@news.supernews.com...
quibbler wrote:
[...]
You mean you can't defend yourself?
From a suicide bomber? Or an aerosol can of anthrax at the mall? Tell
me, how were the folks on the 103rd floor of the WTC supposed to defend
themselves?
Hell, with your gun control advocates around, I can't even defend
myself from a crackhead with a kitchen knife.
This isn't true, Fred, and you know it. Who has prevented you from
purchasing a gun if you wish? Do you think a background check or a
waiting period is equivalent to outright denying you that right?
This is strawman lala land in this thread, so I'm exaggerating just like
quibbler did. The gun controllers haven't got their way *yet*.
There is a difference between exaggerating and telling an outright untruth.
You said that with gun control advocates around, you "can't even defend
[yourself]". That is a statement made in present tense. It is not
indicative of some future state. Do you agree then that your original claim
was false, that you most certainly can defend yourself?
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote. |
25 Nov 2003 01:10:36 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vs6rhgdou1jt78@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vs5g6hqsrtij3e@news.supernews.com...
quibbler wrote:
[...]
You mean you can't defend yourself?
From a suicide bomber? Or an aerosol can of anthrax at the mall? Tell
me, how were the folks on the 103rd floor of the WTC supposed to defend
themselves?
Hell, with your gun control advocates around, I can't even defend
myself from a crackhead with a kitchen knife.
This isn't true, Fred, and you know it. Who has prevented you from
purchasing a gun if you wish? Do you think a background check or a
waiting period is equivalent to outright denying you that right?
This is strawman lala land in this thread, so I'm exaggerating just like
quibbler did. The gun controllers haven't got their way *yet*.
There is a difference between exaggerating and telling an outright untruth.
There is also a difference between banter and serious debate.
You said that with gun control advocates around, you "can't even defend
[yourself]". That is a statement made in present tense. It is not
indicative of some future state. Do you agree then that your original claim
was false, that you most certainly can defend yourself?
I took quibbler's dopey old strawmen and turned them around and
exaggerated them even more and stuffed them back in his face. Now he's
gone one step farther, with his fabulous abilities at self-defense
against surprise attacks with WMD's. I'm still laughing too hard to
compose a good reply to that one but I'm working on it.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 11:10:59 AM |
|
|
In article <vs6rhgdou1jt78@news.supernews.com>,
says...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone < > wrote in message
news:vs5g6hqsrtij3e@news.supernews.com...
quibbler wrote:
[...]
You mean you can't defend yourself?
From a suicide bomber? Or an aerosol can of anthrax at the mall? Tell
me, how were the folks on the 103rd floor of the WTC supposed to defend
themselves?
Hell, with your gun control advocates around, I can't even defend myself
from a crackhead with a kitchen knife.
This isn't true, Fred, and you know it. Who has prevented you from
purchasing a gun if you wish? Do you think a background check or a waiting
period is equivalent to outright denying you that right?
This is strawman lala land in this thread, so I'm exaggerating just like
quibbler did. The gun controllers haven't got their way *yet*.
Yeah, whatever, liar. I think that in many cases bullet control would be
more effective than gun control anyway, especially with respect to
violent felons being able to easily buy ammo at any walmart. I think
that we should have gun laws more like Canada, where you need a valid
justfication for owning certain firearms above and beyond "I gots ta
defend masef from all da crackheads wit kitchen knives". There are
plenty of non-lethal options these days, but you refuse to even consider
them, apparently. I carry one or more non-lethal options most of the
time and have yet to fend off any knife wielding crackheads with them :).
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 12:47:45 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <vs6rhgdou1jt78@news.supernews.com>,
says...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone < > wrote in message
news:vs5g6hqsrtij3e@news.supernews.com...
quibbler wrote:
[...]
You mean you can't defend yourself?
From a suicide bomber? Or an aerosol can of anthrax at the mall? Tell
me, how were the folks on the 103rd floor of the WTC supposed to defend
themselves?
Hell, with your gun control advocates around, I can't even defend myself
from a crackhead with a kitchen knife.
This isn't true, Fred, and you know it. Who has prevented you from
purchasing a gun if you wish? Do you think a background check or a waiting
period is equivalent to outright denying you that right?
This is strawman lala land in this thread, so I'm exaggerating just like
quibbler did. The gun controllers haven't got their way *yet*.
Yeah, whatever, liar.
Aww, quibbler's glass house got hit by a Stone.
I think that in many cases bullet control would be
more effective than gun control anyway, especially with respect to
violent felons being able to easily buy ammo at any walmart. I think
that we should have gun laws more like Canada, where you need a valid
justfication for owning certain firearms above and beyond "I gots ta
defend masef from all da crackheads wit kitchen knives". There are
plenty of non-lethal options these days, but you refuse to even consider
them, apparently.
I'm not doing it for crowd control. If I shoot somebody it's because
he's a *present* danger to my life.
I carry one or more non-lethal options most of the
time and have yet to fend off any knife wielding crackheads with them :).
And hopefully the one you *do* have to defend yourself against doesn't
just take it from you because it wasn't enough to put him *down*.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: My take on Niemoller's famous quote |
25 Nov 2003 04:51:36 PM |
|
|
In article <vs78ubh8dj7e4c@news.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <vs6rhgdou1jt78@news.supernews.com>,
says...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone < > wrote in message
news:vs5g6hqsrtij3e@news.supernews.com...
quibbler wrote:
[...]
You mean you can't defend yourself?
From a suicide bomber? Or an aerosol can of anthrax at the mall? Tell
me, how were the folks on the 103rd floor of the WTC supposed to defend
themselves?
Hell, with your gun control advocates around, I can't even defend myself
from a crackhead with a kitchen knife.
This isn't true, Fred, and you know it. Who has prevented you from
purchasing a gun if you wish? Do you think a background check or a waiting
period is equivalent to outright denying you that right?
This is strawman lala land in this thread, so I'm exaggerating just like
quibbler did. The gun controllers haven't got their way *yet*.
Yeah, whatever, liar.
Aww, quibbler's glass house got hit by a Stone.
Not a very big or impressive stone though. I live a bulletproof glass
house with tinted windows, thank you very much.
I think that in many cases bullet control would be
more effective than gun control anyway, especially with respect to
violent felons being able to easily buy ammo at any walmart. I think
that we should have gun laws more like Canada, where you need a valid
justfication for owning certain firearms above and beyond "I gots ta
defend masef from all da crackheads wit kitchen knives". There are
plenty of non-lethal options these days, but you refuse to even consider
them, apparently.
I'm not doing it for crowd control. If I shoot somebody it's because
he's a *present* danger to my life.
Yes, but we've found that many of the rednecks in the NRA are too stupid
to understand the proper and lawful instances where deadly force is
necessary or permissible. I'm hoping that you're a little smarter, but I
doubt that you've studied the gun law in your state recently.
I carry one or more non-lethal options most of the
time and have yet to fend off any knife wielding crackheads with them :).
And hopefully the one you *do* have to defend yourself against doesn't
just take it from you because it wasn't enough to put him *down*.
Many devices are designed to be inoperable if taken, but I'm not too
worried anyway. When I think there might be danger I usually take an
assortment of things. I often have a small stun device or pepper
sprayer, plus a potentially lethal, quick opening lock blade. I've come
close to having to use these on people, but so far have only had to mace
only one german shepherd.
I still find that I can carry entirely legal stuff and feel safe in most
environments.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
