 |
there are just some people who don't take the process seriously
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1226961620238
sometimes we find we have nut jobs amongst us and surprise, surprise, they want to own guns, drive cars and put it to the man
What will you wear when you get your next photo taken I have a nice pakol I might wear and to look the part I should take an AK with me
So they should take away his licence. I'd also be a bit worried about his driver's licence as well. Could fall over his eyes while driving.
an interesting view countaining many comic illustrations
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=g...%3B1500%3B1002
I particularly like the one that rewrites the second amendment
Canada looks more and more like a totalitarian regiem every day. What will be the next thing they arbitraritly decide to take away from everyone?
That's a spin-only news channel - commonly known as Fox News North
Sun News Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia... the source for anything that are questionable in origin.
Wikipedia is wrong about a lot of things... sometimes they are completely wrong. I know of one major event there is barely any factual information in Wikipedia about, but its got a LOT of incorrect information about it.
You have your right wing rags Smoothy, we have our lame stream media. I personally prefer animaes, and cartoons to enjoy the fruit of my labors.
Tal... YOU know which specific incident I am referring to... I however do not want to name it on any forum.
LOL. Why not? If it's on wiki then it's public.Quote:
YOU know which specific incident I am referring to... I however do not want to name it on any forum.
Indeed I do, I have seen the pictures myself. That is unfortunately Smoothy one of many such "incidents".
Except 99% of what's in that article... is false. As was the news coverage.
And the point being....its not an isolated incident.
He's afraid of a libel suit could it be the information is inaccurate or illegally obtained during those hours he must spend at his many terminalsQuote:
Tal... YOU know which specific incident I am referring to... I however do not want to name it on any forum.
Nope... Tal knows the details... and WHY I'm not putting it out there... it has nothing to do with libel... and I know about it because I was actually there (and there were relatively few who were which is why)... and none were anyone in Wikipedia... or anyone else here for that matter, particularly you.
If i don't know what you are talking about how can't I put out an official deniel about being there, we only have your word for it. Thing I have an official deniel ready for most events
What difference does it make. There are those here who won't believe it anyway, so screw them. I have very good reasons for not putting the specific info out there.
If there is one example where there is gross inaccuracies in Wikipedia, then there are a lot more... we aren't talking minor details that are wrong.
well why don't you use your time productively and edit the inaccuracies out and tell the true story
Kind of like the gross inaccuracies on that dcclothesline rag. But some think it is the only truth out there.
Needkarma lives in his own little world where reality doesn't apply... what more can be said about that.
Its not my business, I couldn't personally care less if the truth ever comes out. I'm not on a crusade like Snowden or his type... and as I said... the circle of people that know the facts of that incident, isn't very large... but mostly the fact I don't know who is behind why the misinformation about it has continued for all those years.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I have to back you up in this instance Smoothy only because I read the NEWS accounts of the incident we discussed years ago and I can respect your privacy but it's unfair to make such statements about wiki as a source when its seldom the only source of being inaccurate about certain facts. You know as well as I do, and everyone else that some facts will never come to full light because they can't.
I can't let you get away with broad brushing every wiki account of facts because of one instance where the ENTIRE media never had all the facts, or the additional ones you yourself know of personally. That is just not a fair representation by which to judge when you cannot divulge the full extent of your knowledge. Why say anything if you yourself cannot do what you have accused wiki of, less than full disclosure.
By its very nature... Wikipedia doesn't have the checks and balances... or accountability some other places have... in fact they really have less than the average media has.
If enough poeple agree that John Kerry is really Frankensteins creation......its going to be there as an aentry..but does it mean its true?
Any notations of WHO bears responsibility for the contents of the item? Who do you call to complain to?
Is EVERYTHING they say wrong... nope.. but then neither is the NY TImes... they get it right from time to time... the rest of its all biased by the people writing it and their editors bias.
And even worse.. Wikipedia is editied by regular people most of whom might know enough to play grammar cops... but not nearly enough to prove or verify the accuracy of the contents. I know a couple that at least claimed to be editors. None I would consider unbiased or particularly knowledgible about anything (one was in college and still living at home).
In fact....everything on the internet is like that.....there is more complete BS and half truths out there than there are cold hard facts beyond reproach or dispute..most people have to take a guess what is real and what isn't. And its rarely obvious to anyone.
So why are you here?Quote:
In fact....everything on the internet is like that.....there is more complete BS and half truths out there than there are cold hard facts
To give people like you crap... since you are one of the largest contributors of it here.
When you cannot answer questions clearly and conflate one issue with another is crap. Calling names and hurling personal insults is crap. Yeah I throw crap too, and can be quite good at it, but its still crap, solves nothing, and gets us nowhere.
Tal... that last answer was directed at NeedKarma.
See enough cases of BS being reported by the media when you see the same things they were reporting on, before they reported on it....and it makes perfect sense to cast doubt of everything else. Particularly when its not one situation, and not even dozens but hundreds spanning over 30 years.
Yes...CNN's coverage of the first gulf war was substantially a lot of crap, laced with bits of reality. I can't go into which bits were which for a few more years until a 25 year non-disclosure agreement expires in 2017. But the parts that were crap really wouldn't matter to most people anyway. Unless you were someone that really got into the details, if you wanted to play armchair quarterback and cared about what exactly was being done and why....the end results were very real and mostly accurate in that case and all most people cared about, basicly the we blew things up...people died, we won....stuff
I know. And though you have never done it with me personally teasing us with a little info and not filling in the gaps does lead one to wonder doesn't it? Surely you see how unfair that may be?
Just saying, my friend from one blunt, opinionated person to another.
I've seen a lot of cases with Wikipedia of the years where they were wrong... but I don't obsess over all of them (basically, oh here we go, another one) so I don't remember what most of them were... the one I mentioned was the one I can specifically remember for a number of reasons.
Fair or not... its the reality if the world. DO I wish I could just say everything? Certainly. I personally hate having to think all of the time... where did I know this from exactly before I write something out. Or tempter WHAT I write with what I already know is already out there so I don't pull Snowden.
Give some thought to why despite working with various parts of the government for most of the last 30 years, that I still trusted the government most of that time.. and I no longer do.
There is enough public information out there to explain it... if you follow the news.
Lots of people don't trust the government for various reasons. I don't either, but has nothing to do with how I conduct my personal life, or deal with people who do. All I got are lame stream media sources and all you got are right wing rags.
Then there is personal experiences we spin according to our own perspective and understanding. LOL, you have to admit I fill in gaps as well as anyone whether they are right or wrong. :D
to listen to both of you it would appear that government by the people for the people has vanished from the land
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
could be . Instead of directly banning free speech dictators grab the means of access ;the news print ,the ink ,the internet . If a dictator wants to ban coal production he doesn't outlaw the burning of coal ,he bankrupts the coal companies. If a dictator wants to ban AR-15 rifles despite the 2nd Amendment ,and Congress fails to enact legislation he wants , then he 1st directs his Federal agencies to purchase every available bullet for the rifle ......then he orders the reclassification of AR-15 bullets as a threat to lawmen, effectively banning them ,and in the process doing a back door ban on the rifle itself.
The emperor has already proven by the above examples ;and by Fast and Furious....an attempt to create chaos as a precursor to a gun ban ,that he will stop at nothing to achieve his goal...making the 2nd amendment irrelevant .
He has already driven many gun shops out of business with his bullet grab ,and unleashing his bureaucratic army on them with regulation and inspection. He will not be satisfied until he imposes his will on the American people. This unconstitutional bullet decision is but another example of the lengths he will go .
Sounds like a smart move I guess the meaning of arms doesn't extend to bullets which didn't exist way back when you bought black powder and primed the gun yourself so nothing prevents self loading
The rights in Constitution are not absolute, or "so says the Supreme Court. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is not absolute and restrictions on ownership can be applied
And for what it is worth, they upheld the right of the government to do ID checks. United States v. Abramski, 706 F.3d 307, 310-11 (4th Cir. 2013) upheld the right of the government to require ID checks on those purchases made from dealers, and included a secondary party that would receive that gun from the purchaser immediately after the purchase
There is currently a bill in Congress, I do not think it will pass, but there is a "Safe School Act" that had an amendment added in 2015, that would include required background checks on all private purchase sales.
I do not know exactly what the discussion is about, but as one who worked for years for the government, I know that many news, and even historical events in the history books are not correct, since I was there.
One case, where I started having a breathing problem, there was an explosion at a government research lab. My partner and I were the first security on the scene, and when I opened the door (ok, really stupid on my part) there was a flash explosion. There were certain chemicals in the air. That was released. The fire department was on the scene, along with special hazard material teams. Everyone going into the building, had to go though a decontamination process. The news report was that there was a training exercise to prepare for any future need.
This is just one of 100's of events
In DC v Heller Scalia found that the D.C. handgun ban as well as the trigger lock provision were not acceptable because the ban affected a class of weapons “that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” He wrote that the trigger-lock provision made it impossible for a firearm to be used in self-defense and was therefore unconstitutional. I would say banning the bullets would be similarly unconstitutional for the same reason.
What they REALLY need is a license before you are allowed to vote. As it is any idiot gets to vote... many of them aren't even citizens, many aren't even alive. A good portion of the rest are dumb as stumps.
Back to gentlemen only eh
Nope.. just the people that actually have a right to vote and that aren't dumb as stumps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
What type of test you you suggest?
An IQ test? Anyone below 100 doesn't get to vote? Or something more subjective like no trailer trash, hillbillies, etc,etc
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 PM. |