.....
Lobby for a program which would allow people to query their own data for references to themselves so they can check up on things to make sure that there are no mistakes and that no bad data got in which could come back to haunt them later.
This is a pretty reasonable thing to ask for at this point. ....
Oh, yea, sure. You mean like your existing right to query the records the FBI has on you? For which you have to at your own expense go get your fingerprints taken and a certified copy sent to the District of Criminals? For which the response takes six months?  |
|
|
|
Require a login and a password. But they likely wouldn't matter, and here's why. Basically, people that either grew up around firearms, who decided to learn about them, who are familiar with hunting, or who have had military or police style training know A LOT MORE THAN YOU. Now don't be offended - this happens in virtually every discussion where a liberal progressive tries to talk to what he thinks are "gun nuts". This is just the way it is. It's also why anti gun people lose virtually all the debates on the subject. I have a suggestion - go take some classes, learn to operate some firearms and handle them safely, then come back and discuss them. Oh, by the way, don't lecture me(us) on violence and homicides. I'm liable to start telling you stories about South Africa. Or Mexican border cities. Or any of a number of American ghettos. And you don't want to hear those stories. |
|
|
|
.....
In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights.
It doesn't matter if you are for or against conscription. It does not matter if new military enlistees have a particular viewpoint on gun rights. Obviously if a country could entice young men into fighting with promise of glory and bravery then it would not need a draft. So your response has nothing to do with my point. Here it is again. it is precisely the large governments that historically have sucked young 16-18 year olds into going to war using idealistic and patriotic imagery and propaganda. It is precisely those governments that have caused them to get half their faces blown off.So you're somehow trying to say that because organization G causes the group S to get their faces blown off, that somehow my statement about subculture L seemingly waiting for the day when X happens, might result in some of subculture's members in getting their faces blown off? Let me understand then: you're saying that because something happens, my remark about something unrelated happening holds no value? Interesting. Unfortunately, G, S and L in your hypothetical....are never "unrelated", are they? We KNOW countries start wars, kill large numbers of people, draft or enlist their young men and women, other people oppose this, so forth and so on. You can certainly move to "relax the tensions" as the US and Soviet empires did. But this in itself affirms the relationships. |
|
|
|
.....
In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights.
It doesn't matter if you are for or against conscription. It does not matter if new military enlistees have a particular viewpoint on gun rights. Obviously if a country could entice young men into fighting with promise of glory and bravery then it would not need a draft. Your response has nothing to do with my point. Here it is again. it is precisely the large governments that historically have sucked young 16-18 year olds into going to war using idealistic and patriotic imagery and propaganda. It is precisely those governments that have caused them to get half their faces blown off.Please address the question I posed a few posts back:
FirstAscent might counter my examples of the girl, and the homeowner, and my personal experience with arguments A, B, and C - things like the kid accidentally shot, more guns in criminal hands, whatever. But this presumes that he thinks his argument of A, B, and C trumps the individual decisions made by me, by the girl, and by the homeowner. They have already likely considered A, B, C, etc in their decision process.
Why is his decision (or that of any politician or Authoritarian Progressive Controller) superior? |
|
|
|
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves". And where does that leave them, in the end? Free? Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism. How tiring. Are you sixteen, and carrying the torch of rebellion because you want a cause as bad as you want to lose your virginity? That's how you sound, honestly. You have no interest in an improved society. You just want to cry out how wronged you feel, as you bask in amenities realized by your government while others have less. And yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off. Ew. This digression into your fantasies of the sexual desires of your imagined 16yr old is very much out of place, especially with you ending your fantasy in such a bloody way. Seek therapy. Or Self reflection. Consider that you are looking to influence a foreign group that disagree with your version of the ideal homogeneous authoritarian submission. You picked this fight, no one is trying to convince you to change, so long as you can contain your personal perversity to the consenting. I picked this fight? How strange. I didn't create this thread. Someone else did, and I merely presented my position. My recent words are a reaction to your most recent visceral post, commenting of reekings and getting up in arms as if discussing stats from various cultures in comparison to the U.S. is akin to war. You do indeed sound like I described you precisely because of the words you're using. One more comment for FirstAscent. You said... Are you sixteen, and carrying the torch of rebellion because you want a cause..... yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off.I would like to humbly point out (not trying to foment more of a flame war here) that it is precisely the large governments that historically have sucked young 16-18 year olds into going to war using idealistic and patriotic imagery and propaganda. It is precisely those governments that have caused them to get half their faces blown off. The same type of governments that "know best", right? That have implemented progressive propaganda campaigns to create a "better society". Little problem there, LOL... |
|
|
|
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves". And where does that leave them, in the end? Free? Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism. How tiring. Are you sixteen, and carrying the torch of rebellion because you want a cause as bad as you want to lose your virginity? That's how you sound, honestly. You have no interest in an improved society. You just want to cry out how wronged you feel, as you bask in amenities realized by your government while others have less. And yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off. Ew. This digression into your fantasies of the sexual desires of your imagined 16yr old is very much out of place, especially with you ending your fantasy in such a bloody way. Seek therapy. Or Self reflection. Consider that you are looking to influence a foreign group that disagree with your version of the ideal homogeneous authoritarian submission. You picked this fight, no one is trying to convince you to change, so long as you can contain your personal perversity to the consenting. I'm still waiting for FirstAscent to comment on my gun-carrying experiences.
....wannabe Authoritarian Controller perversions of the Liberal Progressive Type....
For three periods of two or three years each I pretty routinely (and legally) carried a gun. It had to do with work and handling/carrying fair amounts of money. When a reasonable need to carry ceased, I stopped it. They are heavy and bulky. Basically I'd like to know why he thinks his ideas should be superimposed on ... me .... This kind of talk... And yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off.Is really, really weird. There's nobody in that category that I know or have met. Anyway, what "rebels?" Take a concrete example. A girl gets raped, then she takes a concealed carry class and begins carrying a Glock. Does she crave a fight? Hell no. Does a homeowner who has a weapon for home protection hope some bad guys break down his front door at 3 am? I think not. FirstAscent might counter my examples of the girl, and the homeowner, and my personal experience with arguments A, B, and C - things like the kid accidentally shot, more guns in criminal hands, whatever. But this presumes that he thinks his argument of A, B, and C trumps the individual decisions made by me, by the girl, and by the homeowner. They have already likely considered A, B, C, etc in their decision process. Why is his decision (or that of any politician or Authoritarian Progressive Controller) superior? |
|
|
|
Have you noticed the truecrypt hasn't been updated in over 1 1/2 yrs? diskcryptor hasn't either.
But it's got a long history of only being updated once a year or so. |
|
|
|
Es muy sencillo, el mercado es oferta y demanda y donde mas hay de ambas es en USD con lo cual pasa a ser la referencia.
P.D.: Aplica lo mismo con los mercados y Mtgox.
No es importante que USD or otro. |
|
|
|
Classic examples are the Oregon Petition and all the rot that originates from the Libertarian think tanks such as the Heartland Institute - all funded by the oil companies. And of course, Frederick Seitz, and his crap, paid for by RJ Reynolds regarding cancer and tobacco, and then conveniently, he signed up with the oil companies to spew his nonsense about denying global warming. ad hominem much ? what's next? some good ole fashioned emotional and feigned indignation? I think he denied that humans affect global warming... maybe I am wrong, but you are not important enough for me to spend the time to type it in the google. I think he's likely ranting about Singer, who argues in a book about an approximate 1500 year climate cycle. Singer and some others of his style argued not against humans affecting the climate, but for a lower 'climate sensitivity' than the hyper alarmists claimed was the case. Seems they are being vindicated as the Fifth report becomes available. |
|
|
|
^^^^^ That, Rampion, is my point and understanding of the matter entirely, which I completely agree with.
Note the statement Rampion made: "Nobody in Switzerland wishes to carry a gun..." It would help if people in the U.S. stopped wishing to carry guns... Meaning the US should focus on making people stop wishing they could carry guns, instead of trying to forcefully prevent them from doing so. All that does is create distractions, especially in a time when anyone can 3D print guns at home. More wannabe Authoritarian Controller perversions of the Liberal Progressive Type. For three periods of two or three years each I pretty routinely (and legally) carried a gun. It had to do with work and handling/carrying fair amounts of money. When a reasonable need to carry ceased, I stopped it. They are heavy and bulky. Sorry but I can't relate this kind of real world experience with your fantasies. "Wishing they could carry". Has it occurred to you there may be REASONS? |
|
|
|
I was hinting at the Patriots Act, Protect America Act and what have you not by now, stripping the American populace of basic rights.
But Kluge raises an important point, where were the protests when all that shit went down?
Although i dont agree wit the protecting hegemony part, i still believe that the government has by now the ultimate power to subvert and manipulate its armed populace to the point, where 99% dont even notice it(and no shit are backing it).
Unfortunately thats true for most western countries too, but at least check and balance works to a great extend.
If nothing else, the government is good at fear mongering. M The most subversive and revolutionary action would of course, be to promote Bitcoin. Where we seem to be headed, the US dollar will be worthless. Soldiers don't work or fight if they don't get actually paid. |
|
|
|
Thanks Dunois, I had missed that article. But it doesn't have much in the way of concrete prediction, of course.
I personally don't see how the banking industry will survive, or even adapt quickly enough to crypto into to transform into something profitable. Since governments depend on the banking industry for their functioning, I think many will topple, or shrink dramatically. I'm talking about the currency revolution causing social revolutions.
Does anyone else see this coming?
First, governments have almost always survived currency collapses and banking collapses of various sorts. You have to think out a bit about what "Survive" and "collapse" and even what "function" might mean. Governments have survived as the paper money they paid civil servants become worthless. It is indeed a good question to ask how this might happen - those civil servants who cannot supplement their now-worthless salary through bribes or corrupting, do they still go to the job? Does the government somehow make it worth their while to go to work? Bitcoin does an end run around the banking infrastructure, yes. But it will not put banks out of business. It would simply lower their transaction count. Possibly not even that, because in many cases new technology engenders new modes and styles of commerce, causing total transaction volume to increase and economic growth to occur. Thus it is NOT A STRETCH TO argue that bitcoin and similar products, along with other key fundamental changes, may be what prevents economic collapse. By other key fundamentals, I mean such as the move of the US to an energy economy with net positive inflow of funds as the fracking operations ramp up and make the US energy independent. In historical cases where currency change occurred because the government currency was becoming worthless one mark of the end of the crisis was the government accepting the alternative currency for payments and/or paying some of it's critical employees with the 'new sound money'. Thus rather than that being the problem that causes the crisis, that is a mark of the solution and working through of the crisis. |
|
|
|
crumbs do you have a moral code that you live by? are there things that you think are immoral?
I think so. "Moral" is not the first word that pops up in my head -- more like "wrong" or "bad" or "eww." "Moral" is just makes me think prim/preachy/uptight church ladies. I don't think i ever used it IRL other than in conversations like this one. Your post got lost in all of the wall-o-text posts  understood. my moral code stems solely from my own intuition as well though i dont have any qualms about calling it morality. when someone says wrong in a context like this i just assume it to mean immoral so it works, i just prefer morality because its more specific. wrong tends to deal more with the objective, like does two plus two equal three. where as moral and immoral deals explicitly in the realm of subjectivity. Intuition only goes so far. Intuition plus ignorance on a subject is a dangerous combination. I tend to follow the rule that if a politician says he wants to take my money for some environmental issues, he's a fucking liar. And if some anonymous person on the Internet tries to lecture me about environmental morality, he's a fucking idiot. Now, is that intuition? I guess I have no idea if it is or not. |
|
|
|
It's a fact that armed Americans saved your smug little realm in two World Wars, so don't whine about your NATO obligations. Why display such a staggering lack of gratitude?
American guns did a fine job of repelling the British King George.
American guns also prevented catastrophic invasion, in our own darkest hour.
Ok, you are still bathing in the accomplishments 70 years ago. But what has your government done since than besides bombing countlees countries back to the stone age, installing puppet governments and overthrowing counties for their sole purpose? I am not sure of how this could possibly relate to a discussion of private ownership of firearms. Either we might need them, to restrain a government which gets out of control, or we don't need them because the All Wise and Powerful King knows best? I do know for a fact that in certain rare and unfortunate occasions having quick access to a firearm means the difference between... |
|
|
|
....an idiotic racist bigot, and arguing with you might even be counterproductive since you're the kind of close-minded fool who'll simply interpret everything which is said to mean you are more right. I should have known after the completely out of place Hitler reference.
I'd usually say goodbye, but in your case I'll say Fuck Off.
lol.....It's always telling when people resort to name calling. So far let's see from the authoritarian gun control liberal freaks we've got a growing collection.... - NRAcrackers
- pics of kids holding AR15s....ALWAYS WHITE
- idiotic racist bigot
Must mean something but I can't think of what. Oh well. Me? I'm PRO CHOICE. Pro choice to buy and carry your gun, or not. Except for science.  I don't know about Original Sin, but someone did a pretty good job of Original Science. LOL... |
|
|
|
Yeesh - first on the agenda in the new forums: decent polling code. Jaw opened when I saw how few read her books (like her or not) before realizing the results are borked. I spent most of my last two years in high school reading her books and writing reports for independent classes. Fountainhead's required in many US AP classes. Came to like her less the more I read. I don't think she ever topped We The Living (was the third book I read, after the major two). Everything else bored me and was dragged out many times more than needed.
Bitcoin's just a tool. It enables many things, including liberties which weren't easily-obtainable before, but it can also be a tool for what Rand would consider as evil. I don't consider Bitcoin being ideological, so I don't think it could be compared to Rand's ideas, books, or personality in any way. Though... if practical results (right now, and since the beginning of Bitcoin) could be associated to any particular person's ideology, it'd have to be Spooner.
I would agree, We the Living was the best book (the Italian movie, so so...) Fountainhead has a complex plot, and AS is more a philosophical study superimposed on stereotyped characters. I do like the two Atlas Shrugged movies, and expect the third and final one to be equally good. They are not perfect, but are entertaining as any future dystopian movie might be. Is Bitcoin just a tool? I think you may be wrong there. Rand greatly favored gold and silver over paper money, and spoke about this at some length. Gold and silver were property to her, and paper money was not, it's use just being sanctioned by the government that owned it. I can't help but think that she would have considered bitcoin as property, and treated it perhaps equally with gold and silver for that reason. Another aspect would have been that Bitcoin was the creation of a money by free individuals, and she would have really, really liked that. Well, that's just my opinion. But I think that spending an hour or two looking up her exact words would support that opinion. |
|
|
|
Ignorance breeds accidents.
You gotta love em NRA crackers. No, the picture showing incorrect and dangerous handling of weapons was made by an American anti gun lobby group. If it's the NRA crackers that have to point out what safe and unsafe handling is, then, yeah, you gotta love them. |
|
|
|
I guess in the USA, instead of cars, everyone should be driving an M1A since the US Army has such MBTs? Also everyone need a Minuteman?
M1A is so totally cool. But man... Think of the cost of the gas for that toy.... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
