 
|
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 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.
16
The Show / Re: Drinking and Driving
« on: November 08, 2009, 12:48:35 PM »
So,.... is being able to commit a crime, a crime? If you have the right to arrest me for being able t commit murder by possibly ramming into your car on the highway head on, even though I haven't done it, then you have the right to arrest me for possibly raping your wife because I have a hard-on at the dinner party, or arresting me for shooting the president, because I am wearing a pistol on my side at a rally where the president will be, or arresting me for 'disrupting the free nation' for joining the free state project, or ... or ... or, ... and it could piossibly go on and on until we are arrested for 'future crime' like in the movie.
I don't buy it one bit. I'll pay my restitution for any crime I commit against another person, but don't like being conditioned to think that being able to commit a crime is a crime.
I don't buy it one bit. I'll pay my restitution for any crime I commit against another person, but don't like being conditioned to think that being able to commit a crime is a crime.
17
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
18
The Show / Re: Drinking and Driving
« on: November 06, 2009, 03:53:27 AM »Fuck you, you fucking redneck bottle sucker! If you drive drunk within one fucking mile of where I am, I will fucking superglue you to a fucking beerkeg, rent a fucking Hummer H1, and play hockey with your ass being the puck and my bumper being the stick, all the way to motherfucking Montreal!
What is wrong with this guy? Is he for real? Has anyone ever actually seen his guy? Man, this guy has a serious mental problem. Does he really exist?
All I can really say to this absurdity is: Where are you, so I know to honk my horn as I drive by while legally drunk?
19
The Show / Re: Drinking and Driving
« on: November 06, 2009, 03:45:38 AM »
I swerve all the time when I'm driving. It is usually caused by me trying to quickly put on my seatbelt as I pull into a traffic check, so I won't get a fine, or when I'm trying to get my phone out of my jeans pocket when it rings, or when I'm trying to find that Tab Benoit CD that fell on the far side of the passenger seat. I usually don't swerve when I drink (unless I'm trying to put on my seatbelt as I pull into....).
But in generality, at least here in Germany, people who are stinking drunk, and cause serious injury (and I don't mean legally drunk at 0.2 BAC, I mean people who are unable to stand) usually don't have to pay for their concequences as they loose their locenses and pay a fine, maybe spend a few months in jail (rare here in germany). I'm sure it is the same in Murka. But.... if these people had to actually start paying some restitution for their crimes, and I mean crimes where there is a victim, not calling DUI a crime, only calling damging people or property a crime, then there would be no need to have a law stating at what alcohol level you could drive on your own streets. If you damage a car, then pay for it. If you cause someone to loose their life, then pay restitution. THAT, would stop unneccesary driving while not being able to control a vehicle.
A lot of the public paranoia is caused by the horror stories (and they may be true) of people who have had loved ones killed (I've only heard the Gubmint public service announcements, I've never known of a case personally) of having everything lost, and the drunk driver gets away with a 30 day jail sentence or a fine, or a loss of traveling rights (and they are a right, not a driving privelege). This is what scares people.
Even some people in the 'liberty movement' think that if you have had one drink, you are a menace to public safety. I still disagree, it's just a damn car for christs sake, it's not an airplane (which I have also operated under the heavy influence of both alcohol and hashish), or anything that requires SKILL to operate. Hell, a horse is harder to ride than a car is to drive.
It's just another big bad propaganda campaign that the gubmint has started as an example to justify having a bunch of armed goons driving down the highway harrassing the populace, and extracting money from them. DRUNK DRIVING - save the children from them!
But in generality, at least here in Germany, people who are stinking drunk, and cause serious injury (and I don't mean legally drunk at 0.2 BAC, I mean people who are unable to stand) usually don't have to pay for their concequences as they loose their locenses and pay a fine, maybe spend a few months in jail (rare here in germany). I'm sure it is the same in Murka. But.... if these people had to actually start paying some restitution for their crimes, and I mean crimes where there is a victim, not calling DUI a crime, only calling damging people or property a crime, then there would be no need to have a law stating at what alcohol level you could drive on your own streets. If you damage a car, then pay for it. If you cause someone to loose their life, then pay restitution. THAT, would stop unneccesary driving while not being able to control a vehicle.
A lot of the public paranoia is caused by the horror stories (and they may be true) of people who have had loved ones killed (I've only heard the Gubmint public service announcements, I've never known of a case personally) of having everything lost, and the drunk driver gets away with a 30 day jail sentence or a fine, or a loss of traveling rights (and they are a right, not a driving privelege). This is what scares people.
Even some people in the 'liberty movement' think that if you have had one drink, you are a menace to public safety. I still disagree, it's just a damn car for christs sake, it's not an airplane (which I have also operated under the heavy influence of both alcohol and hashish), or anything that requires SKILL to operate. Hell, a horse is harder to ride than a car is to drive.
It's just another big bad propaganda campaign that the gubmint has started as an example to justify having a bunch of armed goons driving down the highway harrassing the populace, and extracting money from them. DRUNK DRIVING - save the children from them!
20
The Show / Re: Drinking and Driving
« on: November 02, 2009, 05:56:08 AM »I have never seen anyone who is truly drunk NOT about to cause an accident on the road.
Whats to define drunk? It's only driving a car for gods sake, it ain't like you have to walk a tightwire across niagra falls. How much balance do you need to operate a car? How much reaction time do you need to steer a car down the road. I've been doing it drunk (on German Beer, not that Murkan piss water you guys drink) for over 32 years. Stinking drunk too. But that's me, not you. Maybe you can't do it, and if not, then please don't. But I should be responsible for my actions, drunk or not, and my BAC shouldn't be an issue.
Fuck you, you fucking redneck bottle sucker! If you drive drunk within one fucking mile of where I am, I will fucking superglue you to a fucking beerkeg, rent a fucking Hummer H1, and play hockey with your ass being the puck and my bumper being the stick, all the way to motherfucking Montreal!
Redneck? Bottle sucker? Yup, that's me. What a lame threat. I probably did drive drunk near you. Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo. Were you at the Liberty Forum? I drove pretty wasted every evening. It's especially easy when all you have to do is steer those humongeous automatic transmission cars, with cruise control and power steering. Sitting on those lazy boy lounger wide bench seats.
Should it be illegal to drive while tired? After fighting with your girlfriend?
What if you could pass the driving test while drunk. Suppose I could pass the driving test while having a 1.5 BAC? Would it be on my license "Safe to drive with up to 1.5 BAC"?
21
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
22
General / Re: Getting old.
« on: October 21, 2009, 03:54:41 PM »
Hell yeah the age is catching up with me, I am starting to stop after 4 or 5 beers (Ottingers or Bitburgers) during the week, and 7 or 8 on the weekend.
Last week I had to actually think about whether or not it was worth getting up to put more ice in the glass before pouring in some more highland park.
Turning fifty really sucks!
Last week I had to actually think about whether or not it was worth getting up to put more ice in the glass before pouring in some more highland park.
Turning fifty really sucks!
23
General / Re: I get ridiculed...
« on: October 12, 2009, 05:12:17 AM »
I am not 'stationed' here, I was, but that was 30+ years ago. I live here and my friends are a mixed group, Murkans, Germans, French and Brits. We all seemed to collect towards one another from our anti gummint views. We tend to weed out the statists and it is surprising how many people love liberty.
Hell, I can smoke all the weed I want right here, I don't need to move to Keene to do that. I also don't have to pay as manytaxes as I do in Murka, especcially in NH, with the ourageous property tax.
I thought about moving to NH, and may even actually do it one day, but right now, I just could not afford it, and would have to get way more money than I'm worth just to live, and pay the taxes.
Besides, you have WAY too many cops in NH. I was there earlier this year for the liberty forum, and was amazed at how many cops were always snooping around. It is just a recipe for an arrest, with so many cops everywhere.
Mike
Hell, I can smoke all the weed I want right here, I don't need to move to Keene to do that. I also don't have to pay as manytaxes as I do in Murka, especcially in NH, with the ourageous property tax.
I thought about moving to NH, and may even actually do it one day, but right now, I just could not afford it, and would have to get way more money than I'm worth just to live, and pay the taxes.
Besides, you have WAY too many cops in NH. I was there earlier this year for the liberty forum, and was amazed at how many cops were always snooping around. It is just a recipe for an arrest, with so many cops everywhere.
Mike
24
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
25
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?
26
Photoshops / Re: America, love it or leave it - Douchey?
« on: October 15, 2008, 01:40:16 PM »
I dunno, I think it's pretty good advice. I left over 30 years ago, and... uh... how do I say this politely,...... I never returned and really don't regret it. It sure sounds like you guys have your hands full.
27
The Polling Pit / Re: Should I be allowed to say "wat"?
« on: August 08, 2008, 06:15:21 PM »
Only if it's followed with ".... da fuck you lookin' at?"
28
The Polling Pit / Re: Asian women
« on: August 08, 2008, 06:10:21 PM »
I only like the asian women with black assholes, I usually give them a real good inspection, and if they have a true black asshole, then they get into the harem. Sometimes during the dry season, I'll loosen up the standards a little, and allow a few asian women with dark brown assholes in, but when the pickings are good, I'll only let the real black assholed lower Korean and eastern island women onto the farm.
29
The Polling Pit / Re: Should we change our show's tagline?
« on: August 08, 2008, 06:03:32 PM »
I think more emphasis should be more on free and less on talk. I don't think you promote the freedom thought enough (in the tagline), and the current tagline seems to make me think that the show is more about people venting their spleen and not about freedom.
30
The Polling Pit / Re: How did you find out about Free Talk Live?
« on: August 08, 2008, 05:57:44 PM »
I live where we don't get much english speaking radio, so I bought an Ipod for the podcasts. When I saw that there was a like minded radio program out there I couldn't stop listening to it.
Ipod searches for freedom, turned me onto you guys. Best show out there, too bad I didn't find it sooner
Ipod searches for freedom, turned me onto you guys. Best show out there, too bad I didn't find it sooner