Alex Santoso's Comments
You need to email me from the account you used to comment to claim the prize, guys!
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
That's an excellent mural, Kacey!
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Oooooh, this was fantastic! I really got sucked into it in the first couple of minutes of the "movie."
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
When you feed a fish, never feed him a lot. So much and no more! Never more than a spot, or something may happen! You never know what.
Excellent Helen Palmer reference, Miss C!
Excellent Helen Palmer reference, Miss C!
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Thanks Illusionary! I've only seen John Clarke once before this clip and am not very familiar with him (he's very funny, though!)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Go to the master list of oops here: Link
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Pepper spray didn't work. Try taser next time! ;)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@Dave, who wrote: Alex: The wording of your question pretty much gives away your position in the debate.
I suppose you can read my question as giving away my position in the debate as being anti-gun, but you'd be wrong.
I'm ambivalent as to the benefit of owning personal firearm as a protective measure. Yes, there are extreme cases whereby owning a gun could (theoretically) protect oneself against criminals but that benefit is diluted greatly by the increased risk of accidentally shooting oneself or one's kids.
I also don't buy the argument that a country can only be democratic if it's afraid of its gun-toting citizenry. Japan and the UK are two examples of democracies that get along fine with strict gun control.
Having gun-toting people also doesn't mean that gun violence will automatically be high: Switzerland is a good example of a low-crime, prosperous country where everyone is armed.
Do I think that firearms are dangerous? Yes. Do I want to own a firearm? No. But do I support the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms? Yes, because that's what the Constitution says.
But doesn't the Second Amendment say that the right to own guns belong only in context of a well-regulated militia? This is a well-worn argument that crumbles when you consider that 1) the Bill of Rights are there to protect the rights of people, not the states. 2) As Greg pointed out, it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to protect the right of individuals to own firearms, not the states.
The Founding Fathers thought that it was important enough to enshrine this right as the SECOND Amendment, just below the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech.
So, if we as a nation agree that the right to bear arms no longer has a place in today's society, then the way forward is to amend the Constitution as such. But until that happens, I support the right of people to bear arms.
That said, states *can* (and should) regulate the ownership of firearms. The right to bear arms does not translate to owning machine guns capable of mowing down people, tanks nor atom bombs, nor does it mean that felons can own guns (legally, at least).
I suppose you can read my question as giving away my position in the debate as being anti-gun, but you'd be wrong.
I'm ambivalent as to the benefit of owning personal firearm as a protective measure. Yes, there are extreme cases whereby owning a gun could (theoretically) protect oneself against criminals but that benefit is diluted greatly by the increased risk of accidentally shooting oneself or one's kids.
I also don't buy the argument that a country can only be democratic if it's afraid of its gun-toting citizenry. Japan and the UK are two examples of democracies that get along fine with strict gun control.
Having gun-toting people also doesn't mean that gun violence will automatically be high: Switzerland is a good example of a low-crime, prosperous country where everyone is armed.
Do I think that firearms are dangerous? Yes. Do I want to own a firearm? No. But do I support the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms? Yes, because that's what the Constitution says.
But doesn't the Second Amendment say that the right to own guns belong only in context of a well-regulated militia? This is a well-worn argument that crumbles when you consider that 1) the Bill of Rights are there to protect the rights of people, not the states. 2) As Greg pointed out, it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to protect the right of individuals to own firearms, not the states.
The Founding Fathers thought that it was important enough to enshrine this right as the SECOND Amendment, just below the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech.
So, if we as a nation agree that the right to bear arms no longer has a place in today's society, then the way forward is to amend the Constitution as such. But until that happens, I support the right of people to bear arms.
That said, states *can* (and should) regulate the ownership of firearms. The right to bear arms does not translate to owning machine guns capable of mowing down people, tanks nor atom bombs, nor does it mean that felons can own guns (legally, at least).
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Oops - I've fixed the link, thanks again Emperor!
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Great guesses you guys! C3PO codpiece, hah! Congrats to James #7 who got it right (it's a candle lighter).
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@lucky: hang in there! I know all about depression (though not personally, thank God, there are people close to me who are prone to depression). Definitely seek help if you suffer from deep depression.
@Holly: Sorry to hear about your mother. And I'm thankful for the Texas Historical Society too. Oh, not the THC you had in mind? I jest.
@Holly: Sorry to hear about your mother. And I'm thankful for the Texas Historical Society too. Oh, not the THC you had in mind? I jest.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
The use of the seeds as a coagulant to reduce the turbidity of water is quite interesting. Sounds like a promising plant to cultivate.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Aw, thank you guys - I appreciate that!
@Britt: I don't think Thanksgiving in USA is insane. Quite the opposite, it's the one holiday where everyone (regardless of race and religion) can celebrate. It's also non-commercial (unlike Christmas) - there's nothing to buy (except dinner if you're hosting it, I suppose).
Travel during Thanksgiving, on the other hand, is usually a nightmare. And shopping the day after Thanksgiving (I hear some retailers jumped the gun and started on Thanksgiving) is beyond belief!
@Mike: that was a touching story. Thank you for sharing something so personal - I hope others who need help to overcome their alcohol abuse are inspired to get all the help they need.
@Britt: I don't think Thanksgiving in USA is insane. Quite the opposite, it's the one holiday where everyone (regardless of race and religion) can celebrate. It's also non-commercial (unlike Christmas) - there's nothing to buy (except dinner if you're hosting it, I suppose).
Travel during Thanksgiving, on the other hand, is usually a nightmare. And shopping the day after Thanksgiving (I hear some retailers jumped the gun and started on Thanksgiving) is beyond belief!
@Mike: that was a touching story. Thank you for sharing something so personal - I hope others who need help to overcome their alcohol abuse are inspired to get all the help they need.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@Aeris: Hm, I thought it was pretty clearly displayed on the right-hand side navigation bar. I'll add a link in a more prominent place then.
@Sparge: Well, I suppose you could be right even though there's a comment flood timer on Neatorama (You can't post a comment right after another after another). I guess I should add "no stupid comments" to the rules!
As I've said in the post, I'll keep the comment system open. You don't have to register to comment, but for some giveaways, you'd have to be a registered user.
Thank you!