Affordable?
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
speaking as an experienced wildland fire fighter, Yes.
Suppression Fire
Intentional application of fire to speed up or strengthen fire suppression action on wildfires. Types of suppression firing include backfire, burning out, counter firing.
- Backfire
- Burn Out
- Counter Fire
- Emergency firing to stop, delay, or split a fire front, or to steer a fire.
http://www.fireparadox.org/suppression_fire.php
sometimes you gotta burn some shit to put out a fire.
sometimes you gotta shoot some motherfuckers to stop motherfuckers from shooting people who arent motherfuckers.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You seem fixated on running from questions and even if you do answer them , you offer two opposing points of view on them when your first statement is proven wrong. First you declared that your government had no force in it, then you danced from that into a rationalization of the force.... Sad, very sad.
You also seem to think that you've asked me a "gotcha" question this time. You're obviously not a Panarchist or have not examined any of those concepts. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm thinking you might not be equipped emotionally or intellectually to engage in this discussion. Adopt a core philosophy and defend it Flip Flopper.
I'm also inferring that you hold a slave mentality, wherein you think because one plantation gives a bit more corn bread with the Sunday slop that makes the plantation system itself justified. Because one master has tastier boots does not mean shoe leather is good for freedom. Poor poor little slave. Simmer a bit longer, then fold some laundry.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You are being realistic eh? You have been well indoctrinated Comrade Maytag.
Like defending the country, on a pot web site no less, that incarcerates the most people in the world or kills the most people via foreign adventures using money stolen from you?
Then flopping to another point of view when your first one fails? That's your reality?
My wanting people to interact on a peaceful basis is Utopian? Perhaps you should examine your priorities.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Thank you for considering that all human interactions need not be administered thru a coercion based government.
The answer to the question you asked the laundry flopper guy is :
Panarchy.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
My point was that USUALLY increasing the source of a problem will not lead to a cure, in that regard I was correct.
Now fry me up some bacon ,with a side of skewered Blue Smurfs please.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Name the one place you can live the dream you so desire.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Panarchy.
Name the things you like about your coercive government that don't rely on force.
Can you do that yet or will you run away and slobber on the boots of your master asking him for some pudding?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Name the one place you can live the dream you so desire...or will you just bitch like a bitch and do nothing.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
YOU will NEVER get an answer from him on that
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
As I predicted you are not emotionally or intellectually equipped to process my answer.
The answer was - Panarchy.
So, I've answered your question, several times in fact. How about answering mine?
Have you come up with ANYTHING your masters do that you like which doesn't involve force or the threat of it somehow?
ANYTHING?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You will never be free, since you are literally and figuratively speaking forging your own chains and every time a key to your shackles appears you throw it in the ocean. Back to your oar slave.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Panarchy is a concept...a theory if you must.
again name a PLACE where you can live the dream you so desire
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
He could actually live it here with two major changes.
1) eliminate the immoral income tax and replace it with another form that makes sense in both an economic and social way. A consumption tax of some form is the best idea I've heard presented, if there are better ones we should look into them.
2) get back to leaving each other alone and respecting what the saying a man's home is his castle and realize to be truly free we should not care what he's doing. The caveat being that no children or animals are harmed and no other persons rights are being violated.
Two changes and RobRoy (and the rest of us) could live his life in this very country the way he (mostly) wishes. There will still be a big brother to deal with, but he'd be less intrusive and easier to avoid. Let's get him not just out of our bedroom, but out of our house as well.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
LOL...let me know when you and Rob Roy come back to reality and realize you live in a world with other humans, which also means you have to deal with emotions.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Should I quote the part in the quote that you actually quoted without reading as to where it must make sense in a social way?
I know you have to deal with emotions. We don't have to be ruled by them though and we shouldn't be.
The second point should be as simple as respecting another man's privacy. A man's home is his castle used to be a common saying and thought process.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Dude emotions are something you can't just get rid of. Jealousy, greed, envy, anger, possessive, rage, selfishness etc etc...all are emotions that kills your concepts.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
tax proposals?
heres one:
Corporate income tax set to ~10% of gross receipts, No Deductions
10% duty on all imports, from anywhere
to do business in the US you must be a US registered corporation, and all your overseas employee payroll is taxed just as they would be in the US (Social security, disability, unemployment, etc)
corporations cant own a corporation (subsidiaries)
the result:
manufacturing comes back to the US, no more income tax laid on people (just corporations) no more artificially cheap imported goods, less money in washington so they have to spend it wisely or not at all.
when you tax people, either through income or consumption taxes, youre taxing them twice.
You are putting the cart before the horse.