I wouldn't see it as making stuff up,
And I would see it as you making stuff up. Rather like the Federal Reserve's approach to issuing money.
And for an infiltrator that wants to change things from within you are too far without, not to mention to vocal ;o)
So, there is no place in your version of reality for someone to object vocally to evil? I gather you think of me as somehow working within the system for reform. That would be a mistake.
In the tradition of the dialectic, if there are no voices calling for extreme abandonment of government solutions, the mainstream practice of having government solve every problem, including monetary ones, won't be moved very far. I refer to the discredited ideas of historical dialectic since you seem to have a tendency to embrace various discredited ideas.
This is an old notion people tend to defend themselves with after something bad has come to pass and they are asked why they let it happen.
It is also an old and foolish notion that responsibility for actions is collective rather than individual. If you don't like something the government in Texas or the government in the USA does, you should question those individuals who did those things.
For example, the men of the Federal Reserve are responsible for the actions they take. It would be foolish to suppose that those who don't issue the money are responsible for the actions of the Federal Reserve. It would be wrong to blame those who believe the paper notes where they say they are "legal tender" and accept them out of the mistaken idea that they have no choice to refuse them for accepting under fraudulent coercion.
someone else is to blame.
I do think responsibility is an individual matter, yes. You obviously think that it is acceptable to blame any collective for anything you don't like. This argument has been made to justify slaughtering Jews in death camps, since everyone in Nazi Germany was quite sure the Jews were to blame, collectively, for all the difficulties of post-WWI Germany. This same argument was made in Soviet Russia for the justification of slaughtering kulaks; in Cambodia for slaughtering intellectuals; in various Islamic countries for slaughtering infidels. Your argument reduces to a very absurd level, so absurd as to be macabre.
Over time people tend to get punished for the actions of their respective governments - either by that same government, or the next, or an outside force.
It is so refreshing to have history lessons from such a friendly person. I see you there cheering on these aggressors who tar with the broadest possible brush and lay blame for the actions of individuals on entire populations. No doubt you would have ridden a tank in the general's rank while the blitzkrieg raged and the fighting stank, to quote the rock lyric. I have no sympathy for the devil.
You may well be the first person to go down in history as having called Texans polite :o)))
Not at all. Since you've never been to Texas, you wouldn't know.
However, I found that an armed society is a scared society full of distrust for each other.
Since you've never been to Texas, you wouldn't know. You are as ignorant as your opinions are vile.
I never said I owned a weapon.
You should own weapons. I don't believe you if you claim that you don't own any weapons. You may be unwilling to consider all the weapons you own as weapons, but that's your foolishness. Just like a fool to bring a knife to a gunfight.
Most badged low-lives have weapons, without owning them, government issue, as it were.
Is that you, Mr. Z? Or do you just sympathize with the low-lifes? You seem to think nobody should own guns, yet you acknowledge that attempts to limit gun ownership do not prevent low-life scum with badges from having guns, and presumably using them to brutalize.
This is most often the case in countries where gun-ownership is illegal.
I gather that you are enthusiastic about such situations.
You seem to acknowledge that attempts to ban gun ownership don't work. Yet you oppose gun ownership. How bizarre.
and hence decided I couldn't afford having one.
Whereas I've taken a page from Ayn Rand and decided that I cannot afford not to have one. I can, readily, afford not to business with evil minded people.
be unable to construct a camera.
A blind man can use a camera, which is the meaning of the idiom "take a picture."
Ahhh, knit-picking a knit-picker, innit great?
You should probably learn to spell "nit" since you want to use the term. A nit picker is a person who picks the egg cases of lice. Since nits are very tiny, they are not easy to pick out, but since nits develop into lice it is often worthwhile to destroy them by bathing or picking. Nit picking has nothing to do with knitting.
Free yourself,
Jim
--- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
