|
I neglected to mention that I also saw The Devil's Backbone by Guillermo Del Toro and Cruel Story of Youth by Nagisa Oshima. And I've now seen Floating Clouds by Mikio Naruse. It will be at least a week before I can get to The Man Without a Map by Hiroshi Teshigahara. Next up is Odd Obsession by Kon Ichikawa.
|
|
|
|
So recently I have watched: The Petrified Forest - Masahiro Shinoda With Beauty and Sorrow - Masahiro Shinoda Immortal Love - Keisuke Kinoshita A Hen in the Wind - Yasujiro Ozu Flowing - Mikio Naruse The Life of Oharu - Kenji Mizoguchi I'll be watching Naruse's famous film Floating Clouds this evening. I hope to be watching The Man Without a Map soon. I love the music in the trailer, and it looks like such a visually beautiful film, as well as sensual. It would largely be considered Hiroshi Teshigahara's fourth masterpiece. See trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4-bAnKoZgo |
|
|
|
3. use any object not belonging to others and make it his property;
Really? You mean like wolves, riparian zones, water, old growth forests, and such? As I've said, these fantasy documents and their authors remain woefully ignorant of such concepts as ecosystem services, ecology, and such. As soon as you guys come up with something written by someone who actually knows stuff, I'd be interested to read it. |
|
|
|
|
If they can strike, more power to them. Maybe it will weed out the fast food restaurants that aren't popular due to crummy food. In-n-Out pays well above minimum wage to start, and they do quite well, because they offer a superior product.
Maybe you shouldn't be bitching about what other workers seek in the world, but instead about the idea that any business should succeed, even if they produce a lousy product.
And don't pull the line about how it's going to make lunch prices go up. In-n-Out offers a soda, a delicious cheeseburger and delicious fries (all from fresh ingredients trucked to the store daily) for about $5.00.
It's not the workers' fault here. It's businesses which choose not to streamline their process and offer a superior product and service that are at fault.
Essentially, it sounds like you're advocating a sloppy and lazy business plan. Quit your whining, enjoy your job, and instead of complaining about workers seek in this world, why don't you go enjoy a nice lunch somewhere?
|
|
|
|
....
I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well.
What other types of centralized Federal new laws and power do you advocate? So far it's pretty clear that (unlike the OP) it's not "assault weapons", it's all guns. Let's hear the whole platform. What else would improve society and reconstruct it more to your liking? Do you not recall your own recent comments? I see no need to explain it all again. I guess you've got some reading to do. I'll quote your recent comments for reference below: The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.
Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.
I've read and fully understood your statist, totalitarian rants. No, I am asking what stands you'd like to see outside of the matter of firearms. From the federal level. Carbon controls? If so, how? Tracking of individuals 24/7? That could be used to deduce almost all crime. But what would you control at the federal level? What would you do with Exxon? With shale oil? What kinds of vehicles should we drive? How about a mandate on max carbon emissions per human? How about birth control? Max of one child? You name it. We're discussing guns. I have some threads on the environment, if you want to wade into that territory, go find them. No problem, I was just curious. Generally, liberal controller personality types do not want to just control one item or one type of behavior. Often, it doesn't seem to matter what they control - as long as it's something. I suspect that you're one of those types who uses political ideologies to decide what you believe about scientific findings. Personally, I use scientific findings to motivate my political ideologies. |
|
|
|
....
I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well.
What other types of centralized Federal new laws and power do you advocate? So far it's pretty clear that (unlike the OP) it's not "assault weapons", it's all guns. Let's hear the whole platform. What else would improve society and reconstruct it more to your liking? Do you not recall your own recent comments? I see no need to explain it all again. I guess you've got some reading to do. I'll quote your recent comments for reference below: The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.
Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.
I've read and fully understood your statist, totalitarian rants. No, I am asking what stands you'd like to see outside of the matter of firearms. From the federal level. Carbon controls? If so, how? Tracking of individuals 24/7? That could be used to deduce almost all crime. But what would you control at the federal level? What would you do with Exxon? With shale oil? What kinds of vehicles should we drive? How about a mandate on max carbon emissions per human? How about birth control? Max of one child? You name it. We're discussing guns. I have some threads on the environment, if you want to wade into that territory, go find them. |
|
|
|
Spoken like a true gun lovin', libertarian government hating, conspiracy believing, complete ant-tax, aspiring AnCapper.
As for the answer to your question, I'd say yes. In fact, I'd say that there are no liberals here who adore central power or enslaving people.
Oh, you have some way of controlling guns that doesn't involve central power?I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well. I'll take that as a no then. I asked you three questions. Please forgive there not being a question mark on the third. Well, personally, I think shooting criminals and taking away their guns is the only way to keep guns out of criminals' hands, since, you know, they're criminals who won't care about licensing or laws... But if you think laws and licensing works... Please be sincere and answer the questions. Shall I accept this as what you think should be done? Also, please note that I asked three questions. By the way, you should check out how awesomely well the US's war on drugs has gone. I mean, those things are totally banned, and now there are no drugs in US at all!
Please open up a thread on drugs if you wish to discuss drugs. |
|
|
|
Spoken like a true gun lovin', libertarian government hating, conspiracy believing, complete ant-tax, aspiring AnCapper.
As for the answer to your question, I'd say yes. In fact, I'd say that there are no liberals here who adore central power or enslaving people.
Oh, you have some way of controlling guns that doesn't involve central power?I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well. I'll take that as a no then. I asked you three questions. Please forgive there not being a question mark on the third. |
|
|
|
....
I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well.
What other types of centralized Federal new laws and power do you advocate? So far it's pretty clear that (unlike the OP) it's not "assault weapons", it's all guns. Let's hear the whole platform. What else would improve society and reconstruct it more to your liking? Do you not recall your own recent comments? I see no need to explain it all again. I guess you've got some reading to do. I'll quote your recent comments for reference below: The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.
Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.
I've read and fully understood your statist, totalitarian rants. |
|
|
|
Spoken like a true gun lovin', libertarian government hating, conspiracy believing, complete ant-tax, aspiring AnCapper.
As for the answer to your question, I'd say yes. In fact, I'd say that there are no liberals here who adore central power or enslaving people.
Oh, you have some way of controlling guns that doesn't involve central power? I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well. |
|
|
|
Wow really, you responded to a comment that explained why it doesn't make any sense to respond to my comments...
The worst part is you will almost certainly respond to this one also.
/sigh
well thanks for the free bumps anyway
You fail to understand that you are not on my ignore list. Now if you want to shut up regarding how you derailed your own thread, and get back on topic, that's your choice. You will note that my first post was on topic, even if it didn't pussy foot around your idea. If you wish to discuss the merits of spherical housing, as you should, get on it. Furthermore, fuckface, you solicited an opinion about spherical housing, and I gave you one. |
|
|
|
I've told you so many times that you are blocked firstassent. i dont understand how you can be so slow. what ever you wrote im not reading it. i dont value your input. you are rude and intellectually dishonest. go poison someone else's thread.
First of all, I'm speaking to others besides yourself. Secondly, my attitude towards you is partially due to your: 1. Attitude, as evident by your bragging that you have me blocked. 2. Your stupidity, as evident by your post. 3. Your deliberate misspelling of my user name. But most importantly, I have an opinion about spherical residences, some knowledge and appreciation of architecture, and I'll damn well express my opinion here, regardless of whether you're an ignoramus or not. You have just made things worse for yourself, not better. Some advice: if I'm on your ignore list, then ignore me. |
|
|
|
Are there any gun rights advocates here who haven't bought into the whole libertarian government hating, conspiracy believing, complete ant-tax, AnCap movement? It would lend more credibility to their stance.
Using that logic... Are there any liberalists here who don't adore central power, and enslaving people (for their own good of course)? Spoken like a true gun lovin', libertarian government hating, conspiracy believing, complete ant-tax, aspiring AnCapper. As for the answer to your question, I'd say yes. In fact, I'd say that there are no liberals here who adore central power or enslaving people. |
|
|
|
|
Are there any gun rights advocates here who haven't bought into the whole libertarian government hating, conspiracy believing, complete ant-tax, AnCap movement? It would lend more credibility to their stance.
|
|
|
|
|
The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.
Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.
|
|
|
|
And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.
LANGUAGE FAIL!!Not you, the language. Did you mean You advocate deadlier crime? or You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime? There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not? This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification. Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people. Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening. Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances. I would argue that the right to defend yourself is just as, or at least nearly as, important as transportation. And using your logic, wouldn't banning all cars above 50 BHP make sense, as well? You don't need a car that can do 0-120 MPH in under 10 seconds when the maximum speed limit in highways is somewhat 80 MPH. See my above quoted text for your answer. And I do have a right to defend myself. |
|
|
|
Who arms criminals with guns? Why, gun owners and gun sellers, of course. Nobody else.
Thieves arm criminals of course. Assisted by gun owners. Definitely not assisted by those who don't own guns. The Newtown shooter was armed by his mother. The Aurora shooter was armed by gun sellers. The Columbine shooters were armed by gun owners. All criminals who have guns get their guns through a path which originates from gun sellers or gun sellers to gun owners. What's worse, virtually every one of those gun owners who gave up their guns to criminals go out buy more guns. Thus the escalation of guns to 300 million guns in this country, which is the problem. Irresponsibility of gun owners and gun sellers are the reason for the arming of criminals. Criminals are armed in Russia almost as equally well, even though Russia has very strict gun control laws. That would likely be case #1, 2 or 3. 1. Ineffective laws enforced ineffectively puts guns in criminals' hands. 2. Ineffective laws enforced effectively puts guns in criminals' hands. 3. Effective laws enforced ineffectively puts guns in criminals' hands. 4. Effective laws enforced effectively keep guns out of criminals' hands. This is an old tired, argument. "It's not the system that is wrong, its just how it's applied". The system is as good as the results it produces in practice. And so far, from what I've seen, gun control doesn't prevent criminals from arming themselves, regardless of how good in theory it's supposed to work. The system is awful. Hardly an old tired argument. |
|
|
|
And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.
LANGUAGE FAIL!!Not you, the language. Did you mean You advocate deadlier crime? or You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime? There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not? This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification. Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people. Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening. Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances. Here come the insults!!! Getting desperate? You don't seem to accept that the gun is so integral to people's everyday lives as well? Guns are useful. Get over it. There really were no insults there that weren't warranted. Just an analytical description of some arguments. And if guns were so useful, I'd have one, or at least know more than a tiny fraction of people that do. Funny how everyone I know has a car though. |
|
|
|
And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.
LANGUAGE FAIL!!Not you, the language. Did you mean You advocate deadlier crime? or You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime? There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not? This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification. Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people. Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening. Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
