This is how the white man goes to war --

Excuse me, do you by chance happen to um you know have any large sources and/or surpluses of precious resources?

1. No, ok bye. You need religion and economic aid for your local warlords to exploit and starve you.

2. Yes, ok you're bad and you believe in bad things. Anglo Saxons to the rescue -- if you don't like progress and [INSERT POLITICAL IDEOLOGY HERE], prepare to die -- or maybe be tortured and interned while we figure out what the hell our long term plan is.

Hey Jimbo, what's our short term plan?

Hell if i know. Here's a term stolen from the Chinese and reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell we want it to mean --- GUNG HO!!!!!! And here's a new one: SHOCK & AWEEEE-yeeaah! Oooooooooohhhhhh... *Hillary Clinton looking at balloons in wonderment -- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra*

Yeah, i dont trust a single fuck with a badge or a gun or both and a uniform. That wasnt always so. At one time i was a pretty lame introverted nerd with the world as my oyster. Listening to Rage Against the Machine made me concerned, because it was too extreme. And then the iron fist of law enforcement thought theyd fuck with me and make me suffer for what was not my burden. And then it just gets worse and worse, a downward spiral of constant legal battles, jail time, mental illness, etc. etc. etc. Its all the same to me, govt, law enforcement, human resource representatives, executives, redcoats. Oppression creates terrorism. Always.

During the Philippine-American war, the events which lead up to our own soldiers commiting acts of genocide started with our disregard of the indigenous people, oppression, and penchant for disrespecting local men and harassing their women; as well, our ignorant and well documented philosophies of Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism. The family of the abused rise up and attack their oppressors. Terrorism will always be so as long as the mighty refuse to respect all ways of life and seek instead to instill their systems of government and create puppet governments whoch fail, destablizing entire regions.

Because now the game is bigger. You dont simply destablize a region: when you oppress people, you destabilize an entire zeitgeist, affecting far more people than ever before. People in America rise up to join forces that provide promises of liberty that America no longer offers. Even if those terror groups themselves lie, the broken people see it as a hope. The oppressed will crawl out of the woodwork and kill. There is no precise pattern when frank castles of the world do their deeds. Its just like the 4000 deaths per year from semitrucks, the trucking industry says 70% (debatable, likely a lower number) of accidents are caused by noncommercial vehicles. Impatient people weaving in and out of traffic and cutting off truck drivers oppresses them and sometimes even they to rise up and do terror.

So simple answer: Love, peace, and good will are what the government should promote. Of course, that would simply open them to being taken advantage of... so, we are fucked, always and forever. But maybe even if we cant promote true peace, perhaps we can at least avoid creating the terrorists we fear.

Coming back to the topic, anti-abortionists do not realize that you cant force people to be your version of moral.

You can enforce common concepts of morality by law but you first have to stop lying to yourselves about what those common concepts are and then be willing to accept a compromise.

An overwhelming majority of educated, civilized people now (as oppposed to a hundred years ago) believe (yep that stupid word again) that women, non-whites, marihuana smokers and liberals AND social democrats AND atheists, among others, are acceptable members of society capable to decide on their own what is good and bad, moral and immoral. Not just the grumpy rich old white anglo-saxon gentlemen club members anymore.

It is not a good tactic to try to decide approved morality for these "other" people either by means of social or real slavery, legislation, economic pressure or plain old brute force or gunpoint.

Rubio mentioned (off of one of his implanted CD´s) in one of the debates something about liberals wanting to legalize abortions to up to one day before the scheduled birth. It doesn´t get much more stupid than that.

Trump apparently switched to pro-life a couple of years ago in a press release.

Cruz favours condoms over abortion (which is IMHO fine BTW), oblivious to what the true christian stance is on condoms.

So anyway it is very difficult for the majority of civilized, educated people to accept this notion that ALL abortion is immoral and should be illegal just because SOME people maintain that view based on ideology and belief.

Once you get that in your head you can start having a discussion about which possible abortion cases are really immoral and unacceptable and in which cases you should concentrate on helping the woman rather than the little glob of cells trying to survive in a hostile environment.

If you REALLY want babies to survive you have to help the women, Bob, you cant go against them.

Wow, you're an old white cop.

That explains a lot.

Accept it Lantern, you're racist. You're a cop. You're a racist cop.

Maybe - jingoist - is a better way to describe it.
But extreme nationalism & racism go hand in hand.

You regularly say shit like " [Obama] has next to nothing in common with American traditions and history. "

You don't think that's a racist comment. But it is.

You're implying Obama is a foreigner & shouldn't be trusted.

In other words, "Go back to africa! Stop corrupting our pure Anglo-Saxon traditions with your muddy brown multi-culturism! Damn socialist lib-tards!"

P.S. -

Just because you say - "I've got a black-asian-female-lesbian friend" - doesn't mean you're not racist.

Talk about deluded.

@Jerykk

I'll address by paragraph.

(1)

Wait, so I'm confused. Not enough research on my claim yet the death penalty apparently offers guaranteed results despite evidence to the contrary that I suggested?

Firstly I think you might be trying to make a bit of a straw man. I'm not saying that there should be no penalty. Some penalty obviously discourages some crime. But the argument is more over whether harsher sentences and mandatory minimums as this video discusses are helping, which I would argue they are not for the reasons outlined previously.

As for evidence of rehabilitation reducing recidivism, take for example:

http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/12/1/9.refs (see PDF)

Page 1
Finland, Norway and Sweden all have ~50-70 locked up per 100K, among the lowest. US has 716.

Page 2-3
Norway recidivism - 20%
US recidivism - 52%

I await your evidence to the contrary.

(2)

I'm talking per capita. Per capita the US certainly does have the highest among first world countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Sort by per capita and find me a developed country higher than the US please.

Russia is not a first-world country (that's actually a Cold War term, more correctly not a a developed country). I'm Russian, I assure you, I would know

Russia's GDP/capita is $14K USD, versus the US's $52K. Not even a close comparison.

(3)

But do criminals proportionalise justice? Like I asked, do you think anything but a small minority (likely white collar criminals) accurately know the likely sentence of a crime before they commit it? If they don't what's the purpose of making them more severe?

Nobody is proposing there be no penalty. Even Scandanavian prisons are a penalty. The question is, does the threat of 30 over 15 years locked up (should they even be able to decipher legal code to know this) actually make a difference? I would argue not, hence the argument for harsher sentences is illogical.

People are generally good at gauging the likelihood of being caught (ie your pirating example) but that's not what I was talking about (the scale of punishment being a deterrent).

(4)

I don't think what you're proposing is practical or logical. No society is going to accept the death penalty as a punishment for speeding. It's an irrelevant argument to make.

Again, why the need for elaborate ideas never before attempted? Why not just adopt a model that has already worked, such as the Scandinavian one? It seems like you're trying to wrap your mind around a solution that fits your preconceived notion of incentives and no government assistance like I suggested in my first post.

(5)

Venezuela is a developing country. Crime is largely a result of economic mismanagement by Chavez leading to joblessness and civil unrest.

There are plenty of countries with which to compare the US with. Obvious choices would be Australia or the UK. Anglo-Saxon countries, similar culture, comparative income/capita. Or really any European country. Your comparison would suggest tp me you're trying to stretch your argument to fit.

The basic form of a social contract is the foundation for every state in the world. Every individual within the territory forfeits a set of rights and is imposed with a set of duties instead. That's a social contract as described in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Du contrat social".

Doesn't help much with regards to Anglo-Saxon capitalism, does it? Beyond its most basic definition, social contract means, in theory, a recalibration of metrics beyond mere profit, within a society. Whatever metrics one might think would reasonably map progress towards the ultimate goal: the pursuit of happiness.

A concrete example would be the political-economic system of Germany, 1948 onwards, the so-called "Soziale Marktwirtschaft", wherein capitalism is (or was) constrained by agreements to the benefit of the whole of society. Not any individual, not any group, all members of society. Manifestations of it would be the safety net in all its forms and shapes, the health system, the pension system, the rejection of military interventionalism, the preservation of nature, no tolerance for fascism, etc. All specific policies that have their origins in an understanding of what society agreed upon would be best for everyone. The extent is subject to constant political debate, but the underlying concept remains untouched.

So the claim that there is no such thing as a social contract strikes me as a continuation of Thatcher's insistence that there is, in fact, no society. I don't subscribe to that notion, and as far as I can tell, neither does continental Europe as a whole.

If people prefer a system without a "society" beyond the very basic neccessities of a functioning state, go ahead. Do your thing. Competition of ideas and whatnot.

But I'm going to stay a member of this society, thank you very much. And as such, I take the liberty of leaving this "discussion" again. Cheerio.

@jimnms

I'll address by paragraphs:

(1)

The reason I suggested that you are implying that the US is more violent by nature is because statistically it is far more murderous than a country of its socio-economic development should be. Have a look at Nationmaster tables of GDP/capita and compare than to murders/capita in terms of where the US sits.

If we take the view that you are suggesting that we should simply reduce violence globally then that is a laudable goal but it would suggest that the US is abysmally failing at this currently. I happen to believe this reason is gun availability. I see no reason to believe this abysmal failure comes from gross police incompetence or any other plausible factor, rather the gun ownership and availability that sticks out like a sore thumb when you compared to other countries such as those in the G8.

(2)

I think that we would be both agree that there are more gun enthusiasts in rural areas. Many of those would also own collections of guns for recreation rather than merely what self protection would require. The article below cites a study from 2007 by Harvard that says 20% own 65% of the nation's guns.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/tragedy-stresses-multiple-gun-ownership-trend-in-us/1781285/

There is no reason to suspect that these people are any more violent than your non gun-owning folk. The issue is not so much ownership levels, but the availability that feeds a would-be criminal's capacity to carry out a crime.

While actual ownership levels might be lower, guns can no doubt be purchased for cheaper and within a closer proximity in densely populated cities. This availability feeds the likelihood of them being employed as a tool to facilitate a crime.

This is also incidentally a key misunderstanding of the whole gun debate. No one is (or should be at least) implying that recreational gun owners are the problem. It is the necessity for guns to be freely available to gun enthusiasts among others for them to enjoy this hobby that causes the problems.

(3)

Building on my above point above, gun control shouldn't be seen as a punishment. There is no vidictiveness to it, merely a matter of weighing up the results of two courses of action. On the one hand there is diminished enjoyment of legal and responsible gun owners. On the other hand there is the high murder rate I discussed earlier, which really can't be explained away any other way than gun availability.

Let's do a back of the envelope calculation. Australia and the US are culturally relatively similar Anglo-Saxon societies. Let's assume for the sake of argument that my suggestion is true. Referencing wiki here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The homicide rate in Australia is 1.0/10K/year and 4.8/10K/year. Let's say that gun availability explains 2/3rds of the difference. So we're talking about a 2.5/10K/year increase. Taking this against the US's 310M population this represents 7,500 more deaths.

Now to me, the issue is clear cut. The lives lost outweight gun enthusiast enjoyment.

And it's not just to me. There is a very clear reason that the vast majority of developed countries have made gun ownership incredibly difficult. I can guarantee, at some point they have done this back of the envelope calculation for their own country.

(4)

You raise the comparison to cars. See my workings above. With cars, they obviously provide a fundamentally invaluable benefit to society. The choice every society has made is to instead heavily regulate them. The reason there is no outcry to impose heavy restrictions on them is because there already are.

- Being required to pass license tests.
- Strict driving rules to follow.
- Speeding cameras everywhere.
- Random police checks for alcohol.

Can you think of any further regulations plausibly worth trying with cars that could reduce the accident death rate? I struggle to think of anything else effective that hasn't already been implemented.

With guns there are dozens of options not yet tried.

- Rigorous background checks.
- No gun show exemption.
- Assault weapon restrictions.
- Restrictions of ammo such as cost tariffs.

The list goes on. Imagine if we lacked the regulations we do on cars and there was a NCA (National Car Association) that was equating requiring to pass a driving test to tyranny.

(5)

I don't think there's much irrationality here. The US is clearly more murderous than other G8/OECD countries. To me, Occam's Razor explains why.

As for the comment on focussing on tragedies than the large issue, see my previous comment. You're missing the point that it's not just the gun sprees that are the problem, it's the steadily high murder rate. Mass shooting are just blips in this.

(6)

I will have a read through this.

Medieval days were truly dark times, as Anglo-Saxon cultures saw their populations concentrate in large cities which they historically have not accommodated before. Meanwhile burning down all Latin achievements including infrastructure and urban management.

Tolkiens pacing was terrible

I'll dispute that. Story pacing is highly dependant on the reader's level of immersion, and Tolkien was attempting a deeply immersive story where the 'pacing' was largely irrelevant. Many people are quite jaded in this regard, and if the plot isn't moving along at a brisk pace they lose interest. That isn't necessarily the fault of the author, but a matter of a lack of tolerance/patience on the reader. No work of literature can satisfy every reader in that regard - so the end result of whether a book is properly paced is highly individualistic. You have writers on both extremes. Some move so fast that the reader feels like the story is choppy and shallow. Then you have guys like Jordan who spend so much time on so much background that the plot is almost utterly lost. I think Tolkien strikes a masterful middle-ground where he provides depth of background and detail, while not having so much that the average reader feels the plot is moving too slowly. Again, that isn't universal because everyone is different - but the fact that LOTR has endured the test of time and remained a classic proves that it is an assessment that applies to 'most' people.

and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story.

Depends on what you mean by nothing. The Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs are chapters that some people don't get. If the hobbits had just gone straight to Bree then a lot of people would be happier. It can be argued, but Bombadil gives some background to Middle Earth that Tolkien felt was important. For him (JRR) the work was a literary exercise in establishing what he felt were 'lost' Anglo-Saxon mythology. Iarwin Ben-Adar was part of that world for him, and a part that he felt mattered. He is referenced in the Council of Elrond, and here and there in other parts of LOTR. He may fill no vital plot function, but he certainly adds to the story (not to mention background on the Northern Kingdom, and the Westernesse blades).

The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

I felt quite the opposite. I thought that the chapters of Sam & Frodo walking to Mt. Doom were rather a breakneck pace compared to what was happening. But at that point JRR is breaking down both Frodo and Sam physically and spiritually, so it can't just be a rapid "Poof! We're at Mt Doom now!" thing. It had to be a hot, blistering, difficult slog. For it to only be 2 chapters was actually pretty breif I thought. Escaping Cirith Ungol took a chapter - then two chapters were them walking and Mt. Doom itself. All in all I thought it went pretty fast.

It all depends on what folks like, really. Some people can't stand it when Tolkien takes 2 pages here and there to describe the landscape of the Woody End, or a couple pages there to talk about some bit of Rohan's history, or whatever. Some people love it. I personally felt that JK Rowling's pacing blew chunks because she spent tons of time focusing on bullcrap character junk (mostly Harry whining). But some readers just eat that stuff up, so I have to allow that my personal tastes cloud my judgement on Rowling's pacing. It's a matter of taste. What seems irrelevant to you may be pure gold to someone else.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured

Don't get me started on Jackson & Walsh. I liked the LOTR movies generally, but these two ham-hands did some pretty awful writing considering the pure perfection of the source material. One example: Aragorn's perfect speech, "We shall make such a chase as will be accounted a marvel among the three kindreds - elves, dwarves, and men. Forth, the Three Hunters!" was changed to the god-awful, "Let's hunt some orc!" I could literally go on for hours listing scripting crime after crime. Jackson/Walsh were NOT either masterful writers, or pacers. When they stuck to the story and didn't jam thier fumble-witted fingers into the pie it was great. The more they took "creative license", the worse it got.

They were just as often called Nazarenes.

The point is that, contrary to what the video suggests, the word Christian comes from the 1st century, and has historically been the word followers of Jesus Christ use to refer to themselves. A christian is simply someone who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior:

christian - Χριστιανός (Christianós)

Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.

The Jews rejected Jesus because they were looking for a war Messiah who would install them as rulers of the world. Jesus came as the suffering Messiah who would die for the sins of the world as predicted in Isaiah:

53:4-6

4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

As noted in the OT, the jews were constantly under punishment because they ignored the direct commands of God, and constantly persecuted and murdered the prophets God sent to them. In this case, it was no different.

Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.

Show me what you're referring to, specifically.


>> ^joedirt:
You mean the Kings James version of the Bible?
1st-century 27 Books of the New Testament (IN GREEK)
4th-century Translated to Latin Vulgate (IN LATIN)
1000 AD Translations of The New Testament (IN ANGLO-SAXON)
1455 AD Gutenberg printing press (IN LATIN)
1522 AD Martin Luther's German New Testament (IN GERMAN)
1526 AD William Tyndale's New Testament from Vulgate (IN ENGLISH)
1568 AD Bishops Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH)
1611 AD King James Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH) (80 books)
1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 KJV revised
1885 AD "English Revised Version" Bible Revision of the KJV. (IN ENGLISH) (only 66 books)
They were just as often called Nazarenes.
Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.
Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

You mean the Kings James version of the Bible?

1st-century 27 Books of the New Testament (IN GREEK)
4th-century Translated to Latin Vulgate (IN LATIN)
1000 AD Translations of The New Testament (IN ANGLO-SAXON)
1455 AD Gutenberg printing press (IN LATIN)
1522 AD Martin Luther's German New Testament (IN GERMAN)
1526 AD William Tyndale's New Testament from Vulgate (IN ENGLISH)
1568 AD Bishops Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH)
1611 AD King James Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH) (80 books)
1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 KJV revised
1885 AD "English Revised Version" Bible Revision of the KJV. (IN ENGLISH) (only 66 books)

They were just as often called Nazarenes.

Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.

Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

A lot of low-wage minorities, who have now became the dominant group in US demographics, live this way.

Your typical Pennsylvania-born Anglo-Saxon American also has his/her own cheat system to avoid paying heavy taxes, as all would other ethnic groups have their own ways to solve their problems with the US government.

I've witnessed first hand how various people cheat the system. I roommated with several different ethnicities throughout my years living in NYC. Russians, Taiwaneses, Ecuadorians, etc. And seemed to me that each ethnicity had a different issue to be dealt with the US government, and thus each ethnic groups had a unique cheat system of their own.

From my Taiwanese roommate, I learned that you can manage to stay in the US past your visa renewal limit by constantly enrolling yourself to a language school or any school of sort. As long as you prove that you are a student, you will get a student visa for at least 2 years each time you enroll to a new school, but never actually graduate from any of them.

From few of the black customers I had back when I was working at a gym, I've learned that you can pay much cheaper insurance rate if your car is registered outside of New York State, preferably Florida. You'd contact one of your family members there and claim that you've lived in Miami for 1 year, forward the address to your relative's house, and register the car.

From a Malaysian girl I used to hit on, I learned that you receive free tuition plus government grants if you qualify as an independent on your tax form. All you have to do is prove that you've lived outside of your parent's house (but still within New York) and don't receive additional financial assistance for at least 1 year. She got the free government grants by changing her mailing address to her uncle's house, while never moving out from her parents house, no rent and all.

The list goes on and on and on.

Considering the quality of video coming out of Japan about the Tsunami, I predict the first shot in this video was taken by someone of anglo-saxon descent. Dude was moving more than the ground.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I also love how he says Jesus has blue eyes.... lol... these idiots forgot that Jesus, if he actually existed, was born in the middle east. So I'm PRETTY sure he didn't have blue eyes.
Someone's been looking at whitened pictures of jesus.


Dude, didn't you know that middle-eastern people are just all dying to be white? Of course Jesus is Anglo-Saxon, what is wrong with you??!?!?!

It's true the brits are a horrible breed. Well, I guess they'd be anglo-saxon's, right? Anyway, their colonies have all fallen apart except for a few including the US. You see, the US set forth to rid themselves of the bank of Britain but during the bank scares before the Depression the UK took control of our banking system. So, we are not in fact free. Independence Day is a myth - if you celebrated it in the early 1900's you'd be celebrating in a true and pure fashion but America is not independent any longer. Face the facts.