1. The US had a series of wars with the American Indians, some of the tribes worked with the US and settled in easily with autonomy (Mandan and Crow are two ease examples) some didn't. It wasn't exploitation.
2. The bulk of American settlers in the 18th and early 19th centuries were English, Irish, Scottish and German. If you look at central and south America you'll note a lack of Irish, Scottish, Dutch and Germany settlement and only one English colony where Belize now is.
4. Manifest Destiny was an philosophy put out there by a newspaper, yes the United States filled the power vacuum that existed in North America, but that has nothing to do with the poverty in Mexico (a rich country) today. By the 1840s the two powers in the west were Mexico (ruled by whites of Spanish descent) and the United States, there was a war and the US got half of Mexico, but that isn't the cause of Mexico's poor classes now.
Hawaii became a state because at the end of the colonial rush by the European powers it was either the US took it or Japan, Britain or Germany would. Seeing how the Germans and Japanese treated minorities during WW2 it's pretty fortuitous that the US gobbled Hawaii up.
Look at the US settlement with the Alaska natives as a great example of how non-exploitive the US is with the indigenous populations during the 20th century. In Central America the government would move the natives or attack them for resources, the US gives them money, land and corporations.
Well since I studied the conquest of central america and the American Indian Wars let me stop you right there.
1. The united states declared independence in 1776 and the United States was formed in 1787 with the ratification of the Constitution. So its not possible to have 400 years of economic warfare between anyone and the United States.
2. Central America was conquered and exploited by the European powers, mainly Spain starting 500 years ago with Britain and France as minor players, although the role of the French increased in the 1860s.
3. Mexico's natural resources are fully in control of Mexico with their oil and mining companies being fully Mexican owned.
4. It was the European powers, not the United States who exploited central and south america for natural resources and cheap labor. Today the United States exports jobs to Mexico and central america, not sure how good paying jobs by American companies is exploitation.
Yes lets have corporate mandated morality to save money for companies that already make profits.
Affidavits for cell phone use, tv viewing, drinking, caffeine, Tylenol, pumping gas, free radicals, red meat, drinking from plastic containers, smog in the air, exposure to sunlight, time around swimming pools, unprotected sex, amount of time on the highway or granite counter tops.
We already have the guns, bureaucracy isn't really all that important when you are defending your own country, how is that hard to wrap one's head around?
The drug cartels come across the border, sometimes using Mexican Army as protection, it doesn't take an inter-agency task force to decide to take them into custody or open up on their SUVs with a chain gun.
As for money, I didn't say it wouldn't cost more money, but it could come out of training and law enforcement budgets.
No more bureaucracy to enforce the laws the United States already has. No more guns either, military units in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California could defend the border just fine even with deployments to the GWoT.
1st Cavalry and the Armored Cavalry regiments were formed and remained in the pre-WW 1 and inter-war years just to hold the border.
Well, I live here and I've had extensive ties to the pot culture for the last 25 years, so when I say "its decriminalized for personal use" it's decriminalized for personal use compared to 1995, 1990, 1985.
I've carried a medical marijuana card, I live in a state where I can have an ounce (28 g), and 25 plants.
Do I want the prohibition against meth to continue? Yes. Organized crime? The damned border between the US and Mexico needs to be militarized and that will deal with the organized crime aspect of meth. Meth in the US mostly is still a small time production industry, the only "organized crime" involvement is with the Narco Terrorists and cartels.
Pot is decriminalizing and production of it is spreading while the price isn't dropping per pound over say, 1990, so why would meth all of a sudden get cooked in labs by chem majors?
Oh right, alot of the people who cook meth have chemistry backgrounds and addictions to meth.
In some parts of the United States there are healthy illegal spirits cultures, you might have heard of moonshine? Home brewing beer is big here in the US as well.
Meth is different than most drugs, the bulk of meth producers are also addicts who sell to make a living, in my experience pot growers are making a living and use on the side recreationally, meth really doesn't have a "recreational" side with an addict, they cook, they use, things fall apart and they sell some.
There is evidence to show no one was killed at the Boston Tea Party in a lack of court filings and court cases, public discussion of the Tea Party and the debate over it. Boston has complete court records going back that far and celebrity court cases like the Boston Massacre trial are on the record.
So where is your evidence that someone died at the Boston Tea Party?
Murder, violent crimes, health issues, environmental damage, destroyed families, etc. For a pound of meth there are between 5 and 10 pounds of environmentally toxic chemicals produced. A house that's been used to to cook meth has to be destroyed by a hazmat crew and taken to a toxic waste dumping site.
Treating meth is harder, much harder than treating cocaine or crack, the addiction cycle is harder to break and many of the drugs used in fighting the addiction are addictive themselves.
Opening a treatment center isn't a magical fix.
Decriminalize it or legalize it and there'll be more people cooking in their garage, more explosions, more destroyed families.
I just spent 14 years one of the meth capitals of the US so I might be biased against the crap.
For Meth? Yes. Zero tolerance for dealers and producers.
Meth addicts don't act like "reasonable people" with health problems. Decriminalize meth, make it legal and the social problems will be two-three times worse than they are with it criminalized.
Actually, go read the majority decision of DC v Heller, pistols, rifles, shotguns are arms, military weapons and explosives are not arms a militia would keep in this case.
Thousands of people in this country would jump at a chance to do assembly line work.
As for the line that "we need to import immigrants to do things like yardwork", thats just the line pro-immigrant-explotation people spew. Yards were cleaned and grass was clipped before everything went to illegal and migrant labor in the 1990s. I should know, I worked yard crew in college, about the time the immigration laws stopped being enforced the illegals who would work hard and cheaper put us all out of business.
This isn't Apple's fault or any of the other companies who contract through Foxconn. This is China's fault for letting the companies get away with this crap.
I work for a government agency, if they could get away with it they'd work us this hard to, so it's not just a capitalism or Apple issue.
Slashdot Mirror
1. The US had a series of wars with the American Indians, some of the tribes worked with the US and settled in easily with autonomy (Mandan and Crow are two ease examples) some didn't. It wasn't exploitation.
2. The bulk of American settlers in the 18th and early 19th centuries were English, Irish, Scottish and German. If you look at central and south America you'll note a lack of Irish, Scottish, Dutch and Germany settlement and only one English colony where Belize now is.
4. Manifest Destiny was an philosophy put out there by a newspaper, yes the United States filled the power vacuum that existed in North America, but that has nothing to do with the poverty in Mexico (a rich country) today. By the 1840s the two powers in the west were Mexico (ruled by whites of Spanish descent) and the United States, there was a war and the US got half of Mexico, but that isn't the cause of Mexico's poor classes now.
Hawaii became a state because at the end of the colonial rush by the European powers it was either the US took it or Japan, Britain or Germany would. Seeing how the Germans and Japanese treated minorities during WW2 it's pretty fortuitous that the US gobbled Hawaii up.
Look at the US settlement with the Alaska natives as a great example of how non-exploitive the US is with the indigenous populations during the 20th century. In Central America the government would move the natives or attack them for resources, the US gives them money, land and corporations.
Well since I studied the conquest of central america and the American Indian Wars let me stop you right there.
1. The united states declared independence in 1776 and the United States was formed in 1787 with the ratification of the Constitution. So its not possible to have 400 years of economic warfare between anyone and the United States.
2. Central America was conquered and exploited by the European powers, mainly Spain starting 500 years ago with Britain and France as minor players, although the role of the French increased in the 1860s.
3. Mexico's natural resources are fully in control of Mexico with their oil and mining companies being fully Mexican owned.
4. It was the European powers, not the United States who exploited central and south america for natural resources and cheap labor. Today the United States exports jobs to Mexico and central america, not sure how good paying jobs by American companies is exploitation.
Because Mexico suffers from corruption that the Chicago Machine only dreams of and poverty that the US hasn't seen the likes of since 1937.
So defending the US border is violent? When someone invades your territory or home (on a micro level) defending is violence?
And throwing money at treatment isn't going to deal with it magically, it takes a mix.
For everything but meth I'm for treatment, I see a need for a firm hand on that and on defending the borders.
"Did the Viking's follow orders ? But they were the most feared military force in the world for centuries."
No they weren't and they weren't a military force. The most feared military of that era were the Mongols who had strict military hierarchy.
The partition of Indian cost 12.5 million displaced people and between half and a million dead.
Yes lets have corporate mandated morality to save money for companies that already make profits.
Affidavits for cell phone use, tv viewing, drinking, caffeine, Tylenol, pumping gas, free radicals, red meat, drinking from plastic containers, smog in the air, exposure to sunlight, time around swimming pools, unprotected sex, amount of time on the highway or granite counter tops.
Life has many ways of killing you.
We already have the guns, bureaucracy isn't really all that important when you are defending your own country, how is that hard to wrap one's head around?
The drug cartels come across the border, sometimes using Mexican Army as protection, it doesn't take an inter-agency task force to decide to take them into custody or open up on their SUVs with a chain gun.
As for money, I didn't say it wouldn't cost more money, but it could come out of training and law enforcement budgets.
No more bureaucracy to enforce the laws the United States already has. No more guns either, military units in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California could defend the border just fine even with deployments to the GWoT.
1st Cavalry and the Armored Cavalry regiments were formed and remained in the pre-WW 1 and inter-war years just to hold the border.
Well, I live here and I've had extensive ties to the pot culture for the last 25 years, so when I say "its decriminalized for personal use" it's decriminalized for personal use compared to 1995, 1990, 1985.
I've carried a medical marijuana card, I live in a state where I can have an ounce (28 g), and 25 plants.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4522
That's pretty well decriminalized.
Do I want the prohibition against meth to continue? Yes. Organized crime? The damned border between the US and Mexico needs to be militarized and that will deal with the organized crime aspect of meth. Meth in the US mostly is still a small time production industry, the only "organized crime" involvement is with the Narco Terrorists and cartels.
Pot is decriminalizing and production of it is spreading while the price isn't dropping per pound over say, 1990, so why would meth all of a sudden get cooked in labs by chem majors?
Oh right, alot of the people who cook meth have chemistry backgrounds and addictions to meth.
In some parts of the United States there are healthy illegal spirits cultures, you might have heard of moonshine? Home brewing beer is big here in the US as well.
Meth is different than most drugs, the bulk of meth producers are also addicts who sell to make a living, in my experience pot growers are making a living and use on the side recreationally, meth really doesn't have a "recreational" side with an addict, they cook, they use, things fall apart and they sell some.
There is evidence to show no one was killed at the Boston Tea Party in a lack of court filings and court cases, public discussion of the Tea Party and the debate over it. Boston has complete court records going back that far and celebrity court cases like the Boston Massacre trial are on the record.
So where is your evidence that someone died at the Boston Tea Party?
Murder, violent crimes, health issues, environmental damage, destroyed families, etc. For a pound of meth there are between 5 and 10 pounds of environmentally toxic chemicals produced. A house that's been used to to cook meth has to be destroyed by a hazmat crew and taken to a toxic waste dumping site.
Treating meth is harder, much harder than treating cocaine or crack, the addiction cycle is harder to break and many of the drugs used in fighting the addiction are addictive themselves.
Opening a treatment center isn't a magical fix.
Decriminalize it or legalize it and there'll be more people cooking in their garage, more explosions, more destroyed families.
I just spent 14 years one of the meth capitals of the US so I might be biased against the crap.
For Meth? Yes. Zero tolerance for dealers and producers.
Meth addicts don't act like "reasonable people" with health problems. Decriminalize meth, make it legal and the social problems will be two-three times worse than they are with it criminalized.
Yea, because we want the farking meth producers to go full bore and not have any restrictions.
Let them get pseudoephedrine by the pound at Wal Mart and just cook up.
I'm all for decriminalization of pot, heroin, LSD, psychedelics, and mandatory executions for meth production and distribution.
Thats nice and smug for you but a pretty rude way to come into the conversation.
I didn't watch it either, I think at the time because it was opposite of something else I was watching and just never started to watch it.
I'm going to assume that everyone who has a viewpoint opposite of yours, mine included, won the argument because you come across as a douche.
Actually, go read the majority decision of DC v Heller, pistols, rifles, shotguns are arms, military weapons and explosives are not arms a militia would keep in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://publicservice.evendon.com/cgi-bin/HandOff-1_0.cgi?SC2007+07-290_Dc_v_Heller+s001
Its not a permit process, its a background check.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
I'm in Alaska, there are no permits needed here unless I want to carry a concealed firearm, same as when I was in Oregon before that.
But I can open carry without a permit, I just need to not be dinged on the background check or to buy a firearm from someone else.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_per-government-gun-laws-permits
http://www.opencarry.org/ak.html
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about rights to science?
Well, firearms are in the Constitution, glassware isn't.
Its not really that ironic.
Well go after the fraking Meth producers who abused the rules and turned cough syrup into a narcotic ingredient.
Laboratory glass is all over the internet to buy.
They haven't really started any fires yet.
I'll give you Teabaggers if you give me anyone with a Hope and Change bumper sticker or t-shirt
Its not sustainable if the goal is to continuously pay your employes less.
High wage industrial assembly works in the semi-conducter industry in the US and Europe, the automotive and aviation industry, it is sustainable.
Thousands of people in this country would jump at a chance to do assembly line work.
As for the line that "we need to import immigrants to do things like yardwork", thats just the line pro-immigrant-explotation people spew. Yards were cleaned and grass was clipped before everything went to illegal and migrant labor in the 1990s. I should know, I worked yard crew in college, about the time the immigration laws stopped being enforced the illegals who would work hard and cheaper put us all out of business.
This isn't Apple's fault or any of the other companies who contract through Foxconn. This is China's fault for letting the companies get away with this crap.
I work for a government agency, if they could get away with it they'd work us this hard to, so it's not just a capitalism or Apple issue.
Most eco terror is arson. Arson has a bad habit of spreading and killing people.
Fine not Gitmo, but they should be infiltrated and ripped apart like the militia movements and militant Islamic terror groups are.