Overwritten.net
Community => Serious Topics => Topic started by: angrykeebler on Monday, October 09, 2006, 12:13:46 PM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6034873.stm
Man..that Kim Jong Il..he so crazy
-
I disagree. Sovereignty is thrown out the window when it comes to survival of our species.
-
I read about that this morning. I'm not sure what to think of it at the moment though.
-
The people in power there should be wiped off the face of the earth. It takes very little to realize that. Listening to them talk for more than five minutes should be more than enough to clue you in to their general ideology, and those people going nuclear is probably one of the worst things that could possibly happen to the world.
-
North Korea is not behind an ideological global cancer, so it's not nearly the threat that Iran represents. If they try to export the shit to Iran, or directly to the terrorist organizations, then it's time to vaporize ass and take names.
-
Actually you might surprised. NK having nuclear power is much more threatening than Iran having it. Atleast you can actually have a discussion with President Ahmadinejad, imagine trying to talk to Kim Jong Il!
-
I'm pretty much of the notion that both nations are the rough equivalent of rabid dogs.
-
I am not sure what to think about this. I know I would be much more worried if it was Iran.
-
Mutually assured destruction... sure to be as big a buzzword it was during the cold war with all these dangerous nations getting nukes
-
Anybody for some Defcon?
-
I was just thinking that...
-
I love that Einstein WWIII quote, which I think is about to apply.
-
It's all politics. One country can have nukes, the other can't. I say fuck it. No one can be trusted with nuclear devices... but there are plenty of other countries that have them, so why does it matter?
Time to watch Dr. Strangelove.
-
I think it's because they're much more likely to use them. Obviously nukes = bad pretty much anywhere, but I think there are a lot of places that would be much more eager to use one than some other places might be. I would qualify Iran and North Korea pretty much at the top of that list.
-
It's not an issue of nation rights. You can argue all day and night about if a nation has the right to posses nuclear weapons, but in the end all you're doing is well....pretty much nothing. The entire concept of nation rights pretty much only exists in textbooks and in non-policy making love notes in places like the UN. The fact is that unless some sort of real hegemony develops in regards to international relations arguing over the rights of one nation to do something or how doing something squashes the rights of another nation is purely academic and has no real place in matters such as these.
All that aside, no, there's no way this is a good thing. We should be moving towords global disarmament rather than furthering nuclear proliferation. This isn't the 1950's or 1960's....getting nukes doesn't all of a sudden make you a world power, it makes the rest of the world wonder what the hell you need that barganing chip for.
-
Mutually assured destruction... sure to be as big a buzzword it was during the cold war with all these dangerous nations getting nukes
That only works when everyone with nukes doesn't have a death wish. If just one participant worships death, then the whole MAD scenario can quickly come about for real. The Russians don't want extermination. The Chinese don't want it. We surely don't want it. Nukes kept us from going to shooting wars with each other for half a century. I don't think the North Koreans want to be turned into clouds of gas either. It's those idiots trying to get virgins in heaven that scare the shit out of me.
-
Maybe the North Koreans won't use the weapon, but they have sold every other weapon system that they have ever made to other countries. No one is scared about the North Koreans using it (that is, unless something drastic happens), but they may sell it to someone that will use it. The good thing is that we just started screening all cargo going out of North Korean ports for weapons.
-
I think everyone should be disarmed. We should have an organization with the authority and dedication to the eradication of nuclear arms!
-
Then the first asshole to get some illicitly becomes king of the Earth.
We can't un-learn what we have learned. Nukes are a reality. Can't bury them in the sand along with our heads.
-
That's the thing, it's like trying to take guns out of homes and keep them away from criminals. They're *criminals*. If they want guns, they'll get them. Disarming everyone else gives them power. I'm not trying to debate the whole gun thing as that isn't nearly on the same scale or nearly as relevant, but when you're talking power-hungry nations, there's no way in hell you could truly regulate that. I don't like nukes and I wish they didn't exist, but what Cobra said rings true -- first guy to get them after that moment owns the universe.
-
Sitting on a powder keg is not my idea of living.. That's why I think everyone needs to be disarmed. I understand what Cobra is saying, but what I'm talking about is an absolution. Figuring out a way to completely nullify them would be nice.
And it's not "easy" to actually make a nuclear warhead, let alone an ICBM.. It's not something you can make at home.
By the same model, don't you think anyone who wanted to could just make his own explosives at home and bomb the crap out of whatever he wanted? I mean it has happened, but what I'm saying is we don't need it to happen again to understand that we have to prevent it.
If someone uses or approves the use of a nuclear weapon, they're criminals in my eyes.
The firearms issue is similar. If guns were illegal you'd see a Hell of a lot less of them. Several households now have a gun for "protection."
-
Yeah, I can't say I agree with anything you just said. Obviously you can't make nukes in your backyard, but we're talking about governments with lots of money and lots of opportunities for shady dealings. And the whole homemade explosives bomber model doesn't work the same at all. And I continue to disagree with the assinine assumption that making firearms illegal is suddenly going to make them all disappear. That's about as shortsighted as you can get. I know plenty of people who currently own illegal weapons, and they aren't even people with any kind of nefarious intent. They just like to collect them. And believe me, it isn't hard to get them if you know where to look.
-
I'm completley 100% with you Xessive that all nukes should be dismantled / destroyed. The ironic thing in my case, though, is that my grandpa was in WWII, and he was going to be on the front lines in the invasion of Japan. If we hadn't used the nukes, I wouldn't be here. That's not to say that that I support them, but its just weird to think that they probably saved my life.
Edit: I agree Que. Not to mention, if guns didn't exist, we would probably beat eachother with sticks. [guns don't kill people...]
-
And I'd again like to point out that I don't like nukes either. I don't think anybody really does. I just don't think that actually disarming everyone is a feasible possibility.
-
Well, if gov'ts would stop investing in manufacturing weapons they might achieve the feasibility to disarm and dismantle weapons.
It's amazing how fate works :) death somewhere means birth elsewhere. Glad to have you among us Ghandi ;)
I believe that guns don't kill people, people kill people. People don't need guns to kill people, there are a million other random objects that can be used to kill a person (including sticks :P). Guns just facilitate killing. It's as easy as a click (well, click-click now, considering the safety).
Guns are illegal to average citizens in almost all Arabic countries, and gun violence is at minimal levels. I don't think it's a coincidence. It just makes it that much harder for the average person to wield a gun. Ofcourse "criminals" or anyone who knows where to look may be able to acquire a gun, but the fact is the law limits the acquisition of firearms to those individuals (as they do it outside of the law). Law enforcement is responsible for eliminating and dealing with such individuals in any case. Making guns illegals won't make them disappear, but it helps. It can keep guns out of reach; like dirty magazines are out of reach of kids, they're always on the top shelf.
I totally understand the collectors' sentiments (I collect blades myself). For the sake of collection, such weapons are refitted as "art," or as replicas. They're "impotent" guns, they can't actually shoot. As a collector you should have no intention of ever using it anyway.
Guns are for soldiers, law enforcement, and hunters. The average citizen has no business owning a gun, it doesn't fit in society. It would be like buying a bulldozer just coz it's cool (which it is ;D), and realizing it's a bitch to park it. Thanks to the provision of all sorts of meat through farming and markets, hunters are in very small demand. As much as I enjoy hunting, I don't need to hunt, the meat is already there waiting for me to buy it, and I'd hate to let the death of the animal go in vain. So really the only people who need guns are those who want to use aggression against people, or those who defend people from the aggressors.
The whole idea behind building nukes during the Cold War was to use them as a deterrant. It's ridiculous because they're live weapons that were never intended to be used, just to instill fear; but they're live just-in-case. Which is usually where most robberies go wrong "I didn't wanna shoot him! I just wanted to scare him!"
-
New wrinkle:
North Korea is now saying that U.N. sanctions would be considered an act of war.
-
North Korea is now saying that U.N. sanctions would be considered an act of war.
hahaha That is hilarious. Are they crazy? They are going to go up against the world? There is not a single country that supports them... not even China.
-
linky. (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/11/korea.nuclear.test/index.html)
So this is interesting. On one hand you had Iraq that never claimed it had WMDs, insisted that it didn't have WMDs, didn't turn out to have WMDs... even till the end did not want a confrontation... and the US of A invaded and raped the country leaving it in chaos and civil war.
On the other we have North Korea that are about to gain nukes, are threatening to use them and want a war but the USA is curled up in a corner.
"If the U.S. keeps pestering us and increases pressure, we will regard it as a declaration of war and will take a series of physical corresponding measures," the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.
"We were compelled to prove that we have nuclear weapons to prevent the increasing threat of war by the U.S. and protect our sovereignty and survival," the North said, criticizing an alleged nuclear threat from Washington and sanctions. "We are ready for both dialogue and confrontation."
If that doesn't shows intent, I don't know what does.
Now why won't the USA invade North Korea for the sole purpose of dismantling their nuclear program? Maybe because they actually have an army? Or is it because there is no oil involved?
If they do, they will have a lot more support than they did with Iraq... and it could pave the way for taking action against Iran under similar circumstances.
-
Good question, Pug. But the problem is more complex than you make it seem. Since we already are in Iraq and Afghanistan, it just isn't feasible to fight someplace else as well.
Another wrinkle: I've seen it mentioned this morning that North Korea also said they would fire a nuclear missile if the U.S. refused to negotiate with them. What is it with this guy?
-
Guns are for soldiers, law enforcement, and hunters. The average citizen has no business owning a gun, it doesn't fit in society.
If you read the US Constitution, you'll see how it negates your statement, here at least. The people are explicitly entitled to take up arms against oppression by the very forces you say are entitled to arms. The people can't do that if they have zero access to arms.
The whole idea behind building nukes during the Cold War was to use them as a deterrant. It's ridiculous because they're live weapons that were never intended to be used, just to instill fear; but they're live just-in-case. Which is usually where most robberies go wrong "I didn't wanna shoot him! I just wanted to scare him!"
They're still a deterrent. For instance, the Chinese have one soldier for every person in America. But it wouldn't do them any good to send them over here if they and China go bye bye afterward. Nukes won't deter someone looking to die and take the world with them. Nothing deters them except granting the first part of their wish before they achieve the second.
-
On one hand you had Iraq that never claimed it had WMDs, insisted that it didn't have WMDs, didn't turn out to have WMDs...
Actually there is some evidence that they had them and moved them out. Don't know how accurate it is. In any case, bad decision by us..
If you read the US Constitution, you'll see how it negates your statement, here at least. The people are explicitly entitled to take up arms against oppression by the very forces you say are entitled to arms. The people can't do that if they have zero access to arms.
It's such an outdated right. It was fine in 1776 but in 2006 the world is a little bit different. One of the big reasons that it still exists is because the NRA has such a huge amount of lobbying power.
-
And I continue to disagree. Why shouldn't we have the right now? Are things any different if an evil government takes over and refuses to give up power? How then are we supposed to change anything? As far as I'm concerned people put far too much faith in our shitty and completely useless political systems. I'm not saying I'm about to go take up arms against the government, but there might be a time when that would be the only *real* option left, other than the smoke and mirrors the politicians use to let you think you actually have a say in anything that goes on in this country.
And actually, they *did* find WMDs, and saying otherwise is a lie. No, they weren't nukes, but there was a pretty large selection of chemical weapons (sarin and mustard gases, etc.) which do qualify as WMDs. I think some of them were older, like from the 80s, but they said even the older ones were still harmful in a degraded state, and they could be traded or packaged into a different format with the same effect. Plus, most of the people involved insist that the Iraqi government did a horrible job keeping track of everything, and that they didn't keep good records of destroyed munitions. Most of them think there's still more out there.
-
Are things any different if an evil government takes over and refuses to give up power? How then are we supposed to change anything?
You mean like the Bush administration? ;)
That's the beauty of a democracy. We change things by vote, not by the barrel of a gun. Unless evil barbarians come to my town and start pillaging, or I join the military, I'm not ever going to need a gun. Half the time, people who own handguns misuse them anyways.
-
Well, again, I have no faith in our political systems, so the whole "oh, we'll just vote everything better!" is pretty much the saddest thing I've ever heard. What real differences are there between candidates these days anyway? I couldn't vote for anybody in good conscience last election. I never really liked Bush, but everyone else was equally if not more evil in their own ways, and this has been the trend for a good long while now.
-
New wrinkle:
North Korea is now saying that U.N. sanctions would be considered an act of war.
Haha that is darkly hilarious!
Anyway, the whole idea of average people bearing arms is a little outdated, and it is for exceptional circumstances. I mean you don't see people walking around with swords or knives anymore, and there's a reason (considering they are easier to acquire than guns). It's not everyday that the average person is waging a war against an oppressive gov't, or fending off an assault. In the event that the circumstances change and call for the people to defend themselves, only then is it legitimate for an averagre citizen to take up arms. If the matter involves an oppressive authority, as history has shown us the people will rebel and revolt, regardless of the availability of firearms. When the need arises they will fashion the necessary tools.
EDIT:
I like the idea of democracy, it sounds noble and just. Honestly though it really does feel like façade. Like it's just something to satiate the masses.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
-
It's such an outdated right. It was fine in 1776 but in 2006 the world is a little bit different. One of the big reasons that it still exists is because the NRA has such a huge amount of lobbying power.
I disagree, and will refer you to Que's posts on it. Democracy only works while the people in power subscribe to democratic ideals.
If it is outdated, the only way to get rid of it is via a constitutional convention, where 2/3rds of the states agree that it has to go. No politician, court or legislature has that power.
-
Its a precaution. Sure we can SAY we can vote people out...but what if they change that? They could all be in on it and say "Nope, no more elections." Its not likely to happen, but it could. Thats why we have the right to bear arms. *IF* things get so messed up that the only way to fix it is to fight, they made sure that it wasn't going to be a one sided battle.
Also, no ones ever going to start a ground war on the US since damn near everyone is armed. Thats why people saying mexico is going to try take back the southwest are full of it. That will never fly, and we dont need millitary intervention to make sure of it.
-
People say that Mexico is going to try to take back the Southwest? I've never heard that in my life. It sounds pretty comical.
-
Yeah, it's actually more of a long-term surreptitious invasion. We keep letting them in and hiring them to do low-paying jobs. They bring their whole families, and have more kids here. They don't integrate into American society, but stay fully Mexicans. Eventually, the SW of the USA will be a de facto part of Mexico, regardless of where the official borders are drawn. :)
-
It's the truth. Unless some drastic changes are made, that's pretty much what's going to happen. I for one am in favor of drastic changes, like telling Mexicans to piss off and go home. It's so easy to get into this country. We just let anyone in, even if there's no beneficial reason to do so. That's very nice of us, but our country is really turning into a lousy place to live. Our governmental programs are being abused by people who contribute absolutely nothing at all to the society in general. That really needs to stop. And it has nothing to do with racism or anything of the sort -- it has to do with the simple fact that the longer you import people who don't do anything for you but suck taxpayer money, the more chance you have of watching your longstanding systems go up in flames.
-
Sometimes you see videos of people filming all the contractors picking up mexicans outside of hardware stores to work for the day. These guys do nothing but berate the mexicans and call the contractors 'traitors'...now, if you were going to ask me who I'd pick to kick out the country do you think it'd be the guys wanting to work, or the guys sitting on their asses filming them?
Look, just because you think you deserve $20/hr to do something someone else can do just as well for $10 doesn't mean you're entitled to it.
-
I see what you're saying, and I don't think anyone can deny that Mexicans are willing to work. I mean landscaping and cooking are not glamourous or easy jobs, and they seem to be pretty reliable and do a good job as far as I am concerned.
I think people in the U.S. are not happy about the influx of Mexicans for other reasons though, some of which were mentioned. For instance, obviously other than the relatively small population of Native Americans, the United States is a country founded by immigrants. English, French, German, Polish, Irish, etc. Seems to me pretty much everyone learned how to speak English well enough to communicate with everyone else.
But recently, there has been a sharp, noticible trend of immigrants who speak Spanish but not English. Or very, very little English... like a few words. Why do we suddenly have multi-language menus and signs? Can these people not learn English as the Germans and French and Polish immigrants in the past did?
My ex-girlfriend Diana was of Russian descent. She lived in the Soviet Union until age 9. She didn't speak a lick of English when she arrived shortly after the USSR collapsed. Yet you would never know it by talking to her today. Her mom had to learn English at age 31. While she has a very noticible Russian accent, she has excellent grammar.
What makes these Spanish-speaking individuals so special that we have to pander to them especially when they aren't even legally entitled to be in our country?
-
Exactly. We don't have nearly enough jobs for everyone in this country. So the ones that are willing to work... the fuck do I care? They'll work for half the price because they can live in conditions like they did back where they came from -- sharing a single house with 20 other people. Most of us don't consider that reasonable, nor is that part of our culture. So to hear you say it, gpw, because they're willing to work for peanuts and live like pack animals, that means I should change and do the same? Fuck that. Why are they being pandered to when half of them DON'T work? And don't even try to tell me that's a stereotype. I work for the fucking government and I see it every day of my damned life. Of course plenty of them are willing to work, but there are an awful lot who aren't, and an awful lot who barge into my office expecting us to give them the world for free because they think that's what America is all about: being handed shit even though you did nothing to deserve it.
Fuck that. Fuck that six ways to Sunday.
-
we live in a worldwide economy now. we all need to get used to it. you want money, you fucking earn it.
i'm drunk though, so what do i know, apart from the fact that there are now more polish in my country than there are in warsaw. you don't want to work for minimum wage? - well someone else will.... (hence my decision to go back to university and do something worthwhile).
-
Sometimes you see videos of people filming all the contractors picking up mexicans outside of hardware stores to work for the day. These guys do nothing but berate the mexicans and call the contractors 'traitors'...now, if you were going to ask me who I'd pick to kick out the country do you think it'd be the guys wanting to work, or the guys sitting on their asses filming them?
Look, just because you think you deserve $20/hr to do something someone else can do just as well for $10 doesn't mean you're entitled to it.
This is exactly the reason that a large sector of our workforce is dependent on mexican labor. If all the illegals in this country suddenly vanished, the cost of construction in this country would dramatically increase. Now personally I have no problem with them working, but they need to pay taxes if they want to live in this country. Plain and simple.
-
We need a real study on that, though. Ok, so we drop kick illegals out (want to make that clear. I dont hate mexicans, just the illegals). Those jobs need to be filled by someone else. If its a legal resident of this country, they probably wont do it for next to nothing like the illegals. So they get a fair wage, and the prices on the goods that come out of it go up. Produce, contruction, whatever.
However, some things might go down. How about all that healthcare that isnt going out for free? Personally, I'd like to see hospitals that can stay open. Since the wages are on the up and up, there will be taxes coming in from the workers. Those legal residents can get off welfare and other assitance.
I wonder how it would balance out. And frankly, even if it didnt balance out completely...whats another 5 cents a pound for strawberries?
Heh, I thought that was funny when someone said the prices of strawberries would go up if we kicked out illegals. Hello? Not far from here there is a strawberry farm. Granted, they pay workers during the growing season to weed the fields. But come picking season theres nothing. People come out and pay extra to go out and pick it themselves. Honestly. Place is always packed.
*EDIT*
We went from NK with nukes to illegals. Love this forum.
-
Haha I haven't read this thread in a few days, and when I just looked in I was confused, I double-checked the title to make sure I'm in the right thread. I had to backtrack to see the origin of the discussion hehe :P
-
...I think people in the U.S. are not happy about the influx of Mexicans for other reasons though, some of which were mentioned. For instance, obviously other than the relatively small population of Native Americans, the United States is a country founded by immigrants. English, French, German, Polish, Irish, etc. Seems to me pretty much everyone learned how to speak English well enough to communicate with everyone else.
But recently, there has been a sharp, noticible trend of immigrants who speak Spanish but not English. Or very, very little English... like a few words. Why do we suddenly have multi-language menus and signs? Can these people not learn English as the Germans and French and Polish immigrants in the past did?
....
What makes these Spanish-speaking individuals so special that we have to pander to them especially when they aren't even legally entitled to be in our country?
It's pretty much a modern myth that immigrants now learn the language and the culture of North American countries slowly then they did a hundred years ago. You have to think that the major European migrations happened from countries with similar languages and cultures. Scotts, Irish, English, and the like. Those are a given. However, the next largest...the 'original' russian immigrants (WWI era), influx of asian immigrants (public works), and Italians didn't intigrate nearly as well. That's why in a lot of major cities you have Little Italy, China Town, or Little Odessa. When these people came over in mass numbers they settled together because of cultural and language differences with the current inhabitants. Hence, they didn't intigrate or pick up the language nearly as well as you might think.
Usually immigrants who do pick up the language well are second generation, highly educated, or arrive in times where there aren't a massive influx of their people (or just settle in alternate areas). Of course, there are exceptions, but really, the Mexicans today are no different then the Asians 100 years ago.
As for why companies and even governments pander to them, that's all about the marketing dollars. It's a large portion of the population, so you're going to try to cater to them a bit. Most of the bank machines and such here have like 6 language options, and everything that is remotely similar to a menu or instruction has to be in at least English and French (speaking of people who never intigrated). Besides, there's really nothing wrong with a little multiculturalism.
As for Que's post, it's hard to tell if you're talking about immigrants or illegal immigrants. Eitherway, that is pretty much what america is about....an attitude of entitlement. As for the lack of jobs in america, a lot of that stems from said attitude. Just because you were born in america and you got your GED doesn't mean you have the right to earn 40,000 a year. You either have to be intelligent, hard working, lucky, or a combination. As for immigrants undercutting, while that is a general concern when it comes to illegal, it doesn't change the fact that it's the way the world works. In almost every real world job interview you walk into they ask you your desired salary. The guy who's the most qualified and undercuts the others is the guy that gets the job. Every time any type of contract is handed out it's usually to the company that offers the best work for the lowert price or whatever the ideal equilibrium is for whatever the contract refers to. It's just the way the world works. Yeah, it's unfair that there are illegal immigrants out there that do this, just as it's unfair that they skip line into the country, but you can't blame the contractors...they're just buisnessmen, and quite frankly, at least they're contributing something more to society then those who do nothing but run around filming them.
As for you changing and 'living like a pack rat', I have no idea where you got that from, but looking at it from a realist perspective - if you find yourself in a position where that could happen and you wish to stay competitive maybe you should. Life is all about choices, if you find yourself in a position where you have to make that choice then that sucks, but lowering your standard of living (or doing something proactive like finding another field of work) might be a wiser one then just not having any work at all and sitting around drinking all day and bitching about it.
As for Idol's post, he's pretty much right...there is no real study. It'd be an interesting one, but if I was to wager on it I'd bet that it wouldn't even out at all. Usually the majority cost of construction is labour, and that would probably skyrocket. That gets passed on to the subcontractor, to the contractor, to the owner, to whoever hires them (or in lost buisness for whatever they don't buy to make up for it), finally to major industry and then to the consumer. No one is going to absorb 100% or even a large portion of the price rise themselves, it'll be broken down a bit for everyone.
As said before, however, that in itself may help itself balance out a bit by a loss of services. Really, who knows...it's one of those things that's pointless to argue about because really even economists are just relying on pure theory when they discuss it and there's no real world data really to back it up.
Look, I'm not a supporter of illegal immigrants by any means and I personally woulnd't have any real objection to expelling them on a theoretical level...however, they do play a scapegoat role in our society. I also can't help but notice that a lot of people tend to be bitching about immigrants in general when the topic comes up and I find it somewhat amusing. My original post on the subject wasn't so much in the support of illegals as it was making fun of people criticizing them for stealing jobs when a lot of the time these people are total fucking deadbeats...with an attitude of entitlement.
-
Exactly. We don't have nearly enough jobs for everyone in this country. So the ones that are willing to work... the fuck do I care? They'll work for half the price because they can live in conditions like they did back where they came from -- sharing a single house with 20 other people. Most of us don't consider that reasonable, nor is that part of our culture. So to hear you say it, gpw, because they're willing to work for peanuts and live like pack animals, that means I should change and do the same? Fuck that. Why are they being pandered to when half of them DON'T work? And don't even try to tell me that's a stereotype. I work for the fucking government and I see it every day of my damned life. Of course plenty of them are willing to work, but there are an awful lot who aren't, and an awful lot who barge into my office expecting us to give them the world for free because they think that's what America is all about: being handed shit even though you did nothing to deserve it.
Fuck that. Fuck that six ways to Sunday.
Oh, man, perfect! That is what I wish I could have articulated before, even before this thread; but words, or something else, failed me. We have a culture and a standard of living, and for someone to come in from the outside and suddenly say "oh, too bad, you have to lower yourselves to third-world poverty and abuse" is intolerable bullshit. "Global economy" my ass. What would the globe do with half of its production of anything unnecessary, if we suddenly said "fuck you, we ain't buying it". Would it hurt so much for construction and stereos to double in price? (Bear in mind that the prices of real estate have little to do with construction costs.) If that's what it would take for Americans to keep their culture and standard of living, I'm all for it. Bring back the old General Motors, and let the Germans buy BMWs.
And yes, let consoles go ahead and double in price too. They'd sell much more poorly, and those prices wouldn't stay so high for long.
-
General Motors? You want to buy a new car every 2 years?
-
;D No! I'm saying I'd put up with the ills of mid-20th-century America to get back its benefits.
Somehow, I missed your last post. Well thought out, as usual. I'm sure Que was referring to the flood of illegal immigrants, people who really don't belong here, as opposed to people bigots say don't belong here. I am Latin American of mostly Spanish descent. (Like the rest of the New World, the population of Latin America is heterogeneous.) My native language is Spanish, and I can converse in it whenever. But we need one language that applies to every citizen, or we'd have a tower of Babel here. In America, that language just happens to be English. It might have been French, Swedish or Swahili in some alternate reality, but it is what it is. It is the duty of everyone who wants to do business in America, even be guaranteed successful grocery shopping, to learn English. I have no sympathy for people who have been here for many years who still can't function without interpreters. I'll go even further. It's downright rude to speak anything but English in mixed company. That would be no different from whispering in each other's ears, while excluding one or more people in the group.
If the society is going to work, it needs . . . [major interruption]
Edit: I had to either lose what I had written, or hit the "post" button. What was I saying? I kind of lost my train of thought. Anyway, I think it was something like, if it's going to work, it needs some rules and structure. These have to survive the constant bullshit challenges on civil-rights grounds. Knowing the language is a small price to pay to be here. I wouldn't move to France without studying French, and then expect the country to translate all its signs to Spanish.
Que said "pack animals", not "pack rats". A pack rat hoards stuff. A mule is a pack animal. I agree with him. Living like pack animals is not acceptable to people born and raised here. To be forced to compete with people who are living like them is entirely unfair to our society and way of life. Any elected government should be acutely aware of this, and should take whatever measures work to preserve the American way of life. I'm sure these measures would get some ugly labels from different quarters--protectionism, xenophobia, Naziism, the potential for creative demagoguery is endless. I don't care. We protect ourselves and our resources fiercely in other ways. Why is the quality of life of Americans any less important?
Let me tell you, I used to be an Adam Smith dead-hand fiscal ultra-conservative myself. That's easy to do when you have a silver spoon in your mouth. Experiencing true hardship and poverty will open anyone's eyes. A completely unregulated economy may or may not work for the general populace, depending on conditions at the time. In the 60s, it was fine. Now, the money has once again gotten sucked to the top, with a lot of work going either overseas or to illegal immigrants, all made possible by the complete lack of social conscience built into our economic model. This is what has to change. The government can and should impose such a conscience, and make it the same across the board for anyone doing business here. (From a "global economy" perspective, you don't have to do business here; but if you do, here are the rules which apply to all . . .) No, I don't have all the answers. That's not the same as saying that I believe there are none.
[Slight edit for clarity in the pack-animals paragraph]
-
As if on cue, I got spammed with this in a FW email from my mother. (She spams a lot.)
Written in response to a series of letters to the Editor in the Orange County Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue o f Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr..Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a Pledge to uphold the laws and support their new Country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.
Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German
Americ an or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign Country flags. And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed) Rosemary LaBonte
Corny perhaps, but I share the sentiments.
-
I'd second that, and it proves the point that it isn't race or background that matters, it's attitude. Cobra probably better clarified what I was trying to say with his post that followed mine. It's not that I don't think people should be allowed here, it's not that I'm some horrible person who hates people of a different background than my own, it's just... well, everything that was already stated. There isn't much I can add, and I think my beliefs are pretty much covered between Cobra's posts and my own. I may not be the most upstanding citizen to ever live in this country, but I work damned hard for what I have, and anybody that thinks it's acceptable to tell hard-working, honest people to roll over for those who don't give a shit about this country (except when it comes to the line at the welfare office)... forget it. It's never going to happen. You can't make any arguments that will change the imbalances there, and if we continue down this path much longer, the country is going to collapse under it.
-
Back to the original topic...
The U.N. approved sanctions against North Korea and North Korea has interpereted them as a declaration of war.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/17/nkorea.sanctions/index.html
-
haha.. What the heck does Korea want?
UN: We don't want to trade with you, nor give you free stuff like food and medicine.
Korea: WHAT? You dare not give us free shit! You dare not buy our crap!! THIS MEANS WAR!
-
One thing I thought was funny is that I have heard that N. Korea has said they will fire a nuclear missile at the United States, but last I checked they don't have a missle that can reach that far nor have even developed a true nuclear warhead that could go in a missile anyway.
"We will shoot a nuclear missile at you in five to ten years!"
-
N.Korea: We will fire a nuke at you!!!
USA: Fine.
N.Korea: Ummm... give us a minute.
-
Nothing would please me more than to see them try that. That suicide would benefit the world greatly.
-
Yeah, we certainly wont pick that shit up on radar 2 seconds after its launched and have it shot down well before it reaches the US.
Oh, and paybacks gonna be a bitch.
-
Actually, I think that our missile defense system is pretty bad at this point. Good thing that nobody who would want to fire at us has a missile that can reach us.