Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Econ,
In case you haven't realized this about avo, but he's trolling. He isn't dumb and has produced strong arguments in the past over the years, but his recent track record over the past few months has been one of trolling and deliberately arguing in circles.
The age of consent in the US varies by state, but it's between 16 and 18. In my state it's 16, but because of stupid laws it can still be illegal for an adult to copulate with someone who is 16. 18 probably won't get you arrested, but you can bet you will be if you're 26.
Considering that Xeno got a tag point, I am thinking wtf I didn't get one.
> [TI] Primo wrote:
> what i don't understand is
i know there are frigates of the dutch, german, greek and american navy there.
how hard can it be to track where these guys are coming from, and bomb the crap out of that place.?>
political convenience maybe?
I'm not looking to lose weight, lol.
I'm looking for a cheap and healthy diet.
I'm also a big snacker. I eat 5+ small meals a day. Screw the traditional breakfast, lunch, and dinner routine.
Well, I found out that Wiki says you can subsist off potatoes and milk 
.
I heard that the Irish commoners did before the Potatoe famine, and they tended to be healthier than continental commoners who ate bread.
Any how, can you live off potatoes for real? I'm looking for the uber efficient diet.
In my kid's days, there will be sex robots .
As far as I'm concerned, a 16 year old should meet the standard of "age of consent" and the "age of consent" should have no limitations. For example, my state says that 16 year olds have reached the age of consent, but there are limitations where an adult can still be charged with statutory rape for copulating with a 16 year old.
They have to make the law stupid and complicated like the law makers always do.
Lol Econ, you need to learn how to argue selectively. You get yourself overwhelmed with pointless crap that only expands the domain of the argument rather than narrow it.
Well, I am in favor of having sex for pleasure, without a marriage too.
Well, it is true that a considerable number of Christians will reason that their beliefs are true because the scientific alternative is incomplete.
To be frank though, BW, you do end up insulting people with different values than you do. Now while I may have a contemptuous attitude towards some people with different values, depending on what those values are, I don't explicitly insult them personally. That goes nowhere, and there's simply no way to settle a difference of values with facts. I can settle a scientific question with facts, but I can't on big government or small government.
I don't know what else to say, but I don't think your insults accomplish anything do they?
I am embarrassed to say it, but my 7-8 years on this forum has taught me how to argue. Of course, I rarely bother to seriously argue here anymore because of the limited time I have and because only a few can measure up to my skills. For those who are able to argue with me, the result of the argument tends to be that the argument can go no further because of a difference of values, we are in agreement, or I'm dismissed as a psychopath, lol.
Otherwise, as I said earlier in this thread, it comes down to a difference in values. Left-wingers aren't necessarily stupid if they truly value the security of an omnipresent government and welfare state, but it's seriously not my taste. My values are personal excellence, small government and self-reliance, and the debate with lefties can go no further. I guess if some crackpot lefty wanted to argue that the free market was less efficient than a planned economy then I would have a reason for calling one stupid, but I haven't seen any lefty here do that except for maybe xeno.
> Schniepel wrote:
> is that common in the US?
I mean.. they do test you for drugs when u do certain jobs here.. pilot... police also i think.. but on a normal job you never ever would do a test on drugs.>
Yup. They do drug tests sometimes even if you work at a McDonalds.
Heh, in the US, unions are sometimes more powerful than big business.
Otherwise, I stand by my position. Limited suffrage would solve a lot of problems in the US. Maybe it's not appropriate for other countries, but it certainly is for the US.
> Schniepel wrote:
I allways thought it is an advancement that now people are not toys of the despot anymore.>
Now they are toys of elites, many of which have power because of universal suffrage, like unions.
> Schniepel wrote:
> its just a brainless idea.. i hope you do realize that yourself.>
Nope. Besides most Western countries started out with limited suffrage anyway, and as we can see things got messed up when there was universal suffrage.
Schniep,
lol. Obviously I have different standards for retired couples. I just want adequate means to prevent demagogues from being elected, like Obama. If you check the 2008 elections, you'll notice that if you omitted the working class and poor vote, McCain would have won by probably a large margin.
Well it is true that conservatives value individualism, hard work, a free market, meritocracy, and monetary accomplishment. And to be frank, I agree with those values. In an almost Nietzsche-like way, I think that the values of compassion and social welfare so common to left-wingers are for the weak and inferior. Yes, I believe that. Also, I am in favor of eliminating suffrage for people who earn less than $70,000 a year to prevent those scum from electing officials to cater to their interests. To paraphrase a founding father, things get messed up when the common people realize they can vote to touch the treasury.
> Otto the Autopilot wrote:
> >They are inhumane living conditions
The long hours of missions serve a purpose, usually it's to avoid detection. If we made soldiers work normal working hours, some missions would not be possible. Then the enemy gets an advantage and our people die. "Humane" working conditions don't mean shit when you're working to keep yourself + your friends + your country alive.>
I don't think you bothered to consider my point. I specifically referred to non-combat troops. Of course exceptions need to be made for troops in combat (i.e infantry), but most army personnel are not serving in combat.
I see you guys need a more graphical understanding of what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46vYZFU1Dew&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmgx.com%2Fblogs%2F2008%2F04%2F29%2Fangry-army-dad-exposes-soldier-living-conditions%2F&feature=player_embedded
If you think our imperial troops should live like this, then there's something wrong with you. They are inhumane living conditions, and it's no wonder why the army has trouble satisfying its recruitment standards. At least the army is improving the conditions, but you get my point.
As for 12 hours of sleep, ok maybe you have a point. Many people are working long hours and you can still live a comfortable life, but when our military personnel are sleep deprived (except troops in combat who are up 72 hours at a time) their mental faculties are compromised.
Actually, if the army was more assertive with giving soldiers civilized living conditions on base, then maybe they wouldn't have a problem with attracting new recruits and then people could work less than 12 hours a day.
> Chris_Balsz wrote:
> active duty means on call depending on what happens
12 hours can be a short day for a combat assignment>
What if you're doing an admin job?
Come on, 12+ hours is inhumane treatment.
Is it true that US military personnel can expect to work 12 or more hours a day?
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.