🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sir Marksman" <0@0.com> wrote in
news:4t%yd.92945$AL5.16389@twister.nyroc.rr.com: 

> 
> "The Lone Fascist" <loneweaselNO@SPAMyahoo.com> whined and
> evaded in message 
> news:Xns95C996977F999loneweaselyahooco@130.133.1.4... 
>> Bill Lev
>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>> Bill Levi
>>>>>The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>>>>Bill Levinso
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>I support the right of gays to OWN firearms
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who doesn't, Shitorian?
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't, if they are not in the Armed Forces or
>>>>>National Guard.
>>>>
>>>> I've always said personal gun rights are provided by the
>>>> states; looks like gunlobby hysteria makes a fool of you
>>>> once again.
>>>
>>> So you are saying that people have rights because they
>>> are provided by the State,
>>
>> Federal and state constitutions and statutes.  That's
>> right. 
>>
>>> not because they are inherent and
>>> natural human rights? I though as much; you are a Statist
>>> (a family that includes Fascists, Nazis, Socialists, and
>>> Communists).
>>
>> So, when it came to supporting the Vietnam War you were a
>> big statist, but when it came to actually serving in the
>> war you advocated, you became a conservative elitist like
>> Limbaugh, using minor visual impairment as an excuse to
>> shirk your duty while others with the same visual
>> impairment wore glasses and served honorably.
>>
>> So you're basically an amoral snot-nosed hypocrite willing
>> to say anything to promote a corrupt agenda.
>>
>>>>>>>even if they
>>>>>>>are not in the Armed Forces, you gay-bashing Fascist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But the question now is - do you support the right of
>>>>>>gays to serve in the National Guard, which would
>>>>>>provide them with a true Second Amendment rkba when on
>>>>>>active duty?
>>>>>
>>>>>You are changing the subject again.
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking if you give a damn about gay rights apart
>>>> from selling them more new guns.  You're afraid to
>>>> answer that question because you don't really care about
>>>> natural rights or human rights or constitutional or
>>>> civil rights, you're just here to sell more new guns.
>>>
>>> Do you or do you not believe that people, gays included,
>>> have a RIGHT to own firearms even if they are not in the
>>> Armed Forces or National Guard?
>>
>> You can't say that gays have a right to serve in the
>> military openly and get married like straight couples,
>> because that would displease your Republican Party
>> overlords, and you can't say anything that would bug your
>> elitist overseers, eh Shitorian?
> 
> So again you evade and refuse to answer directly. How
> typical of you elitist LIEberals.

Simple question: do you support the right of gays & lesbians 
to serve openly in the Armed Forces, including the National 
Guard, or do you not?

And while we're on it, do you support the "natural human 
right" of gays and lesbians to marry?

Either you do or you don't, and knowing you're a big 
rightwing elitist chickenhawk like Shitorian, I know you 
denounce the fundamental human rights of homosexuals.

>> Do you refuse to answer as a chickenhawk statist or as a
>> conservative elitist gunwhore?
> 
> Chicken hawks, like you LIEberals!!! 

I'm not a chickenhawk because I didn't support the Vietnam 
War, in fact I expected to go to prison over it; and I don't 
support the Bush regime's disasterous and illegal invasion of 
Iraq.

Merry Christmas, Mr. Shittybritches.

_______________________


Topic:  Iraq - Post-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  5/10/2004

Quote/Claim:

�Our troops continue to face serious danger, and this 
government is giving them every means of protecting 
themselves and every means necessary to gain victory.� 
[Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

�Many soldiers who are there say the Pentagon is failing to 
protect them with the best technology America has to 
offer�That has translated into a lack of armor� A breakdown 
of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and 
wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an 
unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now 
circulating through the Army, there have been 142 casualties 
by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 
others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all 
those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, 
which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in 
combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor 
around them, the study suggested.� - Newsweek, 5/3/04

�The military already has identified unmet funding needs, 
including initiatives aimed at providing equipment and 
weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified 
nearly $6 billion in funding requests that did not make 
Bush's $402 billion defense budget for 2005, including $132 
million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for combat 
helmets, silk-weight underwear, boots and other clothing; 
$21.5 million for M249 squad automatic weapons; and $27 
million for ammunition magazines, night sights and ammo 
packs. Also unfunded: $956 million for repairing desert-
damaged equipment and $102 million to replace equipment lost 
in combat. The Marine Corps' unfunded budget requests 
include $40 million for body armor, lightweight helmets and 
other equipment.� - Washington Post, 4/21/04


http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg
.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294


-- 

Yours truly,

The Lone Weasel