Jump to content

Mercer

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,284

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    237

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mercer

  1. Mercer
    Props, at that age/weight I'd take every opportunity to show off. Balls frying on the hot asphalt style.
  2. Mercer
  3. Mercer
  4. Mercer
    I think commenting on, and calling out views expressed in the memes posted in this thread is 100% valid. Post's in this entire section of the forum are all up for debate as far as I'm concerned. It would be boring, and suck if this thread, section turned into yet another conservative/liberal echo chamber.
  5. Mercer
    It all breaks down to who has the responsibility to keep the secret, and in my opinion only someone who has voluntarily agreed to secrecy has that responsibility.
  6. Mercer
    Yes, I've read of this it's kind of a big deal in liberty circles and almost as Orwellian as the asylum seekers treatment. It' the same logically inconsistent "their team bad, mine good at all costs even freedom" attitude that that thinks it's OK Assange is slowly being tortured to death, now might as well give the Saudi Crown Prince's goons a pass for Jamal Khashoggi while your at it.
  7. Mercer
    This statement gives away the emotional nature of your perspective on this, and a clear failure in logical consistency. If someone is engaged in fighting in a war, or conducting espionage "innocence" is can only be determined by what side of the conflict you ask. In context to this situation, a consideration for innocence is simply inconsistent. There's only the facts that people may have been harmed that are relevant. These people are harmed during these conflicts mainly because of the conflict itself if we're determining innocence. In my opinion the reporters, and the consequences of their reporting are protected here legally, and damn sure don't apply to foreign press. The 1st Amendment applies, in that it allows people to express themselves through publication AKA freedom of press. Because they chose to voluntarily, or supported their own governments efforts, but nobody is legally obligated to do so because it breaks the law governing where government is allowed to encroach. The deaths of actual innocent people, and more can be a direct consequence to facts being published, even if a foreign government deems those facts state secrets. The spreading of facts in general tend to have many negative, and positive consequences in general. Many otherwise unknown facts have been published in the press that had heavier real life consequences than what Assange has shared, legally. Again, not saying what he did was right or wrong here specifically. I'm just saying his so called type of Journalism (leaking), is journalism nonetheless. He's crossed no legal line, it's the government actors that are responsible for keeping state secrets, but it isn't the rest of the worlds responsibility, especially the foreign press's. Feelings can often be misleading.
  8. Mercer
  9. Mercer
    No business and corporations can only take part in corruption if government has power, but without government they cannot. It's only when government enters the picture that the ability to corrupt takes place because for it to happen, there has to be someone to be corrupted. Only someone with power can be corrupted. Without a government to lobby, an official to bribe, a campaign to help finance for a favor, a law, or regulation to have put in place in ones favor there can be no official corruption because there's no government to be corrupt. That's not to say a corporation is incapable of being unfair, committing fraud, and all sorts of other crimes for that matter, but a government/state or other type of entity with the monopoly on force/violence is needed for a wealthy person, or corporation to bribe, or trade favors with first. A government official can be corrupted even if businesses, wealthy people, and corporations are officially illegal as seen in communist countries. Therefore the less power we give government, the less opportunities exist that would allow for corruption. If the government isn't allowed to regulate a particular economic sector that an individual, or group of individuals is acting within (for example surfboard manufacturing) there's no way a government can be used to favor one business, individual, or group over another n that sector (for example requiring surfboards be approved). He had no obligation to not report on what''s taking place during a war, even if the release of said information has real life consequences. While I agree manning (who is also a hero anyway IMO) took a voluntary oath to secrecy, a journalist doesn't take the same oath, it's sort of the opposite with them. America's sovereignty over who's allowed to say what stops with it's own citizens, and within it's own borders. It's the people that Assange has exposed as liars through his work who are actually putting people in harms way, by initiating these wars/crimes to begin with. If you don't agree with that your contrary opinion is unable to be applied with logical consistency. Who decides what journalists can investigate and report on, and what facts can be exposed? Do all governments have the power to determine what's reported on, even by non-citizens in foreign countries somehow? Where is the line drawn because the only thing I see being crossed is the line between freedom of the press, and totalitarianism. I say Free Assange, he's no saint, but he's also not a criminal for reporting shit they'd rather keep quiet.
  10. Mercer
    I've always liked the Harrier ^^^, shame it's retired now but the new supersonic VTOL aircraft are clearly better.
  11. Mercer
    Ultimate Tetris Challenge here.
  12. Mercer
    While most of this is true, my only problem with it is the only solution they seem to be presenting is granting more control to government agencies, and increasing taxes/government spending. It seems retarded to hand more money over to the number one carbon emitting entity in the U.S. that would never hold themselves to the same standards they would impose on the private sector. The money would be most likely reallocated towards bombs and more government consumption/CO2 emissions anyways. While I agree that only a dumbass would believe that decades of CO2 pouring out of every smokestack/exhaust pipe on the planet will have zero effect on the overall atmosphere/climate. I have to disagree with every solution presented thus far by politicians who ultimately just seek more power. I mean that's what their entire careers are based on, getting more power. I just don't think handing over more power to tax is a viable solution. Those taxes wont be used for carbon reclamation, again they'll be used for more government net energy consumption AKA carbon emissions. I'd like to see a legal precedent for lawsuits based on environmental damages allowed to proceed against energy producers. I mean it is an aggression against a farmer that may suffer damages due to climate change. If there were a way calculate these damages in place, then sue energy producers for the amount of environmental damage they produce, they may decide not to do it. Or to voluntarily clean up their messes via carbon reclamation, and just exploring better options. Energy prices would go up, but the way I see it we're unknowingly all subsidizing the energy sector now, via an ever so slightly reduced quality of life for most, potentially devastating to some, that keeps increasing with no end in sight. Using taxes/government to subsidize EV's, and Solar panels isn't necessary if we weren't subsidizing CO2 in the first place. When you see me, and others dissing these annoying ass granola people, it's not always coming from a place of denial, or willful ignorance. Me personally, I'm coming from a perspective of wanting a realistic solution to these problems. Fuck anyone using climate change to impose Socialist/Communist levels of government control on people. That's ignorance to me, slowly choking the private sector to death isn't a viable solution. The private sector, and incentives for profit are ultimately the only mechanisms we have that are able to keep the population fed. Saying otherwise is in my personal opinion, a real case of willful denial, (SociAlisM wiLL wErk tHiS TiMe). Incase any of you have missed the 20th century, every time Socialism, Communism, and National Socialism has been imposed on an otherwise free people they suffer lower qualities of life, the environment doesn't get better, and people needlessly starve in some cases. TLDR, fuck anyone using a small kernel of truth, to spread a gigantic lie.
  13. Mercer
  14. Mercer
    The only solution is to reduce the scope of government. I mean if we didn't run to daddy (gov) for stupid shit like which bathrooms were appropriate for what people, or how to redistribute the 30% of income that's confiscated we'd be forced to vote with our voluntary spending, and actions. Lessening the reach of elected officials reduces the opportunities for corruption, thus inviting less corrupt people into positions of power. We want less instances for politicians to decide how to spend the massive wealth confiscated, regardless of if they're caught or not, they're redirecting it into their own, or their sponsors pockets when the opportunities present themselves. Circling back to this political misinformation topic, there's no rules you can slap on top of the pre-existing rules in place, that will fix what we're experiencing now with AI and media manipulation. Where this concern is heading is the agonizingly slow death of free speech, free press. I already see a desire for only "approved" sources to be allowed a platform. Never mind if those "approved sources" get caught burying stories about the rich/powerful pedo rings exploiting teenage girls, or manipulating the masses into a senseless war. Especially when those same sources immediately slap the "conspiracy theorist" label on anyone going against the government/wealth sponsored bullshit message. It's to the point where people think Obama was some sort of saint, when he holds the record for the number of muslim children blown up via flying robot, and the number of whistleblowers prosecuted the the fullest extent. Meanwhile Trump tries to pull troops and the Orange man bad. They're both murderous turds, proven by the fact they're currently torturing Assange to death via proxy in England right now not even deciding what to charge him with because he's broken zero laws. Regardless of your personal opinion on him, his only crime was excellent investigative journalism exposing the massive misinformation scheme the powers that be are conducting. Covering up the death tolls, and effects of defensive/aggressive warfare and invasions. You're already being manipulated, and you always have been to more of an extent than you're willing to admit before AI became just another tool to use for these purposes. I know some of you like to jerk yourselves off, and feel super smart by regurgitating details of current events which is cool and all. It's just vexing to me nobody in here seems to have, or even bothers to offer a solutions/personal opinions for anything we discuss in here in favor of sounding smart. It's just the same copout over and over, chiming in with the same NPC counterarguments you've been told to, arguing against people who actually have an opinion on a topic. Here's a fact none of you geniuses will never allow yourselves to admit: The only solution to ending government corruption/political misinformation is reducing the scope of government power, period. Increasing the motives for this behavior by granting even more power is the most retarded/common solution we all seem to jump towards.
  15. Mercer
  16. Mercer
    @Dirty_habiTOn cars, they're really not a problem outside of just minor inconveniences for most people, like interfering with the sunroof, or minor loss of milage per gallon. Even without side rails, If the door clips are done right that's also not a problem in most cases. The main problem is most adults don't have the upper body strength to handle putting a mountain bike, or sometimes even a snowboard on a roof rack safely. SUV's and trucks aren't a problem for single dudes 6' or taller to lift things on and off safely from the middle of the roof. But if you've got a date, wifey, or even kids that you plan on letting help themselves, good luck keeping your sunroof from breaking, or paint from being scratched up. Even the paint on the sides can get scratched by clothing/zippers from people leaning on the car during just a single season of heavy use. If you've got a truck or SUV like the Model X, a 2' hitch mount carrier is just much easier for people who actually plan to use them for more than just a showcase. Even recommend these hitch mount carriers over roof racks on cars, just because they're that much more convenient to use. Even grandma, and grandpa can unload their skis, and load their shit up themselves safely if they want to. This paint job will be noticeably different after 1 winter, and your family's clothes will be covered in road salt/dust from rubbing against the side of the car.
  17. Mercer
  18. Mercer
  19. Mercer
  20. Mercer
  21. Mercer
  22. Mercer
  23. Mercer
  24. Mercer
  25. Mercer
×
×
  • Create New...