TrueBeaver

You'll probably like it. Can get acceptable soap, razor, blades and brush that'll last you at least 6 months for 50 bucks or so on Amazon (or any shaving-specialty webstore). Holler at me if you want to be directed to folks that really know their stuff. I might even be able to help with a couple things. Yeah, if you have any recommendations I'd be glad to hear them. I'm not very knowledgeable about wet shaving beyond the basics. Website called West Coast Shaving for blades (about 10 bucks for a starter pack with quite a few), on Amazon any razors by Parker or Merkur, mostly your choice, they're all pretty good. For your first, you might want one with a big handle - I wish mine was bigger. Woulda saved me from some nasty cuts. Brush, just make sure it's badger, Amazon has plenty of them. Omega might be one of the brands that produces them cheaply, not sure. Soap... Depends. Amazon sells Col. Conk's, real cheap, but they're tiny pucks and don't last too long (a month or so). Or, go to Classic Shaving and look around for cheaper/sale items. Appreciate it :thumbup:

Vigilante justice has a historical track record of spiraling out of control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Against_Gangsterism_and_Drugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davao_death_squads etc. The problem is, as this topic epitomizes, people have different views of how criminals should be punished. For example, Roccodog thinks 11 years is plenty punishment for rape, whereas someone else may think death is the only fitting punishment. If you let the judicial system handle it these opinions will usually be worked out because it passes through several people. In addition, in the United States and I'm sure in other countries there are sentencing guidelines devised by dozens if not hundreds of bureaucrats. Cliffs: let the judicial system do its thing. That said, that's a bad ass thing to do. Wrong, but bad ass nonetheless.

I don't care for most of the year, just during wrestling season. I've never had a weight problem and contrary to some posts in the topic it isn't underestimating how much I eat, since I routinely out-eat my friends who are much heavier. I'm around 5'7" 135 lbs at the moment but I'll be dropping to 125 this winter for wrestling. However, in ten years or so it's likely that I'll put on significant weight so I'm trying to get into habits that will make that easier to contain. I couldn't stand myself fat so in a sense, I do care; it's just not relevant yet.

You'll probably like it. Can get acceptable soap, razor, blades and brush that'll last you at least 6 months for 50 bucks or so on Amazon (or any shaving-specialty webstore). Holler at me if you want to be directed to folks that really know their stuff. I might even be able to help with a couple things. Yeah, if you have any recommendations I'd be glad to hear them. I'm not very knowledgeable about wet shaving beyond the basics.

Only women shave below the neck.

1. Do you shave your *ahem* private area? No. I trim every now and then, though. 2. Shave pits? Only women shave below the neck. 3. Shave beard? Have any facial hair? Shave it. I don't grow facial hair well so it looks weird. 4. Shave head? No, I like my beautiful locks. What razor do you use? Shaving cream? Ever tried without cream? How does your "significant other" like you to shave? I use disposable razors at the moment, but I'm looking to get into wet shaving. And anything else you want to discuss. I hate shaving.

Why?

I commend you on your practical view.

To start off Palestine never existed. Israel didn't invade anybody they fought for their lives in 1947-1948 and again in 1967 when it Enemy were at its borders with blood in their eyes. Israel fought and won its enemy's taking spoils of war with them. The only reason that Israel hasn't been reconquered by a joint coalition of the Arab League and their allies is because it's in bed with the US (or, rather, in bed with the Republican party). If I were you, I'd start praying that no true Democrats ever get elected in the US, because if ties with Israel were severed, it would only be a matter of time. Heh. As George Lenczowski wrote in American Presidents and the Middle East, "[Democratic President Lyndon B.] Johnson's was an unhappy, virtually tragic presidency regarding America's standing and posture in the Middle East ... [Republican President Dwight D.] Eisenhower's standing during the Arab-Israeli Suez Crisis convinced many Middle Eastern moderates that, if not actually lovable, the United States was at least a fair country to deal with; this view of U.S. fairness and impartiality still prevailed during [Democratic President John F.] Kennedy's presidency; but during Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency America's policy took a definite turn in the pro-Israeli direction. The June war of 1967 confirmed this impression, and from 1967 on the United States emerged as the most distrusted if not actually hated country in the Middle East." Then under Nixon and Ford Kissinger pressured Israelis to withdraw from Arab lands after the Yom Kippur War. Then of course Jimmy Carter climbed deeper into bed with Israel, but admittedly was vocal in support of Palestinians' rights. Then Ronald Reagan was elected and appointed people with Arab ties to high-ranking posts and the pro-Israel crowd was nervous before he ultimately elevated Israel to major non-NATO ally at the end of his term. Then Bush 41 called for territory for peace between Israel and Palestine and refused to increase aid to Israel. Then Clinton didn't do much in terms of Israel that I recall. Then Bush 43 was accused of appeasing Palestinians at Israel's expense and did not directly get involved in peace talks. And, of course, Jewish voters tend to vote Democrat and supply 60% of the Democratic Party's contributions. But they're totally in bed with the Republicans. All is not lost, your assertion may be correct in a couple more election cycles. Also, the military strategy the Israelis implemented in their wars, especially the 1967 war, was really impressive. Rest of the topic at large: You can't put full blame on Israel for displacing the Palestinians - that was the UN's doing. You can only blame them for not allowing right of return, etc. About the flotilla: The people on the boat had to know Israel wasn't going to let them just sail into Gaza, don't be naive. The UNHRC factfinding mission cited in one of the posts also reported the following: Source (#80, page 19)

If you're interested, Milton Friedman's Free To Choose series that was on PBS years and years ago is incredibly informative and interesting (to me, at least). You can watch the episodes here. But yes, like them or hate them, the rich who own businesses will pass on the costs of tax increases to the poor and middle classes who are buying their product while those who are middle class who own businesses won't be able to compete. I have to agree that economics is an awesome field of study. One of my favorite quotes is from Friedrich August von Hayek, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." Also, Federal revenue by source. This. It's incredibly elitist to look at some numbers and declare that the recession has been for 2 years while you're sitting in your big house and your cook is preparing your dinner. :shame: It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

There's considerable support among economists for increasing spending during a recession. Considering the equation of exchange (MV=PY), they argue that when velocity (V) drops, prices (P) won't respond accurately or in time so the size of the economy (Y) will shrink. In order to prevent this you must increase the money supply (M) to prevent economic shrinkage that could last long after the recession ends. Ramesh Ponnuru (a conservative pundit) wrote a great article about it, as well as highlighting many conservative economists who agree, for National Review a few months back. The problem with this is that it fuels a commodity-backed recovery which many people, notably Peter Schiff, contend is not sustainable since it results in higher prices for food, gas, etc. Ponnuru explains the rise in commodity prices by citing increased Asian demand for them. This is Schiff on the Kudlow Report talking about it on January 24, 2011: I'm a believer in pragmatism over principle, and since the Great Depression was perpetuated by central bankers who were too tight on the money supply then congratulated themselves for adhering to principle, I'm partial to the idea of increasing the money supply now then over time lower the interest to lower average inflation rate, despite being generally opposed to increases in federal spending. That said, the stimulus bill was a disaster. About lowering taxes: the four biggest tax cuts in the last century were Bush's in 2001 and 2003, Reagan's throughout his first term, Kennedy's in 1962, and Coolidge's in his (kind of) second term (1924, 1926, and 1928). Coolidge's paid off a fourth of the debt and, along with Harding's policies, created prosperity during the 1920s. Kennedy's vastly increased tax revenue. Reagan's increased tax revenue even more than Kennedy's (if I recall correctly) and ushered in an unparalleled era of prosperity, as evidenced by over 20 years of DOW increases. Bush's helped alleviate the damage from the internet bubble bursting and, although they appear to be not as significant as the other three yet, helped continue the era of prosperity until the housing market collapsed. So, tax decreases are not irresponsible at all. Government spending more than they take in is irresponsible. While looking for sources and exact numbers I came across this.

I looked through the last couple pages and didn't see any economics-related topics so here goes, my apologies if I've missed one. Basically, what's your opinion on recovering from recession? A lot of people attribute the "end" of this most recent recession to a return to Keynesian principles but others argue that those same principles created the problems in the first place. Relatedly, some countries (notably the US) have been monetizing their debt to try to get out of the recession. This has been met with criticism from other countries since devaluing your currency gives you trade advantages and could, in theory, lead to a dangerous trade/tariff/currency devaluation war. It has also been met with criticism at home from deficit hawks, who are concerned with the debt and see something as bold as quantitative easing as leading to massive inflation, and libertarians, who view virtually any government intervention as bad. Considering that some conservative economists are coming around to quantitative easing, do you think we're close to reaching a consensus for anti-recession measures? Considering the risks of several economies flooding the market with currency, are there better ways to deal with global recessions or are the rewards worth the risk? Should central banks respond to increases in demand for money balances and their respective home currencies (demand for dollars in the USA, pounds in Britain, euros in Germany) with initiatives like quantitative easing, even at risk of commodity booms and inflation? Today CNBC discussed Glass-Steagall and whether its repeal was to blame for the recession in the States. Would you support the reinstatement of the Act or is it better as it is now? Don't know how familiar you all are with this so here's some background: *Overview of Quantitative Easing *Larry Kudlow and Senator McCain talking about Glass-Steagall in December 09 (video) Bonus: for those interested you may enjoy these Note: I purposely left this open to take any number of many directions (banking reform, macroeconomic policy, economic models, whether the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus bill) helped, etc.) but the overarching point is: What is the best way to prevent and/or recover from a recession?

Unfortunately, we have legal precedent for that. Eminent domain is particularly relevant in light of the Mississippi River flooding recently, but this is a topic for a different thread. I don't have much to add to the thread at this point as the majority of the recent posts have been about which side has committed worse atrocities so I'll save this post with rainbow sheep.

Here I present to you the awesome TrueBeaver, the type of person who is awesome and does awesome things. I've really enjoyed reading the back and forth, but wasn't the reason Israel targeted schools and hospitals because Hezbollah was storing their weapons there? I saw Maen Rashid Areikat on Special Report with Bret Baier the other day and he seems pretty moderate and peace-seeking, despite how the PLO is generally portrayed.

Didn't read the whole topic, but I don't think it's any question that Israel is the more peace-receptive of the pair. If I recall correctly, Israel and Jordon were called Transjordan under the British Empire, then were split along the Jordan River - Israel to be Jewish, Jordan to be Muslim. But since that strip of land has been fought over for thousands of years [cabbage] didn't go according to plan. Israel gave up the Sinai in order to secure "peace" with Egypt - meaning instead of a conventional war they get bomb and rocket attacks from weapons smuggled through the Sinai. In 2000 they left Lebanon, only to get mortared and rocketed by Hezbollah. More recently, they've left Gaza, frozen settlement building, etc in the hope the Palestinians will come to the table which of course hasn't happened. They were the first side (to my knowledge) to concede that a two-state system would be acceptable. I'm sure I'm leaving out quite a bit, it's been awhile since I brushed up on this. That said, the land has always been fought over and likely will always be fought over. There are atrocities on both sides and neither side is innocent. (obvious statement of the century?)

My apologies for the slow response, been a bit busy lately. Apparently there were other methods that Bush's legal team came up with that would be fine by the law but he wasn't comfortable with. Makes you wonder. No, I do not think waterboarding is torture. For something to legally be torture it must inflict intense, lasting and heinous agony which are so abominable that they stand apart from other condemnable forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (Nwaokolo v INS). I do think waterboarding stands apart from other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, but because it's far more humane. Waterboarding does not inflict severe physical pain, leaving only mental pain or suffering. (A) is the threat of physical pain so that's not germane. (B) is drugging the detainee - that's not germane. (D) isn't germane at all since there are no third parties involved. © is the only somewhat relevant clause, but as I said before: there is a medical team standing by and no threat of imminent death. It makes you panic, sure, but panic is not threat of imminent death. I don't see the case for waterboarding being torture from a legal standpoint, as in other than "It's like, mean and stuff," but I'm sure there is one if someone can aware me.

To see our full recruitment topic please go to http://forum.tip.it/topic/287165-red-blade-hunters-90-great-wars-active-awesome-community/ We look forward to meeting you! Please feel free to drop by our IRC channel (#rbh) and chat. You can also check out our boards at http://www.rs-rbh.com.

Hey there, I'm not sure what you're looking for but RBH offers regular warring, diverse events, and a community you simply can't beat. If you have any questions feel free to stop by our SwiftIRC channel #rbh. To see our full recruitment topic please go to http://forum.tip.it/topic/287165-red-blade-hunters-90-great-wars-active-awesome-community/ We look forward to meeting you! Please feel free to drop by our IRC channel (#rbh) and chat. You can also check out our boards at http://www.rs-rbh.com.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/03/torturous-evasions/ edit: and from Rumsfeld himself: "I think that anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques, let's be blunt, waterboarding, did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence, just isn't facing the truth. The facts are, General Mike Hayden came in, he had no connection with waterboarding anybody. He looked at all the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on al Qaeda came from individuals, the three, only three people who were waterboarded." http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/rumsfeld-waterboarding-played-major-role-al-qaeda-intel

I do not think waterboarding classifies as torture. To quote a previous post I made in a different thread on this forum: As centuries of historical evidence shows, torture is not an efficient way of obtaining information. As Sees_all said, waterboarding is not conducted the way we traditionally think of torture (dude getting stretched on the rack has to write a confession or keep getting stretched, for example). Waterboarding has been used on something like 3 detainees. All were high-profile, uncooperative, and were holding onto vital information. It's not like we pick up some low-level operative off the streets of Baghdad and drown him. The cited passage from the UN Conference on Torture can be read as condemning waterboarding, but lettuce be reality - you could read just about any intelligence-gathering method as torture from that passage. You could say we tried to torture Saddam into complying with UN Resolutions by threatening to invade. (edited the example)

So the legality of the Iraq War is contingent on finding WMDs? If suddenly we found a secret cache you'd be okay with it? I doubt it. However, in the late 90s and early 00s it was international concensus that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He used them against the Kurds. He used them against the Iranians. It was no secret that he had them. Even Jacques Chirac agreed: It is possible that Saddam unilaterally decided to disarm but I think we can all agree that's incredibly unlikely. Britain and America were enforcing a no fly zone over his country plus he was facing heavy sanctions and could have easily bettered his situation by coming to an agreement. As for where they are now, perhaps he shipped them to a buddy (Assad, maybe?) or hid them with Osama somewhere really nondescript. We dithered with the United Nations for a couple months obtaining two Resolutions before bombing Iraq and even more time before we sent in ground troops, there was plenty of time. So, in conclusion, it is pretty decisively not fabricated by Bush unless you believe nearly every major world leader, intelligence agency, and his political rivals were in on it. Now, I think he and his administration did a [cabbage]ty job of articulating goals and such and could have learned a lot from Clinton's handling of Yugoslavia. I wouldn't say the PATRIOT Act is pissing on the Constitution, but it's definitely pushing the envelope. It reminds me of a Benjamin Franklin quote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I shower once a day usually. I live in a hot and humid state (Florida) so sometimes I shower two or even three times a day. And they're almost always cold showers: http://artofmanliness.com/2010/01/18/the-james-bond-shower-a-shot-of-cold-water-for-health-and-vitality/ A cold shower: Improves circulation. Relieves depression. Keeps skin and hair healthy. Strengthens immunity. Increases testosterone. Increases fertility. Increases energy and well-being. Plus is a great way to wake up.

Did he? I assume you're referring to waterboarding. What is torture? Let's take a walk. This is a great article about it, which I'll try to summarize: The Geneva Conventions allow torture in certain circumstances so human rights groups pushed for the ratification of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and U.N. Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatments (UNCAT), which were ratified by the U.S. in 1992 and 1994. However, in order to agree to ratify them the Senate added a caveat: CID was to be understood in the U.S. as the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under the aforementioned Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Section 2340 of the federal criminal code defines torture as a government act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" (an exception is made for the execution of capital sentences). In 2004 the Justice Department reaffirmed that the designation torture is reserved for practices causing "intense, lasting and heinous agony" (deferring to a 2002 lower-court ruling) which are so abominable that they stand apart from other condemnable forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Administered by someone who knows what they are doing and with a medical team standing by (as it was conducted), waterboarding does not endanger the life of the detainee. It is temporary, not lasting, lasting only 40 seconds (which we found out when it was revealed KSM would count to 40 on his fingers to keep track of how long he had to hold out for). It is clearly not heinous as Navy SEALs are subjected to it in their training. It is definitely intense, although it seems like it would be more of an intense fear than agony. But even conceding one of the three parts of the definition of torture it is not clear cut one way or the other which is certainly not enough for a war crimes trial, especially considering the value of the information gathered from its use. Cliffs: Classifying waterboarding as torture is dubious at best and would not stand up in a war crimes trial. Why?

A week and a half after the compound was raided there was a 623gb porn file labeled 'test' uploaded to the private torrent site I use. Coincidence? Also, flash3:wave2:RBH - We killed Bin Laden and stole his porn!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!

For me it also boils down to freedom. But i think the difference between me and you is how far that freedom goes. Any reasonable definition of gun restrictions depends upon the actual statistics of what effect exactly they have on society. Given that no causal link exists between guns and homicides or deaths in general, the only reasonable conclusion possible is that they should not be restricted. Much as freedom of speech can only be abridged in exceedingly rare and extreme situations, so too is attacking the right to bear arms an extreme act. Very close to what I would have replied with.