The definition of irony - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Bodyhammer86 · 01-23-2005, 10:56 AM

and Moore's half-hearted attempts at defending BFC have been crushed here: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowli...ckoattacko.htm

Yakk · 01-23-2005, 11:16 AM

Host and Bodyhammer, we are here to talk to each other. Not to quote external sources without any commentary or personal beliefs/statements or even editing them to actually apply directly.

Bodyhammer86 · 01-23-2005, 11:34 AM

Yakk, that wouldn't be a problem except I can't copy and paste anything from my link on here, so there isn't much I can do about it.

FoolThemAll · 01-23-2005, 01:16 PM

Yakk, could you please address my reply here? No rudeness intended, I'm just curious.

Yakk · 01-23-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

aren't being inconsistent. All I saw was that they were in a conundrum that could easily lead to that inconsistency. They should realize that trying to get from city C to city D involves denying many people the protection that they themselves are unwilling to give up.

Well, make them willing. Tax gun owership or make it criminal or make getting a gun liscence harder. Depending on how much cost you add to owning a gun, more people might decide they don't want to own a gun.

Quote:

That is a a problem of inconsistency, one that could be resolved by being an example to others first.

I don't demand that people who think that having fewer guns would be a good thing for society to be any more altruistic than anyone else. I don't require activists to be saints.

They could also do a better job at helping gun control if they lived like a begger and donated all their money to the cause.

Also note that this was one of the two examples of ways "I want to own a gun" and "guns should be harder to own" beliefs could be consistent. I don't know what people who think both think, I was just demonstrating consistent ways of thinking about both of them.

It could be that at all points, owning a gun lowers your chance of dieing, while every person owning a gun makes society worse off as a whole. In which case, the "proper" economic response is to make people pay the externalities (the costs that everyone else pays) for owning a gun.

If someone believed that, the only consistent thing they could do is own a gun, and lobby that owning a gun would be harder. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I'd suspect Michael Moore might want find having an armed bodyguard justificable for completely different reasons. As examples:

First, I'd be shocked if he doesn't recieve lots of death threats from gun-nuts.

And, in theory, a bodyguard is a professional, who could be liscenced and regulated pretty heavily. Few people who want to ban handguns want to ban police from owning them.

But, I don't know Moore's mind, or the mind of any pro-gun restriction person who owns guns. All I'm trying to show is there exist consistent, sensible belief systems, for which those two on the surface opposite ideas are consistent.

jorgelito · 01-23-2005, 08:28 PM

Another way to look at it could be that:

Maybe some pro-gun people (we're not all nuts either) want certain other people (i.e. - real criminals) from having guns. That could be an example of pro-gun and pro-gun restriction. In other words, lawful gun ownership isn't the problem, but illegal guns are. Something like that anyways.

The_Dunedan · 01-23-2005, 08:32 PM

The point is this:

We ( gun-nuts ) desire to posess firearms for, among others, the purpose of defending ourselves from armed criminals.

Moore, among others, wishes to deprive us of the ability to do this by removing our weapons from our posession.

Therefore, for Moore to demand that he be allowed to posess ( or be gaurded by someone who posesses ) a weapon in order to protect himself from armed criminals, but to demand that the rest of us be denied this when we are at considerably greater risk for such an attack than he is, is elitist and hypocritical.

filtherton · 01-24-2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The point is this:

We ( gun-nuts ) desire to posess firearms for, among others, the purpose of defending ourselves from armed criminals.

Moore, among others, wishes to deprive us of the ability to do this by removing our weapons from our posession.

Therefore, for Moore to demand that he be allowed to posess ( or be gaurded by someone who posesses ) a weapon in order to protect himself from armed criminals, but to demand that the rest of us be denied this when we are at considerably greater risk for such an attack than he is, is elitist and hypocritical.

Where do you draw the line? Do you favor guns for people who've been convicted of using them in a crime? Would it be hypocritical for you to want to deny them guns? Why stop at guns? I know that land mines would be a pretty good deterrant with respect to home robberies. How can you claim to be pro-personal defense and anti-civilian land mine?

The_Dunedan · 01-24-2005, 10:26 AM

I never said I -was- anti-civillian-landmine. If someone gives proper warning of their minefield at its' boundaries and makes a reasonable effort to keep people off of it ( ie a clearly marked fence ) I see no reason to object.

Now, if someone sowed a minefield and did -not- give such proper notice, and it caused an innocent person to be injured or killed, that person should be punished severely, since their willful negligence caused the injury of another person.

However, what one does with ones' property is ones; own buisiness, and that includes who one chooses to defend it. I have no sympathy for the burgaler who steps on a Bouncing-Betty.

Yakk · 01-24-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The point is this:

We ( gun-nuts ) desire to posess firearms for, among others, the purpose of defending ourselves from armed criminals.

Moore, among others, wishes to deprive us of the ability to do this by removing our weapons from our posession.

Therefore, for Moore to demand that he be allowed to posess ( or be gaurded by someone who posesses ) a weapon in order to protect himself from armed criminals, but to demand that the rest of us be denied this when we are at considerably greater risk for such an attack than he is, is elitist and hypocritical.

If guns where illegal, he most likely wouldn't carry them.

Lets try this again.

Lets say owning a gun reduces your chance of being killed by an armed criminal by 25% during an attack.

And lets say if they made guns illegal, 100% of all "law abiding" people would turn in their guns, and shortly half of all guns in the hands of criminals. And lets say this halves the number of times a gun toting criminal attacks.

Notice that, dispite your higher chance of being killed in any one attack, your chance of being attacked dropped enough that your overall chance of being killed is lower.

If this is the case, where is the hypocracy in both owning a gun and wanting guns to be removed?

The gun restriction lobby doesn't typically say "owning guns is evil", they are saying "having many guns out there is unwise". They aren't claiming you are a bad person because you own a gun, or because you want to own a gun.

Lebell · 01-24-2005, 12:16 PM

And 89.9 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Half of criminals losing their guns, eh?

Yes, if you could magically remove guns, I would agree that your overall chance of dying of a gun shot would be lessened, but you are taking a few factors and making an argument that statisticians fight over, considering all the variables.

Variables include:

How easy would it be to remove guns?
How hard would it be to get illegal guns?
How many gun deaths are attributable to suicide?
How many to drug/gang activity?
What is the effect of prison sentencing on gun crime?
How many violent gun deaths are there vs defensive uses?

Hell, those were just off the top of my head and I'm not a criminologist.

But I'm sure that 84.5 percent of those who are against guns will blow off my post

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-24-2005, 12:24 PM

.........................

Bodyhammer86 · 01-24-2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

And 89.9 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Half of criminals losing their guns, eh?

Yes, if you could magically remove guns, I would agree that your overall chance of dying of a gun shot would be lessened, but you are taking a few factors and making an argument that statisticians fight over, considering all the variables.

Variables include:

How easy would it be to remove guns?
How hard would it be to get illegal guns?
How many gun deaths are attributable to suicide?
How many to drug/gang activity?
What is the effect of prison sentencing on gun crime?
How many violent gun deaths are there vs defensive uses?

Hell, those were just off the top of my head and I'm not a criminologist.

But I'm sure that 84.5 percent of those who are against guns will blow off my post

Well said.

filtherton · 01-24-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

I never said I -was- anti-civillian-landmine. If someone gives proper warning of their minefield at its' boundaries and makes a reasonable effort to keep people off of it ( ie a clearly marked fence ) I see no reason to object.

Now, if someone sowed a minefield and did -not- give such proper notice, and it caused an innocent person to be injured or killed, that person should be punished severely, since their willful negligence caused the injury of another person.

However, what one does with ones' property is ones; own buisiness, and that includes who one chooses to defend it. I have no sympathy for the burgaler who steps on a Bouncing-Betty.

Do you have sympathy for the illiterate wandering child or the lost dog who may wander onto a land mine?

You aren't anti civilian land mine, but you are for the regulated(proper warnings) usage of civilian land mines? How is that any different that someone being for the regulated use of guns?

The_Dunedan · 01-24-2005, 02:46 PM

An illiterate wandering child isn't gonna climb a fence that's marked "MINEFIELD." Everyone in the neighborhood would know about it;
"Dude, don't cross that fence or you'll get blown up!"

As for dogs, a dog would have to be working pretty hard to cross the kind of fence I have in mind.

As for "regulation," no I am not in favor of regulation ( in the modern sense. ) What I favor is allowing our Tort system to take care of things:

Case 1: A neighbor has a known, but unmarked, minefield. I ( his neighbor ) make it a point to put up signs to this effect. I will also call him a negligent fuckhead at every opportunity, preferably with witnesses. I could perhaps sue him for creating a hazard which lowered my property values, or for the inevitable squirrel-tripped mine which dented mt car, broke my windows, or bruised my Peach orchard.

Case 2: That same neighbors' minefield claims the life of an idiotic teenager who was TPing his house on Halloween Night. Since the minefield was not peoperly marked and fenced, it created conditions of Willful Negligence, and he can be punished: The family of the dead moron sues my neighbor, and he's also arrested, tried, and convicted of Manslaughter 1. Between the gigantic fine and the 15 year jail term, he's gonna get HAMMERED.

Case 3: My neighbor keeps a 4' wood-and-chainlink fence around his minefield, with signs every few yards saying "Warning! Minefield; Do Not Enter!" or some similar thing. A mornic burgaler, ignoring or not seeing the signs, crosses my neighbors yard and is obliterated. Big deal; clean the splatter off the walls and replace the divot.

Case 4: Another moronic teenager, TPing my neighbor from ( 4 ) on Halloween, ignores the signs and the fence, thinking they're a bluff or a prank. He is obliterated. This person obviously didn't need to pass on his genes; if you're gonna go traipsing through a fenced-in yard, clearly marked as containing landmines, you deserve whatever you get.

filtherton · 01-24-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

An illiterate wandering child isn't gonna climb a fence that's marked "MINEFIELD." Everyone in the neighborhood would know about it;
"Dude, don't cross that fence or you'll get blown up!"

As for dogs, a dog would have to be working pretty hard to cross the kind of fence I have in mind.

As for "regulation," no I am not in favor of regulation ( in the modern sense. ) What I favor is allowing our Tort system to take care of things:

Case 1: A neighbor has a known, but unmarked, minefield. I ( his neighbor ) make it a point to put up signs to this effect. I will also call him a negligent fuckhead at every opportunity, preferably with witnesses. I could perhaps sue him for creating a hazard which lowered my property values, or for the inevitable squirrel-tripped mine which dented mt car, broke my windows, or bruised my Peach orchard.

Case 2: That same neighbors' minefield claims the life of an idiotic teenager who was TPing his house on Halloween Night. Since the minefield was not peoperly marked and fenced, it created conditions of Willful Negligence, and he can be punished: The family of the dead moron sues my neighbor, and he's also arrested, tried, and convicted of Manslaughter 1. Between the gigantic fine and the 15 year jail term, he's gonna get HAMMERED.

Case 3: My neighbor keeps a 4' wood-and-chainlink fence around his minefield, with signs every few yards saying "Warning! Minefield; Do Not Enter!" or some similar thing. A mornic burgaler, ignoring or not seeing the signs, crosses my neighbors yard and is obliterated. Big deal; clean the splatter off the walls and replace the divot.

Case 4: Another moronic teenager, TPing my neighbor from ( 4 ) on Halloween, ignores the signs and the fence, thinking they're a bluff or a prank. He is obliterated. This person obviously didn't need to pass on his genes; if you're gonna go traipsing through a fenced-in yard, clearly marked as containing landmines, you deserve whatever you get.

Okay, i see what you're saying, but i don't see how the tort system should have any concern with what you do with your property. I mean, say a foolish burglar breaks into your house and you shoot him. Do you think it is just for you to be put at the mercy of the civil court system for a seemingly clear cut case of home defense? Do you think it should be a necessity for someone carrying a gun to carry it out in the open, so everyone knows that they have it? What about someone with a gun in their home? Should all gun-toting homeowners be required to advertise their armaments to avoid lawsuits? Maybe you're an exception, but it seems to me that most pro-gunners would scream bloody murder at the idea that shooting a trespasser should subject them to the hassle and possible monetary losses that result from civil cases.

The_Dunedan · 01-24-2005, 03:49 PM

Oh! I see where the miscommunication is. Gotcha.

OK. Basically, I call for a "loser pays" system of Common Law as regards lawsuits. No Lawyers, just the two parties, their witnesses, a Judge and a Jury. It's how things in the US were routinely handled up until the 1840s. This keeps Rich Bitch from being able to steamroll Poor Pedro with 8 lawyers, and keeps things impartial.

Essentially, it comes down to personal responsibility. If I knowingly create a minefield which is a hazard, and it kills someone, my Negligence resulted in an Initiation Of Force when the person in question stepped on my landmine. It could be argued that this does not extend to criminals, under any circumstances; a view which I partially support but which in my opinion leaves far too much room for someone to wiggle out of a Manslaughter case resulting from their improperly-marked bobytrap, tiger-pit, or minefield.

filtherton · 01-24-2005, 04:03 PM

Okay, i see what you're saying.

I'm going to draw a parallel from your opinion on an ideal civil court system to the "hypocrisy" theme of this thread. Do you think it would be hypocritical for you to hire a lawyer if someone was suing you, despite the fact that ideally you envision a country where a lawyer wouldn't be necessary in a civil lawsuit?

The_Dunedan · 01-24-2005, 04:17 PM

No, I don't believe I would. I'm more than competant to represent myself in any such case, and I have a Para-Legal for a father who would be more than able to help me prepare a defense.

Mephisto2 · 01-24-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The point is this:

We ( gun-nuts ) desire to posess firearms for, among others, the purpose of defending ourselves from armed criminals.

Moore, among others, wishes to deprive us of the ability to do this by removing our weapons from our posession.

Therefore, for Moore to demand that he be allowed to posess ( or be gaurded by someone who posesses ) a weapon in order to protect himself from armed criminals, but to demand that the rest of us be denied this when we are at considerably greater risk for such an attack than he is, is elitist and hypocritical.

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I was under the impression that Moore was in favour of gun control, not of the entire revocation of gun rights?

Or am I wrong?

Mr Mephisto

The_Dunedan · 01-24-2005, 05:10 PM

Sadly, Mr. M, when someone on the States talkes about "gun control," what they usually mean is banning certain types of guns alltogether, mandatory registration, and eventual confiscation.

Lebell · 01-24-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I was under the impression that Moore was in favour of gun control, not of the entire revocation of gun rights?

Or am I wrong?

Mr Mephisto

Mr. Moore is on record saying that he is in favor of making all handguns illegal.

jorgelito · 01-25-2005, 02:25 AM

So if that's the case, then it would indeed seem that Moore is hypocritical for having an armed body guard. Although practical and realistic (game theory notwithstanding) and who could blame the guy really, it is still hypocritical.

filtherton · 01-25-2005, 07:28 AM

Okay, he is being hypocritical, but can hypocrisy be considered ironic anymore? Is it ironic that the president is now nation building after he went on record against nation building in his first presidential campaign? There is no irony in politics.

FoolThemAll · 01-25-2005, 09:52 AM

Thanks for that reply, Yakk. I agree that it's not necessarily hypocritical to be against certain people owning firearms while owning one. But I think it's a bit suspect to be a rich anti-gunner in possession of a firearm while calling for monetary barriers to firearm ownership.

01-23-2005, 10:56 AM	#81 (permalink)
Bodyhammer86 Insane Location: Mattoon, Il	and Moore's half-hearted attempts at defending BFC have been crushed here: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowli...ckoattacko.htm __________________ Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

01-23-2005, 11:16 AM	#82 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Host and Bodyhammer, we are here to talk to each other. Not to quote external sources without any commentary or personal beliefs/statements or even editing them to actually apply directly. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

01-23-2005, 11:34 AM	#83 (permalink)
Bodyhammer86 Insane Location: Mattoon, Il	Yakk, that wouldn't be a problem except I can't copy and paste anything from my link on here, so there isn't much I can do about it. __________________ Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

01-23-2005, 01:16 PM	#84 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Yakk, could you please address my reply here? No rudeness intended, I'm just curious. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

01-24-2005, 12:16 PM	#91 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	And 89.9 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot. Half of criminals losing their guns, eh? Yes, if you could magically remove guns, I would agree that your overall chance of dying of a gun shot would be lessened, but you are taking a few factors and making an argument that statisticians fight over, considering all the variables. Variables include: How easy would it be to remove guns? How hard would it be to get illegal guns? How many gun deaths are attributable to suicide? How many to drug/gang activity? What is the effect of prison sentencing on gun crime? How many violent gun deaths are there vs defensive uses? Hell, those were just off the top of my head and I'm not a criminologist. But I'm sure that 84.5 percent of those who are against guns will blow off my post __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! Last edited by Lebell; 01-24-2005 at 12:59 PM..

01-23-2005, 08:28 PM	#86 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Another way to look at it could be that: Maybe some pro-gun people (we're not all nuts either) want certain other people (i.e. - real criminals) from having guns. That could be an example of pro-gun and pro-gun restriction. In other words, lawful gun ownership isn't the problem, but illegal guns are. Something like that anyways.

01-23-2005, 08:32 PM	#87 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The point is this: We ( gun-nuts ) desire to posess firearms for, among others, the purpose of defending ourselves from armed criminals. Moore, among others, wishes to deprive us of the ability to do this by removing our weapons from our posession. Therefore, for Moore to demand that he be allowed to posess ( or be gaurded by someone who posesses ) a weapon in order to protect himself from armed criminals, but to demand that the rest of us be denied this when we are at considerably greater risk for such an attack than he is, is elitist and hypocritical.

01-24-2005, 10:26 AM	#89 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	I never said I -was- anti-civillian-landmine. If someone gives proper warning of their minefield at its' boundaries and makes a reasonable effort to keep people off of it ( ie a clearly marked fence ) I see no reason to object. Now, if someone sowed a minefield and did -not- give such proper notice, and it caused an innocent person to be injured or killed, that person should be punished severely, since their willful negligence caused the injury of another person. However, what one does with ones' property is ones; own buisiness, and that includes who one chooses to defend it. I have no sympathy for the burgaler who steps on a Bouncing-Betty.

01-24-2005, 12:24 PM	#92 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	......................... __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-24-2005, 02:46 PM	#95 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	An illiterate wandering child isn't gonna climb a fence that's marked "MINEFIELD." Everyone in the neighborhood would know about it; "Dude, don't cross that fence or you'll get blown up!" As for dogs, a dog would have to be working pretty hard to cross the kind of fence I have in mind. As for "regulation," no I am not in favor of regulation ( in the modern sense. ) What I favor is allowing our Tort system to take care of things: Case 1: A neighbor has a known, but unmarked, minefield. I ( his neighbor ) make it a point to put up signs to this effect. I will also call him a negligent fuckhead at every opportunity, preferably with witnesses. I could perhaps sue him for creating a hazard which lowered my property values, or for the inevitable squirrel-tripped mine which dented mt car, broke my windows, or bruised my Peach orchard. Case 2: That same neighbors' minefield claims the life of an idiotic teenager who was TPing his house on Halloween Night. Since the minefield was not peoperly marked and fenced, it created conditions of Willful Negligence, and he can be punished: The family of the dead moron sues my neighbor, and he's also arrested, tried, and convicted of Manslaughter 1. Between the gigantic fine and the 15 year jail term, he's gonna get HAMMERED. Case 3: My neighbor keeps a 4' wood-and-chainlink fence around his minefield, with signs every few yards saying "Warning! Minefield; Do Not Enter!" or some similar thing. A mornic burgaler, ignoring or not seeing the signs, crosses my neighbors yard and is obliterated. Big deal; clean the splatter off the walls and replace the divot. Case 4: Another moronic teenager, TPing my neighbor from ( 4 ) on Halloween, ignores the signs and the fence, thinking they're a bluff or a prank. He is obliterated. This person obviously didn't need to pass on his genes; if you're gonna go traipsing through a fenced-in yard, clearly marked as containing landmines, you deserve whatever you get.

01-24-2005, 03:49 PM	#97 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Oh! I see where the miscommunication is. Gotcha. OK. Basically, I call for a "loser pays" system of Common Law as regards lawsuits. No Lawyers, just the two parties, their witnesses, a Judge and a Jury. It's how things in the US were routinely handled up until the 1840s. This keeps Rich Bitch from being able to steamroll Poor Pedro with 8 lawyers, and keeps things impartial. Essentially, it comes down to personal responsibility. If I knowingly create a minefield which is a hazard, and it kills someone, my Negligence resulted in an Initiation Of Force when the person in question stepped on my landmine. It could be argued that this does not extend to criminals, under any circumstances; a view which I partially support but which in my opinion leaves far too much room for someone to wiggle out of a Manslaughter case resulting from their improperly-marked bobytrap, tiger-pit, or minefield.

01-24-2005, 04:03 PM	#98 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Okay, i see what you're saying. I'm going to draw a parallel from your opinion on an ideal civil court system to the "hypocrisy" theme of this thread. Do you think it would be hypocritical for you to hire a lawyer if someone was suing you, despite the fact that ideally you envision a country where a lawyer wouldn't be necessary in a civil lawsuit?

01-24-2005, 04:17 PM	#99 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	No, I don't believe I would. I'm more than competant to represent myself in any such case, and I have a Para-Legal for a father who would be more than able to help me prepare a defense.

01-24-2005, 05:10 PM	#101 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Sadly, Mr. M, when someone on the States talkes about "gun control," what they usually mean is banning certain types of guns alltogether, mandatory registration, and eventual confiscation.

01-25-2005, 02:25 AM	#103 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	So if that's the case, then it would indeed seem that Moore is hypocritical for having an armed body guard. Although practical and realistic (game theory notwithstanding) and who could blame the guy really, it is still hypocritical.

01-25-2005, 07:28 AM	#104 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Okay, he is being hypocritical, but can hypocrisy be considered ironic anymore? Is it ironic that the president is now nation building after he went on record against nation building in his first presidential campaign? There is no irony in politics.

01-25-2005, 09:52 AM	#105 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Thanks for that reply, Yakk. I agree that it's not necessarily hypocritical to be against certain people owning firearms while owning one. But I think it's a bit suspect to be a rich anti-gunner in possession of a firearm while calling for monetary barriers to firearm ownership. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.