2,152 Forum Posts by "Iron-Hampster"
The gist of it is, some people with victim complex thought the people featured in the picture matched the stereotype for Jews and there for, must have been a shot at Jews. By the looks of it, there is really no grounds for them to base that claim on. Still, the people who made it are now being ordered to take it down based on this flimsy claim.
I don't agree with the ideas that the people who made it are trying to convey, they have that lefty rhetoric of class and privilege making you a lesser person and all that bull shit, but why accuse them of racism? What if the mural were say, a riot with a massive crowd of people looting shops and throwing things at cops, would some one stand up and say "these people are clearly trying to say something about black people"? I'm thinking that this paranoid way of thinking is the real racism here.
Jefferson. Dealt with international conflicts peacefully, cut taxes, cut military spending, and reduced government power while letting go of unneeded staff. biggest things he used government for would have been Louis and Clark expedition and buying land from France... oh and that affair with one of his slaves thing... lol.
At 1/29/13 06:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
There is nothing good about marijuana that would warrant the effort necessary to make the large changes it would take to create a legal system of marijuana. In other words, legalization is a waste of time and resources (marijuana has that effect on... well... everything.)
so we already made the mistake of illegalizing it and forcing injustice over everyone who makes a personal choice, well we better do the lazy thing and hold course, even though there are pretty high long term costs to this law following no good reason to implement it to begin with.
as for the good it does, it creates jobs, it frees up the economy, it will create investment opportunities for everyone. All in all, legalization will reduce strain on the budget and reduce the labor surplus that makes it so hard to have a decent secure job these days. Topping that, the increased supply will lower the price which heavily weakens the main incentive for people to move on to harder drugs.
At 1/28/13 10:00 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
You are joking right? Harms no body else? Even the people who speedball admit that when they were on marijuana was the worst time in their life.
harms nobody, but the user. I said that word for word. What people do to themselves is no business of anyone else's. I don't care if Marijuana made some one think their contacts were slipping into the back of their eyes or some stupid crap, that's no reason to out law it for everybody.
every ideology is based on good intentions, but Anarchy is just as big of a mistake as Communism and Fascism. No laws don't stop people from breaking them but you need to be able to give everyone a right to a fair trial or else Vigilante justice will take innocent lives away. You need some police to keep watch so you can stop being stuck inside your house defending your property and actually go out to produce and make a living. You need laws in place to stop people from selling other people into slavery, and a court system to enforce liability so the threat of lawsuits will stop people from selling you food that was exposed to rat shit.
might want to just consider minimal government as a better alternative to no government.
At 1/28/13 07:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Nothing about it is good, hence there is no reason to make it legal (i.e. to encourage further use of it)
other than the space in prisons that you free up, or the money you save by not enforcing this law. In fact, the act of using it harms nobody but the user, meaning there is no reason for it to be illegal to begin with.
At 1/27/13 01:37 AM, Feoric wrote: It doesn't matter, I am a person just like Obama and I should have the same protections the President has because his life is equal to not just mine, but all citizens of the United States. We should all have easy access to military-level defensive and offensive protections.
I'm pretty sure most people will settle for what ever they can pay for on their own, with out having that become illegal of course.
At 1/22/13 11:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/22/13 08:31 PM, TheMason wrote: Besides...it's a shitty gun. Perhaps we should ban it from the military too and buy AK-47s!Ah yes, cause it's in the military's best interest for their guns to jam constantly for no good reason...
The AK series is known for it's reliability and long life span combined with cost efficiency. Jamming is not an issue with them as much as it is with the "more modern" guns.
At 1/20/13 04:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Yes, but there isn't an everpresence of it, especially by well funded and well trained folks.
Also, the consequences of a the President's child being abducted are far worse for the nation as compared to the consequences of a lay child being abducted.
likelihood has little to do with it. Mass shootings are rare too, so why over react to them when we can leave it to people to empower themselves and be able to stand up to crime if it comes to them? I don't agree with the NRA on everything, like the armed guards on our tax dollar, but in countries where mass shootings, terrorism, and hostage situations are higher risk, they arm their teachers with assault rifles.
At 1/20/13 03:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/20/13 03:20 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:So someone who builds a a warehouse with a dogfighting pen in it, called "dog fighting R Us" is safe so long as they don't have a key and don't officially know what's going on in there? When the expected dogfighting happens, that person who knowingly and intentionally supported it is clean because they can claim plausibile deniability?
The owner of that site hasn't expressed that the purpose of his site is software piracy. We don't know the extend he/she is going through to avoid legal trouble, maybe they are going to do what youtube does and remove copyright infringing content when asked to? maybe they are going to use their terms of service so hand the liability over to the users?
No, but pawn shops can, and should, be held liable for "no questions asked" purchasing. Choosing to ignore illegal action doesn't shield you if you;re still actively supporting it.
some people lie.
At 1/20/13 03:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/20/13 03:13 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No, I'm asking what is different about his security needs.Let's just say that there aren't entire nations looking to take my child and hold him for ransom against me.
but there are still people out there who would do it. We have seen it happen in other countries where entire schools get held hostage, and it's not pretty. It's not exclusive to the middle east and Africa either, there have been a few counts in Russia. Even the ones that were politically motivated happened with out high profile political targets present.
At 1/20/13 11:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So Kim Dotcom has announced that he will be starting up a website similar to Megaupload where users can share whatever content they wish.
In an attempt to avoid legal trouble he is making it where he will have no knowledge of what the users are making available on his website.
Do you think this step will insulate him from legal trouble? If not, will the legal trouble be justified?
It should, it's not the owner of the site that is sharing the files, it's the users. Attacking the site owner is just a cheap way to imitate justice.
if some one steals clothing and then donates it to charity, do you arrest the people running the charity because you can't track down the thief, or do you do just let it go?
owning a gun will be a crime
hiring some one to hold a gun for you will not.
At 1/18/13 03:06 AM, Feoric wrote: You think this hits Obama "really really hard"? That a head of state has armed guards protecting his children? Who are high profile targets?
If they can't defend the presidents children with out guns, how you supposed to protect your own? If the police need guns to protect themselves, with all of their training and body armor, how are you supposed to protect yourself when they aren't there?
Why shouldn't average people be allowed the means to protect themselves while "important" people get more than the average person could normally afford to? are they better than us? do they deserve to live more than we do?
USA funded rebel forces in Afghanistan to fight against Russia, didn't result in war with them.
China and Russia funded the communists in Vietnam, didn't result in war with them either.
Hitler and Mussolini aided Franco in Spain, while we sent troops lead by Russian commanders to fight against them, but that didn't trigger a war either.
France aided the Americans in their revolution against the British, but once again, didn't trigger a conventional war between France and Britain.
this is just another excuse.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5cd_1358114183
this is another story that is relevant, in this case, the mother got wounded but her son killed her attacker. Another note is that the attacker was a convicted felon and had no way to legally obtain a gun, yet he had one, and was using it.
At 1/12/13 01:15 AM, Warforger wrote: The Constitution also has clauses saying that slaves should be returned to the states they escaped from. We should repeal the 13th Amendment since it's not what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
you need to put more thought into it other than "oh they had personality flaws so everything they say is irrelevant."
The reason they wanted guns to be legal was because: 1. it was a safe guard against tyranny, 2. if it were illegal only criminals would have them, 3. it meant less money needed to be spent on home security meaning less taxation needed and more safety from foreign threats and 4. because if you pay for a gun and some one takes it away it's theft, even with a government mandate. How ever, this thread is based on a story of self defense and the most common positive side of the second amendment where victims can choose to buy a device with their own money that puts themselves on equal terms as the criminal who is threatening them.
At 1/11/13 08:28 PM, Korriken wrote:
on the other hand, Couldn't it be possible to print 1 or 17 of these coins, deposit them, pay off our debt, then destroy enough currency to bring the inflation back down?
Just a thought.
well if we did that I think it would be just as problematic. The debt would be paid off, and the value of the currency will remain the same, but then there will be much less currency in circulation meaning, less money to go around. With minimum wage laws and property taxes and all sorts of other obligations people have, the system would completely break as many people default on those payments and i'm beginning to think it would look a lot like a repeat of the great depression?
At 1/11/13 08:43 PM, Korriken wrote:
from the way that story read, someone just walked up and shot em in the head. not much you can do when you don't expect it. It'd be ironic as hell if he was murdered by some gun grabber who didn't like his show.
oh btw. another (somewhat bizarre) story of a gun thwarting a crime with a gun. Cattle prod vs gun? gun wins.
unprepared lose em all, is what I should have said. on another note, yes improvised weapons would mostly replace gun crime as well as knife crime becoming more common, but also imported guns from other countries. If large volumes of drugs can enter the country, so can guns and ammunition. It happens all the time here in Canada, our gangs get most of their guns from the United States.
At 1/11/13 12:05 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Not to far away.
well no one ever said having a gun was a 100% promise that you will survive every mugging/ assailant. On the other hand, i highly doubt he would have survived if he were unarmed either, don't you?
moral of the story, good guys can't win every fight, but the weak lose them all.
democrats went from posting a list of people and businesses that served black people and were opposed to segregation.
now they are posting the names names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun.
this looks like an intimidation tactic.
you know the story of how some times, when you cut off a chickens head, the body runs around for a while and its creepy as hell?
I'm putting my money on that.
of course this thread also highlights a good reason not to let military spending get out of hand either. If it gets too high, all the freedom the constitution grants wouldn't be enough because people would be up against state of the art weaponry and overwhelming numbers. Do both and people will be much more safe from tyranny.
outlaw hate speech? absolutely not, and i wouldn't compromise at all. Harassment and verbal threats on the other hand should warrant restraining orders and possibly be used as evidence in a trial should something follow up with that whether you are prosecuting a murderer or proving self defense.
At 1/5/13 07:35 PM, animehater wrote:At 1/5/13 04:22 PM, LemonCrush wrote:Were you just joking in that previous post?At 1/5/13 04:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I know the OP is clearly trolling, but are you really this stupid?The fuck are you talking about?
I... i um... want to agree with him... I think foreigners should be allowed in but I don't think people should be forced to serve them or worry about what offends them... but if they want to that's okay? Is that really an extremist opinion?
At 1/5/13 04:33 PM, LemonCrush wrote:At 1/5/13 04:23 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Yeah, alcohol is worse, but lots of people don't seem to have an issue with that.Agreed. Thing is, the US was founded on alcohol...tobacco too. Washington brewed beer. Jefferson had plans to make the US into a major wine region like they have in France.
Washington's crop was hemp though.
At 1/3/13 04:06 PM, Ceratisa wrote:At 12/29/12 11:36 AM, CaptainCornhole wrote: I think the question we really all should be asking is "Should we marijulize legalana"?No, think about pot heads, most of them are amazingly slow.
yeh that's when their coming down from the high, of course if you were an employer and you didn't like that, you could always just not hire them, or fire them. Were asking for it to be legal, not for everyone to suck the addicts off.
At 12/18/12 03:50 AM, MusicalWonders wrote: Actually, I heard the guns were stolen.
his mom legally acquired them and then her son stole them. but point a goes to point c and apparently her son legally acquired them.
At 12/17/12 11:03 AM, Camarohusky wrote: One use of most drugs, including marijuana, is abuse.
that's an exaggeration and a half.
At 12/15/12 03:36 PM, Feoric wrote:At 12/15/12 03:27 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: gunsmiths and imports. Russian weapons tend to be pretty cheap and mass producible, and easily replicated.Wrong answer.
my answer was where they would get their guns from after the USA outlawed them.
