Bill Gates is anti-gun and therefore the enemy

D

deepforest27

Inactive
Lookee at what I found at one of my favorite sites: www.earp.com/random.htm

Below is a quote from the piece....


"Scott Farrell reports in the November issue of Guns Magazine that Bill Gates donated $35,000 to fund Initiative 676, a proposal that would require licensing of all handgun owners in the state of Washington."

Do you need more reason to use Netscape instead of Microsoft Internet Explorer?


[This message has been edited by deepforest27 (edited December 29, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by deepforest27 (edited December 29, 1999).]
 
Being one of the many product developers screwed by Gates and Microsoft. He's not anti-gun he's just afraid his behaivor will get the response it deserves!
 
Use Netscape?
Okay - but what OS?
Linux is pretty cool... But not accepted by most Companies and file sharing - emailing text files is a headache as the other guy wont be able to read it. Unless you save every letter or such as a universal HTML file.
Macs run on MS stuff too. Face it.
Gates owns us computer-wise.

------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
 
Hope the government screws him some and maybe he will realize he's on the wrong side. Wall street will drop one day and gates will fall from his high horse.
 
Must be the assault pie he got. Now he spends money on bodyguards, especially for his family.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
But don't forget the Microsoft Gun Club that lobbied hard to defeat I-676.

Now that Gates has seen what thugs the feds can be with anti-trust laws, attacking only those that don't give campaign contributions to the current office-holder, he may just come around. Don't count on it, though.

Rick
 
OberK.,

Bill has a long way to fall. The newspaper said his net worth (with Microsoft) is greater than all but six countries in the world. (Sheesh!)
 
Not a good person to have as your enemy. However, for him, 35Gs doesn't make him truly anti (from his perspective, anyway). He coughs up that much each morning on his chest. To him, that's like tipping your waitress a dime to show her you got bad service (something I would never do having been a waiter for years, but you see the metaphor). I'd hate to think what he would give to an anti cause he actualy believed in. If he remains persistently anti, then I hope the Justice Dept. royally shafts him and he befalls the same fate as George Harrison.
 
Remember a couple of years back when Gates was shown in the newspapers golfing with Clinton? I wonder if he's so chummy with WJC now. Maybe Gates has learned that if you lie down with dogs you get fleas. Maybe not.

BTW, I detected a hint of jealousy in some of the posts on this thread. Please, never be jealous of any man who has made his money honestly. His business practices may be hard and demanding, but the people he dealt with could have told him to take a flying **** at a rolling donut with his demands. Gates doesn't have the power to hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to buy his products; only the govt. has that kind of power (the monopoly on first-class postage springs to mind).

The people who can't compete with MS in a free marketplace have run crying to a 400-pound gorilla (the govt.) demanding protection. MS has no monopoly in the software business; if it does, then why do other software companies exist? The only way a monopoly can exist in a free marketplace is with govt. help, or by having a better (or more popular) product at a price that consumers are willing to pay. And don't talk to me about companies selling products at less than it costs to make them. No company can long survive doing that, and Bill Gates wouldn't have his current net worth if he did that. I don't have the time to go into all of the details on this subject to explain why all of this is true, but if you'll read the book by Ayn Rand in my profile signature, or at least a few selected essays in the book, you'll understand.

I didn't know that BG was anti-gun, and if that's true, then he's dropped a few nothces in my eyes.
DAL

For what it's worth, my browser is Netscape.

------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.
 
Actually, this is old news that everyone was b----ing and moaning about at the time I-676 was coming around. I used to have a copy of the entire contributors list. A lot of them were telephone companies. Don't know if I still have it. It may still be out on the Internet.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
DAL- you obviously never worked a few years to push a new idea into the computer marketplace only to have Gates "innovate" it and give it away (of course crushing your business in process) because he can make his money on the monopoly products and cover his cost to "give away" things he's too uncreative to invent. I and many of my associates have. Gates isn't the only one who does this, its just that his monopoly lets him get away with it- and that's not only wrong but hurts every consumer. You just don't know what we are not inventing because we don't do it in markets in which the MicroBully dominates because it doesn't pay. So the pace of innovation in those markets slows down and ossifies. Notice that there aren't a lot of new browsers around? Ever wonder why? Once there were 4 or 5 strong browser competitors.
 
TJ,

I agree. Gates sold his operating system before he even had a clue how to get one. Luckily for him he was able to buy the one which became MS-DOS before he got nailed for fraud.

There's a fine (and increasingly blurred) line between "aggressive businessman" and "con-man"!

And 35 grand may be chump change to Gates, but it will take a lot of small donations from believers in the Constitution to even the score.
 
Bill Gates is a pr*ck. A very, very, very wealthy one, but still a common pr*ck. He knows it and and doesn't really care.

Dennis: Bingo!!! Give you a ceeeegar!! In retrospect, can you honestly say that FAUP would have done anything other than bury RKBA? Do you honestly feel that the so called elite would have passed on the chance to donate 60 grand, get their name in the paper and generate public support for the anti's? I held my breath and say on it, but FAUP would have been a disaster. I'm far from anything resembleing "Tactical", but even I know you can't go toe to toe with some(one)(thing) bigger and hope to come out ahead, even or even standing in the end. The intention was/is noble, and I agreed with it word for word, but the venue was wrong.
 
If we don't like Bill Gate's GUN CONTROL policy and donation, remember that he has WINDOWS 2000 etc.[I forget what the orther is called] comming out in February of 2000. Do not but it.
 
Well, RAE, I understand your point about FOUP. However, I sent my check so let me explain why.

1) What could it hurt? We were represented as rational, law-abiding gun owners.

2) It would have shown that some gun owners were getting a bellyful of their anti-Constitutional endeavors.

3) It might have inspired some fence-sitters to our side.

4) It would have shown some people with similar opinions that they are not alone.

5) It could have started a new fad of resisting government intrusion in the press.

6) It may have increased the activism of other individuals and groups in our movement.

7) Remember how the civil rights movement worked? You had the militant "Burn, Baby, Burn" radicals, as well as the calm, measured, well-reasoned response of the quieter (but equally dedicated) academic and religious types - end every where in between the extremes on that continuum.

The civil rights movement was fought at all levels by many groups who disagreed with each other on many points but were united in their final goal. I suggest we should learn from that (successful) process.

Colin Powell mentioned this as, "... a movement requires many different voices". His comment hit me for the first time as showing that we can disagree in our methods so long as we all fight for the common goal of restoring our Constitution.

So FOUP didn't pan out. It was a noble effort which I supported because of its intent. Let's put the pressure on the tyrants in every possible (legal) manner.


------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Dennis,
I understand why you and the others sent checks. I always did understand the reason behind it. I also agreed 100% with the reasons. HCI published their full page ad back in what April? As I looked at the list of people that signed that ad, all I could see was a full page ad, published by not HCI, but one of the tax deduction clingons of gun control, for no reason other than to promote themselves. 1 statement, published 1 time, and taking months to finance vs the very real possibility of seeing a full page, 60K tax deductible ad featureing 1 celeb at a time and spaced out over months. Which do you think would have gotten the most attention and attracted the fence sitters?
Yes, I remember the civil rights movement 1st hand. I also remember that current gun laws in California were written to keep the Black Panthers from their armed escorts of neighborhood police. The Black Panthers carried shotguns, fully loaded, and fully legal as they accompanied the police cars through the Watts area just to make sure there were no problems from either side.
Rich
aka Hal

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited January 02, 2000).]
 
RAE, Rich, & Hal,

1) So we agree that there were efforts from many different groups, using many different manners and methods to achieve their common civil rights goal.

2) I can not imagine that you could disagree with the obvious point that not all factions of the civil rights movement agreed with the manners and methods used by all the other various factions.

3) Surely you must agree that all these factions achieved the vast majority of their common civil rights goals.

4) Therefore, if we can learn from the civil rights movement, it does not behoove us to continue to argue among ourselves, belittle each others' efforts, and weaken the attempts of ANY Constitutionalist in his or her efforts to achieve a return to Constitutional law.

5) If all the above is true, then we are in agreement.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Dennis,
1.)Agreed. Many different groups addressed racism. Some took over islands by armed force, while some simply sat down.
2.) To diagree would be ignorant and stupid on my part.
3.) Sorry, not even remotly close. Give me the primary goals as you see them. I see a lot of confusion as to what if anything was ever gained.
4.)Never did I try to belittle anyone elses effort (FAUP). One of the reasons I held my piece was the reaction you seem to have here over it. A full page, one time ad, would have surely provoked a response from the opposition. Right now there is another thread about another effort. I'll refrain from that thread. My opinion on the result of that effort is that it will draw nothing but ridicule. My opinion on FAUP is that the desired result would never have been obtained, and in fact exactly the opposite would have resulted. You can not go toe to toe with the enormous amount of money the opposition has at their fingertips. Since it's a done deal and over, the result will never be known. I can only offer as evidence on my behalf, the testimony of Darrel Scott before Congress. Few people here even know the name Darrel Scott. Gun owners whine about being heard, and when someone gets up to speak on their behalf, they ignore him. Oh yeah, the big news is lawsuits and how it will affect everybody. Where were these questions years ago when Rossi was sued over the external hammers on their Coach Guns? Guess since it was a Rossi, and not much of a hunting gun at that, most gun owners didn't care. I'll own up to being one of that group. Now years later, I see how wrong that thinking was.

The original topic is Bill Gates. To put his wealth in perspective: In December Social Security sent me a letter listing the amount of money I had paid into the system. I added all 31 years income together. In 31 years, I earned less that Gates makes in 6 seconds, and less than Oprah makes in 7 min.

OBTW, about the name. Like Lincoln said to Mary Todd when she informed him it was spelled with 2 d's. "One was good enough for God". One will do, I will answer to any one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top