nice mate, very nice. very jealous. over here in the uk we're limited to what we can own. we can have small calibre bolt action rifles, shotguns and air rifles - some of which you need a licence for.
i have this:
Weihrauch .22 HW 95K Break Barrel
which is very cool for popping rabbits.
and one of these:
which is a spanish grulla purdy style 12gauge shotgun. it's a lot older than the ones pictured but still shoots a charm. technically it's not mine as the licence is in the family name and stored at my old house but i take care of it and take it out whenever i can. makes a great noise.
when finally set up somewhere in the country i'm going to look into a .22 hunting rifle plus a mate has a silenced shotgun which is immense. one day... one day!!
That is a cool air rifle. They pack quite a punch! My buddy uses one to keep the marmot population down around his house. And that shotty is fucking beautiful. That has got to be some serious money going on. I was at the gun show and got to hold a 14,500 dollar shotgun. Had all this cool filigree and an Indian motif with elephants and shit.
n0body wrote:
i don't own a gun coz i have a big penis and don't need to show otherwise...
Any more fabrications and cliches in your bag Cap'n?
In a further blow to Mr Dimon, whom President Barack Obama once described as his "favourite banker", 40pc of JP Morgan's shareholders voted to split his dual role as chairman and chief executive.
Didn't really watch it... was Reagan telling Obama he needs more Government jobs?
Reagan increased Government employment by 3%, whereas Obama reduced Government jobs by 3%. The recovery rate was pretty much the same rate for both Presidents. However, the 2008 collapse was on a Great-Depression scale when it started.
The rhetoric for Presidents rarely seems to match the outcomes. It's probably much easier for Republicans pass expansion of Government. Likewise, it's very difficult for Democrats to cut back on military. You basically only pass legislation that can't be used to attack you.
"regardless of whether charges are brought" is the key wording here that makes me rage.
Why are you surprised? They can already hold your DNA regardless of whether charges are brought. Oh Britain..........how far ye have fallen. Home of the Magna Carta is now home of the the drunken chav and a bully government......
What's gonna happen is that a lot of managers will get a lot of angry complains about their christian clerks being dicks.
I agree. The whole thing is not exactly practical. This is just more useless pandering to the religious right. The market won't stand for it and clerks will just do it as they have already done it. Their souls are already stained with dead baby blood........
"The import of this is that it made it cheaper and easier to bet down the value of a stock, while simultaneously devaluing the same stock by adding fake supply. This makes it easier to make money by destroying value, and is another example of how the over-financialization of the economy makes real, job-creating growth more difficult."
Holy shit !
Why are they allowed to do that ?
It's a free market ... but don't worry, they'll correct themselves.
Well, it didn't used to be that way until Glass-Steagall and the Uptick rule were taken away, but even in the total free-market you shouldn't do it either, because if people find out they aren't going to do fucking business with you if you are shorting them. OR you can sue the hell out of them. Because as Liths said....it IS FRAUD.
The process of how banks circumvented federal clearing regulations is highly technical and incredibly difficult to follow. These companies were using obscure loopholes in regulations that allowed them to short companies by trading in shadows, or echoes, of real shares in their stock. They manipulated rules to avoid having to disclose these “failed” trades to regulators.
I bet you dollars to donuts that there are people in the fucking SEC that knew they were manipulating rules and even knew these trades were fake. Not only would I investigate Goldman, but I would be investigating the SEC to make damn sure none of the "regulators" weren't in the know and did nothing to stop it. It is quite evident that they haven't been doing their job for quite some time........
But of course Otester wouldn't think they should be jailed for non-action if that is the case. They didn't do the actual stealing.....amiright???
Step 2: Get money from somewhere else to fund their public sector.
And I am having problems with step 2. Who's gonna lend them money, considering their debt and their risk of default ?
I see one option - they get kicked out of EU, they get their currency back, huge inflation, they print more money to fund public sector (because nobody is going to lend them any money), they get MORE AUSTERITY, inflation and misery for years.
According to Obama's public statements, he always believed in legal equality, but not religious recognition (although he often said he might change his mind). In 1996, Civil Unions didn't yet exist, so he says marriage was the closest choice he was given. Now, he says more recent experiences have convinced him this "separate but equal" thing is really not good enough.
I don't know if his story is true, but I doubt any President in the last 20 years has had a serious objection to gay marriage. For 200 years, most Presidents have probably been atheist. I bet most serious Republican candidates also believe in evolution and global warming. We expect every candidate to change their "personal beliefs" to represent their constituency.
I just felt the heavy political bent might make people completely dismiss your point. Everyone knows this sort of thing is common and expected (adopting the views of voters), so I have a hard time taking such hyperbolic criticisms seriously... Nor do I expect candidates to ever oppose farm subsidies during the Iowa Caucasus, or open ties to Cuba while campaigning in Florida.
You sir.........are an excellent gymnast........and largely clueless about regular people.
I think by saying that, you have lost any moral ground for being against the death penalty. You would rather have torture........which I find FAR more morally objectionable than death.
who said it was on moral grounds? all i said was not a fan.
What else would you be basing it on? What makes you not a fan of the death penalty, but, apparently, a fan of using people as human test subjects?
clearly not moral grounds you putz. also, when I said test subjects, I didn't mean a reenactment of Nazi tests, just give them experimental medicine or different types of expermental therapy, guinea pigs not torture victims. They aren't going anywhere, figure it would be easy to monitor and gather results.
So what are you basing on? Economic reasons? Because it is Wednesday? So using people as guinea pigs against their will is not torture..............okay. So you have a problem with the State ending someones life, but you have no problem tinkering with their biology at the will of the State and/or Corporate entity?
"You should take your cynicism and apply it in a more useful way. This just looks like some ranting you'd hear on Talk-Radio, over a minor thing we demand of every President in order to get elected."
"The fact that he has shifted to a"personal belief" in marriage over civil rights doesn't make any practical difference."
So why didn't he tell everybody last year? Oh, because it DOES make a difference......I just think this poor bastard is getting the difference he didn't want. Whether you like it or not, most people think this was done for political expediency instead of what he actually thinks is right.
I think by saying that, you have lost any moral ground for being against the death penalty. You would rather have torture........which I find FAR more morally objectionable than death.
who said it was on moral grounds? all i said was not a fan.
What else would you be basing it on? What makes you not a fan of the death penalty, but, apparently, a fan of using people as human test subjects?
" If i had it my way I'd probably use these criminals not fit for parole as human test subjects."
I think by saying that, you have lost any moral ground for being against the death penalty. You would rather have torture........which I find FAR more morally objectionable than death.
"Also, I've seem more and more evidence that sentencing criminals to life in prison is actually cheaper than executing them. "
As an across the board generalized statement, I do not think that is necessarily true. I am sure that it depends on the State.......
" Leave the jails for trash like Duncan."
As long as he serves time in g pop.........................fine by me. He would be taken care of by those who aren't as squeemish about such matters.
I won't even get into the details of how sick this guy is, but if you are morbidly curious you can look it up........
seems like the courts handled that pretty haphazardly.
The whole thing is fucked up. This sick fuck video taped what he did to that kid. He then chopped him up and burned him a campfire in front of his sister. I normally am not a big proponent of the death penalty, but in cases like Duncan, where there is not even a question of what he did......I make an exception.....
Fido wrote:
The main issue with the death penalty is deciding if the state has the right to play god.
Are you saying you believe in God? If there is no God.............where do you get the idea about this "right" being abused? The State has the might, therefore they have the right. Especially, if the will of the people (democracy) deems it so. I mean, we all like democracy.................................................right?
not sure dude but in 2006 I used to see them on every other douchebag's huge truck.
I don't think I saw this when it was posted... I am not sure what seahawks was insinuating here.. That I don't get laid or masturbate and have blue balls? Or that I am a redneck douchebah who drives a huge truck around with these hanging from the back... (I drive a sedan)
What is fail is simply using what is politically expedient for you instead of being not only honest with yourself, but honest with the people you are supposed to represent. All this is about, really, is more proof that Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a narcissistic, lying, steaming bag of crap who will only tell people what he THINKS they want to hear......SHOCKER!!!!!!
How could Ron Paul be out..........if the "republicans" said he was never "in" in the first place? The Republican establishment has made a major mistake of stating, "Anyone but Obama." So as you can see, they are in the bag no matter what. Between Obama and Ron Paul, they would vote for Ron Paul ipso facto. Not so much with the Ron Paul supporters. They may stay home or write in Ron Paul. So if they want to beat Obama......who holds the cards? These "Republicans" have quite the gall to treat Ron Paul and his supporters such as they do. They kick us in the nuts, then they want us to vote for THEIR guy? HAHHA! Great strategy dinguses. What they have to be really looking at are the frustrated Dems and Independents. Ron Paul beats Romney in the crossover vote. He would take more votes away from Obama than Romney would. Not like these guys REALLY like Romney anyway. These fools hopscotched from one candidate to the other all the while dissing Mitt Romney. The only reason they are behind him is simply through the act of attrition. Then they have the balls to diss Ron Paul supporters for being loyal and consistent, instead of like them. Schizophrenic and arrogant. They are being led by the nose and acting irrationally. The Convention will come, it will be brokered and they will give us some stuff we want at the very least. This game is not over and if the Republicans truly want to beat Obama........they will fucking atone.......
Sounds to me like they prefer power by the people, i.e democracy. I'm assuming you'd rather prefer control by the powerful few?
*Insert Rant on Hypocrisy here*
*Insert Facepalm image here*
*Insert... yadayadayada*
I vote we hang gays. Everyone says "yea".....................I SAID everyone say "yea"??!?!?!
"yea"
So it's a vote then! Git a rope.........
As Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said, “Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off” (Wall Street Journal, October 19, 2006).
I'm sure you think you're a bigshot but it's just a number bro.
He lets the real rich people propaganda get to him so now he feels entitled enough to blame other people of the same.
Mmat ur a pathetic fatass wannabe ;) Ur not rich, nor are u in a position to speak about what we as society can do to exterminate a couple of money hungry individualist cunts.
U can't even speall. Why should any1 lissen to u? The "REAL" rich people.......wh8ever that meens. Maybe when you grow the fuck up and at least have some fucking respect for your own language, people will take you a little more seriously. Seriously.......
1 . not my own language 2 . im referring to older comments where i compare regular big earners to ultra-rich fatcats 3 . stop defending a salmon fucker 4 . i can spell as neatly as i want to and last of all, i dont need your restecp
I was able to decipher, maybe, half of that. So you can spell, but you choose not to. Well, that settles it................
I'm sure you think you're a bigshot but it's just a number bro.
He lets the real rich people propaganda get to him so now he feels entitled enough to blame other people of the same.
Mmat ur a pathetic fatass wannabe ;) Ur not rich, nor are u in a position to speak about what we as society can do to exterminate a couple of money hungry individualist cunts.
U can't even speall. Why should any1 lissen to u? The "REAL" rich people.......wh8ever that meens. Maybe when you grow the fuck up and at least have some fucking respect for your own language, people will take you a little more seriously. Seriously.......
It aint that the rich aint taxed enough, it is that they are hording all the wealth. they are not reinvesting the money into their own employees, improving working conditions, increasing wages, doing philanthropy work. they just reinvest it to their own greedy selfish means instead of using the money to improve the situation.
This. There was a time when owners of big companies did act like that, and they were still very successful. In this area it was George F Johnson (EJ Shoe Factory) and later on, Thomas Watson (IBM). Unfortunately, when they were gone, their successors decided the money in their pockets was more important than the communities that helped build them up and now these companies are gone. It's not something that can be enforced, and it shouldn't be. However, setting a good example can go a long way, and that's what I hope to accomplish someday with my company by following in their footsteps.
otester wrote:
Cyril wrote:
i think that people are on the wrong track.
It aint that the rich aint taxed enough, it is that they are hording all the wealth. they are not reinvesting the money into their own employees, improving working conditions, increasing wages, doing philanthropy work. they just reinvest it to their own greedy selfish means instead of using the money to improve the situation.
It's none of your business what they do with their wealth.
How about less time gorping at how rich they are and start working on your own scheme to get up the ladder?
I think you're wrong there. It is your business when it affects the community you live in. It's less about "gorping" about the rich, and more about seeing how things could be better.
You have to understand why they are holding on to their money instead of dumping it back into the market like they were. I think they are thinking, "Why would I dump money into these financial markets when they have been performing so badly?" Jesus Christ, look at MF Global and what fucking Chase Bank just did. 2 Billion lost. So people are still panicking and saying I'll hold on to my money for now thank you. I personally would be getting into the market myself because there are quite a few deals going on out there........
The psychology out there isn't exactly inviting for people to invest in the markets it seems. Plus you have governments around the world in upheaval. Semblances of certainty seem to be far and few between and transparency in the banking industry seems quite nil. Couple that with these wacky governments, some of which get up on a podium day after day saying how they want your head. To them, it doesn't sound like a game they would want to get into full monty........
As I have always said.....we need our clear, concise regulations back. i.e. Glass-Steagall as a start. That alone would have been at least one firewall against shit like Chase bank did......
Oh, and I seriously doubt France is going to implement some outrageous tax rates. At most, I'd expect to see a few extra tax credits for younger and older workers and businesses that hire new employees.
I think this clown's rhetoric alone is going to weaken an already weakened Europe and a weak Europe will suck for everyone. It seems that they simply hired this fool because they were mad at Sarkozy and I have this terrible feeling it is going to blow up in their faces. I think you will see some serious buyers remorse. But.....that is not anything new for France......
there is no way 75 percent isn't absolutely horrifying......being ultra rich doesn't mean anything....fuck you, fuckyoutan
Greedy cunt, this recession is partly caused by too much money behind held by ultra-rich people. Who gives a fuck about the fact that they worked hard? They didn't work harder than the work-hard-for-their money rich guys, so why the bizarre amt. of money?
And you wanting 75% isn't greedy???? HAHAHA!! And yes, most of the "rich" did work for it.
Looking back at my life I am constantly surprised how little have I accomplished through ambition and hard work and how much have I gained through friends and sheer dumb fucking luck.
I wouldn't call going along to get along "success". Then again success is a relative term. So what exactly is this success that you seem to think you have attained? Two hots and a cot?
@Matt
"Nothing wrong with paying your fair share towards the upkeep of the country. If France implements a 75% tax rate that would be fucking justice. The people leaving the country are selfish bastards who weren't any good for it in the first place. If you're only dealing with a country to exploit it and save yourself money you're better off gone."
Only in bizzaro universe (Europe) could 75% be considered fair. I tell you what.....why don't YOU pay 50% and the rich guy pays 50%. That's fair. Oh, but wait....in Matt world if I have a pie it's fair if I take 75% and you get 25%. Oh well.....the French fucking morons are going to end up paying for all these goodies and campaign promises on their own, because there aren't going to be enough "rich" people to pay for all the fucking handouts. Because as we have seen by the European attitude, you won't fucking work because you don't value it at all................you simply punish those that do. You are mad because they have ambition....and you don't
It is absolutely fucking inane and moronic to think that hard work and working smarter don't factor into climbing the ladder. It would seem to me.....that you people are not worth helping. I have a problem with helping people who refuse to help themselves.
sailirish7 wrote:
norwegianmog wrote:
^while you might need some sort of education and hard work in that regard, your professional career is in most fields determined by the people you know and your luck
Meeting people and getting contacts within your industry is not hard work?
Nope. Has nothing to do with it Sails. You are just a fucking idiot for trying so hard. I mean hell.......that house you put an offer on? The only reason you attained that level in your life is because "somebody liked you". In fact, with the European attitude maybe you can just go around sucking people's dicks. THAT is what will bring SUCCESS!!!!!!
These fucking morons. SOMEBODY HAS TO DO THE FUCKING WORK AND IF THEY AREN'T WHO IS?!????!?!??!?!?!??! I can't believe the straight up bigotry. You are rich because you stole it and never worked for it? Well then....you are poor because you are an unambitious, lazy, spoiled, wanton, fucking parasite. I mean, if we are going to legislate by generalities......it is only FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIR.
Beelz is right....this is going to be absolutely disastrous for France. They have totally jumped the shark. The end result will be delicious........
^ Uh oh. You are changing the subject......you are losing it Otester. That Logic Bomb is going to go off in your face in only a few minuets.....
The idea that only those involved directly should be held accountable.
Oooooohhhhhhh.......so sorry Otester, but you LOSE! But hey thanks for playing today, it's been fun! Even though you lose you do get a consolation prize.....your OWN BAG TO SHIT IN!!!!!!!!
Yes sir, after this thread you will need it because you are FULL OF SHIT!!!!! Alright, thank you everybody and we will see you next time on.....THIS AIN'T NEWS!!!!! Goodnight everybody!!!!!!!!!!
With otester's line of thought, accomplices in any crime should be labelled differently and thus treated differently by the law system. Labels, Tables. I don't give a fuck, they're still criminally responsible regardless of where they stand in terms of direct or indirect actions based on any matter.
That's like saying a child pornography director should be nailed for the charges, and the guy requesting them should be labelled as an indirect criminal, and thus should be treated as such in court proceedings. Oh... wait....
I realize TAN is fucking dead without everyone slapping their faces from otester's comments, but can't everyone just see him for what he is and just ignore his comments? You're just feeding his belief that he's a troll and not a downs syndrome patient with an anarchists cookbook on his lap.
STOP TELLING US WHAT TO DO FASCIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
... so, in Otester's world only the person who physically commits the act is a criminal, and the person who commissions that act is not, because he isn't physically present.
So, in a Otester's world, these men:
were all innocent of the crimes against humanity that were presented against them because they merely commissioned them, they weren't actually physically there when they were carried out, they never pulled a trigger or released the Zyklon B....
Oh, and for the record, I call Godwin's Law...
Digitals has just initiated Operation Logic Bomb...............
Otester................you now have 15 minuets to defuse this...........GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I was trying to point out that with a good community your hearsay would be enough (was gonna say herasay originally but that doesn't cover Beelzebub's crime)."
That doesn't even make any sense homie............
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
But, seriously, Otester, someone who has not only asked for CP, but asked for the generation of original CP pics, shouldn't be prosecuted? Even when he knows that the person he's asking has direct access to children, and is under his thrall and will do exactly as is required?
Indirect crimes should incur no time.
OK. Could you explain to me how asking someone to take original images of child abuse for your sole viewing pleasure is not a direct crime? How is the originator, the commissioner, of the request not complicit in the crime?
Crimes is obviously the wrong word to use in this thread so substitute it with "physically abusing a child".
WHAT?!
Are you suggesting that the SEXUAL abuse of a child is not a criminal act? You fucktard, you're still violating the rights, freedoms, liberties etc., of a child. Jesus Fuck, man.
Some people seem to be getting mixed up in the debate on what is currently considered a crime and what should/shouldn't be, I'm not saying physically abusing a child shouldn't be against the law, I'm saying how it should be labelled in the debate so people don't misunderstand as you just did.
Eg: Replace "indirect crime" with "indirectly physically abusing a child".
I'm following the thread fine, thanks. You, however, seem to want to redefine certain acts.
I'll make it easy for you by providing an example.
Bob meets someone called Kate who works in a care home for the under 12s and they strike up a relationship. Kate falls head over heels for Bob and would do anything for him, Bob knows this. Bob asks Kate to take pictures of her sexually abusing children in her care for his sexual gratification. Kate obliges and send the images to Bob.
The question is, is Bob guilty of a crime? Is he complicit in the violation of the rights, liberty, freedoms, etc., of the child?
I'll go a step further. Bob is on Kate's computer. Bob sees pictures of Kate sexually abusing children. Bob loves Kate. Bob does not report the pics or video to authorities. Is Bob guilty of accomplice?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!