charrob
Member

This is a prime example of why we need private roads.

Not sure if anyone has stayed up to date with regard to protest permits (lol) at certain historic venues but the permitting system has become rather elaborate. It's especially difficult to land a permit to protest near historic monuments and parks. So keep an eye on any future venues where protests are taking place. Take note of the ease in landing permits versus the difficulty for some others to receive them. Monitor who's involved in those protests. Monitor police maneuvering. Monitor dialogue between media and elected representatives after the fact. I think that the repeated permit commentary in the video is likely the most important bit. Additionally the fact that it was acknowledged that there were some people who were not there to cause violence. Yet the stormtroopers (who were proudly displaying their military swat gear and strategic crowd containment maneuvering ability again tee hee hee hee hee) did herd them all together. There's more to say about it. I don't really feel like it, though. Here's what a free speech zone looks like these days...

I applied. lol. Will share NASA response upon receipt.

No, you said: Yes, I think the government should be small and constrained only to its Constitutional duties. There is nothing stopping private U.S. citizens from helping others around the world if they so choose. And if we didn't have to pay for these endless military interventions, private U.S. citizens would have more money in their pockets to help foreigners if they so choose. But, if I were to try and put myself into a foreign interventionist's shoes, my biggest problem is with the word "help" from your sentence above. The majority of Latin Americans seem to like living under a socialist government. Daniel Ortega is still president of Nicaragua for ex. If the country of Venezuela had an election and overwhelmingly voted to allow the U.S. government to implement a market economy down there, that would be one thing. But if only, say, 30% of the people in Venezuela wanted that and 70% voted against it (which I suspect would happen), then imho it would be incredibly wrong to force our philosophy and structures onto their country. Who are we to say what is best for them and their culture?

So we should be the world's policeman? There's always going to be murder, rape, and theft going on in the world. We cannot control the endless murder, rape, and theft going on in our own country let alone police the whole world. And it shouldn't be the U.S. Government's job to do it. If private citizens want to get together and fund different countries, that's all well and good. I believe the U.S. Government should focus on the core Constitutional duties and leave the rest for private citizens to decide. ...or "foreign interventionist"?

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe what's right for us is not necessarily right for other cultures of people around the world. We can be an example to others by being the best market economy we can. Beyond that, it seems immoral to me to force another nation to live the way we think they should live. I may be absolutely sure that it's best for everyone in my community to paint the walls inside their houses purple; but it would be completely wrong of me to bring in the U.S. military to paint their walls purple despite several of them completely objecting to it. The use of force, except in true defense, seems wrong.

I've followed Ron Paul for years now. He has a daily show in which the central tenet of that show is that foreign intervention is wrong under all circumstances except for true defensive purposes. It's the very subject that gets him fired up the most and of which will be the subject of an entire September Conference he's holding in D.C. Lew Rockwell recently stated that being opposed to intervention and war against other nations (except for defensive purposes) is the most important, central tenet, of being a libertarian. Certainly the framers of our Constitution would be opposed to this. So I take it you do not consider yourself a libertarian then? Here's from an article written by Ron Paul today and posted at the Ron Paul Institute:

You do realize this is in complete opposition to everything Ron Paul believes in regarding U.S. foreign policy?

Well, we all understand that the right to property is the principal support for the very rights to Individual Life and Liberty. Or we should. The problem I have with the author is that he seems to be defining Man himself as his own primary foundation for moral code. Of course, we know that Man's nature is a mixture of good and evil and not perfectible in that regard. Given that Man's weakness in his nature is not perfectible, it must be recognized that the need for safeguards must exist. There's much to say about that. Government will always exist in some form as a consequence. And subsequently aggression. It's late, though. Perhaps tomorrow.

History is a great indicator. We need only reference our history books to bear witness to the many civilizations which have been burned to the ground by some government tyrant in the name of some God. Neither government tyrants or religious tyrants are mutually exclusive in that regard. They require one another in order to establish and maintain control over people. If anyone wants to dispute it, I'll be in the neighborhood.

So if the government "we" would install was an improvement in your eyes, you would be for using force against a country that is no threat to us at all? How very Ron-Paul-Libertarian of you. :rolleyes: Of course there will be continued violence... our CIA head has admitted they are pushing hard for regime change and the U.S. taxpayer has been paying for the protests and opposition since Chavez got elected -- even bringing the protest leaders to the U.S. to "train them". Like it or not Maduro was democratically elected. As was Salvador Allende. After Pinochet took over his military junta (trained and armed by the U.S. government) dissolved the Congress of Chile, suspended the Constitution, and began a persecution of alleged dissidents, in which thousands of Allende's supporters were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. This is what you are for?

Just a repeat of the same pattern/blueprint the U.S. uses in countries all over the world whose governments refuse to be U.S. puppets: First there's U.S. taxpayer funded "NGO's" like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) who organize the protests and fund the opposition. If above doesn't work to overthrow government, then the U.S. military/CIA arms and trains "rebels". If above doesn't work to overthrow government, then the U.S. military does the job. The only reason step 3, above, didn't occur in Syria is because Russia got involved. But this U.S. interventionist crap has occurred in most countries on this planet and none of it has been for the "defense" of the citizens of this country (in fact it harms our security by making enemies all over the world). Step 1 above is more recent as this used to be the job of the CIA; now these NGO's (ie. NED, IRI, USAID, PNAC, Soro's Open Society, etc.) are now the front groups for the CIA who have taken over step 1.

Guccifer 2.0 is the DNC

Apple has apps for the iphone created by the ACLU. There is an app for every single state I believe. If the app is used, the film goes directly to the ACLU and is not saved on the phone. So often cops destroy phones, delete information on phones, etc. Using this app seems to make sense if one ever comes across abuse by cops and wants to film it. Not sure about android phones, but I'd bet the ACLU has apps built for them as well.

The defendant here has standing, so what reason could SCOTUS give for not hearing his case? However even if they hear the case, Scalia was interesting because there were a number of times he voted with Ginsburg, Breyer, et. al on issues of civil liberties. I get the feeling Gorsuch is no Scalia. As so often happens, Kennedy may be the deciding vote if SCOTUS takes the case.

I won't pretend to understand this, but am definitely impressed. There's been a lot of work on batteries in order to be able to store energy that is created; if hydrogen can do this so easily, that seems like an incredible discovery. The Department of Energy estimates that more than 4,000 Gigawatts of offshore wind potential is found along the U.S. east coast: that's 8 times more power than the entire country uses. To be able to harness even a fraction of that and then to store it so easily would be amazing. It sounds like the hydrogen fuel cells would be built on top of the hybrid model Toyota has already built. I can vouch for the Prius hybrid: my 2012 Prius is a wonderful car. If i drive carefully (ie. i don't floor the gas pedal coming off a red light, i go the speed limit or a little less when climbing hills, i slowly approach red lights rather than racing up to them and slamming on the breaks once there, etc.) i get between 63 and 65 mpg. If i drive more aggressively, my Prius gets 50 to 55 mpg. And I haven't had one single problem with the car. Even regular maintenance (ie. oil changes, brakes, etc.) are needed less in this car than they are needed in a regular combustion engine. Looking forward to seeing Toyota's hydrogen fuel cell technology eventually come onto our roads!

Yeah, that, too. In fact, I got a message just yesterday from a guy asking me if I'd ship my vintage Breitling Chrono to Portugal. I just responded that I don't ship Internationally. The guy didn't have any buyer/seller feedback either.

Yes, I know. The thought entered my mind as well. I chuckled, in fact. I'm pretty sure I know what the $%#@ I saw with my own eyes, dannno. How ya gonna tell me you're sure about what the $%#@ I saw when I'm the one who the $%#@in saw it?

Okay, next time I see it, I'll put a link here. Matter of fact, I just saw it the other day again when I was looking at vintage watches. And yes I know it isn't a race. But racists don't know that.

I see this a lot on Ebay. No sales to foreigners...No sales to Islams. It's funny. I suppose people can sell to whom they want, though. Racists. lol.

I don'tlike what they feed the factory farm animals. That's my biggest thing.

McMacs and Whoppers have a lot to do with that.

Yeah, me, too. I have a sock around here some place. Hehehehe. I always go to Ron when I'm looking for an answer to something. He rarely fails me. Not to bring her back into it but lily promotes veganism from a biblical perspective. I've never heard an actual practicing Monk discuss his reasoning for a plant based lifestyle, though. I'd be interested in making the comparison with the case that some Christians make in its support. If for no other reason than purely educational material.

There was actually some industry penned legislation that specifically said that people had no right to know what was in their food. And it went further to say that the States didn't have the right to protect it's citizens right to know. I posted it around here some place. That kind of thing fundamentally takes away one's freedom of choice. Which is fundamental to Individual Liberty. That was actually a 'conservative' bit of tomscrewery. That wasn't about meat, or vegetables particularly. It was everything. I think they're still trying to get it into law.

Really. That's interesting, pao. You should tell us about that some time.

Yes, I know. I agree that the vast majority of them would. I was just putting it out there that not all of them are like that. That's all I was saying. I'm a big fan of leave me the heck alone. People are free to make rules for themselves so long as I'm not forced to equally do the same. It's a good rule to live by.

To borrow Pete's words, what must be done cannot be spoken here.