BLASPHEMY: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
Beloved-of-Apollo at Mount.Olympus
Tue Nov 19 07:47:56 EST 2002
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:04:12 GMT "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com>
annoyed the fat controller by writing this in soc.men:
>"Bob" <bobx23456 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3DD412FC.1040705 at hotmail.com...
>> Gray Shockley wrote:
>> > On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:10:26 -0600, John Knight wrote
>> > (in message <mVVz9.205$XF5.102570 at news2.west.cox.net>):
>> >>Nuclear bombs are petty compared to the weapons of mass destruction used
>> >>the US in JUST the last 6 decades. According to Japanese sources, 9
>> >>Japs died in WWII, but only 1/90th as many died of nuclear bombs.
>> >>Firestorms in cities like Kyoto and Dresden and Hamburg, and the 2,000
>> >>bombs dropped by the truckloads out of B-52s which killed 2 million
>> >>Vietnamese, qualify as weapons of mass destruction because they killed
>> >>thousands of times more people than nuclear bombs ever have.
>> > --------------------------------------------------------
>> > By your daffynition, then, handguns and longguns probably qualify.
>Only if you're a "liberal" would you not recognize that handguns are used
>far, far more often for self-defense than they are to commit a crime, and
>that even if they weren't, they are STILL protected by the US Constitution
But should they be? The rationale of the right to bear arms was so
that the population could overthrow a fascist regime. The US has had
nothing but fascist regimes since WWI, and before, and these days you
need the right to bear nukes if you wanna to get George snr's fourth
term stooge, dubya, out of office. In the mean time you people are
shooting each other over road rage and similar incidents because you
are all too immature to *have* hand guns, so what do you think? Should
the hand gun laws be rescinded now their original intention cannot be
>> > Heck! Booze probably qualifies as there are tens (hundreds?) of
>> > more) who have died as a result of drinking alcoholic beverages
>> > being killed by those who have.
>And, again, this is something that only a "liberal" would dare say. When
>the beneficial effects of alcohol are compared to the most extreme estimates
>of the accidental deaths caused by alcohol, drinking alcohol is far safer
>than not drinking it at all http://christianparty.net/dwi.htm
Umm can you run that one by me again?
>> By these daffynitions tobacco is the all time worst weapon of
>> mass destruction. The Native Americans who gave it to the
>> English ought to have been shot. Or were they?
>Which ignores the simple fact that all the rhetoric about how evil smoking
>is, which DID reduce the number who smoke by almost half (from 43% to 23%),
>was accompanied by a 26% INCREASE in the cancer mortality rate
>But, please, don't let us confuse you with the facts. By all means,
>continue to spout your "liberal" "philosophy", unhindered by any and all
>considerations of the facts.
So you are saying that guns and booze and fags don't kill people,
being a liberal kills people?
More information about the Neur-sci