come on crabbe, give it up. once is a typing error, twice is not, particularly if on the same word, thus making it manifestly obvious, to the most casual of passing observers
check back and reflect Message 22066697
<<Hello R, <<The United STATES is composed of 50 individual separate[sp] entities, no more or less independent from each other as HK is from Bejing>>
... <<Economically HK is seperate[sp, I guess, again?] from Mainland China only because it is advantageos for China to maintain the British Build economic base that exists in HK. When and if China catches up to that economic base the freedoms that HK enjoys will cease.>>
or, alternatively, go pass water <<Now you piss me off!>> siliconinvestor.com like you said you wanted to, and then reflect in the resulting pool
as to your ideas, they are ... to be kind, wrong, and to be truthful, dangerous, to yourself, in the big picture
mixing up rights and freedom is not substantively different from thinking freedom is enforced with a gun in civilized society ... oops, you did that, repeatedly too, most unbecoming
in any case, to be civilized, as I naturally tend to be, my response to Message 22068381
<<All of it!! >>
... and I venture to guess that perhaps your understanding is limited by your imagination, and your imagination by your pragmatism, thus all limiting reach for solutions, as everything is "cannot do", which is precisely what we over on this side of the pond at the mo is unfamiliar with. all around me, it is can do, can do, and that of course scares me to no end, since i am watching a drama but only guessing at the script. so far so good.
<<You do not understand the right to bear arms>>
wrong, precisely i get the gist, but as you say, it is a right presumably in accordance with some law, i.e. restriction, constraining you or some counterparties. i was talking about freedom, as in exemption from some law that constrains me and everyone else, meaning, in its purest sense, the absence of laws, or as little of it as possible. so, again, back to the basics Message 22062901 <<the us folks have rights, layered over the freedom of each other, allowing each sub-group to pick the pocket of another sub-group ... we in hk, that be china hksar to you, have freedom, judged to be numero uno, and so far ahead of you down under that it would be impossible for you to comprehend the full extent of our freedoms, and we buy our rights, when we so choose, and only if we choose, as it ought to be>>.
the determining test, as specified, is just so Message 22064092 .
given that you then demonstrated to all that you did not even understand half of the questions, Message 22066697 , and repeatedly substitute the word "right" for "freedom", it is clear, at least to me, that you are also so far down and cannot possibly fathom the differences.
in this way, through open exchange, we have just certified the American Heritage Foundation's well researched and properly considered ranking of where you are and where I happen to be.
in a further demonstration of the weakness of your position, you find it necessary to use the phrase <<rights and freedoms>>. do you know why? the why is because whatever the dictionary says, there are differences, but only to those who know, as opposed to those who think they know.
crabbe, you are, astoundingly enough, shocking almost, apparently able to use a dictionary Message 22068424 , and yet, even more alarming, unable to discern the difference between "right" dictionary.reference.com and "freedom" dictionary.reference.com
this revelation goes a long way towards explaining the heritage foundation rankings
as to the bit of self-evident nonsense about <<The founding fathers of America recognized that from time to time the scoundrels in government can become oppressive, just as King George had become to the colonists. They gave the people the means with which to attempt to throw the scoundrels out. Be it through assassination, or organized armed revolt.>>
... do you care to exercise your freedom and/or alleged right to clarify exactly what you meant?
in the case of hong kong, we do not need to vote, nor do we need to revolt, and we certainly do not need to assassinate anyone, therefore we do not need guns.
why, because we have the freedom, to economically do what we can, so that if need be, we opt out and away.
lastly, regarding this bit of civilized behaviour, <<I said your freedom ends at my nose, if I need a gun to enforce that, then so be it.>>, good luck.
oh great man, so you think you can take away my freedom should you use a gun? nonsense and drivel. i have the economic freedom to make sure your gun is taken away from you, while i am off island hopping.
though i must add, very poor form, you showing complete divorce from anything remotely resembling reality, as in you are not going to do anything with the gun that you have a licensed right to carry, because it will not carry the day, because i am correct and you are wrong, realistically, practically, and economically speaking.
a bit of reflective learning, and a wee bit less of feeling p*ssed will do you good.
chugs, j
p.s. <<you are the one that stated spouses are scourges>>
... oh, so you thought, as opposed to read, that I meant my wife was a scourge?! how careless of you. perhaps a bit of reading and less of thinking will improve your understanding. start with the wsj, nyt, wp, and np ... got to start somewhere. and those pieces of fluff will do just as well as anything else for the mo. |
