Alright, I knew about the no-fly list, which was a stupid and idiotic idea in the first place, since there's no way to find out if you are on it, and if you are on it and you try to fly, you get arrested. Bang, just like that. But now I find out that the U.S. Treasury Department has a list of "Person's Denied Commerce". (Note the apostrophe on the end of "persons") That is just wrong. It is sick and disgusting. Why? Because it inherently denies people on said list food, shelter, clothing, and a job. All those things require money and business. You can't legally get food without buying it. You can't legally get a house without buying it or renting it. You can't legally get clothing without buying it. I'm hating U.S. and Canadian politics more and more with every second. I'd give them a piece of my mind, but I'm pretty sure swearing is not allowed.
Well, personally, I do not care for politics in North America. Some countries are healing though, like Chile, Argentina and some (I said some, not many) African countries (also, more South American countries).
Still though, almost every country has problems... However, to North American politics and government, I say 0896812908029623459726520348967360345795479112352354 politics...
Have a nice day.
:MercurySet:
This post has been edited by Salanewt on Jun 22 2009, 06:15 PM
It's not just those two. The whole "Progressive Movement" has been screwing us over since Woodrow Wilson. Hell, FDR was a disaster for us, turning a great recession into a great depression.
However, the biggest problem? Instead of running the country, everyone's pushing an agenda. This has weakened america to the point that I firmly believe we're gonna suffer from a catastrophic failure. We've been rigging ourselves to be rolling freaking 1's for a while now, it's time to face the critical failure that results.
Oh no, I never said that it was just these two countries. However, despite there being problems now, these problems will hopefully teach us to learn from these horrible mistakes in the future. At least we do not have governments like in some of the third world countries.
Have a nice day.
:MercurySet:
In my opinion, the term "third world" is somewhat racist, and I avoid using it at all costs. Not that I dislike you for using it or anything, though. It's not nice to judge someone based on their political opinion.
The U.S. is far too scared of other people having nuclear weapons, especially considering the fact that they have more than anyone. Seriously though, in the terms of use for iTunes, they make you agree that you will not use the software to produce nuclear weapons! How could you possibly use iTunes to make nuclear weapons anyways??? It doesn't make any sense to me...
QuoteThe U.S. is far too scared of other people having nuclear weapons, especially considering the fact that they have more than anyone. Seriously though, in the terms of use for iTunes, they make you agree that you will not use the software to produce nuclear weapons! How could you possibly use iTunes to make nuclear weapons anyways??? It doesn't make any sense to me...
Well, this fear of other countries having nuclear power is one of the factors that made the Cold War last for a long time. Of course, it did not help that Democracy and Communism were enemies, but many things happened during the War.
Also, if you would not expect people to be able to make nuclear weapons with iTunes, then why do they tell you not to? If someone found out after buying the product, then they could make nuclear weapons, instead of not being told and not finding out. Still though, what could possibly be in the product that could be used for nuclear purposes in the first place? Also, more people by the product than make it, so wouldn't it be better (and probably easier) to get the makers to agree not to use dangerous materials in their products?
Besides... Good things have come from Nuclear energy, as well as bad (even though I prefer wind and solar energy). The Cobalt Bomb to treat Cancer, as well as many other types of radiations to treat other diseases (mostly cancers I think)...
Have a nice day.
:MercurySet:
Quote from: JamietheFlameUser on 28, June, 2009, 02:12:00 PMIn my opinion, the term "third world" is somewhat racist, and I avoid using it at all costs. Not that I dislike you for using it or anything, though. It's not nice to judge someone based on their political opinion.
The U.S. is far too scared of other people having nuclear weapons, especially considering the fact that they have more than anyone. Seriously though, in the terms of use for iTunes, they make you agree that you will not use the software to produce nuclear weapons! How could you possibly use iTunes to make nuclear weapons anyways??? It doesn't make any sense to me...
Okay then. The Undeveloped World. Oh, wait, but that sounds even more insulting...
...That makes me wonder... If developed countries are First World, and Undeveloped ones are Third World... what the hell is Second World?
Anywho, it's less being scared of them having nukes, as it is their willingness to use them DESPITE Mutually Assured Destruction. Basically, when everyone has nukes, war means everyone dies. We don't like that idea very much. So we're pretty much saying "Okay... let's... kinda... NOT have these, okay guys?"
Why don't we get rid of ours? We can't guarantee that the other dudes that have them will destroy them as well... And the thread of MAD is a very very scary one.
North Korea and Iran don't care about MAD, though. They'll use it even though it means everyone dies.
THAT is why people getting Nukes is a bad thing, boya. Try thinking about it.
So the U.S. is using their Nukes to scare everyone else into not getting them. Makes sense, but that doesn't make it right... The U.S. shouldn't have Nukes either. Also, why are we badmouthing Iran and North Korea? Is there even any proof that they have Nukes? That's just what Bush said, and we have no real reason to trust him. Not that I'm saying that what he said is false, mind you, just that we don't have any reason to think that it's true.
Good point about Second World though... Kinda like 3rd person video games and 1st person. Would 2nd person be the point of view of the guy getting shot?
Well, I am sure that if it were not for Hitler's Germany, as well as WWII, then I am sure that if we were to have nuclear power, it would either not be as advanced, or we would already have had a nuclear war. Still though, as long as the nuclear weapons are not being used, then everything should be okay for a bit longer. Still though, for the past 65 years (approximately 65, not exactly), a nuclear war has been feared.
I think Second World, if it were to exist, would be poor developed countries.
I wonder... I was once or twice given a description of what a nuclear bomb can do (more specificalloy, what the bomb did that was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). If I remember, then I will type up how strong it is the closer you get to it. I know that right near the middle, it is instant death. The farther away you are, the longer it is before death, but it is very painful before you get to that stage. The radiation can literally make you rot, which is why this nuclear stuff is scary.
I was also told of all of the countries with nuclear bombs (not very many, but there were still a few). I think France is one of them... If I recall correctly, during the Cold War, both the United States and the U.S.S.R (Russia) had developed enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times in a row. If the world is lucky, then the world will not suffer through a nuclear war. In fact, at one point, the U.S.S.R set up nuclear weapons in Cuba, but that was long ago now.
Anyway, before I talk too much about this, have a nice day.
:MercurySet:
Quote from: JamietheFlameUser on 29, June, 2009, 10:49:00 PMSo the U.S. is using their Nukes to scare everyone else into not getting them. Makes sense, but that doesn't make it right... The U.S. shouldn't have Nukes either. Also, why are we badmouthing Iran and North Korea? Is there even any proof that they have Nukes? That's just what Bush said, and we have no real reason to trust him. Not that I'm saying that what he said is false, mind you, just that we don't have any reason to think that it's true.
Good point about Second World though... Kinda like 3rd person video games and 1st person. Would 2nd person be the point of view of the guy getting shot?
...Do you even WATCH the news? They've been doing nuclear testing. Hell, NK was testing their missile systems on July 4th, just as they most likely were the ones responsible for the hacking attacks on the US and South Korea on the same day. You've gotta be freaking blind (or watching MSNBC) to not see this!
Sure, if the world was a nice peachy place where everyone was happy and got along, there'd be no need to have nukes. But guess what? Real Life doesn't work that way. There's always gonna be an a**hole in power that wants to destroy another country for some random stupid reason. If that country doesn't have the means to intimidate or defend itself, it's pretty much f***ed. And the international community? They're a joke. The most they'll say is: "We don't approve. We'd prefer it if you didn't do that..." But they'll never actually ACT on anything. Rowanda? Genocide happened anyways. North Korea? They gave the UN the finger, continued weapons development, and the UN just sat there and bawww'd about it.
Now then, I don't believe they have nukes because bush said so. I believe it because the scientific data suggests they do, and have been testing them underground. Readings of the seismic activity generated by their tests suggests they've got the power now to match Hiroshima. Bush? He couldn't know what the hell a seismograph is, let alone be able to read one. I trust the data more than I trust some random guy. That goes for Epic Fail Obama too. I don't trust one man's word more than I can throw them, but I'll trust hard data any day.
This post has been edited by Role on Jul 11 2009, 06:46 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World)
The meaning of first- and third-world now is different than it originally was, though the divides are still roughly the same.
As for the question of nuclear weapons, I believe Einstein said it best: "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." When a bunch of angry old men have the power to destroy the world, the end result is obvious. It's less a matter of "if" and more a matter of "when."
Well said, twocows. And thanks for the intel about Second World. That whole new meaning thing explains why I've never heard of it.
Quote from: twocows on 23, July, 2009, 03:17:00 PMAs for the question of nuclear weapons, I believe Einstein said it best: "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." When a bunch of angry old men have the power to destroy the world, the end result is obvious. It's less a matter of "if" and more a matter of "when."
That is an awesome quote, Twocows.
I'm personally not worried, mainly because of my happy-go-lucky opinion on whatever happens (I mean, what the heck are you supposed to do if deadly amounts of radiation leak into the atmosphere, enough to kill off all life?)
The human race is a destructive one, that's for certain. But, maybe like the Cold War, the countries will not destroy each other simply out of fear of the destruction of the world.
Quote from: Charon on 23, July, 2009, 04:52:00 PMThat is an awesome quote, Twocows.
I'm personally not worried, mainly because of my happy-go-lucky opinion on whatever happens (I mean, what the heck are you supposed to do if deadly amounts of radiation leak into the atmosphere, enough to kill off all life?)
The human race is a destructive one, that's for certain. But, maybe like the Cold War, the countries will not destroy each other simply out of fear of the destruction of the world.
We ARE the most suicidal species on the face of the planet. We have a reputation to uphold, after all. Perhaps making OURSELVES go extinct would pretty much permanently put ourselves at #1 suicidal race of all time. I doubt any species would be able to beat us in earth's future if we pull that off...
Lemmings own us in suicidal rates
Many people definitely get to aggressive, and end up destroying themselves. It's sad. Maybe that's why I'm docile, because I prefer not to fight. In a life or death situation, however, I think that I would follow the aggressive mentality, and maybe because of that people are more destructive than others, due to having to deal with such situations more than me. Possibly though evolution, we lost the need to kill animals to defend ourselves, but due to our inheritly aggressive behaviour we picked fights with ourselves.
I meant as a species. We're so eager to kill each other over petty things that AS A SPECIES, the human race is the most suicidal.
Well, I kind of implied that :\
We fight because we don't need to fight for survival, so we fight over more petty things.
Quote from: Charon on 23, July, 2009, 08:10:00 PMWell, I kind of implied that :\
We fight because we don't need to fight for survival, so we fight over more petty things.
And in the end, as a species, it means we're pretty much f***ed.
Okay i know alot of you are from America so i aint gonna hate on it but its true that they scare other people from developing Nukes while try and cover up there miltery force (area 51 anyone?)
A few years back they made loads of the big countries to sign a petition to drop all there development programs however they never... so of course the world is afraid, America and there atom bomb proved that they just don't deal out empty vibes
However they way things are going its China we will all will have to look out for... they have the most populated army in the world at the minute and growing...
QUOTE (Charon @ Jul 23 2009, 07:10 PM)
Well, I kind of implied that :\
We fight because we don't need to fight for survival, so we fight over more petty things.
America is in the war for the oil and the money they make of the war economy (selling weapons) and more importantly to test there new gear
This post has been edited by MaxiPower on Jul 27 2009, 01:31 PM
Pretty much. Oh well. Anyway, I still do not really understand why people are being sent to countries, even for those reasons. Why not just try to settle a peaceful negotiation? Then again, it could be more difficult doing that, especially for some countries. Anyway, as long as Canada does not change the way things are (military participation), then I am happy, since I will never HAVE to go.
Anyway, have a nice day.
:MercurySet: :MercuryDjinni:
China won't attack the US, at the very least. Half of their economy stems from ripping us off. You don't attack your primary source of income unless you're the RIAA.
As for Canada being neutral, while that may be true, if the US gets nuked, the fallout will easily spread across the Canadian border. I'm all for neutrality (I'd love to move to Canada someday), but that doesn't mean you're any safer than anyone else.
This post has been edited by twocows on Aug 9 2009, 12:00 PM
Maxi... you think we're the only ones? You must be freaking blind. Also, how are we in the war for the economy? The war put us 1 TRILLION in dept! It helped Obama get elected, who QUADRUPLED that debt in 6 Months!
HOW THE HELL do you spend 3 trillion in half a year?! It took Bush, who was fail enough, 8 YEARS to get us 1 trillion in the hole...
So war for gains in the economy? Look at the FACTS, boya. That's a blatant lie. One cannot gain economic wealth from war.
China is not a threat, not militarily, at least. Economically? Hell yes, they pretty much own our economy. But Militarily? Pfft. Yeah, riiiight. That goes against their own wishes. I mean, look at us. We're China's cash cow. North Korea and Iran, on the other hand, don't freaking care. They just want to blow up America (and with Iran, they wanna nuke Israel, too). They don't care about the concept of MAD. They just want to kill.
Canada? You ain't neutral. If we go down, you'll be dragged in this mess, I can guarantee it. You and Mexico, since you share borders, will suddenly find yourselves with a crapload of refugees and missiles coming to kill them. You're fates are tied to ours whether you like it or not. And guess what? I speak in pretty much all terms here. Economically, you'll take a hit too. And don't get me STARTED with healthcare.... after all, y'all come here when you have an emergency. If our healthcare suddenly looks like yours? Have fun with your cancer, because you're gonna DIE.
I firmly believe that here in the US, we're screwed. We're being attacked from so many different kinds of fronts, even from several within ourselves, that there's no way in hell we're not gonna collapse. I PRAY TO GOD that this isn't the case, but my money is on the US collapsing.
QuoteAs for Canada being neutral, while that may be true, if the US gets nuked, the fallout will easily spread across the Canadian border. I'm all for neutrality (I'd love to move to Canada someday), but that doesn't mean you're any safer than anyone else.
I agree. If the United States is affected, then we will most likely be affected as well. I am just saying that I would do everything in my power to avoid participating in it (like moving to Antarctica, or maybe even going in a cave for a few years).
QuoteCanada? You ain't neutral. If we go down, you'll be dragged in this mess, I can guarantee it.
Just because we might be damaged as well does not mean that we are not neutral. As long as we are not damaged ourselves, then we would probably not try to participate in too many wars (unless with peace keeping missions). Besides, history retells itself. We only joined WW2 because we were attacked. If it were not for the attack, then we would not have participated as early as we did.
QuoteAnd don't get me STARTED with healthcare.... after all, y'all come here when you have an emergency. If our healthcare suddenly looks like yours? Have fun with your cancer, because you're gonna DIE.
We do? I know that for some countries, health care would not work... Look at the population differences. Your New York is almost equal (probably greater) than the population of Canada. It works for us, but it might not work for you (if there are people who go to the United States, that is because they do not want to wait). Technically, Canadian citizens get the attention that they require if they need it (if someone has cancer, then they can get it look at and hopefully cured before it is too late). Besides, I only had to wait for about an hour when I broke my leg, free of charge, so that is fine for me.
As for Mexico, it makes sense for people to go there, but I think it would be more likely to go to Canada (at least with the current H1N1 virus). I know that it is not as serious, but it is only more dangerous because there are currently only new versions of the shots that have hardly been tested.
Anyway, in my opinion, unless there is a war, fewer people would want to attack Canada (not trying to be offensive)...
QuoteI firmly believe that here in the US, we're screwed.
Have a nice day.
:MercurySet: :MercuryDjinni:
War is disgusting. I think nuclear weapons is EXTREMELY selfish.
If you want to kill yourself, go ahead but don't drag everyone else down with you.
Innocent people shouldn't have to die, we're all entitled to live equally and since when
does someone get to choose when someone else dies? On what authority?
That's what makes us human, war. War is all we know.
War makes me so mad.