|
Post by blondie on Apr 19, 2007 8:27:26 GMT -5
I heard Matt say yesterday that if the "MSM" knew that the Virginia shooter had connections to Islamic terrorism they would cover it up. This is part of their agenda. Also I've noticed a lot of fantasizing about how blond haired, blue eyed vigilantes could have prevented this if they were allowed to carry guns on campus. Yet no one seems to have a problem with the fact that a well known lunatic can walk into a gun shop in Virginia and walk out with a glock.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 19, 2007 11:08:00 GMT -5
Nobody has stated anywhere close that "white people" whith guns would have been the only ones capable of standing up to chow mein.
He was able to get a gun because he was clear on all records that were relevant. The question really should be, how does somebody get on a no gun list. Does everyone that is admitted to a mental facility automatically get their name uploaded to the FBI? I don't know. Maybe you can find it on wikipedia, atheist.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Apr 19, 2007 11:16:35 GMT -5
How weird that someone would mention "connections to terrorism" in all of this. Why does every incident lead to that "terrorism talk" we hear way too much of on talk radio? Oh, I know. It's supposed to make us think the war is right.
|
|
|
Post by mamawolf on Apr 19, 2007 12:57:59 GMT -5
My cousin was married to a man that was in a mental institute. He is medically diagnosed schizofrenic (sp?). He is NOT supposed to own a gun. Funny thing is, he bought and owns at least 2!!
So I don't think there is a master public database of people that are not supposed to have guns. But even if there were this Virginia Tech guy probably would not have been on it because there was no history that was recordable on him.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 19, 2007 21:46:04 GMT -5
I heard Matt say yesterday that if the "MSM" knew that the Virginia shooter had connections to Islamic terrorism they would cover it up. This is part of their agenda. Also I've noticed a lot of fantasizing about how blond haired, blue eyed vigilantes could have prevented this if they were allowed to carry guns on campus. Yet no one seems to have a problem with the fact that a well known lunatic can walk into a gun shop in Virginia and walk out with a glock. Well known lunatic? Well known to his classmates and some professors perhaps, not to the guy at the gun shop. Nobody called ahead and said "hey if this certain South Korean guy comes into your shop...". And as far as the other comment, I've yet to hear about blond haired, blue eyed (you call yourself blondie - what color are your eyes?!?) vigilantes but such is the nature of this. I hate talk radio when one certain topic dominates the whole show (or days of several shows). After the first hour it all sounds like the same words, different callers. Days later and they're still talking about the same stuff as the first day with a little bit of "new" thrown in occasionally. Hey, at least we don't have to hear days upon days of talk about three little words! PS, phinehas, please stop trying to represent Christianity. You turn people away from God with your responses, not towards Him. Adding the word "atheist" to your response as a sarcastic jab was just so unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 19, 2007 21:58:39 GMT -5
The loophole appears to be that, in order to be prevented from buying a gun due to mental incompetence or related issues, a court has to make a legal finding to that effect.
A psychologist can make that determination but it is only a medical determination, not a legal one.
So the missing step was to have whoever was treating the killer present his findings before a judge and have the judge make a legal determination of mental incompetence based on the findings of the psychologist.
I'm not a particular big fan of guns- the one liberal position I once had was that, if I thought that a gun ban would prevent criminals from having guns, I'd support such a ban- but I've seen the studies that equate the presence of guns with the absence of crime. Criminals will bypass victims based on the possibility that they man be armed, preferring easier (i.e. unarmed) prey.
At this point, I'd be against any new laws being passed, unless they close the loophole like I mentioned above. In no case would I support a total gun ban. A limit on the size of clips? Maybe. A national database to instantly check to see whether a person is legally permitted to buy a gun? Yes. Past that.....I dunno.
|
|
jules
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 127
|
Post by jules on Apr 20, 2007 10:48:51 GMT -5
Phin -- Why do you engage? It's like listening to a debate between the gifted class and the special ed students. And every thread devolving into this back and forth is very annoying. IMHO
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 20, 2007 12:34:40 GMT -5
Lawman and Phineas both get a three day timeout. They turned every thread into a pissing match. So they can sit back and relax. If you are a fan of pissing matches go to the chat room. I would e-mail them but they like to be guests so it is not possible.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 27, 2007 7:18:18 GMT -5
I thought Matt said he was going to stop talking about reparations on Wednesday's show? Why was he talking about it again on Thursday? Please, can't we hear something else (yeah I know, switch the station)? All of the opinions that came out the 1st day don't sound any newer the umpteenth day....
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 27, 2007 8:58:36 GMT -5
I thought Matt said he was going to stop talking about reparations on Wednesday's show? Why was he talking about it again on Thursday? Was there a more pressing topic to discuss Thursday? Rosie on the View? Elvis on American Idol? I don't think it was a dead horse yesterday; I believe it would be today. Although I must say that I want to hear Hunter's take on it this afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 2, 2007 6:32:11 GMT -5
This is as it should be. This is as it should be. The missing step was committing the idiot to a mental institution. I personally am a gun fanatic. I own several. I enjoy collecting them, shooting them, training with them, etc. I would never support a gun ban, EVEN with supporting evidence that a ban would lower crime rates. The Founders knew all too well that the greatest criminals are the ones who purport to be our friends. The government. Closing that loophole probably means confinement. Perhaps we should talk again about institutionalizing people who can't operate in normal society. It's not just owning firearms that constitutes a problem when discussing these people. They drive cars as well. Perhaps they operate heavy machinery? Perhaps they perform many other tasks that put them and others around them at risk? Closing down the nut-houses was a big Reagan mistake. We don't need gun bans. We don't need limits on magazine capacities. A single shot rifle can kill, guaranteed. A two-shot derringer can kill, guaranteed. It's a senseless notion that capacity bans do anything. They only restrict the rights of law abiders. Criminals will procure guns. The same logic applies with magazines. Criminals will procure 15-round clips with a 9-round restriction in place. A deranged idiot bent on killing can do so with a knife, with a samurai sword, or with a Sunday edition of the New York Times. A criminal can mix up any number of household chemicals to make a bomb that can claim multiple victims. Such a person could simply drive a car at full speed into a crowd of people. Any ban would only be counterproductive. Imagine that a 5-round magazine limit had been in effect. Cho, or whatever the bastard's name was, racked up a body count of 32. It is a fact that he changed magazines a few times. He could have accomplished the same damned thing with a maximum of six clip changes with a five-shot limit in place! That's with one weapon! He could have accomplished the same dastardly deed with one weapon in his hand, one strapped up in a tac holster, and four in the cargo pockets of a tac vest, all cocked-and-locked. He could have found a way to burn down a building, potentially claiming even more lives. .............or he could have simply detonated a surplus WWI mustard gas round. The possibilities are endless. The only thing that would have prevented the killings, beyond the first unfortunate victim, would have been the presence of ONE armed individual, which equates to MORE guns, MORE ammo, MORE magazine capacity, etc. The database idea is as well a bad idea. How the government might choose to use it in addition to its stated purpose is one consideration. Another is that, once again, criminals or those intent on killing WILL secure the means to do so. Their name being on someone's list won't stop that. Any and all such measures institute a false sense of security, which is just as dangerous as an armed nut.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 2, 2007 19:33:35 GMT -5
I'd agree with him.
Reuters won't even use the term "terrorist" any more.
Democrats want to remove the "War on Terror" appeallation from the global fight against the Jihadists.
Most newspaper reports won't mention that the perpetrators of many of these terrorists acts or those who plan them are almost invariably Muslims.
Witness the riot in France last year and the year before. News accounts referred to the rioters as being "disaffected youth" or some such drivel. They were 'disaffected young and MUSLIM.
Maybe the MSM thinks they are sparing Muslims from a violent backlash from Americans, even though in the weeks and months after 9/11 a mere handful of attacks and threats of attacks against Muslims were noted in a country of 270 million people, so that might actually be a case of misplaced fear.
If the link is proven, I'd hope that the MSM would report on it fairly and accurately. I don't want them to guess at a link, but I want to know the truth if such a link does exist.
Or, if the MSM is unwilling to do that, then I'd request that they drop all references to the religion of ALL terrorists- no more hearing how devout a Christian Timothy McVeigh was or Eric Robert Rudolph is. Fair is fair, right?
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 2, 2007 23:16:52 GMT -5
Is obvious that the MSM is part of the movement to withdraw from the Middle East. If some Islamic terrorist attacks somewhere, this may embolden the citizens of the US for more action in Iraq instead of pulling out.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 3, 2007 11:46:26 GMT -5
Don't give the warmongers any ideas.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 3, 2007 11:51:01 GMT -5
We will see more attacks here in the future -- especially when the young boys in Iraq today grow up. They are pissed we killed their fathers and are destroying their land. Many of them have already started training for the revenge.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 3, 2007 12:02:45 GMT -5
Reminds me of bad kung fu movie...
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 7, 2007 6:40:11 GMT -5
Anybody catch the "discussion" between Matt and the caller who had a biology degree AND was working on a theology degree (or something like that) on Friday afternoon? They were talking about evolution. Its not often that Matt is that quiet with a caller but it was obvious that this guy knew more about the scientific and theological aspects than Matt did. At least Matt knew when NOT to say something in this case. But it was odd to hear Matt say so little.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 7, 2007 10:43:50 GMT -5
i heard the call and took matt's silence a different way, seemed to me matt was astonished that someone with the claimed level of education could possibly claim the earth is only 6000 years old.
evolve means to change....evolution means a gradual process of change, the dent the evolution IS happening all around us INCLUDING humans is to deny REALITY.
humans in the USA are bigger stronger and faster than they were merely 50 years ago, that IS a CHANGE and that change is part of the process of evolution!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 7, 2007 10:53:31 GMT -5
Yes, but the "change" is due to diet, nothing more. As far as being faster, that is debatable considering that a device like a stopwatch wasn't invented until the late 1800s.
This of course just proves that humans change but are still humans.
Evolution is a reality and a fact in relation to changes within species but it is not a reality or fact that a human came from a rock. If so, please provide evidence.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 7, 2007 13:46:16 GMT -5
Darwin espoused the Theory Of Evolution some 150 years ago and, in that (admittedly short) timeframe, we've seen not a single example of evolution. None.
The best the Darwiniacs can point to is a finch species on one of the Galapagos Islands that grows a different length beak depending on the amount of rain the island upon which it lives on gets. But it's still a finch.
Homo Sapiens has been around for 50,000 years and is >still< homo sapiens. Unless the X-Men movies are real, we've not evolved at all in 50,000 years.
In fact, we might have de-evolved a bit: just look at Dennis Kucinich and Al Franken....
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 7, 2007 14:10:51 GMT -5
no change in 50,000, not any bigger? not any more intelligent? same amount of body hair? we havent yet developed the spoken language? we still dont have a written language? we still live in caves?
sure thing NO changes whatsoever in 50,0000 years.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 7, 2007 14:13:04 GMT -5
At least Matt knew when NOT to say something in this case. But it was odd to hear Matt say so little. I think that sometimes Matt is just reading his email or doing research via the internet. When an unexciting caller gets quite a bit of uninterrupted airtime, I always notice that there is a second or two of pause between the time the caller ends his/her statement and the time that you hear Matt take a breath and pick up the conversation on his end. Then Matt will make some general statement about the topic instead of referring to anything specific the caller just said. I think that sometimes he's just multitasking and only half listening.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 7, 2007 14:16:31 GMT -5
Homo Sapiens has been around for 50,000 years and is >still< homo sapiens. Unless the X-Men movies are real, we've not evolved at all in 50,000 years. Do you think the apendix had a function way back then?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 7, 2007 15:11:48 GMT -5
no change in 50,000, not any bigger? not any more intelligent? same amount of body hair? we havent yet developed the spoken language? we still dont have a written language? we still live in caves? sure thing NO changes whatsoever in 50,0000 years. You added an extra zero there. What you state can be attributed to diet....if the American diet reduced down due to famine, etc. the height and weight of Americans would decrease, same to a degree with intelligence. Body hair? Who knows, who cares. It's kind of hard to prove that spoken language is a recent addition or in fact was an inate capability. A standarized written and spoken language is more of a result of population and the formation of societies. Yes, we still live in caves billt, the only difference is that we put the cave together now and don't rely on the ones built by nature. Brandon, the appendix does have a purpose. www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 7, 2007 17:12:33 GMT -5
no change in 50,000, not any bigger? not any more intelligent? same amount of body hair? we havent yet developed the spoken language? we still dont have a written language? we still live in caves? sure thing NO changes whatsoever in 50,0000 years. bill- Yes, humans now are bigger, more intelligent, have less body hair (except France), have developed spoken and written languages and do not live in caves unless we choose to. But we're still humans. And that's my point.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 7, 2007 17:18:03 GMT -5
Do you think the apendix had a function way back then? A very good question. If it did/does/will, no one's saying. However, 50,000 years is a long time for something which serves no purpose to 'hang around'. Should it not have evolved away by now? Darwin theorized that negative changes should, over time, disappear in a successful species. Appendicitis can and does kill people, as do maladies arising from other organs. However, the malady that arises from the heart and results in a heart attack which can injure, if not kill, the host is more than offset by the positive work the heart routinely does. So the heart is, on the whole, a positive evolutionary step. No such claim can be made on behalf of the appendix.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 7, 2007 19:15:12 GMT -5
no change in 50,000, not any bigger? not any more intelligent? same amount of body hair? we havent yet developed the spoken language? we still dont have a written language? we still live in caves? sure thing NO changes whatsoever in 50,0000 years. Bigger? Hormones and additives in food. How else are they also able to grow livestock and crops larger and faster? You don't think some of that gets passed on to us? More intelligent? Sure, but our minds have been honed through greater advancements in learning and technology. I don't think you can claim that all humans across the world are more intelligent than they were 100 years ago -- mostly just those who have had access to the niceties of civilization. Body hair? It seems eskimos don't have much of it, so what's going on? Must be their clothing, hmm? Spoken language? That's learning and development, not evolution. Evolution typically involves adaptive physical changes not learning. Ditto about written. Caves are all about learning and aesthetics. I don't like cutting my grass but it looks better. So does living in a house with new paint and flooring . Besides, just how many caves are we going to be able to supply?!? And its not mentioned in your quote above, but humans are faster and stronger because of diet (as phinehas mentioned) as well as supplements, in-depth studies on exercise and training, and modern equipment used in training.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on May 8, 2007 2:21:14 GMT -5
"Body hair? It seems eskimos don't have much of it, so what's going on? Must be their clothing, hmm?"
Body hair would be a distinct disadvantage in a climate like that (unless it is waterproof and maybe hollow, but I've not heard of that in any humans) it comes down to body fat and metabolic differences for the eskimo. (Argh... there's also something about the differences in gene 19 from other people, but I can't remember the science on that...)
But to add to the discord... Consider the people of central africa who have sickle cell problems... Ones who have sickle gene in both parents have serious health problems, but ones with only one set of the genes don't - and are resistant to malaria... amazing that something like that would develop in a part of the world that has been afflicted by malaria for thousands of years, and yet it didn't develop anywhere else in the world... And what about human skin color? Australian aboriginal populations? Any timelines on those variations and corresponding records of human movement in different parts of the world? But anyway, my interest was peaked by the appendix comment by someone earlier... I do remember reading that some primates also have an appendix (vestigal like ours) but it was often taught back in the "old days" that the appendix, as an extension of the cecum, was once part of that organ and was used as a non-ruminant (in horses and rabbits for example) cellulose digestive organ, though a less efficient system than the ruminant version of digestive tract.
It was commonly thought that the appendix in humans (and some other mammals) was not used in this way because it was both smaller and too far down the digestive passageway to extract much nutrition that the host could use... Interestingly, the original name for acute appendicitis was typhilitis (inflammation of cecum)...
But I haven't thought about an appendix in a long time... LOL
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 8, 2007 7:15:26 GMT -5
The following is NOT a condemnation or attack on the homosexual lifestyle. It is something I've pondered in the past when trying to speculate on evolution.
Without going to deeply into the subject of natural selection, I'm just curious where homosexuality fits into the whole scheme of things. If species -- in this case, humans -- evolve by developing more favorable traits -- traits that enable them to adapt and survive -- where does that leave homosexuality? After all, scientists are trying to prove that this lifestyle choice is genetic and hereditary, not behavioral.
I've suggested this to some people before and they thought I was twisted. Maybe so. But think about this: what if we had applied natural selection to this subject many years ago, before the possibility of artificial insemination and invitro fertilization? What if mankind had long ago accepted homosexuality as another lifestyle choice and allowed gay people to unite in some form of matrimony?
Changes in species happen because of mutation. The mutation, if it is favorable, will likely then become part of the genetic makeup of that species over time. However, unfavorable mutations can be passed on and become more prevalent among a population if other influences allow it to remain. Because homosexuals cannot reproduce on their own, this would not be a favorable trait for the continuation of the species.
Thus, if we had not placed such a stigma on homosexuality hundreds of years ago, in theory, homosexuality would have been phased out due to natural selection. Instead, many homosexuals have historically maintained false heterosexual relationships to overcome the stigma and maintain an image of societal normalcy. From these false relationships, many have reproduced, thereby allowing the genes associated with homosexuality to be passed on instead of being phased out by the evolutionary process.
What I'm saying is this: if homosexuals had escaped these false heterosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, they would not have been able to pass on the genes associated with homosexuality because they could not reproduce.
I know I will get attacked by many sides on this subject but that's OK. I'm trying to reconcile evolution with the the idea that homosexuality is genetic and therefore hereditary. Feel free to bash me if you want. Water off a ducks back.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on May 8, 2007 10:45:56 GMT -5
I may have posted a link to this before, but in case I haven't, let me just say--I think some of you guys would enjoy this book.The Crack in Space, by Philip K. Dick:
Terraforming becomes a pivotal election issue, until a warp drive malfunction results in the discovery of an apparently uninhabited alternate world, an 'alter-Earth' where homo sapiens never evolved, or lost in competition with other early hominids. In this case, the point of divergence appears to have occurred between one to two million years ago, as homo erectus, also known as sinanthropus/pithecanthropus or Peking Man, is the dominant species. In reference to the latter designation, the explorers refer to the indigenous hominids of this world as "Pekes."If you're into "what if" kinda stories, espcecially in regards to human evolution...
|
|