|
On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
The pro-life stance is very libertarian depending on when you believe life begins. It's a tough balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of an unborn baby; you can't just call either side of the debate retarded.
Ron Paul isn't a third candidate or anything though. He's essentially out of politics at this point once his House term expires in January. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 2012.
|
Yeah the TSA is pretty ridiculous.
It reflects very poorly on both Bush and Obama.
|
On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
You DO realize that things changed dramatically since 1971? =_=
Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
The pro-life stance is very libertarian depending on when you believe life begins. It's a tough balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of an unborn baby; you can't just call either side of the debate retarded.
Fetus is the word you want to use. Can't just call everything an "unborn baby" because it might be eaten by a person someday and become part of an organism. Either way, I guess we just have to disagree.
Ron Paul isn't a third candidate or anything though. He's essentially out of politics at this point once his House term expires in January. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 2012.
I'm well aware of that.
|
On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar... You DO realize that things changed dramatically since 1971? =_= Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/ Show nested quote +The pro-life stance is very libertarian depending on when you believe life begins. It's a tough balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of an unborn baby; you can't just call either side of the debate retarded. Fetus is the word you want to use. Can't just call everything an "unborn baby" because it might be eaten by a person someday and become part of an organism. Either way, I guess we just have to disagree. Show nested quote +Ron Paul isn't a third candidate or anything though. He's essentially out of politics at this point once his House term expires in January. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 2012. I'm well aware of that.
We can't go back to the gold standard, but things would be much better if we never left it. The middle class would be much better off.
User was warned for derailing the thread with off topic discussion.
|
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote:
She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
spoken like a true american... maybe not everything has to be solved in a courtroom?
|
I would imagine the majority of people share the same standpoint on this: if she is telling the truth, then TSA crossed the line (their stories about the removing of the bandage conflict for one) and she should pursue this with a lawyer, assuming she wants to before she dies. If TSA is telling the truth (less likely), then it's just another person trying to scam the system and she'll be brushed aside. Especially less likely since she her date is arriving quite quickly as well.
I'll save my distasteful comments towards TSA until a verdict is reached.
|
On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar... Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
|
Title is very sensationalistic. We are all dying, so no need to mention that.
|
Actually guys, the airport security in US is a joke. I was flying from an Eastern European country once and the security there was tight. You send bags through and X-ray and get a pat-down just to enter the airport building. They make you turn on your cellphone and open your wallet and they inspect your belt and everything. They also made me open my luggage twice to inspect it. The security guard even made me drink the contents of one of the bottles that was in it. In Canada, it takes like 2 minutes to pass security, really not the same effect.
Honestly, the airport security was just doing a good, thorough job. Props to them for that. Sure, they could have given the woman a little bit of privacy so she wouldn't be so embarrassed but it is in no way newsworthy.
There are child slaves dying in Africa by the hundreds and people here are making a huge deal of "woman being embarrassed and slightly inconvenienced at airport" Calm down.
|
On October 11 2012 08:21 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar... Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/ No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day?
Anyway what's the difference between fiat currency and currency based on an artificially inflated stock of gold with an assigned value which is not much less fictitious than what we've got now.
But let's say we do it for the lulz, what do you do when all your banks spend billions of dollars restructuring the entire system to base it on gold and the rest of the world doesn't follow - then every year, especially with the US's massive trade deficit, you'll be exporting the basis of your currency, until at some point you won't have enough to back the foreign currency. A gold standard is incredibly rigid and restricting. Especially since, like, we use gold to make shit.
ser was warned for derailing the thread with off topic discussion.
|
On October 11 2012 08:33 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:21 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar... Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/ No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history? Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day?
I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy?
Look, this discussion is going like this:
You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy!
Me: Why are your positions correct?
You: They just are!
I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them.
ser was warned for derailing the thread with off topic discussion.
|
On October 11 2012 08:44 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:33 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:21 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar... Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/ No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history? Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day? I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy? Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are! I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them.
You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that?
|
They should have done it in private. Doing it in public is just stupid and cruel.
They still should have searched her, though. Terrorists are cold, heartless motherfuckers. They will use men, women, children, animals and even blackmailed people to get the bombs in. Even worse, they will use whatever tactic they can. They will put explosives in shoes, underwear, medical equipment and even inside the very body of the bomber. It would have been nice if they could replace all the things they disrupted, but honestly they kinda had to search her.
|
On October 11 2012 08:47 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:44 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:33 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:21 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar... Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/ No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history? Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day? I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy? Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are! I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them. You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that?
Your "explanation" was woefully insufficient, but that wasn't the point. I'm not trying to have an economic debate with you (or an abortion debate). I'm not an economist and you probably aren't either. The point is that people who actually are economists debate this kind of stuff all the time, and neither side is obviously wrong. You can't go around calling everyone crazy and retarded for holding opposing views in complex situations.
Getting back on topic, it bothers me when people say we need to maintain the status quo for no reason other than it's the status quo. Airport security was fine before 9/11, and the TSA wouldn't have stopped the attacks had it existed anyway. Spending billions every year to prevent people from bringing bottles of water, jars of peanut butter, and toenail clippers on board airplanes is wasteful and needs to stop, yet people defend the agency just because it exists. If the federal government created the Cute Puppy Hugging Agency, people would justify its existence on the grounds that hugging puppies is good and we can't possibly do without that.
|
On October 11 2012 09:06 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:47 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:44 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:33 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:21 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar... Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/ No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history? Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day? I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy? Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are! I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them. You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that? Your "explanation" was woefully insufficient, but that wasn't the point. I'm not trying to have an economic debate with you (or an abortion debate). I'm not an economist and you probably aren't either. The point is that people who actually are economists debate this kind of stuff all the time, and neither side is obviously wrong. You can't go around calling everyone crazy and retarded for holding opposing views in complex situations. Getting back on topic, it bothers me when people say we need to maintain the status quo for no reason other than it's the status quo. Airport security was fine before 9/11, and the TSA wouldn't have stopped the attacks had it existed anyway. Spending billions every year to prevent people from bringing bottles of water, jars of peanut butter, and toenail clippers on board airplanes is wasteful and needs to stop, yet people defend the agency just because it exists. If the federal government created the Cute Puppy Hugging Agency, people would justify its existence on the grounds that hugging puppies is good and we can't possibly do without that.
Why would the TSA not have stopped the attacks? Just curious, because it seems kind of hard to hijack a plane with dozens of people on it if you don't have any weapons whatsoever.
|
On October 11 2012 09:06 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:47 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:44 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:33 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:21 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar... Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/ No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history? Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day? I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy? Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are! I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them. You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that? Your "explanation" was woefully insufficient, but that wasn't the point.
That was lazy of you. If you don't feel bad about yourself maybe I should start using that one too. "Woefully insufficient", argument autowin.
I'm not trying to have an economic debate with you (or an abortion debate). I'm not an economist and you probably aren't either. The point is that people who actually are economists debate this kind of stuff all the time, and neither side is obviously wrong. You can't go around calling everyone crazy and retarded for holding opposing views in complex situations.
Yeah just like climatologists constantly debate the validity of global warming... Oh wait, they don't - it's the commoners that do it while there's a consensus among the knowledgeable experts x_x
|
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote:
She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
I would be astounded if her number 1 priority at the end of her life would be revenge.... If I were her I would just try to forget about it and focus on the time I have left.
|
Has the TSA ever caught a terrorist? If so how many? I'm genuinely curious about this.
|
On October 11 2012 08:17 B.I.G. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote:
She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events. spoken like a true american... maybe not everything has to be solved in a courtroom?
Where else would it be solved? The only other option I see is the possibility of Congress passing a law banning this type of behavior, and that's extremely unlikely with the current Congress :\
On October 11 2012 09:16 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Has the TSA ever caught a terrorist? If so how many? I'm genuinely curious about this.
Not that I know of. There have been at least two incidents where someone successfully brought a bomb on the plane but then they were unable to set it off either because the bomb didn't work properly or people tackled the guy before he could detonate it.
|
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote:
She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
Yes. the american way of life. Lets SUE.
I dont condone what the TSA agent did, but sueing doesnt help anybody. Then in the end TSA agents are gonna be to scared to seach people probably in fear of getting a lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
