SD26

LOL! Hope and change?

I'd go with Dave for explaining it too. Does it have to produce? It just has to have rational value. One man's garbage is another's jewel. Yes, I only mentioned production in my post before this one. My error.

Land exists, but it isn't moved into any production until a mind decides to produce from it, correct?

Heard about this a couple months too. Of course, some go over their allotted right of minutes. And there's no recourse when the user doesn't pay. Great system!

Looks like you're on the list. Election tomorrow.

Seems like the NOK is doing well. Was going for mid 90's for gold and now it's in the mid 80's.

'bout time...

I know that would generate mold that I'm allergic to, so I would never choose that.

Closing date is the 23rd? Is there a cost to run?

Agreed. Was neat to see all the Rand and Galt stuff at the Tea Party I was at. Allowed me to meet some like minded individuals that I didn't think were out there. Going to a party this Saturday. Very curious how big it might be.

Well, how did Rand put that, "The question isn't who's going to let me; it's who is going to stop me."

Yeah, I don't either, honestly. The tricky part is that governments are in charge of these items. They are good a messing up things, certainly. Have we just been lucky? Have all the former Soviet countries really been responsible with their technology and hardware?

Pay attention to details. Nothing new. Just a reminder.

Ok, what is the "average Tea Party protester"? Yes, there are some that have a previous religious background, but I personally cannot say that there's an average TP protester that would necessarily be religious right. Most were pretty apolitical. I think that's where the surprise is for the established parties: so many that are motivated and voicing displeasure are from that part of the population that neither side has been able to tap with any effectivity. Truly independent? But, yes, there seems to be a lot of religious talkers that get to speak for the "average" folks involved. And that can be a problem.

I think it was more of not looking at the facts for what they were. I think the Founding Fathers recognized that God had given them individual freedom to make choices, mistakes, work, and so on. That didn't come from the king or minister on High, but through individual men. Ultimately, even the religious recognize that the non religious have individual rights too. Government must be framed in a context that is available to all individuals, hence the reason how I got to where I am now with Objectivism.

Light bulbs, computers, cars, air planes. They didn't exist at one time. TNT can be owned. I know individuals that have licensing for it. It was harder for them to get an Illinois gun permit than their explosives license. Maybe someone knows the history of gun powder and dynamite better than I, but wasn't a lot of the purpose of that for destruction of life, property. Yes, the use of TNT is still destruction, but it is effective in accomplishing a task of destruction that is an act of work. Is this incorrect?

I think we've some how gotten into a can of worms. If one has a functioning large SUV, it can be used as an act of force too. So, given that the act of possessing any possible weapon, should they all be regulated out of the hands of individuals? Sticks, paper weights, needles, spoons, trucks, etc.

I don't see where a gun law makes it necessarily difficult for a person to use a gun to commit a robbery. There are facts that guns obtained illegally are used in robberies. Therefore, gun laws obstruct those that already follow the laws of New York or other places.

That was excellent! Previous to my reading of AS, I believed that Jefferson and others that he worked with in crafting what they did were Christian or at least built everything under a "JudeoChristian" ideology. However, I recognize in no place where Jesus is mentioned in any of those founding father document to make any argument for some kind of a specific Christian ideology. If itwas developed under that premise, Jesus would certainly need to be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. I watch Beck and I can see some of what I thought before. Could still be some hope for him.

Does one need to be level 8 to vote in the party stuff? I know one needs to be level 7 to be in a party. Personally, I did a couple of battles, and that pushed me into level 8 today. Got excited and did a couple battles without weapons. Good for experience, but...I learned the hard way. Duh...

Tuesday, isn't it, the 15th? Yeah, a redirection of the party and the country would be good. I think with several of us joining the party, the numbers have gone up. Seat of the pants, it looks like about 50% of the party members voted last time. So, getting us and others for a total of around 18+ might be enough to win the election. Must be level 13 to run. Maarten, you up for it? Might want to mobilize sooner rather than later.

No, as I'm neither a construction engineer or a nuclear engineer. I did read some time ago, probably twenty years ago, that this was explored as an opportunity. Size could be reduced vs what was actually used on Japan. US special operations groups have had man portable nuclear units for decades. I have no knowledge of one every being used by them, or not for that matter. Yes, that is for specific use of force and not of a construction nature, but I'm sure one could come up with underground use or other ways of using it to do a large demolition project. Social pressure might be great, just as there's so much social pressure against nuclear power plants.

A hydrogen bomb generates an area of destruction. So, when the US government looked at nuclear explosives to clear areas decades ago, it was at least a thought. If an area was void of individuals completely and a nuclear weapon was detonated, it would not kill millions of people and it could be used for purposes that would require a lot more TNT, etc. to accomplish a specific tast. When the atomic bombs were used in war, yes, the intent was to kill. If I could acquire an M2 .50 machine gun for sport to shoot targets, is it any different than the 8000# vehicle I drive around town? I wear a belt at work. I could use that to beat someone or strangle them. If I change my individual intent, anything becomes a weapon.

How armed should one be going into battle? Sold .5 of gold, looking to buy some toys.

There are millions of opportunities where firearms are used in the United States for self defense in de-escalating crimes each year. I've read in some FBI statistics where that number is around 2.5 million. So, an act of force recognized by an individual was reduced. Moral self defense in action. Aircraft have been used for the initiation of immoral force. Are those banned? Similarly for other forms of transportation and entertainment. Isn't it always back to intent?