The Back Room

Ah, such witty repartee; a stunning comeback. You do get more brilliant when pressed, don't you? :laugh:

Eddy Vluggen wrote: That would create poor families without kids, and large rich families. How large the rich families are, would depend on the nature of the incentives. Either way, you'd have more kids born to people who would be able to pay for them, and would raise them with a work ethic. How is this bad ? Eddy Vluggen wrote: The poor people are usually the majority, and this proposal wouldn't make it in a democracy. It doesn't need to be discussed. The problem with democracy is that the large unwashed masses will always vote for a handout. It just needs to be cut out entirely, not voted on. What the people want and what they need, are often not the same thing. Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.

Trollslayer wrote: No, how many would have died if the vaccine had not been used as opposed to those who would have survived any way. Just take a look at the countries that didn't have a vaccine, but did have local outbreaks of the flu. Trollslayer wrote: By the way, 'why' do 'you' use 'apostrophes'? To indicate that the words shouldn't be taken literally. I'll be withdrawing from the discussion.

I often use that expression except... I'm in Singapore and it gets some rather odd looks sometimes. I once called a guy as 'tight as a bulls arse in fly time' and spent the next 20 minutes explaining. He did buy the next round though.

Christian Graus wrote: Which is precisely why government should get involved to create incentives. You mean strongarm the citizens into accepting tyranny. Fine words from a gentleman.[^]

I see Slayer live in October. Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.

Magic is far closer to reality than you could ever imagine.

I work for myself. I have only been doing so for one month, and can barely afford my bond payment on my house. Until cash flow picks up, I can't afford to shit on my own house, never mind pay somebody to paint it. I'm sure many CP members differ in fortune, both ways, to myself.

It's the same line of thinking that got the senior high school trip for my class revoked. Since some a$$es decided to break the rules the powers that be decided that hence forth and forever more no one would be having a senior trip. Just because a few people abuse their ability to do something doesn't mean everyone else has to be denied it.

Good job for you that these guys wernt around during the last revolution 1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people. You did and still do disarm the indian population the true "americans", you also disarmed supporters of the crown - the true governace of the americas 2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people the idea of a warrent to search is quite new and certain wasnt in force during the revolution (nor was this in evidence during the civil war) 3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. again this certainly hasnt been the case in the history of the US 4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. so you are more than willing to allow unlawlessness to be rampant than to inforce the rule of law? 5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. mmm granada ring any bells? or vietnam, or iraq or iran or cuba or libya or countless others 6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. again the last time us troops were called upon to do this the didnt seem to have much troble obeying 7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. no only other then? 8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.” no comment 9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. so the many will starve to overfeed the few - isnt this one of your argument about the government that they will look after the rich over the "people" 10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. problem there is that what denotes free speach? I would like to see these guys stand up for a muslim cleric demanding the US destruction and vomiting vial retoric and insulting the US troops dying in afganistan Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.

It's taken me a little while to get around to reading this, but it didn't disappoint. That was extremely interesting. Thank you. Between the motion And the act Falls the Shadow

X| Fine words from a gentleman.[^]

Ilíon wrote: What a 19th century attitude that would be. I don't know anything about that, but the resourcefulness of consequences (for lack of a better way to put it) is used by the powers that be. For instance, in order to have a monopoly the unstoppable industry of drug manufacture and trade, it was made illegal. Three things come out of this, maximum profits, a culture that is so ate up that they are easily enslaved, and an increase in police powers and corrupt powers (ie mafia). It all works out to create an environment where people can't thrive, but they can work for slave wages and go to their government subsidized dwelling and get doped up to stay satisfied and handicapped. Instead of letting them buy cheap drugs legally to keep the integrity of society in tact, they are forced to steal, rob, and sell their bodies to pay their special tax for the drugs they crave. Fine words from a gentleman.[^]

Why did this get moved from the Lounge to the back room?? OK, maybe the Soapbox, but the back room?? "...great scott!" Dilbert: Aren't all meetings like this... Richard Dawkins: "What if you're wrong?"

the facts are that the vaccine is less dangerous than the virus, and the greedy power mad psychos have far better things to be doing than worrying about the starving masses as these are irrelivant in the big picture, in fact the most succesful psychos actually find that these masses are a better bet for keeping power than an educated classes, and whats more you dont need any of the far fetched conspriancies you proport ps you think? you think its not going to be more dangerous????? you want the world to base its reaction to a flu epidemic based on what an ignoramous like you thinks - what if your wrong and 10% of the world population dies? Go away and research the subject, anaylse the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.

Snapping on the glove. :laugh:

This is ignorant BS, fear tactics by the health insurers to stop the government from killing their gravy train. Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.