AmScray 355 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 How can you get a travel visa to china with a felony on your record? They're not Canada. Different countries take a different view of such things. Canada, the US, Australia and Britain are notoriously hysterical about it (with Britain and the US being the biggest cunts at the border, turning away people for totally capricious reasons at the sole discretion of the 'border guard' who makes a determination that he doesn't like the looks of your face- something I generally support) however Britain allows for entry after a period of time has elapsed, depending on the offense type, Canada you can petition for "certificate of rehabilitation' and Australia, if I recall correctly, has a point system based on the amount of time you served. If you served Under (X), you can eventually get in but over (X), you cannot, period. China doesn't seem to care as long as you're honest on the visa app, however I'm sure there are certain offense types they would reject. Stomping the shit out of someone who was harming a family member is universally understandable. Most other countries an American travels on a passport only so there aren't any problems, however there are signs that as data-sharing evolves, things will evolve in this regard, too, but most places aren't as biblically frantic as we are about that stuff. Consider that the presidents of Uruguay and Brazil both served time in prison. Our culture 'is what it is' on that issue and we're pretty much alone in the world in terms of the Reefer Madness mentality about anyone with a record. Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 The purpose is to hopefully educate some people a little bit about China since the average person is clueless and the relationship that the Western countries have with China is going to be crucial for the future. That and my Wife and Step-Daughters are Chinese so I come across stuff that I think may interest other people so I post it. It is definetly interesting, it just i just coudnt figure if this was pro china or not. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted December 9, 2013 Author Share Posted December 9, 2013 It is definetly interesting, it just i just coudnt figure if this was pro china or not. Why does it have to be pro or anti China. There are some good things happening there and of course some really crappy things. What I find so interesting is the dramatic changes that have happened in a short period of time. My Wife's Parents for example lived in what we would consider poverty and went through a horrible famine in Sichuan that killed over 20 million people from 1958-61. Now their children live middle class lifestyles in Canada, Australia and China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine 1 Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Why does it have to be pro or anti China. There are some good things happening there and of course some really crappy things. What I find so interesting is the dramatic changes that have happened in a short period of time. My Wife's Parents for example lived in what we would consider poverty and went through a horrible famine in Sichuan that killed over 20 million people from 1958-61. Now their children live middle class lifestyles in Canada, Australia and China. http://en.wikipedia...._Chinese_Famine This is something your typical first world citizen never gets. They talk about starvation in america and the plight of the poor. Ive seen people considered poor here with cell phones and flat screen tvs. They got no idea what real poverty is. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 How is it that in the year 2013, 'flat screen TVs' is still cited as if it's some conspicuous display of status? This last Black Friday, Wal Mart had 32" ones for $100. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 But that's the point, isn't it? that in America a luxury like a flat screen is cheap and many of the bottom 25% would have it here, while poor chinese sell their daughters into slavery in order to pay for the thatching for this year's hut, while Dad has to go to Shanghai to make 5 yen a day in the factory that makes those flatscreens, while the chemicals in the manufacture cause a tumor the size of a grapefruit on his neck. The poor in america should be thankful they are prostituting their dignity working in Wal-Marts and McDonalds, obviously. Shut up and be grateful, poor! Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 It's just the entire concept of 'flat screen TV' as being relevant to anything anymore. People still say "flat screen TV" with implied context as though this were 2001 and they cost $5K. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 It's just the entire concept of 'flat screen TV' as being relevant to anything anymore. People still say "flat screen TV" with implied context as though this were 2001 and they cost $5K. My bad. No problem at all with a house of starving children, having 100$ to spend on a tv.Unless of course their food stamps were traded for it, then no problem. Link to post Share on other sites
InternetExplorer 2,609 Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 gonna watch Wild China tonight or tomorrow. kind of excited based on the number of people I saw gushing about it on reddit. I've been duped in this manner before. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 My bad. No problem at all with a house of starving children, having 100$ to spend on a tv.Unless of course their food stamps were traded for it, then no problem. Stupid simplifying ideology. Your logic basically holds that anyone not living in a cardboard box is somehow bilking the system because whatever meager personal property they own (INCLUDING A ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR FLAT SCREEN TV) is, what? An extravagence? Don't get me wrong. I live in a city where a full 1/2 of the population have never bought groceries with their own money in their entire lives. I've seen not only the ideological abuses of food stamps ($4000 Gold rims and a LINK card), but flagrant abuses of law by the Arab storekeepers. In a first world country, I guess I'm OK with saying that the threshold for public assistance can be a bit higher than owning a $100 television set, even if it's a FLAT SCREEN! We probably agree that starving the darkies into productivity would be the best way to go about making them finally get their shit together but that is one of those 'fantasy soloutions' that frankly, are a little tiring after a while. Its just not going to happen. Unfortuantely, parasites are a reality in a 'diverse' country that refuses to accept that people aren't inherently equal. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Unfortuantely, parasites are a reality in a 'diverse' country that refuses to accept that people aren't inherently equal. I don't think acceptance of equality has anything to do with it. Rome had no such illusions, they believed in the superiority of races and even in the superiority of family blood lines. Rome was forced to have a grain dole, to stave off unrest in the masses.. If the grain ever stopped, the Roman masses rioted. I think it's more a product of extreme gaps in wealth. If you have some small part of the society that is very rich and a large portion that is (comparatively) very poor, that very rich portion better dole out enough grain to keep the plebs stomach full, or you run into all kinds of trouble. That's the unsung part of the New Deal era social policies. It's not that Rooseveldt was some radical socialist. He just saw how dangerous and uncontrollable empty stomachs can be, and in order to preserve the status quo, you had pay off the mobs. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 You'll get no opposition from me about that. We're saying basically the same thing. It's absolutely true. Bread and Circuises have been central to managing hordes of morons since the dawn of civilization (although a large majority refusing to subsidize a small and non-productive minority isn't a threat to social order). This discussion has more to do with our current standard of living. Does a flat screen television contravene the legit moral requirements for public assistance? There's a large group of people refusing to accept that in a diverse society, no matter what policies we make, there will always be an underperforming lower class that rapes and steals and lives off the dole and breeds with abandon (since Darwin has been cockblocked by the social safety net) and no matter how obnoxious it is, even though we wish they would all just go away, we must feed them and their ten progeny. Civilization changed mankind but it didn't change man. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Western Civilization is suitable for all human beings. Shit gets unnatural and tricky when you try to apply a high standard of civil order to a genetic dumpster of a country like ours is where everyone is expected to be productive but in the meantime, until it sorts itself all out (and eventually, it may take 100 years but it definitely will), we have to maintain a decent standard. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 This discussion has more to do with our current standard of living. Does a flat screen television contravene the legit moral requirements for public assistance? There's a large group of people refusing to accept that in a diverse society, no matter what policies we make, there will always be an underperforming lower class that rapes and steals and lives off the dole and breeds with abandon (since Darwin has been cockblocked by the social safety net) and no matter how obnoxious it is, even though we wish they would all just go away, we must feed them and their ten progeny. . Right, and that's what I think simplistic conservative/libertarian ideologues don't understand. As much as it might be an offense to your belief system, to your sense of fairness and what ever, the fact is that if you don't provide a minimum standard of living for the bottom X percentage of the society, you run the risk of violent riots at best, and out right revolution at worst, when times get tough. You know what the bottom 10% in this country have, besides TV's? Guns. Knives. Organization of crime. When you start cutting off shit like food stamps, you really run the danger of upsetting a vast amount of the population, that are well armed and without the level of ethical development conservative ideologues have. I am pro mixed economy not on ideological terms, but on pure pragmatic ones. Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Stupid simplifying ideology. Your logic basically holds that anyone not living in a cardboard box is somehow bilking the system because whatever meager personal property they own (INCLUDING A ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR FLAT SCREEN TV) is, what? An extravagence? Don't get me wrong. I live in a city where a full 1/2 of the population have never bought groceries with their own money in their entire lives. I've seen not only the ideological abuses of food stamps ($4000 Gold rims and a LINK card), but flagrant abuses of law by the Arab storekeepers. In a first world country, I guess I'm OK with saying that the threshold for public assistance can be a bit higher than owning a $100 television set, even if it's a FLAT SCREEN! We probably agree that starving the darkies into productivity would be the best way to go about making them finally get their shit together but that is one of those 'fantasy soloutions' that frankly, are a little tiring after a while. Its just not going to happen. Unfortuantely, parasites are a reality in a 'diverse' country that refuses to accept that people aren't inherently equal. My entire point was meant to be sarcasm directed at the "starving children" lobby here in the good old usa.There is no reason anyone should be experiencing real starvation in this country,unless it is purposely done by cruel or abusive parents, The idea that there are 20 million starving people is total Bull shi t And before I am misinterpreted again. I am not against food stamps, nor making sure children dont go hungry. Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 You'll get no opposition from me about that. We're saying basically the same thing. It's absolutely true. Bread and Circuises have been central to managing hordes of morons since the dawn of civilization (although a large majority refusing to subsidize a small and non-productive minority isn't a threat to social order). This discussion has more to do with our current standard of living. Does a flat screen television contravene the legit moral requirements for public assistance? There's a large group of people refusing to accept that in a diverse society, no matter what policies we make, there will always be an underperforming lower class that rapes and steals and lives off the dole and breeds with abandon (since Darwin has been cockblocked by the social safety net) and no matter how obnoxious it is, even though we wish they would all just go away, we must feed them and their ten progeny. Civilization changed mankind but it didn't change man. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Western Civilization is suitable for all human beings. Shit gets unnatural and tricky when you try to apply a high standard of civil order to a genetic dumpster of a country like ours is where everyone is expected to be productive but in the meantime, until it sorts itself all out (and eventually, it may take 100 years but it definitely will), we have to maintain a decent standard. Merry ole england knew how to do with thw cronically unemployed and parasites. Perhaps we should set up a system of treadmills, Im sure the global warming crowd would get behind it. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Christ, I wish you'd get cancer. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 BigD, you're not a very good Christian. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Right, and that's what I think simplistic conservative/libertarian ideologues don't understand. it's not that we don't understand, it's that we'd prefer the riots and revolutions 1 Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Merry ole england knew how to do with thw cronically unemployed and parasites. Perhaps we should set up a system of treadmills, Im sure the global warming crowd would get behind it. Love this on some many levels, Merry Christmas - keep your shoes tied and don't forget a dynamic warmup!! Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted December 19, 2013 Author Share Posted December 19, 2013 Year of the smog 2013 will be remembered as the year that deadly, suffocating smog consumed China Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Christ, I wish you'd get cancer. Doubt Christ could get cancer. Buf if your wife and kids get it, Id be fine with that. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Doubt Christ could get cancer. Buf if your wife and kids get it, Id be fine with that. #noose (you're not even worth me finding the noose url) Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 http://www.viralnova...-trail-huashan/ Think Ill give this one a pass Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now