PDA

View Full Version : Gun buy back programs-- acceptable? good? or slippery slope bad?



Soflasnapper
01-04-2013, 12:56 PM
The LA area gun buy back program has recently returned to the news. Ralph's Supermarket donates gift certificates in this program, and anyone turning in a firearm receives a Ralph's gift certificate in varying amounts. I think it's $50, $100 and $200.

This does not intrude on gun owners' 2nd amendment rights, as it is a voluntary sale on their part. Not a seizure or ban, in any respect.

So, what do you think of such programs?

1. A false sense of doing something but which is wholly inadequate, when what we need is a complete ban on handguns and 'assault weapons.' (strongly oppose, from the anti-2nd amendment left, er, sensible moderate gun regulation side, I mean of course. Reagan, did I mention Reagan?)

2. A dangerous precedent, that will wrongly teach the public that firearms are the problem when they are the solution. (strongly oppose, from the pro-2nd amendment right)

3. Not much value either way, but not dangerous in either way, so meh. (no strong opinion either way, whatever)

4. A great idea that is totally worth it, with significant results, that ought to be modeled and it's only downside, not enough of it going on. (strongly support from the anti-2nd amendment left).

5. Neither a great idea nor worth it, particularly, but since the public sheeple want some symbolic actions, and this isn't terrible at all, it's very much worth doing it for political cover reasons (strong support from the pro-2nd amendment right)

6. Since all of the above are idiotic cartoon responses that totally miss the point, I'll tell you what REAL Americans think, to wit: (please explain another reaction)

(Note: this particular program involves no public expenditure of money beyond perhaps some dedicated personnel already on salary being tasked to man the turn in stations. Some programs might involve public monies for the by-back. My questions apply to both.)

LWW
01-04-2013, 01:35 PM
Why would anyone oppose someone using their own money to buyback guns?

Soflasnapper
01-04-2013, 02:15 PM
Not a pertinent joke as to the Ralph's DONATION of gift cards usable there, by which the LA and other CA programs are 'funded.; Private sector donations.

But if taxpayer funds were used, we might ask the non-snark/joke question, why would anyone SUPPORT using their own (tax paid) monies to buy back guns?

Answer: it could be cheaper than the alternatives, including the cost of the loss of human life and the human suffering (and attendant police force and court costs for dealing with the aftermath of gun violence) that this might curb.

LWW
01-05-2013, 06:56 AM
The difference is that Ralph is using Ralph's own money ... state funds are always collected under threat of violence, and the entire purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the people maintained the ability to inflict violence against violence.

The MAD theory stopped WWIII and has kept the US fre from tyranny ... which explains why statists have always wanted to undo it.

Soflasnapper
01-06-2013, 01:40 PM
All taxation comes with the implicit or reserved threat of violence to collect it. And yet that is a known allowed function and key reason for the creation of the federal government, per the COTUS. It is no more predatory to tax the people to pay for courts and prisons to deal with firearm-related crimes and criminals than to tax them for using that money for buying back firearms, which can reduce the money needed for courts and prison and the medical treatment of firearm injuries.

I think your statement is a canard, and at least A reason, and I would argue, the key reason, for the 2nd amendment is found in the independent clause with which it begins.

Meaning, the founding fathers were very much against any standing armies, even restricting appropriations for the military to a two-year term directly in the COTUS. So, how to ensure the country has the military might to defend itself, with no standing army around? The well-regulated militias would serve that purpose, as ground forces when called into action, and of course there would be a permanent 'standing' (floating?) navy for shore defense.

LWW
01-06-2013, 06:45 PM
Have you ever actually read the COTUS?

Although the congress indeed has the power to tax, it most certainly doesn't have the power to spend on programs outside it's specified powers ... not that this has ever bothered a statist.

cushioncrawler
01-07-2013, 12:08 AM
After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.
By Will Oremus Posted Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012, at 10:00 PM ET

Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard lays a wreath at the memorial site of the Port Arthur massacre on its 10th anniversary. The mass killing spurred Howard's government to pass sweeping gun control laws.
Photo by Ian Waldie/Getty Images
Read the rest of Slate’s coverage of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
Read more from Slate's coverage of the Sandy Hook school shooting

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.

That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.

Soflasnapper
01-07-2013, 07:43 PM
Have you ever actually read the COTUS?

Although the congress indeed has the power to tax, it most certainly doesn't have the power to spend on programs outside it's specified powers ... not that this has ever bothered a statist.

Old question, tired memory perhaps on your part. Everything the government has done has a justification (which you think is wrong, but it is offered whenever questioned and it's wrong to pretend there is no answer), from somewhere in the general welfare clause, the commerce clause, or the necessary and proper clause.

Besides, you raise a moot point, as the COTUS does not bind the state governments similarly to limited government. You'd have to find any restrictions on the states in their own constitutions. Maybe something comparable is there, but I think it isn't. Certainly I've not heard anyone make that general claim. The states are not bound by limited or enumerated powers, or if they are, not by the COTUS.

So if it is thought by the duly elected representatives of the citizenry, be they federal or state representatives (or senators, meaning the term broadly), that spending tax monies for gun buybacks is a worthy plan that will add to the general welfare, I find no legal bar to this representative republican decision.

Gayle in MD
01-08-2013, 04:52 PM
The LA area gun buy back program has recently returned to the news. Ralph's Supermarket donates gift certificates in this program, and anyone turning in a firearm receives a Ralph's gift certificate in varying amounts. I think it's $50, $100 and $200.

This does not intrude on gun owners' 2nd amendment rights, as it is a voluntary sale on their part. Not a seizure or ban, in any respect.

So, what do you think of such programs?

1. A false sense of doing something but which is wholly inadequate, when what we need is a complete ban on handguns and 'assault weapons.' (strongly oppose, from the anti-2nd amendment left, er, sensible moderate gun regulation side, I mean of course. Reagan, did I mention Reagan?)

2. A dangerous precedent, that will wrongly teach the public that firearms are the problem when they are the solution. (strongly oppose, from the pro-2nd amendment right)

3. Not much value either way, but not dangerous in either way, so meh. (no strong opinion either way, whatever)

4. A great idea that is totally worth it, with significant results, that ought to be modeled and it's only downside, not enough of it going on. (strongly support from the anti-2nd amendment left).

5. Neither a great idea nor worth it, particularly, but since the public sheeple want some symbolic actions, and this isn't terrible at all, it's very much worth doing it for political cover reasons (strong support from the pro-2nd amendment right)

6. Since all of the above are idiotic cartoon responses that totally miss the point, I'll tell you what REAL Americans think, to wit: (please explain another reaction)

(Note: this particular program involves no public expenditure of money beyond perhaps some dedicated personnel already on salary being tasked to man the turn in stations. Some programs might involve public monies for the by-back. My questions apply to both.)


Outlaw the assault weapons, the high capacity magazines, and the blow up bullets, AND make it a felony to own any of it.

That's what I want, and that's what I intend to put every free moment I have, into making it a reality.

No Civilian should own any of these mass murder assault weaponsnow any high capacity magazines.

Worse, the very kinds of people who are yapping about their BS skewed version of Constitutional rights, are the very same bunch who have proven themselves completely irrational for decades, and unable to READ the damn Constitution accurately.

Send out the Marines and have them rip every single one of those mass murder Assault WEapons weapons out of the hands of the nutjobs.

Go door to door, and search their homes, whatever it takes to pry those assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, and blow up bullets, out of their dead, cold, grimey hands, I'm all for it!

Soflasnapper
01-08-2013, 05:09 PM
So, I'll mark you down as undecided, clearly. LOL!

More a 1) above, but a 1 (a).

cushioncrawler
01-08-2013, 06:20 PM
I go for 1 and 3 and 4 and 5. Theze all apply a bit or a lot.
No 2 duznt apply for me.
Aktually, No 6 might be the real answer for me if i gave it more thort.
mac.

Praps a No7 might be needed.
No7 says that if u ranked the real problems in the usofa, then guns would be near the bottom of the page.
And if u categorized the list based on size and urgency of problem, guns would not be on the main or first page -- guns might be on say page 2, in a lowish category of problem.
mac.

Qtec
01-09-2013, 05:16 AM
Its a total waste of time because most of those who hand in guns usually have many more at home. Over the years, gun ownership has fallen but sales have increased. eg, Those that mostly buy guns must already have guns.

Q

Gayle in MD
01-10-2013, 04:05 PM
Its a total waste of time because most of those who hand in guns usually have many more at home. Over the years, gun ownership has fallen but sales have increased. eg, Those that mostly buy guns must already have guns.

Q

Not so sure, Friend. I don't think it's a waste of time. Every gun that is taken out of use, is one more gun that can't be used to kill people.

And if we can stop them from selling more of them, (Assault Weapons) and we can put these nuts in jail if we catch them with them, we can make a huge difference.

If the gun nuts have them, and they're against the law, and they don't turn them in, those who keep them will have to be looking over their shoulders when they're using them out in the woods, bragging about them on the internet, showing them off, etc., and that will lead to their arrests/

If we outlaw all of them, we will help to protect the environment from all the lead seeping into ground water from all of those bullets they leave all over the woods that are actually killing animals, (:ikely people as well) and causing birth defects, and brain cancers.


If they own them, and get caught selling them, they'll go to jail.

If all of these assault weapons are outlawed, and the high capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets, I believe many lives would be saved, and their ownership would decline over years, instead of going through the roof every time we have a person of color elected to office, or the radical RW press starts spreading fear and ridiculous rumors around, just to pump up their sales.

I hope there will be a ban in the VP's plan.

Gayle in MD
01-11-2013, 02:26 PM
So, I'll mark you down as undecided, clearly. LOL!

More a 1) above, but a 1 (a).


:cheer2::peep:

cushioncrawler
01-11-2013, 03:23 PM
I reckon that lots of new bans are on the way. But theze wont make any difference to anything.
Anyhow guns must be down near No100 in the list of usofa problems.
mac.

Gayle in MD
01-15-2013, 02:50 PM
I reckon that lots of new bans are on the way. But theze wont make any difference to anything.
Anyhow guns must be down near No100 in the list of usofa problems.
mac.


Don't worry, Mac. It'll all work out just fine. We are THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, after all. Where would most other countries be right now, without THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

cushioncrawler
01-15-2013, 03:44 PM
Hmmmmm -- the usofa iz why drugs are illegal -- which iz why crooks rule in lots of countrys.
mac.

Gayle in MD
01-16-2013, 02:57 PM
Hmmmmm -- the usofa iz why drugs are illegal -- which iz why crooks rule in lots of countrys.
mac.

Oh yeah? Are drugs legal in your country? Are they legal in the U. K.? In Ireland? In Italy? In cuba? How about Germany? Russia?

I like you Mac, but I am getting pretty tired of you blaming everything wrong in the world, on my country, bashing my country non stop!

Why not take a good long look at what's wrong in your own country, for a change? Perfect?

cushioncrawler
01-16-2013, 04:44 PM
Mightbe i woz thinking of just hemp. The BIG TREE companys (ie theusofa) got the usofa to ban hemp globally so that small farmers koodnt farm -- ie so that tree products were needed moreso -- and trees need big companys.
The world bank (ie theusofa) didnt giv small countrys loans unless small countrys banned hemp. The loans were of course for big companys -- and when repayments werent repayd this allowed big companys to shark the countrys even moreso.
Drugs global warming etc -- going nowhere -- mainly koz of theusofa.

Ozz -- ozz iz little different to theusofa. Same krappynomix -- same murdoch -- big bizness rules.
mac.

hondo
01-16-2013, 06:06 PM
Oh yeah? Are drugs legal in your country? Are they legal in the U. K.? In Ireland? In Italy? In cuba? How about Germany? Russia?

I like you Mac, but I am getting pretty tired of you blaming everything wrong in the world, on my country, bashing my country non stop!

Why not take a good long look at what's wrong in your own country, for a change? Perfect?

When I think of many of his posts, the word "over-simplification" comes to mind.

Wait! Wait! That's not the word I was looking for! "Simple". That's the word.:wacko:

cushioncrawler
01-16-2013, 06:07 PM
I like you Mac, but I am getting pretty tired of you blaming everything wrong in the world, on my country, bashing my country non stop!

Society iz krapp. All countrys are krapp. Nothing good kan be sayd about any country -- except praps that some are better than others. This must be the starting point and the context for all arguement.
And this iz koz humans are mostly krapp -- superstitious pink arsed apes -- future eaters -- but some are better than others.
Me, i am impressed with brilliant scientists and brilliant engineers etc -- nature iz wonderfull -- humanity haz some hope.
And i like billiards and billiardists.
mac.

Gayle in MD
01-17-2013, 09:55 AM
I like you Mac, but I am getting pretty tired of you blaming everything wrong in the world, on my country, bashing my country non stop!

Society iz krapp. All countrys are krapp. Nothing good kan be sayd about any country -- except praps that some are better than others. This must be the starting point and the context for all arguement.
And this iz koz humans are mostly krapp -- superstitious pink arsed apes -- future eaters -- but some are better than others.
Me, i am impressed with brilliant scientists and brilliant engineers etc -- nature iz wonderfull -- humanity haz some hope.
And i like billiards and billiardists.
mac.
It's nice to read even a few positive statements from you for a change.

Ever stop to think how much financial aid my country sends all over the world when people are in big trouble?

No country is ALL bad, you know.


There's usually some good things to be said about most countries. I'd bet if you thought about it, you might just come up with more than just four things that you like about the world.

G.

Gayle in MD
01-17-2013, 09:56 AM
When I think of many of his posts, the word "over-simplification" comes to mind.

Wait! Wait! That's not the word I was looking for! "Simple". That's the word.:wacko:


"Negative" is the word that comes to my mind.

cushioncrawler
01-17-2013, 01:37 PM
It's nice to read even a few positive statements from you for a change. Ever stop to think how much financial aid my country sends all over the world when people are in big trouble? No country is ALL bad, you know. There's usually some good things to be said about most countries. I'd bet if you thought about it, you might just come up with more than just four things that you like about the world. G.There iz nothing i like about world society. There are lots of goodish humans out there -- and they are sometimes ok at overkumming bad humans, a bit, or for a small while. I like the smart thinking of lots of scientists etc, praps they will make a difference in the end.

Re the world -- humans are a pox on the world. This here age will go down az the worst in history -- the dark ages -- ruining the future for millions of intelligent humans yet born. But more than that, stuffing up the natural globe for all life of all forms.

All we hav iz growing overpopulation -- deforestation -- global warming -- pollution -- animal torture -- etc.

American money haz made things worse, not better.
mac.

Gayle in MD
01-18-2013, 06:53 AM
There iz nothing i like about world society. There are lots of goodish humans out there -- and they are sometimes ok at overkumming bad humans, a bit, or for a small while. I like the smart thinking of lots of scientists etc, praps they will make a difference in the end.

Re the world -- humans are a pox on the world. This here age will go down az the worst in history -- the dark ages -- ruining the future for millions of intelligent humans yet born. But more than that, stuffing up the natural globe for all life of all forms.

All we hav iz growing overpopulation -- deforestation -- global warming -- pollution -- animal torture -- etc.

American money haz made things worse, not better.
mac.


LOL, yep, just blame everything on America.

cushioncrawler
01-18-2013, 02:23 PM
The main threats to the earth iznt humans, its..
Liberty.
Demokracy.
Ignorance.
Superstition.
Krappynomix.

Hmmmmmm.
mac.

Gayle in MD
01-20-2013, 11:42 AM
Hmmm... I think the main threat to the world is people who suffer from pessimism!
:cheer2::lol:
:violin:

hondo
01-20-2013, 02:32 PM
Hmmm... I think the main threat to the world is people who suffer from pessimism!
:cheer2::lol:
:violin:


I fear you are right. Wait! Is that being pessimistic?

cushioncrawler
01-20-2013, 02:40 PM
Forgot,,,,,

Kapitalizm (how kood i miss that one).
Selfishness.

In a sense, liberty demokracy superstition krappynomix kapitalizm ignorance, are all of course just ignorance.

And, ignorance iz in a sense (nowadays) just selfishness. Koz we (most of we) hav the resources at our fingertips to rid ourselves of ignorance, if we desire. I hav dunn so, and i am lazyer than the average bear.
mac.

Re the good side of the usofa, i forgot one -- gridiron -- i watch it on ozz freetoair tv every week (i aint got cable).

cushioncrawler
01-20-2013, 02:43 PM
Hmmm... I think the main threat to the world is people who suffer from pessimism!
:cheer2::lol:
:violin:Woznt it yogi who sayd something like -- i dont make prediktions, especially involving the future.
And one english soccer star sayd -- i never make prediktions, and i never will.
mac.

cushioncrawler
01-20-2013, 02:57 PM
WHAT WOULD RUMSFELD SAY ABOUT GUN BUY BACK.
MAC.

From a Press Conference at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, June 6, 2002 [2][3]
Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. It sounds like a riddle. It isn't a riddle. It is a very serious, important matter. There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist. And yet almost always, when we make our threat assessments, when we look at the world, we end up basing it on the first two pieces of that puzzle, rather than all three. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. Interview with Steve Croft, Infinity CBS Radio Connect, November 14, 2002 [4]

And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. TownHall Meeting At Aviano Air Base in Italy, February 7, 2003 [5]

Then there are three or four countries that have said they won't do anything. I believe Libya, Cuba and Germany are ones that have indicated they won't help in any respect. February 8, 2003 [6]

Now, you're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's old Europe. January, 2003 [7]

It's a difficult thing today to be informed about our government even without all the secrecy. Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1966 [8]

From the DOD News Briefing following the fall of Baghdad, April 11, 2003:
I picked up a newspaper today and I couldn't believe it. I read eight headlines that talked about chaos, violence, unrest. And it just was Henny Penny -- "The sky is falling." I've never seen anything like it! And here is a country that's being liberated, here are people who are going from being repressed and held under the thumb of a vicious dictator, and they're free. And all this newspaper could do, with eight or 10 headlines, they showed a man bleeding, a civilian, who they claimed we had shot -- one thing after another. From the very beginning, we were convinced that we would succeed, and that means that that regime would end. And we were convinced that as we went from the end of that regime to something other than that regime, there would be a period of transition. And, you cannot do everything instantaneously; it's never been done, everything instantaneously. We did, however, recognize that there was at least a chance of catastrophic success, if you will, to reverse the phrase, that you could in a given place or places have a victory that occurred well before reasonable people might have expected it, and that we needed to be ready for that; we needed to be ready with medicine, with food, with water. And, we have been. Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here. I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. At a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

You and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase immediate threat. I didn't, the president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's what's happened. CBS Face the Nation, March 14, 2004

But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Hearing Before the House Armed Services Committee, September 10, 2002 [9]. Quoted on March 14, 2004 by Thomas Friedman in reply to the previous statement.

I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty. Interview with the Washington Post January 09, 2002 [10]

Look at me! I'm sweet and lovable! Foreign Press Center, 21 Jun 2002 [11]

…it seems to me that it's up to all of us to try to tell the truth, to say what we know, to say what we don't know, and recognize that we're dealing with people that are perfectly willing to, to lie to the world to attempt to further their case and to the extent people lie of, ultimately they are caught lying and they lose their credibility and one would think it wouldn't take very for that to happen dealing with people like this. From the 2004 documentary film Control Room

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog. [27] referring to the ongoing War on Terrorism

Those who follow orders to commit such crimes will be found and they will be punished. War crimes will be prosecuted. And it will be no excuse to say, 'I was just following orders.' Any official involved in such crimes will forfeit hope of amnesty or leniency with respect to past action. Pentagon briefing, March 20, 2003 [28]

Congress, the press, and the bureaucracy too often focus on how much money or effort is spent, rather than whether the money or effort actually achieves the announced goal. "Rumsfeld's Rules" January 12, 1974 [31]

I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know, and that's a good thing. Talking to reporters about whether President Bush knows about equipment inadequacies in Iraq[35]

Gayle in MD
01-22-2013, 07:52 AM
Woznt it yogi who sayd something like -- i dont make prediktions, especially involving the future.
And one english soccer star sayd -- i never make prediktions, and i never will.
mac.


YOU don't make predictions? !!!!

You're kidding, aren't you?

JohnnyD
01-22-2013, 03:08 PM
When I think of many of his posts, the word "over-simplification" comes to mind.

Wait! Wait! That's not the word I was looking for! "Simple". That's the word.:wacko:

Why did you lie?
The local VFW Commander awaits your answer.
The truth will set you free.

JohnnyD
01-22-2013, 03:10 PM
"Negative" is the word that comes to my mind.

gaylepig the demopig.

JohnnyD
01-22-2013, 03:12 PM
Hmmm... I think the main threat to the world is people who suffer from pessimism!
:cheer2::lol:
:violin:
hopefully you can't reproduce more.

cushioncrawler
01-22-2013, 05:48 PM
YOU don't make predictions? !!!! You're kidding, aren't you?What would yogi say, about gun laws.
The future ain't what it used to be.
Yogi Berra.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
Yogi Berra