Iamon lyme:

(V): "hares of Standard Chartered have tumbled despite the bank denying allegations that it illegally "schemed" with Iran to launder money."

hares??

A bunch of rabbits owned by Standard Chartered fell down? A flight of stairs?

"Has anyone got a way of lacing the bankers champers with laxatives?? "

Been experimenting have ya?

So do want to "stick it" to all bankers or just the guilty ones? I don't do business with the bank. Credit Unions are the way to go. Money is secure and you don't have all the fees AND they are local and serve the community.

I'd rather lace the food of those lazy able-bodied welfare cheats with laxatives. That will get them off their asses!

there is a city that is one of the safest cities in America. Kennesaw, Georgia where gun ownership is a mandatory right. The city was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s 10 best cities for families. “The award was aimed at identifying the best communities nationally that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools, wide-open spaces, and less stress.”

In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Notice the part that reads exempt if you conscientiously oppose firearms, you do not need to buy a gun. Therefore, the Democrats do not need to by a gun but they can still enjoy life because everybody else in town has their back. There is still crime in Kennesaw but they are limited to the area of town that does not permit guns. There were three murders in 2010 committed by the same man in what is described as a “school safety zone,” an area extending 1,000 feet from any school, including adult colleges and technical schools. This means that even though Kennesaw has the most conservative gun laws in the United States, employees at the facility where the murders were committed could not have a gun on the premises because the Democrats were able to secure those areas as anti-gun.


Read the rest here:
http://guardianlv.com/2012/07/pro-gun-cities-have-less-crime/

*any comments against the Guardian simply means you are a pinhead and a moron. No attacks on the messenger (exceptions are made for the Daily Kos and Huffington, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc)

(V): One store, one example, and you think that you've made the case against guns? The reality is that in the UK there is a growing threat of violent crime.

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK.

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.


The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

It also recorded the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU, and the highest absolute number of burglaries, with double the number of offences recorded in Germany and France.

Overall, 5.4 million crimes were recorded in the UK in 2007 - more than 10 a minute - second only to Sweden.

It's irresponsible to suggest that all a person has to do is a bit of slapping about and the criminal will flee. Idiotic. And let's not forget that awful incident with the dreaded handbag!!!

Granny needs a gun in her hand bag. Then when the criminals come, she takes it out, aims, pulls the trigger and kills as many as she can before they can get away. A dead criminal can't offend again. And there's no cost to put dead criminals in jail. Slapping them about does nothing. Shooting off their kneecaps does.

Most ridiculous British laws:

1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament

2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down

3. In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store

4. Mince pies cannot be eaten on Christmas Day

5. In Scotland, if someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your toilet, you must let them enter

6. In the UK a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman's helmet

7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen

8. It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing

9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armour

10. In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow

Most ridiculous foreign laws:

1. In Ohio, it is illegal to get a fish drunk

2. In Indonesia, the penalty for masturbation is decapitation (which head do they cut off?)

3. In Bahrain, a male doctor can only examine the genitals of a woman in the reflection of a mirror

4. In Switzerland, a man may not relieve himself standing up after 10pm

5. In Alabama, it is illegal to be blindfolded while driving a vehicle

6. In Florida, unmarried women who parachute on a Sunday could be jailed

7. In Vermont, women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth

8. In Milan, it is a legal requirement to smile at all times, except funerals or hospital visits

9. In Japan, there is no age of consent

10. In France, it is illegal to name a pig Napoleon

(V): Once again the quick fix of gun regulations rears its ugly head.  Chicago has strict gun laws but the criminals don't follow the rules.  Imagine that! 

50,000 people are killed in knife attacks each year.  Let's ban silverwear.  On a more serious note, if a loon wants to kill people, there are plenty of ways to kill people.  Knives, machetes, cross bow, Exacto knives (what they used to take over the airplanes on 911,) poisions,  cars, mobs.....if you can think it, you can use it. 

But leave it to the left wing loons to use a tragedy to push for gun control. They are ok with knives killing people.  They are ok if cars kill people.  But use a gun, now that's a terrible crime.

These are the same people BTW that are perfectly fine with a doctor reaching into the womb and ripping apart a defenseless human being.   These are the same people that are ok with partially delivering a baby (leaving the head in the mother) and cutting a slit in the back of the baby's head and sucking it's brains out a tube.  THAT is fine with these people.  But gun ownership?  God forbid thousands die from guns but millions from abortions, yeah, they are ok with that.

Spare the rest of us your feigned outrage.

Teen kills NINE in knife attack.

And how about this one closer to home

Six people killed in Knife Attack!

Let's get the government involved in regulating knife purchases too while we're at it.  ~sigh

Today's top visited boards
1. Politics 15
2. Brf's 6th Annual St. Pat's Pente Tourney 14
3. BrainKing.ee 13
4. BrainKing.com 10
5. Music 6
6. Brian's 1971 Pub 6
7. Aηythiηg Goεs 5
8. World of Sport 5
9. Společenství přátel 4
10. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly 4

Iamon lyme:

Iamon lyme: I'll bet that since they don't have any control of that Rover that something goes wrong. Maybe crashes even. But not to worry as the little Martians have unique fixit tools (unique to us that is) and they can fix anything (except our economy - I know this because Obama is from Mars).

Other than that, the bunny seems to be ok. The cat loves to play with the yarn ball. Any old one will do.

Iamon lyme: See?! I knew it. Well when traveling, I always look for the closest Starbucks. I just made my Gold!

(V): Crossing your fingers won't help. But precise calculations will. So I'm banking on the math.

Vikings: ohhhh, big letters too. That must mean you really mean it. ok. I was winning too.

And now Jules, please name a politician that has had an original thought. Take your time but do it before hell freezes.

MissDelish: And

I'm funny. And smart. And interesting. And thoughtful. And right.

Jules is just boring.

MissDelish: I beg to differ: My stuff may be a load of rubbish (sometimes there are treasures found in rubbish) but Jules stuff is simply a load of crap (and in a load of crap you'll likely find maggots and a foul smell).

(V): I should have known. YOu don't like to stay on point because it's easier to pettifog when you ignore the point. Besides, when you don't have a cogent point, rabbit trails are necessary for you.

(V): You're boring me again. Stay on point.

Artful Dodger: And don't say Sticky Notes. I've already demolished that argument.

I challenge any of you liberal (that's you Jules) to name one contemporary original thinker, thought, or idea. Name just ONE.

......waiting...........................

(V): Yep, you certainly are.

(V): NOPE Jule.

(V): Where's the "" I didn't quote him. Do you not know the difference between explaining his position and quoting him? You can't misquote unless you quote. Definition of QUOTE: repeat somebody's exact words: to repeat or copy the exact words spoken or written by somebody


oops

(V): You are the one picking. I made a point and you wouldn't accept it even though I am right about it. No one has had an original thought. Especially you.

Artful Dodger: Was I right or what? (I was right).

BTW, did you notice how I didn't quote Descartes and yet jules claims to have spoiled my misquote? (I noticed).

(V): No, you're just not willing to accept the fact that no ideas are completely original if they copy or use even ONE idea from something else. The inter-relationship between ideas makes that virtually impossible. The word "original" pertains to the origins or beginnings of something. For an idea to truly be "original" it MUST precede all others. You might invent something that appears to be completely original but on closer inspection it's clear that elements of the idea preceded it's inception. Sticky Notes is a good example of a BAD example of an original idea. There is nothing about a sticky note that is new with the exception of the glue strip on the back. That's the ONLY part of that idea that is "new." And yet the concept of sticking notes here and there as reminders preceded the invention of sticky notes.

But we were talking about thought and ideas and specifically ideas of a politician (any will do). And so going back to The Col's whine about Mitt: No one, not even Obama has had an original thought. Obama's actually continuing some of the very same Bush policies that got us in the financial mess. Name even ONE original thought from Obama and we can trace that idea back into history.

Once again, yer schooled.

(V): my response to this post is: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You're still wrong. And now you're boring too!

(V): You apparently don't fully comprehend the concept of "original thought." You need to give it up. You are wrong no matter how much google you cut and paste.

Silvery Moon: Awwwww, are you angry with me now?

Please note how Jules will now try to refute Descartes even though he's quoted him in the past. It never ends.

Pettifog much? Obfuscate?



Next, Jules will try to teach God a lesson too.

Class dismissed.

Descartes has said that there exists no idea that can be completely original and new. His stated reason is that any "new" idea is simply a recombination of previous ideas. This has been my argument. And you should know that even the Bible says that there is nothing new under the sun.

Again Jules, look up the word original. Then argue against Descartes and God.

(V): Nah. You've got the pettifogging trophy. You're number one there.

Give it up Jules. You are pettifogging again. Please go read the dictionary so you can fully understand what "original" means. You clearly don't know.

And now you are comparing yourself to Jesus?

(V): Of course it's a new invention. Do you not think before you write? What, could it be an old invention? It's not an original thought. It's an idea that was built on other ideas. Is the car an original idea? No. It was simply a buggy with an engine.

This topic surfaced when the Col claimed that Romney doesn't have an original thought. I should have challenged that differently and asked if The Col had examined ALL of Romney's thoughts (I'll save ya the time-he hasn't). It was simply another example of a lazy statement made by a liberal who had no substantive argument so he attacked the person. Liberals love to attack the person rather than focus on their ideas.

But hey, thanks for the mini lesson (you got from google) on post-it notes. That "new" invention still wasn't an original idea. It's simply true that there is nothing new under the sun. People have been using variations of the post-it pads for years.

And while you're checking your google source, could you please provide us with an example where a new idea (a new idea isn't the same as an original thought) can be considered an old invention?

"Hey Charlie, check this out. I just invented something old!"



BTW, NOTHING in your post supports your assertion that the post it or the rubic represents an original thought. You crack me up. But you do love to pettifog an issue.

mckinley: Sorry mckinley but you're wrong on that point. The sticky notepad was an new twist on an existing idea. A piece of paper to write notes on is NOT new. It's been around for hundreds of years. People would tear off paper and tape them to surfaces so they wouldn't lose the note. So the basic concept has been around long before any of us was born. We write a note on paper and place it on a bulletin board. Same idea. So your examples fails as an original thought. The inventor built on an existing idea. To be "original" it must be completely new and not copied or derived from something else. Even Jules is WRONG with his example. Puzzles have been around for years and the best you can say about Rubic is he had an unique idea that differed from other manipulating puzzles. The rubic cube comes close but it is still built and influenced by the ideas that preceded it. The Rubic's cube is simply a 3-d model that is manipulated. Such manipulations of 3-d forms have been around since the birth of geometry. Since the rubic cube build on previous known concepts, it's not completely new. Jules will likely disagree and perhaps so will you but you'll both be wrong if you do.

Iamon lyme: That's a fine idea except the liberals in the US wouldn't be satisfied if the US got an equal trophy. They'd rather see us get the shaft.

(V): I never once used "regime change" in my argument. I simply said that WMD's is a small part of a larger picture. That was clear to everyone. With politics, anything is possible on either side of the isle. It's entirely possible that there was an ulterior motive at work. But to claim you "know" with certainty is laughable. And it's worth ignoring.

(V): Your argument is the epitome of obfuscation. It can't be that they made a MISTAKE regarding WMDs, it has to be they lied. That line of argument is the reason many US conservatives turn off to the liberal rhetoric. You claim that the WMD issue was a "fiasco." But you've never explained how this is so. As in all politics, the "other side" seizes on an opportunity to make the mole hill a mountain. That is what not finding huge quantities of WMDs were and are: a small issue. The issue of what to do about Saddam and Iraq was much larger than a single thing. That is factual. Whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq is open to debate. There are good points being made on both sides of that question. It's dishonest to ignore that reality.

BTW, the meaning of Richard is "powerful leader." So thanks.

(V): You're the one who doesn't get it. You are the one who is highly exaggerating what happened. The majority of "experts" who looked at the intel knew Saddam had possessed WMDs and had used them against his people. And Saddam was happy keeping the world guessing about his possession of such weapons. With all his stonewalling of inspectors, it's little wonder that combined with the intelligence available, most concluded he was hiding something. The wimps of the world would rather trust the terrorists than to rely on the might of the military. It's you liberals who are the liars (and by US standards, you're a far left liberal loon). It's you who can't be trusted. Cherry picking quotes from your Google search isn't solid evidence. Get it?

(V): Saying something you KNOW isn't the case is lying. Saying something you believe to be the case isn't.

Wise Up

(V): Assertions about lying aren't proof. neither is "blah blah blah"

You made an incoherent statement regarding my use of the idiom carbon copy. I corrected you. Simple as that.

I know you believe that Iamon lyme and I are one in the same but you can't be further from the truth. You're not even being clever about it.

BTW, proof is not just evidence open to interpretation but something solid, definitive, and just not just a "you say so."

If you have none, then drop it already. Who cares at this point. Isn't that horse dead enough for you?

The Col: And stop winking at me.

The Col: Having trouble following again?

Since they didn't find WMD's in Iraq, Bush lied.

The truth:
Did liberals believe that Iraq had WMDs?
YES

Did liberals give their approval to invade Iraq?
YES

Did conservatives think that Iraq had WMDs?
YES

Did conservatives give their approval to invade Iraq?
YES

Did other countries believe that Iraq had WMDs?
YES

Did Iraq have WMDs and use them on its people?
YES

Was it likely that Saddam was still hiding WMDs?
YES

Did we find any when we went into Iraq?
NO

Was any evidence found that WMDs had existed in Iraq?
YES

Does it follow (logically) that someone lied about WMDs in order to invade Iraq?
NO - That is stupid logic.

- we know Saddam was a liar. And he stonewalled inspectors at every turn. As a buffer in the Middle East, it was in Iraq's interest to keep the world guessing about WMDs. Also it served to keep Iran in check.

Was invading Iraq a mistake (in hindsight)?
Depends on whom you ask.

Are liberals morons for continuing to bring up WMDs?
YES.

Will they ever shut up about it?
NO - You can't fix stupid.

(V): You clearly don't understand the use of the idiom "carbon copy." (you might want to look that big word). Its informal use simply means: somebody or something that is identical to or very much like somebody or something else.

Class dismissed. You really do have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

The Col: and raises a good point. Even your last statement can be found easily on a Google search. So much for your complaint about an "original thought." Do you even think these things through before you say them?

So I'll ask you again: What follows from your previous statement about Romney not having an original thought?

Or were you just whining again? Quick, someone call the Wambulance! http://thewambulance.com/

The Col: I doubt an original thought has ever passed your lips either. Is there really such a thing as an "original" thought? If you think you've had one, share it with us so I can show you that your "original" thought is really and old idea.

Obama hasn't had an original thought either. So what? What follows from that?

As for this nonsense statement: "...I don't think anyone knows what Romney really thinks or believes, he will basically say whatever that specific audience wants, or what is politically in his best interests"

If you are suggesting that this is unique to Romney, then you are mistaken. MOST politicians are like this. Clinton was a classic example. When playing to the far left wasn't politically expedient, he played to the middle (and accomplished much as a result). Obama plays to the far left all day long. What's different?

You are a walking, talking, liberal spouting talking points machine. Nothing about what you say is original or unique. You're just a carbon copy of a liberal where common sense and critical thinking take a back seat to partisan pontifications. Now I may be a carbon copy of a conservative thinker, but in my case, I'm right. (no pun intended).

Iamon lyme: lol I love it! I should wear it to school.