The way I see it, if the house next door was on fire and so was the house on the next street, it would be a no-brainer as to which flames you fight first.
Hmmm, I don't think beliefs are at the cause of Africa's problems, but you could say it has an exacerbating effect.
I regard Africa as lacking the general level of organisation necessary to sustain large populations, and we create these large populations by interfering through our business exploits and charitable ventures, my opinion.
Nothing goes in/nothing comes out - that's the only long term solution for Africa I can see.
For Brevik one could argue that his politics are incidental, and that he is a lone sociopath. Which wouldn't make his crime an act of terrorism.
As for the 'war on terror' there's no such thing, the troubles we encounter - at home and abroad - are merely the fallout from imposing one culture upon another. The hope is that everyone will buy in to modern materialism, and so no one will mind the disappearance of their culture and soul. Obviously this idea was struggling even when we were in the high times, and so the scale of disaster this could trigger now that we are in economic difficulty remains to be seen.
A Socialist may imply he has good intentions. Whereas I just see him milking the taxpayer for the benefit of the small ring of chosen Capitalists he has around him, the ones whom have either directly funded his campaign, or the financiers of Wall Street and the Fed which have their d*ck in the mouth of all politicians.
During Obama's time in office we've still seen a broadening gap between the super-rich and everyone else, and little rejuvenation of private-sector trade unions(even during the recession) - telling to say the least.
Each company still has human resources departments and costly industrial tribunals to put up with instead of unionised workers. Precisely because these days we have become so anti-union each company has to carry an array of non-productive untermensch(sub humans)that work in Human resources up and down the land, circled by the parasitic lawyer who looks on in glee at the increased regulation and tendency for workers to now sue their employer instead of striking. Better to have the trade unions in industry before these pen-pushing wastes of life. A true Socialist wouldn't tolerate carrying this filth.
I disagree in some respects. To begin with I doubt we have any more intrinsic intellect than our ancestors, we merely have greater inherited knowledge and greater means and time to pursue knowledge, today. This doesn't mean our minds are inherently more apt than before, on the whole.
However,
Human evolution without "bottlenecks" in population breeds towards the aggregate. The descendants of five clever people mixed with five not-so clever people would soon find themselves significantly gravitated towards an average, and to look at an entire culture you merely amplify the scale.
So logically, all peaceful and civilised cultures pursue the course of becoming average at genetic level, because they escape bottlenecking the population. This would kill off the effective genius within the latter generations - the creative minority from which Human progress springs - and this would explain how we are now exhausting our intellect, so to speak.
The study may be right in the sense that Western intellect is a spent force, but I can bet the creative minority of the emerging cultures(being young and pure in their development)will prove the study wrong. It only seems reasonable to expect that another culture, following on from our own, will go on to achieve things we never considered. I mean, could the Celts imagine us as we are now?
I'm not calling you anything, i'm saying how it is here.
School was a good example, if you won a fight with your hands you go up the pecking order - beating someone with a bat doesn't get you anywhere, because anybody unhinged enough could do that.
It's a bit different here. Dad always told me cowards use weapons(any weapon)in a fight, and that if your own muscle can't see you through then you deserve to get beaten up.
Verbally it is the same, but when freedom means a contradictory thing in two different places, then the two freedoms are not the same thing.
I'm not getting on my high horse about it. One could say the European is more civilised for opposing guns(and they do say this), but then in the last hundred years Europe has tore itself apart and committed unspeakable acts darker than anything else catalogued in the history of Human crime. This speaks volumes for our being "civilised".
After that we're tlaking politics, and I think the whole point of Democracy, government and representation is to solve dsputes between citizenry without recourse to violence, to stop the neighbour from robbing his neighbour, and to uphold law and order. I'm not saying that state doesn't suffer corruption, but in principle the Democratic process is there to ensure Liberty, not to take Liberty away from you.
Yea the founding creed, the guarantor of freedom - in the view of Americans. So guns in society are regarded as a freedom. In Europe, we generally believe the opposite.
Reasonable. However, gun ownership is about freedom, so you can forget about reason.
Broadly speaking the American idea of liberty comes from pointing a gun, whereas the European idea of liberty comes from not having a gun a pointed at you. It's that simple.
I doubt it. The bond market won't allow it to happen.
Borrowing more buys you time. If this time is enough for Westerners to completely change the way they live, study, think and work then buying the time will have been worth it. But, as this almost certainly won't happen, raising the debt will only make things worse.
Though on the bright side all of this does spell good news for the printers, they're going to be the only people with a job.
TrueBlue1986 Forum Posts (1,322)
RE: How could Obama possibly win the next election.
Genie in a bottle?