 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of Murkan Mike
Show Posts Topics
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.
Pages: [1]
1
The Show / Has anyone had a bad experience with MIDAS ?
« on: February 18, 2013, 05:47:43 PM »
I'm beginning to get nervous with the lack of response, and the definite lack of shipping from them, but was wondering if that is the norm. Since they are somewhat of a company in the upper echelon of the Free Talk Live somehow, I'm wondering if this is the place to ask that question. Am I the only one not entirely happy?
2
The Show / Suggestions for Marks "Edgington Post" Interviews
« on: May 19, 2010, 06:11:54 PM »
Here's a few I would like to listen to if they were done nicely by someone who could use cuss words, and didn't have to follow the FCC rules;
Michael Hoy - former publisher of Loompanics Press, who used to have some of the absolute coolest books available before they closed shop.
Ken Royce - Boston T. Party - Even though he has shown up at the liberty forum, he has a TON of cool information and is a pretty savy gun guy.
John Ross - author of "Unintended Concequences"
Stephen W. Dillon - Chairman of NORML.
"Fred" from the Appleseed project, if he is still alive.
Vin Suprynowiscz - From the Las Vegas area, and bookwriter. Wasn't he originally from New Hampshire?
These are just a few that popped up after reading the post Mark wrote about who someone might want to hear an interview from, when he was commenting on the "Nature Bee" guy. I just didn't want to sidetrack the thread about the worst commercials.
I like the interviews, especially if they aren't geared so much on the advertisers.
I would also enjoy hearing some interviews from some of the free staters who make news, and who are pretty colorful. As an example, the young kid who got busted for holding the leaf, and some of the other activists. I would also like to hear an interview with Dale, since he co-hosts a lot, and I really don't know much about him. And Wayne and the others. I'm sure they have pretty interesting backgrounds, and I hear them all the time on the show but don't know much about them.
Michael Hoy - former publisher of Loompanics Press, who used to have some of the absolute coolest books available before they closed shop.
Ken Royce - Boston T. Party - Even though he has shown up at the liberty forum, he has a TON of cool information and is a pretty savy gun guy.
John Ross - author of "Unintended Concequences"
Stephen W. Dillon - Chairman of NORML.
"Fred" from the Appleseed project, if he is still alive.
Vin Suprynowiscz - From the Las Vegas area, and bookwriter. Wasn't he originally from New Hampshire?
These are just a few that popped up after reading the post Mark wrote about who someone might want to hear an interview from, when he was commenting on the "Nature Bee" guy. I just didn't want to sidetrack the thread about the worst commercials.
I like the interviews, especially if they aren't geared so much on the advertisers.
I would also enjoy hearing some interviews from some of the free staters who make news, and who are pretty colorful. As an example, the young kid who got busted for holding the leaf, and some of the other activists. I would also like to hear an interview with Dale, since he co-hosts a lot, and I really don't know much about him. And Wayne and the others. I'm sure they have pretty interesting backgrounds, and I hear them all the time on the show but don't know much about them.
3
General / Buffalo Gold Coin
« on: May 05, 2010, 05:13:27 PM »
Why do you think the gummint made their first .9999 (4 nines) gold bullion coin in a $50 denomination?
Also, according to their website "By law, all of the gold used in the production of the American Buffalo bullion coin must be from newly-mined sources within the United States."
Why do you think they made such a requirement? I'm not trying to start any conspiracy theory, but it would seem to me that if they wanted to put a bullion coin into circulation (I still can't see what they have to gain by doing so) they would give it a larger denomination, and would use whatever gold they had on hand.
Are there any sound reasons for doing this? I mean.... not that anything they do is based in sound reasoning.
Just curious.
Also, according to their website "By law, all of the gold used in the production of the American Buffalo bullion coin must be from newly-mined sources within the United States."
Why do you think they made such a requirement? I'm not trying to start any conspiracy theory, but it would seem to me that if they wanted to put a bullion coin into circulation (I still can't see what they have to gain by doing so) they would give it a larger denomination, and would use whatever gold they had on hand.
Are there any sound reasons for doing this? I mean.... not that anything they do is based in sound reasoning.
Just curious.
4
The Show / Are Children Property
« on: November 06, 2009, 04:19:56 AM »
Regarding the story about the man showing his children a porno video....
As sad as it may sound, I have to believe that children, as well as pets and all animals, are just property until they can actively gain their own independence. At what age that is, I don't know, it depends upon the individual, and curcumstances may cause it to happen earlier in some children than others. But it doesn't change the point.
Children and animals are just property, and you should have the legal right to do with your own children as you wish. It is not for me to decide what you do with your own property. If they don't like it, then they have the ability and then they earn the right to be their own person, and decide to stay or leave. Then, and only then do they have rights. If they don't have the ability to leave, they don't have the right. Your children do not have a 'right to free speech' or a 'right to bear arms' as long as they are under your care. The older they get, and the more able they are to assume self responsibility, they will eventually 'have rights' and be able to determine freedom from their parents. At exactly what age this occurs, I don't know, but until it does, your children are your PROPERTY, not just your responsibility.
But until they do, they don't have rights. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to restrict or control their freedom, their learning, or their religion. There is no such thing as 'Half Rights' or "kinda-sorta rights', it's either all or nothing, and children do not have rights, they are property. As sad and cruel as it sounds, that man had the right to do what he wanted to his children, and it's not your business. If you think you have the right to determine that he can't make his own property watch a fuck flick, then you may also conclude that you have the right to MAKE him show them a Creationist video, or a Bible Video, or a LDS Church video, because if you think you have the right to restrict what he does with his children, then you also have the logical argument to mandate what he does with his children, and even the extreemists would have to agree that you don't have that right.
Animals will never have rights, and will always remain property, otherwise you could never own them, or tie them on a leash, or refuse to let them go outside unattended.
Am I wrong on this?
Mike
As sad as it may sound, I have to believe that children, as well as pets and all animals, are just property until they can actively gain their own independence. At what age that is, I don't know, it depends upon the individual, and curcumstances may cause it to happen earlier in some children than others. But it doesn't change the point.
Children and animals are just property, and you should have the legal right to do with your own children as you wish. It is not for me to decide what you do with your own property. If they don't like it, then they have the ability and then they earn the right to be their own person, and decide to stay or leave. Then, and only then do they have rights. If they don't have the ability to leave, they don't have the right. Your children do not have a 'right to free speech' or a 'right to bear arms' as long as they are under your care. The older they get, and the more able they are to assume self responsibility, they will eventually 'have rights' and be able to determine freedom from their parents. At exactly what age this occurs, I don't know, but until it does, your children are your PROPERTY, not just your responsibility.
But until they do, they don't have rights. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to restrict or control their freedom, their learning, or their religion. There is no such thing as 'Half Rights' or "kinda-sorta rights', it's either all or nothing, and children do not have rights, they are property. As sad and cruel as it sounds, that man had the right to do what he wanted to his children, and it's not your business. If you think you have the right to determine that he can't make his own property watch a fuck flick, then you may also conclude that you have the right to MAKE him show them a Creationist video, or a Bible Video, or a LDS Church video, because if you think you have the right to restrict what he does with his children, then you also have the logical argument to mandate what he does with his children, and even the extreemists would have to agree that you don't have that right.
Animals will never have rights, and will always remain property, otherwise you could never own them, or tie them on a leash, or refuse to let them go outside unattended.
Am I wrong on this?
Mike
5
The Show / Drinking and Driving
« on: November 01, 2009, 05:45:12 PM »
I'm a lame podcast listener, so I'm a little behind the times, but wanted to respond to the idea that the hosts have been stating that they agree that drinking and driving is bad.
I disagree. It may not be a smart idea to get into a car when you can't walk, but if you don't harm anyone then who really cares. I have been drinking and driving for 30 years, and although I am very lucky, I really don't feel that what I am doing is wrong (it's one of the reasons I don't really want to move back to Murka, or even NH).
It has gotten to the point that, especially in the US military community here in Germany, most people actually feel that being even slightly intoxicated and just sitting in a car with the keys in your hand is a criminal act, and should be punished. Why? For being able to commit a crime, but not committing one?
If I harmed someone, either with my car or with a 2x4, then I should be punished, but I shouldn't be punished for just holding a 2x4. Nor should I be punished for driving while intoxicated if I don't harm anyone. Being able to commit a crime leads us to the point where we have open container laws, which are just "Being able to, be able to commit a crime".
Then we have the law like in Florida in the 70's where it is illegal to have a small brown can sized bag in the car, as we might just cover up a beer can while driving. This would be classified as "Being able to, be able to, be able to commit a crime".
Where would this end? Will it be illegal one day to actually buy beer, if you were merely near a car?
Making driving while intoxicated illegal, is like making it illegal to have a hard-on while standing next to a woman, as you would be able to commit a rape.
Punish those who actually commit crimes, not those who might be considered capable of it.
Mike
I disagree. It may not be a smart idea to get into a car when you can't walk, but if you don't harm anyone then who really cares. I have been drinking and driving for 30 years, and although I am very lucky, I really don't feel that what I am doing is wrong (it's one of the reasons I don't really want to move back to Murka, or even NH).
It has gotten to the point that, especially in the US military community here in Germany, most people actually feel that being even slightly intoxicated and just sitting in a car with the keys in your hand is a criminal act, and should be punished. Why? For being able to commit a crime, but not committing one?
If I harmed someone, either with my car or with a 2x4, then I should be punished, but I shouldn't be punished for just holding a 2x4. Nor should I be punished for driving while intoxicated if I don't harm anyone. Being able to commit a crime leads us to the point where we have open container laws, which are just "Being able to, be able to commit a crime".
Then we have the law like in Florida in the 70's where it is illegal to have a small brown can sized bag in the car, as we might just cover up a beer can while driving. This would be classified as "Being able to, be able to, be able to commit a crime".
Where would this end? Will it be illegal one day to actually buy beer, if you were merely near a car?
Making driving while intoxicated illegal, is like making it illegal to have a hard-on while standing next to a woman, as you would be able to commit a rape.
Punish those who actually commit crimes, not those who might be considered capable of it.
Mike
6
General / I get ridiculed...
« on: October 07, 2009, 06:33:46 PM »
... for sitting here in Germany and trying to convince my buddies (all Murkans too) that "shooting the bastards" won't help. There are so many frustrated people and friends who just don't know what to do. I try and convince them that the ideas I hear on FTL and the convincing arguments that I hear are correct, and that violence only begets more violence, but most of the people I associate with are fed up with the police state, and they believe the only way to change things is through violence and aggression.
I tell them that aggression is what we are trying to prevent and stop, but they keep saying that we need to "Teach them a lesson" and "show them we mean business".
I read them the blog that Dale wrote about the neighbor having more sheep than him, and they said that was good, but it won't be read by anyone in government and won't change any minds of those who are are making our lives miserable. I explained that it wasn't meant to change Gummints mind, it was meant to change our minds.
I wish I had better communication skills to convince my buddies that we can't win anything through violence, but there are so many people who are desperate for any chance to change things, that I am afraid that non aggression won't stand much of a chance.
What arguments can I present them with that might convince them that there are other ways. They ridicule me for thinking that the free state project might be a good start. The most common argument is ".... and then what, VOTE in a smaller government?"
How should I respond?
Mike
I tell them that aggression is what we are trying to prevent and stop, but they keep saying that we need to "Teach them a lesson" and "show them we mean business".
I read them the blog that Dale wrote about the neighbor having more sheep than him, and they said that was good, but it won't be read by anyone in government and won't change any minds of those who are are making our lives miserable. I explained that it wasn't meant to change Gummints mind, it was meant to change our minds.
I wish I had better communication skills to convince my buddies that we can't win anything through violence, but there are so many people who are desperate for any chance to change things, that I am afraid that non aggression won't stand much of a chance.
What arguments can I present them with that might convince them that there are other ways. They ridicule me for thinking that the free state project might be a good start. The most common argument is ".... and then what, VOTE in a smaller government?"
How should I respond?
Mike
7
General / Paid in Gold
« on: October 05, 2009, 09:49:12 AM »
If I were to work for you, and you were to pay me in US Gold Eagle coins, would I be legally required to report my income to the gummint as the value of the gold, or the nominal value of the denomination of the eagles? If you gave me a 1/10th oz eagle valued at $5, would I be required to report 5$ as income, or 98$ as income?
Why do gold and silver coins carry a nominal denominational value anyway?
Why do gold and silver coins carry a nominal denominational value anyway?
Pages: [1]