Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of Branlin
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Branlin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
General / Re: America is in a whole lot of trouble
« on: November 10, 2011, 06:03:38 PM »
So I just took a leisurely stroll to check out all the fine ladies at my university library. As usual most of the people at the library were asian.

So I strolled to the math library, and every single person in there was asian except the ginger sitting next to me (he's not a real person anyhow)

So it got me thinking, are American twenty somethings stupid and lazy? Almost all of the drunk obnoxious kids at the tailgates here are Americans. I wish I knew Chinese. Fuck

I agree, America is in trouble. The sun is setting on western civilization, culture, and global dominance and will be replaced with something else, probably Asian. ("Asian" includes ALL of Asia, not just the Orientals.)

Every dominant force/empire in history fell from the top sooner or later and the West will be no different. There is no way to stop it either, IMO. Widespread corruption is here today, and "more government" -- the source of much corruption -- will be needed to control the masses as the Ruling Class realizes its power has peaked out and is losing credibility through the eyes of the ruled. Or so it seems to me.

If it's not quite there yet, Washington will soon turn into a wounded animal, lashing out at everything, viewing anyone who isn't within their circle of wagons as an enemy. I hope I don't live to see it, but I probably will.

2
General / Re: Question for Paleo people.
« on: November 05, 2011, 09:52:22 AM »
Am I the only one who thinks the paleo diet stuff is just a fad?

<-- not an expert

IMO, the term "paleo lifestyle" IS a fad. However all it means is eating and living like we did in our natural state -- before agriculture.

Humans have been around for about 3 million years, and we lived "natural" for about 2,990,000 years. Going by that, I don't think living in our natural state is a "fad."

3
General / Re: Question for Paleo people.
« on: November 05, 2011, 09:40:21 AM »
Pork rinds?

We bought a couple bags of cracklins a but back and I fried them up in a pan with oil. Shit turned into mini pork rinds. Was figuring that rinds without sugar added would almost fit onto the paleo radar.

Next question - Has anyone ever bought the buckets of pork pellets for making rinds?

I used to raise and process hogs for home use "in an earlier life."

The actual definition of "cracklin's" is the residue left over from rendering lard. Meaning, taking pieces of pork fat and cooking them down until you get the browned residue, or "cracklin's," and the clear liquid called "lard." (beef "lard" is called tallow). It really stinks the house up when rendering, but lard or tallow are the best type of oil to use for cooking. I make my tallow from grass-fed buffalo fat.

The cracklins I see in bags with chips, pretzels, etc. I don't think are true cracklins.

Some people call the dark brown crisped skin when roasting a hog "cracklins", which is also incorrect.

So, it's hard to answer your question without knowing what store bought "cracklins" actually are.

As for "paleo" food: anything that humans ate before agriculture was invented around 10,000 years ago would be paleo food. I'm not a fanatic about it, but to me bacon, ham, or any cured meat would not be considered "paleo", although any other kind of meat would be.


4
The Show / Re: Sat. night, caller "Shadow" on the murder of Iraqis . . .
« on: September 04, 2011, 11:29:50 AM »
Sam Gunn wrote:

Quote
What kind of libertarian are you that thinks that people should have to have government approved papers to walk around on public roads?  If Chicoms were walking around murdering people then they would deserve a fair trial and the death penalty, but if they were just walking around not doing anything then they obviously wouldn't deserve to die.

Piss on the gov't papers, but are American soldiers only walking around on Iraq roads? I don't think so, so they're armed trespassers on private property. They are the aggressors and have no moral basis to whine if the native people don't like it and shoot back. This really should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

Quote
What kind of freedom loving person are you that believes its okay to murder people just for wearing green and carrying a rifle in public?  People do that all of the time all over the world, and people don't deserve to get shot at or blown up just because of their clothing choice or the fact that they may be carrying a weapon.

See my answer above.

5
The Show / Re: Sat. night, caller "Shadow" on the murder of Iraqis . . .
« on: September 04, 2011, 10:27:12 AM »
What?

So you're saying that someone deserves to get shot at because they decide to dress up in a mottled green outfit and carry a gun down public roads?  I don't think so.

What?

So you're saying that American soldiers can go anywhere in the world they feel like, uninvited, do whatever they want, and the native peoples don't have a natural right to resist?

I don't think so.
I am saying that individuals have a natural right to walk around in a mottled green outfit while carrying a rifle.

I'm still not sure if yer serious or just jerking my chain, but nobody has a right to walk around MY property with a rifle unless they're hunting, and they better ask first.

But hostile soldiers from a foreign country? I don't think so.
We aren't talking about YOUR property, we are talking about public roads.

Ok, so public roads in Iraq. Did American soldiers get whatever paperwork the Iraq government required for immigrants/visitors in 2003?

Not that I'm aware of, so that makes them trespassers. Armed, uninvited trespassers should always be met with resistance -- and every human being has that inherent right no matter what invisible, political boundaries he happens to live within.

LOL, what's the name of this website again? www.neocon-central.com? Or maybe www.AmericanEmpire.org?

So by your "logic," Chinese, Russian, Indian, whatever soldiers have the right to land on our shores, march down your street, murdering resisters at will?

6
The Show / Re: Sat. night, caller "Shadow" on the murder of Iraqis . . .
« on: September 04, 2011, 08:32:20 AM »
What?

So you're saying that someone deserves to get shot at because they decide to dress up in a mottled green outfit and carry a gun down public roads?  I don't think so.

What?

So you're saying that American soldiers can go anywhere in the world they feel like, uninvited, do whatever they want, and the native peoples don't have a natural right to resist?

I don't think so.
I am saying that individuals have a natural right to walk around in a mottled green outfit while carrying a rifle.

I'm still not sure if yer serious or just jerking my chain, but nobody has a right to walk around MY property with a rifle unless they're hunting, and they better ask first.

But hostile soldiers from a foreign country? I don't think so.

7
The Show / Re: Sat. night, caller "Shadow" on the murder of Iraqis . . .
« on: September 04, 2011, 02:15:31 AM »
What?

So you're saying that someone deserves to get shot at because they decide to dress up in a mottled green outfit and carry a gun down public roads?  I don't think so.

What?

So you're saying that American soldiers can go anywhere in the world they feel like, uninvited, do whatever they want, and the native peoples don't have a natural right to resist?

I don't think so.

8
General / Re: I LOVE weed!!!
« on: September 03, 2011, 11:42:12 PM »
What the fuck is that stuff?

LOL, I'm old and haven't smoked since the late '70s. Nothing back then even looked remotely like that. WTF is all the white stuff?

Those are actual crystals or resins or something of cannabinoids.(sp) They grow as a resin on the trichomes (Fucking hairy things) of the flowers or some shit. The new stuff apparently just leaks the shit out everywhere.

Means that weed is really sticky and will get you all high and stuff.

At least that's my understanding.

Ha, how things change.

Interesting, thanks.

9
General / Re: Improve the job outlook
« on: September 03, 2011, 10:02:21 PM »

Here's a better idea: end the insane idea of expecting your employer to pay your health insurance.


No, dipshits like this guy never look at the root cause of a problem. They just go after the symptoms and hope stuff works itself out on its own........ which it never does.

Troll, or just stupid?

I cant tell yet. Its so hard to know sometimes.

 

10
The Show / Sat. night, caller "Shadow" on the murder of Iraqis . . .
« on: September 03, 2011, 08:03:46 PM »
and the follow-up calls:

Mark, you kept dancing around the larger point, but never made it.

Armed Americans on Iraqi soil are TRESPASSERS. Nobody invited them there.

Even if these kids/women did set booby traps or whatever, they -- like all human beings -- have the natural right to defend their homes and community from foreign invaders. Even the stupid U.N. recognizes this right.

All the points made by "Shadow" are irrelevant.

11
General / Re: Improve the job outlook
« on: September 03, 2011, 07:31:13 PM »
Two very bad laws stand in the way of improving the job outlook. One forbids employers to "discriminate" against smokers, the other forbids them to "discriminate" against queers.

The force employers to hire smokers and put them on the company health insurance plan, raising the rates for legitimate people, and even though the employer would prefer not to hire them, it's called "employment at will."

Repeal these blatantly unjust laws, and employers might start firing the smokers and queers, opening up jobs for legitimate people. Smokers and queers have no right to take our jobs, jobs the employers would prefer to give to us.

The smokers and queers made a bad choice. Smokers chose to be drug addicts. Queers chose to be homosexuals. In either case, they would be free to open a business of their own and hire only smokers, or only queers.

Here's a better idea: end the insane idea of expecting your employer to pay your health insurance. Should we demand they also pay our homeowner's insurance? Car insurance?

12
General / Re: I LOVE weed!!!
« on: September 03, 2011, 07:17:16 PM »
That looks like the sort of weed that makes you groggy and lazy.  I don't like that kind except for help getting to sleep.


Here's some weed for people who also have a life they feel like living:


What the fuck is that stuff?

LOL, I'm old and haven't smoked since the late '70s. Nothing back then even looked remotely like that. WTF is all the white stuff?


Not very often.  The abundance of good enough outdoor schwag makes the good stuff a poor financial decision in my geographical location.

1OZ of 3% = 60 dollars here

1 Oz of 9% = 400 dollars

Even some crazy awesome 15% THC weed would have to cost no more than 300 dollars to make it the right choice and we're not yet talking about waste factor.  


A popular -- and potent -- one back then (in this area) was Columbian "Red Tip." It was $35 per ounce. I'm always comparing gold/silver to other assets/commodities and am amazed at how little it changes.

-- A thousand years ago you could buy a horse for 2 ounces of gold, that is roughly still true today.  

-- A hundred years ago you could buy a nice tailored suit for an ounce of gold; still true today.

-- While both are very volatile, and change rapidly depending on money printing, wars, etc. the ratio between crude oil and gold tends to be parallel.

-- Forty years ago you could buy about 10 gallons of gas with an ounce of silver. Still true.

-- And now we get to pot. Before silver spiked in '79, it was around $5 per ounce. Seven ounces ($35) would buy you an ounce of some nice Colombian.

So today, with silver at $40 per ounce, seven or eight ounces would still buy you an ounce of some nice pot.

"There is nothing new under the sun." (except for the value of the dollar)

13
General / Re: I LOVE weed!!!
« on: September 03, 2011, 07:00:11 PM »
Weed is fuckin boring.  :shock:

screw this douche, Fuck the weed haters! If someone doesn't like weed, they are useless.

 here's some pics to get your mouths watering....



That stuff looks like dried worm shit.

14
So he's not dogmatic about a largely good, but flawed document? That's why you don't like him? Many of the 'founders' had reservations about the constitution. Henry, Jefferson, and others all very much disliked or distrusted it. Your OP is still nonsense to me. Link to the original material, please. I don't see opposition to the constitution itself or a compromise of principle anywhere in what you wrote.


I've read it a half dozen times and I have no clue what (s)he (?) is talking about either.

15
The Show / Re: dollar plunging against gold
« on: August 23, 2011, 10:22:23 PM »
A year ago I bought the GLD and SLV exchange-traded funds...

I recently bailed on those.  Word is they don't have the real metal to meet their obligations, not by far, so it's just a matter of time before they crash horribly.  Look into Sprott if you must buy stock and want metals.  I hear it's better.  Never as good as physical, in your hand.  You can also buy physical metals through Apmex for your IRA but that's complicated and potentially expensive.

I read all the advantages/disadvantages/rumors etc. before I bought and am comfortable with it. I already took some nice profits on SLV a few months ago when it peaked out, so that money is locked in.

Of course holding the metal is generally the best thing, but there were too many hoops to jump through to get it within my IRA, and, if I recall correctly, a third party has to hold it anyway so there is always some risk there.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 30 queries.