BruceVC

A bit of subjective praise there wouldn't you say Nonek...I guess you were also the best DM you had ever seen

What !!! That's heresy...sacrilegious ...I'm surprised you don't get banned from the forums for such statements

That's what I was thinking, you could freeze what is left over for later We often have braai's\barbeque in South Africa and there is always meat left over which you inherit if the event is at your house. I have eaten leftover braai meat 3 days after cooking it and it was fine. But I won't go longer than that which I probably could but I choose not to

He is probably wrong to blame "Scandinavians", but what you say is true. IIRC Sweden provided something like 60% of ANCs entire income during the 80s, and an even larger percentage of Mugabe's ZANU before independence, and smaller amounts also to SWAPO in Namibia, all during the Social Democratic periods of power. At that time Sweden had an incredibly aggressive and interventionist foreign policy. Providing some context to this, southern Africa was the most common destination for Swedish missionaries during the mid-20th century, and the Swedish church is, and was, very tightly tied to the Social Democratic party. Missionaries would then come home and tell of experiences of racism and inequality. This really shaped Swedish views of the world, and there was a high degree of awareness especially about conditions in southern African colonies. However, there was also support for lots of other liberation movements such as PLO and POLISARIO. These policies can be tied in part personally to Olof Palme (sadly assassinated), who certainly left a very interesting legacy, foreign-policy wise. He consistently denounced and actively worked against imperialism, both Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe and Western imperialism in Africa. However, he also had no qualms about friendship with very authoritarian leftist regimes as long as they were independent (i.e., not direct puppets of SU). Palme's worldview was shared in part by the Swedish FN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjöld (sadly assassinated), who in spite of being staunchly conservative in domestic politics thought that self-rule always trumps the interests of the superpowers. The aggressive financial support was ended with the right-wing government of the early nineties. With the return of the Social Democrats to power, much of the rhetoric remained though. The most outspoken politician was Anna Lindh, sadly assassinated before she could assume leadership of the Social Democratic party. And now after another period of right-wing government, we have another outspoken female foreign minister (Margot Wallström) who seems hell-bent to shake things up. Sweden has already been the first Western EU country to recognize Palestine. Following this, Mahmoud Abbas traveled to Stockholm only to be given lengthy lectures about feminism, and being pressured to make commitments about the role of women in government and civic society . Afterwards, Wallström was invited as an honorary guest to the Arab League's next meeting, and was set to hold a speech about feminism and human rights. This was predictably shot down by Saudi Arabia, after which Sweden immediately cancelled military exports to Saudi Arabia on human rights grounds, providing a model for other countries to do so as well. Current Swedish foreign politics suddenly got their popcornworthiness turned up to 11. So it might not be THAT crazy that Netanyahu accuses Sweden of meddling. History supports it, hell, Swedes like Count Folke Bernadotte (sadly assassinated) did that even before the foundation of the state of Israel. This has been a very enlightening post, nice one Its been like a quick but detailed history lesson that you can reference at your own time with the links, you don't overdo the actual content That's why I reject this notion from some that on forums like this "you can't learn anything new as everyone just wants to tell you what you should be thinking " This informative post is a good example of why that isn't so

Sounds good and tasty, how long does a brisket last you once its cooked ?

Seeing as I use pseudonyms on every account, I fail to see how I'd experience any IRL blowback. Booze is one thing. But if you're going to do stuff like that might as well drop out of college. Why put knowledge in your brain when you're just going to burn it out anyway. Just my $.02 Actually LSD is relatively safe and non-addictive as drugs go. Less damaging than alcohol, at any rate. Besides it's spring break and my GPA is damn good. No you will be fine, its good to do these things sometimes. Consider it a form experiencing life through a different lens Also LSD is not addictive at all, well at least not physically. I suppose its possible to become mentally addictive but I doubt any sane person would want to experience the world all the time on a trip? Coincidentally there have been several legal tests in the UK of the effects of LSD and its benefits to neuroscience http://cardiffstudentmedia.co.uk/gairrhydd/news/controversial-lsd-experiment-faces-acid-funding-test/ So the point around LSD being all bad for you is very subjective

No I would definitely say that characterization is largely accurate

Yeah the misplaced and thoughtless trip to the USA was just him embellishing his own support and dismissing the possible fallout. He could lose his PM role and be replaced by a center left party Also of course he is wrong to blame the Scandinavians but you guys do have a reputation for interfering in other countries affairs. During the time of Apartheid I remember it was the Scandinavian countries that were one of the first to fund and recognize the ANC. Many white South Africans disliked your endeavors as arrogance and interference But of course they had to say that, your countries were doing the right thing and some people needed to find anyway to undermine your strategy

This is a very insightful post, well done Zora Apart from the fact that there aren't accurate records or any books written, as far as I know, on the subject " German view of Nazism post WW2" it should seem preposterous to suggest that the majority of German people would still see Nazism as something relevant or helpful. They just wanted to rebuild there country free from the shadow of it So maybe they made a few possibly drastic decisions, like banning the Swastika, but who are we really to judge considering there mindset and what they had just been through?

Well, I can confirm Valsuelm statement to be true. But I need to congratulate you and encourage you to make career in politics. Dismissing your opponents argument based on your own ignorance is the most ballsy move I ever seen in a discussion. Well I am active in several radio talk shows and the topics are generally about politics Just to be clear do you know what we are debating Sharp_one ? I am saying at the end of WW2 the majority of the German people were happy to put Nazism in the past, they saw it as negative thing and not something they wanted to repeat, hence the banning of the Swastika Vals is saying the Germans only renounced Nazism because the Allies told them to

The Germans generally were thinking no such thing. The Allied powers pretty much forced all of this at gun point, with the US and UK holding the most guns. The Germans had little voice in the matter. Banning a symbol, banning discussion of certain topics, etc is downright evil. One should question why this was done. It wasn't done for the superficial reasons you're thinking Bruce. In very short, it was done to make sure the narrative given by the Allied powers was accepted and not questioned. The phrase, 'the winners write the history books' is possibly never more aptly used than when WW2 is concerned. Sorry I don't believe that, I'm sure the majority of Germans realized by then that Nazism was a failed ideology and were glad it was over. So they weren't forced by the Allies to criminalize symbols like the Swastika, they wanted to do this as they wanted to start focusing on the future and didn't want certain reminders How about you actually go and read some history books. This isn't a matter of believing or not believing, this isn't a question of spirituality or faith, it's a matter or what happened or didn't. A great deal of this particular subject is written in numerous books, transcripts, interviews, etc. I realize your world view might be shaken, hence you ignore so much of what is in this world, past and present. Better to hold on to your mythology, than to objectively delve into the archives of what's what, or think past a superficial level. You suffer confirmation bias on a level I've rarely encountered in this world. So much so that even I have wondered if you're nothing more than a troll as others here have asserted. Objectivity is seemingly anathema to you in regards to so much you ever discuss. The truth is, that in post WW2 Germany you would be hard pressed to find a group of random Germans where the majority of them thought that Nazism was their #1 problem rather than the folks who were occupying their nation, bombed and killed ~8-10% of the population, and had started a war with them. This simple fact really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with even the tiniest understanding of human nature, or even contentious. It makes oodles and oodles of sense if one thinks about it. But even today, a very large number of Germans (in particular those middle aged or older who either lived through it or got stories first hand from their parents as to what happened), would not agree with the idea that Nazis were their main problem. And even of those who thought Nazis were a problem, most people aren't stupid enough to think that banning a symbol or discussion of certain topics is the way to solve that problem or anything at all to do with any kind of freedom. As for Nazism being a failed ideology. Well... there's a lot to that ideology, as there is to nearly any political movement's ideology, and quite a lot of it is alive and well in the modern western world. Heck, almost all of it, both the good and bad parts. But I'd wager quite a lot that if you had a gun to your head you couldn't even say what much of that political ideology even entails, hence you thinking it's failed. Nevermind the fact that it didn't fail any more than the political ideology of any nation that's ever lost a war. War ended Nazism, the compete defeat of Germany by the Allied powers ended Nazism because those powers wanted it dead. Nazism didn't fail on it's own. In fact, prior to that war, it was doing amazingly well by most standards. You have a way of making your posts interesting, I generally always read them to the end But I can't agree or disagree with what you are saying because I don't know enough about the topic. WW2 have never been my strong point ( and I'll be honest I don't feel like researching it today ) so its probably best to wait for others who are versed in WW2 history to comment before we can confirm your posts accuracy There are a few major topics out there that one needs to bother to learn about in depth if one is to understand the hows, whats, and whys of this world we live in. World War 1, World War 2, what lead up to both, and what immediately followed both are among those topics. You would do well to spend a good deal of time learning about all of these topics at some point, rather than rely on what anyone, myself included, in this forum says. There is absolutely no way any person with a good amount of knowledge of these subjects could impart all of the pertinent knowledge to you in this forum. There is also very little way for you to know who knows what they are talking (both on and off this forum) about on any given subject without doing some research on your own. Oh don't worry WW1 is one of my strong points

The Germans generally were thinking no such thing. The Allied powers pretty much forced all of this at gun point, with the US and UK holding the most guns. The Germans had little voice in the matter. Banning a symbol, banning discussion of certain topics, etc is downright evil. One should question why this was done. It wasn't done for the superficial reasons you're thinking Bruce. In very short, it was done to make sure the narrative given by the Allied powers was accepted and not questioned. The phrase, 'the winners write the history books' is possibly never more aptly used than when WW2 is concerned. Sorry I don't believe that, I'm sure the majority of Germans realized by then that Nazism was a failed ideology and were glad it was over. So they weren't forced by the Allies to criminalize symbols like the Swastika, they wanted to do this as they wanted to start focusing on the future and didn't want certain reminders How about you actually go and read some history books. This isn't a matter of believing or not believing, this isn't a question of spirituality or faith, it's a matter or what happened or didn't. A great deal of this particular subject is written in numerous books, transcripts, interviews, etc. I realize your world view might be shaken, hence you ignore so much of what is in this world, past and present. Better to hold on to your mythology, than to objectively delve into the archives of what's what, or think past a superficial level. You suffer confirmation bias on a level I've rarely encountered in this world. So much so that even I have wondered if you're nothing more than a troll as others here have asserted. Objectivity is seemingly anathema to you in regards to so much you ever discuss. The truth is, that in post WW2 Germany you would be hard pressed to find a group of random Germans where the majority of them thought that Nazism was their #1 problem rather than the folks who were occupying their nation, bombed and killed ~8-10% of the population, and had started a war with them. This simple fact really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with even the tiniest understanding of human nature, or even contentious. It makes oodles and oodles of sense if one thinks about it. But even today, a very large number of Germans (in particular those middle aged or older who either lived through it or got stories first hand from their parents as to what happened), would not agree with the idea that Nazis were their main problem. And even of those who thought Nazis were a problem, most people aren't stupid enough to think that banning a symbol or discussion of certain topics is the way to solve that problem or anything at all to do with any kind of freedom. As for Nazism being a failed ideology. Well... there's a lot to that ideology, as there is to nearly any political movement's ideology, and quite a lot of it is alive and well in the modern western world. Heck, almost all of it, both the good and bad parts. But I'd wager quite a lot that if you had a gun to your head you couldn't even say what much of that political ideology even entails, hence you thinking it's failed. Nevermind the fact that it didn't fail any more than the political ideology of any nation that's ever lost a war. War ended Nazism, the compete defeat of Germany by the Allied powers ended Nazism because those powers wanted it dead. Nazism didn't fail on it's own. In fact, prior to that war, it was doing amazingly well by most standards. You have a way of making your posts interesting, I generally always read them to the end But I can't agree or disagree with what you are saying because I don't know enough about the topic. WW2 have never been my strong point ( and I'll be honest I don't feel like researching it today ) so its probably best to wait for others who are versed in WW2 history to comment before we can confirm your posts accuracy

@ Zora and Gromnir I doubt anyone on this forum is actually following this discussion ?

The Germans generally were thinking no such thing. The Allied powers pretty much forced all of this at gun point, with the US and UK holding the most guns. The Germans had little voice in the matter. Banning a symbol, banning discussion of certain topics, etc is downright evil. One should question why this was done. It wasn't done for the superficial reasons you're thinking Bruce. In very short, it was done to make sure the narrative given by the Allied powers was accepted and not questioned. The phrase, 'the winners write the history books' is possibly never more aptly used than when WW2 is concerned. Sorry I don't believe that, I'm sure the majority of Germans realized by then that Nazism was a failed ideology and were glad it was over. So they weren't forced by the Allies to criminalize symbols like the Swastika, they wanted to do this as they wanted to start focusing on the future and didn't want certain reminders

We have a large,thriving, happy and relevant German community in South Africa...I love the German Beerfests

I very much agree with this. Both disillusioned young people and young people who just want to look cool by rebelling will take any chance they get to appear anti-establishment, giving real neo-Nazis the perfect hook to get their claws into young people. Of course, some people will just blame it on the gaming community. I have to disagree with what you guys are suggesting the Germans should have done after WW2. They weren't just dealing with a few hate groups that were more criminal than truly dangerous to the government or society They were dealing with a form of fascism that had really and utterly devastated there society, they weren't thinking of the future and how disillusioned members of the German society may regress back into it. They wanted to completely distance themselves from it and the NAZI swastika represented everything that was corrupted and dysfunctional from there society and history. They were right to ban it , sometimes you need to take perceived heavy steps to address issues

Gfted1 you know you really shouldn't make posts that dispute and undermine the various conspiracy theories about America that we are subjected to Remember all foreign interventions by America are about oil because the USA needs oil...didn't you know that General, There is far more speculative discussion about 'conspiracy theorists' on this forum than actual 'conspiracy theories' put forward. Yours, like the others on this forum I've read today, aren't even accurate representations of any common 'conspiracy theory' as labeled such by those who do such labeling. I'll point out again though, that if you're using 'conspiracy theorist/theory' as a pejorative, you're either guilty of being evil and attempting to marginalize discussion and points of view on a topic or you've been brainwashed by such evil people to believe as you do. In reality, conspiracies are normal and common. So much so that one would be hard pressed to find an adult human that didn't spend their entire life as a hermit that didn't partake in at least a few conspiracies in their lifetime. All that said, one can only hope that the article is accurate. The price of gas in the U.S. has been stupid high for almost 10 years now, and it's way past time that the artificial inflation applied to it post Hurricane Katrina went the way of the Dodo. Vals the fact that the USA is the worlds biggest producer of oil is the start of the great unraveling of many of your views, the good news is this should be seen as something positive. The truth about how the world really operates will make you a happier and more content person ....so embrace the change, see it as catharsis http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi

Gfted1 you know you really shouldn't make posts that dispute and undermine the various conspiracy theories about America that we are subjected to Remember all foreign interventions by America are about oil because the USA needs oil...didn't you know that

Cant I have to be honest I am surprised you can so brazen and say on a public forum you are a Republican...do you have no shame But on a serious note I work for an American software company and most of the people I know who I am very friendly with are Republican, its no big deal. We just agree to disagree on certain topics

This, I agree with Lord W Oh and if you think its a bug that there is no Romance...its not ..that's by design

Hiding, but SJWs can find you everywhere. Political correctness is opposite to fun Thats nasty, us SJW bring a much needed sense of decorum to society There is literally one SJW on this forum, and he is constantly berated for his posts. There's more than one. Most of them either don't post that much though or don't see themselves as warriors. But, the one you're referring to isn't merely a warrior, he's a social justice 5 star general. Bruce is just hamming up a label that everybody like to throw at him. You guys take him way too seriously, much like you do yourselves. It's exhausting, I don't know how you keep it up. You see I knew you could be humorous

Volo we have made this discussion before, white people typically haven't been the victims of historical or systemic abuse in society. I mean look at the history of developments like Colonialism We aren't the victims of racism. There is no reason we should get defensive with a little humor, you must learn to laugh at yourself. I know there is a certain perspective on these forums that white people in the modern age are beset as a race by some nebulous and insidious forces but I don't buy it and I reject the notion that the white race as a whole is under some kind of attack? I'm genealogically a WASP. From the all evil racist oppressive people in your book. I've seen and experienced racism directed at myself and plenty of other white people. In fact, while it's certainly possible I'm missing some obscure law, in the US the only racism I know of that's codified into law is against white people (and a few other ethnic groups as well that aren't deemed 'oppressed' by people such as yourself), with things such as 'Affirmative action' and the like. Sexism with 'Title 9' and the like. To be frank. I have a resounding )#@* you to all those folks out there who think anyone is entitled to anything based on the color of their skin, and some transgression (real or perceived (and a lot of them are just perceived) that other folks with that same skin color were subjected to generations ago. This attitude, coupled with the media's never ending dialogue on race (and sex) as an issue, parroted by people such as yourself, more than anything else out there serves to continue to divide people along sex or skin color. Racism isn't 'inherent in all of us' as you say. Speak for yourself. It's taught and reinforced again and again through the media people are exposed to in modern times. Anyone of any sex or skin color can be the victim of racism or sexism. To say that it's the purview of ethnic group X, Y, and Z only to experience racism is an incredibly ignorant thing to say. As for the you don't 'buy the notion'. Well, that's because you support the attack. You support 'multiculturalism' and think it's a good thing. You don't see or care that others don't agree with you, and see 'multiculturalism' as a bad thing for a variety of reasons. This is a complex subject, and the motivations of those involved in it vary, as do the good and bad consequences, but it's certainly the opinion of some that they are under attack, and they don't think that just for the hell of it. I appreciate your honesty on this topic, I enjoy these types of debates because it allows us to unpack perceived challenger's that exist in society And you right I do support multiculturalism. As I mentioned anyone can be racist, its just a prejudice and is definitely not the domain of white people. I suppose you could say affirmative action is a form of discrimination but it has only been implemented to address systemic imbalances that exist in the past in the workplace For example are women really equal to men in the corporate world? 30 years ago many people thought that a women's role was in the kitchen getting the dinner ready, the TV series Mad Men highlights just how bad and institutionalized sexism was So what other examples apart from affirmative action can you give me of proof that white people are discriminated against ? I am interested in how you see this ? General, While I don't live in South Africa, nor do I walk in your shoes, it's hard for me to believe that you've lived on this earth the number of decades you have and not personally experienced or seen any white people subjected to discrimination based on the color of their skin. Nevertheless I'll acknowledge it's theoretically possible. But, even if you have no personal experience with white people being subjected to discrimination, you should be able to use your imagination to craft scenarios where they would be. If you cannot use your imagination to see how white people can also be discriminated against, I'd say your imagination is broken. So General, either you're ignorant or your imagination is broken. Or just, cognitive dissonance and failure to think things through. I suggest you make more attempts to step outside of 'the box' in your thinking. Use your imagination (if it isn't broken), to put on other people's shoes, to change the color of a person's skin or sex in any given instance you think someone is or isn't being oppressed and ask the question 'Would I or anyone be making a fuss about this if the person at question had a different sex or skin color', etc. Think General. More than you have. If you did, I'm positive you'd take off those stars and abandon your war, as it's a war that's predicated on falsehoods or ignorance. " general " I dont know why some of you guys keep thinking I think that white people don't ever get discriminated against either historically or nowadays...I would have to be a complete dunce to not know this I live in South Africa and I am exposed to this on an almost daily basis....but its not as systemic and institutionalized as sexism or some of the historic racism we see in modern society

Since when were the '80's the '50's wtf? Well spotted but I was aware of what I was saying, I was actually making two separate points that come across as one. My bad. I meant 30 years ago women were still very marginalized Mad Men is an accurate window into the life of a women in the 1960's

Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle. This is undoubtedly one of the WORST definitions of a SJW I have ever heard. Its so negative and inaccurate its almost insulting

Not sure I would have went with a "fictional show illustrates how life was like 50 years ago" example, but maybe it'll work out for you. It may be fictional but its accurate account of a women's role in the workplace and perceived place in the home in the 1960's and earlier As someone that has talked to women who were alive in the '60s and earlier, no it isn't. But did you work in the advertising industry in NY in the 1960's?