A friend went to Freedom Fest in Vegas last week. She said people there were telling everyone to buy gold, etc. I asked her if anyone had recommended buying guns. She said no.
Gold is a great hedge against inflation but it's not a great 'survival' coin. Too much value for its size, really. Silver and junk silver are the way to go for survival money, and ammo in all calibers. LOTS of ammo. Good as cash.
Funny story, which reminds me of one about my Dad, who is a general contractor in Wisconsin but specializes in masonry (brick, block, concrete, sidewalks, foundations, chimneys, driveways, bomb-proof bunkers). During the lead up to "Y2K", he got a LOT of requests to build emergency survival shelters. One local church had him give an estimate to build an elaborate bomb shelter, and they were telling him about all the supplies they were gonna load it up with. My Dad noticed that they didn't mention any weapons, so my Dad asked them about that. They said God would protect them. Afterward, Dad told me, "I'm not gonna bother stocking up. These rubes can hold onto all my supplies and take care of my bomb shelter until we go "liberate" them ".
Creationist, homophobe, anti-feminist, science-sneering Scott Adams? Yeah, I don't think so. To paraphrase by way of mockery the way the American right reacted to the Dixie Chicks, shut up and draw, Scott.
And that my friends, is how the world works. If party A has food and party B has guns, Party B is gonna eat. Better to have food AND guns and manage a very low profile in a SHTF scenario.
How so? As a decent human being? Or, the money thing? Cuz if that's the ruler, then drug lords are "better", than us both.
Scott Adams isn't a creationist, he just said if time isn't linear in only one direction we'll have to rethink evolution. I can't speak to the other stuff though.
Meaningless word soup as stated. Did he bother to explain what the fuck that means, and if so, you got a link?
Not a bad rifle, but in a true SHTF situation I don't think there is going to be a lot of 7.62x54 lying around. I've got a bad ass Model 70 270 (composite stock, floating barrel, Leopold scope, etc), as well as nifty little Marlin 336 35, but for the ammo situation alone I want a 7.62 Nato rifle.
Most likely. He's done more to spread the gift of mirth to the masses than you've ever done. Besides, the list of his negative attributes that you've compiled aren't even really all that well attested, while everyone here knows that you're a surly, cranky, bitchy, douche.
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/03/fossils_are_bul.html I don't really have the time to find the article about what he said on time, but suffice to say, he isn't a creationist, but he is pretty dumb.
Scott Adams is well known for being quite kooky, here's a recent blog post of his that apparently seems to thing it is natural male behaviour to be a sex offender. http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/pegs_and_holes/has
How's he dumb? He's a sarcastic cartoonist shooting an opinion that's not entirely unreasonable and recent evidence backs it. I don't see the problem.
So the Great Equalizer becomes the Great Bully. On another note. Because my mother is visiting, I'm watching network television again and I've noticed "they" are now showing survivalist PSAs. When did that start and should we be worried?
Odd question. Just the same, I'll bite. "No, I don't fell like raping anyone." But anyway, how does rape fit into this conversation? Let's stay on topic, shall we? Scott Adams was CLEARLY talking about flirtation, infidelity and monogamy (or the lack thereof), not rape. You goober.
I seem to recall some kerfuffle over him praising himself as a genius with a sock puppet awhile back. So, add on being a weird insecure liar onto the pile... Well, he'd view it as "a strategy", I'm sure...
I've heard worse stuff from Louis CK, but people pay tickets to laugh at his shows. Scott Adams is still making me laugh. I hope he runs for President.
Oh, so just not THAT kind of sex offense... So, what are we talking then? Whipping your dick out on a carousel?
Or party A and party B could recognize that each one has something the other might need, and they pool their resources for the betterment of everyone in both parties. Or is that too close to "government?"