I carry a concealed weapon as well for self-defense. I am licensed by the state that I live in because as a law-abiding citizen, I am permitted to do so (with a permit). I live and work in an urban area with a higher than average crime-rate and see no reason to put myself at a tactical disadvantage should things get dicey.
1. Law-abiding people don't commit crimes because they are carrying a gun.
2. Criminals aren't going to be registering and getting themselves fingerprinted for carry permits prior to committing felonies.
Spoken like a true xenophobe. I applaud you for your stereotypes in a time when its quite fashionable to bash Americans. Similar to when Americans liken Europe to a jilted ex-girlfriend. Shes irrelevant, but just hasn't quite gotten the message yet. Maybe she'll just go away, die, whatever... it really doesnt matter.
Quite the stroke of genius; did you manage to come up with this all by yourself? What a smart boy you are!
Stop jacking off to the thrill of trolling Slashdot and get your fat ass out of your parents basement and see the world. We aren't all that different, just better than you.
I gave at the office, thanks. Now fuck off..
Seriously though, the idea of humanitarian aid derived from tax dollars is absolutely absurd. Its is impossible to be 'compassionate' with resources that have been forcibly removed from their rightful owner (the taxpayer).
Social responsibility begins at home and is privately funded.
Leaving 10Ghz's childish ad-hominems aside, I'll explain further and I'll even use Finland in my example. Its constitutional provisions for social-welfare make a fair example (partiularly section 19). Its provisions for 'social security' aka welfare-rights are radically different in kind from the rights guaranteed in the US constitution.
US constitutional rights express freedom from force or fraud (by any entity) in the pursuit of our goals, as long as we respect the equal rights of others. My right to free speech is the right to be free from government censorship/penalty for speaking my mind. It does not guarantee that I will have anything of use to say, or that anyone will listen or agree with me. Liberty (in the US) expresses the idea of self-ownership. The idea that individuals are ends in themselves and that relationships among people should be voluntary. Welfare rights, by contrast, express the idea that clients of the welfare state own the people who produce the wealth on which welfare clients expect and depend.
Welfare rights, OTOH, are rights to goods, not to freedom of action. They are rights to be provided with certain goods, whether or not one is able to earn them. That means someone else is obligated to provide them. For example, when a declaration asserts that I have a right to medical care, for example, it does not merely mean that I should be free to contract with doctors and other healthcare providers on terms that are acceptable to both parties. It means that my medical care should be paid for by the state, which means that taxpayers are obliged to support me, and health care providers are forcibly obliged to go along with the arrangement. Where is this freedom for those doctors, other healthcare providers, and taxpayers footing the burden?
Hence 'chattel'... Acheivers in a socialist system are economic 'beasts of burden' for the consuming masses. Where is the freedom and equality for this minority? Is it right to run over a minority of the population in order to provide for those who are unable/unwilling to take responsibility of their own lives in the name of some compassion or benevolence? Its not an expression of benevolence. By its very nature, a right is not a gift or favor for which gratitude is required. It is an entitlement, an enforceable claim to something someone else owns. But people in a 'real' free and civilized society do not own each other.
Life in Finland is probably lovely (although cold). You own a TV, a computer, a car, a home but my question that begs to be asked is:
Who owns you? --besides me--
Dang... next time remind me to slam your Finlands 'national service' conscription thing. Freedom my ass.
Its great because as a nation we do not subscribe to the slaughter of private ownership/individual liberty rights espoused in your sig.
America's bourgeois nature (life, liberty, and property ownership) is what sets it apart from the European model where power is held at the top and it trickles down to its subordinated 'chattel' population.
Admittedly, this is an American perspective only and few Americans in a politically-correct world would agree (out loud).
Actually, a president can be impeached for commiting perjury. In America, once placed under oath, a person has exactly 2 legal options:
1. Tell the truth.
2. Invoke his rights as pertaining to the 5th amendment of our constitution.
Lying under oath (no matter the subject) is simply not an option. Any American who does so can very well expect to be incarcerated for such offence. At the very least, a public official who does so should lose his fucking job.
Your remarks therefore are either a product of pure ignorance and will be remedied with a bit of reading before spewing bullshit next time or you truely are an idiot in which case I'm totally wasting my time here.
Charles Rangel introduces the same retarded draft legislation every year. Not because the US needs more troops, but more that its supposed to serve some social justice angle.
OMG, its that guy from the television commercial with the roll of duct-tape wound around a pile of ageing green-screens!!!!111oneoneone
"Aww, I love this one. Spreadsheet, word processor, graphs, but I dont remember what this one does..."
Feeding poor people only causes them to have more children
If you are saying that 'because' a population is fed better that they will magically have fewer children, then you are promoting another fallacy. Better-fed populations are feeding themselves. They are making more intellegent independent choices because they understand the consequences of spawning offspring they cannot afford to raise.
OTOH, you do make one good point. The poor in these underdeveloped nations will have as many children 'as they can manage'. If we blindly hand over food to these populations, they will almost certainly have more and more children 'since they can manage'. The food gift then turns to an entitlement. Removing it at any point would have an even more disasterous effect on that population.
Give 'em a fish... teach 'em to fish still holds true in my opinion. Until they are able to manage their own lives and take responsibility for themselves, no matter what anyone else does, they will certainly continue to face dire circumstances.
Is it me or is the word 'saddened' politically-correct newspeak for being sad about something? Does anyone use this word outside of the context of politics or attempting to appear more sensitive or caring than others around them?
If so, I should add it to my ageing bullshit-bingo list.
Slashdot Mirror
I carry a concealed weapon as well for self-defense. I am licensed by the state that I live in because as a law-abiding citizen, I am permitted to do so (with a permit). I live and work in an urban area with a higher than average crime-rate and see no reason to put myself at a tactical disadvantage should things get dicey. 1. Law-abiding people don't commit crimes because they are carrying a gun. 2. Criminals aren't going to be registering and getting themselves fingerprinted for carry permits prior to committing felonies.
Spoken like a true xenophobe. I applaud you for your stereotypes in a time when its quite fashionable to bash Americans. Similar to when Americans liken Europe to a jilted ex-girlfriend. Shes irrelevant, but just hasn't quite gotten the message yet. Maybe she'll just go away, die, whatever... it really doesnt matter.
Quite the stroke of genius; did you manage to come up with this all by yourself? What a smart boy you are!
Stop jacking off to the thrill of trolling Slashdot and get your fat ass out of your parents basement and see the world. We aren't all that different, just better than you.
I gave at the office, thanks. Now fuck off.. Seriously though, the idea of humanitarian aid derived from tax dollars is absolutely absurd. Its is impossible to be 'compassionate' with resources that have been forcibly removed from their rightful owner (the taxpayer). Social responsibility begins at home and is privately funded.
This sums up the candidates position on pretty much everything.
I envision this as Parker and Stones feeling on that your declaration.
Parker: "Check it, someone on an internet bulletin board is pissed at us for our portrayal of Sean Penn."
Stone: "Oh yeah? Anyone we know?"
Parker: "Nah, some nobody on a Startrek fan site, I think... the name is aminorex. He says 'Fuck' and 'you'."
Stone: "Never heard of 'em. Lets go to the bar and score some poon."
Parker: "Right on."
Enjoy your righteous indignation, but dont be too suprised if noone else gives a fuck.
The American taxpayer will appreciate your sacrifice as well :)
Tip: the almond taste of the cyanide should go well with a sweet wine such as a port.
Fine, I'll bite.
Leaving 10Ghz's childish ad-hominems aside, I'll explain further and I'll even use Finland in my example. Its constitutional provisions for social-welfare make a fair example (partiularly section 19). Its provisions for 'social security' aka welfare-rights are radically different in kind from the rights guaranteed in the US constitution.
US constitutional rights express freedom from force or fraud (by any entity) in the pursuit of our goals, as long as we respect the equal rights of others. My right to free speech is the right to be free from government censorship/penalty for speaking my mind. It does not guarantee that I will have anything of use to say, or that anyone will listen or agree with me. Liberty (in the US) expresses the idea of self-ownership. The idea that individuals are ends in themselves and that relationships among people should be voluntary. Welfare rights, by contrast, express the idea that clients of the welfare state own the people who produce the wealth on which welfare clients expect and depend.
Welfare rights, OTOH, are rights to goods, not to freedom of action. They are rights to be provided with certain goods, whether or not one is able to earn them. That means someone else is obligated to provide them. For example, when a declaration asserts that I have a right to medical care, for example, it does not merely mean that I should be free to contract with doctors and other healthcare providers on terms that are acceptable to both parties. It means that my medical care should be paid for by the state, which means that taxpayers are obliged to support me, and health care providers are forcibly obliged to go along with the arrangement. Where is this freedom for those doctors, other healthcare providers, and taxpayers footing the burden?
Hence 'chattel'... Acheivers in a socialist system are economic 'beasts of burden' for the consuming masses. Where is the freedom and equality for this minority? Is it right to run over a minority of the population in order to provide for those who are unable/unwilling to take responsibility of their own lives in the name of some compassion or benevolence? Its not an expression of benevolence. By its very nature, a right is not a gift or favor for which gratitude is required. It is an entitlement, an enforceable claim to something someone else owns. But people in a 'real' free and civilized society do not own each other.
Life in Finland is probably lovely (although cold). You own a TV, a computer, a car, a home but my question that begs to be asked is:
Who owns you? --besides me--
Dang... next time remind me to slam your Finlands 'national service' conscription thing. Freedom my ass.
Its great because as a nation we do not subscribe to the slaughter of private ownership/individual liberty rights espoused in your sig.
America's bourgeois nature (life, liberty, and property ownership) is what sets it apart from the European model where power is held at the top and it trickles down to its subordinated 'chattel' population.
Admittedly, this is an American perspective only and few Americans in a politically-correct world would agree (out loud).
Actually, a president can be impeached for commiting perjury. In America, once placed under oath, a person has exactly 2 legal options:
1. Tell the truth.
2. Invoke his rights as pertaining to the 5th amendment of our constitution.
Lying under oath (no matter the subject) is simply not an option. Any American who does so can very well expect to be incarcerated for such offence. At the very least, a public official who does so should lose his fucking job.
Your remarks therefore are either a product of pure ignorance and will be remedied with a bit of reading before spewing bullshit next time or you truely are an idiot in which case I'm totally wasting my time here.
I would think that the Badnarik charge would be more along the lines of:
Liberty! Liberty! Liberty!
The word "freedom" seems to have been redefined by every other political position and their brother.
Charles Rangel introduces the same retarded draft legislation every year. Not because the US needs more troops, but more that its supposed to serve some social justice angle.
OMG, its that guy from the television commercial with the roll of duct-tape wound around a pile of ageing green-screens!!!!111oneoneone "Aww, I love this one. Spreadsheet, word processor, graphs, but I dont remember what this one does..."
Feeding poor people only causes them to have more children
If you are saying that 'because' a population is fed better that they will magically have fewer children, then you are promoting another fallacy. Better-fed populations are feeding themselves. They are making more intellegent independent choices because they understand the consequences of spawning offspring they cannot afford to raise.
OTOH, you do make one good point. The poor in these underdeveloped nations will have as many children 'as they can manage'. If we blindly hand over food to these populations, they will almost certainly have more and more children 'since they can manage'. The food gift then turns to an entitlement. Removing it at any point would have an even more disasterous effect on that population.
Give 'em a fish... teach 'em to fish still holds true in my opinion. Until they are able to manage their own lives and take responsibility for themselves, no matter what anyone else does, they will certainly continue to face dire circumstances.
Jenny loves anchovies... call anytime 867-5309
Is it me or is the word 'saddened' politically-correct newspeak for being sad about something? Does anyone use this word outside of the context of politics or attempting to appear more sensitive or caring than others around them? If so, I should add it to my ageing bullshit-bingo list.
Nah, its the standard cheap-shot at Americans. Typical Euro-trash supremacy stuff.