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.

It's also worth noting that dreads have been a part of pot culture for at least 3 decades now. That's long enough that you can't actually deny it's a valid expression of that culture.

The mistake she's making is to assume that dreads are exclusive to black culture. As is pointed out in the video, the hair style has existed since recorded time. In fact, it's more accurate to say it represents carribean culture, so unless she was raised in that particular region, she would also be guilty of cultural appropriation of she wore dreads.

The bottom line is, no one can define someone else's culture or decide whose culture is valid. Cultures are fluid and evolving and cannot be constricted by anyone not immersed in that culture.

Oh wait! I meant to say, she's wearing a hooded windbreaker. She's clearly appropriating my eastern Anglo American culture.

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.

Wow. How much more incredibly unfunny and terminally Anglo can television become? Her stand-ups funnier though her jokes hit on every fifth or sixth shot...

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.

Yeah it's amazing huh, and 'FUCK YOU WHALES, as wail.The examples of native American and Anglo acting for convenience-sake as an analogous gesture is mute, they were ignorant savages back when....Better, stronger, faster is what the world is about nowadays, eh?

That folks can't understand the consternation of someone who may regard Japan with the contempt for the state of their psychological baggage of mindfuck that created the "today of Japan" that should be clearly seen by all humans with a conscience what can be seen clearly by the entire world with half a fucking brain, is not a concern...Love the Japanese, but they like all nations, cultures and peoples are hard-pressed to do the work needed to un-fuck themselves into the next paradigm of 'humans being' as fast as the planet's urgency warrants, all are guilty of an inevitability of self-immolation.

Japanese, Russians, the Swiss, and cunts with no ethnicity or countries that they know of, seem to suffer from the same state of illusion the entire world finds themselves suffering. Plus, females of all cultures are treated for the most part like shit by their males....kind of like most folks sit back and let those aquatic mammals closest to humankinder be so fucked .Incorrect? Provide examples or throw us in some penalty box and cry racism, or any 'ism' box, you fucking morons.

Are we, OVER-generalizing, or is herding mammals into an enclosure and poking them with sticks something that looks a-ok and sanction-able by sane, thoughtful peeps?? I would not wish this fate on a single Japanese citizen be they native or expatriate. Dolphins have cocks, just like humans do.

Have yourselves herded into an enclosure and experience what happens.

Oh and, fuck rules. Always have, always...will.

(Slinks-off to eat a dolphin sandwich and don boots and a vest made from similar hide, and read Mein fucking Kampfire, under the glow of a human-skin nightshade made from faux beaver.)

Skin color > than ethnic/religious/sexual orientation. Jews are treated white over black people. If we cannot understand this we don't understand true racism. (Yes, millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust and in many other atrocities, but if there had been blacks in their place, blacks would have taken priority.)

So yeah, I would say Jesus was white. A white Jew, like John Stewart perhaps. Now he wasn't Anglo American, that's for sure.

Anglo-European decent. Wet and buttery smooth. Good on crackers with a little Marmite.

According to http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Squirrel.html The word squirrel, first attested in 1327, comes via Anglo-Norman esquirel from the Old French escurel, the reflex of a Latin word sciurus. This Latin word was itself borrowed from Ancient Greek word σκίουρος, skiouros, which means shadow-tailed, referring to the bushy appendage possessed by many of its members.

Seems fine if correct.

And @chingalera you can one i from aluminium. As long as you stay away from silicon .

@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.

>> ^spoco2:

I never would have thought of an assassination attempt happening in Canada. But then my knowledge of Canadian politics could be written in large font on the inside cleft of one of my buttcheeks.


Then you've never heard of the October Crisis. To sum up, in 1970 the separatist FLQ (a Québec nationalist terror group, not a political party like the PQ) graduated from bombings to kidnapping and murder. This prompted the federal government to invoke the War Measures Act and suspend civil liberties to rein it in. Now this Anglo asshole, apparently, has taken it upon himself to even the score. To see this happening in my country makes me sick.

Russia has already been swinging their dicks in the UK direction over this, because they have harbored "enemies of the state" from them. If not an outright war, the UK will fuck up their diplomatic powers significantly.
>> ^messenger:

With Ecuador? In the UK? That'd be even shorter than the Anglo-Zanzibar War, and we'd have streaming footage of the whole thing. That'd be cool.>> ^gwiz665:
UK's gonna start a war if they do.