BF2S Forums Inmate hunger strike

lowing wrote:

Who could discourage you from moving away other than govt. in a socialist country where I am sure the govt. has their hand in the marketplace.

werewolves

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

and on that bombshell I think we have solved the prison problems.

Also every single claim lowing has bought up has been wrong. lol.

How do you know what I said is wrong? Right now we have a prison problem and right now, we have light sentences, bullshit rehab, early releases and relatively easy time with gyms, basketball courts, libraries, cable tv and college degrees. We have  prison system where the prisoners literally run the prison and conduct illegal business inside and outside of prison. I say we tighten it up and make prison. PRISON. I say we take the prisons back from the prisoners.  You offer no suggestions except to stop being so hard on them? Now if there is anything to "lol" at, that suggestion would be it.

Sigh.

If your sentences are so light then why is your prison population 5 x more than any other country (per capita). Either your sentences aren't as light as you claim or for some reason you have 5 x more crime than anywhere else. Which is it?

If you have 5 x more crime then why have you made all the assertions about how good you quality of life is and how the vast majority will never be victims of crime?

You said America was the leader in all industry. Wrong.

You said everybody in Europe lived in a flat. Wrong.

You said Americas poorest have a better quality of life than most other countries. Wrong.

You said most Americans lived in the country. Wrong.

You said you are less likely to be a victim of crime because you live in America and have a gun. Wrong.

You said that everybody who can afford it flocks to the US healthcare system. Wrong.

Im sure theres more but im not trawling the whole thread for it.

How is the prison population of all European countries compared to USA?

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Nah, you're no fun any more. Just the same old. No new ideas or understanding reaches you. I'll let someone else take it up whilst I take a nap.

ok sleep tight. See if you can come back with actual new ideas instead of smart ass comments.

Nah it just gets tedious and kinda painful to watch people spend over a page explaining what was clear in the first post. Socialism lol

Sorry ,Jaekus, I am not the one that said some European govt.s are not fond of people living away from urban centers and discourages it.. If you can't explain that without including govt. in your explanation I can't help that.

lowing wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

lowing wrote:

well if you wanna tell me that the govt. goes out of its way to make sure you don't venture off too far for its own conveniences , I am not sure what kind of a response you would expect from a person who, above all, values his freedom from govt. intervention in his life on such matters.

cheekyninja wrote:

I thought you were just having a moan about me putting words into your mouth and then you come out with that?

Hey if that isn't what he means, why don't you explain it? Try to do so where govt. is not involved in where you live, so that I am wrong in what I said.

If you want to build a house miles out into the country then that is your choice. However. Running electricity and phone lines alone is going to cost about £250k per mile and thats counting on not digging up any roads, plus your water supply, plus sewerage (or you could use a reed bed), plus fibre optic internet, plus gas.

This is why building a house in the middle of nowhere is expensive. There isnt some government tax that increases the further you get from the nearest urban area.

Buying a house in the suburbs is cheaper because they are built cheaper. Buying a house in town is more expensive because there is a higher demand and therefore land is more expensive.

Or in lowing speak the nanny state bans you from not living in a flat.

lowing wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Hey if that isn't what he means, why don't you explain it? Try to do so where govt. is not involved in where you live, so that I am wrong in what I said.

If you want to build a house miles out into the country then that is your choice. However. Running electricity and phone lines alone is going to cost about £250k per mile and thats counting on not digging up any roads, plus your water supply, plus sewerage (or you could use a reed bed), plus fibre optic internet, plus gas.

This is why building a house in the middle of nowhere is expensive. There isnt some government tax that increases the further you get from the nearest urban area.

Buying a house in the suburbs is cheaper because they are built cheaper. Buying a house in town is more expensive because there is a higher demand and therefore land is more expensive.

Or in lowing speak the nanny state bans you from not living in a flat.

then why is it cheaper for us to live away from the city, I mean we need gas, electric, internet water etc.. as well. and what did fatherted mean when he said some European govts are not fond of you moving away from urban centers.? Was that a fraudian slip or does your govt. really care? because he clearly stated the govt. didn't like you venturing too far out because it can't take care of you quite so well.

I don't know Lowing. Presumably because it is cheaper for you to put the infrastructure in place? Or perhaps you don't have to reconnect into Victorian era systems that nobody really knows where they go?

I would suggest that the biggest reason it is cheaper for you to live away from the city is demand. Exactly the same as in Europe. People want to live in cities and therefore it is more expensive. People dont really want to live in the countryside so it is cheaper.

Do our government care? I would suggest that all they care about is being in power but there is already a thread on that. What policies do you think that our government have to keep us in the cities? What direct cost is there to the government of 2 in 10 people living in the country? Yes generally there is cheaper infrastructure (to a point) if everybody lives close together but you would have to have an extreme countryside migration before that started to become an issue. i.e. lots of scattered small communities rather than a city.

Also urbanisation brings its only problems such as crime and unhealthy living conditions

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

If you want to build a house miles out into the country then that is your choice. However. Running electricity and phone lines alone is going to cost about £250k per mile and thats counting on not digging up any roads, plus your water supply, plus sewerage (or you could use a reed bed), plus fibre optic internet, plus gas.

This is why building a house in the middle of nowhere is expensive. There isnt some government tax that increases the further you get from the nearest urban area.

Buying a house in the suburbs is cheaper because they are built cheaper. Buying a house in town is more expensive because there is a higher demand and therefore land is more expensive.

Or in lowing speak the nanny state bans you from not living in a flat.

then why is it cheaper for us to live away from the city, I mean we need gas, electric, internet water etc.. as well. and what did fatherted mean when he said some European govts are not fond of you moving away from urban centers.? Was that a fraudian slip or does your govt. really care? because he clearly stated the govt. didn't like you venturing too far out because it can't take care of you quite so well.

I don't know Lowing. Presumably because it is cheaper for you to put the infrastructure in place? Or perhaps you don't have to reconnect into Victorian era systems that nobody really knows where they go?

I would suggest that the biggest reason it is cheaper for you to live away from the city is demand. Exactly the same as in Europe. People want to live in cities and therefore it is more expensive. People dont really want to live in the countryside so it is cheaper.

Do our government care? I would suggest that all they care about is being in power but there is already a thread on that. What policies do you think that our government have to keep us in the cities? What direct cost is there to the government of 2 in 10 people living in the country? Yes generally there is cheaper infrastructure (to a point) if everybody lives close together but you would have to have an extreme countryside migration before that started to become an issue. i.e. lots of scattered small communities rather than a city.

Also urbanisation brings its only problems such as crime and unhealthy living conditions

Ya got me, I am not the ones that claimed your govts. care where you live because they want to be able to better take care of you more efficiently. Perhaps, like me, you should ask the guy that said it.

We tend to want to drift away from cities, hence the suburban explosion. You gotta get away from this notion that living in the suburbs mean you are somehow living in the middle of nowhere, and it is all of a sudden 1820. It is cheaper for us to live away from the city without exception, and our govt. does not frown upon the idea because they find it more difficult to take care of us. Can you even imagine how that sounds to someone who can not stand govt. intrusion in personal lives and decisions?

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

War Man wrote:

How is the prison population of all European countries compared to USA?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 7_2008.PNG

I think that is pretty succinct.

No figures on this one but correlates quite well with the above.

Image shows "peace levels" rather than crime levels. Hence very high being the best.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ZL3Kngb81qo/SiY7C … imgmax=800

    level of violent crime,
    number of homicides/murders,
    Ease of access to weapons,
    level of organised internal conflict,
    criminality,
    Little respect for human rights and
    likelihood of violent demonstrations.

Note:

The most peaceful country in the world is New Zealand, followed by Denmark and Norway. The least peaceful country is Iraq.

    Western and/or Central European democracies account for 14 of the top 20 rankings.
    All five Scandinavian countries are in the top 10.

The United States is ranked at 83, with a "significant negative" being the jailing of a higher proportion of its population than any other country in the index.

Wonder if you got any stats on how many in our prisons are here illegally and from those other countries that have lower prison rates? Here let me help  http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/ … 4208.shtml   http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … legal.html
and let me guess, you think states like Arizona's boarder control laws are racist. right? Well it would appear simple, get rid of illegal aliens and our prison population and prison stats go down.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-19 05:19:13)

Uzique wrote:

who cares if they're there illegally or not? uk has immigration problems, france has huge immigration problems... mostly all of southern europe on the sea has massive immigration problems (now a humanitarian crisis following the arab-world revolutions and mass exits of refugees). why aren't their prison populations also way up in the high-red? why aren't they considered unpeaceful countries? you have a higher incarceration rate than a former totalitarian communist state, infamous for political prisoners and the rapid silencing of dissidents. i'm not so sure you can blame your problem on wetbacks hopping over the rio grande.

ok show me stats on how many people in your prisons are illegal aliens, and lets compare.

lowing wrote:

ok show me stats on how many people in your prisons are illegal aliens, and lets compare.

Correct me if im wrong but we deport "illegal aliens" (little grey men?) instead of spending 35k a year to accommodate them.

I get the impression these "illegal aliens" are somewhat of a scapegoat in the US.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-07-19 06:20:30)

Uzique wrote:

lowing our infrastructure is much older than yours in america. no shit the govt. is going to try and incentivize people to live where it's more convenient for everyone. if you live in a nanny-state, you'd rather it be an efficient one than one that throws money away, no?

That and Yurpeons don't see the benefit in covering the countryside with slums and roadways.



is way better than



Even if it does mean living in small houses close to where people work.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-19 06:38:19)

lowing wrote:

and let me guess, you think states like Arizona's boarder control laws are racist. right? Well it would appear simple, get rid of illegal aliens and our prison population and prison stats go down.

Oo is that putting words into my mouth again? I couldnt even find Arizona on a map let alone tell you what their border controls are.

Id also like to point out you have labelled me as a "nanny state" socialist yet the WWII thread started because I was arguing (and this is always thin ice) that the Nazis were massively popular in Germany and a lot of their policies were very successful.

Also you are interchanging "country" and "suburbs" depending on which circumstance suits your argument at the time. You started off claiming the majority of Americans enjoy an 8 acre mansion in the country (in reality 20%) and now you are arguing about a suburban explosion? Or do the suburban properties all have 8 acres? :S

You are also comparing a European isolated country house with a US suburban neighbourhood. Of course the infrastructure costs are different. Compare apples with apples ffs.

However I fail to see how your house justifies such a high incarceration rate and such a high crime rate. I would also suggest that crime becomes a larger problem the more densely populated an area is. Therefore your high crime rate would reflect your high percentage of urban living. However you claim the opposite is true which simply does not correlate. Plus you continue to deny, in direct contradiction to all the evidence, that USA has a high crime rate and that you are likely to be a victim of crime.

As for your liberty argument, if having "freedom and liberty" means you are more than 3 times as likely to end up in prison and significantly more likely to be a victim of crime, then you can keep it. Statistically Europe enjoys a higher quality of life so perhaps you could learn something from us?

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-07-19 06:47:01)

Violent crime in the U.S. has been in freefall since the 90's despite increased immigrantion.

I don't give two shits about whatever started this topic but I will just jump in here.

Statistically Europe enjoys a higher quality of life so perhaps you could learn something from us?

Apples and oranges. You cannot compare a large country like the U.S. with small countries like Denmark or Ireland. Those countries are not in the same league as Russia, China, India, Brazil. Those four countries are the only ones in the world that could ever be compared with United States. Ireland and Finland lack the responsibility, size, and importance of all of the aforementioned.

But if you want to compare quality of life a good measure would be the United Nations Human Development Index. The last time the rankings came out (2010) the U.S. came 4th in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index