| November 9th, 2005 12:52 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
Isn't it ironic that a communist country like China that has adopted capitalism in a big way will end up crushing the socialist economies in Europe?
Prosperity goes to the economic systems that provide incentives and rewards for investment, innovation, productivity and competitive advantage. Poverty and unemployment are the reward for systems that penalize business and thereby push jobs to other markets.
Wait a minute. . .are you praising China for their economic model? This is a country that ignores intellectual property laws and routinely uses prison labor. Is this the model you are suggesting modern capitalist societies adopt? |
| November 9th, 2005 01:14 PM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
I have no problem with putting prisoners to work assuming they belong in jail in the first place.
In the long run profits follow innovation, not run-of-the-mill production. Be the first to market and set your own price. Become a commodity and the profit margins go down and belong to those with the cheapest labor.
The economic systems that foster education and innovation end up being the winners. Do the Japanese own the auto industry because they used to produce the cheapest cars or because they innovated and produced a more reliable product of higher value? Did the value come from working harder and smarter or from the crushing burden of government mandated social programs for underachievers and immigrants?
It seems to me we should look at what works rather than what we think utopia should be like. Socialism has a history of never working well. |
| November 9th, 2005 01:23 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
gimmie a break!!! they're frickin' neighbors bitch now even when the Germans wish to set up a memorial to the largest ethnic cleansing in history -- that of the Germans of Eastern Europe in 1944-1947, a despicable episode of human history and one likely to be repeated if hateful ignorance as above is really believed
A memorial to German suffering during WWII and one or two post-war years? People bitch and are upset about that? Jesus pissing Christ, how damn intolerant some people can be.......
"largest ethnic cleansing in history -- that of the Germans of Eastern Europe in 1944-1947"
Massive, and I mean massive, exaggeration to begin with. Also completely undocumented, unverified, bunch of anecdotal evidence from biased authors -- to the extent large numbers of German people got consumed in the turmoil of a world-wide conflict THEY brought to bear, its not to be unexpected. For you to analogize hardships faced by the German population DURING THE WAR for chrissakes, to the bureaucratic genocides going on at that time, or even other ones in history, is really over the top, lotsajizz. |
| November 9th, 2005 02:00 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
I need to rant on a completely non Stones, non Paris issue and since this is already non Stones, this is as good a place as any. Yesterday SF voters, voted to ban all hand guns within in the city limits (except police and military). All SF citizens need to turn in their handguns by April. I am about at leftest as you can get. . .but isn't this the most absurd attempt at a solution to gun violence? To deny SF residents the ability to legal obtain and legally possess a handgun in their home is ridiculous!! I firmly believe in background checks and waiting periods. I don't think any private citizen needs an assault rifle or an uzi but this proposition is so fucking stupid!!
Thoughts?
MM |
| November 9th, 2005 02:50 PM |
|
|
| justforyou |
Statistically fewer guns means fewer shootings. |
| November 9th, 2005 03:41 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
"largest ethnic cleansing in history -- that of the Germans of Eastern Europe in 1944-1947"
Massive, and I mean massive, exaggeration to begin with. Also completely undocumented, unverified, bunch of anecdotal evidence from biased authors -- to the extent large numbers of German people got consumed in the turmoil of a world-wide conflict THEY brought to bear, its not to be unexpected.....
innocents are innocents...the death of soldiers is not what I am talking about. I am talking the removal of old men, women, and children based on bloodlines. And just because their side did it also does not make it 'right' to do it to them in turn. Something about 'two wrongs....' there Neil. Unless the cycle is broken and wrong is recognized as wrong then the same damned thing keeps happening. btw, the gang rape of my maternal great-grandmother by Red Army men was not 'anecdotal' you racist ....'wrongs', if done to Germans in 1944-1947 are not 'wrongs'? How the Marxist-Leninist moral relativist ideology has set in, eh? As for authors...try these, and maybe a census or two....you're as bad as one of those Holocaust deniers for chrissakes, don't be so ignorant!
1) Conquest, Robert. The Soviet Deportation of Nationalities. Mac Millan & Co., London 1962.
2) deZayas, Alfred-Maurice. A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950. St. Martin's Press, NY, 1994.
3) Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans From Central and Eastern Europe, Federal Ministry for Expellees, War Victims, and Refugees. Bonn, 1961. v.1- 4.
4) Ellis, John. World War II: A Statistical Survey. Facts on File, Inc. NY 1993.
5) Kaps, Johannes (ed.) The Tragedy of Silesia. Christ Unterwegs. München 1952/3.
6) Slater, Lisa. The Rape Of Berlin. Pageant-Poseidon Pub., Brooklyn, 1975.
7) Thorwald, Jürgen. Defeat in the East. Ballantine Books, NY 1951.
8) Tolstoy, Nikolai. The Secret Betrayal 1944-1947. Charles Schriber & Sons, NY 1977.
9) Von Lehndorff, Count Hans. East Prussian Diary: A Journal of Faith 1945-1947. Oswald Wolff Ltd. London 1963.
Is this what you defend sirmoonie? Rapes occurred on such a scale and were so widely and universally reported and acknowledged in the Soviet invasion of Germany as to amount to almost a policy. Indeed to many in the Red Army, the women of the enemy had traditionally been viewed as legitimate spoils of war. Literally millions of German women were violently taken, frequently in the most horrible ways, by the men of the Red Army. Most of the Soviet commanders viewed their men's atrocities with a wink and a nod if they did not actually take part themselves. The Germans' similar policies during their occupation of the Soviet Union also contributed to the level of barbarity of course. Marshal Vasilevsky, for instance, when informed of his command’s indiscipline, merely responded, “I don’t give a fuck. It is our time now for our soldiers to issue their own justice.” Most of his subordinates shared this view. Such terrorism was also institutionally favored to drive away the indigenous Germans and make room for Polish and Russian colonists. Indeed, that the mistreatment in general and the rapes in particular were certainly an actual policy is evidenced by the contrasting behavior of Red Army units on soil that was to be retained by the Germans. Horrible atrocities were committed (even against Soviet women “liberated” from the Nazis) but nothing to compare with what the women of Silesia and Prussia had to go through. Further, the reigns of discipline were pulled in quickly on the Red Army in Saxony for example, where some order was restored by the summer of 1945. But in Silesia and Prussia, violent anarchy was the rule for at least two years after the war. The end result was that eastern Germany was subjected to the largest most brutal sack in history, a throwback to ancient times. Some ten million Germans were displaced from Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia, leaving only some 800,000 Germans remaining half a century later, a more lasting ethnic cleansing than any but the Jews and Gypsies then experienced (and this leaves aside for a moment the rest of the Volksdeutsche scattered through Europe).
deny that
|
| November 9th, 2005 03:50 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
I ll be in Paris tomorrow, if you see a burning tourist that's me!
haha! |
| November 9th, 2005 03:50 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
justforyou wrote:
Statistically fewer guns means fewer shootings.
Statistically no legal registered guns in the hands of no legal gun owners means that only illegal gun owners will own illegal guns. Those types of people tend to be the ones most likely to use them in the act of a violent crime. Also,in Houston,Texas,where guns can be carried openly by permit,has the fewer gun related deaths per capita than any other city of it's size in the US. So basically you're wrong. It's called the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution,and I would be willing to bet that there is going to be one hell of a court battle over this insane new law. No offense Monkey Man,but this comes as no surprise to me when talking about San Fran.
Riffy |
| November 9th, 2005 03:50 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
I don't think any private citizen needs an assault rifle or an uzi but this proposition is so fucking stupid!!
Thoughts?
Well, you might need an uzi or an assault rifle to stop them from taking from away your handgun. LOL. |
| November 9th, 2005 04:07 PM |
|
|
| the good |
Hey, where is Mick's mansion in France? Is it near any of the more affected areas? |
| November 9th, 2005 04:09 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
No offense Monkey Man,but this comes as no surprise to me when talking about San Fran.
No offense taken! I never thought this would pass though. This law will do zero to reduce street crime. At least you can still own a shotgun here! |
| November 9th, 2005 04:56 PM |
|
|
| Mathijs |
quote:
the good wrote:
Hey, where is Mick's mansion in France? Is it near any of the more affected areas?
Yeah, Jagger decided to buy his $4 million appartment in one of the shady subburbs.
Statistically, less guns mean less accidents with children involved.
Mathijs |
| November 9th, 2005 05:07 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Mathijs wrote:
Statistically, less guns mean less accidents with children involved.
Mathijs
Well you're right of course,but I could turn that around as well. Statistically making weed and hash illegal would mean less addicts in Amsterdam. You can play that game all day long. Less cars means less car accidents etc.
However,the vast majority of gun owners that are registered as legal owners have their guns securely locked away with trigger locks. My brother is a gun collector. He has antique guns,and many hunting guns. He is an avid hunter. He also has a .357,a Glock,a .44 Magnum,and a .45. If anyone were to break into his home they would not be leaving in one piece. He is a responsible gun owner though,and has raised his children to have an equal amount of respect for them.
Riffhard |
| November 9th, 2005 06:10 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
I need to rant on a completely non Stones, non Paris issue and since this is already non Stones, this is as good a place as any. Yesterday SF voters, voted to ban all hand guns within in the city limits (except police and military). All SF citizens need to turn in their handguns by April. I am about at leftest as you can get. . .but isn't this the most absurd attempt at a solution to gun violence? To deny SF residents the ability to legal obtain and legally possess a handgun in their home is ridiculous!! I firmly believe in background checks and waiting periods. I don't think any private citizen needs an assault rifle or an uzi but this proposition is so fucking stupid!!
Thoughts?
MM
interesting monkey man as i was watching the movie Crash yesterday and musing once again on the prevalence of fire-arms in US society (and others too - it seems many south american countries are such that many people are armed as a matter of course)
basically i think it is a matter of culture - here in australia guns are simply not part of the equation - indeed,our street police have only been armed in the last 20 - 25 years and all felt it was a sad day and that things had come to sad pass that they had to be - we have a very low incidence of gun related crime simply because no one has any guns -yes we have armed robberies no doubt but here it seems to be the case that because few citizens are armed then the criminal element do not feel the need to take a firearm along with them in the course of the commission of a robbery for example...the idea of the "average" citizen here feeling the need to be armed is totally foreign - we are essentially a non-gun culture and i am sure we are the better for it - certainly there are crimes involving firearms but quite a lot of that is the sort of situation where you have competeing criminal elements (such as bikie gang wars over drugs and prostitution)
the US of course is a completely different proposition... gun ownership is entrenched culturally as well as constitutionally and its hard to see that changing - i suggest the legislators in california have good intentions but i would also suggest that it's all too late... the problem, as i say, is culturally entrenched
to be honest, i must say i am glad we do not have the problem that you do in the States - the thought of living day to day life with the notion that if you accidently piss some-one off some how (i.e. minor traffic incident blowing into "road rage") that that situation could then end in firearms being used is totally frightening to me...but as i say you're situation seems to be one where the "average" citizen has to think "well, it's likely everybody else is armed so i better be too"...indeed, i would probably think that way myself
those of you in the states may not even see it as a problem as you have become enured to the situation
i guess what i'm saying is that while legislators may try to change society and behaviour with laws once certain modes of behaviour become culturally entrenched to outlaw them simply makes "criminals" out of normally law abiding citizens
the legislators are right - if you could dispose of all firearms you would then eradicate crimes involving fire arms as well as accidental death and injury caused by them but that is a pipe dream...it will only drive the problem underground
|
| November 9th, 2005 06:26 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
the thought of living day to day life with the notion that if you accidently piss some-one off some how (i.e. minor traffic incident blowing into "road rage") that that situation could then end in firearms being used is totally frightening to me...
That has NEVER happened in Maine, and we're all armed to the teeth. We're adults not kids. The "government" doesn't need to supervise our playground activities.
|
| November 9th, 2005 06:35 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
That has NEVER happened in Maine, and we're all armed to the teeth. We're adults not kids. The "government" doesn't need to supervise our playground activities.
thanks TTM i thought i might have a response like that - after all my comments are based on my perception of US culture (much influenced by the "as seen on TV" syndrome) and, i admit, not based on first hand experience
can i ask why you're "all armed to the teeth"??
and what do you mean by "playground activities"??
 |
| November 9th, 2005 06:47 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
can i ask why you're "all armed to the teeth"??
Well for one thing it's "hunting season", from Nov 1-Nov 30 every year. One rite of passage in Maine is for a young male child of about 12 to shoot a deer or moose. Then he's passed from boyhood to manhood. Provided he drags it out of the woods and skins it himself. Then he is ready for the institution of marriage. Maine chicks love the taste of venison. |
| November 9th, 2005 07:22 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
Stoned in Australia,
I am no huge proponent of guns but I have nothing against people that want to own them. My main objection to this proposition passing is that it is a city law that doesn't stop people from driving a few miles to purchase them in Oakland or San Mateo. All you would need to do is register it to a friends address out of town. This measure would have more of an impact had it been implemented STATEWIDE say about 80 years ago. The toothpaste is way out of the tube already. I will agree that this measure will decrease the amount accidental shootings due to children finding a parents gun and playing with it.
After seeing the chaos left in New Orleans after Katrina, San Franciscans should be able to protect themselves in the event of a large earthquake. The predictions are that there will be a 7.0 or greater quake here in the next 30 years. I, for one will not wait for the Fed gov't to protect me. . . particularly in seeing their response to protecting another "blue" city. |
| November 9th, 2005 07:56 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
monkey man - i'm not suggesting that you're gun law situation is wrong for you as i said, to me it's a cultural/historical thing and you in the US have yours and you have to live with it and i'm just glad that we don't have that culture here
if we had some type of disater such as have recently occurred in the US there may well be similiar situations arising re looting but as i say guns just would not be part of the scenario
i think you're right 'tho with you're toothpaste anolgy
and i agree it does seem a bit odd that they pass a law in the city that can be circumvented by a quick trip down the highway |
| November 9th, 2005 08:49 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Mathijs wrote:
Yeah, Jagger decided to buy his $4 million appartment in one of the shady subburbs.
Mathijs
I think he did. That would clearly be his inspiration for "Rain Fell Down."
[Edited by the good] |
| November 9th, 2005 09:28 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Nice logic there, Sean. Bush geeks would be proud.
You take what I posted, and now I'm a defender, if not an outright advocate of atrocities committed against women, German nationalism/pride isn't bad at all and, in fact, Germans were the victims of the Allies' murderous ways all along. Fuck man, throw in that I'm un-American and you've got yourself a high level RO political post. |
| November 9th, 2005 09:39 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Ok so let's go through the facts here. Today there was a bombing in Jordon killing,at last count,67 people and injuring hundreds. We have riots in France,Belgium,and Germany with the rioters screaming "Allah Akbar!" as they torch thousands of cars,buses,buildings,etc. Last week the new president of Iran stated openly that he wanted to "destroy the West,and eliminate Israel form the planet!"
So is it still xenophopic or racist to call attention to the fact that Radical Islam is a worldwide problem? I just find it amazing that some people will call the ones,like myself that bring this stuff up,Nazis while completely ignoring the worlwide events that bear out everything that I say as true! The real Nazi types are the ones that want to begin a new holocost by wiping Israel off the map,and destroy the West. That would be Radical Islam. Wake the fuck up! It's happening in all of our backyards!
This is WWIII and it's just a matter of time before everyone else realizes it. God knows the terrorists are fully aware of it. We need a new Winston Churchill these days.
Riffy |
| November 9th, 2005 11:31 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
innocents are innocents...the death of soldiers is not what I am talking about. I am talking the removal of old men, women, and children based on bloodlines. And just because their side did it also does not make it 'right' to do it to them in turn. Something about 'two wrongs....' there Neil. Unless the cycle is broken and wrong is recognized as wrong then the same damned thing keeps happening.
You make some good points there, lotsajizz. And I admire your idealism. But what do you really think was going to happen once the Germans started a war in which upwards of 20 million Russians were killed? You are holding human beings to a higher standard than they can be held to. People are weak, immoral, and vengeful. Once the Germans opened up that front and caused so much human suffering, anyone with common sense could have written the next chapter in German Russian history, which as Gibbon rightly said, "is indeed , little more than a register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind." |
| November 10th, 2005 02:52 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
the good wrote:
But what do you really think was going to happen once the Germans started a war in which upwards of 20 million Russians were killed? Once the Germans opened up that front and caused so much human suffering, anyone with common sense could have written the next chapter in German Russian history.
No, no, no, manolo, conjo, que bang. Check it bleed, Germans are victims now, and Islam is a religion of peace.
Good luck arguing with that mentality. |
| November 10th, 2005 04:10 AM |
|
|
| Mathijs |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Well you're right of course,but I could turn that around as well. Statistically making weed and hash illegal would mean less addicts in Amsterdam. You can play that game all day long. Less cars means less car accidents etc.
Riffhard
Of course you can turn it around, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid point! Less guns means less shootings, less armed robberies, less accidents with children, less accidents at all. But the main question: why do you want a weapon at all? I can understand you need a hunting riffle if you live near the woods and like to hunt. But why do you need a hand gun? What are you planning to with it?
And just for fun:
1. Hash isn't legal in Amsterdam or the Netherlands. It's not allowed to sell, buy or traffic any amount above 5 grams. Any amount under 5 gram is tolerated. Smoking hash in public is forbidden and it will get you fined $100;
2. Hash and weed are not addictive;
3. If you use hash, you will not automatically continue with hard drugs (even though most hard drug users start with weed; hard drug use is a mental sickness);
4. In Holland, allowing to buy up to 5 grams of weed did not increase the amount of people using it;
5. 60% of sales of Amsterdam coffee shops go to tourists;
In Holland, soft drugs is not causing any problems at all (no addicts, no abuse, no trafic accidents, no aggression), except one major one. The weed trade still is illigal, and therefore still large amounts of money can be made, wich attracts of course the same people who deal large amounts of hard drugs. So in the end, 80% of all court cases in Holland are drugs related, clogging up the legal system. Now a majority of the parlement seems to be in favour of controlling the production of weed to take out all dealers, and to relieve our legal system. It's a simple thought: if weed doesn't have any major side effects (at least not like alcohol has), why make it illigal.
With guns, it's not entirely the same, as the side effects are more severe, if you look at all accidents with weapons. I trust 99% of the Americans to be entirely safe with weapons, but unfortunately the other 1% spoils it.
It's like an English comedian said it:
"the right to bear arms is only slightly less ludicrous than the right to arm a bear"
Mathijs
|
| November 10th, 2005 06:07 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
We need a new Winston Churchill these days.
Riffy
an alcoholic in the pay of foreigners? no thanks
|
| November 10th, 2005 06:10 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
the good wrote:
But what do you really think was going to happen once the Germans started a war in which upwards of 20 million Russians were killed?
more like fifty million according to latest sources....my point remains, two wrongs do not make a right...killing the elderly and children is NEVER right...it may be unavoidable once events got rolling, but one should not pretend it is 'right' and one should not posit their lives do not measure up because of their bloodlines
|
| November 10th, 2005 04:42 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Dresden was the bomb! |
| November 10th, 2005 05:09 PM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Been outta town..saw this thread and thought great..a new Paris Hilton dvd!....but alas more board politics...carry on then! |
| November 10th, 2005 05:32 PM |
|
|
| Ronnie Richards |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
Isn't it ironic that a communist country like China that has adopted capitalism in a big way will end up crushing the socialist economies in Europe?
This is news to me - there are socialist economies in Europe? |
|
