Chilaxe, sometimes you scare me. Sometimes I think you would favor a "final solution". Maybe I'm not creative enough to envision how you solve these problems you outline with useless eaters without extermination.>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.
We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.
Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but consume & pollute at the same rate.
L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

Are you OK with the criminal justice system inprisoning people who are innocent? Yes or no.

My answer is that the question is idiotic. You can't answer complex societal questions with Yes/No answers. Boiling it down to that simplistic a level is ridiculous and childish.

Society is complex. There is no such thing as a perfect system, and certainly no such thing as a perfect system of justice. That by definition means that there are going to be instances when innocent people are wrongfully convicted of crimes for which they were not responsible. Does that mean society should just pack it in and not bother at all with the rule of law? Of course not. Does that means sometimes justice will horribly miscarry? Yes it does. But the overall benefit is outweighed by the cost. People in a civilized society need to know that there is some measure of justice to which they can appeal to with a relative degree of confidence. That is worthwhile.

Many people on the right say the Death Penalty is a deterrent. I have not seen conclusive evidence of that. However - I do not need it. Many people on the left say that since capital punishment is such a 'final' solution that it should not exist at all. I say that is total hogwash. Even the most dyed in the wool neolib will come to a certain point and say there are SOME people who deserve it - usually anyone who opposes their ideology...

My stance is that there are those in society who through their actions have abandoned the right to exist within society. Their crimes are so vile and despicable, that they have wilfully chosen to abrogate their right to continue in it. For such creatures, the death penalty is not revenge. It is not punishment. It is justice. That's all.

The Israelis should learn from history and come up with some sort of final solution to their problems...

The final solution is to stop dating Nazis. Even if they do worship Jesus and oppose liberalism.

Also, al-Qaeda doesn't need your help anymore. Quit sending them magic-shelled candies and large sacks of money.

>> ^COriolanus:


How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a race problem. I am talking about the final solution to the black problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a racist.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.


wow, really.
It's not and never has been a problem about race. It's a problem with ignorance. If the mideast emigrated to Japan it would be just as well. Their people need to live in places that have come to understand values of free speech and anti-authoritarianism. First-worlders need to see that these are normal people just like everyone else. And yeah, I would call you a racist for seeing the problem and motivations as inherently race-based and latching onto that. Perhaps you have a different definition for the word. I don't understand why you'd have strong pride in your skin color. It's like you're saying all the blue eyes need to stop mingling with the general population since they'll become extinct over time. Blue-eyed power, huh. But I guess thanks for the reply.

rabidness says: Could it be that inviting some refugees and other immigrants to live within our culture could teach them to be less theocratic?

Everybody says there is this race problem. Everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a race problem. I am talking about the final solution to the black problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a racist.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Those troublesome Jews

Charles Krauthammer

Friday, June 4, 2010

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
This Story

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
ad_icon

Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.

Coming from "sumone" too "ignorent" to even know how to spell "genoside" I'll take that pithy remark as the highest compliment.

>> ^westy:

nobody noticed because noone cares to listen to sumone as ignorent as yourself.
>> ^bcglorf:
People have probably noticed I have little patience for the pathetic ignorance that leads people to cry how genocide is happening today, and point at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.
You are absolutely right that genocide has continued to happen since the holocaust, and few have cared. You're even right to ascribe guilt to America for some of them. But you need to be pointing at Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. You need to be pointing at the era where America backed, or failed to remove Saddam as he perpetuated multiple genocides of his own.
But more importantly still, if you actually care about genocide being perpetuated then spend some more time talking about the worst ones that are still happening today. Rwanda just recently managed to kill more people more quickly than the nazi death camps, and they did it without setting up camps or factories, they just picked up enough machetes to get the 'job' done. The crew that did it never was caught or stopped either, they were chased out of Rwanda into the Congo, were they are still raping and killing the days away.
Somalia's president is a convicted war criminal by the ICC, and the whole of the Africa Union is willing to protect him, because there are that many leaders of African nations that are all worried that if the Darfur genocide could get him in trouble, they might be too.
The list of genocides going on today, right now, are endless. If the best example you can come up with is the American import of inexpensive chinese labor, I suspect your priorities are NOT on ending genocide and lie in much different place. Don't sully the fight against genocide with your own prejudices.

nobody noticed because noone cares to listen to sumone as ignorent as yourself.

>> ^bcglorf:

People have probably noticed I have little patience for the pathetic ignorance that leads people to cry how genocide is happening today, and point at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.
You are absolutely right that genocide has continued to happen since the holocaust, and few have cared. You're even right to ascribe guilt to America for some of them. But you need to be pointing at Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. You need to be pointing at the era where America backed, or failed to remove Saddam as he perpetuated multiple genocides of his own.
But more importantly still, if you actually care about genocide being perpetuated then spend some more time talking about the worst ones that are still happening today. Rwanda just recently managed to kill more people more quickly than the nazi death camps, and they did it without setting up camps or factories, they just picked up enough machetes to get the 'job' done. The crew that did it never was caught or stopped either, they were chased out of Rwanda into the Congo, were they are still raping and killing the days away.
Somalia's president is a convicted war criminal by the ICC, and the whole of the Africa Union is willing to protect him, because there are that many leaders of African nations that are all worried that if the Darfur genocide could get him in trouble, they might be too.
The list of genocides going on today, right now, are endless. If the best example you can come up with is the American import of inexpensive chinese labor, I suspect your priorities are NOT on ending genocide and lie in much different place. Don't sully the fight against genocide with your own prejudices.

>> ^westy:

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)


You can`t label famine and bad economic policies as genocide. And no, you can`t blame Bush (2003 - Present) for genocide, just because a lot of Iraqis died in the war and following it. If a war is fought with a country of course a lot of people from that country of the same ethnicity will die. If you call that genocide then every war will be genocide. That`s just stupid.

You moron , I have seen the full series how about you engage your brain gears.

the piont is the nazies didnt get away with it and they fucked it up , they could have exsploited the laber far more efficently ,

all the clever countries now are getting away with it , exploiting the 3rd world is how its ment to be done.
the nazies just didnt have the imaginatoin to do it properly.

the advantage of doing things totaly overseeies with the most deprived natoins is that no other natoins give a shit and the populatoins of the natoin your raping are evan more poweless to do annything , becuse they dont know anny better and allso they are to far islated from the controlers to do annything.

allso its a waist of money and time puting them all in camps and killing them all , why not let them maintain themselfs just make sure you keep it so they can never be in a positoin to actualy earn the true amount of income they deserve.

The reasoin the germans faild is the top brass was so concernd in setting up a new rome/empire. im sure if they had got away with it everyone would hail the germans as sucsesfull conqerors and masters of a new civalisatoin . In the same way allot of people have this bizar respect for the romans and how gr8 they were , despite the fact that there gratness was most likely bult of the backs of slave labor murder and genoside.

a more recent example than romans would be How the british raped and exploited people around most the world and still remain respectable.
the germans were just noobs.


The whole genoside thing repatedly happens and we still dont seem to give a shit it would be nice if people were educated about genoside in general and how easily it happens.


Intresting genosides

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)

Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99)

Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)

colinisatoin of amerca ( admitedly allot of it was desize but the british and other people that moved to USA compelaty fucked up a whole load of people)


I dont know if u can class the reacent wars in iraq a genoside , or maby veatnam war. personaly im not so sure how much intentoin matters , in the sence that if u intend to wipe out a natoin of people or if thats just what happens. in the end if a whole load of people end up dying then from the perspective of that group of people its a genoside. the only difference would be if they died because they were activly in combat with the otherside running at them with guns , or if they were cavileans that were killed through a genetic / gealogical asoceatoin .





>> ^demon_ix:

If you had actually watched the video instead of just trolling, you would have seen that's exactly what they did. They set up factories in Poland to take advantage of the Coal resources in the area and used the prisoners as forced labor to build weapons for the German war effort.
>> ^westy:
~Its still fine to murder people or just forget its hapaaning , you just canot do it in camps .
if the nazies were clever they would have just exsploited 3rd world labor and only invaded countries that had pore militaries but strong resources.

This is an old Controversy but still a very legitimate one - I find it interesting that the has yet to be a final solution to this - Do the Pros have to outweigh the Cons - and should we settle for any Cons!



And then this...

"ANOTHER LOOK AT FLUORIDE IN THE WATER SUPPLY"
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/fluoride.htm

^I like your final solution.

I think we're all wasting our time discussing this; something tells me dag has already devised his final solution.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

At this point, (because the recriminations just will not end) I'd like to mention that this thread has inspired Lucky and I to work towards a solution to all this Siftquistion drama. Lucky is in his workshop hammering away. We like to call our idea "the final solution". Catchy, no?

Technology will save us all.