zero taxes!
invite response
2011 Sep 29, 6:15pm 12,794 views 62 comments
by kentm ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 32 - 62 of 62 Search these comments
Â¥
2011 Oct 8, 7:19am
It sounds like your definition includes narrow foot paths.
We call them "deer roads" up in these parts.
(not really)
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 7:20am
Okay you got me there. I did not account for the really gullible ones.
No, I think you did.
So would you beat the ticket if you drive above speed limit in a light aerodyamic car?
No, are you missing the point?
You are just another lover of Somalia "governments," which has proven worse than the Somalia without a central government.
Strange, not sure why you would think that I love the Somalia government. I am not the one espousing ideals that are modeled by Somalia.
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says
The US military could easily support itself on a hybrid royalty plunder model.
Attack Alberta and take its oil fields over - get a cut of the extracted value of the primary mineral wealth.
That's a far more rational system than the current Ponzi Military Model.
So how well has the attack and take-over Iraqi oil wells worked out?
The stationing of a US Marine or army soldier over the oil wells in Iraq or Alberta is guaranteed to be more costly than letting the Iraqis and Canadians pump the oil by themselves and willingly sell it to us in exchange for something that they want. This is a fundamental fact underpinning why liberty, freedom and peace work better than violent fascistic looting!
As I suspected, behind every wannabe socialist big-government type is a simpleton mind susceptible to the message of Fascism! Mussolini famously said that ex-socialists and ex-communists were the best targets for recruitment into his Fascist party.
So, then in an area where the "prevailing mode of transportation" is a snow shoe, then any spot of snow is a road? If that is the way you want to define roads, you need to understand that most others will not know what you mean when you use the word "road".
In a place where the prevailing mode of transportation is a pair of snow shoes, what other roads would you expect aside from a snow covered path cleared of major obstacles like tree branches? Who would be running the snow plows when there were no motor vehicles or even horse/dog drawn sleds? and what would they be using to push the snow plow?
What in the definition I provided does not apply to roman roads?
- Did they create a, long and narrow, paved surface? yes.
- Was it made for travel between two points? yes.
- Did they use carriages, and other vehicles on the surface? yes.
Many Roman road segments were impassable to carriages. They were built for foot and hoof traffic only. Even more segments were unpaved simple dirt roads cut through the woods.
No, are you missing the point?
Not at all. A light aerodynamics sports car handles better at 70mph than a heavy unwieldy boxy SUV at 60mph, does less damage to road and generate less noise. Why does the former get a ticket whereas the later doesn't?
Strange, not sure why you would think that I love the Somalia government. I am not the one espousing ideals that are modeled by Somalia.
Because Somalia is one place on earth where the lack of a government actually worked out better in the 1990's than the same place with a central government before or since then. Your attriting Somalia's relative economic backwardness despite rapid improvements in the 1990's to the lack of government can only mean that you love the type of totalitarian government that they had under the Siad Barre regime.
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 7:38am
Not at all. A light aerodynamics sports car handles better at 70mph than a heavy unwieldy boxy SUV at 60mph, does less damage to road and generate less noise. Why does the former get a ticket whereas the later doesn't?
If you can find an area where the sole reasons for a speed limit are road noise and damage, feel free to argue that with the judge, but you are still missing the point. There are many reason for a speed limit.
Because Somalia is one place on earth where the lack of a government has actually worked out better in the 1990's than the same place with a central government before or since then.
Great! sounds like they are on the track to ushering in an era of conservative utopia. Don't you want to get in on the ground floor?
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 7:41am
In a place where the prevailing mode of transportation is a pair of snow shoes, what other roads would you expect aside from a snow covered path cleared of major obstacles like tree branches?
Once again this comes down to semantics. You can choose to define the word "road" any way you want, but others will not understand what you are talking about.
Many Roman road segments were impassable to carriages. They were built for foot and hoof traffic only. Even more segments were unpaved simple dirt roads cut through the woods.
Given how you choose to define road, I am not sure there is any point to discuss this because we could very well be talking about two different things. What's the point?
If you can find an area where the sole reasons for a speed limit are road noise and damage, feel free to argue that with the judge, but you are still missing the point. There are many reason for a speed limit.
The most important and consistent of which is revenue generation.
Great! sounds like they are on the track to ushering in an era of conservative utopia. Don't you want to get in on the ground floor?
Do you have a time machine? In the 1990's, Somalia was a decent place for investment on infrastructure, like cell phone towers. Nowadays, thanks to the US/UN/Ethiopia invasion, the country now has a central government and is as a result in chaos: all the tribes are fighting over who gets to be in control of the central government, and the president's own kinsmen are playing pirates off shore for real keeps as a funding mechanism for the government!
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 7:44am
the country is has a central government and is as a result in chaos: all the tribes are fighting over who gets to be in control of the central government, and the president's own kinsmen are playing pirates off shore for real keeps!
Sounds great, a very weak or no central government is what you want right?
tatupu70
2011 Oct 8, 7:44am
I like Reality's definition. If I'm wearing shoes and carrying a machete, pretty much the entire landmass of the world is a road.
Once again this comes down to semantics. You can choose to define the word "road" any way you want, but others will not understand what you are talking about.
Road has to be commensurate with what the transportation technology of the time is. Why would anyone build a race track for formula 1 cars when the prevailing technology is horse drawn carriage, for example?
Given how you choose to define road, I am not sure there is any point to discuss this because we could very well be talking about two different things. What's the point?
What does definition of road have to do with anyway? Roads both for foot traffic and for carriages existed long before Roman Empire took over and monopolized some of them.
Are you trying to define all roads before the inter-state highway system before the 1950's as "un-roads"?
Sounds great, a very weak or no central government is what you want right?
The big-government mind is truly clueless. Somalia is a patch of land randomly thrown together due to colonial era map drawing in European capitals. The artificial borders of Somalia cut through many tribal homelands while throw a number of unrelated or even rival tribes together in "one country." What horse shit sense does it make to impose a central government on a "country" like that? Any attempt to impose a central government is little more than trying to perpetrate colonialism. The various tribes in that part of the world (and in Afghanistan and Iraq) deserve self-determination. Haven't learned enough in the past decade's fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 7:56am
Road has to be commensurate with what the transportation technology of the time is.
Umm... No, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" and the word "road" is currently defined in the English language as:
road
noun
1. a long, narrow stretch with a smoothed or paved surface, made for traveling by motor vehicle, carriage, etc., between two or more points; street or highway.
2. a way or course: the road to peace.
3. a railroad.
4. Often, roads. Also called roadstead. Nautical . a partly sheltered area of water near a shore in which vessels may ride at anchor.
5. Mining . any tunnel in a mine used for hauling.
6. the road, the places, usually outside of New York City, at which theatrical companies on tour generally give performances.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/road
What you are describing others who speak English would think of the words: path, trail, snow field, etc.
You can go around calling your stomach a squibbly-splooch, and insist that is the correct word, but others are going to have a hard time following what you are saying.
Are you trying to define all roads before the inter-state highway system before the 1950's as "un-roads"?
I am not trying to define roads, I am accepting the common English usage of the word. You are trying to redefine roads. That is fine language changes over time, and perhaps some day you will have been successful in redefining the word "road".
Who knows maybe you will have the same success as did the redefining "santorum" did.
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 8:00am
The big-government mind is truly clueless.
Totally bro!
Somalia is a patch of land randomly thrown together due to colonial era map drawing in European capitals. The artificial borders of Somalia cut through many tribal homelands while throw a number of unrelated or even rival tribes together in "one country." What horse shit sense does it make to impose a central government on a "country" like that? Any attempt to impose a central government is little more than trying to perpetrate colonialism.
Yeah, sounds like a paradise. Independent "states", with weak/no central government! What sense does it make to impose central government on any country?
Â¥
2011 Oct 8, 8:00am
Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads
Independent "states", with weak/no central government! What sense does it make to impose central government on any country?
I can't think of any . . . yet that's what the big-government advocates keep dreaming up.
What you are describing others who speak English would think of the words: path, trail, snow field, etc.
What does modern definition of road have to do with what the ancients built 2000+ years ago? How would motor vehicle even apply in that context?
I am accepting the common English usage of the word. You are trying to redefine roads. That is fine language changes over time, and perhaps some day you will have been successful in redefining the word "road".
It should be quite obvious the meaning of "road" in Roman time is different from today's useage. Many of what Roman called "road" would indeed be "path" to us.
In any case, the definition of "road" and "path" is not even relevant to this discussion. "Road"/path existed 2000+ years ago before Roman Empire too over and monopolized some of them. Likewise, interstate roads (in the modern sense) existed before the federal government got in the game and monopolized road building.
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 8:20am
Independent "states", with weak/no central government! What sense does it make to impose central government on any country?
I can't think of any . . . yet that's what the big-government advocates keep dreaming up.
Exactly, so Somalia is the place for any good Libertarian to be! Not the crappy USA with all their "rules" and "government" and "taxes"; all that stuff is for suckers!
Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads
Notice, Post Roads only, not a cart blanche monopoly on all road building.
Exactly, so Somalia is the place for any good Libertarian to be! Not the crappy USA with all their "rules" and "government" and "taxes"; all that stuff is for suckers!
What are you talking about? Somalia is now under the yoke of foreign invasion, occupation and a puppet central government, sponsored by the UN/US. The situation in Somalia is now rather similar to Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon to be Yemen . . . all results of the big-government types from the left and the right in the US impoverishing Americans and hapless foreigners alike to enrich the military-industrial-banking complex.
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 8:28am
What does modern definition of road have to do with what the ancients built 2000+ years ago? How would motor vehicle even apply in that context?
Funny you say that. A lot of the engineering and technique that went into building roads (as the rest of the English world would define it), is very similar to how we build our roads today. Why in the currently understood definition of the word makes roads exclusive to motor vehicles?
You may find this link useful:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/roman_roads.htm
When the Romans arrived in England, they found no roads to use. Instead they had to make do with tracks used by the Britons. It was not unusual for these tracks to be in very poor condition as they were usually on high ground and open to all types of weather.
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 8:30am
What are you talking about? Somalia is now under the yoke of foreign invasion, occupation and a puppet central government, sponsored by the UN/US.
Yeah, you just got to get over there and kick to interlopers out of your paradise, then things will flourish.
Funny you say that. A lot of the engineering and technique that went into building roads (as the rest of the English world would define it), is very similar to how we build our roads today. Why in the currently understood definition of the word makes roads exclusive to motor vehicles?
The Roman road building techniques were even more similar to how the Britons built roads in the first century BC before Roman arrival, duh! Find me evidence of Romans using asphalt and diesel powered earth movers and heavy rollers. LOL
Yeah, you just got to get over there and kick to interlopers out of your paradise, then things will flourish.
They were doing better without central government in the 1990's, better than under the central governments both before and since. The case of Somalia is not even hypothetical, but factual history, and a very recent one. If you want to prove somehow having a strong central government is always better for any and all places in the world, you have gotta find some sample case other than Somalia.
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 8:42am
The Roman road building techniques were even more similar to how the Britons built roads in the first century BC before Roman arrival, duh!
I understand that you did not follow and read the link I, but you did not even read the expert that I posted.
When the Romans arrived in England, they found no roads to use. Instead they had to make do with tracks used by the Britons. It was not unusual for these tracks to be in very poor condition as they were usually on high ground and open to all types of weather.
While I understand that you definition of "road" could include an unimproved open meadow --as the rest of the English speaking world defines the word-- there were not roads in England before the Romans arrived. On top of that when the Romans left the English did not use the Roman roads.
Find me evidence of Romans using asphalt and diesel powered earth movers and rollers.
LOL, I said technique! not materials!
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 8:49am
They were doing better without central government in the 1990's, better than under the central governments both before and since. The case of Somalia is not even hypothetical, but factual history, and a very recent one. If you want to prove somehow having a strong central government is always better for any and all places in the world, you have gotta find some sample case other than Somalia.
This discussion has been gone over ad nauseum in this forum I am not going to spend the time to reiterate arguments that.
1. You could easily find searching the posting history
2. You are going to promptly ignore
I understand that you did not follow and read the link I, but you did not even read the expert that I posted.
That's because the info you cite is so out of date, it's not even funny. Here is the link to much more up to date info:
I don't entirely blame you for buying into the claptrap nonsense that used to be taught in schools to glorify the Roman fascist state.
While I understand that you definition of "road" could include an unimproved open meadow --as the rest of the English speaking world defines the word-- there were not roads in England before the Romans arrived. On top of that when the Romans left the English did not use the Roman roads.
What kind of nonsense is that? Britain had significant trade with the Mediterranean since before the punic wars. Much of the tin in Mediterranean Bronze Age came from Britain. Do you honest think Britain supplied tin to the Med Bronze Age without any road commerce inland on Britain itself? You have way too much faith in reports written by the Roman equivalent of Haliburton and Bectel to get more imperial funding for "infrastructure" building in a newly conquered land.
LOL, I said technique! not materials!
Yes techniques. Do you think Romans pounded the road surface like Brits at the time did or like we do nowadays driving a diesel-powered roller? Do you think Romans poured dirt and rocks to form surface like the Britis of that time period did (and how it was done all the way through late 19th century for horse carriage traffic) or rolled hot asphalt like we do nowadays for automobiles? do you think Romans engineered their road surfaces based on a design centered around steel lettuce mats like we have been doing since WWII?
This discussion has been gone over ad nauseum in this forum I am not going to spend the time to reiterate arguments that.
1. You could easily find searching the posting history
2. You are going to promptly ignore
Here is a link for you:
Countries being ruined by attempts at centralizing government is actually quite common place: Aghanistan is another prime example.
leo707
2011 Oct 8, 9:10am
That's because the info you cite is so out of date, it's not even funny. Here is the link to much more up to date info:
Awesome, thanks for the link. So, both the Briton's and Romans used similar techniques for building their roads as we use today.
You have way too much faith in reports written by the Roman equivalent of Haliburton and Bectel to get more funding for "infrastructure" building in a newly conquered land.
Not really, given the link you sent I am more than willing to update my thinking on Briton's pre-Roman use of roads.
Yes techniques. Do you think Romans pounded the road surface like Brits at the time did or like we do nowadays driving a diesel-powered roller? Do you think Romans poured dirt and rocks like the Britis of that time period did or rolled hot asphalt like we do nowadays?
Yes techniques. Different tools, and materials, but similar engineering techniques.
Bap33
2011 Oct 8, 12:28pm
The pyramids were built. That is the entire amount known about the pyramids. Everything else is a guess.
I like your skepticism!
But ... aren't you a religious person? Why apply this sort of skepticism to the pyramids, where there's various pieces of evidence that hint at a history that does not require we resort to mysticism to explain the gaps, but not to the bible? While the bible is also a form of historical evidence, it contains all kinds of crazy things that sound very improbable, impossible to prove (or, conveniently, disprove), and lie well outside the scope of our experiences (assuming you yourself haven't seen people part oceans or walk on water or return from the dead without medical intervention, etc etc).
Just curious, sorry if I'm confusing you for someone else (I seem to recall some religious comments from you)
I do not qualify for "religious" in most circles. I know God is real. The Hebrew God, and Jesus, and all that jaz. It's all real. But, religious has me sitting in a room singing with folks every week, or kneeling towards mecca and killing babies on buses in Isreal .... I don't do those religious things.
Would you expand on how/why you connected my comment - that man has no idea what or how or why or when the pyramids came to be - to my knowing there is God?
Thank you for proving my point that Fascist instincts are quite bi-partisan.
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says
They forgot to remove the offending population that was squatting on a valuable resource. President Bachmann won't make that mistake.
« First « Previous Comments 32 - 62 of 62 Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,257,240 comments by 15,002 users - Misc online now