birdlike

Good answer; it's just too bad it's to a question I didn't ask. I wanted to know if it was RIGHT or WRONG, in principle, and I believe you knew that, given that I did not use the terms "good" and "bad" in the question. Would you care to try again? By the way, do people get to work as skydivers if they don't do it in the service of the government in Russia and China? Do those countries have DZs wherever some entrepreneur wants to establish one, like the U.S.? (I'm honestly just asking, not trying to "score a point.") That would be the first indication that you feel that what we are doing with our foreign aid, socialistically, is wrong--at least at this point in time. >Billvon, do you drive a jalopy? My first two cars were indeed cruddy "jalopies" (holes in the floor, ignition switch broken, leaked like a sieve etc.) They were all I could afford. They got me to work and to school. Then I started making more money and started buying nicer cars. The first one was to replace the Datsun that had disintegrated; I needed another car, and the one I got was as small and as efficient as I could find (a Honda CRX.) Drove that one until it fell apart too. Then I started to get greedy. I bought a Toyota MR3 because it looked cool. That got nearly totalled in an accident, but it was repaired and I sold it because I didn't like the squeaks and rattles. Then I bought a Toyota minivan to tour the US with; spent six months living in it. Then I sold that and bought a Honda hybrid because I thought the technology was cool. I got the first three cars because they fulfilled a basic need (to get to work) - and when I had the choice I got the smallest and most efficient car I could. Then, later, greed started coming into play, and I started to get cars that I wanted rather than needed. Well, at least you're admitting that YOU yourself fall into the category you'd call "greedy" -- even though I[/] would not call you greedy just for wanting a good, reliable, comfortable car. But at the time you had the CRX, you could have gone with a Yugo, so perhaps you were greedy even then! >You must be greedy, then! And your greed is, by definition, reprehensible! Who said greed was reprehensible? Um, the guys who write that thar book whut's fulla words an stuff. I have twice quoted the exact same four-words that Webster uses in its definition of "greedy," Billvon. Holy shit, Korvettes! We had one near me. It went out of business, as I recall. So much for their greed swallowing up more and more stores until they're a behemoth with all the market share! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Strange... I see that there's a post by someone named "chirstelsebine" but when I move my mouse over it, the computer makes all this static and interference over the screen and speakers... Can't make out a word... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

"Lock up your weiners, lock up your knives, lock up your back door, and run for your lives!" Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What are you talking about? I didn't diss anything... If you thought you saw it, it wasn't meant... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Mine (I just set it up) is from a Rush song called "Mission". It's about admiring people who do great things, and how to us, they're great, and to the great people, they'd sometimes rather just be ordinary. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

No, you got it wrong. You should just take ALL birds as a positive happy sign.

Nah. Never been all that much of a breast man. 'Specially not big sloppy-floppies like that whacko broad had. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Hey, I survived the layoffs. I must be good for something. But here, I'm obviously deficient. Would you mind pointing out where my reading error must have taken place? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, the laws that say you can't carry handguns around but can keep rifles and shotguns at home should take care of that, zip-zap! Right? Oh, what's that? Criminals won't let themselves be bound by those laws?? Then why do the GOOD people have to be?! Oh, that's a comfort! I mean, what harm can knives do?? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Come on, Billvon, don't just rush to be condescending and shut the convo down--not when you clearly know that it's not SLEEPING that KILLS those people. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Where is there a communist country where people get to skydive for a living? (Yeah, yeah, I know they get cruddy housing... ) But they insist that we don't kill people wantonly, and they don't do it, themselves. That's a bit different and I think you know it. They are kinda "pre-vetted" when they travel, you know? Well, are you saying that they're both wrong? Or both right? Or one wrong and one right?? And I do! Then the only way to not earn the epithet "greedy" is to live at a subsistence level?! Otherwise you are "greedy"?! Well, Webster defines "greed" as "excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness." If a person is unwilling to live at a subsistence level, you're ready to call him "greedy," meaning that he is reprehensible (i.e. loathesome!) in his acquisitiveness. Billvon, do you drive a jalopy? Do you own at least one skydive rig (and I would suspect, several)? Is that subsistence? You must be greedy, then! And your greed is, by definition, reprehensible! So, in order to avoid being tarred as "greedy," you must break even at the end of every month, and have nothing to spare -- no food, no money -- beyond what was "needed" for that month. So, if I'm hungry and must eat, if I buy Ramen noodles, I'm honorable, but if I buy filet mignon, I'm "greedy"?! (And thus, "reprehensible"?!) Everyone who buys a fast parachute is "greedy"? They don't need it to be that fast? Or they don't need to skydive, period? We are back to you defining "greedy" as any person wanting more than what is necessary for subsistence living. I cannot see how you can rationalize or reconcile that definition with either reality, or with your own life, Billvon... But what establishes that our economy is even something that warrants or merits survival in the first place? Maybe because of its nature it would be better off dead, leaving room for something better to spring up in its place. Right? But you are now saying that greed IS good. I thought you were joining those here decrying our greedy capitalism as unfair! But regardless, Wal-mart did not really become this behemoth mom-and-pop swallower until 10, 15 years ago. Prior to that, mom-and-pop enjoyed a run of decades, centuries even. Goes against your claim that greed is the driving force--the Prime Mover--of capitalism. I'll leave you with a quote, and some classic '80s entertainment: "Big money goes around the world Big money underground Big money got a might voice Big money make no sound Big money pull a million strings Big money hold the prize Big money weave a might web Big money draw the flies! Sometimes pushing people around Sometimes pulling out the rug Sometimes pushing all the buttons Sometimes pulling out the plug It's the power and the glory It's a war in paradise A Cinderella story On a tumble of the dice Big money goes around the world Big money take a cruise Big money leave a mighty wake Big money leave a bruise! Big money make a million dreams Big money spin big deals Big money make a mighty head Big money spin big wheels! Sometimes building ivory towers Sometimes knocking castles down Sometimes building you a stairway Lock you underground It's that old-time religion It's the kingdom they would rule It's that fool on television Getting paid to play the fool Big money goes around the world Big money give and take Big money done a power of good Big money make mistakes! Big money got a heavy hand Big money take control Big money got a meeean streak Big money got... no... SOUL!! (Yes, I lovingly typed that all for you--no copy and pasting!) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

See # 1 on my list No, I meant, don't forget later on when you get home that you left the gun under your seat! Oh yeah, that [B]does[/B] make it much funnier I am glad that I could help. This place is turning me into a productive, decent human being! (little by little) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

But who is this "lizard" person? By the way, you are SO behind the times. Maybe you should PM Amazon... Oh, by the way, did you know that she and I are an item, now? Madly in love, I tells ya! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Now please address the fact that the things that are deemed "less dangerous" are actually killing more people than those deemed "dangerous." That leaves society to have to answer the question, "Which problem do we tackle first?" To a 1-year-old child, who can't even handle a gun or make it fire, a swimming pool is FAR more dangerous (statistically and realistically) than a gun is. Gasoline is everywhere. People have it stored at their homes, it's in their cars, it can be purchased without age restrictions or background checks, by everyone from the very sane to the horridly insane. It is more dangerous than guns are. But gasoline itself doesn't kill as many people as guns do, does it. Probably not by ingestion, and also probably not by arson. But since it's more dangerous than guns are, should we be focused more on controlling it than we on controlling guns? No, we should probably deal with the things that kill the most people, soonest. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well of what import is ascribing "responsibility" to someone for an action if there is not going to be attendant criminal sanction? Or even just civil liability? Without either of those, "responsibility" for the criminal getting the gun is what, just an abstraction, really. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Oh god, I wish I knew someone who had (or had for myself) some private land on which I could legally shoot. There ain't NOTHING around here to shoot at outdoors within about literally 100 miles. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The common "knife-knut" parlance would have it, "SAK". Thought I'd let you know. Thank you for an informative and rational post, by the way. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

smokadoobie, maaaan! (actually, no, just kidding. I don't even do that.) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I knew about the Terry stop, but I guess I really didn't, because you predicted I would say that I did even though I didn't -- Gee I wish I was as smart as you and could dismantle other people's statements before they get a chance to make them! Anyway, no, I'd never heard of the Chimmel bubble, but given that you didn't even spell "bubble" right, I have no confidence that you are either citing the right thing or spelling it correctly if you are. But I really have to ask... If I'm such a know-nothing schmuck, and you have it all over me in terms of knowledge and intelligence, how is it that I've managed to reach 36 years old, never been arrested, never been hassled by cops, while you've had such obviously harsh experiences that you are totally jaded and even hateful of the police?? Am I really just lucky, or am I doing something right and you're doing something wrong? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'm not slipping--I've been noticing them all. It's just that you've been whining so much lately ("whinging," for our British friends) that I've been a spelling/grammar Nazi even when I wasn't that I was afraid you were gonna cry; so I made sure to lay off it, for your benefit. See, you try to do something nice for a guy... By the way, I've probably ignored about seventeen errors of yours in the last dozen posts or so. How about your misspelling "bubble" above, or your misuse of "their" when you meant "they're"? Happy now? Please don't cry... By the way, who are "yoiu"? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

See # 1 on my list No, I meant, don't forget later on when you get home that you left the gun under your seat! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

A handgun is explicitly designed to kill a person. Nobody is going to steal your silverware and use it to rob or kill someone else. It may not be "silverware" but people don't use knives to commit armed robbery, and murder people? Most murders with knives, according to what I've read, employ kitchen knives -- very often either a steak knife or a butcher-type knife. Please look up the definition of "explicit" and peruse my post and the previous for relevance. Maybe you can tell me why it should really matter that handguns are "explicitly designed to kill," when even though THEY ARE and AUTOMOBILES ARE NOT, still the automobiles manage to kill more people each year in the U.S. than guns do!! This is arguing pointless distinction, DJL! If you get killed by someone who uses an implement that is NOT "explicitly designed to kill," are you any less dead?! If people, on average, are managing to kill other people more often with an item that is NOT designed to kill than with one that IS designed to kill, which will you treat as the greater societal problem? And why? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That's leftist "compassion." It's the same kind of humanity they display when they threaten the lives of gun owners either directly or by insinuation, and even imply that they will shoot gun owners to death for causing crime by owning guns! The compassion of communism, Lucky will tell you, is in its theory, and as he will also tell you, that's all that matters -- and the Soviets and Chinese and Cambodians and so on... have all just been doing it wrong. I ask you, of what worth is a system that NO HUMANS ON EARTH have been able to put into practice correctly?! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You could easily go back and quote yourself, but you don't -- because you know that to quote yourself would be to trap yourself by what you actually wrote. Regardless, even if we go with what you paraphrased, you are saying that "the rich write the laws." NO. The legislators write the laws. We elect the legislators. Ostensibly, we are "getting the laws we want," so they say about our "democracy." Just for shits and giggles, here's the actual text that you had typed the first time around: ***And in US Capitialism the people who design and run the rules of the system aren't subject to many of the nuances of it. For example, the court/penal system, has different rules for the rich who write the system than the poor. Gee, there it is in black and white, from post #149 in case you're interested. You didn't clarify shit. You tried to step away from what you knew you'd written. "The court/penal system, has different rules for the rich." That's pretty much "there's a different set of laws to govern the rich." Now go look again at your "paraphrasation" and behold how much of a bullshit backpedal it appears as to the rest of us. I'd ask them, if I knew WTF a "buiddie" was. That's essentially due to the fact that every time you get pinned down, you shed your argument like a snake's skin and claim you were never wearing it. No, you stated that the COURTS had a DIFFERENT SET OF RULES for the rich. And now you're telling me what my opinion is, and again you are wrong. Not everyone gets the same, particularly because we have these asinine federal court districts where a precedent can be set in one and dictate to it, but not so in another. That's but one way that people get different justice. I never said that certain jurisdictions will not treat different people differently, but I certainly did disprove your claim that the rich can basically just walk away from justice, by naming two VERY high-profile people who were convicted despite being rich. I agree, all the inner-city kids born to crack mothers...you know, fuck em, they're not even human. Look in the mirror. You can be an inner-city kid with shitty parents and still see that crime is wrong, and that education is a good thing that when it's offered to you, you should take it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You were the one who said, earlier in this thread, that people shouldn't be so covetous of their privacy when the government that's giving them health care for deadly chronic diseases fucks up and loses computers that contain their private health information. Now suddenly you are reversing yourself and privacy matters so very much. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire