5,794 Forum Posts by "IllustriousPotentate"
At 7/9/07 04:20 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:At 7/9/07 04:12 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:Not here, but in the Great Bs As yes. I've seen a Bus on TV with lots of snow in it windshield :DAt 7/9/07 03:09 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: ZOMG!!!!!!!!!!That's cool. Did any accumulate?
It is snowing stronger now :D!!!!!!!
Last time it snowed was in 1918!!
Snow is always best in moderation, I believe. It makes it more magical. Here in Georgia, we get accumulating snow once maybe every 3 or 4 years. It's sufficiently rare, that, when it does occur, it's wonderful. We had a blizzard come through in 1993 and dumped up to a foot of snow in the area--it was the "Storm of the Century"--many claimed it was a once in a 100 or 200 year occurrence. I remember sitting in my bedroom that night, watching it thundersnow--lightning flashing, illuminating the snowflakes--it looked like it was raining sparks.
At 7/9/07 04:30 PM, JakeHero wrote: That's how a prison should be runned. In third world countries ifd you complain they chop your dick off and wave it in your face.
That's why we're not in a third-world country, despite your intentions to make it one.
At 7/9/07 04:32 PM, WadeFulp wrote:
When I listen to leading meteorologist not buying global warming, and these are people who study world wide weather, and have studied the history of our climate (which we don't have very good records of once you go back 100 years, or less), why should I buy it? Most of it is theory.
Wade, even if global warming is hokey, even if it's trumped up, isn't it still a good idea to try to reduce emissions? Think about it--much of our emissions come from fossil fuels, whether it comes from our cars burning gas, or power plants burning coal. They have a limited supply, and, in the case of oil, our use of so much of it has embroiled us into a foreign-relations nightmare in the mideast.
If we stop burning so many of these fossil fuels, even if it is for "spurious" reasons such as global warming, we'll still reap the benefits of having less smog, being the leader in clean technology, which we can export to other countries, while creating jobs here domestically, while reducing the need to be involved in a manage-a-trois with Middle Eastern strong men to get oil.
Yes, you did make a good choice. A better choice would have been to leave.
At 7/9/07 03:09 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: ZOMG!!!!!!!!!!
That's cool. Did any accumulate?
At 7/9/07 02:52 PM, mariobro42 wrote: Error in theory
Not all ketchups are the same. Each individual species of ketchup is made from the same ingredients, perhaps, but in different quantities, therefore giving each species of ketchup a unique flavour.
Any variations in ketchup are so small as to be insignificant. If you go into a restaurant, and they bring you fries with ketchup in a little cup on the side, you aren't going to be able to ascertain the brand they use. Same with yellow mustard, salad dressing, etc.
At 7/9/07 02:37 PM, DenEmiel wrote:Have you been using drugs?
Look at this circle: O
Where's the beginning? The end? How can you possibly logically conclude that, because something is infinite, it cannot exist?
No, of course not. Perhaps the topic starter has.
At 7/9/07 02:19 PM, blackbetty86 wrote: because not everyone is cheap
No, cheap is buying and eating raw cabbage, even though you hate it, when you can afford to buy caviar every day.
What I'm describing is frugality. Not paying more than you have to.
At 7/9/07 02:18 PM, Strength wrote: My parents do the shopping.
Go ask them.
Then why did you reply?
At 7/9/07 02:20 PM, HaroFreak wrote: It is a well known fact that basic ingredients such as salt and vegetables from a no-frills brand taste worse than one which has a reputation of being good.
No, it's not a well known fact. In fact, often the products are produced in the same facility at the same time--as evidenced by a nation-wide peanut butter recall, where peanut butter, both Peter Pan and store brand peanut butter came out of the same factory. Remember the pet food recall? It had both store and name brand foods recalled, because they used the same ingredients from the same suppliers.
The price difference isn't from lower-grade ingredients, it's from not having any marketing, coupons, etc.
At 7/9/07 02:21 PM, Xragon wrote: I buy brand name just because I feel more comfortable with a company that I trust putting there name to an object.
But the grocery store puts its name to its store products...
At 7/9/07 02:14 PM, Unknown-Prescense wrote: As to why and how time is. That's it. My theory is about how and why time is. Nothing more.
Well now, you see, time is supposed to stretch on infinitely. Well, all things must have a beginning, and an end. If it is infinite, it has no end, and therefore has no beginning. There is no time.
Look at this circle: O
Where's the beginning? The end? How can you possibly logically conclude that, because something is infinite, it cannot exist?
I see this all the time in grocery stores. People will grab up the name brand ketchup instead of the store brand, despite the store brand is 25% cheaper. People will spend tens of dollars extra on name brand toilet paper, when all you're going to do is flush it down the toilet?
I can understand giving into a kid and buying the name brand cereal for the toy. I can understand buying name brand cat food because the cat is too finicky to eat the store brand.
What I don't understand, though, is why do people pay extra to get the name brand on identical products? All ketchup, light bread, saltines, milk, etc. is pretty much the same. Why spend extra for a name?
Do you buy brand name every time you go into the store?
At 7/8/07 09:47 PM, Memorize wrote:At 7/8/07 08:01 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:No one's arguing that prisons should be resorts.But a lot of prisons are.
Give an example. And even if you post thousands of examples, that is still not a justification for unsanitary conditions. If a prison is "coddling" its prisoners, then that prison needs to be reformed--rather than overlooking an unsanitary one to try to "even it out".
I doubt there would be as much crime if the conditions were that bad.
I doubt there would be as much speeding if you injected HIV positive blood into people that were pulled over for speeding. But that doesn't make it right, nor does it justify doing so.
Here's how it SHOULD be:
-A small cell.
-1 toilet.
-Bed.
-3 dirt cheap meals a day.
No tv.
No internet.
No Tennis Court.
Again, having a sanitary prison doesn't require having all these frills. Stop acting like it does.
Sanitation is not a luxury.*looks at those below poverty line*
The poor aren't living in sewage and sharing blood-stained items, and you know it.
Yeah, they'd all die from the bubonic plague.Good.
And the guards, and the guards families, and people that come into contact with them, and the people that come into contact with those people, etc.
Yes, prison life is so luxurious that hundreds of prisoners commit suicide every year because they just can't take all that luxury.ooo, that's SO much. Hundreds out of... how many?
I don't know. But it's funny how many, many more prisoners kill themselves to avoid prison life than are executed every year by the state. If life in prison is so easy, and the death penalty so strong, how come more people choose their death over prison, than get executed? If life in prison was as easy as you claim, it should be the other way around.
There is no valid reason why prisons should not be kept sanitary. None. All you've argued is that prisons should not be resorts. No one's arguing that. But nowhere have you shown nor can you show why a prison must be a "resort" to have basic sanitation.
At 7/8/07 08:19 PM, Proteas wrote:At 7/8/07 08:08 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Well, good. It shouldn't be too hard to find an example of someone wanting criminals to be treated this way who's against the death penalty.Ask and ye shall receive.
I defy any of the little anti-death penalty fuckers who posted in that topic the way they did to come in here and denounce this guy's treatment.
I'm one of those "little anti-death penalty fuckers", and I am denouncing this guy's treatment. Moreover, nowhere did I see any one say that they should be kept in unsanitary, squallid conditions. Is there a specific one you want to point out?
At 7/8/07 07:54 PM, Proteas wrote:At 7/8/07 07:43 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Does every statement a "liberal" makes have to be taken absolutely literally?This sort of treatment is usually what liberals and democrats on here WANT for these kind of criminals, you don't even have wade that deep through our recent topics to find instances of that.
Well, good. It shouldn't be too hard to find an example of someone wanting criminals to be treated this way who's against the death penalty.
Now we've seen an example of someone actually being treated that way, and what's the response? To recoil in horror?
My personal belief is that prisons should be soulless, spotless, stark facilities. Inmate interaction with other inmates, as well as people off the street should be limited. There should be no thrills, no perks. None of this requires that the conditions be unsanitary.
It is actually advantageous for prisons to be sanitary, because Lysol is a whole lot cheaper for taxpayers than dealing with prisoner lawsuits.
At 7/8/07 07:44 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: That's a good point. Another good point is that I'm a Republican =/My bad.
At 7/8/07 07:50 PM, Memorize wrote: Prison Chief: Welcome to Prison. Here you will serve your time in a confined cell with facilities and a bed...
-And recreational center
-And sports center with a tennis court
-Cafeteria now serves pizza
-Satelite TV has recently been installed in your cells
-Feel free to surf the internet and have the state pay for your online college education
Anything else I can do for you all?
No one's arguing that prisons should be resorts. Stop arguing the strawman that, because someone thinks that prisoners shouldn't have to be kept in cells with sewage on the floors and blood-stained items, they automatically think that they should be treated like royalty. Being against unsanitary conditions does not equal support of 'resort prisons'. Sanitation is not a luxury.
I guarantee if prisons were run like this then there'd be a lot less people in it now.
Yeah, they'd all die from the bubonic plague.
At 7/8/07 07:43 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:When they say "life in prison" is worse than the death sentence, then yes.
Yes, prison life is so luxurious that hundreds of prisoners commit suicide every year because they just can't take all that luxury.
At 7/8/07 07:37 PM, Proteas wrote:At 7/8/07 07:23 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Of course; I hacked into some guys ATM and made off with 2,000 bucks, so I should be raped as well as humiliated by a Guard with a prior record for sexual assault. Brilliant.Well, isn't the common liberal theology (often expressed during death penalty debates) that a criminal should be left in prison to "rot?"
Does a tomato have to be in a squallid area to rot? If you put a fresh head of lettuce into a brand new, sterilized refigerator, does it stay fresh forever?
Does every statement a "liberal" makes have to be taken absolutely literally?
My futile attempt at galaga. The boss always looked like some purplish owl thing to me.
![[official] High-def Sprite Contest!](http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/14/13181000/ngbbs469120a2b4c8f.jpg)
No! No! No! Someone tell Hollywood to stop making the cartoons of my childhood Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny, etc. etc. Stop making them into crappy movies!
At 7/2/07 08:04 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Hey IP, what do you have against fireworks? Is it because you hate America? And capitalism? Commie.
I don't have anything against fireworks. I like watching fireworks.
What I am against is the wrong people getting a hold of fireworks, people that don't need to be using them--people that stupidly forego safety precautions putting themselves, and others, at risk.
At 7/2/07 06:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Thats why there are already firework zoning laws.
I googled 4 different variations of "firework zoning laws" and none of them returned any documents. Can you show some to me?
But since that isn't going to happen any time soon...
I thought you just said that there were already states that require permits?
What types of permits?Depends on the state, the classes you need to take, your location and your expierence of what you can purchase.
If it's not going to happen anytime soon, why has it already happened...?
If 100 people buy x fireworks, and 5 of the people get injured, the injury rate is still the same as if 100 people buy 2x fireworks, and 5 of the people get injured.Weren't you just telling me that black powder is an unstable ingredent that is prone to accidents. Wouldn't more of the substance being used increase the chance for the accident to happen, I mean, if it is indeed inevitable as you put out.
First, I never claimed it was inevitable that everyone using fireworks will have an accident.That's a blatant mischaracterization and you know it.
Second, not necessarily. Someone lighting a large number of smaller fireworks can be more prone to injury as someone lighting a larger, heavier firework; similarly, someone lighting a more powerful, heavier firework is more prone to injury than someone lighting a lighter firework.
No, they're still dangerous even with a permit. But, if nothing else, a permit would show that the person buying the fireworks is actually thought this out before hand--not just walking in off the street and going, "Ooh! Fireworks!"Because, thats worked for drivers.
Imagine what the highway fatality and causualty numbers would look like if we didn't license drivers, if anybody over the age of 16 could jump in and start driving with out any experience or testing.
At 7/1/07 11:00 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Why, The government doesn't have an obligation to protect ourselves from ourselves.
No, but it does have the obligation to protect me from others. I don't want my house set on fire by my drunken neighbor who's idea of fun is lighting bottle rockets. I don't want to get hurt because of someone else's misuse of fireworks.
I would actually be in favor of some sort of class that can be held at a local highschool or something. As long as the cost for the license or class is relatively low, then yes. I would support something like this.
Then what's the problem? That's what I've been saying all along--unlicensed sales is a bad idea. Any sort of license will do better. It wouldn't even require a class. You could go down to the local courthouse to the permitting office, and take a brief quiz, pass, and there you go.
Can you pull something up on this. Because last time I checked, you just had to alert the Fire Department if your blaze was at a big enough level.
I can't pull up any specific ordinance at the moment, but it's been widely reported here in Georgia that, due to drought conditions, all outdoor burning is banned. Usually, these are only temporary and/or seasonal restrictions where they exist.
But thats what I asked for. You gave me statisitcs for injuries and damages cause by Fireworks in 1998. Can you also give me a number or amount of fireworks purchase during that year as well?
No, I can't, and even if I could, it wouldn't be the correct statistic for comparison. You would need to compare the number of injuries to the number of people that use fireworks annually.
If 100 people buy x fireworks, and 5 of the people get injured, the injury rate is still the same as if 100 people buy 2x fireworks, and 5 of the people get injured.
More then likely the number purchased and used is excedelling high and that these injuries and deaths are just a small minority of it.
Without the number of people that use fireworks annually, it would be impossible to make any such conclusion.
The thing is. There are already age restricitons. And in some states, already permits.
What types of permits?
Because, as we all know, it can't be dangerous if you have permit.
No, they're still dangerous even with a permit. But, if nothing else, a permit would show that the person buying the fireworks is actually thought this out before hand--not just walking in off the street and going, "Ooh! Fireworks!"
At 7/1/07 09:59 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: It's not a good idea, and it's not a bad idea. It's a simple idea.
When they cause that much injury and that much damage, we can't afford to have a simple idea.
It's not because of a firework that people place it in thier mouths and light it.
No, it's not. But you can be a professional pyrotechnician, and still get injured. There is a great inherent risk with working with black powder.
The people are often the reason for the dangers and small amounts of damages that result from it.
If that's the case, why not license it? If stupid people are causing most of the problems, why not try remove the stupid people from the equation, and prevent the ER's and first responders from being burdened with firework victims on the 4th, and save the tens of millions in dollars worth of damage?
Really, if the government wants to start restriciting things to us that have the very chance of danger and damage, just because clearly we can't look out for ourselves, restrict the sale of private bonfires or other fires.
In many places, bonfires or other outdoor burning is illegal, for many of the same reasons as fireworks, the risk of property damage and injury.
Gun sales as well should be taken away from, because clearly they serve almost no purpose.
When was the last time you could just walk into Wal*Mart and see a pallet of guns sitting out for anyone to walk up and purchase? There are regulations involved.
Thats your equation of slippery slope argument. Because, dear god, lets not have anything that even has the smallest chance or capability to cause damages.
According to this site , there are around 42,000 accidents in 1995 involving TV's and TV sets. Since the only nature of TV's is for entertainment, we should be them all together to save these people from themselves.
#1: Of course there's going to be more injuries with TV's. Almost everyone uses or passes in close proximity to a TV at some point every day. Few people go out every night and shoot off fireworks.
#2: It's not the number of accidents the product causes, it's why it causes it. Fireworks are inherently dangerous. Professional pyrotechnicians get injured by fireworks. Black powder is a volatile substance, even in the most professionally made firework. When you get down to the $1.99 made in a Chinese sweatshop specials, there's always a risk for disaster.
Fireworks were the cause of 13 fatalities, 8,500 injuries, 7,000 fires,Now, can you get me the amount of fireworks purchased or used in 1998 as well?
and $40 million in property loss in 1998. [Source]
The source has the number of pounds of fireworks. But a more accurate measure would be if you can find the number of people that use fireworks in any given year.
Because Big Brother knows whats best for you.
Big Brother has nothing to do with it. I don't need Big Brother telling me that allowing any Joe Schmo to walk in to their local Wal*Mart and buy a box of fireworks with enough gunpowder inside to blow his head off or set the neightbor's house on fire isn't a good idea. Any sort of regulation--age restrictions, a simple permit, anything--would be better than the "Here's some gunpowder, now be safe" attitude towards fireworks.
If mods were ninjas, they would swoop in and slash people right in the middle of their post. Of course, they're not, so there's no way that woul
"I'm one year older than I was last year."
"Is it raining outside?" No, it's raining inside.
While shivering: "Are you cold?"
At 7/1/07 01:51 AM, Sprittles wrote: if i thought i was better now than in the past...does it make me self centerd?
Of course not. If you weren't better now than you were in the past, that would mean that you haven't matured or learned from mistakes. Self-improvement is something to be proud of.
"Are you asleep?"
While screaming and writhing in pain: "Are you okay?"
Yeah. You tell them. How dare they go to a bowling alley to have fun.
At 7/1/07 12:31 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:At 7/1/07 12:16 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:oh boy here comes the american nationalists. Oh yes, it's true i'm so jealous of your country, because that makes any fucking sense whatsoever.At 7/1/07 12:15 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: It's insane how your country treats it's youth. No wonder america is such a shithole.Says the person in the America-wannabe country.
I didn't say you were jealous. But Canada is sufficiently similar to the United States such that, if the U.S. is in a "shithole", then Canada is up to their waist in it, too.
At 7/1/07 12:35 AM, dukemaster4 wrote: Seriously lets all ruin it for the rest of us because dumbasses have to try stupid stuff.
The problem with that moronic attitude is that many times, the person lighting the fireworks aren't the ones injured.
Morons giving sparklers to toddlers, morons setting other people's property on fire, etc. etc.
At 7/1/07 12:42 AM, dukemaster4 wrote: Wow, 9,200.
That is one out of every 32608.
No, it isn't, because many Americans are smart enough not to touch fireworks. You need to divide 9,200 by the number of people using fireworks, not the total population.
You are honestly trying to tell me fireworks are that dangerous?
Yes! Think about it. 9,200 people are injured every year, and fireworks are only widely used 3, maybe 4 days out of the year at most.
This is all skirting around the crux of the issue. The only two reasons that have been given to support the unlicensed sale of fireworks is "Ooh! Aah! Pretty!" and "Only stupid people get hurt"--which isn't even true.
At 7/1/07 12:29 AM, dukemaster4 wrote: Besides if you look at the chart the more fireworks there are the less injuries there are. It is because people understand how to use fireworks safely now and Im pretty sure the injury rate is not that high.
Your information is not impressive.
Correlation =/= causation. There could be several other factors. An increased number of professionally-managed firework shows and/or larger professionally-managed shows, for one.
Besides, even the source itself states:
This table should be interpreted with caution. First, the logical unit of exposure is
number of devices consumed instead of the weight of the devices, because a person is
exposed to injury when a device is consumed (i.e., lit). Injuries per 100,000 fireworks
devices imported might be more meaningful. Weight over-represents heavy devices and
under-represents light devices. There is no reason to assume that a heavy device is
inherently more dangerous than a light device because the weight of the device includes
other things than just the amount of explosive material.
Regardless, still nobody can give a valid reason why explosives used merely for aesthetic purposes should be sold without a license, even after causing 11 deaths and 9,200 injuries last year.
