Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #245235 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-09 05:49 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-04 12:04 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:07 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-04 22:41 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:03 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:10 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 07:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:43 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 03:41 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:34 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 23:01 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 01:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:04 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:12 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:38 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 12:57 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 13:36 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner š¶ē¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-01-08 14:42 -0600
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:47 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner š¶ē¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-01-08 14:52 -0600
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:58 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:17 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:05 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:30 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 16:33 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 17:09 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 17:42 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:44 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-09 09:47 -0800
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-10 00:20 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands BeamMeUpScotty <Not-Sure@idiocracy.gov> - 2019-01-10 06:53 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-11 00:44 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:43 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:11 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:29 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 16:37 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 12:08 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 03:39 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:35 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 02:26 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:17 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:19 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 01:50 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:00 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:02 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:16 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:02 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:22 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 13:24 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:11 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:40 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:03 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 10:33 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 10:54 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 12:40 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:56 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:09 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:27 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 14:02 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 13:50 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:21 -0500
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 04:24 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:54 -0500
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-09 05:46 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 11:06 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 11:35 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:25 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 04:22 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 13:18 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 22:15 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 14:16 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 13:41 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:23 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 12:10 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:21 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 13:32 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 14:04 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 13:37 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:55 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 15:41 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 14:47 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:24 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 10:46 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 12:21 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 13:57 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 18:36 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 13:36 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:15 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 23:30 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-08 03:23 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 05:49 +0000
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <g9lj9iF87ciU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246807 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message > news:bh593epoc5l2k2rtfp6ig76gvfd7v272tn@4ax.com... >> On 8 Jan 2019 06:18:57 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >>>> news:5g923elr88rsp2aspau8pjsh628nuulm0d@4ax.com... >>>>> On 5 Jan 2019 19:56:27 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>>>>>>> government to do its job. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this >>>>>>>>> research? >>>>>>>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>>>>>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun >>>>>>>>> violence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> use. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >>>>>>> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >>>>>>> everything we buy and use." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >>>>>>> done on firearm safety. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >>>>>>> will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants >>>>>>> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >>>>>>> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We know that you're a wizened little troll. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What product do you use that is not subject to health and safety laws >>>>>> and >>>>>> regulations? >>>>> >>>>> Pencils. >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to your running away instead of showing us the health >>>>> and safety laws and regulations on pencils. >>>> >>>> Imagine the outcry from 1st Amendment supporters if they attempted to >>>> ban >>>> pencils. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What is the risk? What is the benefit? What is the balance? > > We accept your admission that your asserted research doesn't exist as you > claimed it did. > >>> Your naive rebuttal merely shows how far over your head the simple facts >>> go. >> >> TRANSLATION: "I posted a bunch of shit on pencils and tried to pass it >> off as "health and safety regulations" but that failed-- miserably, I >> might add. So now I will try to change the subject with some insults." >> >> [chuckle] >> > Direct lie on your part. As you know, given how many times I showed you such research, including a specific study from the last year. Also showed you laws from 1978 and before which dealt with the paint used on pencils. But you tried to pick an item you thought would not be subject to such regulations and laws. You failed. So learn from your failure and move to accepting CDC research on the health and safety issues dealing with guns. Or bury your head in the sand and say your uneducated biased are enough for you. I back your freedom of speech and your right to remain willfully ignorant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 05:46 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <vnub3e5e5nm8b4qp96a3nqb31uprdp5tbf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246813 |
On 9 Jan 2019 06:39:46 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>> TRANSLATION: "I posted a bunch of shit on pencils and tried to pass it >>> off as "health and safety regulations" but that failed-- miserably, I >>> might add. So now I will try to change the subject with some insults." >>> >>> [chuckle] >>> >> > >Direct lie on your part. Absolute fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 11:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <90023e9pm21ueeh8fjhvpu0bv4g59u2e3f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245617 |
On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >> busted for misusing federal >> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >> which caused its previous >> disgrace? >> >If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >government to do its job. Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9ce47F7rs7U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245632 |
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: > On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > >>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>> busted for misusing federal >>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>> which caused its previous >>> disgrace? >>> >> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >> government to do its job. > > Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted. > > What part of the answer confused you? If an agency is doing something wrong then we should seek to correct it. Trumpās White House does not mean we should do away with the presidency. The whole question is absurd and based on an unsupported premise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 11:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ol123ehsakh8bdmmq533u5ortj5oqr9526@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245637 |
On 5 Jan 2019 19:16:24 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> >>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>> busted for misusing federal >>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>>> which caused its previous >>>> disgrace? >>>> >>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>> government to do its job. >> >> Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted. >> >> > >What part of the answer confused you? If an agency is doing something wrong >then we should seek to correct it. There was no answer. Only diversion. Again... >>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>> busted for misusing federal >>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>>> which caused its previous >>>> disgrace? Why do you demand this? Try again, Snitty. More on Snit's trolling http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html Over 100 people ridicule Snit http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html Typical Snit trolling methods http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 22:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q11cfh$2ff$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245658 |
> On 5 Jan 2019 19:16:24 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >>> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>>> busted for misusing federal >>>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>>> actions >>>>> which caused its previous >>>>> disgrace? >>>>> >>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>> government to do its job. >>> >>> Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted. >>> >>> >> >>What part of the answer confused you? If an agency is doing something >>wrong >>then we should seek to correct it. We did. We told the CDC they will not conduct such research again. So why are you demanding that we uncorrect the issue and return to allowing the CDC to do such wrong research?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9itmiFknokU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246438 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > >> On 5 Jan 2019 19:16:24 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >>>> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>>>> busted for misusing federal >>>>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>>>> actions >>>>>> which caused its previous >>>>>> disgrace? >>>>>> >>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>> government to do its job. >>>> >>>> Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What part of the answer confused you? If an agency is doing something >>> wrong >>> then we should seek to correct it. > > We did. We told the CDC they will not conduct such research again. You fear research. Sure. > > So why are you demanding that we uncorrect the issue and return to allowing > the CDC to do such wrong research? > > > > Your fear of research is noted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 04:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5e593e12hl2n9spl09mr33eoeh238n58in@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246448 |
On 8 Jan 2019 06:18:59 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> >>> On 5 Jan 2019 19:16:24 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >>>>> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>>>>> busted for misusing federal >>>>>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>>>>> actions >>>>>>> which caused its previous >>>>>>> disgrace? >>>>>>> >>>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>>> government to do its job. >>>>> >>>>> Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> What part of the answer confused you? If an agency is doing something >>>> wrong >>>> then we should seek to correct it. >> >> We did. We told the CDC they will not conduct such research again. > >You fear research. Sure. You lie. Sure. >> So why are you demanding that we uncorrect the issue and return to allowing >> the CDC to do such wrong research? >> > >Your fear of research is noted. Your fear of answering the question, as predicted, is noted. Why the angry refusal, Snit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9cg8eF8atbU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245637 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> >>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>> busted for misusing federal >>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>>> which caused its previous >>>> disgrace? >>>> >>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>> government to do its job. >> >> Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted. >> >> > > What part of the answer confused you? If an agency is doing something wrong > then we should seek to correct it. > > Trumpās White House does not mean we should do away with the presidency. > The whole question is absurd and based on an unsupported premise. > > Klaus has no answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q0r70l$mop$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245662 |
In news:g9cg8eF8atbU4@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >>> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was busted for misusing >>>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions which caused >>>>> its previous disgrace? >>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the government to do its job. >>> Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted. >> What part of the answer confused you? If an agency is doing something wrong >> then we should seek to correct it. >> Trump's White House does not mean we should do away with the presidency. >> The whole question is absurd and based on an unsupported premise. > Klaus has no answer. Snit has no answer so she accuses Klaus of having no answer. How predictable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9cokfFa443U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245690 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:g9cg8eF8atbU4@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >>>> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>>>> busted for misusing >>>>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume >>>>>> the actions which caused >>>>>> its previous disgrace? > >>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>> government to do its job. > >>>> Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted. > >>> What part of the answer confused you? If an agency is doing something wrong >>> then we should seek to correct it. > >>> Trump's White House does not mean we should do away with the presidency. >>> The whole question is absurd and based on an unsupported premise. > >> Klaus has no answer. > > Snit has no answer so she accuses Klaus of having no answer. How predictable. > > > My answer is to not burn the White House because Trump lives there now. But, face it, this is all about your fear of evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 14:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <71aYD.190318$gU6.126240@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #245716 |
On 1/5/2019 2:15 PM, Snit wrote: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9cg8eF8atbU4@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >>>>> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>>>>> busted for misusing >>>>>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume >>>>>>> the actions which caused >>>>>>> its previous disgrace? >> >>>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>>> government to do its job. >> >>>>> Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted. >> >>>> What part of the answer confused you? If an agency is doing something wrong >>>> then we should seek to correct it. >> >>>> Trump's White House does not mean we should do away with the presidency. >>>> The whole question is absurd and based on an unsupported premise. >> >>> Klaus has no answer. >> >> Snit has no answer so she accuses Klaus of having no answer. How predictable. >> >> >> > > My answer is to not burn the White House because Trump lives there now. > > But, face it, this is all about your fear of evidence. No, this is all about your wish to ban guns. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <k4923eh90nparj7ompsvphgqbhnpg5lq4b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245662 |
On 5 Jan 2019 19:52:46 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >>> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>>> busted for misusing federal >>>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>>>> which caused its previous >>>>> disgrace? >>>>> >>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>> government to do its job. >>> >>> Instead of answering the question, Snit runs away, as predicted. >>> >>> >> >> What part of the answer confused you? If an agency is doing something wrong >> then we should seek to correct it. >> >> Trumpās White House does not mean we should do away with the presidency. >> The whole question is absurd and based on an unsupported premise. >> >> > >Klaus has no answer. There was no answer. Only diversion. Again... >>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>> busted for misusing federal >>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>>> which caused its previous >>>> disgrace? Why do you demand this? Try again, Snitty. More on Snit's trolling http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html Over 100 people ridicule Snit http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html Typical Snit trolling methods http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 22:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q11cfg$2ff$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245632 |
> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > >>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>> busted for misusing federal >>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>> which caused its previous >>> disgrace? >>> >>If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>government to do its job. And since that oversight indicates the CDC is the wrong organization to engage in that research then you will have no issue if the CDC doesn't conduct such research? Hold it. Which is it? Do you want the government to do this research or just their job? You can'[t have it both ways. Because such research is NOT one of their jobs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9itmhFknokU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246437 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > >> On 5 Jan 2019 18:45:43 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> >>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>> busted for misusing federal >>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>>> which caused its previous >>>> disgrace? >>>> >>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>> government to do its job. > > And since that oversight indicates the CDC is the wrong organization to > engage in that research then you will have no issue if the CDC doesn't > conduct such research? False premise. > > Hold it. > > Which is it? Do you want the government to do this research or just their > job? False dichotomy. > > You can'[t have it both ways. > > Because such research is NOT one of their jobs. > > > How do you figure?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ri7YD.192081$oo4.11922@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #245617 |
On 1/5/2019 11:45 AM, Snit wrote: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >> >>>>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >> >>>>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >> >>>>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >> >>>>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >> >>>>>> IT being bias, plainly. >> >>>>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>>>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. >> >>>> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >>>> was busted for misusing >>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>> actions which caused its >>>> previous disgrace. >> >>> What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? >> >> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >> busted for misusing federal >> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >> which caused its previous >> disgrace? > > If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. > I want the government to do its job. Here's a link to the U.S. Constitution: http://constitutionus.com/ What part of the Constitution makes the research you want the government's job?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9cg8dF8atbU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245633 |
Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: > On 1/5/2019 11:45 AM, Snit wrote: >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 >>>>>>>>> PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >>> >>>>>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >>> >>>>>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>> >>>>>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >>> >>>>>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >>> >>>>>>> IT being bias, plainly. >>> >>>>>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>>>>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. >>> >>>>> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >>>>> was busted for misusing >>>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>>> actions which caused its >>>>> previous disgrace. >>> >>>> What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? >>> >>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>> busted for misusing federal >>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>> which caused its previous >>> disgrace? >> >> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. >> I want the government to do its job. > > Here's a link to the U.S. Constitution: > http://constitutionus.com/ > What part of the Constitution makes the research you want > the government's job? > > Not playing that game. We already know the government does this and it is not illegal. Play your rabbit hole games with someone else. I mean, really, do you think the FDA and CDC and more are all illegal and nobody but you noticed? What a stupid game.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5l8YD.120426$bC5.103185@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #245663 |
On 1/5/2019 12:52 PM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 11:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 >>>>>>>>>> PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >>>> >>>>>>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >>>> >>>>>>>> IT being bias, plainly. >>>> >>>>>>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>>>>>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. >>>> >>>>>> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >>>>>> was busted for misusing >>>>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>>>> actions which caused its >>>>>> previous disgrace. >>>> >>>>> What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? >>>> >>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>> busted for misusing federal >>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>>> which caused its previous >>>> disgrace? >>> >>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. >>> I want the government to do its job. >> >> Here's a link to the U.S. Constitution: >> http://constitutionus.com/ >> What part of the Constitution makes the research you want >> the government's job? > > Not playing that game. So you think finding constitutional authority for what the federal government does is just playing a game. Well, it's a game people should take more seriously. > We already know the government does this If the government is already doing the research you want, why are you always making a big deal out of it? > and it is not illegal. We don't know that. Just because government does a thing, even if it has done it for years, does not make it constitutional. > I mean, really, do you think the FDA and CDC and more are all illegal and > nobody but you noticed? What a stupid game. That's some red herring you're dishing up. The question I asked was not the legality of government agencies (although that's another interesting issue). The question is, What part of the Constitution makes the research you want the government's job? The fact that you can't or won't see the difference makes you a functionally illiterate wizened little troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9cijaF8rchU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245670 |
On 1/5/19 1:21 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 1/5/2019 12:52 PM, Snit wrote: >> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>> On 1/5/2019 11:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> >>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 >>>>>>>>>>> PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans >>>>>>>>>>>>> undefined. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>> government's job. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- >>>>>>>>>>>> as we do >>>>>>>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction >>>>>>>>>>>> and much more. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the >>>>>>>>>>>> research will >>>>>>>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason >>>>>>>>>>>> you do not >>>>>>>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> IT being bias, plainly. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / >>>>>>>> benefit >>>>>>>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be >>>>>>>> specific. >>>>> >>>>>>> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> was busted for misusing >>>>>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can >>>>>>> resume the >>>>>>> actions which caused its >>>>>>> previous disgrace. >>>>> >>>>>> What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your >>>>>> wishes? >>>>> >>>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>>>> busted for misusing federal >>>>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>>> actions >>>>> which caused its previous >>>>> disgrace? >>>> >>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. >>>> I want the government to do its job. >>> >>> Here's a link to the U.S. Constitution: >>> http://constitutionus.com/ >>> What part of the Constitution makes the research you want >>> the government's job? >> >> Not playing that game. > > So you think finding constitutional authority for what the federal > government does is just playing a game.Ā Well, it's a game people should > take more seriously. > >> We already know the government does this > > If the government is already doing the research you want, > why are you always making a big deal out of it? > >> and it is not illegal. > > We don't know that.Ā Just because government does a thing, even > if it has done it for years, does not make it constitutional. > >> I mean, really, do you think the FDA and CDC and more are all illegal and >> nobody but you noticed? What a stupid game. > > That's some red herring you're dishing up.Ā The question I > asked was not the legality of government agencies (although > that's another interesting issue).Ā The question is,Ā What > part of the Constitution makes the research you want the > government's job?Ā The fact that you can't or won't see > the difference makes you a functionally illiterate wizened > little troll. I think your game of pretending the CDC and FDA and the ATF and more are all illegal and only you noticed is silly. And it is SO far off topic as to not be worth going down that rabbit hole. And, no, the government is not doing the research I am talking about -- or doing it far less than they do for other items (as has been repeatedly shown). The fact you try to change topics and go in circles is quite telling to how you know you cannot support your rejection of doing risk / benefit analysis on guns as we do with pretty much everything else, and how you fear evidence-based laws and regulations in terms of guns. Which is pretty much where we started... but now you have offered a lot more evidence to back what I first noted. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <IL8YD.466280$GZ9.175344@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #245674 |
On 1/5/2019 1:32 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/5/19 1:21 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 12:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/2019 11:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency >>>>>> which was busted for misusing federal funds to agitate for more >>>>>> gun control laws so it can resume the actions which caused its >>>>>> previous disgrace? >>>>> >>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. >>>>> I want the government to do its job. >>>> >>>> Here's a link to the U.S. Constitution: >>>> http://constitutionus.com/ >>>> What part of the Constitution makes the research you want >>>> the government's job? >>> >>> Not playing that game. >> >> So you think finding constitutional authority for what the federal >> government does is just playing a game.Ā Well, it's a game people >> should take more seriously. >> >>> We already know the government does this >> >> If the government is already doing the research you want, >> why are you always making a big deal out of it? >> >>> and it is not illegal. >> >> We don't know that.Ā Just because government does a thing, even >> if it has done it for years, does not make it constitutional. >> >>> I mean, really, do you think the FDA and CDC and more are all illegal >>> and >>> nobody but you noticed? What a stupid game. >> >> That's some red herring you're dishing up.Ā The question I >> asked was not the legality of government agencies (although >> that's another interesting issue).Ā The question is,Ā What >> part of the Constitution makes the research you want the >> government's job?Ā The fact that you can't or won't see >> the difference makes you a functionally illiterate wizened >> little troll. > > I think your game of pretending the CDC and FDA and the ATF > and more are all illegal and only you noticed is silly. And > it is SO far off topic as to not be worth going down that rabbit hole. The current topic is, What part of the Constitution makes the research you want the government's job? It's a topic that makes you so uncomfortable that you studiously avoid it. You alone raised the question of the agencies' legality. I have not even taken a position on that. > > And, no, the government is not doing the research I am talking about -- > or doing it far less than they do for other items (as has been > repeatedly shown). If you want more research that much, then just quityerbitchin and go do the research yourself. Nobody's stopping you. In fact, I encourage you to do it. Go do your precious research to your heart's content. Research your butt off for all I care. The time you spend researching will be that much less time you spend trolling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web