Chucktshoes

[quote name="SithL0rd" post="1187206" timestamp="1410102958"]why would you want to carry into a kroger? Exhibit 1 from last nite in Memphis at Poplar/Highland. [url="https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=813693425329366&set=vb.100000661471071&type=2&theater"]https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=813693425329366&set=vb.100000661471071&type=2&theater[/url] I have saved the video but do not know how to post it here. Direct Link to just the video [url="https://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xaf1/v/t42.1790-2/10562249_813694028662639_1405653876_n.mp4?oh=1d230295f98396373e874a8147524d1f&oe=540C98C9&__gda__=1410111851_2c43abeeb0e0eafe1822b8d8e13f83bf"]https://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xaf1/v/t42.1790-2/10562249_813694028662639_1405653876_n.mp4?oh=1d230295f98396373e874a8147524d1f&oe=540C98C9&__gda__=1410111851_2c43abeeb0e0eafe1822b8d8e13f83bf[/url] Would this be a justified shoot to fire at the ones kicking him in the head?[/quote] This is why my wife and I carry.

[quote name="Hershmeister" post="1187000" timestamp="1410046606"]You ducked my question[/quote] Not intentionally. To be honest, I didn't really read the second paragraph. My eyes kinda glazed over after the "oh noes! Anarchy!" first paragraph. Not to insult or slight you, just a failing of mine. The Higgs quote is my response to that first paragraph. To your second paragraph, that question was very well answered by Ted. The market is very good at providing things people actually want and need, not what some folks in legislative halls [i]think[/i] everyone else should have.

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1186959" timestamp="1410039781"]Hard to argue with that. It won't ever be that way. And, you know all the reasons why. Best we can hope for is to temper it. And if they're taking YOUR stuff, sizzle their nuts on the hot pavement :)[/quote] The Feds tend to get upset when you start threatening to sizzle legislators' nuts on the hot pavement. They take more of my stuff than anyone. :D

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1186954" timestamp="1410037895"]So, what happens when you shove a bunch of natural born statists into anarchy? I'm thinkin' you're gonna need lots of ammo. Can't fix the human race.[/quote] Nope, I can't. What I can and will continue to do is tell folks "don't hit people and don't take their stuff." The initiation of aggression is wrong and the state is built upon the initiation of aggression. It can't exist without it. So here I stand explaining that the state is wrong and telling folks, "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff."

[quote name="Hershmeister" post="1186936" timestamp="1410036643"]And the problem of course is without some form of government, you get anarchy which also presents the very problem of your second evil. So the conclusion is evil exists in the world, and man is corruptable - so now what? I will call you utopian in these sense that your ideals are fine, but nowhere to be found in this world.So that said, how exactly so you think man should organize himself to ensure rule of law, the creation and enforcement of law, and various public goods (ie roads, sewers, etc)[/quote] "Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." Robert Higgs

[quote name="Omega" post="1186917" timestamp="1410034006"]That is what I am saying, just because we have not achieved total victory over those that wish us harm is no reason to stay back and let them do what they want. The US has not always been a utopian society, but the freedoms we enjoy have been paid for in sweat and blood and will continue to exact that price if we are to keep them. Whether that price is paid on US soil or foreign soil is the question as is which blood will pay the principle and which will pay the interest.[/quote] I still maintain that our FP does not exist in a vacuum and invites the wishes of harm from folks in the M/E. The other part that I think you're missing is that you should remain persistent when what you seek is good. Spreading American hegemony and democracy by gunpoint does not qualify.

Those intangibles of human nature are the greatest argument for the anarchist model. If people are evil and can't be trusted to govern themselves, they must be kept in check by a government composed of...other people? A single man can do a little evil on his own. To do a great evil takes many men working in concert and wearing the mantle of legitimacy because they claim title of being a government. You can call me a utopian if you want, that's fine. Understand that I am a utopian only in that I suggest that instead of swimming around in the cesspool to find the spot with the least amount of floating feces, maybe it would be preferable to get out of it entirely. Whether or not I believe that it is possible to truly attain what I seek, is that any reason to quit seeking it if I truly believe it is the right thing? Should I quit trying to conform myself to the model of Christ simply because I know for a fact that it is impossible for me to attain? Especially since I am particularly terrible at it? I don't think so. I try, fail and try again. I don't say, "this is the best I can do so I may as well quit trying." If I really believed that the US is or was as good as man could be, I'd probably eat a bullet because the depressing hopelessness of that thought would leave no alternative.

When you enable, install and support murderers, you are responsible for their actions. How many murderous regimes did the US support over the 20th century because it served our foreign policy goals? I mean they were savage bastards but they were our savage bastards and not the Soviets', right? I think the fundamental point where we disagree is that I don't make distinctions amongst state actors by degrees of evil they commit. One evil or one million evils still makes the actor evil. Simply put, I view the very existence of the state as the greatest evil present on this earth second only to Satan himself.

[quote name="TMF" post="1186816" timestamp="1410011647"]You are excusing attacks from foreign governments due to policy decisions which "provoke" them. We fundamentally disagree there. We also disagree on your concept of isolationism. We cannot be total isolationists and expect that we will continue our standard of living or won't be invaded and overrun. Our isolationism allowed for evil to murder its way across Europe and Asia in the 30s and 40s. You think they would have stopped there? Are you kidding? If we button up like we did before, it would absolutely allow evil to flourish. [b]We are the only country in the world with the power and moral fabric to stand in the way of evil. [/b]There is an inherent responsibility that comes with that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote] I'm not excusing the attack, only explaining the reasons why it happened and stating that it was intentionally provoked so we could enter the war. Our national policies don't exist in a vacuum of consequence. Much like you have stated in the past here that sometimes someone's freedom of speech invites a punch in the mouth, we invited that particular punch as a pretext for getting into the fight while claiming "he hit me first!" As far as the bolded portion goes, when an honest look is taken at our foreign policy over the last century, who says we haven't become the very evil we sought to fight?

I'm not ignoring the intangibles you bring up, I just don't view them the way you do. Your measurements of strength and weakness are built on an idea of interventionism in other's affairs. If you are attempting to tell others how to run their business, you have to appear strong enough to force them to bend to your will if disobeyed. If we let others be, that posturing would be unnecessary.    You also bring up Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor, focusing on the actual attack and not the actions taken by the Roosevelt administration to provoke it in an effort to change public opinion and bring us into WWII. The administration froze Japanes assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy. It has been pretty well documented that Roosevelt knew about the attack prior to it actually happening. It could have been avoided and intentionally wasn't.   All of that is to make one simple point. If we stop meddling in other folks' affairs, we wouldn't have to spend so much blood and treasure abroad. I won't say the lives of those lost in the Iraq/Afghanistan were wasted, but they weren't necessary.

Ha! It's what we do. I know everyone would have found something else to debate had you not posted this topic.  :rofl:

So what exactly did the actions of a bunch of Saudis operating out of Afghanistan have to do with Iraq? :shrug:  It's been 13 years and the people who were responsible for those 3k deaths are all dead themselves now (along with thousands of allied troops and hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan) so 9/11 has lost its luster as a rallying cry. I was against the invasion of Iraq the first time, I will be against it the second time. We have been meddling in the M/E for damn near a century and it has brought us nothing but heartache and corpses. How about we give them what they want, what we need, and leave them to their own devices and mind our own damn business for a change. It's not our circus, not our monkeys. Time to act accordingly.

Considering the penchant our government has for engaging in violence against other countries, how would you feel if they had the means to engage in that sort of preemptive behavior towards us? A Senator says that we are going to force regime change in X country and so they launch a couple of cruise missiles at us. That's fair, right? Self defense is fine, but self defense requires more justification than a threat. Especially when the ones making the threat don't have the real means to carry out that threat. 

Another Apex DCAEK here. Apex is the beginning and end of this search.

The reason I asked what you meant by "we" is that it seemed very binary in its perspective. There are more than Democrats and Republicans. I personally find the Republican platform as repulsive as that of the Democrats. So, if the Republicans are the "we" then count me out.

So we should send thousands of folks to die because a couple of reporters got themselves captured and killed in an active war zone? Yeah..ummm...Nope.

Basically, this is my view. If there isn't an attack on US soil, we need to keep our asses home. Embassies are fine as conduits for trade, but we need to shutter our military bases worldwide. Why the hell are we still underwriting the defense of half of Europe almost 70 years after the end of WWII? I am not an isolationist, but I am absolutely a non-interventionist. As far as the reporters beheaded by ISIS, the world is a dangerous place. When you go traipsing into war zones, shit happens.

[quote name="Ugly" post="1186661" timestamp="1409960188"]I think it's ridiculous. The dems will be proud we are bickering about crap like this. Clinton must've been wonderful! That'll put the other one in place, great job all![/quote] "We"? Please elaborate.

[quote name="RC3" post="1186658" timestamp="1409959716"]Im just reading all the responses. It was such a funny shift from lets go and fight them, to we should have left saddam in place. I will remain neutral and watch the show. I will say this tho, there are some good points.[/quote] My position will always be consistent. The question I ask is this, what right do we have to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation?

[quote name="LINKS2K" post="1186172" timestamp="1409805654"]No way! Bush was a world class Wiley Coyote f*ck up. I'll beat some of the parrots to the punch by saying so is Obama, but without W's ego and Haliburton/ Cheneys greed we would be dealing with some other crisis other than Isis that comes from our medling around in the middle east. You must remember than I'm in the blame Bush crowd. In my opinion, Bush gave us Obama on a silver platter. It could have been worse. Bush was so bad that I'm surprised that neither of the self serving reverends didn't run and win the presidency.[/quote] Not only did Bush give us O, he gave us ISIS. If we hadn't taken Saddam out in 03, the entire region wouldn't have been destabilized and ISIS wouldn't exist.

[quote name="LagerHead" post="1185882" timestamp="1409759810"]I can certainly appreciate good artwork, no matter the canvas or medium. My only problem with tats is, I don't like the same music I did five years ago. I don't like the same beer I did five years ago. I don't like the same food I did five years ago. With very few exceptions, I don't like the same people I did five years ago. I find it very hard to conceive of something I would like well enough now that five years from now, let alone twenty or thirty, I would still be equally satisfied with having it permanently inked on my body. But hey, if others can find something with that much meaning, good on 'em. I am certainly not one to judge others' taste in art, since mine is so questionable. [/quote] I'm not the same person I was 15+ years ago when I got my first one. That's ok. They are a physical memorial to who I was at that time. My tattoos tell the story of my life.

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1185566" timestamp="1409682096"]The latter will happen sometime after Obama legalizes machine guns with an executive order. :)[/quote] Not all memorials commemorate a sad event. Some are celebratory in nature. ;)

[quote name="TMF" post="1185260" timestamp="1409582883"]Does anyone know how to clean bloodstains at the DNA level and where to get lye in bulk? No reason, just asking. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote] You can get the lye here. [URL]http://www.bulkapothecary.com/raw-ingredients/other-ingredients-and-chemicals/sodium-hydroxide-lye/[/URL] As far as the other question, it depends on what you want to clean it out of. Or so I have been told.