In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
CAN YOU TRUST THE BATF TO TELL THE TRUTH?
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
TOTAL BULLPUCKEY! John Roberts said, on the August 27 CBS Evening News, "The fat federal surplus vanishes into thin air. Congressional accountants say the President will have to use Social Security money to keep the government running....It's gone: The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the federal budget surplus for this year has been eaten up by President Bush's tax cut and dwindling tax revenues from the slowing economy." Why can't anybody tell the truth? There is no surplus and the Congressional Budget Office has proven that it is definitely partisan by pretending there is. The surplus could not have been "eaten up by Bush's tax cut" because the surplus doesn't exist, has never existed. It's a fiction. In the same program, Campbell Brown said, "What's gobbling up the surplus? The President's tax cut and the sluggish economy. And now the non-partisan CBO says the President will have to take $9 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund to cover his [his? -RT] spending proposals this year and use $18 billion from the trust fund in two years to cover his tax cut. New ammunition for Democrats who charged the President is breaking a promise to keep Social Security funds in a so-called lock box." Almost exactly the same words. Must have been reading from the same Democrat National Committee fax. There is no "lock box" because there's nothing to put in it. This government has stolen the Social Security money from the beginning and left only IOUs. Anybody who pays attention knows it. We say it all the time, but nobody who has "bought the whole bag" from the Democrats will believe it. By the way: there's no way I'll ever call them the "Democratic Party" because there's nothing "democratic" about their party. So the DNC can "buzz off." (Source: CBS Evening News, 8/27/2001) [090701-1] WAS LON HORIUCHI THERE? WAS HE THE SHOOTER? "Grover T. (Tom) Crosslin lived for the cause of marijuana legalization. Early this week he died for it. Crosslin, 46, the owner and operator of Rainbow Farm, an alternative campground and concert site in Newberg Township outside of Vandalia, Michigan was shot and killed on his property by an FBI agent Monday afternoon. His long-time partner, Rolland Rohm, was shot and killed by Michigan State Police on the property early Tuesday morning. The shootings ended a stand-off that began last Friday afternoon, but the fallout from the killings is only beginning." One would certainly hope so. But from my experience, we'll get a lot of screaming and yelling from all over the Internet but it won't cause a single thing to be done to investigate this police killing. They'll "investigate" themselves, determine that it was a "righteous shooting" and that'll be the end of it. The cops say he "pointed a gun at the FBI agent" and was gunned down. But was the FBI agent a Lon Horiuchi (or Lon himself?) in hiding? Did Crosslin even know he was pointing his gun at him? They're experts at hiding and hitting their target from a long ways away. Certainly farther than the guns Crosslin or Rhom were carrying would reach. Was he just waiting for Crosslin to point his gun in his general direction so he could gun him down? The same thing applies to Crosslin's partner, Rolland Rhom. Was Crosslin (or Rhom) even aware of the shooter? Did either of them even see the person who killed them? Have they brought in the bulldozers yet to cover up the evidence like they usually do? Must be nice to have complete control of the scene and the investigation when you kill somebody. (Source: Sierra Times, 7/7/2001) [091001-2] CAN YOU TRUST THE BATF TO TELL THE TRUTH? Not if my experience is any indicator. They tried to convince the world that the Branch Davidians incinerated themselves at Waco when the evidence (if you're not biased) tells another story. In Santa Clarita where they only incinerated one "suspect," they tried it again, forgetting the whole thing was being televised and people saw the flames burst out immediately after tear gas canisters (the same kind they used at Waco and in Denver when they burned down a house?) were shot into the house. They deny wrongdoing when the evidence of your eyes and logic says otherwise and expect you to believe them. Then they go on as if you do, ignoring your protests. Then there's the question of who killed the motorcycle cop, the "suspect" or his fellow cops? That question was raised early on, and then it seemed to disappear from the news. Why did SWAT call him in for "assistance?" Doesn't it usually work the other way around? Why did the fire department put tons of water on the neighboring houses and let his burn to the ground with him in it? Don't tell me it's because he was shooting at them. From where the "robot hoses" were they could have put water on his house just as easily as the neighbor's house. Who gave the order to let that house burn? Why was it obeyed? Now after studying the situation, I have to ask another question: did "the suspect" really fire the first shots? The way the BATF lies, I wouldn't believe them if they said "the sky is up." (Source: Ether Zone,) [091001-3] LET 'EM KNOW YOU WILL: "For my money, there was always something spurious about the orthodoxy that assured us all corporal punishment, regardless of severity, was de facto (child) abuse. Nevertheless, we bought into it, with the result being that parents who admitted to spanking were treated as primitive dolts and heaped with scorn. They were encouraged to negotiate with misbehaving children in order to nurture their self-esteem. . . . (H)ave you ever tried to 'negotiate' with a screaming 5-year-old? It may do wonders for the child's self-esteem, but, I promise, it's going to kill yours. Your sanity, too." (Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.) Speak for yourself, Leonard. I never bought into the notion that any kind of corporal punishment was child abuse. Indeed, you need to use it, at least early on, in order to show the child that you will do something other than "negotiate," which does nothing to change the actions of the child. I, and my father before me, rarely had to touch a child because usually just the threat was enough. My father, when we were very young, used to smack the back of our hands at the supper table when we did something that was not mannerly, like use our "boarding house reach," It strung. It didn't cause any damage. But we remembered. Later on, all he had to do was look at the offender and use his mouth to clean off his fork and we'd immediately stop what we were doing. I can't remember the last time I ever hit one of my children (of course the youngest is now 32 and I'd need a ladder to get to him), but they respected me and minded better than any child who had been raised not to respect his/her parents because they tried to "negotiate" rather than discipline. Now you people who disagree with this, don't bother to write. I know what's best, from experience as a child and as a father. It works. Your method does not. (Source: Miami Herald,) [091001-4] YOU'RE SCUM! No, not you. Unless you're a terrorist who targets children or even targets places where children are apt to be. I don't care what your "cause" may be, nor how much anguish you're in. There is no moral reason that will excuse frightening, injuring, and killing children!" You can be Jew, Palestinian, Irish Protestant or Catholic, or any other group. If you target children, you're scum. I don't care about the "history" of your "struggle." That just doesn't matter here. It may be just. But it doesn't justify targeting children. And if you write me and call me down because I got a small detail of the history of your particular gripe wrong, that doesn't "call into question my entire message." I can't be completely conversant with every "struggle" all over the globe, and I don't intend to be. But my point doesn't depend upon "checking out the history" of your cause. My point is based on a moral issue: you don't target children when you fight with other adults. I know some of you think it's good to kill them now so they don't grow up and come after you. That's stupid and cowardly. And that's what all terrorists who target innocent people, especially children, are. Cowards. Now you can call me names if you want if you're a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer of whatever stripe. It's not like I care what terrorists or terrorist sympathizers think of me. (No source, just common sense and compassion [091001-5] RACIST RACISM CONFERENCE: The United States and Israel have pulled out of the "World Conference Against Racism" because is it a conference designed to be a platform for racism against Israel. Secretary of State Colin Powell described their draft declaration as containing "hateful language." They didn't have very high hopes for the success of this conference, but after learning that Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro, well-known race-baiter Jesse Jackson and others of their kind would be there, expectations went down further. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said: "The conference against racism turned into a racist conference against Israel." I suppose that makes me a "Zionist" because I agree with that. Too bad. They already have me down as a racist because I dare to criticize Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and "Calypso Louie" Farrakhan, all of which are making millions by whipping up racism and the fear of it. But if they think I care about their definitions of me, they're wrong. (Source: Associated Press, 9/4/2001) [091001-6] http://www.sierratimes.com/
Comments
So many guns to buy. So little money.