It is by the free exchange of ideas and opinions that we learn, and draw closer to knowledge of the truth. But the critic who lacks the cojones and courage to establish their identity by using an alias might consider the words of Theodore Roosevelt:

The man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done.

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.
"Citizenship in a Republic" - a speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, France, 23 April 1910

Dr. Hause are you talking about Donald Trump?

"She comes down here (WV) and tells you she'll replace your coal mining jobs with minimum wage jobs. I'm telling you, you better get ready to go back into those mines because if I'm elected you'll be working your asses off."

After he said that the place went nuts.


That won my vote.

I'd lay money he's talking about the critics and lack of respect and civility here rather than a reference to Trump?

Just for conversation, it's a different world. Some advocate for change no matter what, and won't acknowledge that some change is not good, constructive, civil or otherwise. In today's world, maybe TR would be the heartless, intolerant critic.

Similarities between Teddy Roosevelt’s split with Republicans and his Bull moose party vs. today’s Republican presidential selection are uncanny. Roosevelt was considered brash in his day too.

Paste from Wikapedia

Roosevelt far outpolled Taft in the primary elections which were held in a few of the more progressive states. But Taft had worked far harder than TR to control the Republican Party's organizational operations and the mechanism for choosing its presidential nominee at the 1912 Republican National Convention. So, despite Roosevelt's last-minute attempt to block Taft's re-nomination, the party re-nominated Taft in June.[3]

I not going to make this "political" any more than necessary but we're are in for the nastiest fight ever to retain our 2nd Amendment rights this year. I think the path is clear as to who we must elect president. Failure to do so will have dire ramifications.
Get out and vote and encourage you family members and friends to do so as well.
And as an aside: T Roosevelt was one of the first Progressives. He must be rolling over in his grave after seeing who this title is ascribed to today!
Jim

I didn't see anything political in Dr. Drew's post. I took it as a shot across the bow of "Fox with the Runs'" totally uncalled for criticism of our friend Tom Archer.

As did I....

Treb,
I think it was indirecty at FWTR.

That Trump quote is the best line of the campaign yet.

Jim, I don't believe anyone here objects to your politically oriented posts unless they are completely off topic to the particular thread in which you post, leading to abandonment of an interesting 'gun topic'. Anyone of us who doesn't agree with your opinion in the post above is just not interested in our collective right to even own the guns we discuss here.

While a political thread in this forum is 'off topic' so is a lot of other stuff discussed here. If a political thread can be kept civil, with due respect to the opinions expressed by others, I don't think it would be locked or 'disappeared' by the forum owner. We need to be able discuss the current political issues with an eye to how they affect our personal constitutionally protected (for now anyhow)rights. JMHO..Geo

Drew never gets into the political. Just goes to show how politically sensitive some become at the mention of a politician talking about citizenship and good manners.

Everyone here knows the positions of presidential aspirants on the Second, and Dave has made a special place for members to contribute their comments.

Dave's adjustments made the board what it was intended to be: definitely not a forum to promote one party or another in a presidential election or any other.

We shouldn't kid ourselves of civil comment in a political thread. Dave's pleading and others complaining and cajoling can't stop Mike and Joe from fouling mundane threads.

And YOU, King..............

+1 for Researcher and Last Dollar for Drew's post. The rest just don't get Drew's point.

We all sin. Dave has set it up to make us be good. It's a great improvement. Tap DoubleGun now and that's what we get, all about our guns and shooting---not a zoo.

I'm impressed- actually, old Tricky Dick Nixon was fond of quoting Teddy-and we all know that he lied to the American public when he reported on National Network News that our troops (I was one of them) were NOT in Laos or Cambodia. That crook probably thought the Ho Chi Min trail was like the 1-95 Beltway in Disneyland on the Potomac. My comments on Tom's FUBAR with a known fact of World History are a reflection on the economics of the publishing world- too cheap to hire proofreaders who would have caught that error. When you pay the kind of money the DGJ charges per issue, you should get an error free issue for your money. It is not a slur against his fine credentials as a major "L.C. Smithian"-just an observation that the most expensive per issue shotgun related magazine works without proofreading. Tom knows LC Smiths as well as anyone and is a first-rate writer to boot. Most surviving snipers, and I fall into that category (long ago it seems) pay scrupulous attention to ALL details- part of survival in a ever growing more hostile world, I guess.

As far as the Trumpster and Teddy- no comparison. Both from wealthy NYC families, but Teddy had battle field leadership- all Trump knows is how to say "You're Fired"-- But as he is a better choice for gun owners than Die Uber *&^%^ Billary, he will get my vote, unless Charlton Heston comes back to life under a much needed miracle--

You leave Charlton where he is.
It is his reward.
O.M

Walt, kudos to you and Doc Drew. Did you notice the two folks that get his point are in a way similar to many of us others? We have an opinion, but lack-o-cojones. Hope as we might, this may not be the day and age of the firm handshake and code of honor. It means near everything to me, but truthfully only in a smallish circle.

Oh, I didn't see that post by RWTF. My fault.

That's seriously funny shit King... seeing the alpha male baboon complaining that political commentary turned this place into a zoo!







Now King, that was just shameful to intentionally misrepresent what Mark Levin really believes about the 2nd Amendment. Here's what the man actually has to say about it:
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-the-...cal-government/







Do you really think we accept mass murder??? That's disgusting! And what do we make of an atheist such as yourself invoking the name of Jesus to try to make us feel guilty about protecting our Constitutional Rights?



And who could forget this statement which you repeated so many times, even after being shown United Nations statistics on murder rates around the world which proved you were absolutely incorrect?



So King, who is it that insisted upon dismissing graphs and statistics in order to advance his Anti-2nd Amendment agenda? In my opinion, the little feud between Mike and jOe is nothing compared to this disgusting anti-gun rhetoric. What right do you have to demonize them?

From the beginning there has always been evil in this world and always will be.To recognize and avoid it is the key.When that's not possible,everyone should be able to defend and protect themselves,family,and innocents.Criminals,mass shooters and other malcontents will always find a weapon,gun,knife,baseball bat,or a bomb. The Founding Fathers of this country understood this.Hence we have the 2nd Amendment,leave it alone.Freedom is not free,as they well knew.

While I agree with your desire for perfection, I realize that the cost is more in the photos than the text. The photo spreads in DGJ are about the only temptation pics
I still search out. It is a human run publication and like all publications has errors, some more important than others.

I continue to subscribe and continue in my realistic expectations of an over all good, though imperfect product.

Now OC is someone who really gets it. Read the DGJ? I just look at the pictures.

Glad you're back LD.


______________________________
Someday.
http://youtu.be/9Aug7wjbcfs

The Hopi have an interesting word Koyaanisqatsi. It means "life out of balance". The psychological concept is "Homeostasis".

One of the manifestations of a life "out of balance" is psychological scotoma, a "blind spot". The opposite is when someone sees everything being about one thing, ie. psychological perseveration (an uncontrolled repetition or continuation of a response e.g., behavior, word, thought, activity, strategy, or emotion, in the absence of an ongoing occasion or rationale for that behavior or emotion.) This perseveration may be manifest by the extreme need to "evangelize" the perceived unknowing or apparently mentally deficient regarding this one issue.

EVERY POST ISN'T ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT. WE ALL HAVE COMPUTERS (or couldn't be here) and as competent and intelligent adults are perfectly capable of educating ourselves as to the threats thereto. I for one am sick of being lectured like I'm a schoolboy, and am sick and tired of the personal vendettas being played out over and over.

More from T.R. "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready (intellectually and practically)."

Well said again Brother Drew. It seems the main title of this site is now for whatever, except doubles.

make love, not war...

be prepared for both...

Shotguns are interesting, good shotguns more so.
Gentlemen talking about good shotguns, I listen to, others not at all.

A couple interesting points about TR and his "Bull Moose" campaign:

1. He is the only 3rd party candidate in modern history to have received more votes than either the R or D candidate. (He beat Taft badly.)

2. If the Republicans had had the good sense to nominate him, it's likely we would've had 4 more years of TR (maybe 8, because he wouldn't have done the River of Doubt expedition and likely would have lived longer) rather than Wilson. Possible we might have gotten into WWI sooner.

Interesting. It was May 7 1901 that President McKinley and Vice-President Roosevelt visited Wickenburg, AZ.
http://www.wickenburg-az.com/2001/05/president-mckinleys-visit-to-congress-and-wickenburg/



From Hunting Trips of a Ranchman published in 1885 "I have two double-barreled shotguns; a No. 10 chokebore for ducks and geese made by Thomas of Chicago; and a No. 16 hammerless built for me by Kennedy of St. Paul, for grouse and plover. On regular hunting trips I always carry the Winchester rifle, but in riding round near home, where a man may see a deer and is sure to come across ducks and grouse, it is best to take the little ranch gun, a double-barrel No. 16, with a 40-70 rifle underneath the shotgun barrels."

Vendettas- Si, como no, Cabron? La vengaza esta una plata que es muy superior quando servivador muy muy frio, no es verdad. Algunas palabras de veritas para usted, el Sr, Medico-- aqui esta: No orinas en el agua alreadedor, porque usted habe de beberlo un otra dia!

I like to quote Teddy Roosevelt, one of the least understood , very powerful "Rey Del Mundo" Presidents in our history. If you want to discover his background as NYC Police Commissioner- back in the O. Henry/400/DelMonico's 1890-1900 time frame, read this book "The Alienist"--fascinating look into the dark side of NYC life (and death) back then- and proof positive of Neitzc he's words: When you look into the abys, the abys looks back at you."

"Neitzc he's words: When you look into the abys, the abys looks back at you."

Friedrich Nietzsche (who died from tertiary syphilis)
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

The Spanish wasn't any better, but no one cares Francis, nor do I.

I didn't read Francis post because of the mis spelling..I only read perfect stuff...

Hmmm. I don't speak Spanish, but I'm guessing there may be a term comparable to that the French use for someone who doesn't speak French well: "Il parle francais comme une vache espagnole."
(He speaks French like a Spanish cow.)

Good ole Francis, always likes to respond and talk gibberish in some other language other than English, which he has a hard enough time with, and loves to correct someone whom misspells. Better spell check yourself (abys).

Now this, I find interesting. After lecturing me a few weeks ago about the special rights earned by military veterans to comment here on this BBS... and after even defending the rights of King Brown, Ed Good, and John Kerry to spout their anti-gun rhetoric... we now have Larry mocking Francis (RWTF) about his Spanish.

Perhaps Larry forgot that Francis is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran. Or maybe he's just a hypocrite and a fool. And wouldn't you know it... Larry is also off topic once again... but so is the entire thread, so what the hell.

But if you wish to read perfect Spanish, your best bet is to go to a U.S. Government building, any hospital ER, or a Lowes or Home Depot.

That figures...

.
Response to stUpid jOe the trOll's pitiful attempted insult

Who cares you sick mOron.

.
Response to stUpid jOe the trOll's pitiful attempted insult

I smell fever in the funk house....

.
Response to stUpid jOe the trOll's pitiful attempted insult

.
Response to stUpid jOe the trOll's pitiful attempted insult

Dr.Drew you think prayer would help with Mike's internet sickness ?

.
Response to stUpid jOe the trOll's pitiful attempted insult

Can't you two keep this limited. Do you have to dump on every thread? No one wants to read your posts and frankly no one cares.


Pete

we now have Larry mocking Francis (RWTF) about his Spanish.
/quote]

Darn Keith . . . my post was so short I figured even you would be able to understand what I wrote. I DON'T SPEAK SPANISH. So how could I mock Francis' Spanish? The connection--I guess too obscure for you to grasp--is that the FRENCH (a language I do speak) refer to those who don't speak FRENCH well as speaking it like a Spanish cow.

What a long stretch in an attempt to pick a nit. But it's Keith, so hey . . .

By the way, Keith, since we're off topic anyway: Did you see that the US Fish and Wildlife Service wants to allow the wind energy industry to kill 4200 bald eagles and 2000 golden eagles per year? And environmentalists are worried about a few that might be dying from lead poisoning? Now there's something you should REALLY find interesting.

Not that Daniel and Joanna Cote need defending at all, but I thought it should be noted that such publications as DGJ, and others, almost to the one, have a published disclaimer that they neither agree with nor endorse that which their published authors write. The job of the editor and proof-reader in such publications, in this case Daniel and Joanna, do their job extremely well - and that is to proof-read and edit as to grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc., and NOT the opinions or "facts" presented by the authors of their articles. Accuracy of content is left to stand (or fall) on its own and is NOT the responsibility of the publisher and proofreaders of the magazine.


RE: TR's comments and brought to us by Dr. Drew, I say, and I do... and I have erred, but not because I didn't try.

I agree with Rev Drew and others.

That supposedly grown men can engage in such juvenilia and think it clever and amusing, or find it rewarding beats me.

An interesting and informative forum is being spoiled and daily made unpleasant possibly to the point of it's collapse; people just don't want this nonsense and will increasingly vote with their feet.

I don't post very much, just on those occasions I think may have something of value to add to a discussion. Would that others might do the same.

Eug

I think you're asking the wrong question Larry. Shouldn't the point be, does it affect my upland hunting? On the face of it, apparently not? By the way, this is probably retroactive. Don't forget where we get the gruesome carcass pile pictures for the anti hunters.

Since the service has cleared this policy with the soar folks, my solution is for the legal eagles to partner with the boisterous deer hunters for a win-win. Thank you for veering off topic, tradition says out of sight out of mind makes us seem measured and wise.

Not retroactive, Craig. This would be going forward, bird body count per year. The wind turbines are already killing some eagles, but the USFWS decided to set a limit. But I was surprised they set the limit that high.

Agreed, Dean. I sold a set of 12 gauge Parker Damascus ejector barrels to Mr. Cote a few years ago- his home is near our summer cottage near Boyne (6 Mile Lake) and he is a fine person to know. Very erudite, yet, like me, with a working class background, and also very well read. Dates, like the Lusitania sinking (possibly the Titanic as well) and Bodio's ten year gap error on the Model 21 intro year are very hard for the average non-gunning educated proof reader to spot. One reason I take pride in my "eagle eyes" for proof-reading is that my friend (we have never met face-to-face, and probably never will, for that matter) Silvio Calabi--he send me the galley proofs of his book on Hemingway's guns to proof-read, which I did, with gusto. RWTF

Larry, you placed a quote that you made into a "quote box" with my name on it, which made it appear that I said those words. I know you like to put words in my mouth, but this is getting ridiculous. It was quite evident earlier that you were indeed mocking Francis for his use of Spanish even though you said that you don't speak Spanish. But as usual, you feel the pathetic need to move heaven and earth to ever avoid admitting that you were wrong. My real point was to illuminate your hypocrisy for being critical of a military veteran (RWTF- U.S. Marine Corps) only a few weeks after you piously lectured me about the special respect that veterans deserve. Most do. I respect your service, but I don't respect you personally because you have repeatedly shown us that you are a bloviating douche bag with exceedingly poor reading comprehension.

I still think it was laughable that you attempted to quell my opinion while vociferously defending the anti-gun rhetoric of King Brown, Ed Good, and even John Kerry.

I'm not surprised about the USFWS permitting the wind power industry to kill thousands of bald eagles annually. Most Liberal environmentalists are nearly as hypocritical as you Larry. Don't forget Larry, it was you who went on and on for days in the recent Condor thread supporting the ridiculous notion that deer hunter's lead bullets were fragmenting into hundreds of pieces of toxic shrapnel. And like Herbert Hoover promising a chicken in every pot, you were pushing the idiotic idea of careless hunters providing a lead tainted deer carcass for every eagle. No Larry, those were not your exact words, so don't get your panties in a knot. But you were blaming lead bullets for sickening and killing eagles while refusing to accept that there are many more bio-available sources of lead that kill birds. Do you recall saying this in your post #433166 on 1/18/16?

"Keith, the majority of road-killed deer I saw in northern Wisconsin had bald eagles doing the cleanup. Our problem in that part of the country, obviously not related to condors, didn't have anything to do with either cattle or gut piles. Rather, with wounded and unrecovered deer. That's where the eagles were picking up the lead fragments. Unfortunately, the WI Natural Resources Board thought the solution was to ban lead SHOT on all DNR controlled lands . . . when there was no real evidence of eagles ingesting lead shot, now that we're no longer shooting lead at waterfowl. But bird hunters were an easier target than deer hunters. However, we were fortunate enough to shoot down that idea before it became policy."

I am glad that debate is still sticking in your craw. Maybe you'll want to cry to Dave again to get this thread locked too.

Mil gracias, amigo, para sus palabres. Y por el otro cabron aqui-- "En la boca de la Puta grande"!! El Zorro

OMIGOD..Not the lead shot thing again...............

I'd pay serious folding $ to get steel shot repealed- old Federal Copper coated Premium 12 gauge- No. 5 shot- deadly in proper range on waterfowl- steel- same gun and choke, same est'd range- more cripples. Ain't gonna happen though!

Pretty hard to mock someone's Spanish when you don't speak the language, Keith. Even YOU aren't that smart. (And neither am I.) You quoted me; inside the quote box, the quote is correctly attributed to me. My name is right there, along with the quote. I'm pretty sure no one thought you said it . . . especially since you complained about ME saying it.

And now you're saying: "No Larry, those were not your exact words . . . " (How about my accuracy on THAT quote, Keith?)--so you flat out admit that you're misquoting me. You are a walking, talking contradiction. And nowhere did I EVER state that there are no sources of lead other than from bullets or shot that kill birds. If you have that quote, I'd like to see it. We know, for example, that woodcock often show very high blood lead levels (albeit not toxic, at least in the birds examined by the WI DNR). And we also know that the lead in question may very well come from either the soil in which they probe for worms, or the worms they eat, or both. And we also know that no lead shot was found in the digestive systems of the woodcock examined by the WI DNR. So, in that case, no proof that the lead came from what hunters are putting into the environment.

Now any time you'd like to get your facts STRAIGHT about what I have or have not said, have at it. Preferably in a thread about eagles dying. Personally, I'd doubt that ALL sources of lead come anywhere close to killing the thousands of eagles that the USFWS wants to allow the wind energy companies to kill annually. Just to put various causes of eagle deaths into perspective.

Ernest Hemingway wrote in "True At First Light" about killing eagles, using his dead horse "Kite" for bait-and with a .22 Winchester (M61?)-and then running down a wounded eagle, picking him up by his legs, and bashing his head against a rock until the eagle screamed like the 101st AB-and then gave up. I have nothing against killing eagles, or geese that fubar jet aircraft and cause airplane crashes- but not like old Don Ernesto did.

One of the facts that we had a tough time keeping straight was why you have the preference of leaving one group of hunters at the mercy of anti gun and hunting policy makers. I don't know why, but you introduced deer hunters, then brushed them off to fend for themselves.

Since you have put eagle deaths into perspective, with regards to lead, was that feeling or science based? Policy makers using the same perspective as you? Vilifying hunters or shooters who may prefer to use lead projectiles all good as long as it's not upland wingshooting?

And please Larry, the service is cutting some big bad corporate deal at the expense of wildlife, they are condoning political policy by signaling the amount of latitude they expect from influential supporters.

Boy Larry, you are dense. It was quite obvious that you were mocking a fellow veteran, RWTF when you posted this only two posts after he posted the only Spanish up to that point within this thread:



I've come to expect you to try to weasel out of things like this, but you really aren't fooling anyone. Then you go on to further illustrate your exceedingly poor reading comprehension. Even after I specifically took the time to point out that something I wrote was not your words, knowing that you'd likely jump to insane and incorrect conclusions, you still ignorantly took that as some admission by me that I am misquoting you.

If we could turn your brain into small round shot, we could get 2 or more ounces into a 2 1/2" .410 shell because it would be more dense than pure tungsten or even depleted uranium!

Now, I don't expect you to understand this either, but the birds I was referring to in my previous post were the EAGLES that you had told us were feeding heavily upon road killed deer. Here's the exact words I used: "But you were blaming lead bullets for sickening and killing eagles while refusing to accept that there are many more bio-available sources of lead that kill birds."Nobody was talking about woodcocks in that sentence Larry, and you spent a great deal of time in the Lead and Condors thread blaming deer hunters bullets for lead poisoning in eagles. Why don't you go back and read it again. The thread is locked after you cried to Dave, so you can't even edit or delete the things you said.

My facts are straight Larry. And it is apparent that craigd hasn't forgotten how you were throwing deer hunters and their lead bullets under the bus. It's you who is attempting to twist things in order to run away from your hypocrisy concerning respect for veterans after dumping on RWTF. A man would just apologize and move on... so I'm definitely not expecting that you will apologize to Francis. And let's remember that you are the one who took this off-topic thread even further into left field by bringing up the USFWS permitting thousands of eagle deaths due to wind generators. Here's some French for you to translate since you don't speak Spanish:

Larry est un douchebag ignorant

Here are the facts: Deer hunters (and other big game hunters, but mostly deer in my part of the world) have to deal with the fact that eagles are dying from lead poisoning. Lead shot, as opposed to lead fragments, is pretty easy to identify. So, unless those examining dead eagles are finding lead SHOT in the birds' digestive system, bird hunters are pretty much in the clear. Not so with eagles, which--as anyone who lives in places where eagles and deer coexist will verify--scavenge dead deer. And we know that hunters don't recover all the deer they shoot. So if those eagles have ingested lead fragments, those concerned with eagles dying are going to make the connection to shot but unrecovered deer. Deer hunters can ignore that if they wish, but I don't think that's a good idea--because the charge won't go away just because they ignore it. Given their numbers, seems to me they'd be smart to do some research and attempt to identify the specific source of any lead fragments found in dead eagles' digestive systems.

That being said, the point I was making with the thousands of eagles USFWS wants to allow the wind energy companies to kill annually--which seems to have escaped Keith and Craig--is this: Even if the occasional eagle dies from ingesting lead fragments from bullets (or, for that matter, lead shot), it is likely that the lead poisoning deaths directly related to hunting are only a tiny percentage of those caused by wind turbines. So if the eagle lobby's agenda is really to protect eagles and not to attack hunters and hunting, then they're obviously expending their effort in the wrong direction.

And Keith, your French . . . isn't. But I'll use the verb from which "ignorant" comes and apply it to you . . . as in ignoring you, since you have nothing of interest to contribute. And when you quote YOURSELF, that's not quoting ME. You can't find any quote from me in which I am "refusing to accept that there are many more bio-available sources of lead that kill birds." Only someone as ignorant as the guy you see when you look in the mirror would believe that only lead from bullets or shot might be the only source of lead poisoning in eagles . . . or any other BIRDS. (Note the last word of your quote. You switched from eagles in specific to birds in general. Hence, the validity of my reference to the potential source of lead in woodcock . . . which is a bird, isn't it?) I rest my case.

Lead in the woodcock? How about Jack Nicholson's great line in "Terms of Endearment" to Shirley-- "Lead in the pencil-wind in your hair"- as they are doin' donuts on the beach in his plastic Chevy--RWTF- Le Renaud??

From the previous page, 'you're a walking, talking contradiction'.

Why do you continue to paint deer hunters in an unflattering and unethical manner. You have the personal opinion that unrecovered hunter wounded deer are lead poisoning eagles, but the study that you choose to ignore was about some seventeen, or so, gut piles. How come a 'pro' hunter such as yourself keeps legitimizing the wildlife service's 'partnership', funded 'study', with soarraptors anti hunting mission.

Then, the point that has escaped me is that you're trying to lecture the anti hunting lobby, under the guise of eagle protection, that they're 'expending their efforts in the wrong direction'. I think their direction is crystal clear, they have partnerships with policy makers through the wildlife service, and they don't ever take partial pro hunting positions in the spirit of coming together.

Larry, you also went on page after page about where the ONLY source of lead poisoning came from for waterfowl. They're 'any other birds', right? Or, was that just you contradicting yourself in the spirit of being reasonable, showing decorum, and impressing with facts? I'm aware you have a 'case' and it's rested, but as previous, all I'm doing is asking the national writer about a little insight to their positions.

No need to write another dissertation to explain why you spent so much time throwing deer hunters and their lead bullets under the bus Larry. It's all still there in the now-locked Lead and Condors thread. And in yet another example of your exceedingly poor reading comprehension, I never once quoted you as saying that you refused to accept that there are many more bio-available sources of lead that kill birds. I made that very accurate observation when you repeatedly scoffed at every study and example of other sources of lead that we, (craigd, myself, and others) brought up as more likely sources of lead in eagles, condors, and waterfowl. You certainly expended a great deal of time attempting to denigrate craigd and I because we are not official wildlife biologists. But you clung to the few precious studies and organizations you chose to believe like your very life depended upon it. We all know that eagles eat a lot more carrion than just dead deer. craigd has repeatedly pointed out to you that their diet is mostly fish... by a rather large percentage. Why, you even selectively edited the Audobon Society statement on sport hunting in an attempt to reflect your incorrect views on their stated position on lead ammunition. I'll bet you'd like to sweep that one under the rug. You tried repeatedly, pathetically, and failed. It's all there in that thread, locked for eternity so that neither of us can ever do any editing or deleting, because you cried to Dave and got it locked.

Where did you come up with this wild-assed statement Larry????... "Only someone as ignorant as the guy you see when you look in the mirror would believe that only lead from bullets or shot might be the only source of lead poisoning in eagles . . . or any other BIRDS." How much time did I spend providing many other sources of avian lead poisoning ranging from leaded gasoline, lead based paint, mining and smelting wastes, chemicals, cattle carcasses and guts, etc.? How much time did you spend poo-pooing them and clinging to your ridiculous notions about deer carcasses and gut piles laced with hundreds of lead bullet fragments? I thought only Ed Good was stupid enough to think he could get away with mis-attributing what I really said. But it appears that you two are pretty close, mentally. That is not meant to be a compliment, so please don't take it the wrong way as you do with so much of what I say.

I never claimed to speak French Larry. I merely typed "Larry is an ignorant douche bag" into a Google French translator, and the result was "Larry est un douchebag ignorant." So you can tilt at windmills, and Google too.

You can't ignore me Larry. You have expended thousands of words since you first put me on notice that you were ignoring me... just like your older brother. And what, still no apology to the military veteran you obviously were ridiculing? Talk about a walking talking contradiction!

Blaming deer hunters for lead poisoning eagles is as stupid as NOT blaming all Muslims for terrorists actions.

The only people responsible for terrorist acts are the terrorists who commit them, and those who provide guidance, direct support, and training to the terrorists. Blaming all Muslims for terrorist acts committed by Islamist terrorists is like blaming all Catholics for the acts of pedophile priests.

Keith, I will ignore the rest of your nonsensical rant. Just more of the same. However, concerning the above: The reason we still use HUMANS as translators/interpreters of foreign languages is that computers tend to screw up. I've helped straighten out a number of hosed-up computer translations of French. (They're really strange when it comes to "gun French".) I taught the language at two universities. I have two quite reliable dictionaries, neither of which yields "douchebag" as a French word. Once you put "bag" on the end, it doesn't even look French. Oh well . . . I've seen people claim that "squaw" came into our language from the French fur traders. Yet another word that doesn't even look French. And search as I might, I couldn't find any connection to French.

Just by way of helping you in your further forays into French . . . or other languages of which you have no knowledge. But commenting on things of which you have no knowledge never seems to bother you.

By the way, if you have the guts to actually START a thread on "throwing deer hunters under the bus", I promise to comment. But I doubt I need to look for that any time soon.

Larry I really don't think that's a fair comparison...

The Catholic/Christian religion does not condone, promote or reward the acts of a few sexuality deviant priests...

While the Muslim religion openly condones, promotes and rewards the acts of a Muslim terrorists.

I find it strange that a man of your intelligence would fall for 'their act'....
I do agree their promises of all the virgins does sound good but anyone with any sense wouldn't fall for it.

Larry what was the source of your data on acceptable eagle carnage ?

That is stupefying to me, and if so in keeping with left wing hypocrisy on issues they claim to hold dear.

Ooops Colonel. This might be one of those topics best saved for a Thursday. There is some indication that you may get drawn into an endless circle, then ed will come along and offer you a link to something about trolls and Jm will give his diversity talk. Just kidding guys!

Craig, I don't know anything about a study I chose to ignore. What I know about eagles and lead poisoning is this: Raptor rehabilitators, treating sick eagles and dealing with dead eagles, are reporting lead poisoning. THEY are the ones pointing to lead fragments from bullets as being the source of the lead in question. I have no idea whether they're right or wrong . . . or maybe part right and part wrong, because obviously there are many other sources of lead that might end up in eagles. (Don't know where in the world you got the idea that I EVER SAID LEAD SHOT WAS THE ONLY SOURCE THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED LEAD POISONING IN WATERFOWL. Gee, I went on for pages and pages . . . then you ought to be able to come up with a QUOTE from me in which I actually said that. Which would be dumber than dirt. And I try really hard not to be dumber than dirt.) But what's happening is that the raptor rehabilitators are getting publicity for their views. Have been for some time. And with more eagles around these days, thus more likely to find sick and dying eagles from various causes, the publicity is going to continue.

I've stated this before, several times--but apparently it deserves stating again: I am not a deer hunter. Just don't have any interest. But I have nothing against deer hunters, and am often happy to trade pheasants for venison. As for throwing anyone under the bus, as an outdoor writer, I don't have a "bus" under which to throw deer hunters. I write a regular column for a magazine called Pointing Dog Journal, which deals with the birds, dogs and shotguns in which upland hunters are interested. Deer hunters aren't my audience. But if they were my audience, I'd tell them that they need to address the issue of eagles dying from lead poisoning, determine how much of a factor bullet fragments may play as a source of ingested lead. And, at the same time, they need to be armed with the statistics about the THOUSANDS of eagles the USFWS is willing to let the wind energy companies kill--quite likely many times more than will die from lead poisoning in a given year. Seems that's where the raptor fans ought to be expending their energy, IF their goal is really to reduce eagle fatalities.

I think I've answered all your points, Craig. Now, about that quote I made concerning a single source of lead poisoning for waterfowl . . . I'd be interested in seeing that. And if you can't find it, it'd be polite and friendly of you to apologize for putting words in my mouth. We writers don't need anyone to put words in our mouths. We expend plenty of them, and get paid to do so. (Well, not here--where I'm only interested in exchanging information.) There are obviously plenty of potential sources for ALL birds to ingest lead. Although waterfowl--back when we were hunting them with lead shot, and where shot fall around popular hunting areas was often quite heavy--had a much better opportunity than, say, your average ruffed grouse to ingest lead. Based both on where the two species spend a lot of time, and what and how they eat.

Old COL, I was as surprised as you were--by the numbers. It's from a press release covering a proposed rule by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Elsewhere, when I posted those numbers, someone suggested that there would likely be a Federal Dead Eagle Counting Agency to keep track. Nope. The proposal leaves monitoring eagle deaths to the wind energy companies themselves.

I hear the same thing about what Muslims condone and promote and reward, Joe. Yet after an attack like in Paris or Brussels, all I have to do is google "Muslims condemn Paris attack"--and I get a whole bunch of hits. And remember--just in case you haven't seen a very good movie called "Spotlight"--that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church covered up all that sexual abuse for a very long time. They'd put a priest on sick leave . . . then he'd show up in another parish.

But since you raised the issue of Muslim terrorists . . . did you know that in February 1998, old Osama Bin Laden himself issued a fatwa telling Muslims everywhere that it was their duty to kill Americans, however they could? And he even provided excellent examples, using his Al Qaeda organization to attack our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; the USS Cole in 2000; and of course 9/11. So . . . what's happened in the 18+ years since Bin Laden called for Muslims all over the world to rise up and kill Americans? (And remember: We have several million Muslims in this country, and several hundred million non-Muslim Americans. So no shortage of opportunity, right?) You know what? The school shooters at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech--non-Muslim wackos--killed more people in just those two attacks than Americans killed by Muslims in this country and in Europe. You bet, you hear a lot of hate being spewed in the name of Islam. But you know what? The vast majority of Muslims aren't doing anything about it. And who's fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria? And the Taliban in Afghanistan? Mostly other Muslims. They're killing way more of THEM than they're killing of US.

So Larry, if 'intel' gets us into a multi trillion dollar war, are you saying we can take it out of your paycheck?

Which is it? Are there pedophiles, and those who contribute 'direct support', or are all Catholics being punished in the pocket book and loss of community services because the whole organization is 'blamed' in the form of a crippling financial burden? I suppose there's a third choice, did it come out on dvd?

Are you supposed to use the phrase 'Islamist terrorists'?

What if hundreds of millions of dollars of financial support, and some manpower, for international radical islamic terrorism came out of a handful of US cities and counties. Is that 'direct support', maybe 'guidance'? Why can't we apply the Catholic corollary, and impose a punitive financial burden on all members of a faith for the transgressions of a few, the muslims? Hey, maybe a little financial arm twisting would fix the problem when the sharia police get hit in the wallet.

Do you think sometimes your logic only fits which way the wind is blowing in your neck of the woods at the moment? And about those ducks, last word.

Craig, "intel" doesn't get us into anything. The Director of National Intelligence and the Directors of the CIA, NSA, DIA, Homeland Security, FBI etc do not make policy. (All they do is provide information to policymakers.) That's the President's job, with the approval of Congress (at least in some cases). Obama, for example, made much of the fact that he voted against the war in Iraq, while Hillary voted for it. So President Bush (who never dodged responsibility for the Iraq War, by the way) and those members of Congress who voted to give him the authority to take us to war are the ones who got us into that war. Obama got us out . . . some would say too quickly, since we're now getting back in. Some would say that if we had left a few thousand troops in place, ISIS never would have taken ground in Iraq like they did.

Are we "supposed to use the phrase 'Islamist terrorist'"? I do, Craig--because I find it to be quite accurate. I see no reason not to use it. How about you?

You have sources on hundreds of millions of dollars supporting Islamist terrorism coming from American Muslims, Craig? I'd be interested in seeing those. You do know that supporting terrorism is a crime, right? And there are people who have been charged and convicted of doing so. Currently serving prison sentences. And if Muslims in this country are supporting Islamist terrorism, they aren't doing a very good job of getting anything started in this country. As I pointed out to Joe, fewer Americans killed by Muslims in this country since 9/11 than by the Sandy Hook and VA Tech school shooters. Probably fewer than a couple bad weekends in Chicago, for that matter. Given millions of American Muslims and hundreds of millions of non-Muslim Americans, I'd say not a whole lot happening. ISIS is certainly trying to stir up trouble, and they're more effective on social media than Bin Laden was. It's a threat we need to be aware of--and are aware of. But it also needs to be viewed in perspective.

So no apology for misquoting me on ducks? You're a stand-up guy, Craig.

jOe does have a knack for saying it all in just a few words!

I see this off topic thread is going even further off the rails thanks to you Larry. And I see you still can't ignore me. After once again telling us that you were going to ignore everything I said except for my Google French translation of "Larry is an ignorant douche bag", you went on to challenge me to start another thread on "throwing deer hunters under the bus". And you promised to comment!



How retarded is that, oh Mr. Walking Talking Bloviating Contradiction? You promise to comment to someone who you also promise to ignore??? And apparently you are too stupid to remember that we were having a discussion about you throwing deer hunters under the bus. And big bad Larry couldn't handle it. And he cried to Dave and got the thread locked. That's just precious Larry. You want ME to start another thread if I "have the guts"??? I wasn't the gutless crybaby who whined to Dave because I couldn't take the heat. craigd and I were not the only ones in that Lead and Condors thread that confronted you, Mr. Big Time Professional Outdoors Writer, about your incessant finger pointing toward those who use lead BULLETS.

You said you "try really hard not to be dumber than dirt." Keep trying Larry. It's not working.

We can't go back and pull any direct quotes from you because the thread is locked. You may not have said yourself that lead shot was the ONLY source of lead poisoning in waterfowl as craigd mentioned in a much condensed version of your multi-page attack on lead bullets... and lead shot... except for (most) upland game. But you did repeatedly scoff at our analysis and criticism of the so-called science you quoted that blamed lead shot while ignoring all of the other more bio-available sources of lead. I have advised you to go back and re-read it to see why craigd, myself, and others were confronting you. You and BrentD were repeatedly giving aid and comfort to the anti-lead forces. But it probably wouldn't do any good, because you only see what you want to see, and selectively edit things to prove your point, as you did with the Audobon Society statement on sport hunting and your denial that they supported lead ammunition bans.

And to think you are now demanding an apology from craigd as you deftly attempt to dance away from your mocking of U.S. Marine Corps Veteran RWTF without apologizing to him??? And do you remember when you claimed I said something I never said and I asked you for several days to either prove it or apologize? Do you remember adding words to my statement about the susceptibility of waterfowl and upland birds to lead poisoning in order to change the meaning? You didn't prove your false accusation, and you did not man-up and apologize. And now you have the gall to come here and accuse craigd of not being a stand-up guy??? What a dick.

That's because the vast majority are waiting to stomp on your head and the smaller majority gets it done.

Larry truth is all Muslims are terrorists in waiting....you know it but since you let your daughter be raised by Muslims you feel you need to defend them.

Terrorism is intertwined into their insane religion and there's only one way to extinguish it.

Yes, Joe . . . all Muslims are terrorists in waiting. Just like all women are potential prostitutes. After all, they all have the proper equipment.

But you're right about one thing, Joe: Assuming all Muslims are terrorists, that means we need to kill them all. I'm waiting for you to run down to the recruiting office and sign up. I find it surprising that a large number of people who want to kill Muslims also happen to be people who never served in the military. Or perhaps served but are now too old to reenlist. If you have children and/or grandchildren, Joe, are you actively encouraging them to enlist and go kill all those Muslims? I expect the response will be similar to what I got when Clinton sent our troops to Bosnia. I was teaching at Iowa State at the time, and a lot of my liberal colleagues thought that was a fine idea, since it was a "peacekeeping" mission. I asked a few of them if that meant they were encouraging their sons and daughters to enlist. That's when push comes to shove. Not a one said they were encouraging their children to enter military service.

And Joe, whether someone is Christian, Muslim, Hindu or nothing at all, I neither defend them nor condemn them because of their religion. Or lack thereof. I was raised in the Christian church (Presbyterian), and I was taught that condemning someone based on their religion isn't the Christian thing to do. Condemning someone based on their ACTS, on the other hand . . . much more logical. And gives us far fewer targets to eliminate.

As for my daughter, she was in the hands of loving Muslim women, Joe. Between them and a bigot like you, it would have been an easy choice.

You can liken 'intel' folks to the granny with her rosary beads or kindergarteners actually learning something at school. The kids and granny are paying for the handful of pedophiles and their co-conspirators. Catholic financial statements are public record, there is income and there're payouts. Payouts for the transgressions of a few are on the increase and education budgets are being trimmed. Wouldn't it follow that 'intel' should pay their fair share?

As to the use of phrases, the top fellow's 'job' has been to direct that long alphabet list you mentioned on the ways of pc. Maybe, you have the luxury of retirement to be able to speak with accuracy, sometimes?

I honestly don't think you're interested in 'seeing' what you'd rather not. Aren't you the fellow that said google was your friend? For grins, less than a week ago, a large chic. newspaper reported that this admin hasn't charged or prosecuted terror fundraisers thinly veiled as charities in the US since Feb. of '09. Are you sure it's a crime if policy is selective prosecution?

Back to the ducks eh Larry. Please don't stoop to personal attacks. You've hurt my feelings. Luckily since lead shot has been banned, I can feel like a duck with water running off my back. I won't try to contradict settled science, quotes might only be confused with intolerance, hate talk and the current revised stance that lead might come from elsewhere.

Hey, did anyone happen to notice any glaring errors or omissions made by our brilliant bloviating ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst when he admonished jOe by claiming that the shooters at Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook schools have killed way more Americans since 1998 than all of the Muslim terrorist attacks in the U.S. and Europe combined?



Hang on to your seat old colonel. If I didn't point this out, people like you might actually think Larry Clown is smart:

26 people were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

32 people were killed at Virginia Tech.

Now for the juicy parts that our brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst missed---

14 people were killed recently by Muslim terrorists in San Bernardino

13 U.S. Military soldiers were killed by Muslim Colonel Nidal Hasan, shouting "Allahu Akbar" at Ft. Hood.

A total of 90 Americans have been killed in 47 seperate Muslim terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11. Here's a link to the attacks and numbers killed and wounded. Where I went to school, 90 was more than 58.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx

2977 people died in the 911 attacks, but somehow Larry Clown the brilliant ex CIA Intelligence Analyst thinks that 58 is greater than 2977. But it isn't just Americans who are getting killed:

150 people died in terrorist attacks in Western Europe in 2015.

196 people were killed in Muslim terror attacks in 2004 alone, including 191 deaths in the Madrid, Spain attacks.

56 were killed in London in an Al Qaeda suicide bombing in 2005.

35 were killed in March of this year in Brussels Belgium.

This is just some highlights, and does not include the total of many smaller attacks. And for some odd reason that is very disrespectful to Veterans everywhere, Larry doesn't even mention the number of American soldiers who have been killed or wounded as a result of Muslim terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is a link to a chart for terror deaths in the European Union alone showing that Larry is either misleading us... or he is a complete idiot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_European_Union

So, in my opinion, we would all be better off having this guy analyzing the Muslim terror risks than Larry Clown:

I think you are smart and say some good things now and again, though not all the time. Not in the best way to serve the ideas you seem to espouse.

I think Larry is smart and says some good things now and again, though not all the time, as you note in the repetitive extreme.

I think I am smart enough to know a few good things and mess up other things time to time. My most recent stupidity is my attempt at asking for civility and arguments based on issues than personal attack.

You style of personal attack argument clouds the question I made to Larry which was what was the source for his eagle casualty fact, which was per him a government press release (but unfortunately he did not provide a link to it)

I take the hypocrisy of the left on "green energy" amongst other things to heart.

Not sure why you can't also believe that point of the left's two faced approach of going after guns and lead while massacring eagles, a supposed critical to be saved and protected resource per their normal mode of operation, is very sad and speaks to the character of their policies.

Your one trick pony approach is a rather tiresome and not very imaginative pounding. You could use your energy far more productively. I imagine you have a huge cut and paste file set up to proliferate our webpages.

Larry brought a good fact out and I simply wanted to know more on it. Why would you not want to know more about it, I know you care about the way the left pursues their agenda?

BTW I agree the statement below is erroneous and rather silly. Though I do not know when Larry made it or the complete context of the conversation (i don't care to research it), I definitely disagree with it in the context you present it.

"The school shooters at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech--non-Muslim wackos--killed more people in just those two attacks than Americans killed by Muslims in this country and in Europe."

You are right that the facts simply don't even come close and you do a good job laying out some numbers. Not sure why you have to ice the arguments with personal slights and dispersions.

I doubt my words will have any impact on your method. I realize that I am foolish to bother. I will have to simply read around your and others cut and paste purgations.

old colonel, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "there you go again!" It is clear to anyone with a brain that you are going to great lengths to criticize me while totally ignoring the same behavior of personal attacks from Larry Brown. One major difference is that I have not bolstered my criticism of Larry by bragging about my supposed accomplishments and posting wildly inaccurate information.

Apparently, you are so intent on criticizing and silencing me that you have failed to notice my frequent notice of the hypocrisy and "two-faced" approach used by the Left to advance things like gun control and lead ammo-bans. All through the aforementioned Lead and Condors thread, I noted all of the junk science that is used by environmentalists and the Left to advance lead ammo bans. I have probably done the same hundreds of times here anytime the subject comes up.

Yes, you are foolish to bother attempting to change me because, once again, you show us that you are the real one-trick pony here who is being anything but fair and balanced in your approach. I would say, Nice try, but it was actually pretty lame. Please do read around my posts since you don't like them. It's apparent that you see only what you want to see anyway.

I have never said to you to be silent. I have asked all on this website to argue issues and avoid personal attacks.

Sir, this is just an observation.

Larry's fact was off topic, unrelated to an off topic thread. Nothing wrong with wanting to know more about it. Did he assist or just use the one trick pony approach of repeating the same thing he mentioned the first time.

It read to me like a personal jab rather than a community service announcement. You may have notice that he said he was completely satisfied that all lead sources combined didn't kill near as many eagles as the windmill policy. Yet, it takes a bit of round and round to come to the conclusion that a group of hunters would have to listen to him demonize lead bullets, along with the eagle folks, except for deer isn't his passion nor their hunters his audience.

Keep in mind, he's stating that gun deer hunters, in the short Wisconsin gun deer season, are responsible for, not all, eagle lead poisoning, all year round, because it's a fact that they don't recover wounded game. One of the things that I tried to go over was the source of this concept, but that along with other points of view are enough to call manhood into question. Weird huh.

Do not disagree with your estimate as to Larry's statements on lead which I do not believe are supported by all the facts as I know them.

I was just seizing on an actual useful fact I wanted to know more about.

My point to all of this is while I may disagree with Larry and others, I can still find something good in what they have said.

I actually have a very negative view toward wind power and non toxic shot which makes the combination of facts something I do care about.

My overall point is for reasoned argument, not the tone and personal stuff I so often see. Keith maybe right in that I have zeroed in on him as he is the high volume poster that finally got my goat. I do not pretend he is unique or that others to include Larry have not contributed.

I am not trying to silence anyone. I am saying show some class.

The funny thing about the long conversation is that on the actual issues being discussed I believe I agree with Keith on the essence in terms of the non-toxic issue, gun rights issue, and other stuff too.

I doubt you will ever see me argue for the greenies unless it is to a hunter's benefit or with the dem's on guns.

Sadly, another thread that deteriorated into a name calling mud slinging contest.

YUP, Anytime Keith posts anything, you can just ignoring that thread...Its done....Too bad some of them actually start out pretty interesting...

Why don't you like me Last Dollar? Is it because I never forget that you are one of the biggest hypocrites on this board? You always had a problem with anything related to our 2nd Amendment rights here, no matter how civil things were going. But you never had a problem with anything totally off-topic that you approved of. And name calling? Yeah, you were always very good at ad hominem attacks... without cries of incivility from the F.A.G.'s (Fake Ass Gentlemen--- thanks lonesome roads!)

Do you recall this little ethnic slur laced rant aimed directly at Jim that you posted right here in the main Double Gun forum?



My favorite off-topic thread by you was "On Folding A Tent", when you packed up your panties and announced to us that you were leaving and would never return. I know you expected everyone to beg you to stay, and laughed my ass off when so many here essentially said good riddance. King Brown and Ed Good asked you to stay, which came as no surprise. Isn't King President of the F.A.G. Club? Now you look like a fool, which is what you have always been anyway. Maybe you should have returned under a new screen name like Alvin Linden did. He's now posing as a young girl who calls herself gunluvr now. But don't tell anyone. It's a secret!

I like the double gun knowledge we get here, but getting a look into the dishonest and warped mind of the Liberal Left is just icing on the cake!

Edit: I see you reading this post old colonel. Don't do it... you'll just get your blood pressure up! Oh crap. Too late.

P.S.- I don't really believe that if the tables were turned this morning, and I had posted some wildly inaccurate information, and Larry Brown had called me out on it and ridiculed me and ridiculed my intellect for it, that you would have lectured him as you did to me. Nope, not for a second. Too much evidence to the contrary.

Pretty kool...Right back where you started! Thanks for your input...

OK, boys, on eagles:

www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/new-...wind-farms.html

You can find this reported in a lot of places if you google. But I wanted to find a good conservative source so people wouldn't think it was just the raptor fans getting excited over nothing. I think Fox News passes the test.

Craig, that may be one of the more convoluted paragraphs that I've ever read. If I want to respond to something YOU said, I QUOTE YOU. (As I just did.) If you want to respond to something I said--assuming you want to have an intelligent and accurate discussion rather than playing some stupid "gotcha" game--how about you extend me the same courtesy? In the above case, as best I can untangle your grammar, I didn't say anything remotely like what you expressed in your quote. It is certainly a fact that deer hunters do not recover all wounded game. It is also a fact--which can be verified by a whole lot of people who just happen to be driving down the road and spot a dead deer--that eagles scavenge deer carcasses. It is also a fact that raptor rehabilitators have reported that the source of lead poisoning in at least SOME eagles is bullet fragments. It is also a fact that those reports make it into the media. (Those same raptor rehabilitators also report that the number of sick and dead eagles they deal with increases during and immediately after gun deer season.) I can provide examples of reports of that nature, if you'd like.

Now . . . if I were a deer hunter, I'd be concerned. I'd like to see some research done to determine to what extent (if any?) lead fragments from bullets result in eagles dying from lead poisoning. But I'm not a deer hunter. So when I wrote my two-part article on lead shot in Pointing Dog Journal, I looked at the threat ingested lead SHOT (not lead bullets, since we upland hunters don't shoot lead bullets at the birds we hunt) posed to either upland birds or any other species, especially eagles (since they get so much attention). This was partially in response to a Wisconsin Natural Resources Board proposal to ban lead shot on all DNR-managed land--which was soundly voted down by those of us who attended the DNR's annual spring meeting. And at my meeting, I stood up and gave my reasons for opposing the proposal. In the article, I also looked at the threat that eating wild game, most of which is taken with either lead shot or lead bullets, poses to humans--and determined that that threat also appears to be negligible . . . unless maybe you leave all the lead pellets in the birds you shoot, then intentionally swallow them.

And more recently, I provided the additional information on the thousands of eagles the USFWS is proposing to allow wind energy companies to kill, every year. And suggested that, just in case ANY of us that shoot lead at whatever are challenged by the raptor fans on eagles dying from lead poisoning, that if reducing eagle deaths is their REAL concern, then they ought to talk to the USFWS about all those eagles they want to allow wind farms to kill.

All of which seems quite reasonable and straightforward to me. But I'll be glad to answer any questions . . . as long as they're based on something I actually said (preferably right here, since I've said enough to give people the general drift of my positions) and not on something someone else SAYS I said, without doing me the courtesy of quoting me. That's how we play the "intelligent discussion" game, where I come from.

I read you Larry, loud and clear, and feel similar myself. Though I feel many things are stupid, I've never characterized your efforts in that manner. In a convoluted way, I tried to sum up what is meant by throwing deer hunters under the bus. You see, if I would've mentioned that again, I already know your position is to make fun of it. I promise to quote best I can, but I am still tech incapable of grabbing comments from other topics, and I'm not really motivated at this time to learn.

craigd, I would be happy to explain to you how to grab quotes from other threads should you feel inclined. It's very easy. Shoot me a PM if you'd like to learn.

But be forewarned... Larry says he'd like you to directly quote him instead of accurately paraphrasing him... but don't you believe it. As soon as you do something as low-down rotten as reminding him what he said in his own words, he will get all butt-hurt and pretend to ignore you. Remember how pissed off he got when I posted a direct unedited quote of his "Lead = Toxic, Toxic = Bad" statement? Other guys will see you doing that as totally unacceptable behavior too. These will most likely be the same guys who see nothing wrong with Larry doing things like selectively editing the Audobon Society's position on hunting and lead ammo bans to prove his inaccurate assertions.

Selective indignation such as that passes for civility in some quarters. Sad, but true.

Larry, how can you lecture craigd on "intelligent discussions" when you post complete idiocy as you did this morning when you gave jOe your lecture on Muslim terrorists? Just in case you missed my earlier post on the matter, I'll bring it up again for your convenience. Oh, by the way, you sure are determined to veer as far off topic as possible in order to avoid apologizing to RWTF after mocking a bona-fide military veteran. Did you change your opinion about the special respect our veterans deserve... or do you have some special right to mock them? And you sure weren't a stand-up guy when you misquoted me either. You must have been trying to prove jOe was right when he said this:



Once again, did anyone happen to notice any glaring errors or omissions made by our brilliant bloviating ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst when he admonished jOe by claiming that the shooters at Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook schools have killed way more Americans since 1998 than all of the Muslim terrorist attacks in the U.S. and Europe combined?



Hang on to your seat old colonel. If I didn't point this out, people like you might actually think Larry Clown is smart:

26 people were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

32 people were killed at Virginia Tech.

Now for the juicy parts that our brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst missed---

14 people were killed recently by Muslim terrorists in San Bernardino

13 U.S. Military soldiers were killed by Muslim Colonel Nidal Hasan, shouting "Allahu Akbar" at Ft. Hood.

A total of 90 Americans have been killed in 47 separate Muslim terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11. Here's a link to the attacks and numbers killed and wounded. Where I went to school, 90 was more than 58.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx

2977 people died in the 911 attacks, but somehow Larry Clown the brilliant ex CIA Intelligence Analyst thinks that 58 is greater than 2977.

We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting the threat, and real analysts with brains fear them launching a biological or dirty bomb attack that would dwarf 9-11. But it isn't just Americans who are getting killed:

150 people died in terrorist attacks in Western Europe in 2015.

196 people were killed in Muslim terror attacks in 2004 alone, including 191 deaths in the Madrid, Spain attacks.

56 were killed in London in an Al Qaeda suicide bombing in 2005.

35 were killed in March of this year in Brussels Belgium.

This is just some highlights, and does not include the total of many smaller attacks. It does not include many Islamic terror attacks on Israel, Russia, or the rest of the world. And for some odd reason that is very disrespectful to Veterans everywhere, Larry doesn't even mention the number of American soldiers who have been killed or wounded as a result of Muslim terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is a link to a chart for terror deaths in the European Union alone showing that Larry is either misleading us... or he is a complete idiot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_European_Union

So, in my opinion, we would all be better off having Homer here analyzing the Muslim terror risks than Larry Clown:

Well Keith, you got me on the math. Muslims have killed more people in this country since 9/11 than the 2 school shootings to which I refer. Unlike you, I am willing to admit the occasional error.

But you're still one confused dude. And I don't think you'd be much help to Craig when it comes to pulling up quotes. Here are your problems:

1. Reference the body count, I take it you have not read Bin Laden's Feb 98 fatwa. He doesn't refer specifically to any nationality except Americans. Couple passing references to allies, but otherwise, only us. So those of other nationalities don't count. At least not in direct response to his fatwa.

2. The attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole, and 9/11 itself are not in response to his fatwa either. They're directly attributable to AQ and Bin Laden's OWN efforts. His fatwa--which you apparently have not read--was an obvious attempt to provoke attacks by Muslims EVERYWHERE WHO DO NOT BELONG TO AQ. You know . . . "lone wolf" attacks. Things like that. And given the number of Muslims just in this country, and given the number of potential victims, and given the 18 years that have passed since the fatwa . . . let's see. Using your total of 90, divide by 18 years. Wow. That's a total of 5 dead PER YEAR in this country. That's a real slow weekend in Chicago. Doesn't take a lot of analysis to see that very few American Muslims have responded.

3. Lead is toxic, and toxic is bad. Obviously. That's the rather simplistic approach taken by those who don't want us to shoot lead. Now rather obviously, if I really believed that myself, then I would not shoot lead. But I do. So again, rather obviously, that's not a concept I either practice or preach myself. But I explained that to you in the past. Unfortunately, you sometimes show a remarkable capability for being unable grasp the obvious.

4. The Audubon Society is not anti-hunting. Their own statement makes that clear to anyone with minimal literacy. That does not mean that they support ALL hunting. It does mean that in some cases, they will work with pro-hunting groups, like the Ruffed Grouse Society, in activities that clearly support hunting. I was there. I worked with them. You have no personal experience. But then you like to bloviate about things concerning which you have no personal experience. Like the military. Like the intelligence community. You do have First Amendment rights to address those topics. So go ahead and make yourself look stupid. I won't stop you. But I will correct you when you go astray.

5. Re the apology you say I owe RWTF . . . interesting that I don't find either RWTF or anyone else here suggesting that I owe him an apology. Likely because they understand that you can't very well mock someone's ability in a foreign language that you do not speak. Once again, an area in which I have experience, with a graduate degree in French and significant teaching experience. You apparently have none, and don't get it even when it's explained to you by someone with credentials that you lack.

6. Helping Craig with quotes. Previously you complained that you couldn't quote me from a locked thread. Gosh, I guess you just don't know what to do if your computer won't do it for you. Here's how you quote someone from a locked thread, or anywhere else a computer won't do it for you: Take paper and pencil or pen. Copy down the quote in question on the paper. Then type the quote you just copied down into your post, surrounded by " " so people know it's a quote. Takes a little effort if it's more than a sentence or two, but it works just fine.

Trying to carry on an intelligent discussion with you . . . I get frustrated because I never taught students with learning disabilities. Anyone with issues so severe that they believe a guy who's stuck on "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" is going to go out and kill dozens of birds a year WITH LEAD SHOT, anyone who can't comprehend the impossibility of criticizing someone's foreign language ability when you don't speak that language, and anyone who can't figure out that paper and pencil and typing in a quote works just fine if the computer won't do it for you . . . gosh Keith, that's you. All rolled into one. Makes me wonder whether you have to stop and think before you draw a breath. Your village has been looking for a new idiot ever since you left. Keith, please phone home. Then return there. Promptly.

Craig, I'm confused by your first para. Please explain. What should "intel" pay for? And why should they pay?

Re Islamist terrorism, refer to your copy of the 9/11 Report, pp 361-363. Section entitled "Defining the Threat". "Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and prevailing in the longer term over the ideology that gives rise to ISLAMIST TERRORISM." (Emphasis mine.) Right there, in an official government publication. It's unfortunate that some of our current political leaders won't use that phrase. But the business of intelligence is to call a spade a spade, regardless of what politicians do. Speak truth to power. If you can't do that, you don't belong in the intelligence business. And I was in it for a long time. Politicians come and go. The Intelligence Community, like the military, is a permanent fixture.

Re support to terrorism, go to www.lawandsecurity.org. Check out their Terrorist Trial Report Card. They state that as of 2011, charges for material support to terrorism (which includes financial support) were on the rise. But depending on how terms are defined, the legal stuff can get pretty complex. However, from the report to which I refer, it doesn't sound like the material support charges immediately came to a halt after Obama took office. I like to blame him too . . . but preferably when he really does something bad. And there are plenty of those instances.

Re ducks . . . Craig, you're violating the rules. Again. "Revised stance that lead might come from elsewhere." BS. Where did I ever say that lead could only come from a single source, that single source being from bullets and/or shot? Quote please . . . if you can find one. The RAPTOR REHABILITATORS are focusing on fragments from bullets as being the source of lead poisoning in some eagles they've examined. But I'm sure even they are quite aware that there are more potential sources for lead than bullets. That's why it would be good to see some solid research on those sick and dead eagles to nail down the sources of the lead in question.

Okay Larry, thank you for packaging the points in one place.

Don't be too confused by the first para. You introduced the idea that some are racist against all muslims for the transgressions of a few, for comparison, you mentioned Catholics and pedophiles. I believe all Catholics are paying for the transgressions of a few, and I can't see where you dispute that. If you can not dispute that 'intel', regardless of the application, played a part in the decision to blow trillions. Then logic follows that like the Catholics, all members of the organization could cough up their fair share. Here's a thought, maybe the logic is flawed?

My only question is, why can't all muslims pay for the transgressions of a few, and we just pretend all muslims are not paying? If there're any complaints, can't we justify it by saying look at your brothers, the Catholics, we know there're only a few bad apples?

As to mentioning phrases, we've gone over that. It is a non pc linkage of words. My opinion is that there are some spades that are forbidden to be called spades.

Continuing, the link you provided is helpful. Under their trail report card, please note the topic I brought up, Terror Financing Through Charities. Your 'report card' ends in March of '08. I mentioned a time frame of Feb. '09 through today, roughly new policy implementation through two terms. Also note that your link has to do with a vague 'international' tally sheet, and not 'really bad' things that're happening in the homeland.

To wind it down with the ducks, the main thing I remember was being made fun of 'settled science', knock yourself out but it's a done deal, duck rebound numbers after lead shot was banned is proof that hunters caused the poisoning. There was other stuff like concentration where uplands are diverse and dispersed, and duck digestive anatomy, point being it was all related to hunting lead shot.

Back in the 'condor' thread, it was not bs that other lead sources were consistently ignored or brushed off, particularly the industrial release of lead. Please notice, I did not say you made any binding comment of fact, I only mention the repetitive point you stressed. I appreciate keith's offer to teach me how to quote from other comments, but I believe I summed it up to my satisfaction. Thank you for taking the time to comment.

Craig, if you're referring to "the decision to blow trillions" in terms of the Iraq War, "intel" didn't make that decision. Congress and the President made it. Intelligence deals with a lot of information which cannot be gleaned from "open sources". Other nations and groups are trying to hide that information from us. So there's a certain element of guesswork involved. Intel concluded that Iraq did not have nukes and would not have them for several years (correct), but that they did have chemical and biological weapons, and missiles that violated the ceasefire agreement from the Gulf War. The missiles were actually found and destroyed before we invaded. Chemical weapons . . . the insurgents used chemical artillery rounds in some of their IED's. That fits the WMD category. The only miss they made, as far as I know, was in finding those mobile bio weapons labs. That was based on bad intelligence. So . . . the President and Congress decided, based in part on what intel told them about WMD's--most of which was correct--to take us to war. That's no more intel's fault than it is the weatherman's fault if he predicts a sunny day, you go on a picnic and get caught in the rain. Should the weatherman pay for being wrong? And in his case, nobody's trying to hide information from him.

I have no problem with individual Muslims paying for crimes they've committed. That's as it should be. Likewise anyone who actively supported acts of terrorism. Also as it should be. But why should all Muslims pay for acts committed by some of their fellow Muslims--acts they may well oppose? All Catholics aren't paying for the crimes of a few. The Catholic CHURCH is paying, because it's clear that the church, as an institution, knew about the pedophile priests and didn't stop them. There is no Muslim "church" structure similar to Catholic hierarchy. I assume you know what a fatwa is: It's a religious directive within Islam. Fatwas are issued regularly by various imams, pretty much whenever they feel like it. There is no higher authority to tell them they can't do that. In contrast, the Catholic Church has a hierarchy, from the pope through cardinals down to archbishops, bishops and priests. Your local priest can't do very much of anything strictly on his own authority. People often have trouble understanding that Islam does not work that way. Who told Bin Laden that he could issue a fatwa telling Muslims to kill Americans? No one. He just went ahead and did it. And the only authority that fatwa has is whatever support it receives from Muslims in general. It told Muslims that it was "an individual duty for every Muslim" to kill Americans. Obviously, not very many of the millions of American Muslims paid any attention, since we have a body count of 90 killed in this country by Muslims in the last 18 years. That's an average of 5 per year . . . or a quiet weekend in Chicago.

Check again on the end date of that report card, Craig. Continues into 2011, and shows the number of charges brought for material support of terrorism--which includes financial support--to be INCREASING. Those are charges filed IN THIS COUNTRY. Nothing international about them--other than where the money is going. But it has to be proven that the money is going to a terrorist cause. It can be hard to sort out, if someone donates to the Red Crescent (Muslim Red Cross) in Gaza . . . because maybe some of that money ends up in the hands of Hamas.

Re ducks, if small, round particles of lead are found in a duck's digestive system, it's pretty darned certain that's lead shot they've ingested. Can they, and do they, ingest lead from other sources? Sure. But there's also plenty of proof that they ingest lead shot and die from lead poisoning. Besides which, that train left the station 25 years ago. If flaws in the "science" are so obvious that you and maybe Keith spotted them, why didn't the biologists themselves spot them? Are we talking one huge conspiracy here--and no one to come forward in the 25 years since and admit it was a conspiracy? Or just a lot of stupid biologists, and you and Keith smarter than they are . . . without being biologists? Seems quite a stretch to me. If it were me and if I spotted "flaws" in the supporting evidence, I would get in touch with someone knowledgeable in the field and see if maybe the flaws I see really aren't flaws at all. Just stuff that doesn't make sense to me because I'm not a biologist. Kinda like Keith telling me I'm making fun of RWTF's Spanish, when I don't speak Spanish. Foreign language is my field of academic study, and I know darned well it's impossible to make fun of someone's ability in a language you don't speak. So every now and then, people get in over their heads . . . and in Keith's case, refuse to be pulled out.

What industrial sources of lead look like lead shot? Pretty much nothing I know of . . . except lead shot. If we're talking about lead poisoning without the presence of lead shot in the digestive system, then said poisoning may have come from other sources. But if there's lead shot, then there's pretty good reason to think lead shot is the culprit. Right? Similarly, down at the Tall Timbers Research Station, with much heavier shot fall than we typically find in upland hunting, they checked the gizzards of 241 healthy quail harvested by hunters. Only 3 contained lead shot. Just over 1%. So they reached the logical conclusion that the ingestion of lead shot is a very unlikely cause for significant mortality among upland birds.

Larry, you know we're look'in like a couple of loons?

Just some quick thoughts. Read your link, under the category of CHARITIES, the date cuts off in '08. Who cares, well it's not '11, and the folks convicted were not done so under the CHARITIES category.

Catholics, muslims hey, aren't we all supposed to be equal under the law. I know we can split hair about technical differences, but can we just agree to call Catholics, deer hunters, and muslims, upland bird hunters? Try to note that I was making a point about flawed logic, and how pervasive it is.

Duck-n-the sort. That's the Larry that I remember! Don't forget, I found you a study, done on English shooting estates, that found extremely high systemic lead levels without the presence of shot in the digestive tract, but attributed to lead shot....in upland birds.

As to making fun of someone that doesn't speak the same language, what are all the illegals doing when they refuse to assimilate? Striving for civility, common ground and the American way?

I got you on more than the math Larry, but even after getting you on the math, you once again demonstrate your poor Intelligence Analyst skills by doubling down on your flawed arithmetic. Were talking simple subtraction at perhaps a second or third grade level Larry. This is 2016. Your Muslim terrorist death numbers for Americans is based upon stats for the last 18 years. You have repeated the 18 year or 18+ year span since bin Ladin's fatwa at least three times now. 2016 minus 18 equals 1998. The 9-11 attacks happened in 2001, so the body count from the 9-11 attacks has to be included in your 18 year time span where you erroneously claim that more were killed in just two mass school shootings. Or are you telling us that bin Laden's worldwide fatwa specifically excluded card carrying al Qaeda members?

With flawed Intelligence Analysis like you provide, one might ascertain that the terror threat is quite small and not worth the cost of funding a TSA or Homeland Security. How do you exclude a massive 2001 al Qaeda attack on the WTC and Pentagon from a fatwa made by the spiritual leader of al Qaeda in 1998? You yourself said bin Laden's fatwa exhorted Muslim's everywhere to kill Americans (with passing reference to some others--- so we won't count them--- HOW STUPID IS THAT???) So Larry, since when does "Muslims everywhere" not include those radical Muslims within al Queda, including the 19 hijackers and even Osama bin Laden himself? How do we separate "Muslims everywhere" from actual al Qaeda members Larry? Do they carry membership cards Larry? Did the 19 hijackers in the 9-11 attacks have al Qaeda dog tags around their necks? Were they wearing al Qaeda uniforms with al Qaeda insignia? Are you trying to tell us that al Qaeda members aren't really Muslims? What is the difference between your idea of a card-carrying al Qaeda member, and the so-called lone wolf terrorists like Maj. Nidal Hasan or the San Bernardino terrorists who either get inspiration, training and marching orders via the internet or radical Mosques, or actually spend time in terrorist training camps in the Middle East or Afghanistan?

And just where did jOe say he was only concerned about the threat from Muslims who are only specifically responding to bin Laden's fatwa, and who are not dues paying , card carrying, official al Qaeda members? Your explanations and excuses sound a lot like the words of Hillary Clinton.

I still think that it is very ignorant and disrespectful for you to attempt to minimize the actual radical Islamic terror threat by excluding the thousands of U.S. soldiers who have died or been wounded outside of the U.S. as a direct result of the rise of Islamic extremism. It didn't happen within the U.S or Europe, so they don't count, huh?

That's even more stupid than this seriously stupid statement you made:
"He doesn't refer specifically to any nationality except Americans. Couple passing references to allies, but otherwise, only us. So those of other nationalities don't count. At least not in direct response to his fatwa." Oh, cute... since bin Laden only made passing references to our allies, deaths and injuries there don't count.

Hey look Larry... I put some of your stupid words in quotation marks... just as I have done many times before. I even put them in color and bold type. I said we couldn't pull quotes from the now locked (because you cried to Dave) Lead and Condors thread, meaning we can't use the QUOTE function in a locked thread. I already explained that once, and you already knew that I have also quoted you the traditional way, as I did above, so it's pretty obvious to anyone except an idiot like you that you are full of shit... as usual.

In Re "Lead is Toxic, Toxic = Bad", You said what you said. Your words are still there, and you can't even edit them because you cried to Dave and got the thread locked. Your later explanations of what you said in that complete statement do not mesh with your actual words. So you ask, how can you be against lead if you shoot it at birds? That's an easy one Larry. Who is the most extreme anti-lead goofball to ever post on this forum? Answer: and I don't think you'll disagree... GrouseGuy Ben Deeble. Yet we all know that Ben has told us he still uses lead shot for target shooting. And he wishes to ban it for all else. You spent a hell of a lot of time in the Lead and Condors thread throwing deer hunters and their lead bullets under the bus. Oh sorry, I forgot your childish argument that you don't even own a bus.



OK, you blamed deer hunters for leaving this massive food supply of heavily lead tainted deer carcasses and gut piles containing allegedly hundreds of particles of lead bullet shrapnel. You also spent a lot of time defending the 1991 Federal ban on lead shot as the absolute cause of most earlier duck and goose mortality. And you ridiculed other possible sources of lead in the environment as a factor. Once again, craigd and I were not the only ones who noticed your anti-lead biases. You excuse lead for your pheasant hunting, but have spent a lot of time lately being critical of lead ammo in other places... even though you admit to some crippling losses that may get eaten by a poor eagle. But I am surprised to hear that someone as perfect as you ever misses or loses a bird.

You want us to believe your degree in French means something, even as you contend my degree in Biology gives me no credence to critically analyze obvious junk science that led up to the 1991 ban. I don't know what craigd's science background is, but you ridiculed every intelligent argument or source he provided to refute your foregone anti-lead bullet conclusions. He effectively shredded your arguments on multiple occasions. You also repeatedly advised not even questioning or fighting past lead ammo bans. Done deal! Losing battle! If you had failed to get concealed carry passed in Iowa, would you advise citizens to just surrender?

Speaking of your French Larry ... I think you speak French like a bloviating douche bag cow. There you go Larry. Now you see it. Even though I don't speak French, I have just demonstrated how it is not impossible to mock you. You were clearly mocking RWTF Larry. Nobody ever said RWTF asked you for an apology for mocking a military veteran. He has more class than that, and clearly more than you. This statement by you came directly after Foxy made a post in Spanish, and after Drew and Last Dollar made comments about his Spanish.



Up to that point, there was no other Spanish within this thread. But at this point, I don't really expect you to admit to something that is obvious. That would take a certain degree of integrity.

Audobon Society... I never said they were totally anti-hunting. There you go again, either dishonestly putting words in my mouth, or once again demonstrating that you simply cannot read. Which is it? Please provide a quote where I ever said that Larry. Put up or apologize, as you demanded from craigd. I said that you selectively edited the words in their statement on hunting to prove your assertion that they were not in favor of lead ammo bans. I proved to you from their own website that they had been instrumental in the California lead ammo ban. craigd caught you conveniently leaving out the juicy part in your selective editing job. It's all still there Larry. You can't change it because you cried to Dave to have the thread locked. Cut the crap already. Your past explanation was weak and looked like a cat trying to cover up shit on a marble floor. Pathetic! Now show us the quote or apologize.

I see from the Ithaca 20 ga, Flues thread that you are IGNORING me. Where have we heard that one before? I know... it was months ago, and again shortly before your last several responses. And it was before your promise to reply to me if I started another thread to debate you. Debate a total idiot who puts words in my mouth and cannot be honest about the very things he said? No thanks. Debate an idiot who lacks basic reading comprehension, and who promises to ignore me just before he promises to respond to me??? No thanks.

Here's another quote you made Larry:



It's still not working Larry. If you try real hard, maybe you can raise your I.Q. and Intelligence Analyst skills, to be equal to dirt. But I won't hold my breath waiting to see that.

The defense you offer is total crap.

Muslims won't publicly applaud the terrorists actions until they a are majority or gain more control in a country....only a brain washed insane person would defend the Muslim religion.

Ever here the saying if the shOe fits...

Only thing I'm suggesting is get them out of our country.

LD you did say you were leaving never to return....

I'm pretty sure some people here think that if we got rid of everyone except white Christian males, we'd be a much better country. Of course without women, said country would also be extinct before too long.

That's silly.

If we followed your muslim sympathy lead our country will be extinct.

Or more appros- if the Fo shits!!

That's what they said about . . . let's see . . . the evil Irish Catholics back in the 19th century. Then it was the Italians. Then we fought a civil war, partly over whether blacks could be free human beings or just property. Then it's the Mexicans, and others coming across our southern border.

Get a grip, Joe. There will never be enough Muslims in this country to have a significant influence on anything. (Currently, numbers are fairly similar to Jews or Mormons, and less than 10% the total of American Catholics.) Besides which, NO ONE gets any special breaks because of religion. If the Catholics can't stop abortion, with one heck of a lot more political clout than Muslims, you really think Muslims are going to bring us sharia? You think the women's movement--which also has way more clout than American Muslims--would stand for that? And it really doesn't make any difference anyhow, because of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In fewer words: We have both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. The Catholic church can tell their people that abortion is sin, but they can't stop Catholic women from getting an abortion. If that were allowed, that would be "an establishment of religion". Similarly, if a Muslim comes here and says my religion allows me to have two wives, or to marry a 12 year old girl, that is similarly out of bounds because both of those are in conflict with American law. Likewise, they can't stone a woman for adultery. All of those things are illegal here, and they don't get any special wavers because of their religion.

When it comes right down to it, that darned First Amendment is every bit as important as the Second.

See jOe... as long as they keep marriage (or rape) of 12 year old girls and the stoning of women for adultery outside of our borders, they are A-OK!

This brilliant Intelligence Analyst apparently hasn't looked at various countries in Europe where the Muslim population is increasing exponentially while their native populations are reproducing at rates that barely replace those who die of old age. Even Larry Clown's older brother King keeps crowing about the changing demographics that threaten to turn us into the minority in a generation or two.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-continent.html

How do you argue with someone who says he tries real hard to not be dumber than dirt, but proves to us on a regular basis that dirt is still winning the intelligence competition?

Loons are neat birds. Loved them when I lived up in Wisconsin.

Craig, have you ever shot on a British shooting estate? I have. Several times. That's a place you get highly concentrated shot fall. Similar to waterfowl. And they don't run their estates the way we run our preserves. They get very young chicks, and those chicks are out and about at a very young age. So you have a whole lot of birds wandering around where a whole lot of shot has been deposited, before the shooting season starts. Then you have the survivors wandering around long after the shooting season ends. They're upland birds, so they don't travel great distances--which means they spend most of their time on the estate. There may very well be other sources of lead on the estate, but I can't think of any that are more likely than all the lead shot that's been deposited. So they ingest the lead, then pass the lead shot . . . still have high lead levels. Woodcock--another upland bird--also show very high lead levels with no lead shot in their systems. But because of what and how woodcock eat, and because they're not exposed to heavy shot fall, and because they migrate . . . there are far more possibilities for a woodcock to acquire lead than there are for a pheasant, who lives its entire life on a British shooting estate. But I'm not sure what your question was. I think my point was that if you find lead shot in a duck's digestive system, then that's pretty good proof it has ingested lead shot. Surely you're not arguing that?

I wasn't aware that immigrants--whether legal or illegal--made fun of people who speak English without being able to speak the language themselves. How would they know? Not assimilating doesn't have anything to do with criticizing the way someone else happens to speak a language you don't understand. Having lived abroad, I can assure you that Americans do make fun of people who speak foreign languages. But they're making fun not of the French or Arabic or whatever the foreigner is speaking, but because the foreigner is obviously too dumb to be able to speak English. I find that RWTF's English is just fine. His Spanish? I haven't a clue.

You ever think about having your lead levels checked ?

Thanks- my late Mother was a HS English and English composition teacher for 35 years- She drilled proper English into all of her children, especially me- No Spanish spoken in our household, some German from Ada Hammerschmidt, our housekeeper-cook. Now as to lead and the aforementioned commentary regarding both my religion )Roman Catholic) and the rogue priests that like to butt-[censored] choir boys and altar boys whenever the mood strikes them. A trip back in time to the Inquisition for those sick bastards suits me just fine- and the death penalty for all pedophiles-no mercy for those who commit such an infamita- none!!

Craig--Sorry I failed to respond to the "charities" point you raised. If you go back to the link provided and pull up the Terrorist Trial Report Card, you'll find a whole series of them. I was looking at the most recent one, which ends part way through 2011. There is no "charities" section in that report, but there is one on Material Support (which includes financial). If you look on pp 18-19, you'll find that material support charges are way UP. No way to break out charities, but one usually donates money to charities, and that's material support. Any donation to a group that's been designated a terrorist organization is a federal crime. The donor does not need to know that the money was in support of a terrorist act. The sticky part of charities is that they're usually not designated terrorist organizations. So if someone gives money to the Palestinian Red Crescent but the money ends up in the hands of Hamas, the prosecution would have to prove that the donor knew his charitable donation was, in reality, going to support terrorism.

"There will never be enough Muslims in this country to have a significant influence on anything" says Larry Brown. Unbelievable.

Here's what I am looking at. Upper row of your link just a bit to the left I open 'publications'. Then mid page towards the left hand side I open 'Terrorism Trial Report Card'. Once that's open, in the right hand column, second row is 'Terror Financing Through Charities'. Your device may be opening up the links differently than mine.

The 'report card' describes it as an an important tool for fighting terrorism....through the ending date of the 'report', March of '08. I wasn't thinking about the difficulties of connecting the investigative dots. The predictable problem is selective enforcement for ideological reasons, as reported by the chic trib, a week or two ago. They say, since Feb. of '09, it's a big goose egg for that 'important tool for fighting terrorism'. This, in my mind, calls into question your comments about all being safe and well in the homeland when there is an intentional ban on profiling the enemy, a policy change.

btdtst, you have to understand that our brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst has been too busy trying to be smarter than dirt. He has not noticed top secret information that appears in top secret places like USA Today and the Washington Post. Here's a short article on the first Muslim-majority controlled city in the U.S. where residents now have to hear the Muslim call to prayer blaring over loudspeakers 5 times a day beginning at 6:00 AM;

http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/already-here-meet-americas-first-muslim-majority-city

This article is very interesting too. The title is Islam 101, and there is very good information in it that suggests that jOe's opinion is a lot more intelligent than Larry's. Pay special attention to the quotes of Quran verses, the section on Jihad and Dhimmitude, and the FAQ section.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101

Some smart guy said that he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. It sure wasn't Larry.

I've basically stayed out of this thread because it doesn't have anything to do with guns or gun control but I have to comment on this inane post quoted above:
I just bet that several European countries thought exactly that not that many years ago!
Jim

We have way too many towel-heads and dune coons here in White Christian America. If they are the "White Man's Burden" here, time to ship their raggedy asses back to Mecca-- enough, already!

Actually Jim, even though Larry Brown took an off-topic thread even further out into left field, in a round about way, the current discussion does have a lot to do with gun control.

I added that link to Islam 101 and advised readers to pay special attention to the section on Jihad and Dhimmitude. The Dhimma are "the Conquered People of The Book"... Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. Islamic Law commands this of Muslims...

" just as the dhimmis are prohibited from building churches, other things also are prohibited to them. They must not assist an unbeliever against a Muslim … raise the cross in an Islamic assemblage … display banners on their own holidays; bear arms … or keep them in their homes. Should they do anything of the sort, they must be punished, and the arms seized."

(Al-Damanhuri, quoted in Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, 382.)

Looks like Liberal Left Democrats aren't all we need to be vigilant about!

Keith:
That passage from Jihad was news to me. It sounds like something right out of the NAZIs playbook regarding Jews and firearms. Or perhaps this passage pre-dates the NAZIs which raises some interesting issues.
The more I find out about Islam the more I can understand why the Moslem Countries became sympathetic towards the NAZIs during WW II. In many instances there's apparently not much difference in their beliefs.
Jim

Nations and people want to control their own destiny. You do not have to study Islam to understand what happened. All you need to do is look at map of British Empire prior to WWII as relevant to Middle East.

So you want to blame the craZy camel jockeys on the British ?





Truth is I'd expect nothing less from the likes of you or Larry BrOwn.

Once again Jagermeister, you demonstrate your ignorance. Muhammad and his followers were conquering other countries, and killing and raping millions of people long before there was a British Empire. There have been several major Jihads where Muslim armies went out far from their native lands to conquer and attempt to impose Islamic law, beginning in 622 A.D. The first Christian Crusades were a response to several centuries of unprovoked Islamic attacks.

It's apparent that you haven't studied much of anything, except maybe photography of guns that you rent and pretend to own. They say that even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then, but you seem to still be striking out.

What is it you're suggesting they'll influence in a negative way? And I'd remind you that historically, similar statements have been made about waves of Catholic immigration, the Jews in this country, and the Mormons. (And we recently had a Mormon candidate for president. We're making progress!)

People here sometimes seem to focus on the 2nd Amendment and blow right by the 1st. I've heard people suggest that the Muslims will bring sharia with them. Read the 1st amendment. Can't happen. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In shorter words, the 1st Amendment gives us freedom OF religion, and freedom FROM religion. We can practice our own, as long as it does not conflict with our laws. Ahmed says: "I want to stone my wife for adultery." Sorry, Ahmed. Adultery is no longer a crime most places in this country, and where it is, stoning is not the punishment. You want to do that, move back wherever you came from. Ahmed says: "I want to marry this 12 year old girl. Islam allows that." Sorry, Ahmed. American law does NOT allow that. (Allowing that would amount to "an establishment of religion". So it does not pass go.)

Give me one example--just one--of a religion (take your pick) that gets special rights based on their beliefs. Catholics--and there are something like 10x more of them in this country than Muslims (and they're WAY more popular too!)--teach that abortion is sin. So if they can convince a Catholic woman not to have one, that's OK. But they can't stop her from having one, as long as it's legal wherever she goes to have it done. Again, stopping her based on her religion, in conflict with American law, would be "an establishment of religion". And what a complicated mess we'd get ourselves into if we started granting special rights to anyone based on religion. Because then we'd have to give special rights to EVERYONE based on religion. Which would be an establishment of a whole bunch of religions. Muslims could have multiple wives. So could Mormons, if they wanted to return to that practice. Catholics couldn't have abortions.

Right now, we have Muslims who've been "vetted" by the military and the intelligence community--Iraqis and Afghans who've risked their lives with us, and have saved American lives--and they can't get into this country. If Muslims vetted to that extent--vouched for by the military, the CIA, etc--can't get into this country, I don't expect we're going to see planeloads or boatloads of them appearing any time soon.

But hey, if we wanted to keep anyone out based on religion or ethnicity . . . just think: should have sent the Italians back to Italy. No Mafia. How many lives would that have saved? Less prostitution, less illegal gambling, less drugs . . . all kinds of benefits. If we think on it long enough . . . hey, no Irish either. We wouldn't have to suffer green beer on St. Patrick's Day.

Sheesh, Lary

Shoulda gone for the trifecta and thrown the polacks under the bus too.


_______________________________
Yeah! Heard the diesel humming...on down the line! Jagger/Richards

You just don't get it. And obviously never will. Again, unbelievable.

Right now in hamtramck, the first majority muslim city in America, every morning at 6:30 AM loud speakers blair the call to prayer. There are noise regulations, and there are non muslims in the community that are forced to accept the 'special rights' granted to muslims. The city has changed zoning law so new mosques can spring up in previous areas that churches and other places of worship were not previously allowed. Imams can arbitrarily prohibit the serving of alcohol within five hundred feet of their new mosque. Looks like a religious leader and mosque patrons are given 'special rights' over lawful preexisting businesses and forcing citizens of other beliefs to give up right to work and pursue happiness.

Major airports are spending taxpayer money to build or retrofit muslim foot washing stations in places like Indiana and California. The same applies to taxpayer funded universities, for example in Michigan.

Employers, for example the Ariens case in Wisconsin, are being forced to allow random five times per day muslim 'prayer' breaks. Fifteen to twenty minutes per break, well over an hour a work day lost per employee. Who pays for those 'special rights'?

None of this nonsense is via legislation, it's all from regulation or through the courts.

I'm glad you brought up the military vetting of muslim brothers fighting side by side with any other American soldier with a duty. There are many anecdotal stories about how these Muslims are trusted by US soldiers with their lives. Contrast that with the open door policy risking the American heartland. If there is the will to do, there is a way to 'vet' middle eastern refugees and immigrants. Your equivocation and logic makes me question your tactics and agendas even more.

If only 19 Catholics had brought down Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center, and crashed hijacked jets into the Pentagon and into the ground at Shanksville while on their way to even further destruction in Washington D.C., it is safe to say they would have had a "significant influence" on things.

Same thing would happen if 19 Italians hijacked jets and killed almost 3000 people in one day. But Larry doesn't think that every man, woman, and child having to get to the airport 3 hours before a flight for intrusive TSA screening is a "significant influence" on things. Our ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst also does not think a $50.4 BILLION annual budget for the Dept. of Homeland Security is a "significant influence"

Then let's add in the massive costs for running the TSA, and the added burdens placed on states and cities for security. Oh, let's not forget the many billions of tax dollars we have spent on our military, fighting the war on Islamic terrorism. Then let's take a look at what happened to your IRA's and 401-K's immediately after 9-11, and how long it took the economy to recover.



No, btstst, Larry will never get it. One would think that a brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst would immediately see these things. But our brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst is too preoccupied always bragging about himself and trying to twist logic to prove he is never wrong.

I'm a Catholic-and I oppose abortion. I also oppose the Holy See turning a blind eye to the evil priests who prey upon innocent children. Years ago, even before Kennedy became the first Catholic POTUS-= we were larger in numbers than today. As far as the rag-heads here, with their special privileges as mentioned above, "Screw 'Em"" they are the infidels, not us Christians.. Ship 'em all back to Mecca-- and it is Hamtramck, with a capital H- formerly one of the biggest Pollack areas in the USA-and formerly home to a large Chrysler plant as well- now all that blue collar area of Motown is Towelie-territory. The late Henry Ford and his stooge Orville Hubbard are shitting a big brick in the next life about that. Even worse, for the WASPS- the rag-heads are in Birmingham (Romney territory) and other such enclaves of the "1-%-ers"--

Craig, you really need to post some links. And preferably not from "Joe's blog". Reliable sources. Just to check one of yours, I googled the Ariens case and did not find that anything had been resolved by either regulation or through the courts. You have a link maybe to a court ruling? Likewise to what's going on in Hamtramck?

Reminds me of the "expert" on Islam who went on the radio and talked about some of those "no go" areas in Birmingham, England. The mayor of Birmingham said it was BS. I heard the guy apologize for being wrong. Always lots of BS floating around on the Internet. You have to be careful with your sources and do some fairly serious fact-checking.

Impartial political fact-checking---FullFact, PolitiFact, FactChek, FactsCan and many more---attempt to sort the authentic from BS from politicians' statements.

FactCheck.org considers Trump "King of the Whoppers." "In the 12 years of FactCheck.org's existence," the Annenburg Public Policy Center team wrote, "we've never seen his match."

The Washington Post's Fact Checker says 70 per cent of Trump's claims are found to merit "four Pinocchios," the worst rating. "Trump makes Four-Pinocchio statements over and over again even though fact checkers have demonstrated them to be false."

Fact checking has become a public service.

How about Hilary? The "13 minutes of straight lying" went viral this week. A Globe and Mail columnist admitted bias for Clinton and opined Saturday that the clip showed her policy shifts as secretary of state over the years and dismissed it as the usual career politician slipperiness but not lying.

"Facts all come with points of view," wrote David Byrne. "Facts do what I want them to."

Larry, the 'facts' are, you used the words 'resolved' and 'ruling'. If I believed my example was either resolved by some other means, or that there is a court ruling available, I would have mentioned it. Nothing more, nothing less.

What I do believe is happening, to my complete satisfaction, is that a significant percentage of that employer's workforce had been stealing about 20% of the work day for 'special rights'. I believe they have 'special rights' that Catholics do not have because title VII has been unilaterally reinterpreted. I believe it's a fact that many employers are being 'forced' into decreased productivity and to expend resources legally answering to various employment offices and groups like cair.

You, Larry, asked for 'one example--just one', and I offered three. Apparently, you did not like my example, but you never did deny that it is a very real example, 'of special rights based on their beliefs'.

I have no idea why you brought up europe's multicultural experiment, but don't you think you may be ignoring a mountain of intel if you 'heard' some fellow apologized. Thanks for that link and the lecture on floating bs and careful sourcing.

Thanks King, that makes me feel better. Hey wait a minute, you're making fun of me, thank you for the civility. Was Larry right?

Also, thanks for bringing up Trump. YOUR facts say hill is a politician, and Trump is a liar. What's the purpose? As a long time political insider and observer, do you find it fascinating that the 'public service' isn't getting it's normal traction?

Whether it's four long noses or none, King, you and I both know that on issues both minor and major, Hillary and Trump both lie. It's the nature of politicians. So who cares? What is important is what they will do in office in the future and the only way to judge that is what they have done in the past.

I'll take the devil I don't know, but who isn't part of the ruling clique that has made such a cock up of things over the last 30 years, than the devil I know who is armpit deep in that shit.

I'm stranded on a desert island, surrounded by the salty sea. I'm terribly thirsty. On that island there is a plastic bottle full of a clear liquid marked "Ozark Springs Bottled Water".

So which do I choose to drink? The seawater, because I know what it is, or the bottle that I think is freshwater, but might be something else.

King wants me to drink the seawater.

I make a point of not making fun of people, Craig. It's childish.

Drinking seawater would do you no good, Mike. The other may be no good, either. Pray for rain or do what you should have done in the first place and stayed home.

Everyone lies to a degree. Two of our great politicians, Laurier and Diefenbaker, did nothing when having to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea. Dief shoved the file under his bed. Doing nothing may be an improvement.

Is anyone here at all surprised to see King Brown once again defending the dishonesty of the most extreme Anti-Gun candidate for U.S. President? Here's another link to the viral video of some of Hillary Clinton's serial lies over the course of her political career:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016...goes_viral.html

Of course, King is here today to denigrate Trump and to repeat the view of the Liberal Left that Hillary's drumbeat of dishonesty is merely " usual career politician slipperiness but not lying."

Anyone who hasn't yet seen it should take a look and decide for themselves rather than relying on politically biased fact-checkers such as the Washington Post. Here's an article on a Politi-Fact review of the video that isn't so flattering and willing to make excuses for Hillary as the anti-gun Troll King Brown:

http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20160522/NEWS/160529808

Of course, King has in the past made excuses for the blatant lies of ex-NBC Reporter Lyin' Brian Williams, and even defended Obama's violations of his Oath of Office by saying:



Will someone please tell me the difference between this type of "slipperiness" and dishonesty?

Oh, one other thing... Isn't this the same King Brown who was here only a couple weeks ago complaining about those who make political commentary here in Dave's sandbox??? Do as I say... not as I do... especially if the obvious goal is to support and defend an anti-gun politician!

Craig, that's your quote. "Regulation or through the courts" = resolved. And Muslims working an 8 hour shift don't need 5 prayer breaks per day. The 5 prayers would cover the entire day. The dispute was that they were taking 3 breaks when the company only authorizes 2. No regulation or court ruling imposed. And according to the most recent report I could find, it's still not resolved. By the way, the company fired several Muslims who wouldn't abide by Ariens' break schedule.

As for Hamtramck, when I looked into that one, a whole lot of BS out there. I read one published source that said the city council was 100% Muslim. Nope. It is majority Muslim, 4-2, but that does not equal 100%.

With all this Muslim stuff, it's always good to take a really hard look. I found another source that said sharia was imposed in Dearborn, MI 3 years ago. They were going to stone women for adultery and ban alcohol. Except none of it was true. Again, from a published source--not just some individual's post in response to an article or on a BB. But there are so many people who want to believe all the sharia/Muslim bogeyman stuff--or want to promote it--that you'll find stuff like that all the time. At which point you need to look harder.

The problem with the Internet is it results in lazy research. Or "research" that consists of looking until you find something that lines up with your world view. "See, look what I found on the Internet!" I liked it better when all the tinfoil hat stuff was in the Inquirer and the other supermarket tabloids.

After making no less than 25 posts in this thread that had nothing to do with double guns, the hypocrite Larry Clown just posted this in canvasback's "Thanks" thread:



No wonder this brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst cannot see the negative influence radical Muslims have had on the U.S.

He can't even see himself when he does exactly what he complains about

I see the 'problem' as a bit different, so I snipped out you third paragraph.

All the reports say the somali muslims were taking five, repeat five breaks a day for prayer. Not two, that the company authorized as scheduled, or three as you mentioned off hand, a tin foil hat tidbit.

'Five breaks would take all day' is another tinfoil hat comment. The actual break is reported to be five minutes, an additional ten to fifteen minutes of productivity are lost due to movement to and from the break. These are random breaks, regardless of work responsibility at the moment, and you do the math, fifteen to twenty minutes per break times five a day.

More tinfoil stuff, who cares what the demographics of the city council is, could be all old white Catholic women. I said, because you asked, loud speakers announce the muslim call to prayer at 6:30 AM, a special right not afforded to others. Right or wrong?

You said there were no examples, I said there are. You say none of these changes are possible because Congress wouldn't legislate it, I say none of this happens via legislation. You say this is worse than tabloid stuff, I say you went off topic from my rant. Just because you typed up some volume doesn't mean you disputed my thoughts, does it? I think your counter argument is easily as lazy, don't you?

Craig, for whatever its worth, the church bells in the steeple of my own 1st United Methodist Church across Patterson Street from the Court House here ring quite often during religious holiday periods...Geo

I've heard church bells myself, Geo. It always struck me as a way that the particular congregation celebrates, not a city ordinance. I would suspect that in this day and age, strategic noise complaints could tone down those bells. I would doubt law would be enacted, but most likely some regulation would be enforced, or some separation litigation could intimidate the church. I don't suspect public funds were used for installation or operation of those bells. Only conversation here Geo, I don't see it as some form of equivocation.

Craig, I haven't really followed this thread too closely, but I do try to read your posts when I see them. Are you saying that the town with the Muslim councilmen has an Ordinance requiring the call to prayer at 6:30 in the morning? That's hard to believe.

There's no local law I'm aware of regarding my church bells, but my point such as it was is simply that religious celebration seems to be acceptable across the board...Geo

On the other hand, not even those pesky Baptists have ever declared jihad against America!

They'll make it mighty warm for an eye-talian Catholic fer sure though, Geo. What they were doing down on Court street Jacktown North Kakalacky at 2 a.m. Saturday night is anyone's guess. Backslider like me I can understand, but c'mon. Shouldn't ya'll be getting ready for Sunday services?

__________________________________
Everyone has a plan...until they get punched in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore. Mike Tyson

In my part of Texas, the German-American Catholic liquor store owners referred to the drive-up as the "Baptist Window".

I believe the process they used was an exception to the noise ordinance, and it may be 6:00AM and 10:00PM, not 6:30AM, but I guess you have to be there. In Larry's defense, I also suspect a distinct lack of law enforcement follow up of complaints and the threat of defamation suits for dessenting opinions, but I buy my tinfoil in bulk.

I don't know that it's requirement to either call or pray, but, for Larry's request, it's an exception granted to one group and not any other.

Did any of the others ASK for an exception??/

Craig, I wish to heck you'd post LINKS, or at least list your SOURCES (you know, name of the publication, date, etc) because then I could find the specific article to which you're referring. But it's quite clear that ALL the reports don't say anything about workers taking 5 prayer breaks, because I just read 4 articles on the Ariens situation--and NOT A ONE OF THEM referred to 5 prayer breaks. Please go back, reread, and give me a SPECIFIC SOURCE for your information. Islam requires 5 prayers per day (perhaps that's what you read), but they do NOT fall within an 8 hour period. One is at sunrise and one at sunset, which right there is a lot longer than 8 hours. Even in the winter. And one report I read had the director of CAIR in Minnesota, trying to work out a compromise (lots of Somalis in the Twin Cities area) that the workers would get 3 breaks--which, at that point, the company had not accepted.

And Craig, how in heck can you put up a quote from me, then turn around and misquote me in your own post? What I said was: "The 5 prayers would cover the entire day." Nothing about 5 breaks taking all day. One more time: Muslims are required to pray 5 times a day. The 5 prayers cover the religious requirement for the entire day. Each only lasts a few minutes. No, they do not pray all day. Good grief.

Who cares what the demographic of the city council is? Well, I do--when some idiot says it's 100% Muslim when in fact it's only 4 out of six. 2/3 does not = 100%. Who cares? People who believe in accuracy, not BS--that's who.

Other religions don't have a prayer call. So having a prayer call is a special right? As George pointed out, Christian churches have bells. The bells ring and make noise. That likely disturbs some people. Is that a special right? In either case, the way to deal with it is to complain to the local authorities about the noise. What I read from Hamtramck: that's exactly what has happened. And the mosques have been asked to turn down the volume. Seems to be handling noise regulations much the same way they're handled elsewhere. I read about them all the time in the Des Moines Register. Mostly having to do with bars rather than churches. But bars can make noise too, and neighbors can complain.

And here's a little warning to you, Craig: I believe in intelligent discussion. You misquote me one more time--how can you do that when you just posted my fricking quote, then misquote me right below it--and you go on ignore with your buddy Keith. I don't have time for that kind of rubbish.

Jets crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon make noise too. Big noise that had a significant influence on everyone in the U.S. That had everything to do with radical Islam and nothing to do with Christian churches or taverns. But Larry Clown still hasn't seen the negative influence that Muslims have had on this country because he's too invested in making excuses for them.

Note how he keeps carrying on about some source on the internet that said the city council of Hamtramck is 100% Muslim. Who cares? craigd did not say that. Nobody here said that. But this brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst hasn't noticed that a simple majority on a city council is all that is needed to pass laws and enact ordinances. Larry also seems to think that Ariens is a one shift operation, and that they as a company are not impacted by Muslim workers taking unscheduled breaks that interfered with production 5 times a day, even if all 5 prayer breaks did not occur on the same shift. Here's what an Ariens spokesman had to say about these unscheduled "5 minute breaks" that halted production:

"And that's if these are five minute breaks. If you are going to leave your work station in a plant that's 360,000 square feet, walk to the bathroom to wash your feet, take your time to pray, get dressed again and get ready to go back to work, it's very difficult to do in five minutes,"

Ariens has terminated the Muslim workers who disrupted production by taking unscheduled breaks. The fired workers have filed a lawsuit and a EEOC Civil Rights violation complaint against Ariens. The costs of this litigation will be passed on to the consumer and make Ariens less competitive. This Muslim prayer issue has also affected a Cargill plant in Colorado, and it's safe to assume that this could affect some manufacturer's decisions to move operations to China or Mexico. There were 1490 EEOC complaints filed by Muslims against employers in 2009 alone, and the number is increasing.

Larry is pretending to ignore me, but I will still post my comments about his frequent stupidity because I know he will still look at them. Oh yes, once again, Larry Clown is posting another non-double-gun post in this off-topic thread, even though he said this only one day ago:

Thank you for the warning Larry. In a nice way, I've warned you many times about about the repetitive tendency of your position, but you do not seem to respect my point of view.

In your second paragraph up above here, you use your brand of logic. Please note there are no references, but it's a common tactic that you use. If you're concerned about fitting five muslim prayer breaks into a Wisconsin day during winter, please note that daylight hours fall to under nine hours at that time of the year. And, it may be that many of the work shifts in question are nine hour shifts. If you do the math, let's say five breaks, between sunrise and sunset, how does the work day progress. Doesn't eight hours of work shift, fit into nine hours of daylight mean, maybe four prayer breaks? I can understand that, if you can.

Please note the company tried three breaks over their policy of two ten minute scheduled breaks, but logically the policy compromise was abused? I don't know, you tell me. Cair is now suing the company to require three breaks, logically, isn't that a compromise indicating that they are acknowledging that there were more than three breaks? I don't know, but logic would tell me that there was some abuse above and beyond three breaks during a shift. What do you think?

I found an article that pretty much repeats the above, but they're unable to speculate about the logical conclusions that we're discussing. It's in 'The Brillion News' on January 21, 2016, by Byrne, entitled 'COMPLETE STORY: Muslims leave Ariens over work-time prayers'. There is a statement that breaks, plural, were being taken in addition to the two scheduled breaks. Can anything be deduced from that? If you really do have the intention of checking my source, and thanks if you do, I'd like you to note that right about in the middle is the comment, "Most of the Muslim employees work second shift".

Craig, it'd be a good idea if you could avoid contradiction within your posts. Look at your very last sentence. If the employees work 2nd shift, then much of their work is going to fall during non-daylight hours, right? Unless 2nd shift is a good bit different than the 3-11 schedule my dad worked for John Deere, where he spent a lot of time on 2nd shift. So, one of the prayers comes at sunrise and one right around noon. That eliminates two from second shift conflicts. And #5 comes right before you go to bed . . . which would be when they're home. So I don't quite see the problem from what you posted. Two breaks should take care of the afternoon and the sunset prayer. May have to do with timing? Not sure.

Anyhow, here is the very latest information I could find on Ariens. (Please note: I'm giving you a link.) From May 25:

www.fox6now.com/2016/05/25/ariens-co-sued-over-break-policy-for-muslim-workers/

From that article, it's clear that the situation is not yet resolved. They tried 3 breaks and that did not work. Not because the workers complained, but because the company didn't like it. Impact on production. (Seems understandable.) Currently back to the two break schedule.

Sheesh and fried eggs Larry. Couldn't you tell that I was wasting a bunch of time and type by try to apply 'logic' to the first ninety-eight percent of my nonsense?

If you look at what I quoted from you, my concern was in two areas. First, your contention that muslim prayers breaks were between sunrise and sunset, and second, I was recognizing your stern warning and rant about misquoting.

I quoted you perfectly, but it's possibly to interpret your quote, incorrectly. Your warning to me was about my interpretation of your opinion, not settled fact. Don't you think your quote-n-misquote warning slips to shaky ground if, repeat if not is, the muslims work substantially or completely during night time hours. They also, as a group, are travelling from Green Bay, so not only is their shift substantially not during daylight hours, but company transportation brackets at least a good hour before and after the nine(?) hour shift.

Didn't your comment say covers the day, not all the day? What if there is some indication that the time in question was not between sunrise and sunset? Yes, I acknowledge that you tried to explain how some second shift hours allow their prayer time to fall outside of work, but you're implying that some prayer time necessarily falls into work hours. My opinion says that there are reasonable alternative logical conclusions, foremost being that there be absolutely no need for the muslim call to prayer after sunset.

Couldn't it be supposed that you are giving legitimacy to a practice that is not a requirement of the faith, in other words a 'special right' for that faith and none other? Yes, I've repeated many times that it is unsettled, but why did it take so long for you to come up with a reference that indicates either the courts or a gov regulatory agency will settle it, not congressional legislation?

With all due respect to King Brown, Politifact and the Washington Post are far from impartial fact checkers. A study by Dr. Robert Lichter at the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Politifact rated statements by Republicans as false or mostly false 3 times more often than statements by Democrats. Fact checking is not a "public service." It's more about the fact checker selectively choosing the statements to review and then applying their own subjectivity to those statements. Read James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal. He regularly demonstrates that many statements which are rated by the so-called fact checkers as false or mostly false are nothing more than opinions with which the "fact checkers" don't agree.

Craig, that's the most current information I have . . . and that's all you need to know. Some Muslim workers have actually been fired because they did not accept the break policy. Those still working get the same two breaks as everyone else. No use speculating any further . . . unless and until we hear what happens to the complaint CAIR filed. But as of right now, there is no legal ruling and no legislation that gives Muslims at Ariens any rights than any non-Muslim employees do not have.

Unless you come up with new information on that particular issue, seems to me a waste of time and effort to discuss it further.

Goillini, while I agree with your assessment on "fact checkers", I disagree with your "all due respect" for King Brown. King has a long history here of almost blind allegiance to Liberal Left Anti-Gun politicians, and frequently quotes references that support or defend them and denigrate those who actually support our gun rights. Care to see King's idea of facts? How's this?



Of course, recalling and repeating a small fraction of King's frequent anti-gun rhetoric makes me mean, mischievous, and uncivil in some folks eyes. So be it.

I don't believe that the data on Muslim breaks can be validated unless daylight savings time and latitude are factored in.

king's argument as quoted above is a valid argument...one may not like it, but it is supported by history...

and it seems to me, that the purpose of the bill of rights was not to declare individual rights, but to specifically limit the power of the federal government over the rights of people and the states.

It's not at all surprising to see Ed Good once again supporting the Anti-Gun rhetoric of his fellow Troll King Brown. We spent a lot of time in the old Misfires section supplying references and quotes from the Framers of the Constitution that provide ample proof that their Original Intent for the 2nd Amendment was for an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In spite of that, and in spite of the 2008 Heller and McDonald decisions from the Supreme Court, King and Ed continue to repeat the anti-gun dogma of the Liberal Left.

Here's a little refresher for anyone who may have forgotten where Ed is coming from, and to show why he regularly shows up to defend King:





You agreed with your pal King when he said this one, right Ed?



Why, of course you did. Two anti-gun birds-of-a-feather!



How crude and insulting of you and King to even suggest that we accept or tolerate mass murder. Nothing jOe or Mike did warrants banishment more than crap like you two post here.

That's the purpose of the 10th Amendment, Ed. If that were the purpose of the entire Bill of Rights, there wouldn't be any need to spell it out specifically in the 10th Amendment. In fact, the Bill of Rights collectively limits the power of all levels of government. The Feds can't restrict freedom of speech and religion, nor can the states . . . for example.

As a mostly intellectual exercise, I've been trying to come up with an example of a religion that gets special rights based on their beliefs, as requested by Larry Brown, and I think I've come up with something close. Members of Federally recognized Native American Tribes are allowed to possess and use bald eagle feathers for religious purposes. That would be a crime for most others.

Not a perfect example, I grant you, but the best I could come up with.

The law you are referring to Goillini is this...The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Public Law No. 95-341, 92 Stat. 469 (Aug. 11, 1978) (commonly abbreviated to AIRFA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1996, is a United States federal law, enacted by joint resolution of the Congress in 1978.

This law also permits Native Americans to possess and use peyote, which is a restricted drug for anyone else. Of course, Larry Clown says he is ignoring me, even though he has responded to me in the same day he said he would ignore me. And he has also threatened to put craigd on Ignore if craigd ever misquotes him... even though Larry misquoted me in the recent Lead and Condors thread, and refused to acknowledge or apologize for adding words which I never said. And who could forget Larry's selective editing of the Audobon Society's statement on hunting? That's when I learned that he is not worth debating. He's not a whole lot different than Hillary Clinton in my opinion, except Hillary may be more masculine.

That's the best I've seen anyone come up with. The difference there, however, is that the US government deals with Native Americans/Indians differently than with other ethnic groups or religions. (I prefer the "politically incorrect" term Indians. Having been born in this country and even without a drop of Indian blood as far as I know, I consider myself a "Native American".) The US government has negotiated numerous treaties with various tribes, and deals with them on some issues almost as if they were sovereign nations. They also get to use drugs which are otherwise illegal in some religiouns ceremonies. All of this, I think, is by way of our government recognizing that they were here before there was a United States government, and therefore allows them certain rights and privileges (also in the areas of hunting and fishing) that are forbidden to non-Indians. Having taken much of the land on which they freely roamed in the past--even if they didn't "possess" it in the same way we possess property--I think we bend over backwards in allowing them to retain those aspects of their culture. It's also a reaction to past govt practices of essentially trying to eliminate their cultures and languages, and turn them into . . . us, I guess. For example, the former policy was to forbid them to use their native languages if they attended a government Indian school. Now they're encouraged to retain their native tongues.

But we don't seem to make the same accommodations to ethnic groups or religions that have been brought here by more recent immigrants. For example, our Hmong allies in Southeast Asia were used to hunting, fishing and gathering with essentially no regulations. We had to do some educating to get them to follow American laws in those areas.

The All-Seeing-All Knowing Larry Clown is still missing some religious groups that get special treatment.

Another example is the Amish who are exempt from Social Security and Medicare taxes and also the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare. There was also a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which the Court exempted the Amish from compulsory school-attendance laws.

Larry weaseled out of Goillini's American Indian example. He can weasel out of the Amish example by pretending to ignore me. But he will still be wrong. Again.

l: regarding the 10th amendment: here it is:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

and her is wiki's take on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

after reading wiki, if one is objective, one must conclude that the tenth amendment has little to do with individual rights and more to do with federalism and the rights of the people and the states with respect to their relationship with the federal government...

and as to an individual right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from any involvement...it is clearly up to the people and the states, in the context of a well regulated militia, to determine governments involvement, if any, in the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

therefore, in theory, any federal legislation, court decision or executive order, infringing on the peoples right to keep and bear arms is in violation of the second amendment.

If one is objective, it's not the worst idea in the world to look at 'wiki's' policy on what information gets presented.

craig: are you suggesting wiki is biased? if so, i have not seen it. please provide examples...

He wont, and cant...

Sorry ed, no can do, but maybe you can ask Last Dollar? I have reason to believe he has a lot of frequent flyer miles, so he can offer unbiased expertise, to you?

What does flyer miles have to do with WIKI? I know nothing about WIKI's creds, you are the one who brought it up...

Allow me craigd. Here's a couple links to over 300 examples of Liberal bias found in Wikipedia:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924058/posts

I'm always happy to put an Anti-Gun Troll back under his bridge. Last Dollar added his typical useless two pesos. If you added his I.Q. to Ed's, you'd still be in single digits. Too bad he decided to unfold the tent he said he was permanently folding when he left us in a hissy-fit a while back.

So Ed Good, the Constitutional Scholar once again adds his take on the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't matter that Ed is wrong, as usual. What matters is Ed's oft stated opinion on the private ownership of firearms and the IRKBA. If Ed had his way, it would be state and local laws that restricted or prohibited entire classes of firearms instead of the Federal gov't. And according to him, the 2nd Amendment would have no bearing upon such infringements due to his idiotic misapplication of the 10th:

LD, you and ed brought up the 'creds', I didn't. If you like their policy, then that's great. If you open up their home page and look along the left hand column, it gives anyone easy instructions on how to contribute to their 'cred'. You and ed have one opinion, mine is a little different, that's all, plus I read between your lines. I mentioned to ed that 'I won't and can't', do you know what ed sees?

ah ax lots o questions here...git few answers...but lots o personal attacks fur jes askin...

"It is by the free exchange of ideas and opinions that we learn, and draw closer to knowledge of the truth. But the critic who lacks the cojones and courage to establish their identity by using an alias might consider the words of Theodore Roosevelt:"

As I recall, the Ethiopean Coptic Church was exempted from anti-weed laws.

Thank you for your input, Craig and Keith! FYI: When I last left this forum to head for Mexico, it was in a Dodge Diesel, not a hissy. I don't believe Hissy ever made a diesel. Why don't you check WICKI for us?

Wrong again Last Dollar. When you had your Hissy-Fit and made your farewell thread entitled "On Folding A Tent", you were already in Mexico. Your crybaby reason for leaving was comments that a couple of us made about the pictures you posted in Misfires of a whale behind your boat. You came unglued when I asked if it was a photo of Michelle Obama on another taxpayer funded vacation. I particularly enjoyed many of the unsympathetic responses you got in your obvious attention seeking cry for sympathy. Here's a few to refresh your faulty memory:















See... no Dodge truck... it was a Hissy-Fit. Not your first, but certainly one of your most dramatic. As Bob Blair points out, it would have been smarter for you to do like Alvin Linden did when he left, and return as a young girl. Except, he shouldn't have screwed up and told us about enjoying his wife's coffee and being a Viet Nam veteran after claiming to be a college girl and daughter of Alvin.

You could have called yourself Last Tampon.

I know it's a thing of the past, but I used to enjoy your fishing pictures and stories from the gulf. Only the best to you LD.

LD, re Wiki: I don't think it's as much a case of wiki being "biased" as it is of peer review . . . or a lack thereof. Sometimes wiki will even include a couple lines that the article in question is in need of further review. And sometimes people do inject their politics into wiki articles. From what I've seen, from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

Used to be, back in the old stubby pencil/green eyeshade days of research, everyone started with Britannica. That was pretty much the gold standard. Of course outdated in today's world of instant information. But instant information is often inaccurate information, because some people are either more interested in being first, or else are more interested in injecting their opinion, than they are in the facts. "Just the facts," as SGT Friday used to say. Makes things more complicated.

Examples (but not from Wiki): I recently read about sharia in Dearborn, MI. Turns out that notion got started as a result of an article in a satirical publication. (Another article in the same publication had to do with a "boobs merit badge" for the Boy Scouts. I think you get the drift.) But those who wanted to believe there was sharia in Dearborn latched onto the satire as if it were fact.

Then there was an article about a pro-ISIS rally last December . . . except it turned out to have been an ANTI-ISIS rally, in fact. If someone had looked at the photo of people at the rally holding up a sign that said "99% of ISIS victims are Muslims!", they might have guessed it was not pro-ISIS.

The Internet can lead one down tricky paths if one is in search of facts.

I used WIKI yesterday to locate Osh Kosh Nebraska, so I could plan a lunch with Tom Bryant, spot on.....I don't believe very much of what I read on the internet, even less of what it appears to be after it's twisted. I still maintain that Hissy never made a Diesel. Thank you all for your input...

That's so right Larry. Just imagine if people had only read your selective editing of the Audobon Society's statement on hunting which appeared right here on the internet in the Lead and Condors thread several months ago. If they hadn't gone on to read what craigd and I had to say about your selective editing, they might actually believe your earlier erroneous contention that Audobon had no influence on getting lead ammunition banned in California. But it was apparently more important to attempt to prove that you were right, when you were actually wrong. Again.

Nobody ever said that Hissy made a diesel, but what is certain is that LD was already in Mexico when he posted his whale picture and made his crybaby departure from this forum. Unless, of course, he's going to try to tell us he took pictures of a whale in Kansas.

You guys are funny! I likely was in Mexico, I just cant imagine what difference that makes as to if Hissy produced a Diesel...You are the one that maintains they did....I have never seen one....Would you please post a reference? Our whales in Kansas are MUCH bigger...Check it on WIKI....

Can you provide a quote where anyone except you said that Hissy made a diesel Last Dollar? Or are you just Trolling again? This all started when you said something that wasn't true about your whiny departure from this forum.

Where did you actually see a Hissy Diesel, Keith? What State? During the last year of Hissy production, before they were purchased by Huff, sales were concentrated in just a few places. After they were merged with Huff and Snit they all looked so much alike especially from the rear, that unless a person carefully checked the shape of the backup light, it was almost impossible to determine if someone were driving off in a Hissy, a Snit or a Huff...so I can understand your confusion...They all were, for financial reasons, merged into one firm and rebranded as "Quandary"...You may have seen someone driving off in a "Quandary" BUT why you keep insisting that there was a Hissy diesel, I don't know.But then, you never were a bright child...

Still not clear just what you're trying to say Last Dollar. Trolls are like that sometimes. But I did see a picture posted here recently of one of those big Kansas whales. It had a beard, orange coat, and drove a Dodge truck, as I recall.

It was in this thread in post #444875. Thar she blows!

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...4875#Post444875

LOVE it....Too bad AMike aint around. he'd jump right on that...See separate post eh?

If Hissy diesels ever go back into production I'd like to buy one of their Fantod models. I've been waiting to find a use for that word!...Geo

IF? They had ever got into production? Katy bar the door!

Good one, Geo!

___________________________
Send me dead flowers by the U.S. Mail. Jagger/Richards

so much for staying on topic...

notice how when the unknown critic is confronted, it evades the question and goes off on a tangent...

Well yeah Ed...This thread hasn't been on topic since about the 2nd post...What was the topic anyway...Who cares?

Why Ed, I was sure you already answered the question. Ah yes, here's your answer...



And here you are, going off on yet another tangent:

"lt is by the free exchange of ideas and opinions that we learn, and draw closer to knowledge of the truth. But the critic who lacks the cojones and courage to establish their identity by using an alias might consider the words of Theodore Roosevelt:"

Well, Reverend Doctor is hoping for Utopian board where all would use their real names and contribute to this forum in mature, meaningful and constructive way. The second part of his post refers to talkers/non-doers. Couple of examples would be Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh.