Yep. And some of you motherfuckers are going to be hearing from the Federales real soon.
I've reported every ammo ad in the PX that is price gouging.
I've reported every ammo ad in the PX that is price gouging.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
So, the FBI is going after hoarders now?? Didn’t know that was illegal...
- Thread starter smoooth1
- Start date
While I agree with both sides of the argument, picking either side to the extreme is dangerous and here is why:
Our Republic was established as a free market economy based system with heavy basis on personal responsibility. The Founders stated that this system only works for a Moral Society and we have fallen far from that, our fine leaders in DC being the prime example.
In a perfect world we would never have to worry about the violating of ones rights for the "common good". If we follow this thought to its finality we would not be able to justify our wonderful govt that steals from us, even to support highways, military, etc. So from the very beginning it was also established that there were needs to be provided at the expense of the individual, and these were enumerated in the same document.
As I stated previously this jackass that wants to profit from fear and death (something our politicians do everyday I might add) deserves to be compensated for his greed and lack of morality. Either pay him a fair price or make him declare it his personal stash and protected by the Constitution and then throw him in jail when he tries to sell it for profit. We all know there was never any thought of personal use only to hold hostage the product considered life saving.
As I also mentioned previously the state of emergency has been declared and the item in question is certainly considered "strategic resource". My solution would work for all of us that have ammo stockpiled - sell it for a profit or declare it for personal use. Drawing the hard line in the sand and name calling seems less than productive at this point.
Our Republic was established as a free market economy based system with heavy basis on personal responsibility. The Founders stated that this system only works for a Moral Society and we have fallen far from that, our fine leaders in DC being the prime example.
In a perfect world we would never have to worry about the violating of ones rights for the "common good". If we follow this thought to its finality we would not be able to justify our wonderful govt that steals from us, even to support highways, military, etc. So from the very beginning it was also established that there were needs to be provided at the expense of the individual, and these were enumerated in the same document.
As I stated previously this jackass that wants to profit from fear and death (something our politicians do everyday I might add) deserves to be compensated for his greed and lack of morality. Either pay him a fair price or make him declare it his personal stash and protected by the Constitution and then throw him in jail when he tries to sell it for profit. We all know there was never any thought of personal use only to hold hostage the product considered life saving.
As I also mentioned previously the state of emergency has been declared and the item in question is certainly considered "strategic resource". My solution would work for all of us that have ammo stockpiled - sell it for a profit or declare it for personal use. Drawing the hard line in the sand and name calling seems less than productive at this point.
So, I'm confused.
The guy in the video had a shitload of masks. Ok, great.
How is it the FBI's business? What law did he break?
Were the masks stolen property? Or were they his property.
(This is aside from lying to a Federal LEO, which is a crime. Granted, I dislike that bullshit, because it's interesting how LEOs can lie, but nobody else can...)
The guy in the video had a shitload of masks. Ok, great.
How is it the FBI's business? What law did he break?
Were the masks stolen property? Or were they his property.
(This is aside from lying to a Federal LEO, which is a crime. Granted, I dislike that bullshit, because it's interesting how LEOs can lie, but nobody else can...)
Sounds like you don't believe capitalism works. The government needs to protect? Possibly but in a minor way. There are no absolutes.
Anti trust are morality laws.
You want to go back to having companies print their own money, to pay their workers, that only can be spent at the company store, and can only be used to rent company housing?
We were told by all the elites that this global supply chain was best for their profits....
It's still all about money & power, don't letthe theatrics fool you
It's still all about money & power, don't letthe theatrics fool you
And diesel prices are what and why?
High because of the demand!
So it's ok for the Special Animals but not for the commoner.
Let's hear more about this " For the Common Good". Sounds like Bernie and his minions are getting through.
High because of the demand!
So it's ok for the Special Animals but not for the commoner.
Let's hear more about this " For the Common Good". Sounds like Bernie and his minions are getting through.
I for one am not indifferent. The Feds should have helped Mr. Feldman out by telling everyone that he has a huge stash, that hes selling, and EXACTLY where he and his stash are located. Let the chips fall where they may for Mr. Fuckman.
This is the first thing I’ve read today, and it will be the dumbest thing I read all day.
You are an idiot.
Freedom is what makes things free. You know nothing of libertarianism if you’re using examples that violate NAP. I left that group a long time ago because there’s no such thing as a libertarian, just different versions of statists.
After seeing how much you know about castle doctrine, I'll pass on considering your opinion with much weight.
So the laws against selling our enemies weapons and supplies are also wrong? Who’se enemies? I don’t have enemies. A few people in our government do, and those enemies probably wouldn’t be enemies if we stopped attacking people and started using a free market. Or, what about selling drugs to children? If they’re old enough to make their own decisions, then it’s up to them if they want to buy drugs. So long as they can make intelligent decisions it’s their decision. Things however shall not be done that cause tangible harm to others or their property, against their will. How about human trafficking? See previous. Tangible harm, against their will. Does unfettered capitalism have any limits? No, capitalism has no limits except those which cause tangible harm to others or their property against their will. Reasonable limits are actually what makes markets free, just as laws and limits are what create freedom. Yes, Comrade.
Emergencies are dangerous for liberty, period. It’s wise to be skeptical, and it’s why we’re armed. But hoarding and profiteering off human suffering is no virtue. The hospitals’ failure to prepare is what put them into a position of needing to pay more for necessary supplies. There are limits, and when doctors and nurses are getting sick and being knocked out of action during a pandemic so you can make a 7000% profit..., IMO you’ve crossed that line. That 7000% markup is natural resource control. If you need it you will pay. If you do not you will not pay. Don’t blame a man for making money from the failure of another to prepare.
This is now a legally declared war, because The President has declared emergency powers, and it doesn’t look like Congress is rescinding them anytime soon. They can declare whatever they want. They can put whatever emergency powers they feel like out there. But none of it exists. Human rights belong to all and cannot be muted.
I‘ll certainly take libertarian extremism over extreme collectivism or extremist materialism, but any sort of fanaticism ends up being the enemy of the good. Life isn’t as black and white or as simple as some of you seem to want to make it. You just steamrolled you’re entire argument. You won’t take libertarianism extremism if at the first sign of someone acting freely you would shut them down. Pure, unabated freedom and liberty are the way.
[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Since you want to continue this; I said you should know the laws in your state. You know your state has castle doctrine, sweet. Castle doctrine usually satisfies the requirements of use of deadly force. I understand it, and it’s great that you do too.
I wasn't part of that thread at all but did read thru it. I find it ironic that someone would wade in throwing around incorrect data and do a 180 before thread is over (to your credit) and barge into another thread calling someone with a well thought out argument an idiot.
Better to be considered an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I'm all for considering different points of view as sharing we all learn and there actually is a time to call someone an idiot. Usually its not grabbing less than one sentence as a snippet of what was several paragraphs and possibly misrepresenting the authors intended point. This is what is currently done by MSM to play their game of "gotcha!". Hardly a tactic to be used in a meaningful sharing of ideas.
That being said, you are in the Bear Pit and it does get bloody in here sometimes.... As you were.
I don’t think ‘I believe in freedom, until I get scared, and then government should do something about it’ is a well thought out argument.
Where exactly is the line between Liberty and Anarchy? I've heard both arguments and can't find any consistency from either side. Everybody falls somewhere in the middle on the spectrum. The term Anarchy is commonly used in a derogatory fashion but that is not what the correct version is.
In my belief I don't think there is a line between Liberty and Anarchy. You're definitely right, usually Anarchy is used to mean chaos, but I think that is not the case. Another term for Anarchy is Voluntaryism, and that is what I believe in. I believe that people should be free to do as they wish, so long as they do no tangible harm to other persons or their property. Societies and governments may absolutely exist, but only through consent of the governed. Our founders created a society that was very close to these ideals.
There are bigger questions, such as, what should be done about environmental protections, or spread of disease, in voluntaryism. However I don't think those questions are any harder to answer than inside voluntaryism than they are to answer in the governments we have today, since we have yet to have highly agreeable solutions.
Why didn't .gov just print up some more money and give this guy whatever he wanted for his masks? Or better yet take some of the porkulous funds from say the Kennedy Center? Whatever they paid would most likely be less than what it costs to remodel some trough-feeder's office in DC.
Its done all the time. Fuck, the US arms both sides of many conflicts. In WWII Rockefeller was selling South American oil to the Nazis. As I stated in another psot, the fair way to deal with Mr Feldman (the guy scalping the med supplies) would be for the FBI to go on the nightly news in the area and tell everybody that he's got them and exactly where they are. Make sure the everybody knows then step back and look the other way.
They should take the funds from those who caused the problem (Obama admin) from their personal accounts as they have been fleecing us for years
This all falls back to the understanding that our Republic only functions as a moral society. If you listen to the communists and their version of Utopia it sounds very similar, up until it doesn't. Every human tends to have a slightly different take on what should be totally free and what should be regulated. At a certain point we will be infringed upon by another who doesn't feel they are doing so. This situation lends to the formation of Govt and a judicial system and sooner or later somebody figures out they can use public money to their own benefit and now the whole system is broke. The Founders weren't able to pass a generation before things were already going sideways....
Total freedom would only exist with Anarchy (every man governs himself, no need for governance or laws) in a world of perfect men. Unfortunately it is a total pipe dream. There have to be laws and limits, otherwise total freedom does become chaos. The founders understood this well and tried to limit the govt because we have different morals/values/ideas/priorities/etc.
Thats a compliment coming from a fucking, know-it-all ignoramus.
There is no such thing as “anarchy” or liberty without laws. Laws are what provides freedom. Laws are what limit government. They define limits and resolve conflicts between citizens. Anarchy lasts about a second till you and I come into conflict and I make you my bitch. The bullshit your talking about is simple totalitarianism where the strong rule the weak, because without laws we create them.
We are not insects. Because we are social animals these is no such thing as “anarchy” or a political vacuum. Absent government we create one by default, even if it’s between two people and defined only by interaction.
There’s a reason monarchy is the longest lasting and most durable form of government.
Just when I thought I had salvaged this thread with diplomatic educational opportunity! LOL
I think the guy is an ass, but if he did this on the stock exchange he would be a hero.
Exactly what is a fair markup?
Exactly what is a fair markup?
If he made a 7k% profit in the market, he would have made that investing in a companies growth. He's trying to make that by speculating on the destruction of this country.
Where the fuck is he from anyway? Maybe ship his ass back where he belongs?
Here is a great explanation of how antitrust laws protect us from big business monopolizing a market and charging unfair prices. I.E provides a fair market, with reasonable limits. It is not a similar situation to mag limits, and is not comparable.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/investing15-5bfc2b8fc9e77c00519aa65b.jpg)
Understanding Antitrust Laws
Learn about antitrust or competition laws. These statutes protect consumers from predatory business practices by ensuring fair competition exists.www.investopedia.com
The Antitrust Laws
Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade." In 1914,www.ftc.gov
One guy selling shit out of his living room does not constitute big business, nor does it fit the definition of a monopoly.
What he is doing should be protected, not frowned upon, whether it's douchey or not.
Isn't that what a bunch of people did during the dot com scam?
IIRC Mark Cuban was one of those lucky bastards that sold out a bunch of worthless stock.
Either way. Being a shitbag, cum sucking douche is not against the law.
IIRC Mark Cuban was one of those lucky bastards that sold out a bunch of worthless stock.
I believe that many other people make big money in the market betting on the bust.
Either way. Being a shitbag, cum sucking douche is not against the law.
lol, probably why he was only charged with lying and spitting on fbi agents.
Seems like their fallback now. I know they didn't commit a crime but but but they lied. And yeah when he was yelling at me that I am a POS a droplet of spit came out of his mouth.
What was the lie agent Fucksticks? He said I was a POS dick sucker. I may be a POS but I ain't no dick sucker!! That's the lie.
Yes, mark Cuban is just like this pos. Deport him too.
isn't that the playbook for the mueller team as well?
couldn't catch them in a crime, but charged them with lying about the crime they never committed.
Last edited:
Fuck 3M for shipping domestically needed product with no requirement that product stay stateside. Fuck the US gov for sending domestically needed products abroad. And fuck the guy in the op strait up the ass with a barbwire wrapped dogwood stick.
that's a line from Dr. Zhivago when the communists confiscate the family house. It's more just, comrade. 1.25 mark.
and yeah, it's coming. they might call it 'reparations' though.
Similar threads
