There is nothing inherant or caused by the genetic makup that makes the indians less able to do something with their lives.
Whoa where do you see anything in my post that remotely indicates that I am saying anything even hinting at that? Reading comprehension is a class you apparently skipped in third grade. I was saying that a population that has been decimated in number and has an inherent disadvantage due to the immense competitive gap created by violent social dislocation will not be able to compete on a level playing field. It's arrogant and plain wrong to say "oh well, that's how it is now, get a job you lazy Indians".
As for the doom and gloom, yes these are deeply troubling times we live in, not all of us are able to dose up on the novocaine of pop culture.
I think you'll find that none of the Muslim states back then didn't have that policy either. The Ottoman and Persian Empires were famous for their willingness to allow foreigners to settle, and the phrase "Arab Hospitality" wasn't borne out by centuries of killing outsiders. If you believe that there is some kind of "kill all non-Muslims" policy in Muslim countries then you are sadly mistaken, even the modern totalitarian tyrants who use Islam as a cover (pretty much all of the middle eastern governments today) are pretty welcoming to outsiders, and if you ignore the trash in the media and ask people who have lived there (as I have for a year) you will find that the general feeling is that Arabs are pretty warm and welcoming.
You mean you display tabular data *without* tables? Dude, you missed the point in a big way. Like say for example Andre Agassi was serving a tennis ball at you, by "missed" I mean he was serving the ball on a court in California while you were standing waiting to receive on a court in Florida.
The dhimmi tax is like a tax on non-citizens. Muslim nations that had this existed before the modern idea of the nation-state, and so identified "citizens" by simply saying "all Muslims". Making non-Muslims pay a tax is the same as the reduced privileges of non-citizens today. In fact, Muslim governments of those days would be horrified at the inhuman treatment non-citizens get at the hands of modern governments. Think detention centers in Australia, think INS hauling truckloads of people and dumping them just south of the border, think ignoring illegal immigrants at ER centers at hospitals.
You communist dog! If they earn the right to wave their dicks around with other CEOs who are you to demand that they continue to work in order to continue earning? Requiring the rich to work to maintain their lifestyle is as ridiculous an idea as allowing other countries to sell us resources at fair prices.
Sure you can go back a hundred years or so and say this or that happened. But today, they have the same opertunities as anyone else.
You're obviously referring to the small percentage that wasn't killed, or starved to death by being driven off their land and having their villages burned to the ground. Yes, those ones do have the same rights as everyone else.
Rights to be abused by big business, rights to have their votes nullified when politically expedient to lobby groups, rights to have their doors kicked in at 3am because the 8 year old in the house was downloading Justin Timberlake, rights to be cavity searched at airports because their aren't Caucasian...
What they would really want would be an independent nation of their own, in which they were not silently coerced into buying into the depraved bondless culture they find themselves up to their necks in. But don't take it from me, perhaps you could turn off the TV and go ask one.
I am sick to death of ignorant non-Muslims taking a single line completely out of context. Your quote refers to Pagans who violate treaties or peace accords, the line immediately before the one you quote reads: So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.
With reference to Pagans who have agreed to live peacefully without waging war, the line immediately following the one you quoted reads:
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure.
In fact, the opening line of the chapter you are quoting from reads:
A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:
Which seems to me to be a pretty clear indication that Pagans who agree to a mutual alliance or engagement to live together without waging war are explicitly protected. The full translation of that chapter can be found here, along with a full index of the Quran in English, so when next you feel like taking something out of context you can check it up to prevent making a horse's arse of yourself.
I'm going to assume you're just stupid, as only a stupid person would use quotes ignoring context. All of those quotes are references to actions taken in a defense. I need not point out what the so called "Civilized World" is doing at the moment in its so-called defensive war against terrorism.
I will admit to my belief that the death cult of the pedophile prophet is much more adept at assimilating cultures (and their advances) than many others.
Have a look at the parasitic nature of American Pop culture if you want to see a destructive and exploitative "death cult". Cultures that value their heritage like Indian and Thai traditional families are doing their best to stem the flow of mass media trash teaching their children the sole purpose of life is to look beautiful and to buy "stuff". Have you ever traveled to a place that wasn't overwhelmingly westernized? Were I to guess, I'd guess not, as you seem to be about as informed on this subject as a retarded baboon.
On another note, it's callous attitudes like that that make this world what it is today. You hear about illegal immigrants and all you think is "our jobs" and "our money" and "our economy". Do you really think that a man who is watching his children starve cares about abstract things like "secular adherence to the Rule of Law" or "democratic process"? Do you think he cares about taking one job out of the wealthiest nation on Earth? Do you think he can vote for a Feed My Kids political party? No, he just wants food for his family, and if you can't understand that then I would suggest you are lacking part of what makes humans human.
By the way, the opposition is supposed to object to government measures, no matter what they are.
No it's not. Many issues get bipartisan support. Depending on how cynical you are, opposition will be somewhere between a bonna fide but ineffectual attempt at providing people with a means to have their will imposed on government, or an insidious way to provide the illusion of democracy to an effectively disempowered and enslaved population. This is/. so if you're not closer to the latter then you're out of place:P
Each undoes what the other did, starting with the loopiest and most unpopular.
That'd be fantastic, except that the policies and decisions that are the most unpalatable to the public are made by shadowy businessmen, military personnel and the intelligence community in sealed rooms far, far out of reach of anything remotely resembling public scrutiny.
I live in Australia, and there is currently much of an outcry over the building of tolled roads, when there is no need to resort to private funds. The various govt departments have made a few releases, but if I wanted to get access to the real discussions between the govt and the business entities, is that possible? Not really. Once the deals have been more or less done, they are announced, and nothing short of a riot can even get them to be discussed by the relevant ministers.
This is how you conduct government secrety in plain sight: By giving the public just enough information that they think they are informed of the government actions, but the real action occurs between government ministers and the private sector behind closed doors and is out of reach of the plebs.
And what are people who live paycheck to paycheck going to look at?
Bankruptcy? If you can't afford a $20 investment for a few fittings that will definitely yeild positive financial results, home lighting is the least of your worries.
It seems you are using the terms "President" and "Government" interchangeably. They are not. There is no significant difference in foreign or domestic policy between Democrats and Republicans. In a two party system where both parties are following the same agenda with differences only being cosmetic, the purpose of voting is purely illusory.
there are enough of us out there with the vision, understanding, and knowledge to help dispel that kind of extreme warping of our society
I wish I shared your faith. I have traveled extensively, and have worked in many different fields, and my experience with The Population of Earth is that unfortunately they are either too myopic, too uneducated or too busy to worry about governments' machinations. That too, is a tinfoil hat cry; That people are too myopic to see reality is a situation engineered by the masters of the mass media. That people are ignorant of politics is an engineered situation by those in charge of education. That people are too busy just making their mortgage payments is a situation engineered by the financial sector. All corporates have a similar goal: To sell stuff. A compliant, constantly consuming, politically disenfranchised public is the kind of public most willing to allow wealth to flow uphill without resisting. The corporate sector is deliberately engineering a system that people are unable to fight without catastrophic loss to themselves in the form of mortgage defaults, bankruptcy or outright criminalization under ever broadening crime and terrorism legislation. Time to invade another country, this time over tin, because I just used up the national inventory!
Err... I was attempting to highlight the intellectual nature of his grammar crime. Look behind you though, you'll find the joke stuck to the wall just above your head.
US state and federal governments might want extreme paranoia as a means for further control of the populace
That was my point, and is the whole setting for the movie I referred to earlier. It is set in a possible future UK where the government has used contrived events to spread fear and paranoia among the population to ensure obedience. After all, a population won't revolt against a government when they think that it is the government that is the only thing standing between them and total unmitigated chaos.
That's a rather benign interpretation. Add a dash of cynicism, a sprinkling of conspiracy theroism and a few tinfoil hats as a garnish and you could easily conclude that the excessive terrorism threats are a way to scare populations into submitting to government control. I think High Chancellor Suttler said it best in the movie V for Vendetta:
"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound throughout the entire Interlink. I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos! I want everyone to remember why they need us!"
Everyone should see that movie, and then take a good, hard look around them.
I'd just like to point out that if the US military wasn't in Iraq in the first place, the evil Islamofascist brain eaters would have nobody to use the Ak-47s and plastic explosives on in the first place.
Lies are speech. Freedom of speech means freedom to lie. If you want freedom to honor the fallen, you must allow those who would belittle them freedom too. I think it was Thomas Paine who said that "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression". So you want freedom of speech? Guard the speech of those who you consider your enemies.
On a separate note, may I ask what your cultural background is? Just curious.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa where do you see anything in my post that remotely indicates that I am saying anything even hinting at that? Reading comprehension is a class you apparently skipped in third grade. I was saying that a population that has been decimated in number and has an inherent disadvantage due to the immense competitive gap created by violent social dislocation will not be able to compete on a level playing field. It's arrogant and plain wrong to say "oh well, that's how it is now, get a job you lazy Indians".
As for the doom and gloom, yes these are deeply troubling times we live in, not all of us are able to dose up on the novocaine of pop culture.
I think you'll find that none of the Muslim states back then didn't have that policy either. The Ottoman and Persian Empires were famous for their willingness to allow foreigners to settle, and the phrase "Arab Hospitality" wasn't borne out by centuries of killing outsiders. If you believe that there is some kind of "kill all non-Muslims" policy in Muslim countries then you are sadly mistaken, even the modern totalitarian tyrants who use Islam as a cover (pretty much all of the middle eastern governments today) are pretty welcoming to outsiders, and if you ignore the trash in the media and ask people who have lived there (as I have for a year) you will find that the general feeling is that Arabs are pretty warm and welcoming.
You mean you display tabular data *without* tables? Dude, you missed the point in a big way. Like say for example Andre Agassi was serving a tennis ball at you, by "missed" I mean he was serving the ball on a court in California while you were standing waiting to receive on a court in Florida.
The dhimmi tax is like a tax on non-citizens. Muslim nations that had this existed before the modern idea of the nation-state, and so identified "citizens" by simply saying "all Muslims". Making non-Muslims pay a tax is the same as the reduced privileges of non-citizens today. In fact, Muslim governments of those days would be horrified at the inhuman treatment non-citizens get at the hands of modern governments. Think detention centers in Australia, think INS hauling truckloads of people and dumping them just south of the border, think ignoring illegal immigrants at ER centers at hospitals.
You communist dog! If they earn the right to wave their dicks around with other CEOs who are you to demand that they continue to work in order to continue earning? Requiring the rich to work to maintain their lifestyle is as ridiculous an idea as allowing other countries to sell us resources at fair prices.
You're obviously referring to the small percentage that wasn't killed, or starved to death by being driven off their land and having their villages burned to the ground. Yes, those ones do have the same rights as everyone else.
Rights to be abused by big business, rights to have their votes nullified when politically expedient to lobby groups, rights to have their doors kicked in at 3am because the 8 year old in the house was downloading Justin Timberlake, rights to be cavity searched at airports because their aren't Caucasian...
What they would really want would be an independent nation of their own, in which they were not silently coerced into buying into the depraved bondless culture they find themselves up to their necks in. But don't take it from me, perhaps you could turn off the TV and go ask one.
Get your head out of your ass you dimwit.
I am sick to death of ignorant non-Muslims taking a single line completely out of context. Your quote refers to Pagans who violate treaties or peace accords, the line immediately before the one you quote reads: So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.
With reference to Pagans who have agreed to live peacefully without waging war, the line immediately following the one you quoted reads:
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure.
In fact, the opening line of the chapter you are quoting from reads:
A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:
Which seems to me to be a pretty clear indication that Pagans who agree to a mutual alliance or engagement to live together without waging war are explicitly protected. The full translation of that chapter can be found here, along with a full index of the Quran in English, so when next you feel like taking something out of context you can check it up to prevent making a horse's arse of yourself.
Context is your friend.
I'm going to assume you're just stupid, as only a stupid person would use quotes ignoring context. All of those quotes are references to actions taken in a defense. I need not point out what the so called "Civilized World" is doing at the moment in its so-called defensive war against terrorism.
Have a look at the parasitic nature of American Pop culture if you want to see a destructive and exploitative "death cult". Cultures that value their heritage like Indian and Thai traditional families are doing their best to stem the flow of mass media trash teaching their children the sole purpose of life is to look beautiful and to buy "stuff". Have you ever traveled to a place that wasn't overwhelmingly westernized? Were I to guess, I'd guess not, as you seem to be about as informed on this subject as a retarded baboon.
You mean like this? Yea, damn Muslims are the cause of all things evil in this world.
Didn't you already try that?
On another note, it's callous attitudes like that that make this world what it is today. You hear about illegal immigrants and all you think is "our jobs" and "our money" and "our economy". Do you really think that a man who is watching his children starve cares about abstract things like "secular adherence to the Rule of Law" or "democratic process"? Do you think he cares about taking one job out of the wealthiest nation on Earth? Do you think he can vote for a Feed My Kids political party? No, he just wants food for his family, and if you can't understand that then I would suggest you are lacking part of what makes humans human.
No it's not. Many issues get bipartisan support. Depending on how cynical you are, opposition will be somewhere between a bonna fide but ineffectual attempt at providing people with a means to have their will imposed on government, or an insidious way to provide the illusion of democracy to an effectively disempowered and enslaved population. This is /. so if you're not closer to the latter then you're out of place :P
That'd be fantastic, except that the policies and decisions that are the most unpalatable to the public are made by shadowy businessmen, military personnel and the intelligence community in sealed rooms far, far out of reach of anything remotely resembling public scrutiny.
I live in Australia, and there is currently much of an outcry over the building of tolled roads, when there is no need to resort to private funds. The various govt departments have made a few releases, but if I wanted to get access to the real discussions between the govt and the business entities, is that possible? Not really. Once the deals have been more or less done, they are announced, and nothing short of a riot can even get them to be discussed by the relevant ministers.
This is how you conduct government secrety in plain sight: By giving the public just enough information that they think they are informed of the government actions, but the real action occurs between government ministers and the private sector behind closed doors and is out of reach of the plebs.
Beans beans the magical fruit the more you eat the more you...
Class. Pure class. +1 Awesome reference.
Whatever happened to "Hey guys, watch this!" ?
Yep, it'll be like when George Bush declared the Iraq war won! :P
It seems you are using the terms "President" and "Government" interchangeably. They are not. There is no significant difference in foreign or domestic policy between Democrats and Republicans. In a two party system where both parties are following the same agenda with differences only being cosmetic, the purpose of voting is purely illusory.
I wish I shared your faith. I have traveled extensively, and have worked in many different fields, and my experience with The Population of Earth is that unfortunately they are either too myopic, too uneducated or too busy to worry about governments' machinations. That too, is a tinfoil hat cry; That people are too myopic to see reality is a situation engineered by the masters of the mass media. That people are ignorant of politics is an engineered situation by those in charge of education. That people are too busy just making their mortgage payments is a situation engineered by the financial sector. All corporates have a similar goal: To sell stuff. A compliant, constantly consuming, politically disenfranchised public is the kind of public most willing to allow wealth to flow uphill without resisting. The corporate sector is deliberately engineering a system that people are unable to fight without catastrophic loss to themselves in the form of mortgage defaults, bankruptcy or outright criminalization under ever broadening crime and terrorism legislation. Time to invade another country, this time over tin, because I just used up the national inventory!
Err... I was attempting to highlight the intellectual nature of his grammar crime. Look behind you though, you'll find the joke stuck to the wall just above your head.
That was my point, and is the whole setting for the movie I referred to earlier. It is set in a possible future UK where the government has used contrived events to spread fear and paranoia among the population to ensure obedience. After all, a population won't revolt against a government when they think that it is the government that is the only thing standing between them and total unmitigated chaos.
That's a rather benign interpretation. Add a dash of cynicism, a sprinkling of conspiracy theroism and a few tinfoil hats as a garnish and you could easily conclude that the excessive terrorism threats are a way to scare populations into submitting to government control. I think High Chancellor Suttler said it best in the movie V for Vendetta:
"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound throughout the entire Interlink. I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos! I want everyone to remember why they need us!"
Everyone should see that movie, and then take a good, hard look around them.
I'd just like to point out that if the US military wasn't in Iraq in the first place, the evil Islamofascist brain eaters would have nobody to use the Ak-47s and plastic explosives on in the first place.
Lies are speech. Freedom of speech means freedom to lie. If you want freedom to honor the fallen, you must allow those who would belittle them freedom too. I think it was Thomas Paine who said that "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression". So you want freedom of speech? Guard the speech of those who you consider your enemies.
On a separate note, may I ask what your cultural background is? Just curious.