# Forum About Russia Politics  How bad off are Russians in reality?

## AldRunh

I hear that the streets of Moscow are filled with beggars and that nobody can afford food, etc etc....
But I want to hear from true Russians...how bad of a situation is Russia in? How much does the averege Russian earn (And adjust for the prices in Russia.)? 
How knowedgable are Russians of the world? Here in America it is very bad...people don't even want to know. I think it's a mistake. 
Thanks.

----------


## Pravit

It depends on which Russians you are asking. A while ago, even the Russians themselves could not agree upon whether it was better now or in Soviet times. As for Moscow, they have said it is like a different country inside Russia   ::  Everything is more expensive there and the standard of living is generally higher. Incomes there are higher of course. 
Russians(and most people of other countries) are pretty knowledgeable about the world around them. I suppose every country has its uneducated people, but the US is fairly bad for its educated people not knowing much about the world.  
But, let's let the Russians themselves tell us about it.

----------


## Alexandr_S

[But, let's let the Russians themselves tell us about it.[/quote] 
Well,  I'll try to answer as right as I can. 
My famoly, for example. I live in Moscow. My father's the salary for month is about 600 dollars, my mother's - about 500.
Thet are hi-engeners, and it is not bed mony in Moscow, but, of course, not very good. Middle class.
I have a student's scholarship about 30 dollars  for month and I earn about 150 dollars for month beside it.
And here is Moscow prices - (30 rebels = 1 dollar ) 
charge per home = 1000 rebels
the long loaf of bread = 10 rebels
1kg. of meal = 100 rebels
1liter of benzine = 10 rebels
a bus tiket  = 10 rebels
a month tiket to the undeground = 70-300 rebels
a tiket to the theatre= 70-1000 rebels
a caffe diner = 80-300 rebels
a simple restauran dinner - 1000 - ... rebels
a jeans = 500-2000 rebels
a shoe = 300-2000 rebels
a new computer   = 30 000  rebels
a old car = 30 000 - 60 000 rebels 
Of course, this is middel price, and there are many more expensive things.
You see, it is not difficoult to live in Moscow, but not very fine...
But old people have more difficould life. They can't work, so, theys pension about 200 dollars, so, if they are solitary and nobody helps them, they cant bye dress, only food.
Our "beggers", as usually, from other past-Soviet republics (A middle salary for month in Turkmenistan is about 40 dollars, so people from theyr comes to Moscow and work for food or becomes "beggers"). 
In a small Russians situation is as fine as in Moscow. It is not easy to find good work, and a lot of people take about 200 dollars in a month.
But prises for food are not so hi their. You see, In Soviet times everyone were alikes, and now some people live better, some - worse, and a little part - thery fine (oligarhy and bandits).
Putin stopped larceny of the country (which was under Elcin), but I distress that economic situation does not improve. 
So, is our life more worse than in US and UK?

----------


## Tu-160

From what time we have such currency as «rebels»?  ::  
I don't live in Moscow but the prices written above are similar. 
Prices: 
A liter of milk — 10 roubles (30 roubles for a long-life pack);
a bus ticket — 5 roubles (7 and 10 roubles for taxi-bus);
one hour dial-up internet — 14 roubles;
a book — 70-200 roubles;
a simple cell-phone — 3000-5000 roubles ( 5 roubles per minute, send SMS — 1.5 roubles (depends on tariff, of course));
railway ticket to Moscow (950 km) — 800-1000 roubles for a comfortable place and 300-400 for a non-comfortable;
one kg of sausage — 60-120 roubles (and more);
a pair of socks — 15 roubles;
a tie — about 120 roubles;
a pirate CD — 70-80 roubles;
a legal DVD — don't remember exactly but about 500 roubles;
Nvidia GeForce4 FX5200 128Mb DDR AGP8x, TV-out, DVI  ::  — 2500 roubles. 
Salaries: 
A teacher — 3000-5000 roubles;
a metalworker — 10000 roubles;
a director of an enterprise — depends but not less than 15000 roubles;
a consultant in a shop — up to 8000 roubles;
an accountant — 15000-30000 roubles and more. 
There are almost no beggars in my town (though I didn't see them much in Moscow too). Usually it is kind of swindlers, old or disabled men, and refugees from south regions. 
Russians are quite knowledgeable about the world, I think. News show us very many various things. Though I suspect that many essential details (especially in politics) can be hidden. Main news on TV were (and are) Iraq, European Union, China's astronaut, ISS, Schwarzenegger as a deputy (or such). But when CNN and BBC were talking about Liberia our media have shown us nothing about this. Only after month or so they made some small reports. I was speaking about TV programs but, of course, in newspapers and especially in internet you can find anything you want.

----------


## Jasper May

I think western goods are about as expensive as in the western world, but what really matters is the daily groceries and clothes. They're far cheaper. 
@Tu-160: Are those salaries per week (my book says Russians often get payed per week), per month or per year?
I read somewhere that everyone in Russia pays bribes (80th most corrupt country). As much as the total revenue is bribed per year. How much do they cost, normally?

----------


## z80

> 1liter of benzine = 10 rebels

 
Errr, what the hell are you using benzine for?  
Anyway, australian crap:- 
average wage (all in AU$) 40000 
average new car $28000
half OK old car $8000
Litre of fuel $0.96
average house $200000
litre of UHT (long life) milk $1.15
Bread $1.85
1 KG sausages $4
Jeans $30 - 40
Shoes $40
New computer $2000
1kg of meat $10 - 14 
1kg of ammonium nitrate $20
half a litre of diesel $0.50

----------


## Pravit

> 1liter of benzine = 10 rebels
> 			
> 		  Errr, what the hell are you using benzine for?

 Their cars have to run on something, don't they?   ::   
бензин = petrol. 
As for me I prefer to just say "Gas", but I was translating specifically for you... ::

----------


## Jasper May

In Holland prices are very similar to the ones z80 listed.

----------


## Tu-160

> Are those salaries per week (my book says Russians often get payed per week), per month or per year? 
> I read somewhere that everyone in Russia pays bribes (80th most corrupt country). As much as the total revenue is bribed per year. How much do they cost, normally?

 Usually Russians speak about roubles per month if they don't make special definition. Not sure about Muscovites. 
I don't know how researchers counted a number of bribes (by asking people? or by spying?). Anyway, I think bribes are more actual for «high circles» (rich people who have to make even more money). Ordinary Russians can meet with bribes in rare cases. Some people, who don't want to lose their time, just pay. Some go to police. But it depends on who asks for bribing, you or an official. There are only three things which are famous of their attitude to bribes—educational organisations (when you are too stupid to pass normal exams. It can cost as a cheap car), local recruting centres (when you don't want to serve in army), and road police (when you don't want to pay fine). It doesn't mean that you can make bribes in every such place (you may «earn» some years in prison), but people who don't suffer from luck of money and shame try to use such possibilities.

----------


## Alexandr_S

1. O, Это - моя ошибка! Рубли, не мятежники!!!   :: 
3.  За month.
3. взятки действительно очень популярные (для qwick регистрации автомобиля - У меня не было ожидания времени месяц, так что Я должен платить 50$)
4. AU$ = ?  Roubles

----------


## AldRunh

Why doesn't Russia simply attempt to lower prices? I mean, middle class jeans costing 500 rubles...an entire months salery!!!   ::

----------


## Propp

"1kg. of meal = 100 rebels"
I like it!   ::   ::   ::   
Actually I bought "a simple cell-phone" for 1200 roubles in the computer market, but it is second-hand, of course. And I never bought a computer for $1000 in those stupid shops. If you have enough brains you go to a computer market, buy anything you want for no more than $500 or even $300, get a screwdriver and screw it. 
I thought the bread is 7 r. But I haven't went shopping recently, so may be something changed. Since I have a pancreatitis now I eat just an oatmeals, they cost 15 r. a 500 g paket.  ::  
Of course my situation is not so bad, I was kidding a little. Prices are different in shops and markets. As far as I know only fruits, some meat and vegetables, sometimes books, shoes and clothes, are more cheaper than in Europe. And bus tickets of course... And museum tickets.... and... and other stuff...  ::   ::   ::

----------


## Zeus

> 4. AU$ = ?  Roubles

 $AU ~ 0.7$US ~ 21..22 p.

----------


## JJ

My income is $360 (11000 rub) + my wife(unemployment benefit and she works (not official) as a janitor) $130, then $490 per month. I've got 2 kids.
My spending per month:
I've got an own apartment so I pay for utilities only(cold and hot water, heat, elecricity, elevator etc) - $25
food - $200-250
kindergarten - $10 
school breakfasts - $7
cellural phones - $25
rides by bus  - $30
So my spending is about 290-350 per month.
The prices mostly are as Tu-160 said, but cell phones cost from $60 for new one, 1 minute of call costs from $0,04 up to $0,12.
I've got a car but I see no reasons to use it all the time becouse a bus ticket costs only $0.17 and the average time interval between buses or trolleybuses is about several minutes.

----------


## Scorpio

> Why doesn't Russia simply attempt to lower prices? I mean, middle class jeans costing 500 rubles...an entire months salery!!!

 Good idea!!! So you're against the "liberal", free-price and free-market economy?   ::

----------


## Jasper May

Why doesn't Russia just try to increase wages?  ::

----------


## AldRunh

> Originally Posted by AldRunh  Why doesn't Russia simply attempt to lower prices? I mean, middle class jeans costing 500 rubles...an entire months salery!!!     Good idea!!! So you're against the "liberal", free-price and free-market economy?

 What? Don't "liberals" tend to be more in favor of a centralized economy?
Is there something Russia could do but isn't? For whatever reason (Like the US...it isn't giving NK the nonaggression treaty because of "pride". Bah)

----------


## Pravit

Russians, how much does it cost you to go on Masterrussian every day? Don't you get charged for internet/phone time by the minute? Or do you use those finicky "internet card" things with a dialer and a certain amount of hours   ::   I had to use those when I was in Bangkok. I would quickly get into my mail and hit "Reply" then get offline and write the letter, than get online again and send   ::

----------


## JJ

> Russians, how much does it cost you to go on Masterrussian every day?

 It's free for me.  ::  The works where I work pays about $0,18 per 1 MB.  

> Don't you get charged for internet/phone time by the minute?

 There is no charge for phone time by the minute in my town. The phone costs about $4-5 per month. The dial-up access to internet costs from $0.30 per hour or from $0.08 per 1 MB.

----------


## AldRunh

Hmm...Some Russian friends tell me that Boris Yelstin is responsible for Russias great economic crash (and they described a certain part of his anatomy in...colourful words) 
Is this true?

----------


## Zeus

> Hmm...Some Russian friends tell me that Boris Yelstin is responsible for Russias great economic crash (and they described a certain part of his anatomy in...colourful words) 
> Is this true?

 Well, I'm not going to speculate about the first question  :: ; as for the second one, I don't know what you mean. He doesn't have two fingers on his left hand since childhood (has played with a WW2 mine). I don't know anything else.

----------


## dacha_culture

A couple of comments: In Russia, you can buy consumer goods for as little or as much as you want. For rediculously high prices, go to the center of Moscow and shop at the malls there. For reasonable prices, stay away from the center. For bargains, go to the markets. 
Not all food products are cheaper here - my Russian friends and I have found many food items that can be purchased as cheaply or cheaper in the US. (Vodka is a notable exeption here.) 
Most electronic items are sold at about the same price as in the States, but typically a bit more expensive if you buy them in a store. However, in the markets, you can by them for cheaper than in the U.S. 
CDs, DVDs, etc: Rarely have I seen stuff here that isn't pirated, so yes, this stuff is cheaper. 
Internet: unlimited access can be purchased for $35 a month in some districts. 
Wages in Moscow: my wife's parents both are engineers with 20+ years experience. They rake in less than $500 a month each. My wife works in business (though here degree was in teaching), she has a couple years experience and has a salary of over $1000 a month. 
St. Petersburg and Moscow have drastically different living conditions than most of the rest of the country. I know this from experience - I spent some time in a small Russian village, though only a couple hours from Moscow. There was no running water, the heater was fueled with wood, and I had to cross a goat pen to get to the outhouse (on the flip side, at least there was electricity). In the villages, very low living conditions are normal. It's definitely a different world out there.

----------


## Scorpio

> Hmm...Some Russian friends tell me that Boris Yelstin is responsible for Russias great economic crash (and they described a certain part of his anatomy in...colourful words) 
> Is this true?

 Remember Yeltsin was in power from 1991 to 2000. Right? 
OK. Now, just take a look at some charts:  *Coal mining, mln. t., 1970-2002*    *Petrol production, mln. t., 1970-2002* 
[img] http://www.situation.ru/app/rs/books/wh ... age010.gif
[/img]  *Energy production, kW/h, 1970-2002* 
[img] http://www.situation.ru/app/rs/books/wh ... age004.gif
[/img]  *Steel production, mln. t., 1970-2002* 
[img] http://www.situation.ru/app/rs/books/wh ... age016.gif[/img] 
(to be continued...)

----------


## Scorpio

Well... coal, gas, petrol, even electricity - it is all the things so-called "liberals" despise. This is all about "raw-material economy", right? Maybe in more advanced areas of economy things are much better? 
Oops, no. Actually, in advanced branches of economy things are much WORSE. Let's look, what happened with mechanical engineering during Yeltsinism:  *Production of diesel generators (thousands), 1970-2002:* 
[img]http://www.situation.ru/app/rs/books/whitebook/c4.files/image044.gif
[/img]  *Production of excavators (thousands), 1970-2002:* 
[img]http://www.situation.ru/app/rs/books/whitebook/c4.files/image046.gif
[/img]  *Production of bulldozers (thousands), 1970-2002:*    *Production of tower cranes (thousands), 1970-2002:*    *Tractors (thousands), 1970-2002:*    *Lorries (thousands), 1970-2002:*    *Combine harvesters (thousands), 1970-2002:*

----------


## Scorpio

Well... some "liberals" I encounter despise all industrial economic as well. Yes, there are ones seriouisly thinking, that the economics must be "postindustrial". Why people need these huge plant and factories, blast-furnaces and rolling mills, when they can build banks and stock exchanges instead?  ::  
Maybe they are right, and without industry people's life is better? Oh no, it's worse! What a striking surprise for "liberals"!  *Consumption of milk products, in conv. units, per capita:*    *Consumption of meat products, kg, per capita:*    *Consumption of fish products, kg, per capita:*    *Production of wheat, flour and relatives, mln. t.:*    *Sugar and confectionaries, thousand t.:*    *Some medicines (1-antibiotics, 2-vitamines), t.:*    *And here are hospitals and clinics:*

----------


## Scorpio

This gives some idea about Yeltsin's "reforms", right?
And here is their net result:  *Overall population growth since 1950, per thousand:*    *Birth rate (green) and death rate (black):*    *Syphilis among teenagers:*   
I think it's enough. 
Now, what do *you* think about Yeltsin???

----------


## scotcher

I think you need to go look up "liberal" in your dictionary, or buy a new dictionary, one of the two.

----------


## N

> I think you need to go look up "liberal" in your dictionary, or buy a new dictionary, one of the two.

 No, he don't need. He marked the word "liberal" with inverted commas, you see. It means "so-called liberal" - they (our reformers) identify themself as liberal but they aren't indeed. But, neverthless, the West is in sympathy with them. 
In Russian people call them "либерасты", "демокрады", "дерьмократы", "общечеловеки" и еще дофига таких же и более грубоватых выражений    ::

----------


## bad manners

> *Overall population growth since 1950, per thousand:*

 That does not prove anything since Stalin was a mass murderer and Yeltsin was Clinton's friend. The immense population growth during Stalin's times and the depopulation under Yeltsin must be figments of Stalinist imagination.

----------


## Zeus

> No, he don't need. He marked the word "liberal" with inverted commas, you see. It means "so-called liberal" - they (our reformers) identify themself as liberal but they aren't indeed. But, neverthless, the West is in sympathy with them. 
> In Russian people call them "либерасты", "демокрады", "дерьмократы", "общечеловеки" и еще дофига таких же и более грубоватых выражений

 First, talk about yourself that way, not for all Russians. 
Second, you'd better follow scotcher's advice. You and Scorpio really mix up democracy and liberalism, as many Russians do. Meanwhile, these are completely different concepts, almost orthogonal. Yeltsin was liberal by all accounts. He just wasn't a real democrat. 
Third, Scorpio, do you really think all that charts prove Yeltsin's guilt? Well, I know you do. Don't you think it's an oversimplification? Of course, he was in power and so he was responsible. But it's just not that simple to blame him in everything.

----------


## N

...

----------


## N

А я и не говорил за всех русских. Я сказал, что на русском люди их так называют. И вы тоже, видимо, не заметили, что слово "либералы" заключено в кавычки. Спорить о понятиях либерал и демократ (без кавычек) я не собираюсь.    

> Of course, he was in power and so he was responsible. But it's just not that simple to blame him in everything.

 Это старая сказка о хорошем царе и плохих боярах?   ::

----------


## bad manners

> Third, Scorpio, do you really think all that charts prove Yeltsin's guilt? Well, I know you do. Don't you think it's an oversimplification? Of course, he was in power and so he was responsible. But it's just not that simple to blame him in everything.

 Strangely, the same argument when applied to Stalin becomes: "have you seen the recently confirmed charts of those arrested and executed when Stalin was in power? Of course he was in power and so he was responsible. *So one can simply blame him for everything*." Then when one shows some positive charts (education, health care, to name a couple), the same argument becomes "... *but it's just not that simple to attribute everything to him*". 
I perfectly understand that these charts cannot prove anything. It is not because something is the matter with the charts. It is because the posterior argument is highly selective and extremely biased.

----------


## TronDD

Are these charts supposed to put blame on Yeltsin for Russia's problems?  They all start to dive in '87, 4 years before he came into power, and they all start to go back up 2 years before he left. 
I'm saying this as one who is completly ignorant of Russia's economy and politics, but it doesn't look like he can be blamed for anything except not instantly fixing the country. 
Tim.

----------


## N

> Are these charts supposed to put blame on Yeltsin for Russia's problems?  They all start to dive in '87, 4 years before he came into power, and they all start to go back up 2 years before he left.

 On Gorbachev & Yeltsin. Два сапога - пара.

----------


## bad manners

> Are these charts supposed to put blame on Yeltsin for Russia's problems?  They all start to dive in '87, 4 years before he came into power, and they all start to go back up 2 years before he left. 
> I'm saying this as one who is completly ignorant of Russia's economy and politics, but it doesn't look like he can be blamed for anything except not instantly fixing the country. 
> Tim.

 What you're saying is correct. My impression is, too, that they all started to decline somewhere in 1987-88. The critical observation is that before 1991 that decline is within normal fluctuations (on that charts that show 1984 and earlier). But after 1991 they "sky-rocketed", into the ground. My interpretation is "there had been certain recession until 1991, and the reforms of 1991 were meant (or advertised) to deal with it, but they turned the recession into a catastrophe". 
Not to mention that the prior recession is illuminating of Gorbi's perestroika.

----------


## mike

> I think you need to go look up "liberal" in your dictionary, or buy a new dictionary, one of the two.

 The oligarchs are liberals in the classical sense of the word.  Freedom of the individual, freedom of the businessman, freedom of the market.  Because of the "inevitability" of the free market in the West we call this "neoliberalism" (Democrats, Labour Party) to distinguish it from the traditional liberal of the 20th century (Green Party, Social Democrats) who would be opposed to laissez-faire capitalism.  The confusion over the term is just another example of why using conventional left-right distinctions to classify political movements is outdated and worthless. 
Now that I think about it, is there a paleoliberal party in Russia?  I know the KPRF are anti-revolutionary (or at least claim to be in their platform), but usually liberals are capitalists who think they can just make things "more fair," not full-out socialists.

----------


## Zeus

> Strangely, the same argument when applied to Stalin becomes: "have you seen the recently confirmed charts of those arrested and executed when Stalin was in power? Of course he was in power and so he was responsible. *So one can simply blame him for everything*."

 Where did I say that? Any governor is responsible, more that anyone else. But the responsibility and blame are different things. And in both cases (Yeltsin, Stalin, whoever) it is ridiculous to blame for everything. 
However, one little, but principal difference does exist. Yeltsin has been elected in 1991 directly by people (let's set aside 1996, it's another story). So the nation bears direct responsibility for its choice and fate. 
In case of Stalin it is not so simple, although my general point is that eventually it is nation's responsibility, too.

----------


## Zeus

> И вы тоже, видимо, не заметили, что слово "либералы" заключено в кавычки. Спорить о понятиях либерал и демократ (без кавычек) я не собираюсь.

 Суть была в том, что они (Ельцин, там, Чубайс и пр.) - либералы без всяких кавычек (ну, или неолибералы, как вот mike подсказывает. Но, в общем-то, другое значение в русском давно не используется).   

> Это старая сказка о хорошем царе и плохих боярах?

 Нет. О том, что все друг друга стоят, в том чилсе и народ - правительство.

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by bad manners  Strangely, the same argument when applied to Stalin becomes: "have you seen the recently confirmed charts of those arrested and executed when Stalin was in power? Of course he was in power and so he was responsible. *So one can simply blame him for everything*."   Where did I say that? Any governor is responsible, more that anyone else. But the responsibility and blame are different things. And in both cases (Yeltsin, Stalin, whoever) it is ridiculous to blame for everything.

 Thank you for admitting that. I did not mean you in a particular, I was remarking on the general tendencies.   

> However, one little, but principal difference does exist. Yeltsin has been elected in 1991 directly by people (let's set aside 1996, it's another story). So the nation bears direct responsibility for its choice and fate.

 Correct. The only problem with that "responsibility" argument is that by 1991 the nation had no idea what they were up to. It was a nation so politically naive that any charlatan could have been elected. One actually was. Had it had a smaller scale, it could have been qualified as a fraud, and any criminal code treats that irrespectively of the victim's "responsibility". Yet I agree that they can only blame themselves for this choice. As well as for the choice to extend Yeltsin's immunity infinitely.   

> In case of Stalin it is not so simple, although my general point is that eventually it is nation's responsibility, too.

 Agreed, too.

----------


## Scorpio

First, thanks to anyone's comments. 
@scotcher: 
Yes, I quite intentionally enclosed "liberals" in double quotes (as well as "reforms"). That's the term not me, but these guys used to describe themselves. I'm not sure they are right... and I don't care much either. Maybe it's all wrong, but for now in Russia term "liberal" is too much associated with yeltsins, gaydars and chubaises, and too much sounds like a swear word. It's too late to fix now... easier to fix some dictionaries instead  ::  
@Zeus: 
Claiming Yeltsin is *guilty* really is oversimplification, but claiming he
is *responsible* is just Right Thing. Do you deny his responsibility for evens happened? 
The *President of the state* is principially responsible for all things happening in his country. If he can't stand the responsibility, he must *resign* and free the place for somebody, who suits better to this job. This just the thing Yetsin did... in December 1999. I think, it was first (and, obviously, last) smart thing he did for all 9 years of his presidency. 
@TronDD: 
Yes, you're right: most of the economic problems of (at these time) Soviet Union started in Gorbachev times. It all started with his economic innovations: "Cooperation", "Joint Ventures", etc. What started with
Gorbachev as "problems" just turned into "catastrophe" in Yeltsin's times. In these sense definitely Yeltsin is true Gorby's successor.  ::  
Yes, you're right too: things start to get better in 1998. Actually, "liberal" reforms came to a quite predictable end in august 1998, and then first "anti-liberal" (some even call it "communistic") government of Russia, headed by Yevgeny Primakov and Yuri Maslyukov, was established. They started more or less reasonable economic politics (for first time from 1991), so the results were evident. 
However, even Primakov's appointment wasn't much Yeltsin's merit. He was appointed by *State Duma decree* (and despite serious Yeltsinist's resistance).

----------


## Tu-160

> Claiming Yeltsin is guilty really is oversimplification, but claiming he 
> is responsible is just Right Thing. Do you deny his responsibility for events happened?  
> The President of the state is principially responsible for all things happening in his country. If he can't stand the responsibility, he must resign and free the place for somebody, who suits better to this job. This just the thing Yetsin did... in December 1999. I think, it was first (and, obviously, last) smart thing he did for all 9 years of his presidency.

 Small addition. During Ельцин's period everybody from our government was telling us that the economic situation is improving, the country is developing, and everything is ok, while in every region far from Moscow and other big towns we could see empty fields, rotten machines, and farming buildings without windows and doors. It says for itself. They either knew nothing about the country which shows their «professionalism» or just lied that must cause a court examination.

----------


## Carczarina

Even you everyone dicussed this earlier here are some costs in Chicago, USA.  
car insurance per month: $100
cell phone bill per month: $40
gallon of milk: $2.99
gallon of gas: $1.61
24 pack of Coca Cola: $5.99
movie theather ticket: $8.00
music CD: $15.00 
Things can be expensive.

----------


## drafter

How much are Russian taxes?  Just curious since I pay a lot for things like property and income taxes, plus things like vehicle registrations, permits, etc.  Plus if you fail to have any of the government required permits, insurance, etc., they fine you a few hundred dollars.

----------


## Carczarina

Good point drafter. I am also interested in Russian taxes and such. Yah we pay permits, taxes, fees anf fines crazy. If we don't we pay more and more. Luckly I am good with my money and such. What is up with Russian taxes???? Thanx

----------


## bad manners

> How much are Russian taxes?  Just curious since I pay a lot for things like property and income taxes, plus things like vehicle registrations, permits, etc.  Plus if you fail to have any of the government required permits, insurance, etc., they fine you a few hundred dollars.

 I only know one thing for sure. The income tax in Russia is flat 13%. It has not always been the case, I think it started only two years ago.

----------


## Jasper May

Jesus. I believe my father pays 60%!  ::

----------


## drafter

13% would be fine with me.  Between state and federal I pay at least 25%.  Then I pay at least a couple thousand a year in property taxes.

----------


## bad manners

> 13% would be fine with me.  Between state and federal I pay at least 25%.  Then I pay at least a couple thousand a year in property taxes.

 Don't forget there are social security fees on top of it. And the business taxes are completely different, and are pretty hard as far as I know.

----------


## змма

The only flat we can rent in Yekaterinburg is a 2 bedroomed flat with a small kitchen with no room to sit, only cook, a small living room and a bathroom. There is a small balcony but only to put washing out to dry. It is not that expensive for us to rent but is the largest flat we could find. It is not very good for there are my parents and us 3 kids.

----------


## BlackMage

When I was in Saint Petersburg, I noted a large amount of beggars, which I didn't mind in the slightest, and occasionally dropped  5 рублей, street performers, which I was impressed by, and gypsies who tried to sexually assault my group, and whom I was compelled to gun down with the cheap пистолет I was offered on the Метро.

----------


## 44 Canon

> Russians(and most people of other countries) are pretty knowledgeable about the world around them. I suppose every country has its uneducated people, but the US is fairly bad for its educated people not knowing much about the world.

 I think you would be very surprised.
 I have met and known PLENTY of people from Russia and various other parts of the world. Most have only been to 2 or 3 countries ( if even that ) and only have a media based view on the rest of the world. 30% of the Americans I know have been to 5-10 countries and live among dozens of cultures.
 Immigration is out of control in this country, so the American exposure to other cultures is extreme.
 Their is this opinion going around in Europe, particularly among the Socialists that Europeans have a thurally greater amount of knowledge about the world then the Americans. This is apparently to discredit Americans and the more "independent" based political structure hated so dearly by Europeans, despite the fact that it is for this political structure that much of Europe has half the freedom and happiness they have, not to mention that Socialism has proven every single time it's been used to not work ( the Soviet Union being among them.
 However, That THEORY about Americans is literally impossible. It's also usually shared by Europeans who have met very few Americans and/or only met a single class of Americans.
 America has more military stations in more countries then anyone else, more trade with foreign nations, more immigration and more available education.
 These things give even the average American significant knowledge about other countries and cultures and first hand exposure to them, in addition to text. We also have two news stations ( Fox News and CNN ) who report events from around the globe on national TV LIVE ( as it's happening, no editing ) allowing viewers to see things for what they are without editing details in and out.
 If you think that America doesn't care about the rest of the world, then think about the billions of American dollars every year spent to help people from around the world.
 Exactly how much does Russia spend to help other countries in need?
 It also shows on a military level. We put billions of dollars in to precision weaponry ( which I have worked in the promotional field of ) designed for humane purposes ( such as bombing the interior of a target building and nothing else.
 I also watched on Fox News, a live report from a journalist who was running the camera in the middle of a fierce firefight as an American medic patched up a wounded Iraqi soldier while bullets were flying, and this happened all throughout the war.
 We also learned that Iraqis were being forced to suicide attack US troops with their families being held hostage, so we went out of our way ( even risked our lives ) to non-vitally wound them rather then kill them.
 The war in Iraq, for what has happened, has had the lowest rate of casualties in history, by a very long shot.
 Compare that to Russia's behavior in Chechnya ( the most barbaric war of our time ) where both sides are slitting eachothers throats.
 Don't get me wrong, Russia has some VERY smart and intelligent people, undoubtedly as smart as Americans, as they prove time and again, and America also has an extreme number of idiots and uneducated people but Americans IN GENERAL are much more knowledgeable and aware of world events AND HISTORY then any other country.

----------


## Pravit

Dear 44Cannon, don't make quotes of things I wrote about half a year ago. Anyhow, I believe you are overreacting. Although now I don't think it was a very good comment for me to make, I must say that you said some rather strange stuff.  
I don't know where you're getting this 30% of Americans having been to 5-10 countries thing. Perhaps you live among a very well-traveled group of Americans, but I'd like to see actual statistics for this. I was born and raised in the United States and as such I do know a bit about the average American. Most everybody around here has been to only one other country(that being Mexico, although I don't really think a night of partying in Juarez should count as an experience of a foreign country). About living among dozens of cultures, isn't that number just a _little_ high? 
About me thinking America doesn't care about other countries, please quote where I said that. I think you are getting a tad defensive without good reason. 
Fox News? Let's...eheh. No comment. 
About Chechnya, I'm in no position to judge any side, but you must realize the situation is a _little_ bit different there.    

> I also watched on Fox News, a live report from a journalist who was running the camera in the middle of a fierce firefight as an American medic patched up a wounded Iraqi soldier while bullets were flying, and this happened all throughout the war.

 Yes, you saw a video on Fox News, of course it applies to the entire American military and it confirms your belief this happened throughout the war. I saw several pictures of rather nasty things happening in one of the Baghdad prisons, but of course, those are only isolated incidents and they don't apply to the entire American military. Right?   

> Americans IN GENERAL are much more knowledgeable and aware of world events AND HISTORY then any other country.

 Everything I have seen thus far has led me to think otherwise.  
44Cannon, I don't know you, and you seem to be a very pleasant fellow, but as you know, I dislike forum arguments. You can think whatever you'd like, but it'd be quite something to convince me to think the same way.

----------


## 44 Canon

Well, at least we're shaking hands for once. I've been around the country, and spent time with the US Army at Ft. Hood and have worked with ALLOT of different classes of people, and lived around them. A very large portion of them have been all over the world, usually through military travel or business.
 If you go to Bad areas, weather the inner city or backwoods, you will find allot of people who have never left their county, much less the country, but in most other places,you will find the very opposate.
 I am well aware of our militarys behavior.
 Haterid towards Americans is a matter of getting it out of the way before it comes up. Nothing more.  

> Yes, you saw a video on Fox News, of course it applies to the entire American military and it confirms your belief this happened throughout the war.

   I never said that, although I did monitor the war on both Fox News and CNN. I also work with a guy who puts weapons on the battle field and have friends who are snipers and medics in the Military, and also have a cousin who was in the Navy at the time. I also have friends who's kids are stationed their. I know about bad behavior our military has done and does that you'll never know about, as well as good. By all accounts, our military is behaving incredibly well throughout this war. Yes, their have been some problems, and some things get out of hand, but far less then any other war we've fought, or the Europeans for that matter.   

> I saw several pictures of rather nasty things happening in one of the Baghdad prisons, but of course, those are only isolated incidents and they don't apply to the entire American military. Right?

  Their is a smearing campaign by the liberal media, which has made a highlight out of that isolated incident. Fox News and CNN are neutral stations, yet, they haven't been able to find that much bad behavior by US troops, and they themselves have been as quick as anyone to rush in and catch the story when something like that happens.
Either way, I do appreciate your effort to shake hands on these issues and discuss them like civilized people for a change, and I thank you and respect you for that.

----------


## Pravit

44Canon, you're a rather agreeable guy indeed, thank you too for being civil about it. About military people having been all over the world, I must agree. I live in a southwestern New Mexican town, though, so we don't have that many well-traveled people here   ::  About hatred towards Americans, I've gotten to know many people from foreign countries who have a positive, or at least neutral feeling towards the US. 
About the video you linked me to, I'm in a fairly good mood right now, so I don't want to see something revolting. Am I right in guessing it's that recent video of the kidnapped American being executed?

----------


## BlackMage

The problem is that 'they' hate AMERICANS in general.  But we don't respond the same way.  When I first watched those videos, I regretfully, wished to gut the first Muslim I saw in response.  Thankfully I calmed myself rather quickly.  Extremists hate AMERICANS, despite the fact that these civilians have done NOTHING to them, nor does America attack civilians.

----------


## 44 Canon

> About hatred towards Americans, I've gotten to know many people from foreign countries who have a positive, or at least neutral feeling towards the US.

  Their are pleanty of both.

----------


## BETEP

It's my five penny: 
1Ls = 0.65 EUR = 0.53 $ = 0.98 ? 
1l petrol = 0.49 Ls
1l diesel fuel = 0.43 Ls
car insuranse for a year = about 50 Ls 
house keeping (cold water, hot water and heating are included)= 30 Ls (summer) - 50 Ls (winter)
1kW energy = 0.045 Ls 
lunch (soup, meat, potato, coffee) = 1.5 Ls

----------


## scotcher

> Their is a smearing campaign by the liberal media, which has made a highlight out of that isolated incident. Fox News and CNN are neutral stations, yet, they haven't been able to find that much bad behavior by US troops, and they themselves have been as quick as anyone to rush in and catch the story when something like that happens.
> Either way, I do appreciate your effort to shake hands on these issues and discuss them like civilized people for a change, and I thank you and respect you for that.

 Fox News is a neutral station? 
Wow, you really believe that? We must get a different FoxNews here then, because the only one I have ever seen is the most twisted, biased, one-sided, tub-thumping, flag-waving, ideology-soaked propganda machine this side of Pyong Yang. 
You were joking, weren't you?

----------


## waxwing

Perhaps he meant it had a pH of 7?  ::

----------


## Линдзи

> Perhaps he meant it had a pH of 7?

   ::   
I tried testing the pH of Fox, but then my eyes started bleeding when Hannity came on screen and the blood got on the strip and messed up the result, not that I could see the result anyway, what with the hemorrhaging.   
Alas, the world shall never know.  Whenever I see Hannity I just want to punch his smug face.  Aaaaargh.

----------


## Линдзи

The sight of him...it's making me angry...and Sean won't like me when I'm.... HULK SMASH!!!!!

----------


## Jasper May

God, that's awful! We have the same thing in Holland, where we (i.e. normal Dutch people) hate anyone with an overly Christian-looking head (not Christians themselves, mind). Republican heads are even worse, I see.

----------


## Alexi

> nor does America attack civilians.

 Yeah, about that... The media's always highlighting bad US military blunders that hurt foreign civilians, while all kinds of left-activists try showing how America is inadvertantly responsible for non-Americans dying. 
Psychotic fundamentalists with guns seem to love this stuff because, to them, it justifies going out and killing the average Western civilian.

----------


## Линдзи

> Originally Posted by smartdude  nor does America attack civilians.   Yeah, about that... The media's always highlighting bad US military blunders that hurt foreign civilians, while all kinds of left-activists try showing how America is inadvertantly responsible for non-Americans dying. 
> Psychotic fundamentalists with guns seem to love this stuff because, to them, it justifies going out and killing the average Western civilian.

 Oh, like terrorists need some kind of justification.  It's justification enough that the West exists.  And in any case, I think a lot of terrorists (and potential terrorists, nothin' quite like having your home blown up and your family killed to turn you over to the dark side) are, oh, I don't know, seeing the stuff in the middle east first hand or at least hearing first hand reports from their operatives?  They hardly need to watch CNN to figure out what's going on.  No, the the so-called "liberal media" is a convenient whipping boy, but it's not the problem here.  The problem is that the US is trying to fight a "war on terror" via conventional means, and the funny thing about that is, smart bombs may be smart, but they can't tell a terrorist apart from any other civilian-lookin' guy running around in the desert.  Apparently some our own troops can't tell the difference between a wedding party and a terrorist camp.  So until we invent _mind-reading homing beacons_, fighting terrorism with a conventional army is, in a word, retarded. 
You'd think the US government would have learned something about the futility of fighting a "war on [vague concept]" during the War on Drugs, but noooooo.  
I think it's good that the media are are publicizing the military's mistakes.  If the US wants to be the world's policeman, it should behave like a proper police force and not the Rodney King-era LAPD.  Rumsfeld would be overjoyed to sweep anything and everything under the rug, and I for one am happy that the media aren't letting up.  Hell, I hope they pound him and other inept and/or corrupt leaders even harder.  Feel free to call me a left-activist for thinking that we shouldn't act like idiot barbarians.  I'll take it as a compliment.

----------


## Линдзи

> God, that's awful! We have the same thing in Holland, where we (i.e. normal Dutch people) hate anyone with an overly Christian-looking head (not Christians themselves, mind). Republican heads are even worse, I see.

 Heh.  Can you post an example of a Christian-looking head?  I want to know if I have one.  I fancy myself a STEALTH CHRISTIAN. 
I'm not sure there's a "Republican head," but there sure is a smug bastard head, and between the smugness and the "HUR HUR HUR LIBRULS R SO STOOPID" (and I'm not even a liberal, I just abhor faulty logic and scapegoating, no matter who the victim) schtick Hannity churns out, well... HULK SMASH!!!!!!

----------


## Линдзи

Now, just to send a little bit of love Fox's way, what with my recent Sean Hannity-bashing, I'd like to admit publically:  I like Bill O'Reilly.   
Oh, I know.   ::   
But there's something about watching him gleefully hang up on callers that warms my heart a bit.  Now _there_ is a man who is filled with this vague and undefined petty bitterness, and is putting it to good use: being a jerk to idiots who call in to his TV show.    
There's an Al Franken quote that I like, where he's talking about O'Reilly.  I don't remember exactly how it goes, but it's something like, "I sometimes find myself agreeing with Bill, like when he says the government should stay out of our bedrooms, or when I'm drunk."  Which pretty much sums up the way I feel about O'Reilly.  That, and it makes me giggle when he yells at Fundies who call in and start complaining about Catholics.  My favorite one was when there was a segment about a Church scandal, and this call-in ass was all "bleeh bleeh bleeh it's not just the bad administrators and priests that are a problem but that all Catholics are evil don't you think blah blah" and O'Reilly was like, "DID YOU NOT NOTICE THE 'O-APOSTROPHE' IN MY NAME, IDIOT?" 
Hee hee hee.  
You're looking out for me, Bill.  Me and all the other hyper-irritable people in this world.

----------


## Линдзи

As long as I've already destroyed the formatting of this page with the Hannity (*HULK SMASH!!!!!*) pictures, I'll put up a comic that accurately describes the _O'Reilly Factor_.     
Aw, yeah.  Bill's an Independent, all right.  Independently _unpleasant_.   
Plus, his bio from his vaguely lame official websiteincludes this wonderful line:  

> In his spare time, O'Reilly is an avid sleeper.

 I can't help but like him.  Is this a sign of mental weakness?  Probably.  But that's something with which I can live.

----------


## Jasper May

Examples of Christian (Primarily Protestant - puritan, lutheran, calvinist, reformed or other) Heads:      
The second is our Prime Minister...

----------


## Friendy

That was very interesting, Lindsay (about Bill O'Reilly and Co), thank you very much.  ::

----------


## Линдзи

Hee.  Friendy, you are a sweetie.  Normally people don't thank me for complaining about Fox.     ::   
@Jasper:  Funny, Christians look like nerds.   ::

----------


## Jasper May

> Funny, Christians look like nerds

 They do indeed, Lindsay. They do indeed. Are you catholic or protestant? Catholics are slightly better.   ::

----------


## BETEP

> The second is our Prime Minister...

 Heh! Kids...  ::         
It's an official site of Latvian Saeima (parliament). The first one is our ex-prime minister. Also, you can take a look at Latvian president official site.

----------


## 44 Canon

> Now, just to send a little bit of love Fox's way, what with my recent Sean Hannity-bashing, I'd like to admit publicly: I like Bill O'Reilly.

  Yeah, I like Ol Bill to. Hennity, I don't pay much attention to. Seams as though he does get out of hand from time to time.
 Seen both of them win and loose debates.
 I recently converted to Catholicism, after 4 1/2 years in hell, and desperation for scientific facts about afterlife.
 If you're a media puppet, or not a honest and thural researcher of this subject, you'll probably think them to be fanatical ( and some are ) but in deeper research, that is only 1 of 3 religions I've been able to find that has no flaws, the only Christian one.
 I can't stand liberals. Their always rude and pissey, and do not use sense, but rather base their entire reasoning on emotional drive, and lie and cheat to get their way. Their also the ones who fight to keep the conservative voice from being herd and running smearing campaigns.
 They represent the sort of people who brought down the Roman Empire and Soviet Union. Their a crowd who is a heavy weight on civilization, offering little, usually nothing at all in return. 
 As for gun toting people, I happen to be one of them. I and all the gun toting citizens I've ever met are the type of people you would hope to have around during terrorist operations. Most European countries can't picture this, since most of them are not allowed to cary guns ( Russians usually can't even own a handgun ) often leaving them with nothing but a bloodthirsty image of handguns but here in the US, their are allot of places wear everyone and their grandma is toting a gun around ( owning a gun in these places is like owning a screw driver ), and in every one I know of, their is practically no crime, where no one wants to mess with anyone. Their is a reason behind the term: Peacemaker. 
Now, as for the Soviet Union VS Russia, I know that their are some Russians who seek to rebuild the Soviet Union. For those of you who do, keep this in mind.
 The Soviet Union is no longer their. They were not risen against, defeated in war or voted out. The Soviet Union collapsed. Like anything, political systems that collapse, collapse because they don't work.
 The Soviet Union was a very costly mistake. Don't make the same mistake again. Get up and work hard to restore your country. If you do, their WILL be rewards. If you take the easy way out ( in the short run ) and reinstall the Soviet Union, things will only get worse, if anything.
 Russia has a hard road ahead, but it has to be gotten through if Russia is to survive, and their is a paradise at the end of it. 
 It has to hurt if it's going to heal.

----------


## scotcher

That was the best post ever, on so many levels.

----------


## Линдзи

Whoa, not touching that.  I think I'll wait for Mike   ::   
@Jasper - Catholic.  Unfortunately, not the hot Italian kind.  Uvy.

----------


## Jasper May

The only type of christian cooler than a catholic has got to be a russian-orthodox. 
Concerning 44Canon's post, GAH. If anything, _this_ is why Arabs hate you. Hulk smash.

----------


## Линдзи

Yeah, we've got cool hats.  And "I'm sorry, I was raised Catholic" is an excuse for just about every psychological hangup   ::   
All I'ma say, 44 Cannon, is that you quite apparently live in a different universe than I.  Perhaps a parallel one?  It's interesting that you can get our internet in your crazy land, though.

----------


## 44 Canon

I am very simply a free thinker. I do not bound myself to structure and loyalty to systems or groups. Most people today have absolutely no concept for this. By the laws of science and the universe, it's as sane as human beings get, and true concept for that the world really is. True insanity is very common today, while sanity is scarce.
 Personally, I am not sure what you mean by what you said, but I suspect it has to do with the above, thus, the fact that I have a heart and thought process that revolves around independence in mind and lifestyle, which is hated by most people in the world today.
 In terms of worldliness, it has no advantages, since civilization will punish you dearly for it, but the world is not my reason. It's a simple matter of right and wrong, and desire to live in peace forever, as well as those whom I love and care for.
 If you think I am wrong, then try to put some reason against it.

----------


## Линдзи

Um, I'd suggest that your comments about "liberals" suggests that you _do_ have a few issues with groups and systems.  Just sayin'. 
I've got no problem with freethinking.  I rather like to believe that I do my own thing.  It's _illogical_ thinking that I don't admire.

----------


## Tambakis

> The only type of christian cooler than a catholic has got to be a russian-orthodox.

   ::   How about the Antiochians, or OCA? It _is_  Russian tradition.

----------


## Scorpio

> The Soviet Union was a very costly mistake. Don't make the same mistake again. Get up and work hard to restore your country. If you do, their WILL be rewards. If you take the easy way out ( in the short run ) and reinstall the Soviet Union, things will only get worse, if anything.
>  Russia has a hard road ahead, but it has to be gotten through if Russia is to survive, and their is a paradise at the end of it. 
>  It has to hurt if it's going to heal.

 Mr. 44 Canon, why worry so much?
You can calm down and relax a bit. Believe me, our politicians have absolutely no time to repeat OLD mistakes. They are too busy making NEW ones.

----------


## BETEP

> You can calm down and relax a bit. Believe me, our politicians have absolutely no time to repeat OLD mistakes. They are too busy making NEW ones.

 Good for you! Our politicians are more assiduous and they have time to do both...  ::

----------


## 44 Canon

> Mr. 44 Canon, why worry so much? 
> You can calm down and relax a bit. Believe me, our politicians have absolutely no time to repeat OLD mistakes. They are too busy making NEW ones.

 LOL. That's what I am afraid of.
 I am more concerned about my own country screwing up then yours, so don't you worry. I'll be living in Russia before I need to calm down. LOL   

> Um, I'd suggest that your comments about "liberals" suggests that you do have a few issues with groups and systems. Just sayin'.

 Liberals function as groups and systems. I am not a liberal, I have problems with the liberal crowd.
 You would have made a better example by quoting me on calling myself a Libertarian. I have signed up as one, and indorse most Libertarian views, therefore, to make things simple and comprehensive towards the average Joe, I call myself one. In truth, I am not entirely a libertarian. Hard scientific evidence has pressed me to have problems with abortion. Most libertarians don't care. Their idea is "if you want one, then go and get one for all I care.
 I also found errors in our constitution, but also found it to be an extremely well balanced political document. Most of the errors I found, were gaps that tyrants could squeeze in to.
 I have more things that separate me from the base libertarian views, and I tend to get along better with Republicans then libertarians, but generally get along with most people.
 I have met some liberals who were pretty nice people. Not many, but a few.
 I have also met a couple Ku Klux Klan members who were not racist against black people, usually saying stuff like "I don't hate black people, I hate N****s (referring to thugs and low lives.
 However, the vast majority of Klansmen are racist, just as the vast majority of liberals fit the description I gave, as to the very limits of my own experience, which it's self is quite vast.
 Free thinking people themselves usually have allot in common. The things I stated about myself you will find in virtually everyone of my kind, and alike myself, they will not bond their minds and reasoning to any group, system etc.
 My only given exception is my recent conversion to Catholicism. I did this because of thrall ( and dead serious ) research in to science surrounding afterlife, miracles, the bible, etc. and determined that their was no spiritual danger in excepting Catholicism, yet may be, and appears to be mankinds only chance for spiritual peace, and part of my thinking process comes from living all day, every day with the reality of the fact that we're going to die some day, therefore take it more seriously then you've probably ever herd of.
 Even that is a hard made decision that took me 4 years in a living nightmare to make.

----------


## waxwing

> My only given exception is my recent conversion to Catholicism. I did this because of thrall ( and dead serious ) research in to science surrounding afterlife, miracles, the bible, etc. and determined that their was no spiritual danger in excepting Catholicism, yet may be, and appears to be mankinds only chance for spiritual peace, and part of my thinking process comes from living all day, every day with the reality of the fact that we're going to die some day, therefore take it more seriously then you've probably ever herd of.
>  Even that is a hard made decision that took me 4 years in a living nightmare to make.

 Hi. I don't mean to be insensitive, but could you please rewrite that in English?
I will attempt my own translation, just to show willing:
my only given exception - the only exception I can give you (?)
'thrall research in to science surrounding...' - ????
'their was no spiritual danger' - there was no...
excepting Catholicism - accepting Catholicism
'yet may be, and appears to be..' - ???
'mankinds' - mankind's
'then you've probably ever herd of' - th*a*n you've probably ever he*a*rd of 
I'm not joking , I really didn't understand the crucial points of that paragraph. However I will say that I was most interested in your Pascalian approach to the problem of God's existence - 'nothing to lose, eh?...'
Problem is you could have chosen any other religious belief on the basis of that criterion.

----------


## Линдзи

But...if you're a Libertarian, that doesn't mean you don't have group ties, that means your tied to the _libertarian_ group.  It's still a group.  It's just a fringe political group, that's all. 
Whatever, I give up.

----------


## 44 Canon

No, the only group I am tied to is the Catholic church.
 As I said, I call myself a libertarian for comprehensive reasons, not because I approximately am one, or am tied to the party. My political position in in terms of true characterization is independent ( one of a kind. I am more functional with the Republicans then I am with the Libertarians.
 I call myself a libertarian because the vast majority of political ideals I stand for are shared by the Libertarian party.   

> Problem is you could have chosen any other religious belief on the basis of that criterion.

  No I couldn't. If it were that simple, I would have jumped and joined the most appealing religion I could find years ago.
 I often describe doing just that as a spiritual game of Russian Roulette. I studied the science surrounding afterlife and religion like a mad man. You would be very surprised at how deep I have gone, and how much I really know about the subject. Because of how serious I take it, I dwell in many areas that very few are willing to touch.
 If you want a truly deep conversation about afterlife and the sciences surrounding it, then I am your man.
 Forgive the spelling problem. I have the most severe known case of Dyslexia, which their is no treatment for. It's a problem I have worked on my entire life, and will spend the rest of my life working on.
 I spell check all my posts. Not much more I can do.

----------


## mike

> But...if you're a Libertarian, that doesn't mean you don't have group ties, that means your tied to the _libertarian_ group.  It's still a group.  It's just a fringe political group, that's all. 
> Whatever, I give up.

 Let's be clear about the terminology we are all using here, please.  A *L*ibertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party, founded sometime in the early 1970s.  A *l*ibertarian is an anarchist, more often than not a social anarchist rather than an individualist, since about, oh, the 1840s.  IMO the group who has survived for over a century is a little more deserving of the unambiguous label than the laissez-faire crazos who stole it 30 years ago.  It'd be like if somebody had a totalitarian government butcalled themselves a Democratic Republic.  I mean, you see how ridiculous and unlikely that is to occur, right.

----------


## mike

Oh, by the way, Sean Hannity fucking sucks.  It must be proof that God hates him that he could be the identical twin of homosexual liberal actor Nathan Lane.   

> Now, just to send a little bit of love Fox's way, what with my recent Sean Hannity-bashing, I'd like to admit publicly: I like Bill O'Reilly.
> 			
> 		  I recently converted to Catholicism, after 4 1/2 years in hell, and desperation for scientific facts about afterlife.
>  If you're a media puppet, or not a honest and thural researcher of this subject, you'll probably think them to be fanatical ( and some are ) but in deeper research, that is only 1 of 3 religions I've been able to find that has no flaws, the only Christian one.

 Yeah, it sure isn't a flaw that they tell millions of people in AIDS-ravaged third world countries not to use condoms because they'll burn in Hell, or that the condoms already have holes in them so there's no point in wearing them.  I guess it was God's plan that they wash their vaginas out in the road with Clorox instead.   

> I can't stand liberals. Their always rude and pissey, and do not use sense, but rather base their entire reasoning on emotional drive, and lie and cheat to get their way.

 I can understand why, being fed up with this kind of person, you joined an major organized religion.   

> Their also the ones who fight to keep the conservative voice from being herd and running smearing campaigns.

 They aren't fighting very hard, apparently.  Every fucking news station I turn it to has some irate prick whining about the "liberal elite" on his own show. 
Let me make a brief list off the top of my noggin:
Pat Buchanan - Crossfire head for over 20 years
William F Buckley Jr - Has own show on PBS (that's right, he somehow has no problem working on the tax dollar to propagate conservative views)
The entire Fox News cast
The Wall Street Journal editorial page - Bastion of neoconservative polemics
Robert Novak
Tucker Carlson
Scarborough Country
Here's a quick list of some national radio shows
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly 
You know, I could keep going for about 3 pages here.  These are not people "struggling to have their voices heard."  They get paid millions of dollars to preach to the entire world their views.  Get a fucking clue.   

> They represent the sort of people who brought down the Roman Empire and Soviet Union. Their a crowd who is a heavy weight on civilization, offering little, usually nothing at all in return.

 Uh, ok.  So it wasn't Constantine's conversion, the growing respect for human rights that came along with the early Christian reformation being in stark contrast to the brutality necessary to suppress and enslave millions of indigenous peoples, an overextended military complex that couldn't support itself in the long run, allowing the emperor to take practically half of the entire state budget, poorly organized industry and building, corrupt politicians and businessmen, the natural instinct for liberation within the foreign colonies, or the gluttonous self-interest of the ruling class:  it was some ancient incarnation of the Green Party.  I sure am glad you're so obsessed with "thural" research and could come to such a well-thought conclusion.   

> ...here in the US, their are allot of places wear everyone and their grandma is toting a gun around

 You mean like the opening credits to the Beverly Hillbillies?  Wasn't Granny holding a shotgun in the jalopy?   

> Now, as for the Soviet Union VS Russia, I know that their are some Russians who seek to rebuild the Soviet Union. For those of you who do, keep this in mind.
>  The Soviet Union is no longer their. They were not risen against, defeated in war or voted out. The Soviet Union collapsed. Like anything, political systems that collapse, collapse because they don't work.
>  The Soviet Union was a very costly mistake. Don't make the same mistake again. Get up and work hard to restore your country. If you do, their WILL be rewards. If you take the easy way out ( in the short run ) and reinstall the Soviet Union, things will only get worse, if anything.
>  Russia has a hard road ahead, but it has to be gotten through if Russia is to survive, and their is a paradise at the end of it. 
>  It has to hurt if it's going to heal.

 You know, it's funny sort of, but if you change a few words and you basically have one of Lenin's speeches during the Civil War.

----------


## Линдзи

Mike, may I bear your children?

----------


## waxwing

Lindzi babes you're back, how you been? Where for that matter? Let's hope Phallic Cannon keeps posting eh, we'll all have a great time!

----------


## Pravit

I think dear cousin Lindzi was busy moving to Texas to become an English teacher.  
@Lindzi: I thought you were supposed to be Mike's misanthropic dark-lord son. And Tu-160's bride.   ::

----------


## 44 Canon

OK Mike, *This will be a long post, but I suggest on your behalf that you read and digest every word.*   

> IMO the group who has survived for over a century is a little more deserving of the unambiguous label than the laissez-faire crazos who stole it 30 years ago. It'd be like if somebody had a totalitarian government butcalled themselves a Democratic Republic. I mean, you see how ridiculous and unlikely that is to occur, right.

  The Libertarian party got it's name do to a political shift. Between the 60s and 90s, the republican party slowly started shifting to democratic ideals, while the democratic party started shifting extreme democrat and as of late, socialist ideals.
 During this shift, the republicans who refused to give up republacy, stretched apart, therefore, having to eventually become their own party, thus, took up the title of Libertarian party. Anarchists have long existed in the Republican/Libertarian party, just as Communists have long existed in the liberal crowd.
 The Libertarian party it's self has as many different levels and types as the liberal and democratic groups do.
 I myself share similar views to Jessie Ventura and Charlie Condon, who themselves may be classified more as independents, but generally share mostly libertarian ideals.
 During the early part of the 1800s, their was also a shift from republacy in to a UNION, which the republicans would not be part of. Unfortunately, in states that indorsed Republacy, their was allot of variable views shifting around ( much like in todays society ) about different political ideals, which included weather or not slavery should be ended by force, with industrial slavery although loosing popularity fast, being a large influence against it happening. This problem of course, brought about the American Civil War and the very last days of the United States as a republic.   

> They aren't fighting very hard, apparently. Every @@@@ news station I turn it to has some irate prick whining about the "liberal elite" on his own show.

  First off, I have seen Righties get nailed to the wall by lefties on Fox News, so I am sure that all the rumors about their channel being rigged are all make believe.
 Fox News, as you know, often just leaves the camera their during political debates and lets you see it live as it's happening, for what it is. This is one of the reasons why they can't do standard broadcasting. If someone starts screaming prophanity ( which I've seen happen ), you will hear it, if someone gets their head blown off, you'll see it.
 Fox News is generally a neutral network, where they have liberals in their all the time in their debates but TBH, I have a hard time picturing someone NOT turning conservative with all the things that they witness, first hand.
 It is true that Republicans and libertarians dominate Radio talk shows. If you want to know why, then just try listening to a liberal one. Many people don't like Rush Limbaugh, but think about how often liberals call him up and defeat him with facts and hard evidence?
 Every time you turn your head, liberal talk shows are getting nailed hard, and that's probably why very few exist.
 The Main stream media however ( ABC, NBC, CBS etc. is dominated by the liberal party. The liberal party also structures on emotional appearances, so they get allot of sheep following.    

> You know, it's funny sort of, but if you change a few words and you basically have one of Lenin's speeches during the Civil War.

 Yeah, lets see who you sound like:   

> Yeah, it sure isn't a flaw that they tell millions of people in AIDS-ravaged third world countries not to use condoms because they'll burn in Hell, or that the condoms already have holes in them so there's no point in wearing them. I guess it was God's plan that they wash their vaginas out in the road with Clorox instead.

 * BEHIND every murder stood the same power which is responsible for this murder; behind these harmless insignificant fellow-countrymen who were instigated and incited to crime stands the hate-filled power of our Jewish foe, a foe to whom we had done no harm, but who none the less sought to subjugate our German people and make of it its slave - the foe who is responsible for all the misfortune that fell upon us in 1918, for all the misfortune which plagued Germany in the years that followed.* *( ADAULPH HITLER. SPEECH OF FEBRUARY 12, 1936*  
 Their is a modern campaign which drives people to wage conflict against peaceful religions ( Christianity being the utmost ) while protecting hostile ones ( Islamic Radicals. 
 In truth, this is not about what people have done in the name of religion in the past, but hatred towards them in the present, do to the barriers they hold up, which get in the way of many sinister agendas.
 These sorts of people are responsible for the very worst of all conflicts.
 People who do evil in the name of religion are no worse then those who do evil in the name of opposing religion. Both crowds are one the same.
 If you get rid of all world religion, you will only have chaos. Religion is used as an excuse to do wrong only because it's their. If it's not their, just as much wrong will still be done in the name of something else, while the good things religions do will no longer be their. 
Now, on what you actually said in that line, Their are weird people out their in every religion.
 However, their is some truth in this. Sex was created for procreation, nor recreation. If it was meant for anything more, then sex would not be our method of procreation, or we would have a natural means of doing so without the risk of pregnancy, which we absolutely do not. The risk of pregnancy in withdrawal and timing is as present as is with condoms, and condoms really do fail quite often, and I have 2 nieces to show for it.
 Sex is well abused today and to be honest, I don't have any sympathy for those who contract deadly diseases through recreational sex. If you're willing to play the game, then be ready to suffer the natural consequences. In addition, this certainly does not help on a spiritual note either.   

> I can understand why, being fed up with this kind of person, you joined an major organized religion.

  My political views have very little direct involvement in my reason for getting involved with Christianity beyond the sense that political I stand for achieving good VS evil. 
 My reason for getting in to the Catholic Church is more severe and sophisticated then you can comprehend ( if you could, then you would have never said what you said. Enough that it's a decision that took me 4 years to make.
 I considered Atheism for a large portion of the time. I also did so under the severity that if I could PROVE that their was no afterlife, I would immediately put a .44 Magnum bullet in my brain, and under the concept of Atheism, their is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. Under the laws of Atheism, their IS NO Wright nor wrong, only what works and what doesn't.
 Without afterlife, their is no reason to love or do good. It will all cease to exist in very short time, so the things you do to make people happy, are only good for the moment. The man who rapes and murders small children is guilty of no crime, since their is no such thing as crime, and his punishment is limited to what this world can do to him.
 The guy about a year ago who kidnapped a little girl and was killed, never was punished under Atheist laws. His death was quick with little pain.
 Your children, mother, father, loved ones etc. are all as disposable as the food in your fridge, as well as you yourself.
 Fortunately, it goes much deeper then that.
 Physics ( including energy ) is built up of Atoms, molecules and all their parts.
 They in one theory are the minimum entity of physics. In another theory, their are even smaller, and smaller entities amongst them, that keep getting smaller and smaller.
 Either way, for such to exist, their HAS to be distance between them. Nothing can move without distance. If their were no distance between them, then physics would all be a solid entity. So we know th at no matter HOW small physics gets, their has to be NON-PHYSICAL existence for physics to exist within.
 Secondly, for anything to move, their must be power. If you set a cup on a table, their is distance for it to move, but it won't unless some sort of power, weather your hand, wind or gravitational or magnetic pull moves it.
 So, our minimum entities that we know of do move,a nd they have their own mechanics as to how they do, but those mechanics are not capable of working without non-physical power.
 Therefore, it is fact that we do have an alternative existence, which empowers physics ( including energy it's self.
 Our bodies and brains are unable to function without this power generating them, and theoretically, as we live, both body and brain patterns are developed within it, generating our spirits. In other words, you could say that when we are born, our spirits are like blank CDs and that we are programmed throughout life.
 This is just a base idea. Their is far more to just that much of it, and their are plenty of things that can be discovered about afterlife and the likeliness of it through this. As I said, I have studied this arena desperately for 4 years and my conversion to Catholicism did not come lightly, and even today, I am really very separate from the average Catholic, and keep my distance from about 80% of the community in order to keep from being driven nuts by the emotional prophiganda that soars between them.   

> Uh, ok. So it wasn't Constantine's conversion, the growing respect for human rights that came along with the early Christian reformation being in stark contrast to the brutality necessary to suppress and enslave millions of indigenous peoples, an overextended military complex that couldn't support itself in the long run, allowing the emperor to take practically half of the entire state budget, poorly organized industry and building, corrupt politicians and businessmen, the natural instinct for liberation within the foreign colonies, or the gluttonous self-interest of the ruling class: it was some ancient incarnation of the Green Party. I sure am glad you're so obsessed with "thural" research and could come to such a well-thought conclusion.

  The very core of most of what you mentioned, is caused by these sort of people. In addition to some of the deeper details I have studied, I have also read quite a number of statements and interviews in the past with people who's lives revolve around studying this civilization, in addition to some interviews in Documentaries where they clearly compared the fall of the Roman Empire to the fall of the Soviet Union, and in about 70% of the cases, described the core part of the civilization as having most of the same characteristics as todays liberal party.
 In short, laziness and cowardness brings countries down. I have never met a single liberal who proved to be anything but a coward, and the vast majority are not willing to go out and do a hard days work.   

> You mean like the opening credits to the Beverly Hillbillies? Wasn't Granny holding a shotgun in the jalopy?

  No, try a 3rd of the country ( or more ).
 Gun control does not and never did distinctly work to better the life of civilians. Statistics show both good and bad results for aftermaths of increasing and decreasing gun laws, but in virtually every case, the change in statistics is attributed to other things going on in society. In short, their is nothing to show that increased or decreased gun laws affects violent crime rates. It does however, affect outcomes as shown by statistics.
 In areas where people are allowed to carry guns, their are more failed mug and violent crime attempts, usually resulting in no violence at all,since most people who carry guns won't shoot unless they have to, and for most criminals, staring down the barrel of a gun is more then enough to divert them from crime.
 The important thing that gun rights do is keep governments form becoming tyrants. Giving up your gun rights is putting trust in your government to not become a tyrant, and saying that government office doesn't attract deceptive tyrants is like saying that strip clubs don't attract perverts.
 Nazi Germany is a prime example of how important the right to keep and bare arms is.
 BTW. The Nazi party practiced Socialism, which is the popular political practice of the liberal crowd.

----------


## waxwing

> Sex was created for procreation, nor recreation. If it was meant for anything more, then sex would not be our method of procreation, or we would have a natural means of doing so without the risk of pregnancy, which we absolutely do not.

 oh dear, son, how little you know   ::     

> The risk of pregnancy in withdrawal and timing is as present as is with condoms, and condoms really do fail quite often, and I have 2 nieces to show for it.

   ::     

> Physics ( including energy ) is built up of Atoms, molecules and all their parts.
>  They in one theory are the minimum entity of physics. In another theory, their are even smaller, and smaller entities amongst them, that keep getting smaller and smaller.
>  Either way, for such to exist, their HAS to be distance between them. Nothing can move without distance. If their were no distance between them, then physics would all be a solid entity. So we know th at no matter HOW small physics gets, their has to be NON-PHYSICAL existence for physics to exist within.

 Blimey! Someone get on the blower to Stephen Hawking sharpish! How could we have been _so stupid_ as to overlook this marvellous .. umm..   

> Secondly, for anything to move, their must be power. If you set a cup on a table, their is distance for it to move, but it won't unless some sort of power, weather your hand, wind or gravitational or magnetic pull moves it.
>  So, our minimum entities that we know of do move,a nd they have their own mechanics as to how they do, but those mechanics are not capable of working without non-physical power.
>  Therefore, it is fact that we do have an alternative existence, which empowers physics ( including energy it's self.
>  Our bodies and brains are unable to function without this power generating them, and theoretically, as we live, both body and brain patterns are developed within it, generating our spirits. In other words, you could say that when we are born, our spirits are like blank CDs and that we are programmed throughout life.
>  This is just a base idea.

 Maybe. Or maybe it's just utter drivel.   

> Their is far more to just that much of it, and their are plenty of things that can be discovered about afterlife and the likeliness of it through this. As I said, I have studied this arena desperately

 Not as desperately as I have studied the arena of your posts, believe me.   

> most people who carry guns won't shoot unless they have to

 that's heartening! Most, oh well, most isn't bad is it?   

> BTW. The Nazi party practiced Socialism, which is the popular political practice of the liberal crowd.

 It was called 'National Socialism' and bore no relation to the modern democratic socialism practised nowadays in certain European countries.

----------


## 44 Canon

That's all you could say?
 All you did is call me stupid.

----------


## scotcher

We've had some wierdos on this forum Canon, but you take the cake by a country mile. 
Seek help, and fast.

----------


## Friendy

> The man who rapes and murders small children is guilty of no crime, since their is no such thing as crime, and his punishment is limited to what this world can do to him.
>  The guy about a year ago who kidnapped a little girl and was killed, never was punished under Atheist laws. His death was quick with little pain.

 I think that using this argument to justify the afterlife is opposite to main Christian principles such as love your enemy, pray for your enemies to be forgiven. IMHO it has much to do with plain sense of vengeance.

----------


## 44 Canon

An Atheist is not a Christian.   

> We've had some wierdos on this forum Canon, but you take the cake by a country mile.

  Then perhapse you need to get out more.   

> Seek help, and fast.

  I'me perfictley fine thanks. Psycholigy is one of my fields BTW, and I happen to know quite a few professional psycholigests who seam to think I'me fine, and exeptionally headstraight. 
 Actually, lets take a look at what a couple had to say:   

> *44 Cannon
> This is a hard one to describe, definitely an uncommon character. Very intense person, full of surprises in his depth of knowlege in those areas he's found interest in. Don't underestimate this one.

  

> *44 Canon
> Straight shooter who is loving and sincere. He has a mind that works differently than mine. I feel like a pretzel after a deep discussion. Can make anything and make anything work.

----------


## scotcher

lol 
OK, you convinced me.

----------


## 44 Canon

Thilly!

----------


## Линдзи

@waxwing:  *<3*.  But I'm probably going to disappear again for a bit, 'cause I'll be in Houston for the next five weeks and I don't know if I'll have internet access.   

> I think dear cousin Lindzi was busy moving to Texas to become an English teacher.

 Correct.  I am now in the Rio Grande valley.  Today I walked to Mexico to get burritos. 
No, not kidding.  Mmm, burritos. 
It cost 25 cents to cross the toll foot bridge into Mexico.   

> @Lindzi: I thought you were supposed to be Mike's misanthropic dark-lord son. And Tu-160's bride.

 Uh oh.  This is starting to get a little more incestuous than usual, cousin.  But as long as I don't find out that my crush is actually my twin brother, things will be okay.    ::   
Yuck, Star Wars.  I never could understand the craze.

----------


## 44 Canon

Texas is like a checker board for good and bad places to be. Have fun.

----------


## bad manners

> peaceful religions ( Christianity being the utmost )

 Right you are. Crusades never happened. As did the Malleus Maleficarum. As did the Night of St. Bartholomew.

----------


## 44 Canon

[quote=bad manners] 

> peaceful religions ( Christianity being the utmost )

 Right you are. Crusades never happened. As did the Malleus Maleficarum. As did the Night of St. Bartholomew.[/quote:m94kvdl9] 
 I have already explained, this, as well as your type of person and reasons, but I am sure you are quite aware of this, and consciously playing stupid.

----------


## Линдзи

Look, I'm a Christian too.  But I don't live in some crazy parallel universe where Christianity in general is some ultimate religion of peace.  _Christ's_ principals are soundly compassionate and peaceful, but Christianity as a religion has hardly been the vanguard of decency in this world, especially back in the day.  At the end of the day, Christians are just people, and people do shitty things.  They do really amazing and wonderful things, but they do shitty things as well.

----------


## Alexi

> Look, I'm a Christian too.  But I don't live in some crazy parallel universe where Christianity in general is some ultimate religion of peace.  _Christ's_ principals are soundly compassionate and peaceful, but Christianity as a religion has hardly been the vanguard of decency in this world, especially back in the day.  At the end of the day, Christians are just people, and people do @@@@ things.  They do really amazing and wonderful things, but they do @@@@ things as well.

 True. Even for people who are more secular than religious, teachings from Christianity have a lot to offer. I just hate it when people become too righteous, doing or saying stupid things, and hiding behind a faith. This includes Fundamentalist Christians, Islamic Terrorists and *ahem* followers of other faiths   ::   
44 Cannon (sorry if it wasn't you), I noticed some of your comments on contemporary debates, like the legitimacy of sexual pleasure and, I think, abortion, were a bit extreme. You don't happen to be American, by any chance?..   ::

----------


## Pravit

Don't worry, my Australian friend, we're not _all_ that weird. Lindzi and I are also Americans.   

> Uh oh. This is starting to get a little more incestuous than usual, cousin. But as long as I don't find out that my crush is actually my twin brother, things will be okay.   
> Yuck, Star Wars. I never could understand the craze.

 I was referring to that post where you were like "Yay! Misanthropy! Let's all jump on the bus!" Then later Mike was like, "A real misanthrope would not ride a bus with other people. He would (something about a dog and a car, etc., then something about you becoming his son, although you'd need to have a sex change for it to happen)." The thread was titled "Why don't you like Americans", I think.

----------


## 44 Canon

> True. Even for people who are more secular than religious, teachings from Christianity have a lot to offer. I just hate it when people become too righteous, doing or saying stupid things, and hiding behind a faith. This includes Fundamentalist Christians, Islamic Terrorists and *ahem* followers of other faiths

 I am with you entirely on this one.   

> Look, I'm a Christian too. But I don't live in some crazy parallel universe where Christianity in general is some ultimate religion of peace.

 Christianity IS a religion of peace. Heretic barbarians of the middle ages do not define Christianity. Christianity is defined by the teachings of Christ. People who behave otherwise in the name of Christianity are not Christians, but heretics.   

> Christ's principals are soundly compassionate and peaceful, but Christianity as a religion has hardly been the vanguard of decency in this world, especially back in the day. At the end of the day, Christians are just people, and people do @@@@ things. They do really amazing and wonderful things, but they do @@@@ things as well.

  Hence, what I said above. People will always do evil in the name of religion. As I said earlier, they do so because religion exists to do it with. Without religion, the problem will not go away, they'll just find another way to do the same evil.   

> 44 Cannon (sorry if it wasn't you), I noticed some of your comments on contemporary debates, like the legitimacy of sexual pleasure and, I think, abortion, were a bit extreme. You don't happen to be American, by any chance?..

 I live in California. Sexual pleasure is fine if you have a sound foundation in your life, which enables you to take care of children if you wind up having any, and are doing it with someone who you know is not carrying any deadly diseases, in which case, condoms and birth control are not nessasary. This is among the reason why I am a sound believer in the "To death do us part" theme.
 If your just going around and sleeping with everyone, then you are wide open to cause yourself and others all kinds of hell.
 I don't know about you but I also find eating after some other guy quite tasteless if you know what I mean. Their is very hard evidence that a fetus is a living human being. Their is video footage of them interacting with doctors who do work on them while in the womb and many other things. Murdering your baby is not worth a few minutes of pleasure, especially with all the people waiting to adopt. 
 BTW.
 This webpage, which I made a while back, says allot about my views on Christianity:  http://www.paladinrepublic.com/incrediblepope.htm

----------


## Линдзи

> Originally Posted by Линдзи  Look, I'm a Christian too.  But I don't live in some crazy parallel universe where Christianity in general is some ultimate religion of peace.  _Christ's_ principals are soundly compassionate and peaceful, but Christianity as a religion has hardly been the vanguard of decency in this world, especially back in the day.  At the end of the day, Christians are just people, and people do @@@@ things.  They do really amazing and wonderful things, but they do @@@@ things as well.   True. Even for people who are more secular than religious, teachings from Christianity have a lot to offer. I just hate it when people become too righteous, doing or saying stupid things, and hiding behind a faith. This includes Fundamentalist Christians, Islamic Terrorists and *ahem* followers of other faiths

 Yep yep.  Frankly, I don't think _any_ religion is actually PEACEFUL, per se, since they are, by definition, being practiced by human beings.  The principals of the religion can be peaceful, but the religion itself cannot be.  Does that make any sense? 
I'm not trying to cut religion down here - I'm a pretty religious person, actually.  I'm just recognizing the problems inherent to any human system.   

> Look, I'm a Christian too. But I don't live in some crazy parallel universe where Christianity in general is some ultimate religion of peace.
> 			
> 		  Christianity IS a religion of peace. Heretic barbarians of the middle ages do not define Christianity. Christianity is defined by the teachings of Christ. People who behave otherwise in the name of Christianity are not Christians, but heretics.

 Yeah, but by dint of being human, people _cannot_ follow 100% of Christ's teachings 100% of the time.  None of us share His perfection.  You're a Catholic, you know about the doctrine of original sin, right?  We can't _all_ be heretics, just because we're not perfectly following the word of Christ.  So where is the line drawn?  Christians are constantly getting inappropriately pissed off at people, because they're human.  Sometimes they act on that anger.  That's not peaceful or Christ-like.  Luckily, there is forgiveness. 
Honestly, I'd rather acknowledge that Christianity is _not_ a religion of peace than believe that it's impossible to be a non-heretical Christian.   

> Uh oh. This is starting to get a little more incestuous than usual, cousin. But as long as I don't find out that my crush is actually my twin brother, things will be okay.   
> Yuck, Star Wars. I never could understand the craze.
> 			
> 		  I was referring to that post where you were like "Yay! Misanthropy! Let's all jump on the bus!" Then later Mike was like, "A real misanthrope would not ride a bus with other people. He would (something about a dog and a car, etc., then something about you becoming his son, although you'd need to have a sex change for it to happen)." The thread was titled "Why don't you like Americans", I think.

 
Oh, don't worry, my dear cousin, I do remember that.  I knew what you were talking about.  I was merely commenting that I think Star Wars is dull (which is not to say that our Star Wars-esque discussion was boring, simply that the films themselves put me to sleep).  Except Darth Vader, he was a-okay.  I'd totally join him.   Boring-ass Jedis, you can have them.  I want a scary mask.

----------


## Tambakis

> Lindzi and I are also Americans

 I thought we were trying to convince him that americans _aren't_ weird.

----------


## Линдзи

> Originally Posted by Pravit  Lindzi and I are also Americans   I thought we were trying to convince him that americans _aren't_ weird.

   ::

----------


## 44 Canon

> Yeah, but by dint of being human, people cannot follow 100% of Christ's teachings 100% of the time. None of us share His perfection. You're a Catholic, you know about the doctrine of original sin, right? We can't all be heretics, just because we're not perfectly following the word of Christ. So where is the line drawn? Christians are constantly getting inappropriately pissed off at people, because they're human. Sometimes they act on that anger. That's not peaceful or Christ-like. Luckily, there is forgiveness.

  No one is perfect. The place where the line is drawn is simply between those who work hard to be good honest people, and do what's right as often as they can, VS those who use their religion as a tool for sinister objectives, popularity, or even poetic emotional gathering.
 As I said, heretics hiding behind religion does not necessarily define the religion, any more then having German soldiers dressed as American soldiers amongst them made them American soldiers.
 The teachings of the Catholic church have been based on the teachings of Christ, and those who practice otherwise, are simply not Catholics.
 It's like saying that a police force is bad by nature and design because of a few mistakes and bad cops.
 The police force has it's guidelines that it follows, and that defines what they are, just as religion does.
 All throughout the churches dark times, they have produced great people, and the teachings although came close a couple times, ultimately never were forgotten.
 This is very hard to see past to be quite frank, for myself included. I myself had a very hard time with the Church, being scientifically minded, with peoples emotional prophiganda and various other silliness clouding my prospective of exactly what the church is.
 Barbaric behavior by Catholic heretics is not the church, it is their own separate business, that they simply are doing in the name of the church.
 Also note that Christianity acknowledges this. If you spend allot of time studying with Catholics, you will find that they are more aware then anyone of the barbaric things that have and continually to happen in the name of Catholicism, and are relentlessly persistent in countering it.
 On the opposition, one of the things that served as evidence to lead me to conversion is the prophecies about the persecution of Christian in the "end times", which I myself am in the process of putting together a very detail and realistic story about.
 I think part of it is the display of timing.
 Take this for example: 
 At one point in the Apocalypse, during the time of "the beast", it describes a social campaign against Christian, covering the whole world, much like the Nazi Campaign against Jews, except in this case, giving Christians the option to betray their faith in exchange for social and economic acceptance, and even their very lives.
 The bible additionally describes this time, and what is to happen before and after.
 Perhaps you have read the story of the beasts. This is generally considered the most confusing part of the bible, particularly do to historical references. Some of the finer Catholic Apologetics believe that the 666 thing happened during the time of St. John. It is true that their was a man who's name added up to 666 who did many similar things, but they failed to note a couple things, the most definitive as follows: 
The bible states: All Who dwelt upon the earth. This would mean 2 things, 1, all who choose to live by the laws of man, and dwell in material living and lust, generally, people who do not value afterlife, and 2, that the entire world has to be discovered and controlled by a central government or union of governments, which was never accomplished until after WW II.
 Their were many other things that place this at the end times, such as happening AFTER the Jews returned to Israel ( post WW II ).
 Now, they have discovered that their was a second code number, believed to be 888 which biblical collars think is the number of the lamb. The Number of the lamb seams to be unclear, but the best I've been able to find is that it's 333.
 However, The bible doesn't address 1 beast, but 2 of them. It addresses one having been slain to death, and then a beast representing the great nations of the world rising and healing it.
 This is the scary part, Hitler was believed to be the "anti-Christ" for his campaign, and fulfilling many of the behaviors mentioned in the bible.
 Their is a Nazi code, representing loyalty to Hitler, which is 88, where H is the 8th letter in the alphabet: 88 = HH = Hile Hitler.
 Since WW II, the UN has gradually begun using many of the behaviors used by Hitler and the Nazis. Below are just a few: 
* One sided media
* School control
* Social Dependency on the government
* Gun control
* Abortion
* Targeting minorities and religious groups for social hatred
* Excessive Government Programs 
Although we may have not seen the worst, these practices result in very terrible human behavior, hence, fulfilling the prophecy of the 2 beasts. It is said that during this time, their will be a campaign against Christians, produced by governments and social systems, and the behaviors by heretics is and always has been one of the prime tools for making this happen.

----------


## Alexi

> Yep yep.  Frankly, I don't think _any_ religion is actually PEACEFUL, per se, since they are, by definition, being practiced by human beings.  The principals of the religion can be peaceful, but the religion itself cannot be.  Does that make any sense?

 It makes heaps of sense. Especially these days, for example, Islam is pushed as a peaceful religion. Overall, you can see the problem this way: _"Hi. I'm a very devoted believer in"_ X_ "faith. It's a faith of peace and, as such, I believe I am a peaceful 'n good person for following it. However, I feel there are people who wish to destroy what I believe in. So, therefore, it's do-or-die; me-or-them. This justifies my choice to get really p***ed off"_... 
This goes for pretty much any faith. The problem here, I think, is that religion sets the goal for it's followers of becoming rational and/or forsaking/controlling things like passion, emotions, carnal desire, etc. However, we're not totally rational and we can't control ourselves the way 'X' religion says to. 
PS - 44 Cannon, I don't get it. How can social welfare be evil?   ::

----------


## scotcher

44Canon, have you never considered the remote possibility that the media appears one-sided _to you_ because you views are, to put it mildly, extreme/ unrepresentative/ unusual/ absurd [delete as appropriate]? 
If I say the Earth is flat, 99.9% of the World's population will disagree with me, and probably laugh at me. This would not indicate an unbalnaced discussion or bias on the part of the media, it would indicate that my views were unusual/ wrong/ nuts. 
Just a thought.

----------


## waxwing

scotcher, it may have been a good idea to reference 44's sig when you made that post  ::  It's kind of relevant.
Why does it remind me of Kipling ... 'blah blah when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too'

----------


## 44 Canon

> - 44 Cannon, I don't get it. How can social welfare be evil?

  DEPENDENCY, which I suspect you are referring to ( and correct me if I am wrong ), one, has negative affects on the overall lifestyle of people, where they are unwilling to get out and fend for themselves, carry their own weight etc. creating further poverty by being weight on others. Their is also a major psychological issue which will be to long and drawn out to get in to. 2, it opens all kinds of doors for corruption.
 In America ( and many European countries ) politicians use programs for pampering citizens as a miens of bribery for votes. In a sense, it turns the election systems in to auctions, where people will vote for those who will give them the most freebees.   

> 44Canon, have you never considered the remote possibility that the media appears one-sided to you because you views are, to put it mildly, extreme/ unrepresentative/ unusual/ absurd [delete as appropriate]?

  Once again, you only told me that I am an idiot, and put nothing behind your statements to back them up, which is becoming a routine with you. It's also a common symptom of being brainwashed ( strong views without reason behind them.
 The mainstream media goes against a large portion of what I stand for, and the vast majority of major issues.
 Anyway, explain exactly what makes my views extreme and absurd, why and how.

----------


## bad manners

> Christianity IS a religion of peace. Heretic barbarians of the middle ages do not define Christianity. Christianity is defined by the teachings of Christ. People who behave otherwise in the name of Christianity are not Christians, but heretics.

 Islam IS a religion of peace. Heretic barbarians of the modern ages do not define Islam. Islam is defined by the teachings of Muhammad. People who behave otherwise in the name of Islam are not Muslims but heretics.

----------


## waxwing

Both Christianity and Islam _profess_ to be religions of peace - according to their major modern-day proponents. Islam even _means_ peace if I recall correctly.
On the other hand reading the Bible and the Koran might give a different impression. Let's not forget that Christ himself said 'I bring not peace but a sword' (which, of course, is open to massive interpretation, especially given that fellow's tendency to speak in parables). Reading the Bhagavad Gita of the Hindu religion also might give people some interesting ideas about violence. As to the Buddhist Pali Canon (or Tripitaka, as it's known in some circles) ... well that tends to give a different impression.
Ho hum.

----------


## 44 Canon

> Islam IS a religion of peace. Heretic barbarians of the modern ages do not define Islam. Islam is defined by the teachings of Muhammad. People who behave otherwise in the name of Islam are not Muslims but heretics.

  Islam and Christianity have some differences in their core.
 Christianity believes in one divine teacher which has already been and gone whose teachings will remain till the end of time.
 Islam on the other hand is less set in stone, believing in multiple prophets.
 Their have been a few in the past who ordered hostility. Some Muslims buy it, others don't.
 Christianity has had the same sorts of people. The difference is that Christianity is rigged to where anything that contradicts the teachings of Christ is heresy, and their is no other divine teacher, therefore, leaving minimal room for confusion, and no room to do such behavior and think you're anything BUT Gods enemy.

----------


## bad manners

> Islam and Christianity have some differences in their core.
>  Christianity believes in one divine teacher which has already been and gone whose teachings will remain till the end of time.
>  Islam on the other hand is less set in stone, believing in multiple prophets.

 Do you know anything about things you are so fond of discussing? Has it ever occurred to you that it is EXACTLY the other way around?

----------


## Alexi

44 Cannon, you seem like an alright person; but you also seem to be a lil' misguided. Not an idiot but, yeah, misguided...  ::   
Or, maybe, you're right and I'm wrong...   ::      

> Islam and Christianity have some differences in their core. Christianity believes in one divine teacher which has already been and gone whose teachings will remain till the end of time. Islam on the other hand is less set in stone, believing in multiple prophets.

 Islam, Christianity and the other major monotheistic religion of today, Judaism (although maybe to a lesser degree), all have the same core; Abraham. As well as this, they all share prophets.  
Also, Islam also believes in one devine teacher. Muhamed (wrong spelling?) wrote down what Gabriel told him; Gabriel, in turn, conveyed the message of Islam's teacher: God.  
Technically, the same can be said of Christianity. The nature of Jesus is still not entirely understood. Was he the son of God, God himself, or something else? In any case, one of the roles played by 'Jesus' - apart from salvation - was to convey the message of God. 
Islam and Christianity are the same 'at core'. Their differences lie in their practices and their interpretations of both God and the purpose of those who mediate what God says.

----------


## Tambakis

the Trinity.

----------


## 44 Canon

> Islam, Christianity and the other major monotheistic religion of today, Judaism (although maybe to a lesser degree), all have the same core; Abraham. As well as this, they all share prophets.

  True.
 BTW. I have nothing against Islam as a whole. My point is that their is some problems in their, which people are taking sides on.
 I have a friend who studies the history of barbarians and religion who did a very good and well researched report on Islam, with a full explanation of where the hostility comes from, with exact quotes and exact references to where everything comes from.
 I believe it is still floating around on the internet, and I'll try and see if I can get him to dig it up or reproduce it.   

> Do you know anything about things you are so fond of discussing? Has it ever occurred to you that it is EXACTLY the other way around?

  Christianity does not believe in multiple DIVINE prophets. Christianity DOES believe in people who deliver messages from God, which are studied very carefully to make sure they don't contradict Christian teachings, which strongly indorse peace. The prophecies of Medjugorje have recently been discredited for contradicting the bible.
 Islam is much looser, where they look for other signs to identify prophets, which to some, can serve to create confusion in Islam and leave doors for tyranny open.
 I will get you more thural information on this. About a year ago, I did some research on this stuff and left it be.
 On the other hand, I am also quite knowledgeable in the psychological aspect of these guys as well as their tactics, enough that sending me in to find some of these radicals has been brought to the table before ( to bad I am a civilian.
 In that respect, I am very passionate towards the whole of Islam, with probably a similar base attitude towards Islam as you and most people, just more in depth. I also have friends who are Muslims who came hear to get away from all that insanity that is going on in the Middle East.

----------


## Friendy

I think that “peacefulness” of one or another religion depends on from what aspects we look upon it. If we look upon it as someone’s personal perception of religious teachings then there’s nothing wrong with the statement that this religion is peaceful as long as this person’s perception of it is peaceful. It can also be seen as how religious beliefs of a person are reflected in his behavior. From that aspect we can say, for example, that M. L. King’s Christianity was peaceful and the Christianity of, say, some crusader was not. Another thing is when we look at religion as a historical phenomenon. In this case, Christianity and Islam are definitely not peaceful religions (that is when we look at them as a whole, if we take some particular groups, movements or periods of time then the answer may be different).

----------


## bad manners

> Islam is much looser, where they look for other signs to identify prophets, which to some, can serve to create confusion in Islam and leave doors for tyranny open.

 Incorrect. There is exactly ONE prophet in Islam, and that is codified in the oath any Muslim takes. 
In Christianity, everything is a lot fuzzier than in Islam. They have Old Testament that conflicts with New Testament, they have multiple conflicting gospels, and they even decide which gospels are "true" and which aren't. They do not even agree on whether Jesus was God himself or his prophet. And they do admit multiple prophets. Like I said, it is exactly the other way around.

----------


## Jasper May

And do muslims believe in the 'second coming of Muhammad'?

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

It's funny to see how muslims say they consider Jesus messenger of Allah. No prophet/messenger have ever contradicted to words of previous prophet. Mohammad came after Jesus, and forgot everything Jesus said. Why the hell man needs ritual sacrifices and other Old Testament stuff, when Jesus said that everyone is equal for God and that only faith leads to salvation. 
Muslims have to admit that Mohammed needed some religion to make himself ruler and half-god and he just rewrote Bible for his tribe. Their islam is just arab version of Old Testament... heresy.

----------


## 44 Canon

I will be posting something in the near future that explains the situation with Islam, as well as Christianity. I'll leave it alone until I get that done.

----------


## waxwing

Make sure you cc the Pope. I'm sure he'll be very relieved that someone has eventually cleared it all up.  ::   ::

----------


## BJ

Waxwing - that made me laugh till I cried  ::

----------


## Alexi

> Make sure you cc the Pope. I'm sure he'll be very relieved that someone has eventually cleared it all up.

 Hey, come on... he might actually say something that doesn't '_sound_' naive or overconfident.   ::  
Anyways, 44 Cannon, what you were saying about 'clearing up' the problems with Islam and Christianity, you must admit it did sound a lil' bit over-the-top. 
I'm sorry but, if what you post doesn't temporarily strike me down with uncontrolable thoughts of "my word, that is so true", I might have to assume you're just another bible-thumping 'n gun-touting crazy guy from America. 
I don't like sounding like a jerk, but it's true: what you come up with better be good.

----------


## 44 Canon

The information I will be displaying will come from 2 sources, 1, actual doctrine from the religions official teachings and 2, psychological studies. 
Keep in mind though that it is a part of a rather large website I am producing on modern conflicts, which I am sure will make you want to kill me, with some of the subjects it gets in to.

----------


## Alexi

We'll wait 'n see.   ::   Anyways, is part of your website already up? Where is it?

----------


## 44 Canon

Not the area I am talking about. It will be under my domain until I get around to buying another one.
 I have some pages under construction, but nothing online yet. I am to busy with my work. Remember, I own and run a gun grip business all by my self, plus making preparations for starting the production of a video game series I wrote and designed in a couple months.
 I am one of those guys who manages to accomplish several tasks at the same time, but some times, I do get spread to thin, as I am now and will remain probably for the next couple weeks.
 Alex, what you yourself would be more interested in ( as you sound ) is a book series I am working on called: Reality Beyond Theory. It's based on scientific facts ( not evidence, FACTS ) about just about every subject their is. I think you'd like it because it focuses on the sheer mechanics of politics, religion, etc. rather then drawing specific stances.
 Their is also allot in their about the major catch 22s in science. The series is the size of an encyclopedia and will be much more explanatory then what can be said on this forum. Most of the things I've tried to relate to you guys has taken me as much as 4 straight hours to relate to other people in person.
 Keep in mind that I got in to science under what would be equilivant to you as life threatening conditions making me much more relentless about getting facts, without settling for theories and evidence under any conditions, so you'll see much different stuff here then normal, and is righten in a fashion to where my personal credibility is irrelevant.
 The WebPages it's self is probably going to take a month or so to get online. It is a WebPages about the war on terror in general. Their is allot of stuff their, such as studies up on Islamic scripture, the psychology behind these terrorists ( such as how they come to do what they do, how their leaders work etc. ) terrorist backgrounds, terrorist tactics, history of these cultures, urban legends, Islam's relationship with Science and other religions ( their is a taste of Reality Beyond Theory in their ), the preferred weapons of terrorists and countries fighting them, information on fallen soldiers, video and audio footage, terrorist relations to politics, how they use UN politics to their advantage and how some countries counter them, the goals of the terrorists, terrorist leaders, terrorist organizations and more.

----------


## DDT

I'm still waiting Cannon. 
Alex Ivanov last post says it all. 
 Here is a site for those who still think Islam means peace. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/toc.html 
Check out   "women in islam"  under Topical Quotations.

----------


## Friendy

> Here is a site for those who still think Islam means peace. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/toc.html

 Islam isn't homogeneous. As well as any philosophy, ideology, religion or whatever.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_mo ... thin_Islam

----------


## DDT

Wikipaedia presents a watered down and PC view of Islam. "LIberal" muslims, instead of trying to re-interpret Koran (written by a man known for his treachery) would do well to come out of Islam and start a separate religion. Mohammed himself could not even keep his story straight. First he says there is one god, Alla. Who by the way was the name of a main god associated with the moon. Then after being riddiculed by the Meccans he says there are three gods, Alla and two other female dieties, already locally known and believed to be accessable to humans through that big black box in Mecca. You see the spirits of gods were said to live in inanimate objects. And then, later he goes back to saying there is only Alla. Shortly after this his "ministry" went into full swing by "converting" people ............with his sword! And Islam continued converting in this fashion all the way up into the southern half of Europe. Rightly so the people of Europe were deathly afraid. Hence the Crusades. The Crusades saved Europe from complete Islamic domination. Yes, it is true that the Vatican backed the Crusades but keep in mind that it feared for its' own survival at the time of the firt crusade.  
   Islam is the fastest growing religion today, again. If you still want to defend her you  have that right.

----------


## 44 Canon

The Vatican had different stances on the crusades at different times.
 The crusades themselves were just and unjust at different times and circumstances.
 I would suggest reading about St. Francis of Acici.
 He was a Catholic monk who was well involved with the Crusades and his story exposes allot about the relationships between the two religions and the different countries and politics.   

> I'm still waiting Cannon.  
> Alex Ivanov last post says it all.

  I wasn't lying when I said it could take quite a while. Remember that I single handedly run an entire gun parts manufacturer, and I just invented a new handgun mechanism which I am putting all of my spare time and energy towards patenting, so now, it could take even longer.

----------


## solaris

Just a minor point, but whatever happened to the topic of this thread, about how badly-off are the Russians, which is why I tapped into it in the first palce ?  ::   
Still, it gave me a few laughs along the way.  ::   
Is this guy for real, and I am the only one to be ever-so-slightly concerned that someone with such extreme views as 44Canon also manufactures gun components ?  And if the URL he posted is also for real, I can certainly believe it's his simply because of the spelling mistakes....  ::

----------


## JB

I went all the way back to pg5 and still didn't find the original topic. Too much to read through, hopelessly on too many weird tangents  ::

----------


## solaris

Back on the original subject. I've been living and travelling in Russia for the last 18 months, and I think it's quite an expensive place to live. I'm here on a western european salary, but the supermarkets and restaurants are at western prices ! 
St Petersburg's probably the cheapest of the places I've been, certainly cheaper than Moscow and also, perhaps surprisingly, cheaper than say Krasnoyarsk.  Maybe it's because St P is the first port of call for foreign imported goods.

----------


## DDT

Cannon, where were you when I needed you? Gunsmith?   ........I am missing the screw that holds the ejector rod housing to the barrel of my Blackhawk. It all blew off (rod, housing,spring and screw) when I tried to put a sick cow down and landed under her head. To make matters worse the bullet must have glanced off her head and she was pretty mad by then. It took quite a while to get the parts back. She had big horns!
 Never did find the screw.

----------


## Евгения Белякова

@solaris: What country are you from? If you wrote it somewhere else and I didn't see, I apologize.   ::

----------


## Der Meister

> Wikipaedia presents a watered down and PC view of Islam.  Shortly after this his "ministry" went into full swing by "converting" people ............with his sword! And Islam continued converting in this fashion all the way up into the southern half of Europe. Rightly so the people of Europe were deathly afraid. Hence the Crusades. The Crusades saved Europe from complete Islamic domination. Yes, it is true that the Vatican backed the Crusades but keep in mind that it feared for its' own survival at the time of the firt crusade.  
>    Islam is the fastest growing religion today, again. If you still want to defend her you  have that right.

 Actually, Convert or Die is a myth.  Muslims had a special tax added on to non Muslims because they couldn't tax other Muslims besides what they payed to support the Ummah.  So why would they want all the conquered people to convert to Islam if they would lose a giant tax base?  I'm sure most people that converted to Islam at the time were doing it not because they believed in it, but it had its advantages.  They wouldn't have to pay the extra taxes and they wouldn't be second class citizens.  The Muslims allowed the Jews and Christians to stay in there only villages and govern themselves but once they left the village they were under Muslim law and they were still second class citizens.  I do believe that Saladdin or one of the Turks that was in charge of Jerusalem at the time of the crusades allowed Jews and Christains to visit peacefully.

----------

