The world famous unmoderated thread

Well i have the cash going to my bank account minus ebay fee's which were due. I will mostly likely be getting a table-top and legs from ikea to use as a desk for my PC stuff.

 

Reagan was a good president ? I beg to differ.

http://i.imgur.com/qFf4k.jpg

 

Actually they just try to cut off 'tourist' who visit coffee shops that are near the border, because those 'tourists' buy in bulk and go straight back to their own country. And they cause quite some trouble.

You dont have to worry for the coffeeshops in Amsterdam (etc.), they will keep their doors open for tourists.

 

nice post WDK, honestly

 

I know, not every post I make is a joke. Cause even I can be very serious. And Reagan was NOT a good president at all.

 

removed

 

The killer bacteria has got me...some 29 years ago...:-(

 

Cyantist: a top three shitlist of bad people in power I can not give you. But I can give you three, that should be included on that list. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Ronald Reagan, and Bush (you can choose between the two. Hell you can put them both on if you want to). My personal gripe with Obama, is not the good he has done, but the bad stuff he as done. Such as extending the patriot act, making it a mandatory three months felony (in prison)of being in possession or marijuana , trying to make it a felony (prison time) of sharing files, or has he already succeeded in that ? I could probably mention other bad stuff, but these are on top of my head. And I must add, I am a democrat in American eyes.

 

The best thing about all the other countries is that you guys will never have a MEXICAN president.

We had one who gave away 60% of our territory and then had a funeral for his leg, then made up a tax for having windows in your house - so he could finance his luxury lifestyle.

We had one stay over 40 years, and prolong medieval-level exploitation conditions on farm workers, while importing french-style luxury, and he's considered one of the best ever.

We had presidents who lent themselves money from government-owned banks, before their people knowing of planned devaluations or privatisation. Then, they bailed out the banks with the people's money. And this was like 20 years ago.

Also, presidents who took everybody's bank-saved dollars and traded them into "investment units" - then transferred everything to their and their friend's bank accounts, and then devaluated the peso to ultra-inflate their fortunes. This is how my father lost all of his savings. Then with the 1994 devaluation, he lost what little riches he had left. All so fucking politicians could live in luxury.

We had a president give the order to kill 3000 students to protect Mexico's "image" before the 1968 olympics. And the secretary of state who executed the order became the NEXT president.

We have never, EVER, had a valid election... only once in 2000, and even then, the president of the ruling party CONCEDED before having 5% of the votes counted!

(And this, not counting that the first president we ever had declared himself holy emperor. I shit you not.)

So yeah.

Thank your lucky stars that you will never have MEXICAN politicians.

 

I wouldn't even bother debating with people like that, the end effect is their only conclusion is 'its me vs them', and their views become even further entrenched. Ignore them in discourse, and they'll become isolated. Its a pity that the general public to one degree or another aren't able to objectively discuss something.

------

Probably going to be controversial this: I find it interesting that charity to starving Africans is universally seen as a good thing. There are reasons why many Africans are starving - poor governance, racial divides, unsuitable farming practices etc - but there is the fact the carrying capacity of the land is currently far outstripped. In nature organisms die until the carrying capacity and population balance. Here though populations are maintained and the carrying capacity is temporarily and artificially inflated by bringing in outside supplies. These supplies are intermittent, but still allow the population to stabilise above the natural carrying capacity. Due to a lack of contraception and education the cycle continues and a proportion of the population are partly or wholly dependent on charity. This puts both a strain on charities, and the land itself – it usually degrades at proportionally an even faster rate as the amount of degraded land accumulates.


It would be interesting to compare how many lives have been permanently saved from starvation vs the amount of deaths caused by starvation by an unreliable food source like aid. There are also the deaths caused by other factors linked to it - fighting over supplies, race conflict due to jealousy at one having more supplies than another group etc.


I know the above may make me sound like a bastard, but I think it is better to take an objective view towards issues such as these without the short termed human empathy response. Ie look at how many lives does it save vs deaths caused, and how sustainable is the intervention? Unfortunately charities won't adopt such a view, being funded (donations of cash and volunteered work) by the milk of human kindness.


Does anyone think I'm right/wrong? I don't get to discuss this often, as either people don't want to talk about it ('too distressing', which is even worse than giving to charity without looking at the consequences) or don't have an answer that doesn't amount to 'I'd be a bad human being if I took your view'.


I'd sum that last sentence up with a handy quote from George Orwell: "Within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss".

 

oli_lar: I know this sounds extremely evil and cruel but a Danish man said about what you just mentioned about the starving parts of Africa. That "we" need people in Africa to "die", so we can survive, and "they" do not become a problem and "over populates the world", sadly, I can not remember the Danes name, but if you want a thorough explanation. Then I can ask my father how exactly the guy said, and his name. Cause right now I could be very wrong with my very crude version of what that man said. And no the Danish man was neither a racist or a Nazi. But I will ask my father what exactly that guy said back in the day. But if you ask me, I think it is a bunch of bullshit. Cause Africa could sustain themselves and make them a super power, among other things. So the "feed the hungry donation" happenings every year. Is actually keeping the African people "down". So my answer is actually the idea is basically good , but on the flipside it is bad too.

 

Well, they should also thank they don't have a Uruguayan president....
This is what we have to put up to every day:



And before you go saying he's just an innocent looking old man, let me stop you right there.
This man used to be a part of the Tupamaro movement. An armed movement aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected government, that threw the country to the verge of civil war. A process that ended up in a dictatorship after a Coup D'Etat.

These people would abduct, murder and torture others who had money or even a certain amount of power (however slight it was). I know a story of an owner of a bakery shop who was abducted and later murdered because he refused to let Tupamaros store weapons and bombs in his bakery.

So yeah, give thanks for not having this president.

Ever since Mujica is the president, I say that MY president is Silvio Berlusconi. It's less shameful. Imagine that

 

My bastard prime minister got rid of EMA just as I was going into sixth form







Im kidding. Other presidents get alot of shit for inaction but christ, atleast we don't have it as bad as people in Mexico or Uryguay

 

Uruguay recently legalised the growing of marijuana for personal consumption. Whatever else goes on there, I wholeheartedly support that. If you want to fight organised crime, let people grow their own.

I don't even smoke weed any more, but I wish our government would see the sense in letting our populace do the same.

 

This, this this this.

This would help make Mexico a lot less like the hellhole it is right now.

 

Do you really think marijuana is the main issue in Mexico?

 

The sooner the US government (and then no doubt UK and other countries) begin to move to other places to over throw dictators instead of only going where their is oil (Granted Afghanistan had some serious problems that whether they went there for Oil or not they have undertaken and begin to get rid of the taliban.) the better.

 

Well then, great strategist you, give us some propositions.

 

Nope, far from it.

But the idea of legalisation would mean that our government would stop bending-over-backwards to the narco-financed "moral" objections of the Church and Right Wing forces of narcobusiness and stuff.

Also, it would be a nice start to fuck up the drug dealers' business.

 

I can't give you propositions because It won't happen until there is an incentive. This is a dream situation. Not a realistic one.