• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Who's worse, Adam Lanza or Andreas Lubitz?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Re:

BigMac said:
What other object besides guns, from those available with releative ease, allow the mass murdering of people? How much children do you think Adam Lanza would have killed if he stormed inside Sandy Hook armed with a knife or a baseball bat? Certainly a lot less, if any at all, because the chance of him being neutralized would be high. But even so, let us not just measure it by the amount of people that can be killed, as killing one is equally wrong as killing two, five or twenty, it's the act in itself that's evil - and to that I'd say that no, [most] people wouldn't resort to other types of killing or weapons if seen deprived of guns.

Yes and that's why you want to ban them, in order to make sure that the potential victims can't defend themselves. Or perhaps is it because you fear a popular revolt?

I see that the crap hasn't changed since January, actually. I'm done with you, now.
 
Re: Re:

frenchfry said:
A report on the news last night showed that you are more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to the airport than in a plane crash.

Plane crashes are spectacular, and the media and politicians love them, but the real killer out there is cars. Much less newsworthy when people die one by one or two by two, even if the total suffering is much greater. Texting drivers kill way more people than suicidal pilots, yet we are a long way from considering them to be attempted murderers as they should be.

Like Rhubroma I too am convinced that a culture that promotes non-violence results in a less violent society. Just a gut feeling, but seems like common sense to me.

What I'd like to know is whether or not the stats between car and plane deaths take into consideration, the number of fatalities relative to the amount of cars on the road vs. the volume of planes in the air?

That is if we consider the number of deaths by car accident relative to the number of cars globally, would there still be as greater a statistical chance of being killed while driving, as one would flying, given the same proportionate relationship between deaths by plane crash relative to the number of global flights?

Perhaps someone who knows the stats much better than I, could explain.

Of course none of this has anything to do with guns, which, as weapons that exponentially increase the lethal power by the ones using them, need to be treated very differnently than kitchen knives, baseball bats, etc. While there is no correspondance whatsoever between guns and cars, trains, planes and boats that, yes can cause fatalities (even through being misused for that purpose), but are primarily means of transport. At any rate, the difference between Lanza and Lubitz is that the former had access to a weapon that the regulations, in their present setup, don't even contemplate (that is a mother being a perfectly legal owner, even with a psychotic son in the house); whereas in the latter case the German airline should have removed Lubitz from his position according the existing regulations, but didn't because of a tragic oversight.

Thus guns should be placed under much heavier restricutions, while those regarding airplanes will now simply have to be observed with much greater attention.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
frenchfry said:
A report on the news last night showed that you are more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to the airport than in a plane crash.

Plane crashes are spectacular, and the media and politicians love them, but the real killer out there is cars. Much less newsworthy when people die one by one or two by two, even if the total suffering is much greater. Texting drivers kill way more people than suicidal pilots, yet we are a long way from considering them to be attempted murderers as they should be.

Like Rhubroma I too am convinced that a culture that promotes non-violence results in a less violent society. Just a gut feeling, but seems like common sense to me.

What I'd like to know is whether or not the stats between car and plane deaths take into consideration, the number of fatalities relative to the amount of cars on the road vs. the volume of planes in the air?

That is if we consider the number of deaths by car accident relative to the number of cars globally, would there still be as greater a statistical chance of being killed while driving, as one would flying, given the same proportionate relationship between deaths by plane crash relative to the number of global flights?

Perhaps someone who knows the stats much better than I, could explain.

Of course none of this has anything to do with guns, which, as weapons that exponentially increase the lethal power by the ones using them, need to be treated very differnently than kitchen knives, baseball bats, etc. While there is no correspondance whatsoever between guns and cars, trains, planes and boats that, yes can cause fatalities (even through being misused for that purpose), but are primarily means of transport. At any rate, the difference between Lanza and Lubitz is that the former had access to a weapon that the regulations, in their present setup, don't even contemplate (that is a mother being a perfectly legal owner, even with a psychotic son in the house); whereas in the latter case the German airline should have removed Lubitz from his position according the existing regulations, but didn't because of a tragic oversight.

Thus guns should be placed under much heavier restricutions, while those regarding airplanes will now simply have to be observed with much greater attention.
The statistics presented were relative to the use (as I recall it was distance travelled).

I found this document, looks like some pretty serious research:

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~i ... script.pdf

Passenger Fatalities per Billion Passenger Miles 2000-2009

Riding a motorcycle 212.57
Driving or passenger in a car or light truck 7.28
Passenger on a local ferry boat 3.17
Passenger on commuter rail and Amtrak 0.43
Passenger on urban mass transit rail 0.24
Passenger on a bus 0.11
Passenger on commercial aviation 0.07

Of course these statistics are open to interpretation, as each individual's use of the different modes of transport is different. It does give an idea of the risks though. Most obvious conclusion: you have to have a death wish if you ride a motorcycle.
 
Re:

Jspear said:
The problem with the world is people. Banning guns won't stop people from killing others in mass numbers. If you don't like guns fine; but that isn't the ultimate issue...they'll just find something else. If you want to stop mass killings than attack the root of the problem. People. If you read the backround stories of these individuals you'll often fine that they had a very troubled past, bad family environment, and most of them were on psychotropic drugs. No doubt things could have been different if there had been people in their immediate environments trying to help them.

The only way to stop people killing other people is to kill all the people, but guns are a highly efficient way of killing other people.
 
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Visit site
Re:

frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Re:

blackcat said:
does Boeing have a village idiot like Charleton Heston to roll out?
Maybe they do, who the fkc knows. Maybe call Seattle or South Carolina?

But for this case better to call someone in France aka Freedom Fry land! :D
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.
I just bought 4 new weapons. No problems.

Trying to buy a ticket to Japan as we speak over the interwebz. Mucho problemo
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Just thought I would point that out.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

frenchfry said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Trying to buy a ticket to Japan as we speak over the interwebz. Mucho problemo
You are aware that in the wrong hands tickets can be used as deadly weapons.
Dammmmmmmm you to hell elcheapo travel! Ticket is to blame for my current rampage! Dame you airplane's!
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.

Your usual diverson tactic. What has the fact that the regulations didn't function in this case to do with them being obsolete?

Let us then deregulate everything. Say it if you have the balls.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.

No, it's much better to distill the issue down to a bumper sticker sized soundbite like "Why aren't you blaming the plane/food/baseball bat?" than actually assess whether there are measures that could satisfy both the 2nd Amendment, and reduce instances of the kind that took place in Sandy Hook. You and your side own the field in oversimplification, and empty rhetoric, so I don't expect a change is on the horizon.

Actually, the regs in place worked one way, but not in another. Changes WILL be made, unlike what we see every time you and the NRA defend people's right to enter a school and slaughter children. <-See what I did there?
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.

Your usual diverson tactic. What has the fact that the regulations didn't function in this case to do with them being obsolete?

Let us then deregulate everything. Say it if you have the balls.

Nor will he accede to the reality that there will be functional regulatory changes following this tragedy, to address the failures...which is what you'd think would happen after tragedies like Sandy Hook...

Then, he goes on a familiar slant, and blames unions for the crash. If only he could find a way to include BENGHAZI!!, he would have a Daily Double.
 
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.
I just bought 4 new weapons. No problems.

Trying to buy a ticket to Japan as we speak over the interwebz. Mucho problemo

God bless you. Let us know about Japan.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.

Your usual diverson tactic. What has the fact that the regulations didn't function in this case to do with them being obsolete?

Let us then deregulate everything. Say it if you have the balls.

Lookey here, you miss the point again.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.

No, it's much better to distill the issue down to a bumper sticker sized soundbite like "Why aren't you blaming the plane/food/baseball bat?" than actually assess whether there are measures that could satisfy both the 2nd Amendment, and reduce instances of the kind that took place in Sandy Hook. You and your side own the field in oversimplification, and empty rhetoric, so I don't expect a change is on the horizon.

Actually, the regs in place worked one way, but not in another. Changes WILL be made, unlike what we see every time you and the NRA defend people's right to enter a school and slaughter children. <-See what I did there?

actually assess whether there are measures that could satisfy both the 2nd Amendment, and reduce instances of the kind that took place in Sandy Hook. You and your side own the field in oversimplification, and empty rhetoric, so I don't expect a change is on the horizon.

Famed few on your side give a wit about the second amendment. Oversimplification? Your side would wet their pants with a repeal. But if a repeal isn't likely you'll settle for a bunch of nonsense regs that do nothing to curb mass killings by gun and do nothing to curb inner city gun violence.

Me and the NRA/you and the NRA... Like I said, you are far more a gun nut than me.
 
Don't know who said it(the 'quoting' part of this forum is all gooned up), "actually assess whether there are measures that could satisfy both the 2nd Amendment, and reduce instances of the kind that took place in Sandy Hook."

Been said already...when you do back ground checks for firearms, link to any mental health treatment/issues/hospitalization..along with things like past felonies. NOT an auto disqualify but a red flag, meaning more investigation should follow. BUT won't happen cuz the AMA and NRA would wet their collective pants. The 'MOM' who had a bunch of guns, that her insane kid had access to...that should have been a red flag somewhere.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Bustedknuckle said:
Don't know who said it(the 'quoting' part of this forum is all gooned up), "actually assess whether there are measures that could satisfy both the 2nd Amendment, and reduce instances of the kind that took place in Sandy Hook."

Been said already...when you do back ground checks for firearms, link to any mental health treatment/issues/hospitalization..along with things like past felonies. NOT an auto disqualify but a red flag, meaning more investigation should follow. BUT won't happen cuz the AMA and NRA would wet their collective pants. The 'MOM' who had a bunch of guns, that her insane kid had access to...that should have been a red flag somewhere.

Too many competing interests. There's the NRA and it's ridiculousness but also HIPPA regs and political correctness that, among other things, tend to tape doctors mouths shut.

Lufthansa knew of Lubitz' treatment of severe depression and suicidal tendencies. Why then did they allow him to fly? Pilots are in demand is one possible answer. Lubitz was able to conceal his true mental state is another. Doctors and Psychs treating Lubitz likely could not legally inform the airline could be contributory. Union protections and the airlines fear of discriminatory practices is another possibility.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
Bustedknuckle said:
Don't know who said it(the 'quoting' part of this forum is all gooned up), "actually assess whether there are measures that could satisfy both the 2nd Amendment, and reduce instances of the kind that took place in Sandy Hook."

Been said already...when you do back ground checks for firearms, link to any mental health treatment/issues/hospitalization..along with things like past felonies. NOT an auto disqualify but a red flag, meaning more investigation should follow. BUT won't happen cuz the AMA and NRA would wet their collective pants. The 'MOM' who had a bunch of guns, that her insane kid had access to...that should have been a red flag somewhere.

Too many competing interests. There's the NRA and it's ridiculousness but also HIPPA regs and political correctness that, among other things, tend to tape doctors mouths shut.

Lufthansa knew of Lubitz' treatment of severe depression and suicidal tendencies. Why then did they allow him to fly? Pilots are in demand is one possible answer. Lubitz was able to conceal his true mental state is another. Doctors and Psychs treating Lubitz likely could not legally inform the airline could be contributory. Union protections and the airlines fear of discriminatory practices is another possibility.

I think number 2. He would never have a ATP in the US..shortage of pilots or not. Of the 'guv-ment' in the US, the FAA and pilot regs do get it right..most of the time. Too bad Lubitz, who wanted to 'off' himself decided to take 149 other with him..true coward.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
Famed few on your side give a wit about the second amendment. Oversimplification? Your side would wet their pants with a repeal. But if a repeal isn't likely you'll settle for a bunch of nonsense regs that do nothing to curb mass killings by gun and do nothing to curb inner city gun violence.

Me and the NRA/you and the NRA... Like I said, you are far more a gun nut than me.

I see you still haven't found a way to work BENGHAZI!! ! into the scenario...really disappointed in you. How can you call yourself a conservative?

I do find it amusing that the only time a conservative actually cares about anything happening in "inner cit[ies]" is when they can use statistics on gun violence to try to show that good white people aren't the problem...<- Did it again, fight fire with fire I guess?
 
Re: Re:

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.

Your usual diverson tactic. What has the fact that the regulations didn't function in this case to do with them being obsolete?

Let us then deregulate everything. Say it if you have the balls.

Lookey here, you miss the point again.

No, I hit the mark. Is it mental atrophy, or are you really just that dumb? At any rate Scott, you never respond to what was actually said. Try it sometime. If you dare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS