03 September 2008

Sarah Palin



I'll let the lady speak for herself....
Here's a transcript of her speech tonight:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/story?id=5720910&page=1



Some notable quotes:

"The difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." [my personal favorite]

**********
"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.
We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco. "

**********

"But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people. "

**********

"That luxury jet [AK governor's] was over the top. I put it on eBay."

**********

"With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign [oil] suppliers."

**********

"But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all."

**********

"And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain."


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

SARAH PALIN FOR VICE PRESIDENT!!!!

...oh, and I guess that means mccain for President, too.....

...it just ain't a perfect world.........

22 comments:

1735099 said...

We had a version of Palin in this Country (Australia). Her name is Pauline Hanson. She turned out to be a disaster for the Conservatives.
See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson

TouchStone said...

Well, they're both female, so you got at least one thing right.
...other than that, you're as ate-up as dud rounds usually are.

When did you first discover your allergy to facts?

1735099 said...

The reason you have such a strong right-wing conservative movement in the US is because your national values have become slave to rampant materialism. The Christian Right seeks solace in born-again churches, and "politicians" like Palin are the result.
As to dud rounds - the only examples of these I'm familiar with were many of the GIs I served beside in Vietnam. Many of them were poorly-trained, led by incompetents, and high on a range of illicit substances.
We called it "left-handed" tobacco.
Our commanders gave them a wide berth. One of your gunners behind a 155mm Howitzer almost cleaned up my platoon when we were in a night harbour in Phuoc Tuy. We discovered later that his whole section was smoking dope.
Your country has gone to the dogs - perhaps it can be rescued by the Democrats.
Good luck.

TouchStone said...

It was dumbascraps like jean-françois kerrì, wes clark, and jim webb who were in that crowd you describe.
McCain, however, was "indisposed" in the Hanoi Hilton for a spell.
Those others (like purple-bandaid kerrì) were busy pissin' all over the troops STILL FIGHTING in the 'Nam...quite possibly while YOU were there.

Now, you were blathering something about dumbascraps and "values"?

BTW, America was founded with Judeo-Christian values, reinforced with the pragmatic realization that capitalism IS what motivates most humans. It's a realistic, functional system that made my country the greatest nation in history.
Ain't braggin', just stating fact.
Name me ONE other nation that has liberated more nations and freed more people than the United States.
Name me ONE nation that gives more to the world in food, disease treatment and disaster aid than the United States.
Name me ONE nation that most every other nation looks to when they need help.
...and they know they'll get it.

Of course, "high-minded, enlightened" individuals like yourself might disagree with that evaluation and dig like hell to find our faults, but - as usual - offer NOTHING that would make things better...just more of the same illogical, unworkable liberalite bullshit that inevitably makes things worse.
You libs labor tirelessly to "level the playing field" or some other euphemism to disguise your desire for blatant Socialism - which has never worked in the history of humanity, but acolytes of the Church of Liberalism like you keep trying.
That happens when you substitute emotion for cold, rational thought.
Must be lonesome on your cloud.

...and Welcome Home, but THAT war ended in 75, ya know.
The current war is against IslamoFascists.
...and the liberalites who are helping them.

1735099 said...

Times have changed, but the outlook of some Americans hasn't. I remember a bus ride on the way to a hotel whilst I was on R & R in Bangkok. I started a conversation with a GI about automobiles, and made the mistake of using the term (common in Australia) "Yank Tank" to describe American cars. He became very angry and gave me a boring ten-minute lecture on Henry Ford.
He demonstrated no sense of humour and a supreme arrogance. Your responses are similar, but he didn't use personal abuse as you do. You lack respect - do some work on that.
(You could probably add William Calley to your list).
I've returned to Vietnam a number of times since the American War. The people who remember the war have no time for Americans. On the other hand, they have a deep and abiding respect for Uc Da Lois (Australians) in Phuoc Tuy both as soldiers and people. The reason? Man on man we were better jungle fighters; we treated captives with respect, and we built rather than destroyed.
I'll quote you a VC veteran (D445 Battalion) I met in Ba Ria lst year - "You Australians were much better soldiers than the Americans - if you had fought on our side, we would have had them out of here ten years before we did".
As to you history of benevolence? Look at the statistics in terms of national wealth - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html
You'll note that Australia comes out per capita ahead of the USA, and that of the 21 countries listed, the USA betters only 5.
In terms of liberation, the country you failed to liberate (Vietnam) is a damn sight more prosperous and peaceful than Iraq. Why don't you visit some time to see for yourself?
America has never "helped" anyone unless there was a vested interest in it for American capitalists. There are noble and generous people in the USA, but unfortunately they're not in power. And don't believe that your country is a bastion of democracy. Your democracy is erzatz. Less than half the population vote on a good day, You need to be a millionaire to sit for public office, and you have a higher number of people living below the poverty line than the entire population of New Zealand.
As to your Christian fundamentalists, the only way they differ from the Jihadis is that they aren't prepared to kill themselves to achieve political ends. They're quite happy to kill others. Doesn't sound too "Christian" to me.
Incidentally, the term "liberal" means "conservative" in this country. Before you throw out personal abuse, you need to check for meaning. This has always been a problem for Americans who lack knowledge and understanding of people and countries outside your borders. It must have something to do with your inward-looking national culture.

TouchStone said...

I see that being self-centered and arrogant aren't just American faults.
So who's doing the lecturing now?
Do some work on that.

You make the assumption that it's up to me to conform to YOUR standards and concepts on MY blog - standard-issue elitist arrogance, and the hallmark of the sub-species of humanity I call "liberalites" - American, Aussie, Kiwi, German, French, Brit, whatever...all the same.

They and you are the same species, and differences in terminology are irrelevant to this debate.
I'm quite familiar with the switch in terminology between America and the Land Down Under, just the same as I need to drive on the left side of the road when I'm there.
Long as I understand your rants, use whatever terminology floats your boat, but in the meantime, bear in mind that on an American blog, YOU are the one required to change driving lanes.

...and you would lecture ME on courtesy?

Let's break it down:
We obviously understand what each other is saying, so I don't give a damn if you to use the same words I use. I recognize you for what you are, and a lib by any other name - or whichever country - is still just a socialist, so the exact wording is irrelevant.

You worry about statistics - fine, but you seem to think that percentages make your point.
They do not.
10% of 350 million is 35 million.
10% of ten people is only one.
Get the picture?
And if only half of Americans give freely to charities, it's because the other half are dumbascraps, and are too busy suckling at the government teet - the milk of which the government steals from capitalists like me.

You seem to believe that one has to be a "millionaire" to hold public office.
True, many ARE rich, and many more BECOME rich while in office, but if you look at the statistics, you'll find more DEMs in the "rich" column than republicans...and you believe that THEY are the "solution"?
They're the problem...always have been.

Only half of Americans vote on a good day?
So what?
That's simple human apathy.

For that matter, given the fact that most of them know who's on "Survivor 29: Escape from Dumbass Island", but couldn't find New Zealand on a map (another disaster of liberalite theories - a lousy education), it's probably just as well that they DON'T vote.

As for comparing the communist utopia you believe Viet Nam is now with the current state of Iraq, do 3 million dead Vietnamese and Cambodians in the five years (and more) after the war mean ANYTHING to you?
"Killing fields" ring any bells?
You engage in mere pointless sophistry.

If you want a VALID comparison, let's compare what VN is now to what Iraq looks like THIRTY YEARS FROM NOW.
...unless you wish to compare 1980 Viet Nam to 2008 Iraq....
Hint: last month, more Americans were killed in obama's home town (Chicago) than in Iraq.

Next, you pull out the misnamed "poverty" line.
Gimme a break.
Cable TV, cars, food and shelter provided by the government taking money from taxpayers like me and giving it to the lazy punks who game the system for a free ride?
POVERTY?
Been to Somalia or Afghanistan in the last decade or two?
Shit, those people would KILL to be so "poor" as the lazy pukes here!
We've got the richest "poor" people on the planet, and they STILL whine that they don't have enough!
I don't mind helping people for a short spell to get back on their feet, but I shed no tears for Americans that won't get off their dead asses to make their own lives better.
THOSE are the pukes who vote for the liberalites you believe are this nation's "salvation".
No thanks.

Then you compare Christians to the muj's.
Never met a muj, have ya?
And I'm none too sure you've met any Christians lately, either....
You must be watchin' "The View" on satellite, down there.
Got the hots for Rosie O'Donnel, too, or just drink the same koolaid she does?
Hope it's just the koolaid, 'cause she's a lesbian, so you're outta luck on that account....
Then again, it might just have something to do with your inward-looking egoism....

"America has never "helped" anyone unless there was a vested interest in it for American capitalists."

Hmmmm...perhaps you might enlighten me as to what interests "American capitalists" had in Indonesia after the tsunami...or in Qom, Iran, after their earthquake.
Maybe there's some nefarious motive behind the mosquito nets or the AIDS drugs we send to Africa for free?
And the food we provide for free to about half the planet?
Has to be some dastardly motive behind feeding all those starving people, right?
Keep tryin', sparky. Statistically speaking, you HAVE to get something right, sooner or later....

You're a former soldier?
Fine, I'm retired Infantry, so I can respect that much, but the fact is that wearing a uniform doesn't make anyone a sinner OR a saint.

jean-françois kerrì wore the uniform, too - before he disgraced it and himself with his traitorous actions after he screwed his buddies and left them behind after only four months.

Respect has to be earned, and as a friend of mine used to say, "One 'oh fuck' wipes out ten 'atta-boys'."
...and socialism is nothing but one big "OH FUCK!" after another, because it has never worked in all of recorded history.

Liberal, "progressive", socialist, communist, whatever you choose to call yourself, your cock-eyed socio-political theories deserve nothing but well-earned derision.

1735099 said...

Your response contains 935 words.
About one-third is name-calling - used as a substitute for rational argument - best ignored, so I won't respond to it. I too respect your service, but as you said, it counts for little if your political ideals are driven by hate and fear.
One of your points is (I think) that your nation is generous. When I offer you some stats that disprove that, you engage in some meaningless mathematical comparison, then contradict your original statement and put your own country down.
In terms of my point about wealth being a requirement of public office, saying that it's more a problem for the Democrats than the Republicans doesn't make me wrong - that's simply a red herring.
You hold up the USA as a bastion of democracy, and then accuse half your population of apathy. Something in that logical progression doesn't add up. And it must be distressing to have such a low opinion of your countrymen.
A reading of the history of Cambodia would show you that the bombing in April 1970 in the Parrot's Beak area (I was there - in Long Khanh across the border and heard it) destroyed so much that it drove the population into the arms of Pol Pot and his thugs. There are many who would claim that your country is partly responsible for the Killing Fields as a result - I wouldn't - but you can't blame the Vietnamese. They actually sorted the problem out. Incidentally, claims that millions were killed after 1975 are myths. If you want I can give you a breakdown - based on unbiased source material - of mortalities in Vietnam between 1947 and 1980. You might find it enlightening.
I've spent time in the country and have researched this issue. One major feature of the Vietnamese countryside is the ubiquitous war memorials. You'll find if you read the inscriptions that most died during the American occupation.
You're right about respect being earned. Your country's sorry record in Vietnam has earned it derision on the part of the Vietnamese. As an ally, I feel sorrow for the loss of life of your fine young men, who were thrown into a conflict that they did not understand, weren't trained for and did not believe in. To give you a very basic example - I was a rifleman in an infantry platoon. We spent most of our time in aggressive patrolling and ambushing. This meant we had to live rough, and take our resupplies every seven days so as not to give our position away. We didn't use tracks, and communicated using signs - we didn't speak. Transistor radios were banned. We buried all our rubbish, didn't wash so we'd smell like the jungle, and ate cold food to avoid fire and smoke.
The Americans, on the other hand, could be heard coming from 5 klics away - they were always shadowed by choppers and everybody - especially the VC knew where they were. Consequently thay were ambushed with monotonous regularity. Our tactics were superior, but never adopted by regular US units because it wasn't orthodoxy. By the time I left in 1970, Phuoc Tuy was the most secure provence in SVN. Our tactics worked, but you couldn't tell the Yanks anything. Not much has changed in forty years - although I understand that one of David Patraeus' key advisers is Dr. David Kilcullen, a counter-insurgency expert who is a lieutenant-colonel in the Australian Army reserve. Maybe your military is beginning to see the light.
I have no respect for those who assume that you promote an ideology by killing.
I've seen combat at first hand and can assure you that when it's over, there are no victors - only survivors.
Your comment about deaths in Chicago simply proves my point that your country, or at least that part of it, has gone to the dogs.
I've met and worked with Muslims. They're much like Christians. About 1% are radicals - about the same proportion of Christians promote violence as a means to an end. Heard of the IRA?
Your reference to Indonesia is relevant. It's great that the USA helped out after the Tsumani as Australia did. Do you remember East Timor? We went in there in 1999 under the auspices of the UN, gently removed the Indonesians and achieved a democratic solution fuss-free and with minimum casualties. That's the Australian way. It contasts a bit with Iraq, for example.
Socialism works - I've lived under it for most of my life (if you call the Labor party socialist). To be frank, I believe the terms "left" and "right" are anachronistic in 2008. The enemy is not any kind of "-ism", one is as good as another.
I guess the USA is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. Your political processes are good for a laugh - but that's about it.
The future lies in Asia, and in this country we are well-positioned to take advantage if it.
The economic growth of China will soon make Wall Street look like a branch office. The demise has started (the sub-prime crisis) as a result of greed and lack of regulation.
The USA has had its day. It's been a great nation, but its decline has been accelerated by the likes of Rumsfield, Bush and Cheney. I write this in sorrow - not in anger.
By the way, who is Rosie O'Donnel? - never heard of her. Is she Sarah Palin's hairdresser?
As to what I call myself - check my blog. I don't care what you call me - just don't call me late for dinner.

TouchStone said...

Just a quick reminder:
The Viet Nam war was instigated by and mostly fought under dem "leadership"...the very people you believe will magically remedy whatever ills you believe you see in America.

And, just like the liberalites here in America, you also blame America for every evil that the SE Asians perpetrated on each other.
How convenient.

Still, you ALSO state, "I have no respect for those who assume that you promote an ideology by killing."
Would that include General Giap and Ho Chi Minh?

Oh, my bad, that was America's fault, too, wasn't it?

...but you really must make up your mind: if the Killing Fields are a myth, how could America have CAUSED them and how could Viet Nam have FIXED them?

Typical socialist double-think.

Still, since that war ended more than thirty years ago, my point remains that any comparison with what happened then and what is going on now will have to wait for history's judgment.

Math obviously ain't your strong suit, either...except for counting words.
I'll ask you a bit differently:
Would you rather have a million people giving you a buck or a hundred people giving you ten?

It's not a matter of putting down my own country, it's a matter of self-honesty and realistic observations. My point about the dems having more rich that reps was simple, but you seem to have missed the point: the socialists you tout are as guilty of the crap you blame the capitalists for, yet you believe they'll somehow fix what's wrong.
That is simply delusional.

As for "hate and fear", perhaps you were off to Myanmar or Nam or somewhere in 2001 - or was 9/11 something else that America brought on itself?
Silly me...of course it was, right?

The USA IS a "bastion of democracy", by any measure of the concept, and being able to ADMIT that half our population has the luxury of apathy is an indication of STRENGTH, not weakness.
Admitting one's flaws is the first step toward remedying them...or doesn't that fit your version of "logic"?

And having "such a low opinion of your countrymen" doesn't bother me one iota.
Why should it?
It's called "freedom".
You see, DESPITE the unfortunate fact that many of my countrymen believe as you do, that merely means my nation is STILL strong enough to liberate millions of people, to create and provide (often for free) lifesaving drugs to half the planet, to feed half the planet, IN SPITE OF the efforts of people like yourself who believe that socialism is the answer.

Consider: if that were really the case, then why is most of the EU in shambles? Why did the head of Canada's socialized medicine paradise go to California for a medical procedure?
Why are Brits pulling their own teeth for lack of dental care?
Keep your socialism - rational people don't want it.

I've noticed that you rant a lot about today's Viet Nam...all the memorials and such.
Why are you still living in Australia?
Just curious...since, unlike yourself, I feel no compelling desire to point out all the flaws in your nation in order to feel better about my own.

As for no changes in the American military in 40 years...well, you can lay all the credit for the Surge to Kilcullen if you like, but as an ex-soldier, you should know better.
War is a "team sport" after all, and to singularly give all the credit to one man is a game for rear-area paper-pushers and fools.
What works, works, and the source for an idea doesn't matter to the Iraqis who are benefiting from the Surge. If he helped, good for him, but to imply that he was the sole source just pisses all over a whole lot of men and women who were also part of the effort.

"I've seen combat at first hand and can assure you that when it's over, there are no victors - only survivors."
I have to admit - that bit of unmitigated "all-about-me" egoism stopped me cold.
That's about as fucked-up as it comes.
Particularly since there's a few million people in Iraq who would disagree with that observation.
Warriors are never the ones who "win" - that's not why we fight. We survive - the people we fight FOR are the ones who win.

If you're so self-centered and your head is so bent that you can't see that simple fact, then you're not worth my time.
Have a nice life.

1735099 said...

"...but you really must make up your mind: if the Killing Fields are a myth, how could America have CAUSED them and how could Viet Nam have FIXED them?"
You need to read more carefully. Nowhere did I state that the Killing Fields were a myth. The reputed slaughter of Vietnamese post 1975 was what I was referring to. I repeat, many more (3.5 million between 1960 and 1975)were killed before the end of the war, than after it. Sure, many emigrated, often to this country, and since the war many have returned to visit. They will tell you they left fearing a slaughter, which for the most part, didn't eventuate.
I can show you a Catholic church in Vung Tau largely paid for by ex-pat Australians.
Incidentally, there are many more Christian churches in South Vietnam now than there were in 1970. So much for repression.
If you believe that American aid is a result of population, rather than some noble culture of national generosity, you have successfully proved the original point I made.
As for 9/11, how is it that the most powerful nation on earth still hasn't run down the architect? Perhaps the same ineptitude demonstrated in Vietnam persists. Back then, you could tell the Yanks anything - sell them anything.
Why? Because, like you, they weren't prepared to listen to anyone outside their own limited sphere.
Last time I visited the EU, I wouldn't describe it as a shambles. I felt a damn sight safer in most European capitals than I would have in the US - and the food's better.
I'm pleased you agree with me that there are no winners, only survivors in war. This doesn't mean that some wars aren't worth fighting - but your country has specialized in cocking up wars of occupation in the last two centuries.
Which of these, pray tell, were you involved in?
The USA is not the center of the universe. You don't have all the answers. You have no credibility outside Montana, I'd suggest.
Come and visit Australia and see how a fully developed democracy functions.

TouchStone said...

You use the same straw-man arguments as the air-headed libs here in America: why haven't you found Oh-Mama bin-Hidin'?
How long did it take to locate Adolph Eichmann? Or Josef Mengele, who died a free man?

From an enlightened individual such as yourself, one would expect better.

And you didn't address the slaughter of Vietnamese by Vietnamese....why not?

As for America "cocking up" things for the last couple centuries, one final question:
Why aren't you speaking Japanese?

Like I said, have a nice life....

Oswald Bastable said...

'As for America "cocking up" things for the last couple centuries, one final question:
Why aren't you speaking Japanese?'

Us in NZ were next- as a jumping off point to Australia.

Some of us don't forget what is IMPORTANT.

As we say 'Least we forget..."

1735099 said...

I'm not speaking Japanese for a number of reasons -
1) In 1942 we had a Prime Minister called John Curtin. You would call him a socialist. He stood up to Winston Churchill and demanded the return of the 7th Division to Australia to defend against a possible Japanese invasion.
2) He also welcomed Douglas Macarthur, who escaped the Philipines to set up his command in Brisbane, Queensland and coordinated the push against the Japanese in the Pacific. His Commander-in-Chief was a Democrat, Franklin D Roosevelt. Australian irregular troops stopped the Japanese on the Kokoda Track. The Americans used Australia as a base for their war effort in the Pacific after the attack on Pearl Harbour. My father was one of many Australians who fought in New Guinea. He was in the RAAF from 1942 until 1947, and served in Lae and Port Moresby.
This is why I'm not speaking Japanese.
It's interesting to note that the leaders of our two countries in time of real, rather than manufactured threat were respectively Labor and Democrat.
And Bastable - it's "lest we forget", not "least we forget".
Probably a Freudian slip on your part, but if you're going to post, get it right. Otherwise it makes you look a bit silly. And Touchstone, thanks for the free promotion of my site - very generous of you. You might also check - http://awesternfart.blogspot.com/
:-)

MK said...

Ah i see the angry fart has turned up here too. Get ready to start deleting TS, this is one troll that doesn't like it when others think/speak differently to him.

Leave the angry fart to set up one useless blog after another that no one reads, it keeps him out of trouble in the real world i suppose. People don't take kindly to such angry farting totalitarians.

Anyway angry farts aside, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities."

That's my favorite, and did you see the polls, they're swinging away from Obama and to McCain.

1735099 said...

I could live with McCain - his major advantage is his contempt for Bush. He has that in common with most US voters and the rest of the world.
At least Touchstone has the guts to post my comment and the intellect to debate the point - but then he's ex-infantry. This is more than can be said for MKKK, KKKG, and Dr John Spray.

And in the interests of Oswald Bustable's continuing education, below is the extract from Binyon's ode that he misquoted.
Always happy to help:-)

"They went with songs to the battle, they were young.
Straight of limb, true of eyes, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them."

The line "Lest we forget" is often added to the end of the ode, which is repeated in response by those listening. In Australia, Canada and New Zealand (and often in the United Kingdom), the final line of the ode, "We will remember them", is repeated in response.

TouchStone said...

Don't worry about the troll, guys...tweakin' him is fun.

He's obviously forgotten that the sorry-assed socialists who escalated the war that France gave up are the same sorry-assed socialists he thinks will solve all the world's problems.

The way he's singing the praises of the current VN regime, I have to wonder if he ever really DID "come home", or maybe he's just "working out some issues" in some bizarre version of Stockholm Syndrome.

Don't know, don't much care.
That war is over - someone tell ol' 99 - and it's time to get back to fighting the current one.

1735099 said...

Touchstone
Read back through the posts and it's clear who's being tweaked.
Seeing as you're ex-infantry, I'm surprised that you haven't enlisted for Iraq or Afghanistan, given you're so gung-ho about it all.

TouchStone said...

If that's what you want to believe, have a party. I've noticed that not much dents your beliefs.
And if you're the A-Team from that other site, I'm not impressed, sparky.

As for reenlisting, I already signed the paperwork, just after my 47th birthday.

Oswald Bastable said...

Damn annoying when you spot the typo just as you hit the publish button!

But the sentiments are the same- never forget the sacrifices made ALL those who have fought on the same side.

For sure, a lot of Vietnam was FUBAR. From what I see now the US armed forces have learned much from their screwups.

The biggest one, as I see it, was to get away from using conscripts.

I'm inclined to want to be charitable to '99. Normally it's no mercy for the left, but his experience lives on to haunt him. We all know a lot of people never get over their wars...

MK said...

"At least Touchstone has the guts to post my comment and the intellect to debate the point - but then he's ex-infantry. This is more than can be said for MKKK, KKKG, and Dr John Spray"

The same predictable baiting i see, sorry to burst your bubble, but we're not scared of you. Combined with your arrogance and barely concealed contempt for anyone who disagrees with you, there is absolutely no point debating anything with you, we've tried that with you before, it simply does not work, you will never let anything through that thick skull of yours.

i, for one, don't have the time to go round and round and round in circles listening to you recite the same half-truths and stupidity in different ways and we don't have to entertain you just because you think you deserve it. And we're not the only blogs who have banned you, your arrogance prevents you from seeing the obvious, you have this way of pissing people off. Take your crappy copy/paste of my post about gun control and street crime, i'll do this only once. If i'm not mistaken you've already tried this stupid argument (round and round....) and was shot down a while ago, you compare gun related deaths between countries that have banned guns and those that have not, this is stupid, it's like taking all the cars off the roads in Australia and then demanding that America ban all cars because the number of deaths by car accidents in Australia has, shock/horror, fallen. It's a stupid, pointless argument that proves nothing. Another example -

Daily Mail - You are more likely to be assaulted, robbed and burgled in Britain than in the region of southeast Europe once synonymous with war and gangsters, according to a report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

But on the plus side, you are less likely to kill yourself or be beaten to death with a horrid gun, yay! Thank goodness they don't live in that fascist, backward America where they can defend themselves while the state makes excuses for not doing what it promised when it took our guns away.

And to address your put down that i foolishly believe, if we were all toting iron, we'd all be safe. There are give or take 80 million people who own guns in the US and Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day, according to Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University. What more need be said.

And you don't have to dig very far to figure out that with your half-assed reasoning for gun control, the people i quoted in the London street hiding from the gangs going at it have no option but to remain hiding and praying for someone else to help them out.

I'm sure TS lives in a part of America that does allow people to defend themselves, tell me TS, would you and your fellow citizens toting iron be ducking and diving into shops and fleeing into the hills if a bunch of Pakis and Jamaicans were going at it in the town square? Perhaps the question should be, do you think that sort of thing could even happen in your town?

Go and read up a bit if you like 17blah blah, http://www.gunfacts.info/
They do a fair amount of myth busting and they are not the only sources i have used to study this subject and draw the logical conclusions.

If you don't want to then fine, just don't waste my time with your stupid comments in my spam bin, just continue farting away on your blog assuming i don't have the guts... and you simply know it all. I'm sure your vast & loyal readership will agree and adore you for it.

1735099 said...

MKKK
I'm not too concerned about whether or not the Yanks keep a lid on their population growth using firearms, but what happens in my country is of interest to me. I live here.
With that in mind, have a look at this incisive commentary on the outcome of the 1996 legislation in Australia. I don't have much time for Howard, but this was one piece of lawmaking for which the majority of Australians rightly give him credit -
Source - http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080909-Speech-notes-that-Sarah-Palin-will-never-consult.html
"Our 1996 reforms were precipitated by the Port Arthur massacre, the 13th mass shooting in 15 years in which five or more victims died in places like Hoddle and Queen Streets in Melbourne and Strathfield Plaza.
The central provisions of the reforms were the ban on semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns, accompanied by gun amnesties and two national buybacks, which together saw some 820,000 guns destroyed. Because of their rapid firepower, semi-automatics are the guns of choice for those intent on killing many people quickly. John Howard introduced the reforms to prevent US-style mass killings, not primarily to prevent criminal or domestic gun homicides or gun suicides.
But there is also evidence of wider collateral benefits in reduced gun deaths overall. While the rate of firearm homicide was reducing in Australia by an average of 3% per year prior to the law reforms, this more than doubled to 7.5% per year after the introduction of the new laws, although to the delight of our local gun lobby, this failed to reach statistical significance simply because of the low statistical power inherent in the small numbers involved.
Gun deaths in Australia are dominated by suicides, with about 79% of all gun fatalities, followed by 15% homicides and 2% unintentional shootings. Suicide with guns has what coroners euphemistically call a very high "completion rate". When those attempting suicide use a gun, they don't need a semi-automatic. The trigger gets pulled once, so a single shot suffices, from any gun that remained unaffected by the law reforms. So by removing only semi-automatics, we really wouldn’t expect any decline in gun suicides.
Yet as with gun homicides, firearm suicides in males declined from 3.4 deaths per 100,000 person years in 1997 to 1.3 per 100,000, a decline of 59.9%. The rate of all other suicides declined from 19.9 deaths per 100,000 in 1997 to 15.0 per 100,000 in 2005, a 24.5% decline, less than half that for gun suicides.
Having more guns around seems to be associated with more gun suicides, and more suicides overall. A paper published in this week’s prestigious New England Journal of Medicine compares gun suicide rates in the 15 US states with the highest rate (47%) of household ownership with six states with the lowest rates (15%). While the rates of non-firearm suicide were equal in these two groups, the states with high gun ownership had 3.7 times more male gun suicides and 7.9 times more female gun suicides than the low gun ownership states.
The USA has 14.3 times Australia’s population, 104 times our total firearm-caused deaths (30,143 in 2005 vs 289 in 2003), and 294 times Australia’s firearm homicide rate (12,352 in 2005 vs just 42 in 2005/06). In 1979, 705 people died from gunshots in Australia. Despite population growth, in 2003, this number had fallen to 289.
Gun lobby affiliated researchers in Australia have sought to repudiate these outcomes using embarrassingly naïve methods that have been heavily criticised in the research literature. While news of the latest gun massacre in the United States remains depressingly common, Australians today enjoy one of the safest communities on earth. John Howard’s first and most popular law reform stands as the world’s most successful reform of gun laws."
In terms of your "points"-
"you compare gun related deaths between countries that have banned guns and those that have not, this is stupid, it's like taking all the cars off the roads in Australia and then demanding that America ban all cars because the number of deaths by car accidents in Australia has, shock/horror, fallen."
So you agree with me that gun related deaths are higher in countries with lax gun laws. This is exactly my point - thanks for recognizing it. Where we differ is that you believe that gun ownership is a God-given right - I don't. Don't get your mantra confused with your data.
"You are more likely to be assaulted, robbed and burgled in Britain than in the region of southeast Europe once synonymous with war and gangsters, according to a report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime."
What has this to do with gun law? Anyone who has done first year statistics knows that all relevant factors must be considered in any form of comparison. Unless you name the region, it's meaningless. You should also provide a link to the source.
"There are give or take 80 million people who own guns in the US and Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day."
Show me a study that proves this. All the studies out there are based on survey data, which is statistically worthless. What was used as a control group? What were the numbers of subjects involved? This is anecdotal.
MKKK, this is why you have banned me - you argue the unarguable, and when you and your ilk are made look silly by the facts, I get banned.
If your contentions stood up to the clear light of day, you'd be able to debate them. They don't, so you toss out anyone who doesn't agree with you. Strange indeed - and great entertainment.

MK said...

"Where we differ is that you believe that gun ownership is a God-given right - I don't."

Your totalitarian nature shines through once again. I don't care if you want to own a gun or not.

"Show me a study that proves this."

There is no study that will pass your standards, so i will not bother to look for one.

You persist with the same stupid arguments. Anyway by your own stupid logic you should be working towards banning cars off our roads.

"MKKK, this is why you have banned me - you argue the unarguable, and when you and your ilk are made look silly by the facts, I get banned."

Yes 17kkk, you're right, maybe one day someone close to you might get assaulted or stalked for the rest of their lives and you might wake up, i doubt it given the thickness of your skull and your inability to let other people live in freedom and defend themselves.

In summary 17kkk, i will say this for the last time, i have no interest in wasting my time with you. We'll have to agree to disagree, now i know you won't like that, people holding different positions to you, so you will remain banned. Good luck with your blog, i know it's hard for you, but try not to lie and smear too much.

1735099 said...

Dedicated to MK and his trigger-happy happy bunch of heroes -

Viet 1

I remember an Ektachrome daylight
In the Binh Ba rubber.
She sat, ochred feet resting.
That old, old woman who showed me
How to wear a headband.

She was unafraid of our scout
And his outlandish burst of Armalite;
It was more important to be comfortable.

She disregarded us, our costly armour
(All mud-green high-tech camouflaged nonsense),
Smiled and smoked a grudged cigarette,
Turned away and thought on soldiers and children.

Her eyes were as wise as Lao Tzu
And she quietly waited for our departure.

Written in SVN - 1970.