The Official, One-and-Only, Zombies Have Hit the Fan EOTW Thread

[Dave L.]

Ventilation is what I'm looking at now.

6-8" PVC pipe could be run of two sides of the shelter out about 50ft. away and the above-ground vent could be camouflaged with shrubs/rocks. An electrical fan could be used to "suck" air in one side. There are also plans on the internet for a hand-crank fan.
I would probably design mine with a chimney/ladder style entrances on each end of the shelter. The hand-pump well would be very nice, but at the very lest, a drain pipe would be needed (for possible waste, spills, flooding, etc.).

ETA: Air filters can be cut to fit the pipe to keep the dust down.

[LRS143]

Good call. I did not even think of that.

You gotta breathe man! I was thinking about someone trying to block the vent system and I think I'll disguise my intake and exhaust at clothesline poles complete with cables and maybe even a few pairs of underwear and socks to make it even more believable. There is a house where I'm building so a clothesline would fit in nicely. Not to mention we'd have a functioning clothesline! They could be fitted with filters to keep out bugs or even something more deadly.

[Irish]

The Mass Civil Disobedience thead is back open. I almost think these 2 threads should be "merged" or something since they're both very similar topics.

[Doc Maker]

That you for proving all of my points with that. I did not say one negative thing about you and you have to go for a personal attack. That is tactics 101 form the liberal hand book. Well played. From reading your posts I have to figure that you hacked into my bank account. Please do not do that or I will be forced to call the police. You said that you are speaking fact and not just making stuff up……….right???? Again, my point is proven.

Now this part is where it really gets weird………The Bill of Rights is good, period. So who wants it to change? I do not care who wants to change it, they would be an enemy of the people of the US if they tried. I am fine with the original way it was written. Which means get rid of all of the BS that the libs are taking away from it or trying to delete. I do not want to reform things…..They need to go back to the way they were before they were bastardised. That would make me more of a retroist, if it were a word. If something is not broken do not fix it. If you do try and fix it and it is worse then put it back the way it was. I chewed on it and it tasted like it was not well thought out. I am far from a Tea Party kind of person; they are a little too liberal for my tastes.

I too would love to come out and play but I am in Afghanistan dealing with those that do not like America and not in a nice way. Good luck at the competition.

WTF????? Is that supposed mean something to me? If YOU would read the posts I already know that. I mentioned you being in the Navy in a prior post that I made and it is on your signature line, USN '89-'92. Thank you for your service.

US Army ’90-NOW, making the world safer one dirt bag at a time.



And I am finished with this conversation and I will not reply back to anything that is not on topic.

Thanks for your service.

Also , don't think I wont answer when I'm quoted and called a "libtard" Docsherm... I've hijacked nothing. You and your compadres that chose to ignore my posts are welcome to remain silent. I don't want to debate the finer points of your ignorance. I've tried several times to put this thread back on topic but you and a few others chose to single out my posts with quotes and respond with emotionally based attacks. Then ignore me when I respond? Classy...

I'm also impressed with your rambling post. Specious reasoning at best. Hacking? Where did that come from? Changing the BoR? who said ANYTHING about that? not me...
Personal attack? Look in the mirror my friend. I never called you names like "libtard." I poked fun at your spelling once and called you out for saying that I couldn't own a gun because I'm progressive. TOTALY uncalled for statement. In that, you implied that I'm not an American like you and shouldn't enjoy the same rights. Same charge you leveled at liberals. That's called hypocrisy.

Beyond that, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Need a hug? You respond emotionally when you have no logical argument. I still won't ignore anyone's posts because I'm not afraid of new ideas. Oh... and Dave L. thanks for the ignore as well, for whatever reason. I guess ignorance is bliss.

I'd like to spend this time on topic so I will try to move on again. Remember to keep all of your filter and mechanical access down below with you. Who want's to go topside to swap out an air filter or fix the pumps?

[John W]

Fed held off on publicly announcing QE3 today, instead has decided that they will keep rates at low rates for the forseeable future.

The Committee currently anticipates that economic conditions--including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013.

The European Central Bank on the other hand jumped in at the last few minutes of the day and bought a big stack of Irish 10 year bonds to try and prop up the market.

[Logicalpath]

WOW! Where do I start with this... I'll go in order, I guess.

Obama is a socialist as much as any one, who supports the military, fire department, police department, schools, hospitals electricity, water and roads. Socialist projects by definition, every single one.

You're right but not all the examples you cited above fall under "socialist projects". A "limited" gov't can and must have a defensive military force, a judicial system & a police force. The basis for those three is that all gov'ts have one thing in common and that is they have a monopoly on force. As such they are the only entity that CAN properly execute the function of those needs without subjugating the use of force to another entity(which would be a serious problem). The rest of your examples are not or should not be a function of limited Gov't. However, they are examples of why many people should be classified as socialists. You are correct that most Americans at this point should be classified as such, if you go back to the 1928 Socialist Party platform you'll find that 13 out of the 14 benchmarks exist within our society and both parties support them(unfortunately part of my research document on this is too large to attach however I can e-mail it to anyone interested).

That said it is vital that individuals understand the difference between what you're saying and functions that only a proper gov't can provide. Again, this is based on the use of force and I can expand on the subject if necessary but I believe it should be self-explanatory.

"No matter what you think you can not be a progressive that supports gun rights and freedom" Like I mentioned in another post. the Bill of Rights is not an A la Carte document. It's all or nothing. Webster's defines progressive as: "favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters..." By this definition, every member of the Tea Party is a progressive. Chew on that one for a while.

You're context dropping to a large degree, while some dictionaries may define "progressive" in that manner, it is not neccesarily what progressive means(the classical definition was: of a group, person, or idea; favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas: a relatively progressive governor.). This speaks to something that is occurring within our society where language is being robbed for lack of a better word. Where "revenue" is replacing the word "taxes", "war" replaced by "kinetic action" & "proposed spending increases" replaced with "spending cuts". I could go on but I'll stop short only to say that this problem is only being compounded by companies like Webster adopting a policy that they will change the definitions of words from their classical meaning to "how society uses them currently". This is a perversion and is a serious problem with anyone in the mainstream understanding what is being said, explained, etc.

At any rate the reason I believe you're context dropping is that you're ignoring what the origin of the term "progressive" was with regard to the given context in terms of politics. This term only came into the mainstream once the term "liberals" had gained widespread disdain. As a result there was a real need to separate themselves from it and as a result they adopted the term progressive. I've included an interesting excerpt from "Capitalism The Unknown Ideal" which speaks to some of my post:

It is certainly irrational to use the “new” as a standard of value, to believe that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is new. But it is much more preposterously irrational to use the “old” as a standard of value, to claim that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is ancient. The “liberals” are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are “new,” “progressive,” “forward-looking,” etc.—and they denounce the “conservatives” as old-fashioned representatives of a dead past. The “conservatives” concede it, and thus help the “liberals” to propagate one of today’s most grotesque inversions: collectivism, the ancient, frozen, status society, is offered to us in the name of progress—while capitalism, the only free, dynamic, creative society ever devised, is defended in the name of stagnation.

[Doc Maker]

I'm with you 99.9% Logicalpath. I will admit to simplifying my answer above to maintain brevity. Your assessment is spot on, with the exception of context dropping (someone's read their Ayn Rand). I chose the classical definition of progressive, that was presented (there were three and the one I used was the most applicable,)" to point out precisely what you said. That the glossary of political spin and the common language of citizens like us, are not synonymous. I may not have been as clear as I'd hoped I was, My mistake.

Progressive–adjective (dictionary.com)
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

I listed a number of government programs that are based in socialism to illustrate a point. Clarification is necessary though, and I really do appreciate your input! PM me. I'd like to read your paper.

The 0.01% would be in some of the other programs I listed. Roads, emergency services, electricity and water. These institutions also function much more efficiently without applying a profit model. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

[docsherm]

You gotta breathe man! I was thinking about someone trying to block the vent system and I think I'll disguise my intake and exhaust at clothesline poles complete with cables and maybe even a few pairs of underwear and socks to make it even more believable. There is a house where I'm building so a clothesline would fit in nicely. Not to mention we'd have a functioning clothesline! They could be fitted with filters to keep out bugs or even something more deadly.

That is a great idea.....Who does not have a clothes line in the country? That would be very easy to make and you would have 2 separate ventilation systems.

[Logicalpath]

I'm with you 99.9% Logicalpath. I will admit to simplifying my answer above to maintain brevity. Your assessment is spot on, with the exception of context dropping (someone's read their Ayn Rand). I chose the classical definition of progressive, that was presented (there were three and the one I used was the most applicable,)" to point out precisely what you said. That the glossary of political spin and the common language of citizens like us, are not synonymous. I may not have been as clear as I'd hoped I was, My mistake.

Progressive–adjective (dictionary.com)
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

Understood, I just think it's important to clearly define what one is referring to, otherwise it can be misleading. In particular when it comes to concepts/terms that have been co-opted to distort it's original meaning. I.E. the origin of the term liberal is the word liberty and that is not something I would subscribe to democrats, socialists, progressives or communists.

I listed a number of government programs that are based in socialism to illustrate a point. Clarification is necessary though, and I really do appreciate your input! PM me. I'd like to read your paper.

The 0.01% would be in some of the other programs I listed. Roads, emergency services, electricity and water. These institutions also function much more efficiently without applying a profit model. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "paper", although it was originally published on a piece of paper. It's simply a newspaper article(6pgs) from 1928(a propaganda piece) published by the Socialist party explaining what there objectives were. And then I have a sheet(1pg) with the bullet points of what those objectives are, currently 13 out of the 14 are Gov't programs today. As far as I am concerned that means the socialist's won, in particular when you consider the fact that most "conservatives" support those same programs without realizing the contradiction.

That is something which could command it's own thread, however I would like to say that I am of the opinion that all of the examples you provided above belong in the private sector. If force is not involved then it is not a Gov't matter...

[John W]

Guys, appreciate your point of view however you are blowing up the emails of those of us who have subscribed to the thread based on the topic and subject matter.

Mods, can we create another thread in the DP&P subforum that allows for the discussion of politics. This will help the rest of us stay on topic.

Thanks everyone!