Comment Re:So much for... (Score 1) 743
but he wasn't conveying a threat. He was using hyperbole to point out that he wasn't like those who do actually use violence.
but he wasn't conveying a threat. He was using hyperbole to point out that he wasn't like those who do actually use violence.
And that is entirely different than what the kid did and I would consider what you did a credible threat.
What the kid did was to use hyperbole to point out that he is not, in fact, insane. For this situation to be the same thing you would need to be responding directly to someone suggesting that you were somehow being abusive and you responding with "Oh yeah..." [continue with your post] and then following it up by pointing out that you have no idea where he lives nor care to find out, thus making it obvious that you were using hyperbole.
Yes, but you are talking about the concept of free will.
The concept of freedom with respect to rights is that exercising those rights don't carry government imposed consequences. As Antipater pointed out, you can freely and properly exercise your rights and still face consequences from friends, spouses, family, etc.
operagost wasn't saying he should be convicted of anything but merely pointing out that he is facing felony charges.
If only.
Until you work with a social retarded aspie fag you will not understand what women complain about r.e. sexual harassment. He's was lucky. In my youth, being hit on by a fag would have required me to kick his ass.
I doubt the AC was suggesting that he should be convicted; rather AC was simply pointing out that a conviction would ban him from possessing firearms.
The rational states keep to the minimums of federal law which says long guns and shotguns are legally purchased at 18. 21 is the minimum for handguns. I'm certain that Texas is quite rational in this area.
If he is in jail then his owning of the guns is a bit moot as he is almost certainly not in possession of any.
"1. The banks aren't extorting anything. They are not getting any significant profit from this, only some small short term benefits from the origination of new mortgages. "
1. Not wrong. If you don't understand how banks, Wall Street, and government profit across the board from inflationary policies, you need to re-take Econ 101. The "delay factor" in inflation alone is enough to make it worth their while. While at the same time, the average consumer loses.
"2. It isn't particularly inflationary. Low interest rates increase money supplies a bit, yes, because of the loans. But the money printing is not because the money the Fed creates is held in reserve accounts at the Fed. It never goes into circulation. Why do you think inflation rate has been ZERO three out of the past four months?"
2. Holy crap, man. Quantative Easing IS INTENTED TO BE INFLATIONARY, AND IT IS!!! According to the Federal Reserve's own chairman, they have been doing it TO KEEP INFLATION UP and fight off that horrible (but largely imaginary) demon of "deflation"!
Read the f*ing news. And I repeat: take a closer look at your grocery bill. Because it's not just in the news; the proof is all around you.
"3. The government pays interest because of the loans it issues. It would ALWAYS pay interest regardless of whether the Fed bought the loans or not. What the Fed purchase does is a gift to the taxpayers because the resulting interest rates are much LOWER than would be the case in a free market."
Do you have reading comprehension issues? Let me lay this out again for you, in simple, straightforward terms:
(A) "Quantitative Easing" is the practice of buying government debt WITH NEWLY CREATE DOLLARS. That's what it is. That is the definition.
(B) The Federal government pays interest on EVERY new dollar the Federal Reserve creates, for ANY reason. They do. Look it up.
except that is has. at least in NY 2 gay people could get the same rights as a married couple simply by living together for XX amount of years.
That's not true. They may have received the same state benefits (although I doubt that), but they didn't receive the same federal benefits (taxes, immigration, etc.) because DOMA prevented it. That's why DOMA was repealed.
The right to drive, the right to carry a concealed weapon, the right to purchase alcohol,tobacco, the right to farm land, the right to pay less tax than other people are God given rights? Those rights are provided by the government.
No, those were actually all rights taken away by the government. You didn't use to need licenses to drive or carry weapons, you didn't use to need licenses to purchase alcohol or tobacco, or to farm, and people didn't use to have to pay income tax.
I've all along said to call it something else where it doesn't upset the church and then this group of people can make a case to the government as to why they should receive the same tax benefit as another group of people producing offspring when there is no possible way for them to.
So infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't receive tax benefits? Post-menopausal married women shouldn't receive tax benefits?
If you can't tell the difference between "Hot girls in bikinis" and the local swim team, then you need to go back to the basics of literacy and start learning concepts like author's intent and such.
"consistent in enforcing 1950s-TVs-style anti-sex morality on the web". Really? I don't remember Wally, Eddie, Lumpie or the Beaver looking at any porn. Google makes it fairly easy to find from what I hear. I've found it just for not being careful in my search terms.
The term "liberal" was hijacked long ago. What used to be called "liberalism" is now called "libertarianism".
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
