On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:33:04 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 12:29 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:47:48 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8, John
> >>>>>>> B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8,
> >>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes says I
> >>>>>>>>>>> was the one who
> >>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the topic
> >>>>>>>>>> of Rape, per se.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite where
> >>>>>>>>> someone other than you
> >>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must
> >>>>>>>>> have missed that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per se"
> >>>>>>>> - " a Latin
> >>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.â€
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a
> >>>>>>>> deliberate attempt to
> >>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less
> >>>>>>>> violent crime then
> >>>>>>>> the U.S.?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the
> >>>>>>> topic of rape at the
> >>>>>>> same time you used other words?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in
> >>>>>> some manner
> >>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your ego
> >>>>>> requires
> >>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to accept.
> >>>>>> If you can't
> >>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own
> >>>>>> dementia. After all
> >>>>>> that's what Tom does.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your
> >>>>> arguments.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the U.S.
> >>>>> is worse than
> >>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've never
> >>>>> posited a
> >>>>> reason for the differences.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that
> >>>>> Americans are
> >>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why would
> >>>>> that be?
> >>>>
> >>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
> >>>>
> >>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law
> >>>> abiding then the
> >>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far fewer
> >>>> gun crimes
> >>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law abiding.
> >>>>
> >>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic to
> >>>> argue "why
> >>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
> >>>>
> >>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited Canada
> >>>> as evidence
> >>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will
> >>>> reduce gun
> >>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the
> >>>> Canadians are
> >>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip
> >>>> sliding away and
> >>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more
> >>>> law abiding.
> >>>>
> >>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap
> >>>> yourself on the
> >>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again,
> >>>> overcome the
> >>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It makes no
> >>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and turn
> >>>> and post
> >>>> suppositions.
> >>>
> >>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
> >>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than Americans,
> >>> you'll have a point.
> >>>
> >>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
> >>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that have far
> >>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought up the
> >>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of rape and
> >>> other violent crimes.)
> >>>
> >>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going to
> >>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot to do
> >>> with their national policies, as implemented by their laws,
> >>> etc.
> >>>
> >>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >>> difference in how people behave.
> >>>
> >>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >>>
> >>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And don't
> >>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking about
> >>> _now_.
> >>>
> >> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
> >> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of public
> >> housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public housing
> >> dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm themselves for
> >> protection because their hallways and neighborhoods had
> >> become more dangerous.
> >>
> >> Mr Cuomo dropped the program.
> >>
> >> (as an aside, buyback programs recover the most useless
> >> rusted broken mess of crap and few useful weapons)
> >
> > Someone should probably note to that moronic Kragowski that 1; The IRA was numbered only in the dozens and killed over 3,500 people. Often total innocents and even children and usually with bombs and not guns. 2. Poland is on the border of Russia and if the Ukraine movement is successful to any extent, Poland is the next obvious target. Frank abhors the idea that the Polish people should own personal weapons and believes that they should leave the defense of their country to the military alone. 3. In every area where they've tried this weapons buy-back they've even received flintlocks as well as completely non-working guns with the serial numbers ground off. This is the world of Frank - not even a trace of reality.
> >
> Eventually Poland.
>
> The 'next obvious target' is Lithuania. They have been under
> attack by Belarus for months, with waves of jihadis flown in
> on the State airline, bused to the border. This also shifts
> attention away from Russia, Belarus being the cat's paw here.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Lithuania and Poland surround the exclave of Kaliningrad. That little piece of land on the Baltic Sea that is still part of Russia but has no direct land access to Russia. So attacking Lithuania would be the next logical step. Aided by the Russian accomplice of Belarus. Which has a long border with Lithuania.