The question about clips on O'Donnel needs some context.

[RandomThoughts]

O'Donnel was asking should there be fewer bullets in a clip, and if the person being asked would want him to have fewer clips.


That is the discussion of the meaning and limitation of law.


You can make any regulation, and any law, and there are always ways around it. That does not mean a society should not make laws, but that laws alone is a method of coercion, that is needed for those that do not think in terms of what is better or worse. If a person can only 'do or not do' something by punishment, or removal of something, then society sets some restrictions. However that restriction also takes away from rights of people that are not a problem, slippery slope of nanny state.


On the other side of the discussion is helping people learn what is right, and concepts of better thoughts, the other comment is the way to correct the problem is helping people find better ways.


To make some clip limitation is to make it more difficult for things like that to happen. To increase mental health and spiritual counseling helps those in difficult mental state not want to do those things.



O'Donnell was taking the regulation idea, and how stuff like that is needed for people that can not think and feel in a moral context of what most think is better ideas, same thing with wall street regulation and other regulations.

The other guy was saying the fix is to help with the spiritual and mental hardships of individuals to get them out of the thoughts that create ideas to hurt people.


That was much of that discussion.

The limitation to 'laws' is it requires more and more regulation to stop someone that hurts a few people, but can take rights from many people. That is slippery slope of nanny state. Why not just lock everyone up in a cubical with a cot, then nobody could hurt anyone, and everyone could still do work. That is the slippery slope of nanny state, the use of peoples 'out of perspective' thoughts to make it easier to run society by not caring about any rights for people in society.


On some issues like the clip issues, that does not seem to be a bad law, and the law already exist that limits the amount of rounds in a shotgun, so it is not even a new concept.

However there are some that want to run society like a military, where everyone follows orders or goes to prison even if the action done to them is unjust or can not be defended, and if they 'follow orders' they can move up to be in charge of people some day. Much of 'order by any means' is about taking away anyones ability to question what they are told to do, to make society easier to run, the problem is people that want to run society are not the people that should be telling everyone else what they should be doing. The problem with that is it assumes people at the top of that structure are the better examples of what people should be. It is also where 'taking your turn' comes from.

If you want to understand the 'group' that wants control, just think about them wanting society to be like a military, it is even in a Wallmart commercial, and in many other items where 'military' is thought of as a better system. Since it is much easier if the people, either by not knowing, or by not thinking, just do what they are told. Note the people at the 'top' of that group, are also 'doing what they are told' as they have said many times. But by there actions, who is telling them to do those things? That requires thoughts and feelings to know that.

(Side note That system under Soviet, and German was about authoritarian following orders. In Western tradition, officers and even soldiers are taught to think and question to make adjustments based on situations.)

Basically some want everything under control and everyone having to do what they are told, or they will take your beer and travel money, or try and throw you in a prison, not because they are right or correct, but because they want to be able to tell everyone in society what they have to do. Many of the leaders in the corporate world want to be a boss that can just say something and people will do it, why they need some threat or carrot against people like control of money or something else people want like health care or security in home and health.

Think how easy it would be to run a society with everyone having to do what you tell them. But then society would only be for those doing the telling, and that is why it fails and should not be that way, and why it is selfish. Although some do that for better reasons, most detach empathy with people and begin to think of them as lesser people that they think need to do what they are told. There are many that do that same thing because they want things better for people, but that is usually education side, although some think people can not know what is best for them, and again that brings up the question, why would they know what is better for people and if they do know, why can't they honestly tell people what they are doing without secrecy? so people should be able to think and feel on things, and be told why things happen, so that a few can't hurt many.

It is not hard to understand, it comes from them thinking they are bosses, or should be, why they also need to claim some divine authority, or claim that having something like money means a person is suppose to be a boss.

It is not hard to understand. They just want people to do what they are told so they can make tanks and bombs and blow things up to put more people under control.

Been explaining this for years.

Any ways, I am still due beer and travel money, and someone is going to correct that.


Side Note.
I also heard someone say something about people being anonymous or privacy issues, companies should not post addresses of people, but I don't worry if someone knows my address.

heh,

Robert Eastwood
I live at 194 SW 200 street
Normandy Park, Wa.
And I have posted many times before my name and where I live, although I don't need to have any fame or even to be known by people, however someone does need to correct the debt that is due to me of beer and travel money from years ago.

Over the chimney tops :)


Also the concept of things being a game, is not understanding what is going on. It is not a game, but saying the same things for so many years, adding some entertaining ways to say it makes sense.

[opihimoimoi]

1. Control, dominate,.... ..dictate.... .thats the GOPer Way

[Common Sense Party]

2. MAGAZINES, not clips.

Let's get the terminology right.

There, now that that's out of the way, continue.

[RandomThoughts]

4. You make an interesting point.

Why did magazines get the name magazine?


The terminology can make it easier to understand, unless the point being made is that people are fixating on terminology without seeing what something is really about.


A label for something, is like a computer macro, it stores emotions and thoughts so you don't have to rethink and feel on the meaning of something every time you use a word or image.

However people need to spend some time thinking on labels to see who is loading those labels, and to understand what is in their macros and why they think ways about some certain groups.


Pick any word, then ask yourself what does it mean, and why does it mean that, most of the time it will be because someone loaded the meaning of that word for a person. I think it is best to clean out the macros in many labels so that people know why they think and feel some way about a group.

And so people know how marketing can be used to try and control peoples thoughts and feelings.


The Blood Libel word is a good example. What is loaded in that macro is different for Sara then many other people. When she used it with one intended meaning, many in the news repeated what they have loaded in that label. And by doing that changed what Sara said from her intent to something else. Although I assume that is why she was said to say that without knowing what it means.

I also post many songs that mean different things to different people, but try to show they can mean other things, so people can look why they think it means what they think it does.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

3. I know exactly what you mean about reimbursement being valid K&R

[RandomThoughts]

5. Actually the opposites say the same thing.

They state that where a person is must be valid, so then say the world is already perfect, then say if you should have something then you do have it. Why 'a more perfect union was in an earlier document'

So saying that 'reimbursement being valid' without saying what you think that should be or is, has no meaning.

You could be saying not having beer and travel money is valid. Or you could be saying that beer and travel money is due. Although by saying 'reimbursement' you state as if something has already been paid, so I reject your comment as snide. If that was not your intent, no offense, but you do bring up the exact point the opposites think.


And people that are having a drink on tv, just saw that on a tv show, thought it was pretty odd, I am not saying people should or should not drink, I am saying you will remember why when you are in a certain place. And I might not be there to let you correct the beer and travel issue that is owed to me.


On a side, note I am due beer and travel money. And since there has not been reimbursements, your statement is at least unclear, and possibly an attempt at conceit or claims of things you don't know about.


I am being put in a position to think the only valid option is to remove what people have. Although when that happens people will not have the ability to correct beer and travel money issue, and if they see it happen to someone else, they will say they must have deserved it and continue their hoity attitude, and still not pay the beer and travel money correction that is due. I know that trap, also why I don't think about concepts of bad things happening to people.

So really there is no helping someone by destroying them, so that is why education is best, since if they do not learn what needs to be done, then there will be nothing I can do for them.

At least I wont be the one doing it. Something they also say but opposite.


So without further ado
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GkAH7IUWOE

[DrDan]

6. a hearty unrec

'nuff said