Comment Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war (Score 1) 343
Okay, I'm sorry.
What you just did takes a real man or a real woman to do.
Okay, I'm sorry.
What you just did takes a real man or a real woman to do.
No one cares. No one ever cared. It is the `Civil War', not the `War of Northern Aggression', and it will remain so forever. The North won. Get over it.
When writing that, did you ever stop and think it was odd that I never used the term "Northern Aggression?" I'm certianly capable of typing it out had I intended to use it.
This is like people referring to the republic of the USA as a "democracy" when it was specifically designed not to be a democracy. It's inaccurate. It's wrong. It perpetuates ignorance to continue calling it that.
Your emotional reaction about which side you think I'm on has nothing to do with it and indicates you need to relax and perhaps grow up.
That leaders who certainly know the same thing can stand there before the nation and say things like "they hate us for our freedoms" with a straight face is a level of cold-blooded that most people could never imagine.
By the greatest of irony, "they hate us for our freedoms" is exactly correct.
The puzzle is how Americans ever imagined freedoms were theirs and no-one else's.
Most Americans simply aren't informed about any of this. They'd be horrified to know what has been committed in the name of the USA.
The real puzzle is why football and American Idol is so much more important to them.
That's why I'm a progressive. The America that the conservatives want never existed. But, the America that the progressives want at least is theoretically possible to some degree.
Yeah, but we already HAD the Soviet Union, and it was worse. Why would you ever want it?
Because they've been sold this crazy idea that by destroying the middle class, you will somehow elevate the poor. The problem is, the middle class is the backbone of the economy. Without a functioning economy, people get desperate and rule of law is the first thing you lose. Hypothetically speaking, you just might find out that the "1%" you thought you were sticking it to are the ones with supplies, guns, guards, and contingency plans.
If you really want to stick it to the 1%, stop believing the horse-shit lies and understand that no one with power is ever to be trusted, and that anyone who can afford to launch a multi-million dollar media campaign is doing it because they know what you want to hear and they benefit by having you believe it.
I know everyone wants to believe that their favorite guy is the sole exception and it's all the others who are corrupt liars. That's called divide-and-conquer.
And the war was a civil war. The enemy was Us, or related to Us by blood. Not so today.
It wasn't exactly a civil war. A civil war is when two or more factions are fighting to control the same government.
The Confederacy was a separate nation. The American "Civil War" was a fight between two sovereign nations. It wasn't actually a civil war. But it did have all the horror of a civil war, especially family members fighting and killing other family members.
Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. We (the U.S.) left Afghanistan alone until they were invaded by the Soviet Union. Then we gave them weapons which would help them to get their country back. We they did, we left them alone to sort out the aftermath for themselves.
Afghanistan is the perfect choice for an indefinite perpetual war. Look at the history. No one, and I mean no one, has ever been able to conquer those people. The Afghans simply will not surrender and it's impossible to annihilate them short of nuclear weapons. The Soviets couldn't do it and the USA couldn't do it. They have lots of experience at wearing down superior opponents.
It's the perfect choice for a controlled war that doesn't touch your own home soil and lasts as long as you need to pass whatever legislation you want. After all, "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia".
Terrorism is created when people are cornered and feel they have no other option, vastly outgunned and outmanned. Oh there's a great hue and cry that the dishonourable terrorists aren't standing there getting mown down on a field of battle like proper upstanding folk, but they chose to win rather that die. It was the same in Ireland, the same in the Middle East, the same in Vietnam, the same everywhere some farmer puts down his plough and picks up a sword after his last child steps on a mine. If you want to stop terrorism stop going out there fucking with other countries. Simples!
Sun Tzu's Art of War, Chapter VII, # 36:
When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.
Some translations I have read word the second sentence like "desperate men will fight very hard".
I believe our leaders (the ones you see on TV who run for office, and the powers behind the throne that actually get those into office) understand these things. They're despicable, sociopathic, without morals or ethics or qualms, and completely dehumanized, but they are not stupid. If you really want to understand "why they hate us", you can start here. A little research will reveal that we've done things like this all over the world, particularly in South America and the Middle East.
That leaders who certainly know the same thing can stand there before the nation and say things like "they hate us for our freedoms" with a straight face is a level of cold-blooded that most people could never imagine.
You say that as if it were some sort of horrible solution or unprecedented. Historically, emigration has been a major safety valve, both for the unjustly accused and persecuted to save themselves, and for nations to rid themselves of people that didn't fit in. All European nations got through the last few hundred years that way.
Regardless of what you may think of Snowden, the fact that a non-violent, educated, and skilled guy has no place to go in the world really is a profound change in how the world works, and I don't think it's a good one.
Indeed, exile used to be a relatively common punishment for misfits and others who pissed off the state.
Please watch this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v_uF-jr5pM
If somebody wants to be like this. Fine with me. But without the medical support. Oh. And who will pay for the repairs of the vehicles and buildings?
If you think the medical support is expensive, take a look at what it costs to run police, courtrooms, and prisons.
Which by the way, how has drug prohibition stopped those people from obtaining and using drugs? Oh yeah, it didn't. So we'd have the same situation we have today, except without the astronomical costs of futilely trying to stop it. We would come out ahead. This is simple.
> that anything consenting adults want to do is NOT a crime
Why don't you start with something less detrimental to society than drugs, say polygamy?
Then tell me how it goes.
Most people simply don't want to practice polygamy. If they do, that's not my business and it's not my job to stop them.
Both myself and my significant other want a one-on-one, monogamous relationship. Let's say a home down the street has a polygamist family. Polygamy is the only usual thing they do; everything else is quite normal. All members of that home understand what polygamy is and have entered into the arrangement willingly. In what way are they harming you or me? On what grounds would you use the police power of government (force, guns, threats of force) to stop them?
There is no answer to that question that makes sense. There are lots of "I want to force, at the point of a government gun, other people to live the way I live" type of reasons. Those make no sense; they're just an egotistical fantasy.
The real solution to that is ending the War on Drugs and finally recognizing that anything consenting adults want to do is NOT a crime.
There are certain words that seem to invite trouble, whether you are dealing with science or people. Among them are: impossible, always, never, and I'll include "anything" for the post. (I kind of wish I had never heard the news story on this
You failed to explain why you consider this problematic. It works better than nit-picking semantics. I read your link and it sounds like everyone involved consented. So long as no one was ever forced to participate, I don't see the problem here. If you think what they did was fucked up (and I agree, it is) then all you have to do is not knock on their door and ask to participate. Isn't that simple? They got to choose and you get to choose, which is something actual victims don't get to do. I realize the state loves an excuse to use force, but there is no actual crime here.
So then: what activity among consenting adults do you believe would damage society and in what way would that damage occur? Note, the moment third parties are affected you fail the "consenting adults" criteria. (I.e. Drinking? Fine. Driving drunk? No, because now you are endangering others who did not consent to be endangered. That is a crime and deserves to be treated as such.)
Little tip to Obama: this could be a solution for your prison overcrowding problems. Dump them on these third rate socialist shit holes. Just make sure you tag each criminal as enemy of the USA, and they will lap up anything you throw at them. Even if you pay for air fare you win. Try it.
The real solution to that is ending the War on Drugs and finally recognizing that anything consenting adults want to do is NOT a crime. Nice joke, though.
BLISS is ignorance.
