You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#351 Re: Guns N' Roses » Looks like rehearsals have started! » 540 weeks ago
Well, he's got to learn all of those Chinese songs 
#352 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » Guns N' Roses Member, Elimination Round 6 » 540 weeks ago
Just to go against the grain (and because I think he gets way more flack than he deserves), I gotta show the poodle some love...
#353 Re: Guns N' Roses » Coachella Festival profile and rumours » 540 weeks ago
I think it was leeds '02 were a part of the campsite got washed away by rain/floods.. could've been somewhere else tho another european festival.. fuckin rain.
Pukkelpop '02 in Belgium. Great show, but the weather was absolutely horrible. And they came on an hour late, which pissed a lot of people off who were gonna miss their trains.
Still glad I got to see the line-up with bucket and Gothic Finck, but nothing beats an Axl-Slash line-up.
#354 Re: Guns N' Roses » Axl Rose To Talk "Guns N Roses" on Jmmy Kimmel Live(Not Happening) » 540 weeks ago
I read this as Slash not being there live (only Axl), but Kimmel having a video of him following around Axl and Slash together while they work on the reunion. Either way, that's awesome!
#355 Re: The Garden » Donald Trump running for President » 543 weeks ago
Stats on Muslims presented by a Muslim.
That's a very interesting video, thanks for posting!
I'm not an Islam apologist, and I'm not a leftist (I always vote for one of the two right-wing parties here in Belgium (though not the far right party) ) and I'm definitely not PC, so you'll get no contest from me on the very real problem that exists in Islam. None of this video is news to me, I've been following this topic for a long time with great interest, but it's great to see it all laid out in one place with clear exposition.
However, you can't police people's thoughts, you can only police their actions and the number of people taking action is extremely low. When I talk about using statistics to inform policy, I talk about the actual real-life impact that radical Islamic terrorism has on the average American's day-to-day life, not how many muslims have radical thoughts or believe crazy violent shit. When you look at those numbers (I gave them before) they pale in comparison to other types of violence in the US. Should we not focus on other things instead then?
#356 Re: The Garden » Donald Trump running for President » 543 weeks ago
To me the idea is you stop everyone, not just Muslims. That solves every discrimination issue I care about.
Okay, at least that's a clear position that I can definitely respect from an ethical point of view. I just don't think it's practical, the damage to the US economy would be astronomical if it couldn't do business with the rest of the world anymore. Exports alone represent 13.5% of the GDP and there's no way you can do exports if your trade partners can't even visit your country, but even worse imports are 16.5% of the GDP. Even if you just look at tourism and were to find a way to allow business travel alone, the US at 75 million tourists per year draws the second most visitors of any country in the world (after France). They are responsible for a whopping 8.5% of the GDP.
So for all the conservative talk about job creation, how the fuck does Trump's plan not destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US? It literally puts nearly 40% of the GDP on the line!
#357 Re: The Garden » Donald Trump running for President » 543 weeks ago
I think the worst thing is allowing oceans of them to walk, swim, and fly into these EU countries. Have you watched any of the videos? The Autobahn looks like a slum, thousands invading once quiet towns demanding free checks, houses, playstations, list goes on. Muslim men freaking out on trains standing next to normal, everyday citizens. Girls have been attacked for wearing bikinis(it upsets Muslims) and they've even attacked grandmas for god knows what(maybe for not wearing a burqa). For some reason people act surprised that others are getting sick of this shit. I saw that video of the guy on the train yelling at those people for no reason and had I been there , I would have kicked the living shit out of him, just for the sake of the women standing there being forced to endure that psychosis.
The videos are horrible and we should do everything we can to avoid such situations, you'll never hear me contest this. I live in Europe and work in the US (mostly the bay area) for half of the year, so I can bring some perspective to this and make an honest comparison. It's easy to look at these videos and think that this is what all of Europe looks like these days. And when I drive through Germany, walk through Brussels or take the metro in Paris, I see things like this once in a while. But I see it with about the same frequency that I see end-of-days preachers shouting at and harassing passers by when I walk through downtown LA, homeless people lining up to sleep under the awning at Macy's in SF, people being harassed by beggars on the subway in NY, ... It's easy enough to find examples that will support any type of message on both continents, but it's just not reflective of the day-to-day reality in these places.
Yes, we need to organize the shit out of this, and one of the things we should definitely do is spread the burden of taking these people in. I'm absolutely not saying we need to accept everyone and everything, there's a real chance that potential terrorists will try to abuse the west's openness so we have to be vigilant and do extensive background checking before we give anyone asylum (And this typically takes over a year in Europe, over two years in the US). But, you have to make decisions on an individual case-by-case basis, we can't make sweeping generalizations like keeping out 'all muslims' (not even for a "limited amount of time").
And remember, Islam immigrants are simply not a problem in the US, it's completely impractical for refugees to come to the States unless they have much deeper pockets than the average Syrian has these days. So why are the republicans latching on the San Bernardino to make this the hot topic of the election? Oh, that's right, because it takes focus away from the real problems the country is facing, that they helpdc cause over the past three decades. Because it's so much easier to get votes by shifting the blame to a minority than it is to come up with actual solutions for people's day-to-day problems.
It's just all so counterproductive, it frustrates me to no end...
#358 Re: The Garden » Donald Trump running for President » 543 weeks ago
So of all the videos I posted the past couple pages where they interview residents or talk about the immigration process or show people buying steak and lotto tickets you don't find a grain of truth in any of it? Are you being honest here?
Yes, there's probably a grain of truth in it, but you should also take it with a grain of salt. I get what you're trying to say, and understand why these examples are off-putting to a lot of people, but you can't let anecdotal evidence like this drive policy. You need to use real statistical information for that, and anything I've seen doesn't come near anything that would warrant Trump's proposal to not allow any Muslims to enter the country until "we've figured out what's what" (whatever that means).
But getting back the the main point, what would implementing Trump's proposal actually look like in practice? How do you stop Muslims from entering the US? They can come from everywhere (e.g. in Europe Muslims represent roughly 6% of the population, a not insignificant percentage), so you'd need to implement something that affects all people traveling into the US, not just the ones that need a Visa. You can't ask people about their religion, and even if you could it's not like you can come up with a waterproof test for something like that, all they need to do is identify as non-religious and there's literally nothing you can ask them to test that claim. So we can't do country of origin, and we can't do religion. What can we do? Ethnicity? Muslim people are not only Arab in descent, but there are huge populations in sub-saharan Africa (black people) and South-east Asia (Asian people), so that leaves white people only... that's not going to fly, I suspect...
Understanding that saying 'most terrorists are muslim' is not the same as saying 'most muslims are terrorists', it just seems to me that in fighting terrorism, we can't even practically single out a specific religion, race or geography, let alone that this is something that we'd want to do ethically speaking.
#359 Re: The Garden » Donald Trump running for President » 543 weeks ago
This is true up to a point. But if the immigration is too dense the assimilation never takes hold and you get ghettoization. In Europe we experienced this with the first wave of immigrants in the 60s and 70s. The groups were relatively small and their children and grandchildren by and large assimilated. I have heard Americans express the same sentiments.
Very true, it's very important to expose immigrants to local customs and culture on an ongoing basis, and that can only happen if they don't need to (or some would say are allowed to) fold back on their own community. But you can also see that dropping a lone immigrant in an otherwise completely homogenous community is going to feel very alienating for those people, decrease their feeling of belonging, ... It's not an easy balance to find, but clearly ghettoization is to be absolutely avoided.
Certain (very multicultural) countries (e.g. Singapore) have quota for neighborhoods: only so many people of the same ethnic or religious background are allowed to purchase/rent in the same building/block/neighborhood/whatever. I've always found that a bit harsh and too limiting of people's freedoms, but it has proven to be effective.
Now however we are seeing the opposite. The children of immigrants are now trending towards becoming more alienated than their parents, more religious, more culturally protective. The recent wave of western "ISIS warriors" come from these second and third gen immigrants.
Which is exactly why 'closing the borders for muslims' is the worst thing we can do right now. The bulk of these western "ISIS warriors" are homegrown terrorists that barely know anything about Islam (one of the Syria fighters from the UK literally bought the book "Islam for Dummies" on Amazon right before he left to go and fight over there). Often these guys will feel either discriminated against (whether that's justified or not), or that they have no future, ... and that blame their community and surroundings for everything that goes wrong in their lives. And an easy target to blame (especially when you're part of a minority) is western civilization.
#360 Re: The Garden » Donald Trump running for President » 544 weeks ago
Bernie Sanders is a nice man, but his socialist line of thinking would destroy our economy. I like him as a guy, but all this free free free shit means I have to pay pay pay...
Not necessarily true, although it is something to be wary about for sure. But there are so many ways an honest left president (so not Hillary) can free up enough budget to bring the US on par with other modern civilized countries in the West. Someone already mentioned cutting on military spending, but if you're not willing to support that (even though it represents more than 500 billion dollars and more than half of the total budget), how about not exempting churches from paying taxes? That's 72 billion dollars right there, but something the right can never support since their base is typically more religious. How about closing corporate tax loopholes? That's another 100 billion dollars, but the right blocks it off because they fear loss of jobs ('cause you know, when it comes to business the US can't be isolationist, right?).
And whether you believe it or not, most studies indicate that single payer healthcare would be cheaper overall. This is from a study from 2013:
Thanks to a landmark study in 2013 by Gerald Friedman, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, we have a solid financial analysis of the costs and benefits of a single-payer national health plan. With NHI, $592 billion would be saved annually by cutting the administrative waste of some 1,300 private health insurers ($476 billion) and reducing pharmaceutical prices to European levels ($116 billion). These savings would be enough to cover all of the 44 million uninsured (at the time of his study) and upgrade benefits for all other Americans, even including dental and long-term care. A single-payer public financing system would be established, similar to traditional (not privatized) Medicare, coupled with a private delivery system. Instead of having to pay the increasing costs of private health insurance, so often with unaffordable deductibles and other cost-sharing, patients would present their NHI cards at the point of service without cost-sharing or other out-of-pocket costs. Care would be based on medical need, not ability to pay.
So would you be paying more? I see absolutely no data that supports such a premise. The US simply has a horribly inefficient healthcare system with so much room for improvement that it will pay for itself.
