Anybody watch 60 Minutes tonight?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

On 11 Mar 2005 19:09:17 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Now, if you have something pertinent to add, feel free to. Cries of
>'heretic' or 'witch' (e.g. 'racist') will be ignored.
Will you ignore
"stupid ignorant dumb ass neo Nazi meat head"
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

"Sean Scott" <Its@secret> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>
>"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
>news:6s4431l8slrp8va0t2a3pga39ib1srm3bs@4ax.com...
>> "Sean Scott" <Its@secret> looked up from reading the entrails of the
>> porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>>
>>>"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
>>>news😱9b1315jh0af5jaoq4l02360uv6qdkh1ld@4ax.com...
>>>> riku <riku@invalid.none.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
>>>> porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:32:54 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's a bit hard for someone to be "accidently shot" by a properly
>>>>>>stored
>>>>>>and secured firearm.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is a "properly stored and secured" firearm? One that is in a
>>>>>safe, locked up so that the kids can't get to it? And you can't either
>>>>>in the case you really needed it fast to protect yourself in your own
>>>>>house?
>>>>
>>>> Trigger lock, and/or in a safe or gun safe.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I don't buy the "I'll need access to it in seconds to protect
>>>> myself from home invader argument."
>>>>
>>>> If it's that big a deal get a friggen alarm system so you've got lots of
>>>> warning.
>>>>
>>>> Mr burgler isn't too likely to keep on wandering round the house with
>>>> flashing lights and sirens going off, and you'll have plenty of time to
>>>> get your gun from the safe.
>>>>
>>>>>That's the dilemma I see with firearms at home. If you keep it
>>>>>available so that you it is actually useful in a life-threatening
>>>>>situation, then your kids could easily get it too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And if some of us people that own guns live by ourselves and have no kids?
>>
>> Why reply to me when you seem to be replying to something Riku wrote?
>>
>> But i'll answer anyway.
>> You still have a responsibility to secure and store your firearms
>> properly.
>>
>> If there's so much danger that someone might break in while you're home,
>> there's just as much (or more) that someone will break in while you're
>> out and your gun is lying around to be stolen.
>>
>> If you leave a gun lying around and it's stolen, YOU are ultimately
>> responsible for anyone shot and/or killed with your stolen gun.
>>
>
>The gun would go with me when I leave the house, that is the point of having
>a concealed carry permit and concealed weapon.

I wasn't going to assume you had a CC Permit, since so many gun owners
don't have one and/or CAN'T get one.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

"Sean Scott" <Its@secret> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>
>"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
>news:6s4431l8slrp8va0t2a3pga39ib1srm3bs@4ax.com...
>> "Sean Scott" <Its@secret> looked up from reading the entrails of the
>> porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>>
>>>"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
>>>news😱9b1315jh0af5jaoq4l02360uv6qdkh1ld@4ax.com...
>>>> riku <riku@invalid.none.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
>>>> porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:32:54 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's a bit hard for someone to be "accidently shot" by a properly
>>>>>>stored
>>>>>>and secured firearm.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is a "properly stored and secured" firearm? One that is in a
>>>>>safe, locked up so that the kids can't get to it? And you can't either
>>>>>in the case you really needed it fast to protect yourself in your own
>>>>>house?
>>>>
>>>> Trigger lock, and/or in a safe or gun safe.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I don't buy the "I'll need access to it in seconds to protect
>>>> myself from home invader argument."
>>>>
>>>> If it's that big a deal get a friggen alarm system so you've got lots of
>>>> warning.
>>>>
>>>> Mr burgler isn't too likely to keep on wandering round the house with
>>>> flashing lights and sirens going off, and you'll have plenty of time to
>>>> get your gun from the safe.
>>>>
>>>>>That's the dilemma I see with firearms at home. If you keep it
>>>>>available so that you it is actually useful in a life-threatening
>>>>>situation, then your kids could easily get it too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And if some of us people that own guns live by ourselves and have no kids?
>>
>> Why reply to me when you seem to be replying to something Riku wrote?
>>
>> But i'll answer anyway.
>> You still have a responsibility to secure and store your firearms
>> properly.
>>
>> If there's so much danger that someone might break in while you're home,
>> there's just as much (or more) that someone will break in while you're
>> out and your gun is lying around to be stolen.
>>
>> If you leave a gun lying around and it's stolen, YOU are ultimately
>> responsible for anyone shot and/or killed with your stolen gun.
>>
>>
>> It never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me that so many Americans both
>> claim they need a gun to protect themselves in their own homes AND that
>> America is the greatest place to live on Earth.
>>
>
>I never made claims that the US was the greatest place to live on Earth. I
>have actually given serious thought to emigrating to one of the other
>English speaking nations out there.

That wasn't directed at you specifically, but i've seen gun debates come
and go for YEARS on Fidonet and Usenet, and most of the time the
seriously Pro-Gun types are also the most Pro America as the greatest
country and/or ONLY first world country.

They never see how their two standpoints don't seem to mesh very well.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

EdS wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2005 19:09:17 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Now, if you have something pertinent to add, feel free to. Cries of
>>'heretic' or 'witch' (e.g. 'racist') will be ignored.
>
> Will you ignore
> "stupid ignorant dumb ass neo Nazi meat head"

I think there should be a hyphen between dumb and ass and maybe between
neo and Nazi and that meathead is one word but otherwise I think you've
hit the nail on the head 🙂

--
I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
'done it'...
What do you mean?
Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
Yes...
What's it like?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110625523.881338.27890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>The ready availability in the US of the coward's weapon, the
> handgun,
> might have just a little more to do with the problem than your
> racial prejudices would admit.<<<
>
> Virtually all violent acts committed using a handgun involve black
> perpetrators. There's no comparison between the level of responsibility
> shown by European-Americans on the one hand, and blacks on the other.
> Minus this hostile population, the U.S. would have few deaths involving
> handguns. If there's a large black population in an area, that area is
> dangerous. Not only in the U.S., but in Britain, the Caribbean, Brazil,
> and elsewhere.
>
> Federal statistics, and your common sense, bear witness to the truth of
> this post.
>

Common sense also says that you are an idiot. What is the murder rate in
Kosovo? What is the murder rate in Israel? I don't think you will find any
blacks in those areas so how would you explain their pension for a level of
violence we could not imagine in this country.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 11 Mar 2005 17:55:10 GMT, stePH <acetheta@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>news:u7r231h6af995ocdg9k48imh0q0qh37lli@4ax.com:
>
>> Wrt Iraq, Bush was right about *what*, exactly?
>
>That Saddam Hussein was a Very Naughty Man.

I think that's why US was supporting Saddam earlier.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:13:49 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
wrote:

>If there's so much danger that someone might break in while you're home,
>there's just as much (or more) that someone will break in while you're
>out and your gun is lying around to be stolen.

I was more thinking about keeping the firearm accessible WHEN you are
at home. Not necessarily leaving them lying around when you are not.

What is the reason to have guns at home anyway? Wasn't it so that you
can shoot or scare away a burglar or some crackhead entering your home
in the middle of night when you are sleeping? What good is a gun then
if it is locked up in a safe?

But like you said, keeping the guns accessible this way can pose
problems as well.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:57:42 -0600, "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com>
wrote:

>> I live in a country where the "choice" of any lunatic owning a gun is
>> taken away. And I am happy about that, because the chances of getting
>> shot on the street here are virtually nil.
>
>Ahh yes, yet another Euro seeking to group ALL gun owners into a "lunatic
>owning a gun". The same old tired story.

Learn to read. Life will be easier for you after that.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:d0npka$3gj$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <422E0B3C.56E8068C@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>I guess in the states where things were so lawless for so long it's
>>hard to give up this thing which was seen so essential it was written
>>into the constitution.
>
> It was not written into the constitution so that people could protect
> themselves against criminals. It was written into the constitution so
> that people could protect themselves against the government.
>
> Of course, this distinction may or may not be relevant 🙂
>
> The text in question (from house.gov) is:
>
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed."
>
> Cheers
> Bent D
> --


You seem to have misunderstood what "Militia" meant. This was in the time
that there was no formal police force/national guard etc. A Militia was
needed in case of trouble flaring up that had to be dealt with and, of
course, they had to be armed.

This section was therefore intended to ensure that a local populace would
always be able to defend itself against other armed aggressors. Of course,
that job could now be adequately done by the Police et al, but to admit that
would deprive lots of butch yanks the chance of owning a gun.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

If America were to sterilize those prone to violence, and it's mentally
handicapped, she would solve many of her problems. Those who've
commited random acts of violence, and individuals with obvious
(apparent) mental handicaps (including mental illness), should not be
permitted to reproduce. Such people are genetic misfits and a menace to
society.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110765926.858651.298600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> If America were to sterilize those prone to violence, and it's mentally
> handicapped, she would solve many of her problems. Those who've
> commited random acts of violence, and individuals with obvious
> (apparent) mental handicaps (including mental illness), should not be
> permitted to reproduce. Such people are genetic misfits and a menace to
> society.
>

Had they only explained that to your father.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

One who wishes to prevent violent criminals from reproducing is a
'Nazi'. You'd better pay heed to how you label ideas 'Nazi'. You might
accidentally resurrect them.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

Doug Jacobs wrote:

> Of course he doesn't. Not having any valid arguments of his own, Fred
> will argue you down the very last comma and the dots over the "i"s in
> your
> post. He'll do just about anything to sidetrack and derail your
> argument
> in the hopes you'll keep replying to him simply because he craves the
> attention, and likes to read his old posts.

Yeah, I'm slowly starting to realize that. Maybe he should come with a
warning label.

-Z-
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> Spake Unto All:

>Those who've
>committed random acts of violence, <and individuals with obvious
>(apparent) mental handicaps (including mental illness),> should not be
>permitted to reproduce

Eugenics isn't nazism, but the nazis embraced eugenics as a tool to
further the confused nazi ideas about race, and ultimately led to its
total discrediting, but it existed independently of nazism. If you
check you'll find that pretty much all industrialized countries prior
to WWII (and often some time thereafter), including the US, committed
forced sterilizations of people whose reproduction was seen as
undesirable to society.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

> Paul Heslop wrote:
> I think I've 'discussed' this enough with you. Talking to people like
> you in public is giving free air to your views. I hope you never have
> a handicapped child
> --
> Paul (That's what keeps me down)
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Stop and Look
> http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/


You still haven't told us why the severely mentally handicapped (and
retarded) and violent criminals shouldn't be sterilized.

There are women with five children, in their twenties, not married, and
pregnant again. (most of whom are non-White) This should be not be
permitted. They should be sterilized.

I'm tired of people being victimized by genetic misfits birthed by
irresponsible mothers. I'm tired of the excuse of poverty being used to
justify violent crimes. Aren't you?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

> Sean Scott wrote:
>
> I'm all for a one child per family law, (with the exception of rare
cases of
> twins, triplets etc.) Too many people in the world starving and
homeless to
> add another person to the mix. China has the right idea.

I disagree with that. Healthy, stable, intelligent people should be
encouraged to have children. However, since these people are the most
responsible, and are too busy working their lives away, they don't.
Such people have pride, and would never reproduce without being capable
of caring for their offspring. It's the less intelligent who are
reproducing without regard. It's the immigrants, legal and otherwise,
and people of African descent, who have high birthrates.

Europe is officially dying. It's birthrate is far below replacement
levels. Whites, in general, are a dying race.

China has an estimated population of 1.6 billion. That policy was
necessary for stability. Even still, it's not enforced everywhere. The
wealthier people don't always pay heed to it, and it's not uncommon for
those in rural areas where state officials are loathe to go, or aren't
around, to have more than one child. Despite the one-child policy,
China's population is expected to increase for the next 50 years.

Negative eugenics is a start. You begin by sterilizing violent inmates
in prisons. Then move on to the state hospitals. Get them before they
reproduce, or at least before they have more. Eventually, this will
happen. I know this because it must happen before humanity moves on.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

riku <riku@invalid.none.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:13:49 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
>wrote:
>
>>If there's so much danger that someone might break in while you're home,
>>there's just as much (or more) that someone will break in while you're
>>out and your gun is lying around to be stolen.
>
>I was more thinking about keeping the firearm accessible WHEN you are
>at home. Not necessarily leaving them lying around when you are not.

Yeah but all too many don't secure them at all.

Like I said before - a properly stored and secured firearm doesn't
become involved in an "accidental shooting"

>What is the reason to have guns at home anyway? Wasn't it so that you
>can shoot or scare away a burglar or some crackhead entering your home
>in the middle of night when you are sleeping? What good is a gun then
>if it is locked up in a safe?

How the long do you think it would take to get it out?
They do make keyless entry gun safes that you could open in the same
amount of time you type in your ATM pin.
With a little practice you can have access to your pistol in _seconds_,
but never have to worry about the kids getting hold of it.
[This kind of safe is portable so it could be stolen. It would stop
accidental shootings since the kids can't get the gun but it wouldn't
necessarily stop a thief from taking gun and safe to try and open it
elsewhere.]

I'm not talking about keeping the gun in a safe in the den downstairs
while you're upstairs sleeping.
I'm talking about it in a safe in your bedroom, since that's where the
gun is anyway to "protect you while sleeping'.

Crackhead breaks in, alarms go off, lights start flashing - crackhead
leaves without you ever needing a gun.
Even if he doesn't, you have ample warning to get your gun.

>But like you said, keeping the guns accessible this way can pose
>problems as well.

Yeah, multitudes of accidental shootings, stolen guns and that many more
guns available for crimes.

Frankly, if an American isn't willing to store his guns properly and
safely and take basic precautions to make them less likely to be stolen,
he should be able to own a gun.

If you aren't willing to take the responsibilities that go along with
the RIGHT, you lose the right.



Any damages or death caused by his gun are his fault, and he should be
charged accordingly.

Yes that means when Joe Bozo's son finds his gun under the mattress and
accidently kills himself with it, Joe Bozo gets charged for making it
possible.

Joe Bozo's gun gets stolen from under the mattress and used to kill
someone - Joe gets charged as an accessory to that shooting, since he
made it possible.

Funny how neither of those infringe at all on the "right to own a gun",
just the right to be a bad, lazy and stupid gun owner.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110836695.151444.216600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Paul Heslop wrote:
>> I think I've 'discussed' this enough with you. Talking to people like
>> you in public is giving free air to your views. I hope you never have
>> a handicapped child
>> --
>> Paul (That's what keeps me down)
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Stop and Look
>> http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
>
>
> You still haven't told us why the severely mentally handicapped (and
> retarded) and violent criminals shouldn't be sterilized.
>
> There are women with five children, in their twenties, not married, and
> pregnant again. (most of whom are non-White) This should be not be
> permitted. They should be sterilized.
>
> I'm tired of people being victimized by genetic misfits birthed by
> irresponsible mothers. I'm tired of the excuse of poverty being used to
> justify violent crimes. Aren't you?
>

I'm all for a one child per family law, (with the exception of rare cases of
twins, triplets etc.) Too many people in the world starving and homeless to
add another person to the mix. China has the right idea.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110839304.253773.126080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Sean Scott wrote:
>>
>> I'm all for a one child per family law, (with the exception of rare
> cases of
>> twins, triplets etc.) Too many people in the world starving and
> homeless to
>> add another person to the mix. China has the right idea.
>
> I disagree with that. Healthy, stable, intelligent people should be
> encouraged to have children. However, since these people are the most
> responsible, and are too busy working their lives away, they don't.
> Such people have pride, and would never reproduce without being capable
> of caring for their offspring. It's the less intelligent who are
> reproducing without regard. It's the immigrants, legal and otherwise,
> and people of African descent, who have high birthrates.
>
> Europe is officially dying. It's birthrate is far below replacement
> levels. Whites, in general, are a dying race.
>

I think it is less to do with whites not having children but more that the
races are interbreeding.


> China has an estimated population of 1.6 billion. That policy was
> necessary for stability. Even still, it's not enforced everywhere. The
> wealthier people don't always pay heed to it, and it's not uncommon for
> those in rural areas where state officials are loathe to go, or aren't
> around, to have more than one child. Despite the one-child policy,
> China's population is expected to increase for the next 50 years.
>
> Negative eugenics is a start. You begin by sterilizing violent inmates
> in prisons. Then move on to the state hospitals. Get them before they
> reproduce, or at least before they have more. Eventually, this will
> happen. I know this because it must happen before humanity moves on.
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 John Lewis <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote:

> Funny thing... I didn't know that Mafia, Cosa Nostra and KKK members
> and the supremacist nutters that run around in Montana and Idaho
> were/are of African descent. One learns something new every day....
> The ready availability in the US of the coward's weapon, the handgun,
> might have just a little more to do with the problem than your
> racial prejudices would admit.

And who knew about the mostly "violent" population of South America, to
say nothing of those "violent" Canadians. Damn flappy-heads, I knew you
couldn't trust them! (and if you need a sarcasm tag here, you're taking
things way too seriously...)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

"Sean Scott" <Its@secret> wrote in message
news:RpqdnbwTxIPbgqvfRVn-3A@wideopenwest.com...
>
> "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1110839304.253773.126080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> Sean Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm all for a one child per family law, (with the exception of rare
>> cases of
>>> twins, triplets etc.) Too many people in the world starving and
>> homeless to
>>> add another person to the mix. China has the right idea.
>>
>> I disagree with that. Healthy, stable, intelligent people should be
>> encouraged to have children. However, since these people are the most
>> responsible, and are too busy working their lives away, they don't.
>> Such people have pride, and would never reproduce without being capable
>> of caring for their offspring. It's the less intelligent who are
>> reproducing without regard. It's the immigrants, legal and otherwise,
>> and people of African descent, who have high birthrates.
>>
>> Europe is officially dying. It's birthrate is far below replacement
>> levels. Whites, in general, are a dying race.
>>
>
> I think it is less to do with whites not having children but more that the
> races are interbreeding.

Your parents obviously interbred. Dumb ass.

>
>
>> China has an estimated population of 1.6 billion. That policy was
>> necessary for stability. Even still, it's not enforced everywhere. The
>> wealthier people don't always pay heed to it, and it's not uncommon for
>> those in rural areas where state officials are loathe to go, or aren't
>> around, to have more than one child. Despite the one-child policy,
>> China's population is expected to increase for the next 50 years.
>>
>> Negative eugenics is a start. You begin by sterilizing violent inmates
>> in prisons. Then move on to the state hospitals. Get them before they
>> reproduce, or at least before they have more. Eventually, this will
>> happen. I know this because it must happen before humanity moves on.
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

aether wrote:
>
> > Paul Heslop wrote:
> > I think I've 'discussed' this enough with you. Talking to people like
> > you in public is giving free air to your views. I hope you never have
> > a handicapped child
> > --
> > Paul (That's what keeps me down)
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > Stop and Look
> > http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
>
> You still haven't told us why the severely mentally handicapped (and
> retarded) and violent criminals shouldn't be sterilized.
>
Because you are a twat. Even if you could argue for this abominable
practice where do you stop?

> There are women with five children, in their twenties, not married, and
> pregnant again. (most of whom are non-White) This should be not be
> permitted. They should be sterilized.

you should be sterilised, or better still, your dad should have been.
>
> I'm tired of people being victimized by genetic misfits birthed by
> irresponsible mothers. I'm tired of the excuse of poverty being used to
> justify violent crimes. Aren't you?

I'm tired of people's greed making them want to justify their hatred
of those in a worse position in life than them. I'm sick of people who
can't stand to see someone of a different colour just being in the
same street. I'm sick, most of all, of people attacking anyone who
can't fight back.

Of course I am aware that there are folks who are bad, and folks who
are violent, but you seem to be under some illusion that this is a
black thing.


--
Paul (That’s what keeps me down)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

Sean Scott wrote:

> I'm all for a one child per family law, (with the exception of rare cases of
> twins, triplets etc.) Too many people in the world starving and homeless to
> add another person to the mix. China has the right idea.

That's not what our aryan friend wants. he wants selective breeding,
another Nazi trait. Remember the master race?

I agree that people should be encouraged to only have one child, but
your 'law' would have to be worldwide and is impossible to enforce
unless you allow for enforced sterilization or abortion, neither of
which is moral.
--
Paul (That’s what keeps me down)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Sean Scott" <Its@secret> Spake Unto All:

> China has the right idea.

HAD.
The US has pressured china into relaxing the one-child-per-family
rule, because it, bless us, led to abortions.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

"Mattinglyfan" <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net (deez nuts)> wrote in message
news:aa-dnSRZfYVn_avfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Sean Scott" <Its@secret> wrote in message
> news:RpqdnbwTxIPbgqvfRVn-3A@wideopenwest.com...
>>
>> "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1110839304.253773.126080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Sean Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm all for a one child per family law, (with the exception of rare
>>> cases of
>>>> twins, triplets etc.) Too many people in the world starving and
>>> homeless to
>>>> add another person to the mix. China has the right idea.
>>>
>>> I disagree with that. Healthy, stable, intelligent people should be
>>> encouraged to have children. However, since these people are the most
>>> responsible, and are too busy working their lives away, they don't.
>>> Such people have pride, and would never reproduce without being capable
>>> of caring for their offspring. It's the less intelligent who are
>>> reproducing without regard. It's the immigrants, legal and otherwise,
>>> and people of African descent, who have high birthrates.
>>>
>>> Europe is officially dying. It's birthrate is far below replacement
>>> levels. Whites, in general, are a dying race.
>>>
>>
>> I think it is less to do with whites not having children but more that
>> the races are interbreeding.
>
> Your parents obviously interbred. Dumb ass.
>

Why would you even say something like that and what is with the dumb ass
comment?


>>
>>
>>> China has an estimated population of 1.6 billion. That policy was
>>> necessary for stability. Even still, it's not enforced everywhere. The
>>> wealthier people don't always pay heed to it, and it's not uncommon for
>>> those in rural areas where state officials are loathe to go, or aren't
>>> around, to have more than one child. Despite the one-child policy,
>>> China's population is expected to increase for the next 50 years.
>>>
>>> Negative eugenics is a start. You begin by sterilizing violent inmates
>>> in prisons. Then move on to the state hospitals. Get them before they
>>> reproduce, or at least before they have more. Eventually, this will
>>> happen. I know this because it must happen before humanity moves on.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>