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 FKnight
| |-+  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 - FKnight

Pages: 1 [2]
16
The Polling Pit / Re: Tricky Question
« on: December 09, 2006, 02:04:08 AM »
Fuck yes I'd turn them in.

17
The Polling Pit / Re: What do you think of the police?
« on: December 06, 2006, 09:41:35 PM »
As far as The Police go, I am partial to the "Synchronicity" album which features "Every Breath You Take" and "Wrapped Around Your Finger."

18
The Polling Pit / Re: Do you find over-quoting annoying?
« on: November 29, 2006, 07:55:31 PM »
If I'm having a discussion with someone, the only reason I will quote him or her quoting me is because some people like to mischaracterize what I type when they're replying to me, and I typically need to clarify. Especially if they can't refute something so they try to hijack my side of the argument as their own and then try to steer me into opposition.  This also happens with the aforementioned cherry picking.

This is why an unmoderated forum like this is not very good for honest debate.

19
The Polling Pit / Re: Apple, Microsoft, or Linux?
« on: November 18, 2006, 05:02:48 PM »
I've thought about building a laptop.  I saw in a magazine at a doctor's office that it is something that people do these days.  After seeing that thing about about the keylogger in the dell laptop I know I will seriously look into it when the time comes.  [...]


http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/dellbug.asp

Quote from:
Although furtive eavesdropping on computer activity is certainly possible, the specific tale presented above is nothing more than an example of "government conspiracy" type hoaxlore. It originally appeared on www.chromance.de (from which it has since been removed, although it remains mirrored elsewhere), a site which carried several other obvious hoaxes. The graphics for the article were lifted from another site's page about commercial keyboard loggers, and the purported letter from the Department of Homeland Security appears to be an altered version of someone else's example of correspondence from the DHS.

20
The Polling Pit / Re: Apple, Microsoft, or Linux?
« on: November 18, 2006, 03:26:42 PM »
And on one hand I doubt that the average luser will follow suit, which means Linux and open source remain marginal. On the other hand, I'm betting MicroShaft and it's corporate software buddies will start playing hardball (i.e. getting open source outlawed, or void the GPL) when they start seriously loosing marketshare; so I'm doubting that I'll be left with much choice in the long run...

-RAnthony
Microsoft doesn’t need to do any of that to defeat any other company in market share.  Apple does not seem to be interested in market share, opting to be the “sharper image” of computers, and Distribution Purists who become angered when Ubuntu ships with binary drivers will prevent Linux from going anywhere because they believe that my grandmother should be more interested in hippie software freedom than expecting her camera to work when she plugs it into the computer.  Microsoft wins because they’re the only ones bothering to try to win.

Have you ever even used a Mac?
  • OSX has had the Darwin core since it first came out.
    It is way more secure. There have been a few exploits for the Mac, but not enough to be a problem.
    Its easier to use.
    Its faster.
    Its much nicer looking.
    Now that they have switched to Intel, you can run your Windoze on it.
    Its not twice as much, it is a little more expensive, but the hardware is better quality.
I’m not sure how the hardware quality is better since they are using the same parts that are in many PCs manufactured by other companies which are sold much less expensively. 

21
General / Re: Using Minted Bullion as Currency
« on: September 17, 2006, 08:50:43 PM »
I've heard complaints from you but no alternatives other than - just accept the FRN's because everyone else believes they are worth something. I agree with you in principle because I could right now take $10 FRN and get an ounce of silver. I cant do that with $10ALD...

Does that true statement make alternative currencies a bad or undesireable thing? No. I see them as a statement more than anything else - a statement that our independent spirit is not dead. Are ALD's financially the best currency given the trade-value? No. Are they otherwise a useful reminder that we havent given up completely? Yes.

My proposal would be to mint in terms of ounces. Giving anything that looks like dollars on the coin is just asking for trouble - especially with the exchange rate of FRN to Silver constantly changing - thanks FED.

So here's my proposal:

Standardize on ounces. go for tenth, quarter, half and full ounces. Or heck, go metric and do grams. Do the same for gold, even though it makes them hard to convert between gold and silver. Put the weight on the coin. Thats your currency.

Anyway, the real upshot is - stop complaining about the only alternative we have now and start looking at ways to improve it.

I don't see anything wrong at all with using silver as money.  My problem is specifically with the Liberty Dollar being used at a 1:1 ratio with US Dollars in exchange for goods and services that are valued in US Dollars.  If you want to give me one ounce of silver for $10 FRN worth of goods and services, I'll take it.

22
General / Re: Using Minted Bullion as Currency
« on: September 17, 2006, 01:51:31 PM »
The problem with this argument is there's no shortage of people willing to give that seller $5 in FRN's for that $5 Silver Liberty.

Sure -- as long as I'm okay with my business screwing people out of their money by trading them a Liberty Silver in exchange for their FRNs at a 1:1 ratio to Liberty face value.  My business, though, is not okay with that. 

Meanwhile, NORFED takes all the FRNs they got by charging a 100% markup and puts them in a bank (which you can't do with Liberty dollars), and makes interest on it.  Something tells me the folks over at NORFED aren't buying their houses and cars with Liberty dollars :D 

The folks at NORFED also know that it is more likely that merchants, on the whole, will eat the cost of accepting Liberty Dollars because the rarity of them actually encountering one makes it less than cost effective for them to put in the time and effort they would have to put in to getting them exchanged for face value in FRNs (e.g. screwing someone, or joining NORFED's pyramid).  As a result, NORFED's profit in FRNs is guaranteed.

23
General / Re: Using Minted Bullion as Currency
« on: September 17, 2006, 01:29:41 PM »
Quote
Sure -- unless they're providing $5 worth of goods and change in exchage for $2.78 worth of silver.

When you give them FRN's they get $0 worth of silver.  They get a piece of paper that says $5 on it.  They get that with the liberty dollar too.  The silver is a bonus.

Sure - this is absolutely correct.  However, the problem with the Liberty Dollar in particular is that when  you pass a $5 Liberty quarter in exchange for goods or services that have been valued by the seller at $5 in Federal Reserve Notes, you've passed on the premium of the purchase of that silver to that seller and have taken goods and services from him at a price less than what he has valued them at.

It doesn't matter what you feel money should be backed by -- all that matters is what the seller has valued his products and services at.  If he has valued his product or service at $5, and he accepts an amount of silver that can only be exchanged for half the value of his product or service, he's either an idiot or a really nice guy who doesn't mind selling products and services for less than what he wants to get for them. 

Sure, you can say that $5 worth of Liberty Dollars is worth 1/4 ounce of silver and $5 of FRNs is worth zero silver -- that's absolutely true; except that what is frequently forgotten and overlooked is that FRNs are indeed backed by a precious commodity that is much more valuable to most Americans than silver - their time, labor, and personal property.  $5 in FRNs is redeemable for nine minutes of time and labor.  That means that nine minutes of my time and labor is redeemable for two packs of Marlboros.  Six hours of my time is redeemable for an Apple iPod.  That time and labor is represented by FRNs. 

Therefore, it doesn't matter if the Liberty Dollar is backed by silver.  If I expend my time and energy in exchange for Liberty Dollars instead of FRNs, I have to work 18 minutes for two packs of cigarettes and I have to work overtime to buy my iPod.

No thanks. 

Now -- if you want to give me three $5 Liberty Quarters for nine minutes of my time, that's fine.  I'm in the business of making money that I can buy other products and services with from other people who also know that FRNs are backed by their time and labor.  I'm not there as a seller of products, services, or time, to help you recoup the money you lost buying silver from NORFED at two times market value that I can't trade for face value unless I join NORFED's pyramid.






24
General / Re: Using Minted Bullion as Currency
« on: September 16, 2006, 11:11:06 AM »
Better they get $2.78 worth of silver than not silver.
Sure -- unless they're providing $5 worth of goods and change in exchage for $2.78 worth of silver.

25
General / Re: Using Minted Bullion as Currency
« on: September 13, 2006, 08:27:56 PM »
BTW, I used one of the new $5 Quarter Liberty coins at the local Safeway grocerty store. They were excited, but unsure what to do about it. Then the manager told them it was OK to take,and I got my change in fiat FRN change.

1/4 Troy ounce of Silver $2.777.  Great job screwing Safeway out of $2.22.


26
General / Re: Vote NO on 82 in CA!
« on: August 27, 2006, 04:29:39 PM »
and it is still heavily subsidized.  Tobacco farmers make a killing. 

That is so fucked up too.  First, we use people's money to subsidize tobacco companies.  Then we take money from smokers in order to educate them not to smoke, then we use people's money to sue the tobacco companies.



27
General / Re: Vote NO on 82 in CA!
« on: August 27, 2006, 10:34:30 AM »
I just think its silly that you can't legally grow tobacco in the US

Can you direct me to the laws prohibiting the harvesting of tobacco?  RJ Reynolds, Altria Group, and a few other companies might want to know about it.

28
The Polling Pit / Re: DO RIGHTS EXIST?
« on: August 16, 2006, 11:41:59 PM »
But they believe in free trade, so a voluntary neighborhood watch whereby they take turns looking after each others' property is acceptable, but then that's a very small and simple form of local government.

From the threads I've read with the pro-anarchy crowd on the BBS, it seems that, for some reason, they don't consider it a "government" at that point.  The ony reason I've really seen anyone post is because "it doesn't tax," which is actually somewhat weak since taxation is not necessary to "govern."

But I don't speak for the pro-anarchy crowd, so don't take my word for it.  I could be wrong.


29
General / Re: Magical note that allegedly scares off cops
« on: March 19, 2006, 10:59:55 AM »
Quote
About two years ago a judge/lawyer friend of mine told me that if I'm pulled over after drinking and driving, all the evidence they have against me is what I have given them. That is the smell test, balance test, eye coordination test, breathalizer test, etc. In Missouri we have what's called implied consent: When you get your license it is assumed by the state that you have consented to a drunk test - if you 'refuse' to take the test then your license can be yanked right there for up to a year.

It is assumed by the state that you have consented to a sobriety test because when you get your drivers license, you choose to consent.  Because when someone signs something that says "I consent to a sobriety test by signing for this license", it would seem to me that the person, if he is an honest, principled person, should allow a sobriety test.  If they do not want to consent to a sobriety test, they should not sign a piece of paper that says that they do.

Quote
So I began carrying a small piece of paper that I give the officer that pulls me over - for whatever reason - that states the following:

"As an American Citizen, I have the right to remain silent. Please don't take this personal; it's merely an exercise of my rights. I also reserve the right against self-incrimination and request my lawyer(s) be present for any questioning. My attorneys are (Lawyer Name) and/or (Lawyer Name) at xxx.xxx.xxxx. If I am out of the state of Missouri, I hereby request a directory of local attorneys to choose counsel."

Since I started keeping that little sweetie in my pocket I've used it each time I'm pulled over - which around here and given that I'm a bit of a hell-raiser amounted to 5 or 6 times. Each time, the officer took the paper and license from me, went back to his car, came back angry and told me to go away. One time I was in a motorcycle accident and had a lady on the back. We'd both had a few, but weren't really intoxicated however we still smelled of beer. We were both transported to ER and while I was being administered to the officer went through my wallet - finding the little piece of paper on top of my license. He couldn't question me or obtain evidence so he gave me a ticket for not having my insurance ID in my wallet and told me, "This is your lucky day".

Actually, my lucky day was when I made that little card up and began carrying it. It also must work for speeding and firing a handgun within the city limits, cuz the same thing happened.

So, within a period of two years, this guy may have been pulled over for drunk driving, has gotten pulled over five or six times for unknown other reasons, got into a wreck while intoxicated, shoots his gun around town, and tries to antogonize cops.  This is a guy we should listen to.

Quote
I do not advocate anyone breaking the law but I don't believe in the so called "implied consent" laws or that driving is a privilege.'

There was no implied consent.  There was explicit consent.  He signed a piece of paper consenting to a sobriety test as a condition of taking the drivers license.

As for driving being a privilege, I believe one should be able to drive on a road that he or she pays taxes on without permission.  Perhaps this person should compaign for his representatives in his state legislature to not require drivers licenses.  Or maybe he can raise money to build his own private road ---- which, by the way, no one is prevented from doing.  

Maybe he can't raise money to build he own private road or can't convince his neighbors and local and state representatives to get rid of drivers licenses because he's too busy getting drunk and driving around with a gun, starting shit with cops.


Pages: 1 [2]

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 30 queries.