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 Peppermint Pig
| |-+  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 - Peppermint Pig

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
The Show / Re: FTL's Meg linked on Drudge Report
« on: December 12, 2010, 10:48:18 AM »
There's been a trend of mainstream media figures either not mentioning the name of the show, or mocking/lying about it. What are they so worried about??

The Show / FTL mentioned on Handel on the Law re: Meg & TSA
« on: December 12, 2010, 10:42:09 AM »
Handel on the Law's Bill Handel covered the TSA story about Meg McClain.

By the way, Handel's advice about TSA agents is to OBEY THEM.

He also mentioned Free Talk Live, which he referred to as an 'internet show' even after it was described as a radio show from wherever he sourced the article he read from. He then compared FTL to his one time job at a grocery store, 'broadcasting' over the store intercom. He goes on to say it's not a radio show, which means he either doesn't do any research or is intently trying to mock the show despite the fact that FTL started in _broadcast_ and can also be found in the top 100 list on Talker's Magazine along with Handel himself.

In any case it's frightening to think he's claiming to give factual advice about legal matters.

General / Re: HD Bailout
« on: December 10, 2010, 12:23:28 PM »
Government is more than useless, it is driving the destruction of economic productivity. Where does the government draw the line with the size of the loans, or how does it justify the selective favortism of aiding one entity to the detriment of the others? The only way you could rationalize this is by assuming a debt based society is the norm and that it's therefore rational to put the biggest debtor in charge of handing out loans. The economic collapse, forestalled by stealing what little value people do possess in the form of FRN, is not worth the speciously argued benefit.

General / Re: WikiLeaks - The Noise
« on: December 09, 2010, 12:28:05 PM »
For your amusement: Sarah Palin's shameless self promotion, hair-splitting, and idiotic outrage continue:



Palin: "this is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts."

Can you be un-American if you aren't American to begin with? Is that even an insult then? Didn't Palin advocate hunting down Assange for his own actions of free speech? Oh, here we go:


General / Re: WikiLeaks - The Noise
« on: December 09, 2010, 10:31:39 AM »
John Kass at the Chicago Tribune does a disservice to journalism by implying that Assange is somehow responsible for the cyber attacks, labeling them Assange's "hactivist disciples", and uses this claim and other rhetoric to support his article title "WikiLeaks and Assange pretend there are no consequences".


But Assange — or the newspapers that published the documents — don't have the right to pretend there are no real consequences.

"WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone's aware, has been harmed," Assange wrote in a hubris-filled op-ed piece Wednesday published in The Australian. "But the U.S. with Australian government connivance has killed thousands in the past few months alone."

It sounds very much like a big speech from a Hollywood movie. The big speech, usually delivered by some craggy-faced actor, involving the need for sunshine to illuminate government secrets otherwise hidden from a free people.

But once the big speech is over, and you're driving home with popcorn on your breath, you might be tempted to think logically about what happens next.

Redaction is a courtesy, the lack of which does not imply the vilification of the messenger. Assange certainly doesn't claim to predict the full ramifications of his activities, but I highly doubt he acts without consideration of the consequences.

If you want to seize authority and pass off the consequences, run for office.

Their analysts aren't wringing their hands over whether they should be studying the secret cables. They're just studying. They have computers. And their analysts do what analysts do best — connect the dots.

And not only the salacious and entertaining big dots, like that Saudi prince and the prostitutes at his big bash, or the attributes of the curvy Ukrainian nurse for Moammar Gadhafi, or what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted her diplomats to do with DNA. There are also the smaller, seemingly insignificant dots.

Analysts aren't interested in the well-known names, the public names, the official names. They're interested in the names hidden between the lines. And they'll find them.

These smaller dots aren't famous. They're foreign nationals. They could be clerks and janitors and such. They have names and friends and families. And soon, one dot is tied to another dot is tied to another dot.

Once they're connected, a door is kicked in by the security forces. The dot is put into the back seat of the car, then driven to a place where sunshine does not illuminate anything. And nobody notifies Assange about what became of the dot or its family.

By then, they're not dots anymore. They're not abstractions. They're real people. Or they were. And that's something that Assange — who reasons like a child — pretends not to understand.

Apparently leaking details about sex parties, extortion, lying, spies, and murder is worse than the activities themselves...
Kass disregards the violence of government and substitutes reason with insults. He very much wants to blame Assange for violent abduction and murder as a consequence of the publication of documents without that tricky little bit of logical consistency called causality which would show that it was the initial act of force or coercion which put people in danger.

General / Re: Genesis Years 1971-1977
« on: December 08, 2010, 05:17:04 PM »

There are some great videos of fan renditions also, particularly the Chris Lawley covers (where he plays most of the instruments!) (which also include Yes and Rush covers). Be sure to check those out if you haven't already. Not all of them are on youtube.. I have little to no musical talent, but can appreciate the artistry. As for prog rock in general, I'd have to say it's just one modest facet of my musical taste in general.

General / WikiLeaks - The Substance
« on: December 08, 2010, 01:38:36 PM »
Created this thread for the purpose of discussing the substance of the leaks, namely the content of the WikiLeaks releases and related stories associated to that content.

Hillary Clinton's espionage approach to foreign relations:

FTA: "The Wikileaks information indicates that Hillary - and her predecessor, Condolleeza Rice - instructed American diplomats to gather information about "office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cell phones, pagers, and faxes," as well as "Internet and intranet 'handles'; Internet e-mail addresses, website identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent-flier account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information." "

"The fact that this current State Department covert operation was initiated under Rice does not lessen Hillary's guilt for having pursued it. Clinton, not Rice, has run for president and is presumed to continue to be interested in the job. Her addiction to spies, dumpster divers, sleuths and negative research operatives has always been a cause for concern. "


It's interesting how the substance of the WikiLeaks appears to have Democrats and Republicans in silent agreement not to use the revealed data against one another. Even Rush Limbaugh, who is notoriously antagonistic towards the Clintons, has given more lip service to the status quo by attacking Assange and WikiLeaks, and trivializing the substance of their work. Most recently, Limbaugh has spent his airtime obsessing over Obama and the nuances of the unemployment and tax issue.

More useful information:


General / WikiLeaks - The Noise
« on: December 08, 2010, 12:41:27 PM »
Wanted to separate the noise from the substance of the WikiLeaks issue. I encourage you to post your information on the noise here.

A Wikipedia founder says WikiLeaks is an enemy of the people.

Toronto Sun says: "We tend to side with one of WikiLeak's more prominent critics, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who wants to be far removed from WikiLeaks, calling these whistleblowers nothing more than "enemies of the U.S. -- not just the government but the people.""


General / Re: Assange arrested in London on Swedish warrant
« on: December 07, 2010, 12:50:02 PM »
From what I've read (possibly rumor), the Sexual Assault charges (some of them??) were dropped, but then the charges returned coinciding with WikiLeaks activity.

General / Re: Boycott Amazon?
« on: December 07, 2010, 12:38:08 PM »
Thank you, Terror Australis. I'll go through this with my brother and see what sort of customer interest there is.

General / Re: Carbon tax
« on: December 07, 2010, 12:33:58 PM »
While the cost must be passed on (else the company goes under), it is still detrimental to all actors in the chain of production to the benefit of the legal plunderers who did not earn it. Politicians and bureaucrats operate on victim mentality, but never cease to prey upon people, furthering actual incidents of injustice. Those people that politicians label as victims will rarely, if ever, get anything out of the scheme proportional to the political rhetoric used to justify the theft, and it is of course NEVER EVER ethical to begin with.

On a side note, advocates of democracy or socialism who attack Libertarian/voluntarist ideas will often use charged rhetoric demanding that 'if you don't like OUR system, why don't you move to Somalia'. This sort of attack conveniently ignores the fact that the system they defend has caused or promoted the impoverishment and violence of foreign regions, OR it ignores the constantly uttered humanitarian argument that such impoverished people are, in their minds, victims, and need to be 'helped' (which often leads to unintended harm such as glutting developing nations with resources that stunt recovery/growth). Whether or not it is true that Somalians see themselves as victims, nobody has the ethical authority to label someone else as a victim. It's interesting then that in all other circumstances people of a 'social justice' position will advocate on behalf of environmental or poverty concerns, but ignore these concerns when it gets in the way of trying to discredit an ethical pro-liberty ideology which, arguably, the vast majority of Somalians do not hold or recognize. It's a projection of impressively moronic proportions.

The author is promoting the idealism of a state possessed with a solid, unquestionable foundation for doing what they believe to be ethical (aka 'social justice'). Rand would call this kind of detached thinking mysticism. They either ignore the causality of the matter which created the current situation, choose to believe forcing others to act is ethical when it satisfies their interests, or both.

You're welcome, orion. I'm sure you can modify the comic strip to reflect the reality, and possibly do it in fewer panels than the author used.

General / Re: Carbon tax
« on: December 06, 2010, 11:27:11 PM »
I'll sort through the comic strip and leave some arguments. Take what you will and form a rebuttal.

"Environmental policy is not a matter of black and white."

"They are the unintended side-effects of human progress and development?"

"Human progress is merely a series of unintended side-effects, children!" FAIL. Refusing to assign value to the actions of INDIVIDUALS consequently leads to the notion that it is acceptable to measure the value of action at a societal level, which is ethically nihilistic and ultimately bears no responsibility for the creation of "good" OR "bad", however the author perceives these concepts.

While green may be a color residing somewhere between the poles of black and white, the author's advocacy of 'green taxes' several panels down is actually a painfully failing 'black and white' concept.

The comic is self-defeating:

"Economic markets fail when the total costs of an activity are not measured by its price."

First off, 'economic markets' is a redundancy in terms, absurdly suggesting there are markets not based in economics.

Secondly, the solution this comic strip concludes upon is to socially engineer (read: force) a solution, which is an explicit disregard for the 'total costs' of said activity. Again, this is self defeating as it destroys the argument for value.

"If the total societal costs are not internalised by the company conducting an activity..."

"... these costs are 'externalized' and passed to society to remedy."

The argument cannot qualify itself as value judgments are formed by, and serve to inform, individuals. Society is not a concept which can be measured on an economic level. This form of argumentation tends to imply that the author knows best what "society", aka billions of individuals, want, and therefore presumes to make value judgments on behalf of it.  

The author mentions 'the company', implying that the subject matter is solely applicable to 'companies'. Government is the largest cause/enabler of pollution and harm to individuals.

"This is an inefficient way for our world to operate, and it is created unintentionally by our current laws and mindset."

Opinion, followed by a potentially useful fact, followed by a collective generalization.

"Our current approach to taxation is twisted and tangled."

One day you'll get it right, I'm sure...  :lol:

"So often it discourages the activities we want more of..."
"...and encourages activities that we want less of"

The author is following a train of thought which leads to a personality disorder, insanity, or at the worst a series of contradicting and indefensible beliefs.

"Our current system throws a blanket over all businesses operating in the economy, regardless of the burden their activities place on society and the environment."

Solution: Businesses that operate outside of the economy?? Profit!? (Think this one has been tried before)

Author is relying on oversimplified characterizations (society, environment, business, pollution, current system, etc) and trying to demonstrate their relationships like some half-baked Greek philosopher explaining the classical elements of nature. It does not stand the test of scrutiny when challenging each element and the perspective by which they are measured.

Speaking of half baked Greeks...


"We need a "green tax shift"..."

Old faithful...

It gets better in the following panel, where the author argues, in black and white, that 'good activities' should be taxed less, while 'bad activities' should be taxed more. It even has cute antonyms sprinkled between the two sides, such as "services" and "disservices"  :lol:

This comic strip insults its own target audience, which appears to be 4th graders.

"Following a green tax shift, the tax a business pays would be proportional to the amount of waste generated."

And libertarians or agorists are accused of being utopians???

"...let's turn industry itself into the force that reverses humanity's impact on the planet."

Enforcement of this author's utopian vision brings up more questions than answers. If the solution is to use government to influence change, then politicians have a mandate to grow the government, which is an ever-expanding sink-hole with the nasty side effect of attracting people who want to seize power so they can be above the law, or so that corporate friends can benefit. Repeat indefinitely by growing enforcement if you need more fail to convince you.

If people can't be motivated to see the good in an activity, then what purpose is there in using force? Furthermore, if you object to violence, pollution, or any other harm, why would you entrust the government to solve for these when it is evidently inadequate and clearly detrimental?

A side note: Here in the "green" state, you can't set up tall wind power generators on YOUR OWN PROPERTY because people feel they are entitled to a view. These are the green aesthetes as I like to call them. They aren't much different from environmentalists actually who want to force their opinions on others.

General / Re: Boycott Amazon?
« on: December 06, 2010, 10:00:24 PM »
When shipping USPS, I use Delivery Confirmation as a mandatory requirement in the hopes that it proves a defense if a customer claims I never sent them anything and tries a PayPal chargeback. I've heard that's one of the few forms of evidence they will recognize. Have not had any actual incident in order to test the theory, but I wouldn't put it past them to reject a merchant claim with all the stories I've heard.

As applies to boycotts... when the NAP cannot be followed strictly, minimizing harm is the logical alternative. I am more likely to consider alternative merchants to Amazon in light of the recent events, and more urgently seek a viable competitor to PayPal for online payment.

General / Re: Boycott Amazon?
« on: December 03, 2010, 06:45:54 AM »
Amazon = pussies

Its not even like they were ordered to do it either. They were just asked to and went "Um, ok  sure"
Wikileaks is stupid for trying to host classified US info with a US based provider.

Executive Order 13526, Section 1.1(4)(c) states “Classified Information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.”

Amazon would be stupid if they didn't pull the site.

Constitutionally, executive orders apply to internal operations of the presidency and not to anything the president would like to decree as if it were law. When the government threatens your operations and you have a lot to lose, most companies will buckle, whether or not they know the action to be constitutionally legal.

The government will pretend it is justified in whatever it does. On several levels it does this and for every one of these justifications, there are at least half a dozen points against it.

People who stumble into 'state secrets' without directly looking for them wouldn't know for sure whether any such material OR activities have subsequently been 'de-classified', assuming they have any idea at all. There is no virtue present in the function and justification of 'state secrets' unless one buys into the idea that this government is creating value along the justifications for its existence, which it is not. In other words, it's a bullshit argument.

General / Re: What Video Games Are You Currently playing?
« on: November 30, 2010, 12:54:27 AM »
Moral objections to the subject of licenses aside, I find that the license system in the Gran Turismo series is more important than ever to help players learn because of the online play element, and to prevent bad drivers from jumping straight into more complicated high speed races which could harm the enjoyment for others. That said, the game could instead track a player's ability and put them in races which correspond with it.

I don't have GT5 yet, but I'm still playing Red Dead Redemption with the posse/clan I founded, and we're expanding it to create a gaming forum, which I hope will attract liberty lovers...

And yeah, I'm a minecraft addict also. My bro purchased the game and he's building some AMAZING stuff. He manually laid out a massive glass domed structure. We might set up a server if there's enough interest.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 30 queries.