Those benches they put in Shopping Malls are there exclusively for the use of husbands and men who mistakenly go with their girlfriends shopping. Without them, men would just walk away...

A combination of the dim mists of time and deja vu. Yeah.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
really, it wasn't awful, it was just incredibly reminiscent of the 90's.
i was looking at an online photo album of this guy who walked through a shopping mall with a camera. It was completely alien. in a familar way.

know what i mean?

>> ^NetRunner:

But there is a point, and a benefit. One I've pointed out to you several times. Just because you deny the benefit exists, or simply fail to appreciate it, doesn't mean there isn't one.

The subtext was "to me", as in there's no benefit "to me". If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

I don't "need" a license no matter how many services the government wants to manufacture for my benefit. LA City Council recently okayed a multibillion dollar contract to build a hotel. Yes, a hotel. And I don't want to pay for that either, but surely you could reach deep into your sophist repertoire and tell me how that too is a benefit to me.

Again. I don't see any benefit (to me!) for having to pay to register my dog yearly. It's just another tax.

>> ^NetRunner:

Who's they? I'd bring my dog to work, but my work won't let me. I'd bring my dog to restaurants, but restaurants won't let me. I'd take my dog shopping with me, but the shops won't let me. I'd take my dog to the arboretum, nature preserve, or conservatory, but none of those privately owned parks would let me.
Oh, you're not really talking about your movement (with dog, anyway) being restricted, you're just grousing about how "they" probably can pretty easily enforce the license law. Indeed they can.


Not sure why you're bringing up shopping malls and restaurants. It's irrelevant to anything we've discussed. The dog parks and beaches are common areas paid for already by my taxes. I have a right to access them, but then sometimes the police lock the people into the parks and block the beach exits to check the licenses.

I seriously have no idea why you're bringing up restaurants and nature preserves. You seemed to have a separate narrative running in your head at all times.

Quote script doesn't seem to work...

Anyways, to quote luxury_pie "Going to jail to survive - only in America (and maybe some third-world country)"

We have that in scandinavia aswell, especially in winter times hobos tend to commit some petty crime like for instance smoke a cigarette in a shopping mall and without the possibility of paying the fine and as a repeat offender they might get a few months in jail

Texas is so huge and spread out most places are not at all conducive to pedestrian traffic. there are towns literally built around the interstate.

I think Austin has a good bit of foot/bike traffic, but it's a really young progressive town. There are areas of Fort Worth that are totally bike/walk-able. And critical mass is a pretty big thing for the hip kids who live in the more urban/less suburban areas. The hipper parts of Fort Worth are even starting to get bike lanes.

I live in a small town that is now a full blown suburb of Fort Worth. The new parts of this expanding town are totally built around the interstate/shopping malls.....Fortunately, I live and (now) work in the 150 year old part of town. Everything I need is in safe biking distance. Starting June 6th I will be able to bike my kids to daycare, then bike to work and the grocery store. And plan to do it everyday that it is not raining. I'm completely excited. A friend that lives with us right now also works in the old part of town and he bikes to work everyday as well.

Supposedly the town is planning on dealing with its booming population by eventually making all the different neighborhoods connect with bike and walking trails. They are also building a park n ride/train station to connect this town to popular spots in Fort Worth, it will also go straight to the intermodal transit station in downtown fort worth and connect to both airports, downtown dallas, dallas shopping/club districts, the major medical district, museums, fair grounds,the sports arenas and even the corporate/suburban areas in North Dallas. I'm soooo excited about this!! In a few years I will feasibly be able to ride my bike to the train station and catch a train all the way to Plano (about 1hr 20 minutes north east) to visit my sister for the weekend. Excellent.

NSFW
>>
It's like the grand opening of a shopping mall, only with boobs.

There's so much to like about this video. The tiara, the dancing, the subject matter, and the fact she chose a shopping mall to film this clip.

I love the way it comes together like a late 70s video but it's clearly in the mobile phone era given the posters behind her. It's like she's a time travelling songstress from 1970s Philippines.

Top work.

Blankfist, aren't you an IT guy? Flash programmer or somethign? You should know better. This is AT&T, NBC-Comcast, money flowing right through reason.tv right into the youtube.

Remember how much money people wasted buying myspace and what not?
http://www.observer.com/2010/media/media-companies-have-lost-15-billion-social-networking

I'm not going to say that they want to carve the internet up into little profit ponds. I'm saying I know I would want to. Making billions, doubling your market cap, being a CEO of a glamourous media company. I would carve up the internet if i were them.

As a libertarian you know that large corporations often push regulations thu congress so that smaller, more competitive companies can't enter the market. Deregulation is good.

So why are you posting this shit? This video actually says that the FCC has to regulate content. What a terrible lie.

Just like billionaires got the estate tax repealed by scaring dumfux about some death tax... they sent buses around claiming to be grassroots, trying to pass this flat tax shit. Meanwhile all the dumasses don't know that if you made less than 3.5 million in 2009, you aint paying the death tax.

I guess I'm saying you're as dum as the idiots who let themselves be terrorized into repealing the estate tax. Terrorized by some propaganda a few billionaires bought with their pocket change.

look at the phone and cable companies. They are in backroom deals with the FCC in order to shut out your internet and pipe their internet in. it's happening now. Reason.tv doesn't give a shit about a free internet. They care about keeping the lights on for Reason.tv. They won't report on the backroom deals that will turn your internet connection into a NBC.com pipe. Why do you think comcast is buying NBC? Do you think they like peacocks? No so they can turn your goddamn internet into a shopping mall for NBC.

Anyhow the wall street journal reports on the deal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/the-fate-of-the-internet_b_620690.html

what do you think will happen if NBC doesn't get it's way? Exactly what is the FCC going to fuck up? Reason.tv would have you think it's going to turn the internet into some kind of communist propaganda newspaper. Really, what exactly is the FCC going to do?

>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist is a shopping mall "public" or "private"? Is a grocery store "public" or "private"?


Did you seriously just ask me that?

Are you saying in a free market, some switch would turn on in the minds of evil grocery store owners and they'd stop selling to certain people in the hopes these people would starve to death? I don't get what you're driving at. Yes, grocery stores and shopping malls are private. I don't believe you're asking me that because you don't know the answer.

@blankfist is a shopping mall "public" or "private"? Is a grocery store "public" or "private"? Is it "private" in the same context as my house, my bedroom, my bathroom, my body? I've never understood why libertarians deny that there is a spectrum of ownership ranging from, say the air (the ultimate public property), and your own body (the ultimate private property), with lots of blurry categories in between.

Also, the usual argument against public services, and in favor of market-based ones is that free markets provide those services more efficiently to a community. Libertarians seem to think that we should also reward the people who provide those services with dictatorial power over the people who rely on those services as well, which seems like a bad deal, liberty-wise.

Anyways, I was stopping by this post for another reason. Was going to toss in some high-brow to go with my low-brow:

http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/25/conservative-principle-and-the-rhetoric-of-principle/

I'm more interested in your thoughts on that, than my cartoons.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ad, naked, muddy, models, migrating, outlet shops, mall, bavaria stad' to 'ad, naked, muddy, models, migrating, outlet shops, mall, batavia stad' - edited by rasch187

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ad, naked, muddy, models, migrating, outlet shops, mall' to 'ad, naked, muddy, models, migrating, outlet shops, mall, bavaria stad' - edited by rasch187

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^LarsaruS:
I rather be a bit annoyed and a bit late than dead.

I agree with the overall thrust of your comment (racial profiling is not just immoral, but it also presents a weakness to be exploited), but I should mention that I don't think current airline security policy is really saving lives, nor do I think its only cost is inconvenience.
We're skirting along the lines of surrendering our 4th amendment rights with what we're doing now. Just imagine if there's some big attack on malls, and the reaction is to have the TSA do security for every shopping mall in the country.
I feel like the right answer is for us to deal with terrorism like any other murder -- don't start infringing the freedom of everyone in the name of security, just go after the people who pose the threat, and let people live their lives without having intrusive security measures inflicted on them.


Point taken. You are correct and I agree with you to some extent, the not saving lives bit, as it is impossible to stop a truly dedicated attack on anything really. I haven't flown in the US, only in Europe, so I don't know how bad/intrusive the checks are over there therefore I can't agree or disagree about that point, I have no data to support either view. However over here it has mostly been a bit of an inconvenience: take of your shoes, in England, and not being allowed to bring any fluids aboard, everywhere I have been (like I am going to hijack a plane with a bottle of coke, I mean seriously WTF!, My house keys are a better weapon than that and they suck as a weapon.)

>> ^LarsaruS:
I rather be a bit annoyed and a bit late than dead.


I agree with the overall thrust of your comment (racial profiling is not just immoral, but it also presents a weakness to be exploited), but I should mention that I don't think current airline security policy is really saving lives, nor do I think its only cost is inconvenience.

We're skirting along the lines of surrendering our 4th amendment rights with what we're doing now. Just imagine if there's some big attack on malls, and the reaction is to have the TSA do security for every shopping mall in the country.

I feel like the right answer is for us to deal with terrorism like any other murder -- don't start infringing the freedom of everyone in the name of security, just go after the people who pose the threat, and let people live their lives without having intrusive security measures inflicted on them.

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Point one, the fact that you didn't -like- my answer does not mean I didn't answer.
Point two, you sadly underestimate the capabilities of a five year old. They are fully capable of taking actions on their own. That fear you fixate on is -taught- to them by parents that are paranoid about the 1-in-100000 chance of meeting one of those exceedingly rare predators. You're promoting ignoring a real problem for a potential problem. Which is more likely? I'm pretty damned sure that getting lost is -far- more likely than getting the attention of a predator...by at least a hundred to one.
I'm just glad my parents weren't advocates of the ostrich school of child development. You're free to fuck up your kids any way you like...but I fail to see how ignoring the more likely problem is better.
I'm done beating my head against the wall. You're not interesting enough to justify the irritation.

Might I point you towards the thing I was raised on, the Block Parent Program. This program is what most Canadian children are brought up on, it's taught in schools (At about grade 3, you know, around 8 years old) but most kids have already heard about it.
The theory behind it is fantastic, the problem, as I've mentioned before, is that I've seen 3 houses with those signs in them my entire life. I'm not underestimating the capabilities of a 5 year old, I remember my childhood, and I've got two younger siblings. I know all about the capabilities of a 5 year old, and they DON'T want to approach any strangers houses.
I've got stories, they've got stories, hell, even my parents have stories about a time when they were young, got lost, and completely panicked. Not to mention, what are the odds someone's even in the house? Most people don't get off work until 4-5ish, and most kids are home around 3:30. What's to guarantee that the house you go up to has someone in it to call the cops?
Which leads me to another point about both the block parent training, and you're "Idea".. For the block parent program, what happens when you can't find one, or your idea, what happens when a couple houses don't answer the door, or have nobody home.
Your kid panics. Yet another fatal flaw.
I'll refer back to the point that I've been trying to make this entire time, but you don't seem to get this.
You don't - leave - kids - alone. This should never have been an issue, and never should be an issue.
The bus driver was taking care of the kids, the kid should never have needed to be in this situation of not knowing what to do. This is nothing you should need to train your child for.
As for them getting lost.. Where would they get lost? Again, 5 year olds don't go places by themselves. Most kids don't until they're much older. If you go anywhere, you're accompanied by a parent. If you're in the mall and get separated, the parent is the one that instigates getting the child back. And don't bother trying to tell me that a 5 year old will stay calm in a shopping mall full of people, and go to the front counter of a store, or up to the security guards, because they won't. They'll panic, and probably cry.
However, getting picked up by a predator in the mall? That's a horse of a different colour. I was -always- told, that if someone came to pick me up, and it wasn't my parents, they'd know our "code word". If they didn't know it, they were someone that I shouldn't be talking to, and need to get away from them, but that's another discussion entirely.
However, I never said I didn't like your "Training" (Although, I don't, it's a silly idea to tell your kids to approach a strangers house in the first place) but it's not practical.



LOL SHEPPARD YOUR A MORON PLEASE SHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!