fractional slacker

Sorry, can someone embed this video? warning: graphic violence

Unless you can tell me where planners have implemented prohibiting of walking, riding a bike, riding a train, or riding a buss, it appears to me the use of automobiles has been primarily market driven.

From the regressive Progressives file. More of the - you can't live or travel where you want non-sense. Welcome to 'green' prison. "But a number of major cities, including the likes of Paris, London and even New York, have been exploring ways to reduce the number of vehicles on their streets, if not to ban vehicles outright."

We all know the poverty has become a buzz word for the right to steal from the producers in order to bribe the takers. Poverty has no objective definition. Furthermore, income transfers (welfare) are not even counted as income. If you look at stats from the consumption side (retail sales), poverty is basically non existent compared to less advanced places in the world. .

1) Don't be such a simpleton. The world is more complicated than that. 2) There are no absolutes "4) I've never used the initiation of the use of force to achieve a single goal in my life, but I believe that we need people that steal from you to protect you from theft and the idea that people can achieve their goals without the initiation of the use of force is the utopian one." Warning: tangent ahead. Number 1 and 2 are what a friend likes to tell me whenever I say ethics mean nothing if they aren't universal. He's very much invested in the slimy goo of post modernism. Here is a post he made on FB. He considers himself a 'progressive' democrat. "To the greatest extent possible, feasible, reasonable…at least consciously, we have a moral, ethical requirement to consider the effects of our choices, actions, decisions upon all people, creatures, sentient beings, life, reality...and further, we have an ethical obligation to strive to have our considerations inform our actions. Always." Here is my comment: "I am not sure I understand. Would you care to give a practical example?" (he never responded) Here is a comment from his friend: "I always love your combination of passion, intelligence and high ethical standards! very refreshing at this site where "pets doing the darndest things" rules! (which actually I don't mind too much given that I'm guilty of posting a lot of their funny antics!)"

Why did you post about my use of punctuation and not add anything to the thread? If you don't have anything to add, just say I don't have anything to add. Another post that neither supports or questions hemp. Why are you in this thread?

Mr. A. was arguing by adjective and accusation. He employed no reasoning or methodology as for how and why his claim(s) were true . He did not/would not provide any definitions. There is no debate without agreement on what words mean. IMO, that is how relativism is so popular. One can just make it up ex post facto, move the goal posts and exist as a cloud of fog.

If you read the last sentence, you will notice I never claim anything about helping citizens. "They both suffer from trade sactions. If hemp were to do half of what the hempsters claim it does, why would those tin pot dictators not use industrial hemp for their own gain?" The topic is hemp. If you would like to dicusss the topic, please do. Otherwise, I am not sure why you are here.

Sorry. I should have claified I mean only industrial uses of hemp. I am not taking issue with the (dubious) medical claims for THC or whatever canibinoids. The lack of empircial evidence is why I question the hempsters. I don't think a free market is neccessary. Cuba has great medical care. N. Korea has a decent military. They both suffer from trade sactions. If hemp were to do half of what the hempsters claim it does, why would those tin pot dictators not use industrial hemp for their own gain?

Definitions are important. So when you say "Drugs would probably be another one, Anything that impaired driving ability to any significant degree." it would be good know exactly how you define "drugs" and "impaired." How would you know if someone were breaking your rules? Enforcement has two costs: direct and indirect. Direct is self explanatory, but indirect will be the business you don't get from those who don't want to be micromanaged in their travels even if you use the old adage and unguaranteed notion of SAFEY as your selling point.

There are plenty of studies in the affirmation. Mind you they are all funded by the supplement industry. Don't get me started on car insurance. I have a full plate in another thread challenging the notion it is immoral to consume alchohol and then drive a car. The costs are relatively insignificant if you discount the increased risk for damage (eg beta caratine). To be fair, the gains for certain groups (pregnant women folic acid, Sailors and scurvy) are immense.

I will sell you pills I gurantee will never harm you and be just as effective as multivitamins. And these pills will be 50% cheaper. Let me know if you are interested. Superstition, propaganda, and confirmational bias are what most people prefer. Steph is right. Reason and evidence are irrelevant in changing how people think. “Sales of multivitamins and other supplements have not been affected by major studies with null results, and the U.S. supplement industry continues to grow, reaching $28 billion in annual sales in 2010,” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/multivitamin-researchers-say-case-is-closed-supplements-dont-boost-health/

According to some, it is. I have heard for decades about how miraculous the properties of hemp are. You know the mantra: it is more efficient than trees for pulp and fiberboard and it is superior to fossil fuels for energy. This has neve made sense to me from a scietific standpoint even though I know nothing about science. The hemp cultists claim all sorts of (mostlyl political) conspiracies for why hemp has never been allowed to compete and thus kept illegal. Is there a country that has been vastly improved by using hemp? For example why would North Korea, Cuba, Haiti, Nepal, etc be using hemp to liff their people out of povety? All I ever hear is TPTB won't allow it. Which is not a real answer as far as I am concerned.

What other pre-crimes would you not allow? Is it just alcohol you are concerned with? Are you ready to micromanage every aspect of driving for the sake of security? How would your model will be more profitable than your competitor who is not interested in pre-crime, and thus has lower costs/tariffs?

Are you suggesting it is okay to be punished not for committing harm to someone or property damage, but for having the potential to do harm someone or to do property damage? Are you going to judge who is a threat and who is not? If there is no victim, there is no crime. You seem to be suggesting roads would not have value without pre-crime rules such as drinking and driving. Do you know that to be true? To be clear, I am not advocating being drunk while driving. I am advocating against rulers that know better than eveyone else. How would you justify aggressing/banning/prohibiting against someone for combining two non violent actions, in this case driving and consuming adult beverages.

1st post suggests either troll or PR agent. That woman has zero connection to anything rational or philosophical.

What do you think of this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh0U08G-kWs&feature=c4-overview&list=UUs84giQmEVI8NXXg78Fvk2g

There is nothing wrong with drinking and driving. I, and many others, have done it many times. People who support drinking and driving laws in essence support punishing people who have not hurt anyone. They support punishment without evidence of a crime. That is an important element in advancing the cause of tyranny. No victim, no crime. You can't burn the village to save the village. That's statist ideology. People have a right to do stupid things. Saying you have intentions to promote safetey so that you can rule over people is not UPB compliant.

To your first point. All I can think of is Pat Tillman. It's never easy to explain people's motivations or (lack of) logic. To your second point. I think that is a great approach. I am not always that talented or creative in finding humor in something I feel strongly about. Tangent. I wish the TV were not on (in the locker room) and I didn't have to hear the stupid crap they say on ESPN or GMA. I am often tempted to make comments when I hear an issue come up, but I know better. I am in a locker room, afterall. I feel a little anxious/unsettled in that I didn't attempt to engage this gentleman in a conversation. So I sort of took a pot shot, and tried to claim victory. I am going to chalk it up as a learning experience. Don't engage strangers if you aren't going to engage. Don't take the bait even if you can slide it off the hook and safely get away. A locker room is already a place with sufficient volatile energy by just navigating close quarters with strangers in various degrees of undress. Would it make any difference if I called them public banter? My experience is sometimes they are looking for conversation, not just spouting off. I could be wrong, but that's my perception.

making a comment. I tried. I almost succeeded. Setting: mid morning at 24hr Fitness locker room. I'm getting dressed and the TV is on ESPN, as usual. A story about some college kid who got pulled over for doing 110mph when the speed limit was 70mph. A guy near me first made a comment directed at no in particular something like "wow, that is pretty fast." He appeared to approve of the gun thug extortion AKA getting a ticket. I kept telling myself don't say anything. Let it go. Don't say anything. Then the guy made another comment mocking the kid for going so fast. I put on a nice smile and gently said to the guy, "No victim. No crime. He didn't hurt anyone. Not sure why it would matter." It took him a second as if he was recovering from a body blow and he started in with the line "Well yeah, but he might have really hurt someone if he hadn't been pulled over." I looked on and listened as I walked towards the sink. I noticed another guy jump in the conversation supporting the guy I had just directed my comment at. The mood was slightly uncomfortable but not hostile. I only wanted to say what I said and be done with it. There wouldn't be a debate. I know better. For that part I was successful. Question. When do you decide to jump into/comment on a public conversation?

"...Kathleen Sebelius has released a video message to Youtube where she warns: “Back the fuck off, or I’ll go nuclear.” Does this video exist? Has anyone viewed it?

Global Warming is just another ex post facto excuse for rulers to exist (AKA socialism, in this case of the watermelon variety). Why do I say that? No matter what the weather is/was in the past, present, or future, it will be considered an effect of global warming (if you are a believer). Global warming and weather are in a loop of infinite support. Global warming is absent of definition and absent of form; there is nothing that can disprove it. Hmm, where have we heard that line before?

Given the relatively low cost needed to be to religious, wouldn't it be harmless to have faith just in case there is a god? ;)What is claimed by the supplement industry and that which is true (what studies have shown), are miles apart. Yes, supplements can and do have benefits. Yes, supplements are sometimes neutral. Yes, supplements sometimes cause illness. Your mileage may vary. Health and nutrition are complicated, to say the least. Would you buy and consume a pill that might help, might have no effect, or might harm you? It comes down to preference (or even bias), I suppose. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/study-casts-doubt-whether-extra-vitamin-d-prevents-000147089.html "She added that Autier's study did, however, appear to confirm what many nutrition experts have suspected for a while - "that healthy people probably don't need to take a high dose supplement and that the best source of vitamin D for most people is sunlight in the summer, always taking care not to burn."

I believe you may be responding to the title of article which is somewhat misleading AKA stirring the pot if you will. The two main points of article about supplements are: a. there are no studies that show supplements to be beneficial to those who get sufficient nutrition from food; b. mega doses of supplements do not prevent colds, cancer, or anything in between.

It's a start! I guess. They used the word in reference to a young man they had in studio. His name is Jason Sillva. Mr. Silva seems like a bright and creative fellow, indeed. His philosophy appears to be anything but threatening to the ruling class, hence praise from the MSM. He is best known for a viral Youtube video and as the host of Brain Games on Natgeo TV. Mr. Silva is also favored by the folks who do TED talks. Not sure how saying nice things in a creative way is going to help solve complex problems facing the world. But like I said, at least they used the P-word! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb-OYmHVchQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Silva