A dating site for Brent

[Mark Anderson]

Usenet has always been a helpful place so I thought I'd pass along a
dating site for Brent and the rest of the Lew Rockwell crowd.

----
From: http://planet.infowars.com/groups/dating-freedom-lovers/

Find and meet people that share a passion for liberty and freedom and
are ready to start a relationship. GET FEATURED: E-mail: mods_love @
infowars.com your picture, 100 words or less description & your
PlanetInfowars @ User Name
----

As you might guess, mostly dudes on this site but I found a match for
Brent.

http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/Planetlnfowars/media/Dating%20Freedom%
20Lovers/tracysfeature1_zps0eabdd08.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21

I can't copy/paste text but basically this chick likes to pan for gold.
Not many women know how to do this. And she's cute!

[smr]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:45:19 -0400, Mark Anderson wrote:

> http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/Planetlnfowars/media/Dating%20Freedom%
> 20Lovers/tracysfeature1_zps0eabdd08.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21

a) Obvious Sharia/Caliphate sleeper agent
b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?
c) Jesse Ventura 2016? What the fucking hell...

--
smr

[Brent]

Now that is something so obscure that only a regular listener to the
Alex Jones show would even know it exists.

[Brent]

On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:45:19 -0400, Mark Anderson wrote:
>
>> http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/Planetlnfowars/media/Dating%20Freedom%
>> 20Lovers/tracysfeature1_zps0eabdd08.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21
>
> a) Obvious Sharia/Caliphate sleeper agent
> b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
> does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
> use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?

Leaf? That's another electric car that got a nice big fat check from the
gobbermint. I think it was in the billions... Yep $1.4 billion loan
according to wikipedia.

> c) Jesse Ventura 2016? What the fucking hell...

Better than the usual choices... but then again so is a dead cat.

[Michele]

On 4/29/2013 7:24 PM, smr wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:45:19 -0400, Mark Anderson wrote:
>
>> http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/Planetlnfowars/media/Dating%20Freedom%
>> 20Lovers/tracysfeature1_zps0eabdd08.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21

> b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
> does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
> use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?

Don't forget about all of the plastic in the interior to reduce the
overall vehicle weight.

[Adam H. Kerman]

As plastic doesn't protect the driver or passenger in event of a collision,
how does the fire department know to send the battery-powered ambulance and
fire trucks to pick these people up, whatever pieces remain, to be transported
to hospital, or the battery-powered medical examiner's vehicle to take them
to the morgue?

[smr]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:

> On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:45:19 -0400, Mark Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/Planetlnfowars/media/Dating%20Freedom%
>>> 20Lovers/tracysfeature1_zps0eabdd08.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21
>>
>> a) Obvious Sharia/Caliphate sleeper agent
>> b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
>> does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
>> use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?
>
> Leaf? That's another electric car that got a nice big fat check from the
> gobbermint. I think it was in the billions... Yep $1.4 billion loan
> according to wikipedia.

What's your point?

>> c) Jesse Ventura 2016? What the fucking hell...
>
> Better than the usual choices... but then again so is a dead cat.

Jesse is a high-functioning retard at best.

--
smr

[spamtrap1888]

On Apr 30, 6:53 am, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
> > On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

> >> b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
> >> does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
> >> use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?
>
> > Leaf? That's another electric car that got a nice big fat check from the
> > gobbermint. I think it was in the billions... Yep $1.4 billion loan
> > according to wikipedia.
>
> What's your point?

Moreover, why did the US lend big bucks to a Japanese company?

>
> >> c) Jesse Ventura 2016? What the fucking hell...
>
> > Better than the usual choices... but then again so is a dead cat.
>
> Jesse is a high-functioning retard at best.

Smart enough to point out when the emperor is buck naked. And, as
governors go, a lot smarter than say, Blago.

[smr]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:54:28 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 wrote:

> On Apr 30, 6:53�am, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>>> On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
>>>> b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
>>>> does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
>>>> use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?
>>
>>> Leaf? That's another electric car that got a nice big fat check from the
>>> gobbermint. I think it was in the billions... Yep $1.4 billion loan
>>> according to wikipedia.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
> Moreover, why did the US lend big bucks to a Japanese company?

Because that specific 1.4 billion dollar loan all went to prepping a
factory in Tennessee to make the Leaf, thereby securing American jobs in
America?

> Smart enough to point out when the emperor is buck naked. And, as
> governors go, a lot smarter than say, Blago.

This is a series of non sequitors that does nothing to disprove my point.

--
smr

[Brent]

On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>
>> On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:45:19 -0400, Mark Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/Planetlnfowars/media/Dating%20Freedom%
>>>> 20Lovers/tracysfeature1_zps0eabdd08.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21
>>>
>>> a) Obvious Sharia/Caliphate sleeper agent
>>> b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
>>> does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
>>> use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?
>>
>> Leaf? That's another electric car that got a nice big fat check from the
>> gobbermint. I think it was in the billions... Yep $1.4 billion loan
>> according to wikipedia.
>
> What's your point?

It should be obvious.

>>> c) Jesse Ventura 2016? What the fucking hell...
>>
>> Better than the usual choices... but then again so is a dead cat.

> Jesse is a high-functioning retard at best.

Better a well meaning retard than sociopaths we get to choose from.

[Brent]

On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:54:28 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
>> On Apr 30, 6:53�am, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
>>>>> does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
>>>>> use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?
>>>
>>>> Leaf? That's another electric car that got a nice big fat check from the
>>>> gobbermint. I think it was in the billions... Yep $1.4 billion loan
>>>> according to wikipedia.
>>>
>>> What's your point?
>>
>> Moreover, why did the US lend big bucks to a Japanese company?
>
> Because that specific 1.4 billion dollar loan all went to prepping a
> factory in Tennessee to make the Leaf, thereby securing American jobs in
> America?

Which took 1.4 billion in taxes, borrowed money, and/ or savings
devaluation for what the political class thinks is a good idea.
The negative impact wrt what purposes those monies may have been put to
had the government not taken that wealth and shoved it into electric
cars is unknown. It is a classic example of Bastiat's 'the seen and the
unseen'. The jobs building electric cars are seen. The jobs lost
building other things, providing other services, etc and so forth are
not seen. Furthermore what the political class thinks is a good idea is
often what is a good idea for the political class, for government or
themselves personally. Not society. These distortions often end up
causing more harm than good.

This is all basic Austrian school economics, that anyone in the 'lew
rockwell crowd' should be well aware of.

[smr]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:39:54 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:

> On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:45:19 -0400, Mark Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/Planetlnfowars/media/Dating%20Freedom%
>>>>> 20Lovers/tracysfeature1_zps0eabdd08.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21
>>>>
>>>> a) Obvious Sharia/Caliphate sleeper agent
>>>> b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
>>>> does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
>>>> use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?
>>>
>>> Leaf? That's another electric car that got a nice big fat check from the
>>> gobbermint. I think it was in the billions... Yep $1.4 billion loan
>>> according to wikipedia.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
> It should be obvious.

You believe every single dime spent by the government is inherently being
spent poorly. I do not. So...

>>>> c) Jesse Ventura 2016? What the fucking hell...
>>>
>>> Better than the usual choices... but then again so is a dead cat.
>
>> Jesse is a high-functioning retard at best.
>
> Better a well meaning retard than sociopaths we get to choose from.

You think JV's _NOT_ a sociopath? Methinks then that there's more than one
retard involved in this thread.

--
smr

[smr]

Oh, look, Blennie's been infected with a new meme. Prepare yourself for a
few more mentions of Bastiat over the next few weeks.

I'm trying to picture a single competing project, or even combo thereof,
that would have brought the number of jobs, both direct and indirect, and
income to a fuckass county in Tennessee as this particular factory, but I'm
sure it exists in your fever dreams somewhere, if nowhere else.

--
smr

[Adam H. Kerman]

I'm confused as to why you think highly profitable companies should be
subsidized under any circumstances, and what would have been wrong with the
same number of jobs spread out across other businesses. Why should the
government pick winners and losers ever?

[Adam H. Kerman]

blennie, knock off the pseudo-psychology crap. You always lose because
your rhetoric sucks. Uh, great, you don't like future choices for governor.
Just make your point and stop.

[tert in seattle]

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Why should the government pick winners and losers ever?

someone's got to do it ... in theory a government that expresses the
will of the people ... a so-called democracy ... means everyone picks
the winners and losers, so in that case it should be fair ... but we
all know better ... our governments represent the interests of the
campaign financiers

[Brent]

On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:39:54 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>
>> On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:45:19 -0400, Mark Anderson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/Planetlnfowars/media/Dating%20Freedom%
>>>>>> 20Lovers/tracysfeature1_zps0eabdd08.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Obvious Sharia/Caliphate sleeper agent
>>>>> b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
>>>>> does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
>>>>> use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?
>>>>
>>>> Leaf? That's another electric car that got a nice big fat check from the
>>>> gobbermint. I think it was in the billions... Yep $1.4 billion loan
>>>> according to wikipedia.
>>>
>>> What's your point?
>>
>> It should be obvious.
>
> You believe every single dime spent by the government is inherently being
> spent poorly. I do not. So...

Well then I think it would be a good idea to give me 1.4 billion dollars
to create a company and manufacturing plant. But then you'll insult me.
Even if our dear leaders were great honest upstanding perfectly moral
people devoid of self interest only caring about others and then only
picked the perfect things to take our wealth from us and spend it, it
would still be morally wrong. But what is worse is that our dear leaders
are none of things.

>>>>> c) Jesse Ventura 2016? What the fucking hell...
>>>>
>>>> Better than the usual choices... but then again so is a dead cat.
>>
>>> Jesse is a high-functioning retard at best.
>>
>> Better a well meaning retard than sociopaths we get to choose from.

> You think JV's _NOT_ a sociopath? Methinks then that there's more than one
> retard involved in this thread.

Having trouble reading? I wrote better a retard than a sociopath.
Retards aren't sociopaths as far as I know. It appears to me the two
sets of characteristics do not overlap and probably cannot since the
sociopath needs to use intelligence above the capabilities of a retard
to mask his true nature. So I think it is you who needs to figure out
what the fuck he means to say.

[Brent]

Why don't you just blather curse words? You seem more intelligent that
way.

> I'm trying to picture a single competing project, or even combo thereof,
> that would have brought the number of jobs, both direct and indirect, and
> income to a fuckass county in Tennessee as this particular factory, but I'm
> sure it exists in your fever dreams somewhere, if nowhere else.

Then I take it you like giving up what you earn to provide jobs in
"fuckass county in Tennessee"? If that is your preference you could
always do that by sending a check to the US treasury of your own accord.
There is no reason to force others into your charitable notions.
Furthermore doesn't such a notion violate the 'Union YES' morality of
chi.general?

[Brent]

The people decide winners and losers in the market place by purchasing
or not purchasing products. Not electing one corporation's set of
thieves over another's.

BTW, this isn't a democracy. It's supposed to be a republic, but it is
functionally corporatist with nationalistic and socialist features with
the vestiges of a republic. In a democracy as you point out, your
neighbors simply vote your wealth for themselves.

>

[Brent]

Lonely again Adam? Governor? I don't care who the governor of Mn is.
This was about POTUS.

If you want to correct me as to what call a person who oversees children
being killed by drones, go right ahead.

[tert in seattle]

Brent wrote:
> On 2013-04-30, tert in seattle <te...@ftupet.com> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> Why should the government pick winners and losers ever?
>>
>> someone's got to do it ... in theory a government that expresses the
>> will of the people ... a so-called democracy ... means everyone picks
>> the winners and losers, so in that case it should be fair ... but we
>> all know better ... our governments represent the interests of the
>> campaign financiers
>
> The people decide winners and losers in the market place by purchasing
> or not purchasing products. Not electing one corporation's set of
> thieves over another's.

it is working so well in Somalia...so far the pirates are winning...as
they should -- whoever uses the greatest amount of force wins

> BTW, this isn't a democracy. It's supposed to be a republic, but it is
> functionally corporatist with nationalistic and socialist features with
> the vestiges of a republic. In a democracy as you point out, your
> neighbors simply vote your wealth for themselves.

a good way to vote with your dollars would be to invest in the company
that makes the antri-drone hoodie

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/mar/31/anti-drone-hoodie-big-brother>

[smr]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:38:16 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:

> Why don't you just blather curse words? You seem more intelligent that
> way.

Okay: why don't you go fuck your mom in her prolapsed asshole?

> Then I take it you like giving up what you earn to provide jobs in
> "fuckass county in Tennessee"? If that is your preference you could
> always do that by sending a check to the US treasury of your own accord.
> There is no reason to force others into your charitable notions.
> Furthermore doesn't such a notion violate the 'Union YES' morality of
> chi.general?

I don't believe I have a right to absolutely keep 100% of every dime I ever
earn, ever, because I'm not a psychopath who thinks the
block/community/ward/city/county/state/nation/world I live in exists in a
fucking vacuum that magically sprouted forth to benefit me out of sheer
good-heartedness.

--
smr

[smr]

I didn't express that opinion; I expressed the thought that that one
factory brought more jobs and income, total, to that county than any
documentable alternatives that were on the table at the time.

I think there's a good in researching ways to power private transportation
beyond the internal combusition engine. Much like nukes, DARPAnet, the
TVA... this is the sort of project I think the government should be getting
behind to help push the private sector along.

To your last point, it's not like the gov't said "Nissan wins, everybody
else can fuck off!" as that's provably untrue.

--
smr

[smr]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:32:42 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:

> Well then I think it would be a good idea to give me 1.4 billion dollars
> to create a company and manufacturing plant. But then you'll insult me.
> Even if our dear leaders were great honest upstanding perfectly moral
> people devoid of self interest only caring about others and then only
> picked the perfect things to take our wealth from us and spend it, it
> would still be morally wrong. But what is worse is that our dear leaders
> are none of things.

You don't have a proven track record of being able to manufacture, in
volume, electric vehicles, now do you? Nissan did, via the two other plants
they had not in the United States that were already producing the Leaf
before they got this loan.

> Having trouble reading? I wrote better a retard than a sociopath.
> Retards aren't sociopaths as far as I know.

There is no proof that shows that the mentally-retarded can't also be
sociopaths. The retard may lack the ability to fully execute on his
sociopathic thoughts, but Jesse having the levers of federal power in his
hands makes it more likely that he would, no?

> It appears to me the two
> sets of characteristics do not overlap and probably cannot since the
> sociopath needs to use intelligence above the capabilities of a retard
> to mask his true nature. So I think it is you who needs to figure out
> what the fuck he means to say.

Jesse Ventura is a high-functioning, sociopathic retard. By your own
standards, doesn't wanting to have power over others via government, as
dickhead has, automatically make him sociopathic?

--
smr

[Adam H. Kerman]

That county won something, I guess, if subsidy and costs don't exceed
benefits, which it does a lot of the time. You fail to understand that
there are losers, here.

>I think there's a good in researching ways to power private transportation
>beyond the internal combusition engine. Much like nukes, DARPAnet, the
>TVA... this is the sort of project I think the government should be getting
>behind to help push the private sector along.

Last I looked 99 44/100% of the world's battery research is being done
in China. That's not what the government is doing here.

Why don't we just let world oil prices rise to a higher level? We do that
by withdrawing all the world's military from oil producing nations and
tell them to go fuck themselves. We lower our military spending to
reflect this. Suddenly it becomes possible to develop other technologies.

>To your last point, it's not like the gov't said "Nissan wins, everybody
>else can fuck off!" as that's provably untrue.

I must have missed your proof.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I just did. Keep pseudo-psychology crap out of your rhetoric and you might
actually have a persuassive point. What psychobabble term is there for you,
someone who might have something worthwhile to say on occassion, but makes
sure to frame his argument in a way that it sounds childish?

[Adam H. Kerman]

shawn and blennie on the same page...

[Brent]

On 2013-04-30, tert in seattle <te...@ftupet.com> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2013-04-30, tert in seattle <te...@ftupet.com> wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why should the government pick winners and losers ever?
>>>
>>> someone's got to do it ... in theory a government that expresses the
>>> will of the people ... a so-called democracy ... means everyone picks
>>> the winners and losers, so in that case it should be fair ... but we
>>> all know better ... our governments represent the interests of the
>>> campaign financiers
>>
>> The people decide winners and losers in the market place by purchasing
>> or not purchasing products. Not electing one corporation's set of
>> thieves over another's.
>
> it is working so well in Somalia...so far the pirates are winning...as
> they should -- whoever uses the greatest amount of force wins

Violence is the root of your mob rule democracy. Unless you think paying
taxes for corporate welfare is voluntary.

>> BTW, this isn't a democracy. It's supposed to be a republic, but it is
>> functionally corporatist with nationalistic and socialist features with
>> the vestiges of a republic. In a democracy as you point out, your
>> neighbors simply vote your wealth for themselves.

> a good way to vote with your dollars would be to invest in the company
> that makes the antri-drone hoodie

Non responsive.

[Brent]

On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

> I didn't express that opinion; I expressed the thought that that one
> factory brought more jobs and income, total, to that county than any
> documentable alternatives that were on the table at the time.

Hence 'seen' and 'unseen'.

> I think there's a good in researching ways to power private transportation
> beyond the internal combusition engine. Much like nukes, DARPAnet, the
> TVA... this is the sort of project I think the government should be getting
> behind to help push the private sector along.

So you're just another Anderson, someone who approves of the principles
of central planning but just disagrees on degree and detail of it.

> To your last point, it's not like the gov't said "Nissan wins, everybody
> else can fuck off!" as that's provably untrue.

Essentially that's how a fascist/corporatist economy works. Government
decides who can play and who must 'fuck off'.

[Brent]

On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

So in your collectivist utopia, how much do you get to keep? Why not say
have you live on half of what you make so someone else can have the
other half? Where do you draw the lines? Since you've decided that all
three hundred and ten million of us give or take are in this together,
how are you going to work out these redistributions? By the political
process? That hardly seems fair or even remotely optimal.

What happens when you're taxed to fund something you don't approve of?
What then?

The problem with a collective is that someone runs it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

>I don't believe I have a right to absolutely keep 100% of every dime I ever
>earn, ever, because I'm not a psychopath who thinks the
>block/community/ward/city/county/state/nation/world I live in exists in a
>fucking vacuum that magically sprouted forth to benefit me out of sheer
>good-heartedness.

I think you are morally entitled to keep every dime you earn, including
interest. It's why I favor the land value tax, 'cuz that measures how
your neighbors and the economy and government services (for good or ill)
are doing, generally, and has nothing to do with your earnings. Income taxes
and sales taxes aren't in proportion to the benefits you receive.

[Brent]

On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:32:42 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>
>> Well then I think it would be a good idea to give me 1.4 billion dollars
>> to create a company and manufacturing plant. But then you'll insult me.
>> Even if our dear leaders were great honest upstanding perfectly moral
>> people devoid of self interest only caring about others and then only
>> picked the perfect things to take our wealth from us and spend it, it
>> would still be morally wrong. But what is worse is that our dear leaders
>> are none of things.

> You don't have a proven track record of being able to manufacture, in
> volume, electric vehicles, now do you? Nissan did, via the two other plants
> they had not in the United States that were already producing the Leaf
> before they got this loan.

Who said I wanted to make electric cars? You blathered about jobs. So
now it has to be only jobs making electric cars? Ok, so I'll settle for
the money that Musk got for Tesla Motors. He had no track record of
manufacturing anything.

>> Having trouble reading? I wrote better a retard than a sociopath.
>> Retards aren't sociopaths as far as I know.

> There is no proof that shows that the mentally-retarded can't also be
> sociopaths. The retard may lack the ability to fully execute on his
> sociopathic thoughts, but Jesse having the levers of federal power in his
> hands makes it more likely that he would, no?

What are 'sociopathic thoughts'?

>> It appears to me the two
>> sets of characteristics do not overlap and probably cannot since the
>> sociopath needs to use intelligence above the capabilities of a retard
>> to mask his true nature. So I think it is you who needs to figure out
>> what the fuck he means to say.

> Jesse Ventura is a high-functioning, sociopathic retard. By your own
> standards, doesn't wanting to have power over others via government, as
> dickhead has, automatically make him sociopathic?

Prove yout thesis. You're the one making the accusation.

[Brent]

No, you didn't offer a better term. What do you call a person who
oversees children being killed by drones?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sociopath

"A person with antisocial personality disorder. Probably the most widely
recognized personality disorder. A sociopath is often well liked because
of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about
other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for
the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and
lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments. Though
some sociopaths have become murders, most reveal their sociopathy
through less deadly and sensational means."

Sounds like the typical POTUS choice these days to me.

[tert in seattle]

Brent wrote:
> On 2013-04-30, tert in seattle <te...@ftupet.com> wrote:
>> Brent wrote:
>>> On 2013-04-30, tert in seattle <te...@ftupet.com> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why should the government pick winners and losers ever?
>>>>
>>>> someone's got to do it ... in theory a government that expresses the
>>>> will of the people ... a so-called democracy ... means everyone picks
>>>> the winners and losers, so in that case it should be fair ... but we
>>>> all know better ... our governments represent the interests of the
>>>> campaign financiers
>>>
>>> The people decide winners and losers in the market place by purchasing
>>> or not purchasing products. Not electing one corporation's set of
>>> thieves over another's.
>>
>> it is working so well in Somalia...so far the pirates are winning...as
>> they should -- whoever uses the greatest amount of force wins
>
> Violence is the root of your mob rule democracy. Unless you think paying
> taxes for corporate welfare is voluntary.

Blenn...can I call you blenn? you are pretty sharp - I am going to keep
my eye on you.

[Adam H. Kerman]

A term isn't required.

>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sociopath

>"A person with antisocial personality disorder. Probably the most widely
>recognized personality disorder. A sociopath is often well liked because
>of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about
>other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for
>the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and
>lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments. Though
>some sociopaths have become murders, most reveal their sociopathy
>through less deadly and sensational means."

>Sounds like the typical POTUS choice these days to me.

But no one gives a shit about your labels. It's like if your argument
was legitimate, or if you had any confidence in it, you wouldn't need
to resort to pettiness.

[tert in seattle]

everyone's got a fuckin cause

this will finally be cured when the asteroid hits

can't come soon enough...

[Geoff Gass]

Kristian M Zoerhoff <k...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> I was still living in MN when he got elected. If not for the fact that it
> was an *eight-way* race with a Humphrey as the D, an ex-Dem as the R, and a
> whole bunch of nutbags bringing up the rear, Jesse never would have been
> elected.

ah skippy, fucking embarassment to his name. and norm, what a fucking waste
that guy was. the others were all minor party though, Greens and Socialists
and Libertarians.

[sticks]

On 4/30/2013 5:39 PM, tert in seattle wrote:

> everyone's got a fuckin cause
>
> this will finally be cured when the asteroid hits
>
> can't come soon enough...

tell the kids to go outside, crack a beer, smoke a bowl, just relax for
a while, tert.

[Brent]

So you were simply lonely and looking for attention again.

[spamtrap1888]

pete, where are you?

[Michele]

On 4/30/2013 7:29 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Michele <eatshi...@spammers.com> wrote:

>> On 4/29/2013 7:24 PM, smr wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:45:19 -0400, Mark Anderson wrote:
>
>>>> http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/Planetlnfowars/media/Dating%20Freedom%20Lovers/tracysfeature1_zps0eabdd08.jpg.html?sort=3&o=21
>

>>> b) She bought an electric car and thinks she's not supporting Big Oil? How
>>> does this dumb spliff think the power that gets to her house that she'll
>>> use to charge her piece of shit Nissan gets generated/delivered?
>

>> Don't forget about all of the plastic in the interior to reduce the
>> overall vehicle weight.
>
> As plastic doesn't protect the driver or passenger in event of a collision,
> how does the fire department know to send the battery-powered ambulance and
> fire trucks to pick these people up, whatever pieces remain, to be transported
> to hospital, or the battery-powered medical examiner's vehicle to take them
> to the morgue?
>


You're forgetting about these things called seat belts and airbags.

[Adam H. Kerman]

What does that have to do with some vehicles being constructed to provide
more of a cage around vehicle occupants than others? How would either prevent
a vehicle from deforming in the event of a crash?

[smr]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:35:40 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> That county won something, I guess, if subsidy and costs don't exceed
> benefits, which it does a lot of the time. You fail to understand that
> there are losers, here.

Every time a choice is made, yes, something loses. And?

>>I think there's a good in researching ways to power private transportation
>>beyond the internal combusition engine. Much like nukes, DARPAnet, the
>>TVA... this is the sort of project I think the government should be getting
>>behind to help push the private sector along.
>
> Last I looked 99 44/100% of the world's battery research is being done
> in China. That's not what the government is doing here.

Nor did I say it was. There's battery research at the fundamental level
which, as you note, we're not doing nearly enough of. Then there's also
commoditizing products based on non-oil-based fueling sources, which this
actually is.

> Why don't we just let world oil prices rise to a higher level? We do that
> by withdrawing all the world's military from oil producing nations and
> tell them to go fuck themselves. We lower our military spending to
> reflect this. Suddenly it becomes possible to develop other technologies.

I would have zero problem with the US pulling all of our military from
overseas entirely and letting the shitheads battle it out themselves and
just pay the winner for the oil at whatever price it stabilizes at. I don't
believe, like many Americans somehow do, that I have a god-given right to
$2/gal. gas.

>>your last point, it's not like the gov't said "Nissan wins, everybody
>>else can fuck off!" as that's provably untrue.
>
> I must have missed your proof.

Do I really need to cite the many non-Nissan companies that also received
government funding for producing electric automobiles?

--
smr

[smr]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:49:42 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:

> On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't express that opinion; I expressed the thought that that one
>> factory brought more jobs and income, total, to that county than any
>> documentable alternatives that were on the table at the time.
>
> Hence 'seen' and 'unseen'.

Blennie, how the fuck is anyone supposed to prove the "unseen"? You'll win
your argument every time if you simply have to refer the the unquantifiable
proof you're asking me to assume must exist.

>> I think there's a good in researching ways to power private transportation
>> beyond the internal combusition engine. Much like nukes, DARPAnet, the
>> TVA... this is the sort of project I think the government should be getting
>> behind to help push the private sector along.
>
> So you're just another Anderson, someone who approves of the principles
> of central planning but just disagrees on degree and detail of it.

Answer yes/no: The TVA was a bad idea.

>> To your last point, it's not like the gov't said "Nissan wins, everybody
>> else can fuck off!" as that's provably untrue.
>
> Essentially that's how a fascist/corporatist economy works. Government
> decides who can play and who must 'fuck off'.

Submit your business plan, apply for the loan, and tell me how it works
out.

I mean, seriously, are you telling me that government should consider you
as capable as an existing auto manufacturer and deserving of the same
funding to produce electric cars?

--
smr

[smr]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:54:10 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:

> So in your collectivist utopia, how much do you get to keep? Why not say
> have you live on half of what you make so someone else can have the
> other half? Where do you draw the lines? Since you've decided that all
> three hundred and ten million of us give or take are in this together,
> how are you going to work out these redistributions? By the political
> process? That hardly seems fair or even remotely optimal.
>
> What happens when you're taxed to fund something you don't approve of?
> What then?

> The problem with a collective is that someone runs it.

Brent, why do you believe that you or any human has the inherit right to
never, ever have to do something they don't want to do? Or fund something
via the contributions to the group at large that you may not 100% agree
with the goals of? I mean, ever since man figured out how to make a surplus
of food and rose above subsistence level, some level of decision-making has
been devolved to a larger authority. Society cannot function if every
single fucking aspect of it has to be negotiated individually with every
member, nor could it function if every individual was simply allowed to
opt-out of any part of it they don't like. That's not workable.

I'm not, nor have I ever, argued that the current system is perfect. I am
arguing that the system you vaguely propose here and there sounds like a
unworkable fantasy.

--
smr

[smr]

Well, I'm not a huge advocate of American-style "OWN MY OWN DAMNED LAND AND
DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT!" property/house-worship, so how do
non-property-owners contribute under this scheme?

PS: Also, the concept of a person being taxed in proportion to the benefits
they receive is also not a concept I agree with.

--
smr

[smr]

? Blennie disputes the idea that retards can be sociopaths, so how are we
in agreement here?

--
smr

[smr]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:00:33 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:


> Who said I wanted to make electric cars? You blathered about jobs. So
> now it has to be only jobs making electric cars? Ok, so I'll settle for
> the money that Musk got for Tesla Motors. He had no track record of
> manufacturing anything.

Annnnnd his loan distributions were tied to manufacturing output goals.

>>> Having trouble reading? I wrote better a retard than a sociopath.
>>> Retards aren't sociopaths as far as I know.
>
>> There is no proof that shows that the mentally-retarded can't also be
>> sociopaths. The retard may lack the ability to fully execute on his
>> sociopathic thoughts, but Jesse having the levers of federal power in his
>> hands makes it more likely that he would, no?
>
> What are 'sociopathic thoughts'?

Thoughts that are sociopathic in nature? Are you suffering from a
worse-than-usual case of The Dumbs today?

>>> It appears to me the two
>>> sets of characteristics do not overlap and probably cannot since the
>>> sociopath needs to use intelligence above the capabilities of a retard
>>> to mask his true nature. So I think it is you who needs to figure out
>>> what the fuck he means to say.
>
>> Jesse Ventura is a high-functioning, sociopathic retard. By your own
>> standards, doesn't wanting to have power over others via government, as
>> dickhead has, automatically make him sociopathic?
>
> Prove yout thesis. You're the one making the accusation.

Eh. Blow me.

--
smr

[Michele]

Crumple zones. Look 'em up. Cars today are designed to absorb more
impact in certain areas to minimize the amount of force to occupants.

However, what they do not do is keep Newton's law from occurring, which
is every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words,
someone hits you from any angle, you're going to go flying into the
steering wheel, out through the windshield or side window, or generally
anywhere in the car.

Seat belts and airbags minimize the law, but don't completely prevent
it. However, minimizing the action means less injury to occupants,
allowing them to walk away from the incident.

Roundabouts 1978, I was on the front seat of a relatively new Cadillac
Brougham. Dad was driving, mom was to the other side of me. As we were
crossing Route 14 on Quentin Road, someone in a station wagon blew her
red light and T-boned us at 50mph. She struck the passenger side. We did
a complete 360, then a 180 before being stopped by a railroad tie that
was acting as a barrier between the grass and the median. I remember the
entire incident.

Dad was unscathed, I smashed into the radio (which had push buttons) and
mom hit the windshield. We all walked away from the hospital with minor
injuries. The car, which had saved us, was totaled. No seat belts were worn.

Within a week, dad got rid of mom's Toyota Corolla. We would have been
dead had we been in that car.

Now, 30+ years later? I wouldn't hesitate to get into a smaller car and
worry about walking away from an accident like the aforementioned
because car design has improved that much.

[Brent]

On 2013-05-01, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:49:42 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>
>> On 2013-04-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't express that opinion; I expressed the thought that that one
>>> factory brought more jobs and income, total, to that county than any
>>> documentable alternatives that were on the table at the time.
>>
>> Hence 'seen' and 'unseen'.

> Blennie, how the fuck is anyone supposed to prove the "unseen"? You'll win
> your argument every time if you simply have to refer the the unquantifiable
> proof you're asking me to assume must exist.

When you read the referenced material perhaps you'll understand. Of
course you won't do that and will instead simply call names, insult, and
curse. The fact of the matter is you think it is perfectly morally
acceptable for someone with political influence and power to take from
the population at large and put it towards what they think is a good
idea so long as you agree with them that it is a good idea and you're
not about to change your mind on it nor read anything that might cause
you to change your mind.

But I'll lead you to water anyway.... here: http://bastiat.org/

>>> I think there's a good in researching ways to power private transportation
>>> beyond the internal combusition engine. Much like nukes, DARPAnet, the
>>> TVA... this is the sort of project I think the government should be getting
>>> behind to help push the private sector along.

>> So you're just another Anderson, someone who approves of the principles
>> of central planning but just disagrees on degree and detail of it.

> Answer yes/no: The TVA was a bad idea.

From who's point of view? I think it would be a good idea to give me a
half a billion dollars or more of other people's money, taken from
them or else, so I can play 'job creator'. It's morally wrong, but it's
a good idea from my point of view.

>>> To your last point, it's not like the gov't said "Nissan wins, everybody
>>> else can fuck off!" as that's provably untrue.

>> Essentially that's how a fascist/corporatist economy works. Government
>> decides who can play and who must 'fuck off'.

> Submit your business plan, apply for the loan, and tell me how it works
> out.

> I mean, seriously, are you telling me that government should consider you
> as capable as an existing auto manufacturer and deserving of the same
> funding to produce electric cars?

What's with the loaded question's shawn? The point of the matter is you,
like anderson, approve of the corporatist/fascist government in principle
you just differ on detail. Look at Mr. Musk whom had never manufactured
product before in his life. Government issued him a big fat check.
There's a fair chance you've actually used something I've done Shawn.
You'll probably never drive one of Musk's electric cars for rich people.
Anyway the point is that you accept this way of doing things in
principle. It's only on the details of who, what, where, and how much
you may differ and as far as I am concerned that's fundamentally no
difference at all.

[Brent]

On 2013-05-01, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

That doesn't answer the question. What happens when the government
demands you go kill brown people? Tells you that you can't have
medical care that will save your life because they don't approve of it?
What happens when they decide to take your savings because your neighbor
has none? What happens when it decides that you can't make a living
doing what you do any more? What happens when your 'higher authority'
steps on you instead of someone else? What then Shawn?

It is interesting how you once again decide there has to be an
individual negotiation with every person and then assign that to me.
Government and society are two separate things. Society does not come
out of the state. The state is violence. It's telling people do this,
give us that, etc and so on or else. As time goes on the state which we
live under becomes more and more demanding and make people like yourself
think that without it we cannot live. We can live just fine without this
group of parasites taking from us and running our lives. It is very well
workable for society not to have central planning pushing people at the
barrel of rifle. It has worked before and can work again. It wasn't even
a century ago when the only contact most people in the USA had with the
federal government was the post office.

I got taught the same stuff in government school you did. I had to go
through the same conditioning process. There is a reason government runs
the schools and it isn't about equity. Parroting to me the same crap and
insulting me because I don't believe in it just wastes your time and
mine.

Shawn, ever see the photos of children maimed, killed, and/or disfigured
by drone strikes? Why do you think that people who lob remote control
missiles into schools have any rightful authority to run our lives and
tell us what to do? Where does this 'higher authority' come from?
Popularity contests? Watery tarts lobbing scimitars?

Shawn, you tell me why I should have to obey these less than honorable
people who make up 'higher authority'. Convince me of as if I just
landed here from another planet.

[Brent]

On 2013-05-01, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:00:33 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>
>
>> Who said I wanted to make electric cars? You blathered about jobs. So
>> now it has to be only jobs making electric cars? Ok, so I'll settle for
>> the money that Musk got for Tesla Motors. He had no track record of
>> manufacturing anything.
>
> Annnnnd his loan distributions were tied to manufacturing output goals.

So what?

>>>> Having trouble reading? I wrote better a retard than a sociopath.
>>>> Retards aren't sociopaths as far as I know.
>>
>>> There is no proof that shows that the mentally-retarded can't also be
>>> sociopaths. The retard may lack the ability to fully execute on his
>>> sociopathic thoughts, but Jesse having the levers of federal power in his
>>> hands makes it more likely that he would, no?
>>
>> What are 'sociopathic thoughts'?

> Thoughts that are sociopathic in nature? Are you suffering from a
> worse-than-usual case of The Dumbs today?

I think you are unclear what a sociopath is then.

>>>> It appears to me the two
>>>> sets of characteristics do not overlap and probably cannot since the
>>>> sociopath needs to use intelligence above the capabilities of a retard
>>>> to mask his true nature. So I think it is you who needs to figure out
>>>> what the fuck he means to say.
>>
>>> Jesse Ventura is a high-functioning, sociopathic retard. By your own
>>> standards, doesn't wanting to have power over others via government, as
>>> dickhead has, automatically make him sociopathic?
>>
>> Prove yout thesis. You're the one making the accusation.
>
> Eh. Blow me.

Exactly, as usual you don't want to back up your arguments.

[Brent]

Crumple zones more so prevent intrusion into the passenger compartment.
That is the structures that support the engine, suspension, etc give way
before the passenger compartment instead of being pushed into it because
the passenger compartment was the weak link.

> Seat belts and airbags minimize the law, but don't completely prevent
> it. However, minimizing the action means less injury to occupants,
> allowing them to walk away from the incident.

> Roundabouts 1978, I was on the front seat of a relatively new Cadillac
> Brougham. Dad was driving, mom was to the other side of me. As we were
> crossing Route 14 on Quentin Road, someone in a station wagon blew her
> red light and T-boned us at 50mph. She struck the passenger side. We did
> a complete 360, then a 180 before being stopped by a railroad tie that
> was acting as a barrier between the grass and the median. I remember the
> entire incident.

> Dad was unscathed, I smashed into the radio (which had push buttons) and
> mom hit the windshield. We all walked away from the hospital with minor
> injuries. The car, which had saved us, was totaled. No seat belts were worn.

> Within a week, dad got rid of mom's Toyota Corolla. We would have been
> dead had we been in that car.

> Now, 30+ years later? I wouldn't hesitate to get into a smaller car and
> worry about walking away from an accident like the aforementioned
> because car design has improved that much.

Not so much in side impact. There's only so much space to work with.
Throwing structure at it like was done in the 1970s is essentially what
is done today. The 70s cars were probably over-engineered to the
standards while 80s cars were engineered to them and the weight cut out
for fuel economy*. But what is demanded from market if not the
government is higher today so the structure is back. Although now there
are airbags in the side too..

*it's quite apparent when taking the cars apart.

[smr]

AUUUUGGGHHHH. Fuck it and fuck you, you're incorrigible. Listen to
yourself: "Why, just a century ago most people only dealt with the Feds at
the Post Office!".

So you're okay with state/county/municiple taxing and control? Something
tells me you're absolutely fucking not okay with it, so why this strawman
about the less-noticeable Fed of a century ago? You know what we also had a
century ago? A life expectancy of 48 years for women, and 46 for men. How
much of the increase in that is due to government-funded research and
development and regulations imposed upon us by the dastardly government?

YOU tell ME when your beloved society "has worked before and can work
again". When, in history, did your beloved fucking non-governmental world
exist, so I can happily shred it apart based on all the bad shit that
happened due to a lack of the regular Joe's ability to get any protection
from the wealthy and powerful in that allegedly free society.

And, for the LAST fucking time, I never went to any fucking government
school so kindly please shut the fuck up about that canard already.

As for insulting and parroting to you, do me a favor. Have someone read ANY
one of your posts to ANYONE here ever, and tell me that, just from the
fucking tone alone, you don't feel insulted and condescended to. You treat
everyone else like the fuckin' jagoff prick that you are, why the fuck am I
supposed to be nice to you in return?

--
smr

[Brent]

On 2013-05-01, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

>> Shawn, ever see the photos of children maimed, killed, and/or disfigured
>> by drone strikes? Why do you think that people who lob remote control
>> missiles into schools have any rightful authority to run our lives and
>> tell us what to do? Where does this 'higher authority' come from?
>> Popularity contests? Watery tarts lobbing scimitars?
>>
>> Shawn, you tell me why I should have to obey these less than honorable
>> people who make up 'higher authority'. Convince me of as if I just
>> landed here from another planet.
>
> AUUUUGGGHHHH. Fuck it and fuck you, you're incorrigible. Listen to
> yourself: "Why, just a century ago most people only dealt with the Feds at
> the Post Office!".

So you aren't going to tell me why we need central planning and so
forth.

> So you're okay with state/county/municiple taxing and control?

Shawn, you've run out of strikes with loaded questions to assign
arguments to me.

< Something
> tells me you're absolutely fucking not okay with it, so why this strawman
> about the less-noticeable Fed of a century ago? You know what we also had a
> century ago? A life expectancy of 48 years for women, and 46 for men. How
> much of the increase in that is due to government-funded research and
> development and regulations imposed upon us by the dastardly
> government?

I am not in the mood for your tangents and unsupported assertions
either. You tell me how much of it is due to your dear leaders and
glorious government. You support your arguments.

> YOU tell ME when your beloved society "has worked before and can work
> again". When, in history, did your beloved fucking non-governmental world
> exist, so I can happily shred it apart based on all the bad shit that
> happened due to a lack of the regular Joe's ability to get any protection
> from the wealthy and powerful in that allegedly free society.

Again you you put words in my mouth. You are out of strikes. You're
still not explaining why this system is needed. If I answer and tell you
these historical things you'll just consider that to be insulting and
condesending, so I am going to assume you know what I am referring to.

> And, for the LAST fucking time, I never went to any fucking government
> school so kindly please shut the fuck up about that canard already.

And yet you express this same state worshipping crap that all of society
would fall apart if there wasn't an overreaching all powerful
government.

> As for insulting and parroting to you, do me a favor. Have someone read ANY
> one of your posts to ANYONE here ever, and tell me that, just from the
> fucking tone alone, you don't feel insulted and condescended to. You treat
> everyone else like the fuckin' jagoff prick that you are, why the fuck am I
> supposed to be nice to you in return?

You think this is the only place I've expressed my views Shawn? You're
in a vast minority that reacts like that.

You are so full of shit. A typical exchange between us starts with me
making a simple statement of my view. No dispraging remarks what so
ever towards anyone. Just me expressing my view with the same confidence
anyone with a socially acceptable mainstream view would. Upon which you
reply insulting me in some way for having that view and it goes on from
there.

Look at this thread branch. I simply apply an Austrian school economic
concept from a fairly well known 19th century french economist and you
respond by insulting me.

If you feel so insulted and condescended to, that's your problem. There
has to be a reason you keep reading and replying. If you thought I was
just some asshole kook you'd ignore me. Instead you come at me.

[Geoff Gass]

Kristian M Zoerhoff <k...@lavabit.com> wrote:

> You forgot the pot party guy!
>
> It was seriously a clownfest.

yeah, I was already here at that point, but I remember talking with my
parents about it. I think they both ended up voting for jesse because they
were so disgusted with both skip and norm and figured jesse would do a
better job than either of those two dolts.

[Adam H. Kerman]

smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:35:40 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>That county won something, I guess, if subsidy and costs don't exceed
>>benefits, which it does a lot of the time. You fail to understand that
>>there are losers, here.

>Every time a choice is made, yes, something loses. And?

Poverty is created elsewhere. Stop being oblivious.

>>>I think there's a good in researching ways to power private transportation
>>>beyond the internal combusition engine. Much like nukes, DARPAnet, the
>>>TVA... this is the sort of project I think the government should be getting
>>>behind to help push the private sector along.

>>Last I looked 99 44/100% of the world's battery research is being done
>>in China. That's not what the government is doing here.

>Nor did I say it was. There's battery research at the fundamental level
>which, as you note, we're not doing nearly enough of. Then there's also
>commoditizing products based on non-oil-based fueling sources, which this
>actually is.

If the Chinese are doing the research and they're better at it, why
shouldn't we import?

>>>your last point, it's not like the gov't said "Nissan wins, everybody
>>>else can fuck off!" as that's provably untrue.

>>I must have missed your proof.

>Do I really need to cite the many non-Nissan companies that also received
>government funding for producing electric automobiles?

What, Tesla? Great.

[Adam H. Kerman]

smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:03:19 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

>>>I don't believe I have a right to absolutely keep 100% of every dime I ever
>>>earn, ever, because I'm not a psychopath who thinks the
>>>block/community/ward/city/county/state/nation/world I live in exists in a
>>>fucking vacuum that magically sprouted forth to benefit me out of sheer
>>>good-heartedness.

>>I think you are morally entitled to keep every dime you earn, including
>>interest. It's why I favor the land value tax, 'cuz that measures how
>>your neighbors and the economy and government services (for good or ill)
>>are doing, generally, and has nothing to do with your earnings. Income taxes
>>and sales taxes aren't in proportion to the benefits you receive.

>Well, I'm not a huge advocate of American-style "OWN MY OWN DAMNED LAND AND
>DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT!" property/house-worship, so how do
>non-property-owners contribute under this scheme?

Land value taxes put landlords and tenants on a more equal footing. The
tenant pays exactly what the land is worth, whether it's taxed or not.

Without land value taxes, tenants pay myriad general taxes. If they result
in decent government services, that pushes land values up. Landlords keep it.
How is that fair?

>PS: Also, the concept of a person being taxed in proportion to the benefits
>they receive is also not a concept I agree with.

Wow. I didn't think it was terribly controversial.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I'm aware of the concept, but making the frame too light interferes. The
driver or passenger probably won't survive a side impact in some cars.

>However, what they do not do is keep Newton's law from occurring, which
>is every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words,
>someone hits you from any angle, you're going to go flying into the
>steering wheel, out through the windshield or side window, or generally
>anywhere in the car.

>Seat belts and airbags minimize the law, but don't completely prevent
>it. However, minimizing the action means less injury to occupants,
>allowing them to walk away from the incident.

Of course.

>Roundabouts 1978, I was on the front seat of a relatively new Cadillac
>Brougham. Dad was driving, mom was to the other side of me. As we were
>crossing Route 14 on Quentin Road, someone in a station wagon blew her
>red light and T-boned us at 50mph. She struck the passenger side. We did
>a complete 360, then a 180 before being stopped by a railroad tie that
>was acting as a barrier between the grass and the median. I remember the
>entire incident.

>Dad was unscathed, I smashed into the radio (which had push buttons) and
>mom hit the windshield. We all walked away from the hospital with minor
>injuries. The car, which had saved us, was totaled. No seat belts were worn.

>Within a week, dad got rid of mom's Toyota Corolla. We would have been
>dead had we been in that car.

>Now, 30+ years later? I wouldn't hesitate to get into a smaller car and
>worry about walking away from an accident like the aforementioned
>because car design has improved that much.

Hope you're right about plastic cars.

[Adam H. Kerman]

smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

>Answer yes/no: The TVA was a bad idea.

Jesus fucking christ. It's like you have no clue that for a lot of years,
TVA was the nation's largest electric utility polluter. For your next
trick, you'll expound upon the environmental benefits of the Aswan Dam.

[Michele]

On 5/1/2013 4:44 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2013-05-01, Michele <eatshi...@spammers.com> wrote:
>> On 5/1/2013 7:19 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>> However, what they do not do is keep Newton's law from occurring, which
>> is every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words,
>> someone hits you from any angle, you're going to go flying into the
>> steering wheel, out through the windshield or side window, or generally
>> anywhere in the car.
>
> Crumple zones more so prevent intrusion into the passenger compartment.
> That is the structures that support the engine, suspension, etc give way
> before the passenger compartment instead of being pushed into it because
> the passenger compartment was the weak link.
>

That's the bit I couldn't remember. I know that there's an ongoing
argument about the unibody frame versus chassis+frame in terms of
safety. Some feel unibody is safer, others don't agree.

>
>> Now, 30+ years later? I wouldn't hesitate to get into a smaller car and
>> worry about walking away from an accident like the aforementioned
>> because car design has improved that much.
>
> Not so much in side impact. There's only so much space to work with.
> Throwing structure at it like was done in the 1970s is essentially what
> is done today. The 70s cars were probably over-engineered to the
> standards while 80s cars were engineered to them and the weight cut out
> for fuel economy*. But what is demanded from market if not the
> government is higher today so the structure is back. Although now there
> are airbags in the side too..
>
> *it's quite apparent when taking the cars apart.
>

Yeah. I know in my truck that the interior panels look like Swiss
cheese, and a safety bar is supposed to do the work of absorbing the shock.

True there's only so much that can be done with the side, but there's
always the option to buy a small car with a roll cage design engineered
into the body, such as the MINI. I'll pass on a Smart. They like to
catch on fire too easily.

Personally, I'm looking into a bitchen Camaro for the next ride.

[spamtrap1888]

> So you're okay with state/county/municiple taxing and control? Something
> tells me you're absolutely fucking not okay with it, so why this strawman
> about the less-noticeable Fed of a century ago? You know what we also had a
> century ago? A life expectancy of 48 years for women, and 46 for men. How
> much of the increase in that is due to government-funded research and
> development and regulations imposed upon us by the dastardly government?

The biggest difference in life expectancy is that kids no longer die
young. My great grandmother lost a daughter, (her brother lost a boy
and a girl), my wife's grandparents lost two daughters, etc. etc. The
next biggest difference is that the husbands no longer die young on
the job or from some industrial disease. OSHA kinda guards against
black lung or even brown lung. The steel mills my grandparents'
generate worked at no longer boast of XX days since a fatal accident.
Widows raising 5-8 kids on their own -- not a pleasant picture.

> YOU tell ME when your beloved society "has worked before and can work
> again". When, in history, did your beloved fucking non-governmental world
> exist, so I can happily shred it apart based on all the bad shit that
> happened due to a lack of the regular Joe's ability to get any protection
> from the wealthy and powerful in that allegedly free society.

Agree 100%. Most people watching Downton Abbey fail to realize they
would have been the fucking serfs. Their Chicago forebears lived
Jurgis Rudkis's fucked up life from Sinclair's The Jungle.

> And, for the LAST fucking time, I never went to any fucking government
> school so kindly please shut the fuck up about that canard already.

Well, you did go to Directional State U if I'm not mistaken. Or does
it have to be K-12 in order to count?

[Brent]

On 2013-05-02, spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> century ago? A life expectancy of 48 years for women, and 46 for men. How
>> much of the increase in that is due to government-funded research and
>> development and regulations imposed upon us by the dastardly government?

> The biggest difference in life expectancy is that kids no longer die
> young. My great grandmother lost a daughter, (her brother lost a boy
> and a girl), my wife's grandparents lost two daughters, etc. etc. The
> next biggest difference is that the husbands no longer die young on
> the job or from some industrial disease. OSHA kinda guards against
> black lung or even brown lung. The steel mills my grandparents'
> generate worked at no longer boast of XX days since a fatal accident.
> Widows raising 5-8 kids on their own -- not a pleasant picture.

The reason as far as I can tell is not to have huge losses in lawsuits
as well as the 'so what if they die' attitude isn't really around much
any longer.

Government's monopoly on the courts stopped telling people to go pound
sand. It's ever so amusing that government's failures in its basic
mission turn out to be the reason we need (more) government.

We can see what fear of mere fines does in the financial companies. Get
an big bank that makes billions upon billions violating the laws and
then gets a fine for a couple percent of the take. If OSHA were the
driver of safety it would work much the same way I think.

>> YOU tell ME when your beloved society "has worked before and can work
>> again". When, in history, did your beloved fucking non-governmental world
>> exist, so I can happily shred it apart based on all the bad shit that
>> happened due to a lack of the regular Joe's ability to get any protection
>> from the wealthy and powerful in that allegedly free society.
>
> Agree 100%. Most people watching Downton Abbey fail to realize they
> would have been the fucking serfs. Their Chicago forebears lived
> Jurgis Rudkis's fucked up life from Sinclair's The Jungle.

Serfs? What do you think we are now? The mechanisms are simply more
subtle and hidden behind semantics but are effectively the same thing if
not worse given all the nannystate/company town moralizing and such.

[cloud dreamer]

On 01/05/2013 9:44 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:39:59 +0000, Seamus aka "Adam H. Kerman" in
> klph7v$obe$1...@news.albasani.net wrote:
>
>> Seamus Tracking # 501.8
>
> JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP KERMIE! NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR BULLSHIT
> KERMIE SEAMUS! JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!
>
>
> JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP KERMIE!
>
> PS: We don't give a fuck about your mother either. Maybe we should call her
> and let her know your Seamus and what you have been up to?? HMMM?
>


If you're going to troll like a child, learn to spell.

<plonk>

..

[Adam H. Kerman]

Michele <eatshi...@spammers.com> wrote:

>Personally, I'm looking into a bitchen Camaro for the next ride.

My parents owned a 1970, the year GM reformulated the paint and couldn't
figure out how to make it permanently adhere to the metal, sigh. Beautiful
car, rusted almost immediately.

[Brent]

On 2013-05-02, Michele <eatshi...@spammers.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 4:44 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2013-05-01, Michele <eatshi...@spammers.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2013 7:19 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>> However, what they do not do is keep Newton's law from occurring, which
>>> is every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words,
>>> someone hits you from any angle, you're going to go flying into the
>>> steering wheel, out through the windshield or side window, or generally
>>> anywhere in the car.
>>
>> Crumple zones more so prevent intrusion into the passenger compartment.
>> That is the structures that support the engine, suspension, etc give way
>> before the passenger compartment instead of being pushed into it because
>> the passenger compartment was the weak link.

> That's the bit I couldn't remember. I know that there's an ongoing
> argument about the unibody frame versus chassis+frame in terms of
> safety. Some feel unibody is safer, others don't agree.

It all comes down to the particulars of the design and the crash type.

>>> Now, 30+ years later? I wouldn't hesitate to get into a smaller car and
>>> worry about walking away from an accident like the aforementioned
>>> because car design has improved that much.
>>
>> Not so much in side impact. There's only so much space to work with.
>> Throwing structure at it like was done in the 1970s is essentially what
>> is done today. The 70s cars were probably over-engineered to the
>> standards while 80s cars were engineered to them and the weight cut out
>> for fuel economy*. But what is demanded from market if not the
>> government is higher today so the structure is back. Although now there
>> are airbags in the side too..

>> *it's quite apparent when taking the cars apart.

> Yeah. I know in my truck that the interior panels look like Swiss
> cheese, and a safety bar is supposed to do the work of absorbing the shock.

> True there's only so much that can be done with the side, but there's
> always the option to buy a small car with a roll cage design engineered
> into the body, such as the MINI. I'll pass on a Smart. They like to
> catch on fire too easily.

It's all about balancing various factors. Roll cages tend to be
intrusive and annoy people in the daily use of the car. I am not all
that familiar with the mini but I am guessing they simply carried box
structure up and around which isn't that uncommon today. I would be
surprised if they actually put a proper roll cage inside the panels.

> Personally, I'm looking into a bitchen Camaro for the next ride.

The poster child of what today's safety (plus styling) has done to
outward visibility :)

[Michele]

Oh geeze. Total suck.

[Michele]

On 5/2/2013 8:25 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2013-05-02, Michele <eatshi...@spammers.com> wrote:
>> On 5/1/2013 4:44 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-01, Michele <eatshi...@spammers.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2013 7:19 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>>> However, what they do not do is keep Newton's law from occurring, which
>>>> is every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words,
>>>> someone hits you from any angle, you're going to go flying into the
>>>> steering wheel, out through the windshield or side window, or generally
>>>> anywhere in the car.
>>>
>>> Crumple zones more so prevent intrusion into the passenger compartment.
>>> That is the structures that support the engine, suspension, etc give way
>>> before the passenger compartment instead of being pushed into it because
>>> the passenger compartment was the weak link.
>
>> That's the bit I couldn't remember. I know that there's an ongoing
>> argument about the unibody frame versus chassis+frame in terms of
>> safety. Some feel unibody is safer, others don't agree.
>
> It all comes down to the particulars of the design and the crash type.
>

Makes sense. No two cars are created equal.

>>>> Now, 30+ years later? I wouldn't hesitate to get into a smaller car and
>>>> worry about walking away from an accident like the aforementioned
>>>> because car design has improved that much.
>>>
>>> Not so much in side impact. There's only so much space to work with.
>>> Throwing structure at it like was done in the 1970s is essentially what
>>> is done today. The 70s cars were probably over-engineered to the
>>> standards while 80s cars were engineered to them and the weight cut out
>>> for fuel economy*. But what is demanded from market if not the
>>> government is higher today so the structure is back. Although now there
>>> are airbags in the side too..
>
>>> *it's quite apparent when taking the cars apart.
>
>> Yeah. I know in my truck that the interior panels look like Swiss
>> cheese, and a safety bar is supposed to do the work of absorbing the shock.
>
>> True there's only so much that can be done with the side, but there's
>> always the option to buy a small car with a roll cage design engineered
>> into the body, such as the MINI. I'll pass on a Smart. They like to
>> catch on fire too easily.
>
> It's all about balancing various factors. Roll cages tend to be
> intrusive and annoy people in the daily use of the car. I am not all
> that familiar with the mini but I am guessing they simply carried box
> structure up and around which isn't that uncommon today. I would be
> surprised if they actually put a proper roll cage inside the panels.
>

It's not a true roll cage in the sense of the word. More that the body
design borrows elements from the roll cage for safety.

>> Personally, I'm looking into a bitchen Camaro for the next ride.
>
> The poster child of what today's safety (plus styling) has done to
> outward visibility :)
>

True that, but at least it's interesting to look at. I find a majority
of cars boring in terms of design. And this time around, I can buy a car
for me, not for work.

[smr]

On 5/1/13 11:09 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:35:40 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>> That county won something, I guess, if subsidy and costs don't exceed
>>> benefits, which it does a lot of the time. You fail to understand that
>>> there are losers, here.
>
>> Every time a choice is made, yes, something loses. And?
>
> Poverty is created elsewhere. Stop being oblivious.

You're back to assuming that the funded factory is the ONLY option to
avoid poverty; I don't buy that assumptiopn.

>>>> I think there's a good in researching ways to power private transportation
>>>> beyond the internal combusition engine. Much like nukes, DARPAnet, the
>>>> TVA... this is the sort of project I think the government should be getting
>>>> behind to help push the private sector along.
>
>>> Last I looked 99 44/100% of the world's battery research is being done
>>> in China. That's not what the government is doing here.
>
>> Nor did I say it was. There's battery research at the fundamental level
>> which, as you note, we're not doing nearly enough of. Then there's also
>> commoditizing products based on non-oil-based fueling sources, which this
>> actually is.
>
> If the Chinese are doing the research and they're better at it, why
> shouldn't we import?

Giving your #1 potential future enemy control over a strategic resource
is the definition of dumb.

>>>> your last point, it's not like the gov't said "Nissan wins, everybody
>>>> else can fuck off!" as that's provably untrue.
>
>>> I must have missed your proof.
>
>> Do I really need to cite the many non-Nissan companies that also received
>> government funding for producing electric automobiles?
>
> What, Tesla? Great.

Good. You admit that there's non-Nissan companies that also received
such funding.

--
smr

[smr]

"sorry, hillrods, remain mired in the dark ages and die at 30 because
adam likes trees better'n he likes you!".

--
smr

[smr]

On 5/1/13 11:13 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Land value taxes put landlords and tenants on a more equal footing. The
> tenant pays exactly what the land is worth, whether it's taxed or not.

> Without land value taxes, tenants pay myriad general taxes. If they result
> in decent government services, that pushes land values up. Landlords keep it.
> How is that fair?
>
>> PS: Also, the concept of a person being taxed in proportion to the benefits
>> they receive is also not a concept I agree with.
>
> Wow. I didn't think it was terribly controversial.

And yet it is.

--
smr

[smr]

On 5/2/13 10:18 AM, Michele wrote:

> It's not a true roll cage in the sense of the word. More that the body
> design borrows elements from the roll cage for safety.

Yeah, the interior of a Mini is cramped enough for a daily driver,
having a real roll cage in there would gut that thing's sales. They ARE
fun as hell to wing around, just not sure they're worth the Bimmer premium.

> True that, but at least it's interesting to look at. I find a majority
> of cars boring in terms of design. And this time around, I can buy a car
> for me, not for work.

Eh, fucker's too big and that interior is criminally shitty. I've always
preferred the Mustang ;)

--
smr

[Adam H. Kerman]

smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 5/1/13 11:09 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:35:40 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>That county won something, I guess, if subsidy and costs don't exceed
>>>>benefits, which it does a lot of the time. You fail to understand that
>>>>there are losers, here.

>>>Every time a choice is made, yes, something loses. And?

>>Poverty is created elsewhere. Stop being oblivious.

>You're back to assuming that the funded factory is the ONLY option to
>avoid poverty; I don't buy that assumptiopn.

I assume quite the opposite, that subsidies that benefit a particular
multi-national take food out of the mouths of others.

>>>>>I think there's a good in researching ways to power private
>>>>>transportation beyond the internal combusition engine. Much like
>>>>>nukes, DARPAnet, the TVA... this is the sort of project I think
>>>>>the government should be getting behind to help push the private
>>>>>sector along.

>>>>Last I looked 99 44/100% of the world's battery research is being done
>>>>in China. That's not what the government is doing here.

>>>Nor did I say it was. There's battery research at the fundamental level
>>>which, as you note, we're not doing nearly enough of. Then there's also
>>>commoditizing products based on non-oil-based fueling sources, which this
>>>actually is.

>>If the Chinese are doing the research and they're better at it, why
>>shouldn't we import?

>Giving your #1 potential future enemy control over a strategic resource
>is the definition of dumb.

The Chinese aren't our enemy. They sell too much shit to us. They own
too much of our national debt. You're a fool.

>>>>>your last point, it's not like the gov't said "Nissan wins, everybody
>>>>>else can fuck off!" as that's provably untrue.

>>>>I must have missed your proof.

>>>Do I really need to cite the many non-Nissan companies that also received
>>>government funding for producing electric automobiles?

>>What, Tesla? Great.

>Good. You admit that there's non-Nissan companies that also received
>such funding.

Tesla was a subsidy to bankruptcy attorneys, dipshit.

[smr]

Y'know, I was trying to be polite here. Why the instant resort to
insults, you wealthless cocksucker? Simply because I disagree with you
on the points brought up here?

--
smr

[Adam H. Kerman]

They used to die at age 30? Post proof or fuck off. I wonder if they used to
suffer from far less heart disease before they switchted to an all junk food
diet.

TVA began as government exploitation of the Tennessee River for electric
power generation, but they soon began building coal-fired power plants,
which was NOT why TVA was created. TVA was notorious for operating the
nation's worst coal-fired power plants. The air pollution accumulated in
areas subject to temperature inversions, which kept it from dissipating,
so please explain how that didn't shorten lives.

Then they got into nuclear power, and had more problems. As a government
agency, they learned how to cover up errors instead of addressing them
head on. Remember the Browns Ferry cover up?

What finally scared everyone to death was Clinch River. TVA and Atomic
Energy Commission (succeeded by US Department of Energy during a Carter-era
government reorganization) wanted to build a breeder reactor. Breeder
reactors produce plutonium, and no one trusted either agency to prevent
its use in proliferation of nuclear weapons. In fact, AEC wanted the
reactor in part for weapons fuel production. Carter, before he became
100% incompetent, wanted to prevent civilian reactors that would produce
plutonium from being built. He got it stopped, eventually, but Reagan
revived it till Congress eliminated funding. The $400 million project
ended up costing the taxpayers $8 billion.

But that was just one reactor at one site. TVA ended up cancelling twelve
of seventeen nuclear projects.

Do you remember just a few years ago when a TVA dike broke at the
coal-burning power plant at Kingston? They were containing fly ash in
a pond adjacent to the Emory River, a tributory of the Tennessee River,
at the confluence with the Clinch River. The pond was unlined. The drying
cell walls had sprung any number of leaks over the years. Furthermore,
far more spilled than what TVA claimed was the capacity of the pond.

My recollection was that commercial coal-fired generators wouldn't have
been allowed to store fly ash on site, that it would have to be buried
elsewhere. TVA had been storing it since the plant opened in the 1950's.

The spill was 5.4 million cubic yards, the world's largest such industrial
accident by far. Billions of dollars of damage.

Even ignoring their years of incompetence in water and air pollution and
they've been the nation's largest air polluter some years, their entire
social mission was fucked up. Cheap electricity bills led to a huge population
increase which led to coal and then nuclear power plant production for more
allegedly cheap electricity production, if pollution and waste costs are
shifted elsewhere. The population increase was, therefore, unsustainable,
rather like moving 50 million people to live in the desert without water.

[Adam H. Kerman]

No, you just can't justify your opinion. We all noticed that you didn't.