Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:13 pm
Leisher wrote:If you guys get the island, I'll stock it with gently used women...and someone for Cake.
Page 3 of 4
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:38 pm
Hey, I didn't say anything about virgins.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:40 pm
I saw another island for sale, this one in Bermada. $15 million. Smaller, but had some existing infrastructure.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:42 pm
How much of the surrounding ocean do we own? With small land mass we'll need to do a lot on floating platforms... which at least have the added benefit of being zombie-proof.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:44 pm
But will it be robot proof?GORDON wrote:How much of the surrounding ocean do we own? With small land mass we'll need to do a lot on floating platforms... which at least have the added benefit of being zombie-proof.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:46 pm
If not, then our robots will just need to be better.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:19 pm
Territorial waters are 12 miles from land.
However, iirc, you can build new islands, then claim 12 miles from those. Japan does that for fishing rights or something.
However, iirc, you can build new islands, then claim 12 miles from those. Japan does that for fishing rights or something.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:29 pm
If the island is circular, then pi*r^2 for surface area?
And I like that we can build up some shoals 11 miles out and start over.
And I like that we can build up some shoals 11 miles out and start over.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:44 pm
25 acres.
Although, apparently $15million was the starting price.
Although, apparently $15million was the starting price.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:47 pm
Can we steal it?
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:31 pm
Guns.
Lots of guns.
Lots of guns.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:06 pm
Actually they ditched her in Oregon, but that is just nit pickingGORDON wrote:I have a close relative that was with Jim Jones's congregation as he was relocating around the US, prior to Guyana.Malcolm wrote:Really? Explain.GORDON wrote:And I am connected to Jim Jones closer than all y'all are, probably.
Wacko nut jobs are fascinating studies, particularly when their shows of bravado can trick a lot of sheep. All my buddies are somewhat creeped out when the History or Discovery channel does the usual special on psychos & I name them off by photo before the narrator.
She was so crazy, though, that Jones ditched her in California.
Too cray for Jim Jones? That's crazy.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 4:01 pm
My bad.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:10 pm
I have a question. Here in Ohio we have mandatory car insurance. Liability. I was once put throu some shit about one of my licenced vehicles in my driveway that I didn't drive so I didn't insure. But I'll bet half the east side of Toledo doesn't carry insurance. Even thou it is a state law. I have to carry uninsured motorist on my policy. But technically there shouldn't be any.
Does anyone think I'll be getting the short end of the stick when it came to government run health insurance?
Does anyone think I'll be getting the short end of the stick when it came to government run health insurance?
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:16 pm
God I hope that was sarcasm.TPRJones wrote:I'm going to assume that was sarcasm.TheCatt wrote:Well, if government created the problem, surely they know how to fix it too.
Sometimes it seem like our government has the opposite touch of good king Midas. Instead of everything turning to gold it turns to shit.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:34 pm
Me ever suggesting that the government can fix something is:
1) sarcasm
2) a sign of brain damage
3) sarcasm
1) sarcasm
2) a sign of brain damage
3) sarcasm
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:06 pm
Well, government screws a lot of things up, but government absolutely should run health care because health care is a basic human right.
Tell me you haven't heard someone say that with a straight face.
I've heard it on this very forum, in the past.
Edited By GORDON on 1182643648
Tell me you haven't heard someone say that with a straight face.
I've heard it on this very forum, in the past.
Edited By GORDON on 1182643648
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:42 pm
This distinction holds that "Positive" human rights mainly follow from the Rousseauian Continental European legal tradition and denote entitlements that the state is obliged to protect and provide. Examples of such rights include: the rights to education, to health care, to a livelihood. Such 'positive rights' have been codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 22-28) and in many 20th-century constitutions.
So, Supposedly the state has been sadled with the job. Health care is by this statement a right. And I'm not sure it is the governments job either but what else is to be done? I personally believe everyone has the right to medical. But how do you make it rigth with everyone?
So, Supposedly the state has been sadled with the job. Health care is by this statement a right. And I'm not sure it is the governments job either but what else is to be done? I personally believe everyone has the right to medical. But how do you make it rigth with everyone?
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:59 pm
The Rousseauian Continental European legal tradition sounds like horse shit.
Does it also provide a unversal right to ponies and ice cream?
Edited By TPRJones on 1182826823
Does it also provide a unversal right to ponies and ice cream?
Edited By TPRJones on 1182826823
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:25 pm
I ain't read my Rosseau in a long time. But from what I remember of it, I didn't like it much.TPRJones wrote:The Rousseauian Continental European legal tradition sounds like horse shit.
Does it also provide a unversal right to ponies and ice cream?