So, where do y'all live?
I'm SMACK! dab in the middle of old folk country, the Sunshine State, Florida.
Soon-to-be1 either Maryland or Pennsylvania, depending on which location they2 want me at.
________
1Hopefully.
2Prospective new employers for when I graduate.
Soon-to-be1 either Maryland or Pennsylvania, depending on which location they2 want me at.
________
1Hopefully.
2Prospective new employers for when I graduate.
If you end up close to the 'Burgh, let me know and we'll have a few beers!
________
1When they were first talking about it I forgot to write down the name of the location, other then it was the "rural"2 location, a little bit into Pennsylvania, and a vague notion of where in Pennsylvania it is.
2Compared to the Maryland location. "Rural" Pennsylvania is still pretty urban compared to where I'm living now.
I think1 the Pennsylvania location is on the other side of the Appalachians, but once you're out there in that area it's all just a day-trip away.
________
1When they were first talking about it I forgot to write down the name of the location, other then it was the "rural"2 location, a little bit into Pennsylvania, and a vague notion of where in Pennsylvania it is.
2Compared to the Maryland location. "Rural" Pennsylvania is still pretty urban compared to where I'm living now.
Well, when you find out what is going to go on, let us know, and I'll PM you my number. Call me after you get settled and we'll go grab some drinks and/or dinner or sumthin...
Less than an hour's drive from Boston, MA. Unfortunately, I'm also sitting on top of the RI border. I'm not fond of RI.
Lol - which one of the three people in RI pissed you off?
I'm actually kind of fond of RI - it's where my old Rocky Horror cast is located...
I live in CT myself.
Less than an hour's drive from Boston, MA. Unfortunately, I'm also sitting on top of the RI border. I'm not fond of RI.
Lol - which one of the three people in RI pissed you off?
The one that drives the dinged up car... Oh, wait, that's all of them.
Yeah, RI drivers are almost as bad as MA drivers...
Currently Warsaw.
Hey ADH, I am curious. What is the deal with the giant Jesus in Poland?
I honestly have no idea. The first time I've heard about that was when on a news-light radio they mentioned there were problems with finding big enough crane for it. Mass media ignore that one, they're more interested in politics and polititians or tragic accidents.
Maybe if the statue falls down killing dozens polititians it will get some coverage.
I was curious to know who gave the funded to built the thing and who gave the ok for it. Am I guessing not a politician.
If it was a polititian it would everywhere, with pilgrimages and protests and everything. Elections are nearing.
EDIT. Checked up on it. It doesn't look as impressive as the Brazilian one due to not standing on top of a mountain. And why does it have a crown? It looks and feels awkward. Not to mention kitschy.
Also, people on the internet are commenting with quotes from an old comedy about building a giant teddy bear statue, "a bear of our best abilities"
Yeah, RI drivers are almost as bad as MA drivers...
Well you can't really blame 'em. I mean, it's not like they have much room to drive in...
I do not get the joke.
To get the joke you'd need to watch the said comedy. To find it funny you need to either have experience living in a communist or post-communist country.
It was one of those "getting crap past the radar" comedies, where "crap" means "satire and criticism at the absurdities of communist government". Some parts are still actual though
The crown is there because he his the king of kings (I guess), but it doesn't fit Jesus the humble carpenter we all love. It does look kitchy. Like something an old lady would have bought from a street vendor in her last trip to Mexico.
Exactly. It is supposed to be "Statute of Christ the King", but seriously.
But the reason I asked is because this whole deal smell of a criminal organisation trying to launder money.
It was inspired by a priest after a bishop gave a blessing of "putting Swiebodzin1 under Christ the King's protection" during his enthronement. Take that as you will.
1 The statue's location.
Yeah, RI drivers are almost as bad as MA drivers...
Them's fightin' words.
An hours drive from Mickey World.
Jacksonville, Florida about 10 mins away from the beach
Ah, fellow Floridians. Though I'm only likely to bump into one of you...
Yeah, RI drivers are almost as bad as MA drivers...
Them's fightin' words.
Well, if the driving ability of the average MA person is any indication of the general state of physical coordination up there, I ain't worried...
An hours drive from Mickey World.Jacksonville, Florida about 10 mins away from the beach
Ah, fellow Floridians. Though I'm only likely to bump into one of you...
its not me is it?
An hours drive from Mickey World.
I was just there a couple weeks ago.
An hours drive from Mickey World.
I was just there a couple weeks ago.
And you didn't visit? It's almost like you don't love me.
My cousin, Bridgette, and her husband.
She's a cousin by marriage, not by blood.
We went to her senior prom together... after she called long distance and asked me.
We went to Woodstock '94 together.
We were very close.
*sigh*
Confusing Over-Share Derail, anyone?
It's okay.
It's trying to snow, but it's not quite cold enough.
Outside of Boise, ID. It's getting below freezing now at night, and soon will be freezing or near freezing during the day.
It's trying to snow, but it's not quite cold enough.
As Wizards would say, soon friend, soon.
Montréal got it's first snow a week ago or so. It's trying slowly too here.
I hear lot's of Florida en bermudas, ...enjoy brothers enjoy.
lmao me and TA should hang out :p
I would "hang out" with a lot of people on here, even the ones I battle with on a regular basis.
Lets see...
I would especially like to have beers with Z_B, EE, Escef, and TA...
And I would also sit down with Erato and goldo... if you can believe that... and I'm sure some of you won't...
And I would also sit down with Erato and goldo... if you can believe that... and I'm sure some of you won't...
I'd give you some local "magic friendship potion" and it would go better than any of you'd expect ;)
And I would also sit down with Erato and goldo... if you can believe that... and I'm sure some of you won't...
I'd give you some local "magic friendship potion" and it would go better than any of you'd expect ;)
jesus juice?
And I would also sit down with Erato and goldo... if you can believe that... and I'm sure some of you won't...
I'd give you some local "magic friendship potion" and it would go better than any of you'd expect ;)
jesus juice?
What do you think I am, 10? I'm legally allowed to drink in the US.
And where I live we don't drink such trival beverages. A proper "potion" must have enough "oomph" ;)
And I would also sit down with Erato and goldo...
Sit down on my face or chest to smother me?
thats was kind of funny
And I would also sit down with Erato and goldo... if you can believe that... and I'm sure some of you won't...
I'd give you some local "magic friendship potion" and it would go better than any of you'd expect ;)
jesus juice?
Blood?
Blood?
Urban Dictionary to the rescue. But you got me laughing.
Blood?
Urban Dictionary to the rescue. But you got me laughing.
rootin tootin jamaican rasberry smoothie? alaskan pipeline? space docking fondue party? cleveland steamer? power glove? donkey punch?
It pisses off those who believe...
So does Islam bashing, but that didn't seem to stop you yesterday
Touche'.
;)
I'll try to refrain from bashing it, then. The blood thing was just a joke anyway
Glad to see you're admitting it
I'll try to refrain from bashing it, then. The blood thing was just a joke anyway
I've always admitted when I'm in the wrong. I have absolutely no problem doing that.
The hard part is convincing me that I am wrong...
urban dictionary>alabama hotpocket 
Blood?
Urban Dictionary to the rescue. But you got me laughing.
rootin tootin jamaican rasberry smoothie? alaskan pipeline? space docking fondue party? cleveland steamer? power glove? donkey punch?
Man, are American nicknames for cheap booze uninspired (I like "power glove" though).
Too bad the ones I'm used to are mostly untranslatable and/or inappropriate in polite company ;)
Blood?
Urban Dictionary to the rescue. But you got me laughing.
rootin tootin jamaican rasberry smoothie? alaskan pipeline? space docking fondue party? cleveland steamer? power glove? donkey punch?
Man, are American nicknames for cheap booze uninspired (I like "power glove" though).
Too bad the ones I'm used to are mostly untranslatable and/or inappropriate in polite company ;)
no those were all sex acts adh
An hours drive from Mickey World.
I was just there a couple weeks ago.
And you didn't visit? It's almost like you don't love me.
If I'd known then where you were I'd have happily got together for a pint. Then you could've come back here and said "Hey, you know what guys? Boarxe really isn't the jerk he seems like online." ;)
no those were all sex acts adh
Aw, hell naw! The "smoothie" thing sounded ideally for a cheap booze nickname. Now I don't really want to know what that is.
I mean it.
I reside in New Jersey.
From various driving, I'd have to say CT drivers are pretty nice (not sure if they're actually good). They seem to be the only drivers who get out of the left lane and let you pass. New York drivers are pretty awful since they're slow, stupid, pushy, and pretty much bad in all ways. I also have good memories of driving down South, but that's probably just due to there not being lots of people on the roads.
And even though there are people on this board who are pretty cool, I'll probably never try to meet anyone since I dislike meeting new people. It always seems so stressful!
no those were all sex acts adh
Aw, hell naw! The "smoothie" thing sounded ideally for a cheap booze nickname. Now I don't really want to know what that is.
I mean it.
are you sure? Its pretty gruesome.
An hours drive from Mickey World.
I was just there a couple weeks ago.
And you didn't visit? It's almost like you don't love me.
If I'd known then where you were I'd have happily got together for a pint. Then you could've come back here and said "Hey, you know what guys? Boarxe really isn't the jerk he seems like online." ;)
hey I wanna hang out too! I think i'm too young
but wait...do you get drug tested at work?
Heh...
We can get tested where I work, but if we do, it is a requirement for a particular project. And an e-mail is usually sent around saying that "such and such project requires drug testing. If you are unable to work this project let us know, just don't tell us why you can't work it"...
Needless to say, I don't work on those projects...
Heh...
We can get tested where I work, but if we do, it is a requirement for a particular project. And an e-mail is usually sent around saying that "such and such project requires drug testing. If you are unable to work this project let us know, just don't tell us why you can't work it"...
Needless to say, I don't work on those projects...
then yess lol i can't drink with you guys but i've got some new...B()ngs that i'm dying to break in, you guys in?
Heh...
We can get tested where I work, but if we do, it is a requirement for a particular project. And an e-mail is usually sent around saying that "such and such project requires drug testing. If you are unable to work this project let us know, just don't tell us why you can't work it"...
Needless to say, I don't work on those projects...
then yess lol i can't drink with you guys but i've got some new...B()ngs that i'm dying to break in, you guys in?
You bet!
And I heard Canada has good.... um.... you know...
then yess lol i can't drink with you guys but i've got some new...B()ngs that i'm dying to break in, you guys in?
I know I have no say in this due to Atlantic Ocean, but I wouldn't let you bring those in.
I may like percents in my drinks, but I still have principles.
Glad to see you're admitting it
I'll try to refrain from bashing it, then. The blood thing was just a joke anyway
I've always admitted when I'm in the wrong. I have absolutely no problem doing that.
The hard part is convincing me that I am wrong...
There's not a lot of discussions on this here forum that contain a right/wrong, just different ways to look at things. But it's always funny to say you are right and someone else is wrong because it pisses them off
Heh...
We can get tested where I work, but if we do, it is a requirement for a particular project. And an e-mail is usually sent around saying that "such and such project requires drug testing. If you are unable to work this project let us know, just don't tell us why you can't work it"...
Needless to say, I don't work on those projects...
then yess lol i can't drink with you guys but i've got some new...B()ngs that i'm dying to break in, you guys in?
You bet!
And I heard Canada has good.... um.... you know...
mhm thats where I get mine
I have a friend there and whenever he travels here he brings it with him ))))) the best you wouldn't believe robin! and the b()ngs; one shaped like a lightening bolt, one with a pistol grip, I have a mini one, and one more thats a GB that I made :D
then yess lol i can't drink with you guys but i've got some new...B()ngs that i'm dying to break in, you guys in?
I know I have no say in this due to Atlantic Ocean, but I wouldn't let you bring those in.
I may like percents in my drinks, but I still have principles.
Its not even that illegal adh :O
urban dictionary>alabama hotpocket
Ugh! I just looked that up.
I did NOT need to know that.
(heads back to bed)
urban dictionary>alabama hotpocket
Ugh! I just looked that up.
I did NOT need to know that.
(heads back to bed)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!111!!!!!111
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!11!!!!!1!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA1!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Its not even that illegal adh :O
So it's only "a little" illegal?
And it's not because of laws I don't do drugs; smoking is legal and I don't smoke either.
Hell, if I didn't like me some booze from time to time, I'd probably go straight-edge.
I'd tell you to grow up, but that would be immature of me. And you're going to do that anyway eventually ;)
I'd tell you to grow up, but that would be immature of me. And you're going to do that anyway eventually ;)
What does "growing up" have to do with it?
You like alcohol, some people like cannabis.
*shrug*
I'd tell you to grow up, but that would be immature of me. And you're going to do that anyway eventually ;)
What does "growing up" have to do with it?
You like alcohol, some people like cannabis.
*shrug*
Yup, we call 'em "Dutch" ;)
I won't ask Jesse for his age, but I get the impression he's a minor, considering what he finds funny, his language, his disregard for grammar (my pet peeve here) and the way he identifies himself with a popular label. I'd say it's pretty immature to let minors smoke weed, legalised or not (even Dutch aknowledge that).
There's an age limit for tobacco and alcohol, why shouldn't weed have one?
then yess lol i can't drink with you guys but i've got some new...B()ngs that i'm dying to break in, you guys in?
No thanks, it just makes me really edgy and paranoid. If I want to feel that I'll just go to work.
I'd say it's pretty immature to let minors smoke weed, legalised or not (even Dutch aknowledge that).
18 and older, I think it is. Not that anyone sticks to it, probably. Just like with alcohol and cigarettes.
I would especially like to have beers with Z_B, EE, Escef, and TA...
Beer?! Bah! Fermented pig swill! Gimme a call when you take the training wheels off. I'll take some Old Number Seven. If it doesn't taste like turpentine you're doing it wrong.
Then again, it's not like I've sworn the stuff off. Heh. I do prefer the Gentleman or Single Barrel variety, though. Not bad.
I'd say it's pretty immature to let minors smoke weed, legalised or not (even Dutch aknowledge that).
18 and older, I think it is. Not that anyone sticks to it, probably. Just like with alcohol and cigarettes.
Same in Poland, except for weed
And I'm pretty sure J2Coins is younger than that.Escef: that's more like it, though I'd like you to try something from around here... especially stuff that cannot be bought anywhere ;)
I live between Cleveland and Akron in Ohio. Yep. Closer to Akron now but whatever. Nobody ever visits here cuz it sucks. I mean, I like it an' all but there's no way in hell I'd vacation here. Heh. Oh, and the worst drivers that I've ever encountered were in Richmond VA. Buncha morons there. Though lately Ohio drivers have been getting worse and worse. They either drive 10 mph under the speed limit or pick one speed and drive it regardless of what the limit is. So, they'll be driving like granny doin 45 in a 55 and then a few miles later will be drivin' like a maniac doin' that same 45 in a 25. And they won't even notice. Stupid jackholes makin' Ohio drivers look bad.
I see Ohio drivers often here in the 'Burgh, and I have to agree.
Ohio drivers suck ass.
They act as though they have never driven before.
Sometimes I come really close to them as I pass them in the slow lane... because they aren't going fast enough and are too stoopid to move over.
Grrrrrr......
Ever seen "Fargo"? Yeah, its like that. lol
In my experience, Jack Daniels is what you drink before you learn how to drink.
Yeah, it's kinda the Salvadore Dali of booze.
In my experience, Jack Daniels is what you drink before you learn how to drink.
Yeah, it's kinda the Salvadore Dali of booze.
What?
Seconded, whaa?
Ohio drivers suck ass.
They act as though they have never driven before.
Sometimes I come really close to them as I pass them in the slow lane... because they aren't going fast enough and are too stoopid to move over.
Grrrrrr......
I got a ticket for tailgating in Ohio a few years back. I was on I-90 coming back from GenCon. Two-lane highway. Guy in the right lane was doing 70. Guy right next to him in the left lane was doing 70.001. I used my standard Massachusetts Driving Etiquette. I crawled up his tailpipe and perched there until he got the **** out of the way. Seems the Ohio Staties don't like that. But the state trooper was pretty personable, had no problems with him, he was doing his job. Didn't like the ticket, but I did technically earn it (and more, the statie could've hit me with a lot of fines if he wanted to).
And I would also sit down with Erato and goldo...
Sit down on my face or chest to smother me?
...
I thought you liked that sorta thing.
lmao me and TA should hang out :p
And do what, listen to me chastise you about your blatant lack of respect for and misconceptions about intellectual property law? [Sweet, my torrent is done! Stupid netflix, holding out on me.]
Anyways... is your name Matt or some variation thereof? If it is I will consider it. I only hang out with people named Matt in real life. I've got a collection going.
In my experience, Jack Daniels is what you drink before you learn how to drink.
Where I come from, people start with beer. They experiment with hard liquer if they can steal it from their parents. In their early 20s they go nuts and drink whatever they can get their hands on. Then they settle down with beer.
I have never tasted a beer that didn't make me think I was drinking a rotten bran muffin. And that includes ones I tried while in Germany.
In my experience, Jack Daniels is what you drink before you learn how to drink.
Yeah, it's kinda the Salvadore Dali of booze.
What?
As a mate of mine put it "Salvadore Dali is the favourite aritst of people who know nothing about art".
An hours drive from Mickey World.
I was just there a couple weeks ago.
And you didn't visit? It's almost like you don't love me.
If I'd known then where you were I'd have happily got together for a pint. Then you could've come back here and said "Hey, you know what guys? Boarxe really isn't the jerk he seems like online." ;)
Nah, more likely you would come back here and tell them how I spent half the night glaring at you silently over the shot-glasses and the other half laughing like a loon and trying to hug you.
As a mate of mine put it "Salvadore Dali is the favourite aritst of people who know nothing about art".
Ahahahahah, couldn't agree more :D
"It's so weird and disgusting, but it must be art, because Dali was a genius, right?"
Old nut is probably laughing in his grave.
You have got to explain Picasso to me. Cubism escapes me completly.
Cubism kinda take and object apart in three-dimensions and reassembles it in two, presenting multiple overlapping views of the same figure or object. You know how this is an unfolded view of a die (not coincidentally, a cube), cubism kinda does that with everything but the bits aren't always put back in the normal relationships. It's not everyone's cup of tea aesthetically (I'm not a huge fan, myself) but I appreciate the concept and intent behind it.
but I appreciate the concept and intent behind it.
And what would that be?
but I appreciate the concept and intent behind it.
And what would that be?
What am I, the OTT art history teacher? If you are genuinely interested and want to know more then grab yourself an internet and reasearch away. If you're just trying to get me to reply so you can then deride it, or what I have to say about it, I'm not particulalrly interested in playing along. Either way there's little incentive for me to respond.
but I appreciate the concept and intent behind it.
And what would that be?
What am I, the OTT art history teacher? If you are genuinely interested and want to know more then grab yourself an internet and reasearch away. If you're just trying to get me to reply so you can then deride it, or what I have to say about it, I'm not particulalrly interested in playing along. Either way there's little incentive for me to respond.
But you did respond.
And I asked in all sincerity as I do not know the concept and intent behind it.
But hey! Thanks for reaffirming my unflattering opinion of you.
But you did respond.
And I asked in all sincerity as I do not know the concept and intent behind it.
You know, I was scrolling down to your response and read the bit above. I was pleasanlty surprised and was about to type "Fair enough, mate, glad I was wrong" and post a meaningful response to your question. Then I scrolled down the rest of the way and read…
But hey! Thanks for reaffirming my unflattering opinion of you.
…which made me want to post something different entirely.
I'd tell you to grow up, but that would be immature of me. And you're going to do that anyway eventually ;)
What does "growing up" have to do with it?
You like alcohol, some people like cannabis.
*shrug*
Yup, we call 'em "Dutch" ;)
I won't ask Jesse for his age, but I get the impression he's a minor, considering what he finds funny, his language, his disregard for grammar (my pet peeve here) and the way he identifies himself with a popular label. I'd say it's pretty immature to let minors smoke weed, legalised or not (even Dutch aknowledge that).
There's an age limit for tobacco and alcohol, why shouldn't weed have one?
Jesse is 18. He mentioned it in another thread somewhere. I think the question was asked because of his total disregard for grammar. You are not the only irritated by his grammar apparently.
But you did respond.
And I asked in all sincerity as I do not know the concept and intent behind it.
You know, I was scrolling down to your response and read the bit above. I was pleasanlty surprised and was about to type "Fair enough, mate, glad I was wrong" and post a meaningful response to your question. Then I scrolled down the rest of the way and read…But hey! Thanks for reaffirming my unflattering opinion of you.
…which made me want to post something different entirely.
My bad.
We just got off on the wrong foot.
Cool?
My bad.
We just got off on the wrong foot.
No worries. It happens.
Cool?
am I right?
No.
...
Ok, look, that's not so much a stare as a glare of disdain, can we try it again?
Where I come from, people start with beer. They experiment with hard liquer if they can steal it from their parents. In their early 20s they go nuts and drink whatever they can get their hands on. Then they settle down with beer.
I have never tasted a beer that didn't make me think I was drinking a rotten bran muffin. And that includes ones I tried while in Germany.
Hrm... I didn't start drinking till college, where pretty much if you started drinking in college, you got started on hard liquor1. I've tried different beers (mostly the stuff they make over at a small local place that brews it's own) but I think I prefer either just straight shots or mixed drinks.
________
1True story: at one point my roommates at the time found out that I'd never tried alcohol before. They decided to fix this. So they pulled down some liquor bottles and asked what I wanted to try. I just kinda looked at them blankly and said "You know I'm not 21, right?" So they chose the Bacardi Rum 151. That was a fun night, though I only remember half of it. I think I was four shots in before I tried to stand up from my chair and realized just how drunk I was (lightweight with no drinking experience, remember?)
Jesse is 18. He mentioned it in another thread somewhere.
Yeah, after I said that I thought he was 12.
Quick, bust out the Hoodlum Stare!
...
Ok, look, that's not so much a stare as a glare of disdain, can we try it again?
LOL
No matter how hard I try, I can't honestly dislike you.
You have got to explain Picasso to me. Cubism escapes me completly.
Cubism kinda take and object apart in three-dimensions and reassembles it in two, presenting multiple overlapping views of the same figure or object. You know how this is an unfolded view of a die (not coincidentally, a cube), cubism kinda does that with everything but the bits aren't always put back in the normal relationships. It's not everyone's cup of tea aesthetically (I'm not a huge fan, myself) but I appreciate the concept and intent behind it.
Of course this only explains cubism, not Picasso. There's a lot more to Picasso than cubism.
Jesse is 18. He mentioned it in another thread somewhere.
Yeah, after I said that I thought he was 12.
I thought he was 16, tops.
Of course this only explains cubism, not Picasso. There's a lot more to Picasso than cubism.
I know, but the question suggested cubism was what was troubling him.
I thought he was 16, tops.
Ditto.
Yeah, it's kinda the Salvadore Dali of booze.
Wonderful.
Where I come from, people start with beer. They experiment with hard liquer if they can steal it from their parents. In their early 20s they go nuts and drink whatever they can get their hands on. Then they settle down with beer.
I have never tasted a beer that didn't make me think I was drinking a rotten bran muffin. And that includes ones I tried while in Germany.
I actually started (at age 16 - ok, I was drunk for the first time ever at age 5 but that's a whole different thing and I did take an 11 year break from the stuff ... er, rather from gettin' drunk. still had a taste or two here and there. what can I say? my grandmother was an interesting - and amazing - woman.) with Firewater. Yeah, nasty stuff but I learned to like it - hate it now, though. After that, we started playin' around with whatever other hard booze we could find. As we were young, our mission was simply to get as drunk as possible as quickly as possible so we had no need for filler booze like mixed drinks and beer. As we got older and drank more socially - especially when we started going (legally) to bars, we learned that we needed something to drink that wouldn't knock us on our **** after a half hour of sustained drinking. And there was beer. At first, I was a fan of the cheap crap that most companies try to pass off as beer. Eventually a friend of mine convinced me to try G uinness and I began to love the stuff. From then on, I've only been into drinkin' good beers and good booze. No cheap crap for me cuz I really do taste a difference. Hell, something like Windsor may be palatable, but compared to Jameson's it's utter hog slop. Absolut may be ok but Belvedere? That's vodka. And beer, just don't even bother with anything produced by a major manufacturer. It's just not worth it. And ... umm ... how the ...
Ok, I tend to wander. But yeah, I - and most of my friends - fell off the wagon in a much different way than you mention. I wonder, then, if it's more a matter of falling for what's available rather than a specific type. Interesting.
I'd tell you to grow up, but that would be immature of me. And you're going to do that anyway eventually ;)
What does "growing up" have to do with it?
You like alcohol, some people like cannabis.
*shrug*
Yup, we call 'em "Dutch" ;)
I won't ask Jesse for his age, but I get the impression he's a minor, considering what he finds funny, his language, his disregard for grammar (my pet peeve here) and the way he identifies himself with a popular label. I'd say it's pretty immature to let minors smoke weed, legalised or not (even Dutch aknowledge that).
There's an age limit for tobacco and alcohol, why shouldn't weed have one?
well I am 18 and I appreciate the way you said that so as not to make me feel bad but if anything, I am immature, I don't have the best grammar, but you don't have to read my posts, and besides, pot makes me slow down and actually think about things before I say them (something you might support) but also I have problems sleeping at night, I get very paranoid and twitchy and unless I wanna have a breakdown I smoke a little and it helps
lmao me and TA should hang out :p
And do what, listen to me chastise you about your blatant lack of respect for and misconceptions about intellectual property law? [Sweet, my torrent is done! Stupid netflix, holding out on me.]
Anyways... is your name Matt or some variation thereof? If it is I will consider it. I only hang out with people named Matt in real life. I've got a collection going.
ehh nooo my name is Jesse lmao
You have got to explain Picasso to me. Cubism escapes me completly.
Cubism kinda take and object apart in three-dimensions and reassembles it in two, presenting multiple overlapping views of the same figure or object. You know how this is an unfolded view of a die (not coincidentally, a cube), cubism kinda does that with everything but the bits aren't always put back in the normal relationships. It's not everyone's cup of tea aesthetically (I'm not a huge fan, myself) but I appreciate the concept and intent behind it.
Of course this only explains cubism, not Picasso. There's a lot more to Picasso than cubism.Jesse is 18. He mentioned it in another thread somewhere.
Yeah, after I said that I thought he was 12.
I thought he was 16, tops.
when you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME
well I am 18 and I appreciate the way you said that so as not to make me feel bad but if anything, I am immature, I don't have the best grammar, but you don't have to read my posts, and besides, pot makes me slow down and actually think about things before I say them (something you might support) but also I have problems sleeping at night, I get very paranoid and twitchy and unless I wanna have a breakdown I smoke a little and it helps
It'll be very rude of me to ignore your input in discussions.
Bad grammar is my pet peeve mostly because I'm not a native English speaker - if it's written more correctly, it is easier for me to understand. I am also of opinion that a forum is not a chat - you don't have to respond immediately and you have enough time to check your posts for mistakes. I have spellcheck on at all times :D
I will refrain from commenting on your habits; if it works for you, it's fine by me. But if we ever meet in person, don't do that in my presence; I'm a killjoy like that ;)
well I am 18 and I appreciate the way you said that so as not to make me feel bad but if anything, I am immature, I don't have the best grammar, but you don't have to read my posts, and besides, pot makes me slow down and actually think about things before I say them (something you might support) but also I have problems sleeping at night, I get very paranoid and twitchy and unless I wanna have a breakdown I smoke a little and it helps
It'll be very rude of me to ignore your input in discussions.
Bad grammar is my pet peeve mostly because I'm not a native English speaker - if it's written more correctly, it is easier for me to understand. I am also of opinion that a forum is not a chat - you don't have to respond immediately and you have enough time to check your posts for mistakes. I have spellcheck on at all times :D
I will refrain from commenting on your habits; if it works for you, it's fine by me. But if we ever meet in person, don't do that in my presence; I'm a killjoy like that ;)
ok I'll try my hardest to catch any grammar mistakes for you, and I really appreciate the way you approached this
thanksBut if we ever meet in person, don't do that in my presence; I'm a killjoy like that ;)
Jesse, if we ever meet, feel free to do that... as long as you share!
But if we ever meet in person, don't do that in my presence; I'm a killjoy like that ;)
Jesse, if we ever meet, feel free to do that... as long as you share!
I always share lol you wouldn't even have to throw in man
I have crippy robin, have you tried it?Personally full auto fire is a waste on weapons like the AK-47. It would be more appropriate to have a 3-shot burst available for it. Full auto fire is great for belt-fed weapons (check out the GE mini-gun!), but with magazine-fed weapons, it becomes a very rapid way of depleteing your ammo supply.
As RH might tell goldy, an AK-47 is NOT an assault rifle, unless it capable of fully automatic fire. Such things are completely unavailable in certain parts of the US, but in more reasonable states they are available, albeit with a $200 tax paid on each weapon.
Personally full auto fire is a waste on weapons like the AK-47. It would be more appropriate to have a 3-shot burst available for it. Full auto fire is great for belt-fed weapons (check out the GE mini-gun!), but with magazine-fed weapons, it becomes a very rapid way of depleteing your ammo supply.
I'm noy even sure as to what you are talkind about. I just linked something I found absurd.
There was also a promotion in Israel: buy a TV, get a (live) sheep free!
I don't have any links though.
Why would that be absurd? Buy a truck, get a voucher for $400 at a gun store. You still have to be legally able to use the voucher so there really isn't a problem. It's an odd promotion, sure, but it's hardly absurd.
It still sounds like one of those ONLY IN AMERICA things
Crappy jokes amuse me, so shoot me. :P
In america, you can get a kalishnikov with a new truck. In soviet russia, you can buy an old truck for a kalishnikov!
Crappy jokes amuse me, so shoot me. :P
I would, but I can't afford a truck right now.
Well, you could use the $400 voucher to buy an American rifle of similar style ... if you also plunk down about $250 - $850 more. American guns ain't cheap. Well, at least not AR platform stuff. 'Course you could buy the wonderful Mini-14 (overlooked often for some reason - probably cuz the A Team used 'em and that made 'em look terribly inaccurate ;) ) which isn't all that expensive, is American (Ruger) and can be had in .223 or 7.62x39 - though the latter is actually the Mini-30. Great stuff just not what people think of when they think of guns like the ol' AK.
I have crippy robin, have you tried it?
Alas, no.
I just get "middies" usually...
Well, you could use the $400 voucher to buy an American rifle of similar style ... if you also plunk down about $250 - $850 more. American guns ain't cheap. Well, at least not AR platform stuff. 'Course you could buy the wonderful Mini-14 (overlooked often for some reason - probably cuz the A Team used 'em and that made 'em look terribly inaccurate ;)
The mini-14 is actually a pretty good weapon.
And they can be modified to look really badass!
Well, you could use the $400 voucher to buy an American rifle of similar style ... if you also plunk down about $250 - $850 more. American guns ain't cheap. Well, at least not AR platform stuff. 'Course you could buy the wonderful Mini-14 (overlooked often for some reason - probably cuz the A Team used 'em and that made 'em look terribly inaccurate ;)
To me all guns look the same. Guess I'm a gunnist or antigunnite.
The proper term is hoplophope, one who has an irrational fear of weapons.
... why yes, I did just make an on-topic post.
... why yes, I did just make an on-topic post.
...
How?
Why?
What?
when you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME
Nah, you make an ass out of umption.
Someone needs to photoshop a game controller into those hands.
). A reference to Sarah Brady and her Violence Policy Center, a group dedicated to removing firearms from the possession of civilians, reserving them only for the military and constabulary forces (that's police).Trouble is, history is rife with examples of governments and other corporate powers taking firearms and other weapons out of the hands of civilians (or at least certain portions of the civilian population), and then engaging in systematic slaughter. The US government did it to the American Indians; the Nazis did it to the Jews, Poles, Slavs, and others that were deemed to be üntermensch (damn, there's that word again!); the Soviets did it to thousands of their own people before and after WWII.
History shows me that I have no reason to trust any government for any length of time.
Peace out.
That NRA crap is really powerful indoctrination. Easy explanations and short cuts are the best way to rally the ignorant.
If you would pay close attention I do not want anyone to have guns.
It is ok to use üntermensch (if you must), just don't pretend Nietzsche coined the word, that would just mean you never read his books or that the people you are paraphrasing never did.
Sweet, we can go back to killing eachoter with rocks and trained lions! And you accuse other people of being anti-progress. Hey, you know the great thing about guns? You don't have to be a particularly big guy to use one. Getting rid of guns just means that martial power defaults back to the "biggest". Great for bullies, not so great for the little guys you claim to care so much about.
To me all guns look the same. Guess I'm a gunnist or antigunnite.
Or you are highly deficient in basic shape- and pattern-recognition skills.
To me all guns look the same. Guess I'm a gunnist or antigunnite.
Or are lacking in basic shape- and pattern-recognition skills.
The mini-14 is actually a pretty good weapon.
And they can be modified to look really badass!
Yeah, they really are nice. I've been meaning to get one but just haven't. No real need so it's kinda on the back burner for now. Plus I kinda want a Remington R15. What can I say? I'm a sucker for Big Green. Umm, and for Ruger. I loves me my Rugers. 'Course the ones I have are not long guns but whatever.
EDIT: Dropped all the NRA/gun stuff. Some people just can't understand that making things illegal doesn't stop people that don't obey laws from using/doing them. A lot of these same people have also experimented with certain illegal substances. The fact that they can't see how one is an example of how the other would work in practice means, to me, there's no hope in explaining things. Sometimes emotion takes too great a hold.
And then, let's suppose that everyone DOES surrender their weapons and/or has them all taken away by the government. How can we be sure that the government will get rid of its own weapons? After all, they have the power, and as Mao said, "All political power proceeds from the barrel of a gun." How can anyone be sure that the government will destroy its own weapons once they have destroyed ours?
________
1I am, of course, referring to the non-consensual and/or coercive sterilization of poor black women.
US Government. Systematically trying to prevent a minority population from getting larger through coercive sterilizations. Happened.
Please read some history books that detail the destruction of peoples who were first disarmed, or at least had weapons, strategies, and battle tactics that were clearly inferior to the groups attacking them. Most of the time, they were attacked and wiped out by those forces.
Over a quarter of a billion people were killed in the 20th century alone by their own governments because those governments declared them to be subhuman, or even non-human. Go back further in history and check it out.
Common, ordinary civilians need weapons because their own governments cannot be trusted.
All I am saying is that is done with the consent of it's population. The government is a instrument of the population.
The public has to know to consent to it.
Come on, you can't be saying that!
All I am saying is that is done with the consent of it's population. The government is a instrument of the population.
That, quite simply, doesn't work when the public doesn't know. You can not consent to something you aren't aware of.
All I am saying is that is done with the consent of it's population. The government is a instrument of the population.
The public has to know to consent to it.
You think a lot of people would have objected in the 60s and 70s?
Or that a lot objectied to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany?
Actually, a lot of people would have objected to the abuses perpetrated on minorities. The problem was that people thought that a majority of whites were in agreement and consented to these abuses. The truth is that it was a vocal and empowered minority of whites that consented to perpetrating these abuses. There are several studies that show this. The government abused a segment of the population even though a majority did not agree with the abuses.
I'm sure if you take an intro to psychology or sociology class you will hear about these studies. I would link them for you, but quite honestly, I forgot the name of the studies, the authors involved, and the theory's name. It's out there somewhere. If I remember I'll post up the link for you.
On a side note: could you please stop saying democraty? I know English is not your first language. I'm not trying to get on you about bad spelling or grammar. I just keep seeing you say democraty and it irks me. the word is democracy.
You're just saying, in a more nuance way, what I am saying. But lest not neglect that sometimes a majority of the population will also aborve of the abuse.
Kind of. The studies also help to point out that governments, even democratic governments, do things that the population does not agree with.
If I find the link I'll put them up anyways. They make for interesting reading.
Doh! No problem. I can't learn if no one mentions my errors. ;)
That's good. On that note, I think you meant abhor not aborve. ;)
That's good. On that note, I think you meant abhor not aborve. ;)
I am under the impression that he did not mispell abhor but rather had some typos and ment aprove (the two words look very similiar, and it follows in line with his previous arguments). If he did mean abhor, then the 'of' is wholly wrong and should be removed.
Interestingly, approve the abuse and approve of the abuse both work as sentences, but have diffrent meanings. The latter means you think it is good/right/whatever whereas the former means you personally gave the plan the go-ahead at some point. Like the diffrence between the guy who approves the budget, and some guy who simply approves of the budget.
People consent to the everyday workings of the government, even if they do not know everything or anything about, assuming the government is doing the best for them or at least the majority off them. /cough
You have a strange definition of the term consent. Does that mean you consent to the guy at the gas station beating his wife so long as he pumps your gas?
Well... a couple of decades ago the "to gain" was a whiter society1.
________
1I am, of course, referring to the non-consensual and/or coercive sterilization of poor black women.
Brought to you by the Democrats and the person that began Planned Parenthood.
Look it up.
The government is a instrument of the population.
Except, you know, communism and socialism.
In those cases, the people are the insturment/property of the state/system.
If we're going the "blanket statement" route.
And don't forget capitalism, where the people are the instrument/property of major corporations.
If we're going the "blanket statement" route.
You are wrong.
Major corproations don't force you to do things and then imprison or execute you for not obeying.
Communist and socialist governments do.
I find it hilarious
that people still believe in demonstrably broken and bad systems... utterly hilarious. I am no longer disqusted... just amused.
Are you using Windows per chance?
/uses ubuntu :x
I won't pretend to speak for goldy (he does just a smashing job of it himself), but if I see someone abusing his wife, at the very least, I will call the police to arrest him; if her life seems to be in imminent danger, I will interfere on her behalf, as best as I can, and ask someone around me to call the police.
I've never seen someone publicly beating their spouse or I would most certainly intervene, but I did once get a guy arrested for beating his dog. It was very satisfying.
I would also advise against calling the cops on someone for spousal abuse unless you are damned certain of what is going on. Acting on a hunch cos the woman is sporting a bruise is not good enough. Trust me, it is not fun to be on the wrong-end of someone's hunch.
I won't pretend to speak for goldy (he does just a smashing job of it himself), but if I see someone abusing his wife, at the very least, I will call the police to arrest him; if her life seems to be in imminent danger, I will interfere on her behalf, as best as I can, and ask someone around me to call the police.
I've never seen someone publicly beating their spouse or I would most certainly intervene, but I did once get a guy arrested for beating his dog. It was very satisfying.
I would also advise against calling the cops on someone for spousal abuse unless you are damned certain of what is going on. Acting on a hunch cos the woman is sporting a bruise is not good enough. Trust me, it is not fun to be on the wrong-end of someone's hunch.
true that
What happened in Germany happened with the concent of the majority of the population.
Umm ... what happened in Germany would have happened regardless of the consent of the majority. See, the minority had guns and the majority did not. Hitler made sure that his plans would go through without opposition. First, by killing those that opposed (and continuing this practice) and second by disarming the populace.
Oh, my gov't may not be trying to kill me today, but that's no guarantee that they won't tomorrow. Hence, I prefer to remain capable of armed defense (aside from the other more practical reasons to do so).
Oh, my gov't may not be trying to kill me today, but that's no guarantee that they won't tomorrow. Hence, I prefer to remain capable of armed defense (aside from the other more practical reasons to do so).
This whole "armed defense against government tyranny" think just doesn't fly anymore. Do you really think they'd march through the streets in nice, big easily-opposed groups like the Commies in Red Dawn? Technology and warfare have advanced well beyond the capacity for the average Joe, no matter how well-armed, to fight back should the government actually go tyrannical. Your rec room may look like Burt Gummer's basement in Tremors, but it won't matter one iota when a Predator drone puts a stinger missile through your bathroom window.
Well at least you understand that it's a nice idea but useless in practice
I find it hilarious
I am no longer disqusted... just amused.
Socialism seems to work perfectly for Scandinavian countries.
Communism arguably works for China.
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
I find it hilarious
I am no longer disqusted... just amused.
Socialism seems to work perfectly for Scandinavian countries.
Communism arguably works for China.
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
I guess...
I'm 24, I live in a not-so-nice part of town, and I've never seen nor heard of anyone carrying a gun other then police officers. Even the tough guys and criminals in the area generally don't have any and if they do they're not going to use them because they're tools to intimidate with pretty much only.
How's that go? I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees or something like that?
That's exactly the kind of thing people say right up until they face the reality of actually dying on their feet, at which point living on their knees suddenly seems a lot more attractive a prospect than previously imagained.
While I can't argue with "hobby" (we have hobbyist gunmen here as well) guns for self-defense are only a requirement if everybody can have guns.
Nah.
It's more like...
"Guns for self-defense are only a requirement if anybody1 can have a gun."
________
1"any" as in "at least one", not "any" as in "anyone who wants one".
While I can't argue with "hobby" (we have hobbyist gunmen here as well) guns for self-defense are only a requirement if everybody can have guns. If you put a ban on guns in general the odds of needing one to defend yourself go way, way down.
Just like the ban the US has on drugs then, right? I mean, pot is illegal here and it's not like I can think of 10 people that I know personally that buy and use the stuff. Oh wait, I can. And quickly, too. The only people that obey laws are those that are not criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. So what do laws banning things do, then? Well, they take the banned item out of the hands of those that obey the laws that ban them. As far as those that don't are concerned, they have no impact whatsoever. When it comes down to an item that can be used for lawful self-defense, it's absolutely abhorrent to ban it. What you're doing is taking the right to use it from those that are law abiding. How does that, exactly, reduce crime or protect anyone?
Gawddammit. This is why I hate this topic. It's so ****in' obvious it hurts but nobody wants to admit it cuz 'guns are bad, m'kay'. Well, bans don't work cuz criminals don't obey the laws. It really is that simple and the evidence is ****ing everywhere. Just look around.
That's exactly the kind of thing people say right up until they face the reality of actually dying on their feet, at which point living on their knees suddenly seems a lot more attractive a prospect than previously imagained.
Funny thing about stuff like this, I may not know what I'd do as I've not been faced with the situation as of yet (and likely - hopefully - never will) but you sure as hell can't know what I'd do, either. Speculation is fun, sure, but ultimately that's all it is. So I can continue to act tough (how I'd actually like to react to that situation) and you can continue to tell me that most people are ****ies or we can both just stop. I'm game for either, really.
Communism arguably works for China.
Not really. They've been working under a weird communist/capitalist hybrid for a while now.
The fact of the matter is that communism doesn't work well for large groups of people. It works best with a small group of informed individuals joining a communistic community, but very few such communities last more than a decade. There have been a few notables that have survived significantly longer than that, but they are rare.
Communism is a very utopian system, which is what dooms it to failure.
Communism arguably works for China.
Not really. They've been working under a weird communist/capitalist hybrid for a while now.
The fact of the matter is that communism doesn't work well for large groups of people. It works best with a small group of informed individuals joining a communistic community, but very few such communities last more than a decade. There have been a few notables that have survived significantly longer than that, but they are rare.
Communism is a very utopian system, which is what dooms it to failure.
it can be effective for a while
it can be effective for a while
So can alcohol in treatment of depression, but no one seems to recommend it.
Sometimes I think that the obsession with security and zero risks is the real totalitarian menace to our societies. Every body agrees, never questionning it, that security is very important, to the point that we renounce certain freedoms and liberties for zero risks. The controversy around the pat downs at airports is an example of this. Accepting risks of death and injury (even terrorist threats) is true freedom.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin
Communism arguably works for China.
Not really. They've been working under a weird communist/capitalist hybrid for a while now.
The fact of the matter is that communism doesn't work well for large groups of people. It works best with a small group of informed individuals joining a communistic community, but very few such communities last more than a decade. There have been a few notables that have survived significantly longer than that, but they are rare.
Communism is a very utopian system, which is what dooms it to failure.
it can be effective for a while
Hence "arguably".
It never was implimented, how do you know?
Have you stopped and looked at the attempts to implement it? As I understand it, V. Lenin was a true believer in communism, even going so far as to live a rather austere life for the leader of a nation. And the old U.S.S.R. could not make a go of it.
Communism under anything less than some kind of dictatorship or cult of personality is waiting to dissolve.
Also, communism is an economic system, not political. You can have a communist economy ruled by a dictator or democracy, same as capitalism. I'm also not sure how much you could call the current Chinese system feudalism, as they are ruled largely by elected officials. (Not that I'm going to pretend the elections are fair, but the people at least have a choice in what package they get Communist Party leadership in.)
I've been saying that before but I think they're denying it or something. Guns are cute, but the government has tanks and aircraft as well. Civil uprising and rebellion is pretty much doomed to fail unless the government plays by the rules, which it won't if it's going to opress it's own people.
You may want to check out the history of the VietNam war, where peasants used the materials around them to create traps and deadly devices that maimed and killed many US military people. You may also wish to check out what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, where IEDs are commonplace and deal death and damage to our military people there.
Guerrilla warfare has been an effective method against organized warfare for many years.
Note: I used the above examples for just that purpose, to be examples.
Not really. If Hitler rose to power and if the Holocost happened it is because the majority of the population (or at least a signeficant part of it) loved Hitler and agreed with his antisemitic views. And some historians, like Ian Kershaw, believe that Hitler wasn't that much of an antisemitic at first. He only used the people's hate to galvenize support for the Nazi party. Of course, he ended believing his own propaganda. In other words, what gave power to Hitler wasn't arm force but propaganda and public support. So maybe staying watchful of our politicians my prevent the necessity to fight it with weapons.
... and if those people instead were against him, they would have been able to fight with their voices only. Quite nice until someone puts a bullet through your voicebox. I'm fully aware of how Hitler came to power and why he was able to do what he did (and why it all fell apart) - I'm not disputing his charisma and the peoples' decision to sort of go with the flow. All I'm sayin' is that just in case the people decided to disagree all of a sudden, Hitler took measures to make sure that that wouldn't cause him too many problems. He controlled all the guns and so he could control the masses regardless of their love or hate of him.
And he had uncannily good luck for quite some time, too. Even when those with guns and the want to stop him tried, he always made it out. It's really quite amazing stuff, IMO.
Sometimes I think that the obsession with security and zero risks is the real totalitarian menace to our societies. Every body agrees, never questionning it, that security is very important, to the point that we renounce certain freedoms and liberties for zero risks. The controversy around the pat downs at airports is an example of this. Accepting risks of death and injury (even terrorist threats) is true freedom.
And here, my friend, you'll find me in full agreement. But isn't this at odds with your 'we should get rid of guns' idea?
I've been saying that before but I think they're denying it or something. Guns are cute, but the government has tanks and aircraft as well. Civil uprising and rebellion is pretty much doomed to fail unless the government plays by the rules, which it won't if it's going to opress it's own people.
You may want to check out the history of the VietNam war, where peasants used the materials around them to create traps and deadly devices that maimed and killed many US military people. You may also wish to check out what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, where IEDs are commonplace and deal death and damage to our military people there.
Guerrilla warfare has been an effective method against organized warfare for many years.
Note: I used the above examples for just that purpose, to be examples.
I think it's safe to assume a government and it's military know what fighting conditions their own country presents ;)
You may want to check out the history of the VietNam war, where peasants used the materials around them to create traps and deadly devices that maimed and killed many US military people. You may also wish to check out what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, where IEDs are commonplace and deal death and damage to our military people there.
As mentioned before, these things happen because the government plays by the rules. How do you think Iraq would look now if they simply carpet bombed the crap out of everything that even whispered about resistance and didn't give a %$# about all the innocenents they blew up?
If your own government decides to just apply liberal doses of napalm to that city where a few people were complaining about their current rulers, then everybody would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut and do as they are told.
All that said, yeah, a military is gonna kick the **** out of a rag-tag goup of citizens when there are no rules to be respected. I'm jus' sayin' that fighting a losing battle isn't always for naught.
Also I was looking for some numbers on violent crime to compare the USA and the EU and apparently the numbers are actually pretty close. Guess having guns doesn't really protect you nor encourage more crime.
As it has been through the ages, fighting a losing battle is worth the effort if there's an ally willing to come to your rescue. I think it's been that way since the middle ages.
Also I was looking for some numbers on violent crime to compare the USA and the EU and apparently the numbers are actually pretty close. Guess having guns doesn't really protect you nor encourage more crime.
That's people for you. weapons or not, someone is getting victimized.
Yes. We should put a ban on people, that ought to deal with the problem.
Well, lets put a ban on MOST people...the government and their corporate bunkies get to decide which of the rest of us get to live, which of us are loyal enough to be in their security arm, and the rest of the survivors get to be farm-slaves. yay.
As it has been through the ages, fighting a losing battle is worth the effort if there's an ally willing to come to your rescue. I think it's been that way since the middle ages.
Yep, and if you've no ally on the way, you can kiss your ass goodbye.
Also I was looking for some numbers on violent crime to compare the USA and the EU and apparently the numbers are actually pretty close. Guess having guns doesn't really protect you nor encourage more crime.
From all of the data I've looked at regarding number of guns and crime, that's about all you can determine. More guns certainly does not mean more crime (we've seen a massive increase in the amount of weapons purchased - a predictable response to a Democrat in the White House). We can see that because our violent crime rates have been in a steady decline. While we've seen more guns and less crime, though, we certainly can't say the less crime is because of the more guns. So yeah, I'd say you're right on with this statement. Well, at least until some piece of research, if done, attributes the lower crime rate to the increasing number of guns around. And that won't happen cuz complex issues like this typically have complex answers.
Yes. We should put a ban on people, that ought to deal with the problem.
Yar. +1000
We can see that because our violent crime rates have been in a steady decline. While we've seen more guns and less crime, though, we certainly can't say the less crime is because of the more guns.
Quite true. We're also having a decrease in crimes and we still don't have a lot of guns
Quite true. We're also having a decrease in crimes and we still don't have a lot of guns
Yeah, there's a lot involved with stuff like this. It's best to only say 'we know' about stuff we actually know. We know numbers, not reasons so it's best to try to stick with that.
We can agree on this. But Castro really out does him. He escaped so many assassination attempts it is ridiculus.
Interesting. I'm a WWII buff so I know some stuff about that but I've not really read a lot about Castro. I do know he could have been on our side of things if only we leant him the money first.
Yes and no. Like I said, getting rid of all guns his utopic. And accepting risks doesn't mean we should eat raw chicken or let food producing corporation have zero hygene rules. So gun control and gun legislation are a possible middle ground.
It is not like I do not recongnize a certain value to the idea that we must stay watchful of our governments. But at the same time organisms like the NRA are funded by gun manifacturers, so we should stay watchful of what the NRA says. They have a bias.
Believe it or not, they really do stick with the facts in a lot of cases. Sure there's some rhetoric, but overall they stick to facts. Thing is, a lot of people don't like to hear 'em. See the aforementioned increased amount of guns vs. decreased crime. Again, this doesn't mean the guns are the reason but it sure does put a li'l nuh-uh to the claims that more guns mean more crime. The NRA also tells you exactly what organizations that are opposed to gun rights actually do. See, they do stuff like change names to distract from their true purpose. Handgun Control Inc, for example, changed it's name to the Brady Campaign or something. So they ain't as bad as you think, IMO.
See, they do stuff like change names to distract from their true purpose. Handgun Control Inc, for example, changed it's name to the Brady Campaign or something. So they ain't as bad as you think, IMO.
A common tactic frequently used by the Left as masking.
A common tactic frequently used by the Left as masking.
Not just the left. Just check the quotation below:
Elders of Zion. Enough said.
See, they do stuff like change names to distract from their true purpose. Handgun Control Inc, for example, changed it's name to the Brady Campaign or something. So they ain't as bad as you think, IMO.
A common tactic frequently used by the Left as masking.
Freedom Works. 'nuff said.
I don't need a book of extremely dubious authenticity to make my points.
Johnny, what makes you think that I've read that book? The information to which I have referred is historical fact that anyone can look up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that over a quarter of a billion human beings were killed by their own governments. They are STILL killing their own people, as well as people in far away lands.
I don't need a book of extremely dubious authenticity to make my points.
Yeah, but do you think this is a semitic plot? That semites are pulling the strings of the governments? Do you think that the Georgia Guide Stones were made by people of semitic origine?
I think they were made by Nixon :0
Johnny, what makes you think that I've read that book? The information to which I have referred is historical fact that anyone can look up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that over a quarter of a billion human beings were killed by their own governments. They are STILL killing their own people, as well as people in far away lands.
I don't need a book of extremely dubious authenticity to make my points.
Yeah, but do you think this is a semitic plot? That semites are pulling the strings of the governments? Do you think that the Georgia Guide Stones were made by people of semitic origine?
I think you've misunderstood him, either genuinely or intentionally.
Freedom Works. 'nuff said.
I want to preface this with the fact that I don't really know what all was behind the name change to Freedom Works so I may be off, but changing from 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' to 'Freedom Works' is hardly the same thing as changing to 'The Brady Campaign' from 'Handgun Control Inc (originally the National Council to Control Handguns'. Cuz the second, well, was done to hide the intentions of the group from those that don't know about it to make members less overtly tied to gun ban groups. The gun ban fad was shown to be a political death sentence for most people that attached themselves to it. It's why Obama hasn't done squat with guns. So, the name was changed so people could still support these gun banners to keep their uber liberal voters happy while also disguising who exactly it was they were supporting/being supported by. It was a marketing thing, not a clarification thing.
I'm not sayin' Right groups don't do the same (I have no idea, really), I'm sayin' that this may not have been the best example to counter the assertion with. Cuz it's a different beast - maybe. Like I said, I'm not 100% on the Freedom Works thing. Anyhoo, the NRA hasn't changed it's name so they do have that goin' for 'em. They don't hide who they are and what they do. To me, that means something.
I want to preface this with the fact that I don't really know what all was behind the name change to Freedom Works so I may be off, but changing from 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' to 'Freedom Works' is hardly the same thing as changing to 'The Brady Campaign' from 'Handgun Control Inc (originally the National Council to Control Handguns'. Cuz the second, well, was done to hide the intentions of the group from those that don't know about it to make members less overtly tied to gun ban groups. The gun ban fad was shown to be a political death sentence for most people that attached themselves to it. It's why Obama hasn't done squat with guns. So, the name was changed so people could still support these gun banners to keep their uber liberal voters happy while also disguising who exactly it was they were supporting/being supported by. It was a marketing thing, not a clarification thing.
I'm not sayin' Right groups don't do the same (I have no idea, really), I'm sayin' that this may not have been the best example to counter the assertion with. Cuz it's a different beast - maybe. Like I said, I'm not 100% on the Freedom Works thing. Anyhoo, the NRA hasn't changed it's name so they do have that goin' for 'em. They don't hide who they are and what they do. To me, that means something.
The "Freedom Works" thing is also a marketing ploy. The intent is that if you hear a name of that kind, you'll instantly think of Amnesty International or similar, people for freedom and liberty, not economy. And you'll better not say your against "Freedom Works", lest you'd be seen as an advocate for tyranny.
The "Freedom Works" thing is also a marketing ploy. The intent is that if you hear a name of that kind, you'll instantly think of Amnesty International or similar, people for freedom and liberty, not economy. And you'll better not say your against "Freedom Works", lest you'd be seen as an advocate for tyranny.
Ok, I see that. Thing is, I just don't think it's on the same level as changing your name from something a lot of people don't want (HCI) to something totally nebulous (The Brady Campaign). Besides, in the case of Freedom Works, it was also a case of two groups merging and adding goals. A change was needed. To be clear, I'm not defending anything, I'm just trying to explain why I think that, though similar, it's still different enough that that difference needs to be pointed out. And, again, I'm not trying to say groups on the Right don't do the sort of thing that HCI did, just sayin' that this example may not have been the best.
Look at it this way, if you saw 'Citizens for a Sound Economy', would you be put off by the name? Indifferent, maybe, but put off? I doubt it. HCI, otoh, puts gun owners on edge. The lobbying power of the NRA and its influence on elections (because a crapton of Americans are gun owners) is real and they have not been underestimated in some time. I just don't think that CSE had to worry about a lobbying group trying to sway voters away from representatives that were members of the group - a group seeking a sound economy. Just doesn't have the same negative (to many) connotations. I guess what I'm trying to say all too verbosely is that the change in CSE's case was to make them sound better. In HCI's case, it was to hide what they're trying to do. To me, that's a big difference.
Anyhoo, I can totally drop it. As I don't have a dog in the race it was more me just wanting to talk about the difference I see. No biggie, really.
well...either my rabbi hasn't let me in on the plan yet or.....
I think you need to be 25 for your first Christian baby sacrifice.
is there a word that has a similar meaning to racist but instead refers to religion?
well...either my rabbi hasn't let me in on the plan yet or.....
I think you need to be 25 for your first Christian baby sacrifice.
is there a word that has a similar meaning to racist but instead refers to religion?
I think that was supposed to be a tasteless joke, not genuine antisemitism.
well...either my rabbi hasn't let me in on the plan yet or.....
I think you need to be 25 for your first Christian baby sacrifice.
is there a word that has a similar meaning to racist but instead refers to religion?
I think that was supposed to be a tasteless joke, not genuine antisemitism.
yeah I got the joke lol but I was just wondering if there was a word that i could use in such a situation if the person wasn't joking ya know?
yeah I got the joke lol but I was just wondering if there was a word that i could use in such a situation if the person wasn't joking ya know?
Those are usually culture specific I think. In this case: antisemitic (though there's implied racism there too).
Johnny, what makes you think that I've read that book? The information to which I have referred is historical fact that anyone can look up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that over a quarter of a billion human beings were killed by their own governments. They are STILL killing their own people, as well as people in far away lands.
I don't need a book of extremely dubious authenticity to make my points.
Yeah, but do you think this is a semitic plot? That semites are pulling the strings of the governments? Do you think that the Georgia Guide Stones were made by people of semitic origine?
Straw man argument and ad hominem attack.
You know that you cannot answer my argument, so you cast aspersions upon my argument by trying to link it to something that has nothing to do with it. You also attack my character by associating me with a group of repulsive people.
1. If he does not know who is behind some kind of plot to kill him, why would he be expected to know that they are not, infact, jewish. Not declaring that the people behind a plot are in fact not Jewish is not the same as declaring that 'the Jews are behind it all'.
2. 'Oversimplifing armies killing people'. Funny how you can see it when he does it....
3. 'In each case listed the reasons where diffrent'. That is a point of evidence in his favor, not your own.
4. 'Guide Stones'. You asked for proof of people who would have a motive for wanting large numbers of people gone. He gave you one. Now your bitching about it like that was the core of his argument. I fail to see how your arguing that the jews are behind the Guide Stones in any way addresses his position.
If the best you can come up with in response to 'citizens having guns helps protect them from their government' is 'you must be a neo-nazi' mabey you should just give up, eh?
I am disapointed that the best argument you can come up with is "Ha! You think there might be a Jew somewhere responsible for something so you are a jew hating bastard and thus anything you say is default wrong!".
I am also disapointed that you apparently feel that line of reasoning to be valid and logical.
(Not saying they are, just saying the argument is kinda flawed there)
In any case, goldy has failed to answer my argument because: A) he is not intelligent enough to do the necessary study (which I seriously doubt); B) he is too lazy to do the necessary study (which is entirely plausible); or C) he knows that he cannot answer my argument, so he resorts to straw man fallacies and ad hominem attacks.
Since he is demanding some source material, I suggest he reads The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer. That, of course, is only a start.
Uhm, is it still antisemitism if it's true? I don't see how "The Jews are trying to kill us all!" can still be antisemitism if they really are trying to kill us all.
(Not saying they are, just saying the argument is kinda flawed there)
Of course. Being Anti-thepeopletryingtokillmyassandeveryoneiknow is perfectly natural though.
Uhm, is it still antisemitism if it's true? I don't see how "The Jews are trying to kill us all!" can still be antisemitism if they really are trying to kill us all.
(Not saying they are, just saying the argument is kinda flawed there)
Of course. Being Anti-thepeopletryingtokillmyassandeveryoneiknow is perfectly natural though.
Ok, cool. You learn something everyday I guess
************
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... . You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
Can't say I've ever had so much trouble finding a group of gamers to play some D&D as I have in this town.
well...either my rabbi hasn't let me in on the plan yet or.....
I think you need to be 25 for your first Christian baby sacrifice.
is there a word that has a similar meaning to racist but instead refers to religion?
well...either my rabbi hasn't let me in on the plan yet or.....
I think you need to be 25 for your first Christian baby sacrifice.
is there a word that has a similar meaning to racist but instead refers to religion?
I think that was supposed to be a tasteless joke, not genuine antisemitism.
well...either my rabbi hasn't let me in on the plan yet or.....
I think you need to be 25 for your first Christian baby sacrifice.
is there a word that has a similar meaning to racist but instead refers to religion?
I think that was supposed to be a tasteless joke, not genuine antisemitism.
yeah I got the joke lol but I was just wondering if there was a word that i could use in such a situation if the person wasn't joking ya know?
yeah I got the joke lol but I was just wondering if there was a word that i could use in such a situation if the person wasn't joking ya know?
Those are usually culture specific I think. In this case: antisemitic (though there's implied racism there too).
Johnny, what makes you think that I've read that book? The information to which I have referred is historical fact that anyone can look up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that over a quarter of a billion human beings were killed by their own governments. They are STILL killing their own people, as well as people in far away lands.
I don't need a book of extremely dubious authenticity to make my points.
Yeah, but do you think this is a semitic plot? That semites are pulling the strings of the governments? Do you think that the Georgia Guide Stones were made by people of semitic origine?
Straw man argument and ad hominem attack.
You know that you cannot answer my argument, so you cast aspersions upon my argument by trying to link it to something that has nothing to do with it. You also attack my character by associating me with a group of repulsive people.
1. If he does not know who is behind some kind of plot to kill him, why would he be expected to know that they are not, infact, jewish. Not declaring that the people behind a plot are in fact not Jewish is not the same as declaring that 'the Jews are behind it all'.
2. 'Oversimplifing armies killing people'. Funny how you can see it when he does it....
3. 'In each case listed the reasons where diffrent'. That is a point of evidence in his favor, not your own.
4. 'Guide Stones'. You asked for proof of people who would have a motive for wanting large numbers of people gone. He gave you one. Now your bitching about it like that was the core of his argument. I fail to see how your arguing that the jews are behind the Guide Stones in any way addresses his position.
If the best you can come up with in response to 'citizens having guns helps protect them from their government' is 'you must be a neo-nazi' mabey you should just give up, eh?
I am disapointed that the best argument you can come up with is "Ha! You think there might be a Jew somewhere responsible for something so you are a jew hating bastard and thus anything you say is default wrong!".
I am also disapointed that you apparently feel that line of reasoning to be valid and logical.
(Not saying they are, just saying the argument is kinda flawed there)
In any case, goldy has failed to answer my argument because: A) he is not intelligent enough to do the necessary study (which I seriously doubt); B) he is too lazy to do the necessary study (which is entirely plausible); or C) he knows that he cannot answer my argument, so he resorts to straw man fallacies and ad hominem attacks.
Since he is demanding some source material, I suggest he reads The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer. That, of course, is only a start.
Uhm, is it still antisemitism if it's true? I don't see how "The Jews are trying to kill us all!" can still be antisemitism if they really are trying to kill us all.
(Not saying they are, just saying the argument is kinda flawed there)
Of course. Being Anti-thepeopletryingtokillmyassandeveryoneiknow is perfectly natural though.
Uhm, is it still antisemitism if it's true? I don't see how "The Jews are trying to kill us all!" can still be antisemitism if they really are trying to kill us all.
(Not saying they are, just saying the argument is kinda flawed there)
Of course. Being Anti-thepeopletryingtokillmyassandeveryoneiknow is perfectly natural though.
Ok, cool. You learn something everyday I guess
************
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... . You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
Can't say I've ever had so much trouble finding a group of gamers to play some D&D as I have in this town.