|
RogueTrick posted:As soon as I saw it said Canada, I knew that had to be a rewrite of a Bill Clinton joke. http://www.targetofopportunity.com/USS_Clinton.htm Ah, the one thing that Republicans can be green about.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
RogueTrick posted:As soon as I saw it said Canada, I knew that had to be a rewrite of a Bill Clinton joke. http://www.targetofopportunity.com/USS_Clinton.htm That struck me as odd too. The part about it being built in Canada, and "during times of conflict seeks refuge in Canada" seemed off about Obama and makes more sense as an attack on Clinton. It is interesting though that the original included the "makes apologies for America" part. I guess the times aren't changing after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Btw. Carter himself was a submariner, hence his name was given to a sub. I think it's ludicrous that anyone would throw a quip against a boat named after someone who actually took part in defending their country. He also took part in this operation:
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
This thread is probably as good a place to put this. The teabagger on my Facebook friends was white-knighting Andrew Beitbart by posting this link to see if anyone knew some guy that talked poo poo to him at some party. http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2011/09/30/name-that-h8ful-h8er-i-told-you-not-to-touch-me-twice/ Selected quotes: quote:Everything was swell at our fiesta para dos until a cowardly anonymous buffoon disturbed the peace. After overhearing my private discussion, he yelped from 10 yards away, “Waaa, waaa, waaa!! Waaa, waaa, waaa!!” I'm not sure if he was trying to sound link a baby crying or making a sad trombone sound. quote:It was about this point he realized I wasn’t going to back down and that I’m just as petty as I’ve long stated that I am. He announced that he was going to leave and he patted me on my shoulder. I asked him not to touch me, at which point he obnoxiously patted me on the shoulder once again. Since I’m Mahatma Gandhi-like in my countenance, I did not reciprocate. Good thing he didn't pat him on he back back. Things could have gotten ugly. quote:But said cowardly anonymous buffoon’s insufferable behavior is being met with something I’d like to call “passive internet exposure resistance.” Whether it’s union thugs or Brentwood Birthday lunch fiesta crashers, new media has a special way of shedding light on the bullies. So, I’m posting his photo. In the next election cycle, whether Richard Trumka’s freakish, self-righteous, class-warfaring goon squad is getting in your face or some leftist professor is in your grill over this excruciating three+ year “Bush” hyper-recession, your smartphone is your liberator. When internet tough guys get real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
I don't know where to ask this but since this thread is full of stupid opinions here goes: how does a completely free market system that these people dream about handle the absence of copyright and patent law enforcement? Also, everyone in this thread needs to read Jennifer Government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
The Sean posted:I don't know where to ask this but since this thread is full of stupid opinions here goes: how does a completely free market system that these people dream about handle the absence of copyright and patent law enforcement? They don't generally oppose them for two main reasons. Copyright/Patent laws are not regulations, but rather protections of property, which they view as one of the few things the government is supposed to do. Also, the Constitution expressly gives congress the right to create laws concerning copyrights and patents in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Often referred to as the "Copyright Clause".
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Regardless of the reasoning, its still "government trying to control businesses/the market/profits." I get what you're saying, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Regardless of the reasoning, its still "government trying to control businesses/the market/profits." In theory, the consumer will realize that stealing is stealing, a privately owned body will charge a fee to give out patents and consumers will buy only products endorsed by said body. etc etc. But that wouldn't work, you say? Correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Regardless of the reasoning, its still "government trying to control businesses/the market/profits." Right, which gets to the whole "No True Free Market" joke. You can't have a true "free market" without anarchy, because the government will always somehow be involved if it exists. Is it a Free Market if the government controls the supply of currency, for example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Rothbard makes a distinction between copyrights and patents (why do I read this poo poo) since the latter covers all iterations of an invention (ie independently invented without looking at the "original"), the first only copies of an invention. Since inventors would want to ensure a return on their investment, they would make sure the products they sell/lease would come with a contract forbidding reproduction of the invention. The criminality of copyright infringement would stem, therefore, from stealing a product or breaching the contract on it. Rothbard states patents are outright government interference while copyrights would be permissible in a free market property system, since independently inventing a product would not breach any contract or property law surrounding the original. http://ccs.in/ccsindia/lacs/7patents_copyrights.pdf Enjoy fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Oct 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Regardless of the reasoning, its still "government trying to control businesses/the market/profits." The duality is quite easy to recognize: 1) Does it help me/hinder my competitors (Or especially new entrants)? Then it's necessary for the fair operation of business 2) Does it hinder me/help my competitors (Or especially new entrants)? Then it's job-killing over-regulation that needs to be addressed!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Right, which gets to the whole "No True Free Market" joke. You can't have a true "free market" without anarchy, because the government will always somehow be involved if it exists. And a free market pretty much can't remain free without perfect information, regardless of that intervention. It will end with monopolies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
Sarion posted:They don't generally oppose them for two main reasons. Copyright/Patent laws are not regulations, but rather protections of property, which they view as one of the few things the government is supposed to do. Also, the Constitution expressly gives congress the right to create laws concerning copyrights and patents in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: However, calling copyright and patent protections of "property" makes the person doing so look like an idiot who does not understand at all the purpose for copyright and patent protection. edit: One may as well start referring to all rights offered by the Constitution as "property". Are you telling me to stop writing or saying something? "GIT OFF MAH PROPERTY!!!!" Are you telling me what religion I should or should not practice? "GIT OFF MAH PROPERTY!!!!" Are you telling my I don't have a right to due process? "YOU drat SURE BETTER GIT OFF MY PROPERTY!" Copyright and patent give rights to monopolize the implementation of abstractions. To call those "property" in the sense used in the Constitution is stupid unless, of course, one is trying to hoodwink people into thinking those things really are property in order to hijack property rights for the benefit of the copyright or patent holder. So far the bad people are winning. Fly fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Oct 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
So when an author writes a story, it doesn't belong to him? Or when Intel creates a new process of silicon fabrication that allows them to make chips with smaller transistors, the results of their research doesn't belong to them? VideoTapir posted:And a free market pretty much can't remain free without perfect information, regardless of that intervention. It will end with monopolies. Or better yet a single massive monopoly eventually. Once they take over their market they have to expand into other markets to continue to increase profits, in a corporate version of Thunder Dome, until only one remains!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 13:41
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Or better yet a single massive monopoly eventually. Once they take over their market they have to expand into other markets to continue to increase profits, in a corporate version of Thunder Dome, until only one remains! I think Highlander would be a more apt comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
Sarion posted:So when an author writes a story, it doesn't belong to him? Or when Intel creates a new process of silicon fabrication that allows them to make chips with smaller transistors, the results of their research doesn't belong to them? It's actually an interesting discussion. IP in general exists because people think that to some extent, it's good for the creators of intangibles to have recognized ownership over their creations. It's important, however, to remember that "ownership" rights over these intangibles are an arbitrary societal construct and are not inherently beneficial. IP laws should be designed to optimize the public good - to provide enough protections for creators to incentivize the creation and distribution of IP, while not being so restrictive as to destroy the usefulness of those works to the public.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 13:59
|
|
|
My Uncle on Facebook posted:If Guns Kill People, Do Pencils Misspell Words? YES THESE ARE TOTALLY COMPARABLE TOOLS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
chesh posted:YES THESE ARE TOTALLY COMPARABLE TOOLS. Pencil's write things down. If your goal is to prevent people from ever writing things down banning pencils is a good start.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Of course they're not, pencils are respectable god-fearing instruments that would never dream of acting on their own initiativeNevvy Z posted:Pencil's write things down. If your goal is to prevent people from ever writing things down banning pencils is a good start. You crazy lie-beral, what am I supposed to do if a
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
Jabor posted:It's actually an interesting discussion. I agree with you, as does the Constitution. It only gives Congress the authority to grant creators limited time for which they hold exclusive ownership of the intellectual property they create.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
I actually think the phrase "Guns don't kill people- People Kill people" is fairly in tune with reality. I take issue with "Guns save lives" I say that "Guns don't save lives- People save lives" Argument advice: If you, like me, are a left leaning individual in a right leaning area, you might get drawn into a gun control argument even though gun control isn't really part of any left wing agenda anymore. My information is based off conclusions made by the Surgeon General's Office. I start off with something they'll agree with and and is based in fact: Gun buyback programs are an ineffective way to fight gun violence. They will accept the reasons: The guns that are turned in are non-functional and the person turning in guns doesn't necessarily turn in ALL their guns. Often a pro-gun person will use this as an opportunity to say that the only way to fight gun crime is with MORE guns, and training. Unfortunately these programs don't work either, as predicted by their favorite slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I then explain that all the effective programs against gun violence and drugs have very little to do with drugs or guns at all, and that drug abuse and gun violence are symptoms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
Sarion posted:I agree with you, as does the Constitution. It only gives Congress the authority to grant creators limited time for which they hold exclusive ownership of the intellectual property they create. In fact the original duration was only 14 years. Which makes all these conservatives who have a hard on for the founding fathers pushing Mickey Mouse laws all the more transparent in their opportunism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
Old acquaintance is a Ron Paul Libertarian nut job, and I don't have the heart to tell him to take me off the distribution list, but here's one he sent me today - ( Top paragraph his words) I just gave him $10.00, but that means it was really only $6.00 in todays dollars. You may want to consider donating while your money is still worth something. If we do not, in Bernanke math a year from now your $10.00 will be worth only $2.00 of today's dollars! You and I know that we must hold the Fed accountable for its actions, but there are millions of more Americans who don't yet realize just how much damage the Fed has done to our nation. C4L is ready to launch its biggest assault on the Fed yet and mobilize seven million Americans to take action in support of Audit the Fed. But to put this plan into action immediately, we need your help more than ever. Please, take just a moment to read the note below, and, I hope, help ensure we can fight back against the Fed by contributing whatever you are able toward this effort today. In Liberty, Matt Hawes Vice President ________________________________________ The moment we have been waiting for has arrived. The House Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology subcommittee, chaired by Congressman Ron Paul, is blowing the lid off the Federal Reserve with a hearing led by Dr. Paul this week. As I explain in my special audio message I have prepared for you, for years, the shadowy Federal Reserve has propped up world banks, bailed out its cronies, and printed fiat currency in near-total secrecy. But those in the Washington establishment and global elite knew exactly what was taking place. They know the Federal Reserve props up Wall Street bankers, floats loans to third-world dictators, and risks our entire economy by devaluing the dollar. And they were hoping the American people wouldn't find out. But thanks to the work of Campaign for Liberty, from coast to coast, Americans are waking up to the secretive cabal that runs the Fed and the many problems the Fed causes in our economy. But it's up to you and me to ensure millions of freedom-loving Americans see this hearing and take action. That's why your generous support is so important. You see, Campaign for Liberty's fight against the Fed - and especially our Audit the Fed effort - has the banksters shaking in their boots. Desperate to hold on to both their power and their secrecy, they've done everything they can to stop our efforts to shine a public spotlight on the Federal Reserve. But the good news is, Campaign for Liberty has a plan to fight back. You see, over the next few weeks, I'm planning to build a massive grassroots tidal wave of pressure on Congress to Audit the Fed. First, Campaign for Liberty will make sure the American people are made aware of the Federal Reserve's outrageous actions. Then, we'll unleash the biggest assault on the Federal Reserve in C4L's history. That's why I hope you'll agree to chip in a contribution. Your donation will help Campaign for Liberty mobilize millions of Americans to turn up the heat on Congress to audit the Federal Reserve. Using TV and internet ads, as well as phone banks and hard-hitting direct mail and email, our goal is to contact up to seven million Americans in the coming weeks to alert them to the dangers we face. Of course, none of this is going to be cheap. In fact, I've budgeted $1 million for this project. One generous donor has already put up $250,000 toward our effort, so we've already started producing our ads, printing our mail, and making our phone calls. But there's still a long ways to go. I don't have to tell you, money is tight for most people these days, including Campaign for Liberty. But time is running out for this vital effort, and I'm afraid if we let the opportunities we have this year slip away, our fight to Audit - and then END - the Fed, will be set back years. That's why it's vital you chip in a contribution of $50, $25, or even $10 IMMEDIATELY. You see, not only has the Federal Reserve NEVER been under a bigger spotlight, but there's never been more public evidence of the need for transparency on our side than now. The American people saw the TARP bailouts. They saw QE1 and QE2, and they know QE3 is just around the corner. They see our debt mounting - and our dollar crumbling. With the public spotlight of the congressional hearing, along with the Fed being a major topic of political discussion and debate right now, there has NEVER been a better time to rally even more Americans to our cause. That's why it's vital you chip in a contribution of $50, $25, or even $10 to Campaign for Liberty TODAY. Thank you for your support. In Liberty, Matt Hawes Vice President P.S. Over the next few weeks, I'm planning to build a massive grassroots tidal wave of pressure on Congress to Audit the Fed. To help guarantee we can immediately get our full project underway, please chip in a contribution of $50, $25, or even $10 TODAY. Together, you and I can blow the lid off the out-of-control Federal Reserve once and for all!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Argument advice: As a liberal in a heavy right area, the more accurate, and as far as I can tell better in general response will be "How does it affect overall violence?" Removing guns obviously will reduce gun violence, but what does that do if the same violence is being committed with knives?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:As a liberal in a heavy right area, the more accurate, and as far as I can tell better in general response will be "How does it affect overall violence?" Removing guns obviously will reduce gun violence, but what does that do if the same violence is being committed with knives? It is a lot easier to kill someone, or cause long term damage, with a gun. Overall violent crime numbers may not go down, but presumably deaths from said crimes would.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
As yet another liberal in a right-leaning area I feel I am in less danger of a fatal shooting than a fatal face-palming after voicing an interest in target-shooting only to find out my new best buddy only goes to the range to improve their odds of killing a brown person if only they can find an excuse. Anyway I think "if guns kill people pencils misspell words" is less an email forward and more a bumper sticker phrase, which always oversimplify complex issues and could have a whole thread of their own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
Sarion posted:It is a lot easier to kill someone, or cause long term damage, with a gun. Overall violent crime numbers may not go down, but presumably deaths from said crimes would. People tend to slightly overestimate the amount of danger a gun presents, and incredibly underestimate the amount of danger a knife presents. Or in other words, the guy with only a knife gets provoked more. I don't intend that as an argument about gun control; just pointing out that people don't actually analyze the relative risk weapons pose well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:People tend to slightly overestimate the amount of danger a gun presents, and incredibly underestimate the amount of danger a knife presents. Or in other words, the guy with only a knife gets provoked more. Knives are incredibly lethal when used properly, but they don't present the same risks to society as guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 07:36
|
|
|
I think your figures represent a highly trained shooter in highly favorable circumstances for shooting in a completely lucid state of mind. You're giving the knife guy the same leeway, right? I mean I'm a pretty good shot but even if I were capable of that morally I'm really not capable of it physically. People would be diving for cover and poo poo after the first shot, they're not just gonna stand there waiting for their turn. Kosmonaut fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Oct 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 09:19
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:I usually sum up my feelings on the subject thusly: I'll be more concerned about knife control when someone can kill a roomful of people, at a rate of one per second, at a distance of 20 metres, with a knife. The best trained shooters in the world would have trouble hitting a room full of people that accurately and quickly, and if you have few enough people in the room the knife guy might well be able to kill them all. Obviously guns are more dangerous than knives, but not to the degree that most people believe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:The best trained shooters in the world would have trouble hitting a room full of people that accurately and quickly, and if you have few enough people in the room the knife guy might well be able to kill them all. Obviously guns are more dangerous than knives, but not to the degree that most people believe. I see no reason not to restrict them both, then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 10:09
|
|
|
Okay but first let's restrict every restrictable thing that ranked above it as a leading cause of death. According to this that's cars, alcohol, being a fatty, and cigarettes. If you're advocating restricting them on par with the restrictions already on most of those things then cool, but they're generally already kept on as tight a leash if not tighter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 10:29
|
|
|
Firearms have fewer non-homicidal applications than cars or fatty foods
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 10:55
|
|
|
How so? Firearms can be used for target shooting and hunting whereas fatty foods ain't good for nothing but putting a man six feet in a hole. And why leave cigarettes off your list? If this CDC report is to be believed they kill more people in the United States than everything else we mentioned put together. This is kind of becoming a tangent unrelated to political emails, though. Haven't we all been through this argument enough times? Kosmonaut fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Oct 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 10:57
|
|
|
Guns for show, a knife for a pro.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 11:38
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:The best trained shooters in the world would have trouble hitting a room full of people that accurately and quickly, and if you have few enough people in the room the knife guy might well be able to kill them all. Obviously guns are more dangerous than knives, but not to the degree that most people believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre Seventeen victims, all killed. Don't know if it took seventeen seconds, but it was loving fast whatever the case. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Utøya, very high number of fatalities because guns are ranged and fast. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/man-arrested-over-school-machete-attack-1328052.html In a somewhat comparable attack involving a machete, there were seven injuries, no fatalities. To kill with a gun (or attempt to do so), you have to see someone. To kill with a knife or cricket bat, you have to be within grappling distance. In the "rampant madman" scenario, having a gun will increase the number of casualties enormously. I'm well aware that these incidents are not representative of most gun or knife crime, and knives are usually used in an altercation not a random massacre. When used to escalate an argument or fight, a knife is of course more dangerous than in the above scenarios because you tend to already be close to someone and there is a higher chance of the potential victim standing their ground and trying to fight the guy with the weapon, and ending up stabbed, of the knife being pulled out and used quickly without time for escape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 11:58
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that guns allow for a greater degree of violence than knives or the like. But the argument is kind of pointless because there's no chance of any sort of serious change in gun policy in the US. And there are much larger problems to deal with anyways. Which is pretty much why this describes me completely: Dr. Arbitrary posted:If you, like me, are a left leaning individual in a right leaning area, you might get drawn into a gun control argument even though gun control isn't really part of any left wing agenda anymore. I don't care for guns, but there are just much better things to focus on. 2nd amendment debates really only exist now because the NRA has to constantly warn against liberal boogeymen in order to stay relevant, influential, and keep pulling in money. They're kind of an interesting example of what happens when a special interest group succeeds and gets everything they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 12:52
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:The best trained shooters in the world would have trouble hitting a room full of people that accurately and quickly, and if you have few enough people in the room the knife guy might well be able to kill them all. Obviously guns are more dangerous than knives, but not to the degree that most people believe. Yeah, the numbers arent exactly a studied article of faith for me and they tend to change. It's about putting forward the fact that guns allow for greater and more widespread harm than knives. Hell you practically have to be millitary trained to know how to properly kill someone quickly with a knife instead of slashing them until they die. And America is a side point, I have most discussions about the law and social rules of gun control in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 14:27
|
|
|
You can't misspell the word if you don't have the pencil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Fatkraken posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre If you want to go with statistical outliers, the greatest mass-murder in the US was committed with a couple of box cutters. The greatest power of a handgun is not in the supposed efficiency of it, but in the general reaction of people to it. People try to hide from a gun, they run from a knife.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 15:36
|
|