baka gaijin comments

You were a great one, Ms. Thatcher. You'll be missed by all who love freedom. No matter at what age you might've died, it would've been too soon.

If the Japanese don't start having more children, nothing done by anybody (gov't or private sector) will help Japan.

Since he waited for the police to arrive, he probably was just looking to be arrested so that he could get three hots and a cot.

@CH3CHO:

Thanks. Your stats prove that whatever services provided by gov't, private industry does about 10 times better. Less gov't, more freedom.

Very surprising that Taiwan and Thailand are 2nd and 3rd. This speaks well of Japan's history with Taiwan (a former Japanese colony) and the reputation of Japanese businesses in Thailand, as many Japanese companies have factories in Thailand.

@sfjp:

What will happen? The same thing that happened after Eastern Europe was freed from the yolk of totalitarianism; the same thing that happened to many countries on both sides after the devastation of WWII. Perhaps you've no faith in the resiliency of humans, but I do have such faith.

As for preserving the status quo, I suggest you talk to those who aren't one of the four million in elite class. Please consider talking with those who've escaped from NK.

@ noriyosan73:

Not quite sure that I understand your point, but if your point were that Japan should defend itself, then I agree; so, I voted good for your post. My use of Mr. Franklin's quote was in reference to countries that choose to let others defend them, rather than defending their own country.

Also, were you to look closely at my use of Mr. Franklin's quote, then you'd see that it's in reference to internal policies of countries and each country's freedom or lack thereof. For example, in all of the former dictatorships of the so-called communist or socialist countries, there still are people who long for the return of another Stalin, Hitler (Nazi Germany was a socialist country and NAZI is an acronym for National Socialist German Workers' Party), or Mao. These people reason that, for them, life was easier, because the gov't took care of everything for them. So, they preferred economic security (even though all commie countries were and are dirt poor hell holes) to freedom.

Which brings to mind the quote of another founder of America, Thomas Jefferson. To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, 'A gov't with the power to give to you anything also has the power to take from you everything.' "Everything" includes one's life.

In other words, the greatest threat to anyone's freedom usually is one's own gov't.

Making drugs illegal drives up the price and makes it lucrative for bad guys to sell drugs. All terrorism and outlaw states, such as North Korea, derive from the sale of illegal drugs much income. The cost of drug enforcement is a drain on the coffers of gov'ts. For example, in the US, the cost for local, state, and federal gov'ts for drug enforcement (this includes incarceration, additional police with excessive pensions, etc.) is over $100 billion per year.

Legalize all drugs and let employers decide if they want to test employees for drug use, such testing to be unrestricted and can take place at any time, with or without cause to suspect drug use. Any employee fired for violating an employers drug policy wouldn't be eligible for unemployment benefits. Any person disabled due to drug use wouldn't be eligible for US Social Security Disability.

For the US, legalizing and taxing all drugs would result in an annual savings and additional tax revenues of over $125B for all levels of gov't. combined.

As for me, I'm not a user and don't smoke cigarettes, but I pay way too much in taxes for drug enforcement and a good chunk of my taxes pays for drug enforcement.

If one wants to kill one's self with drug use or otherwise turn into a loser due to drug use, then God's speed, because I'm not my brother's keeper and this includes not regulating what any fool wants to put into his/her body.

@ Droll Quarry:

Defending a country against threats has nothing to do with bringing freedom to others. Who gives 2-cents about whether or not some are free and some aren't free? Those unwilling to fight for their own freedom don't deserve freedom.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, 'Those who choose security over freedom will end up with neither.'

@ Deplore:

Westerners aren't good @ asymmetrical or guerilla warfare, because they refuse to engage in indiscriminate bombing and shelling of the areas where live the insurgents, rebels, etc.; in other words, unrestricted warfare. For example, in 2004, the US fought and defeated insurgents in Fallujah, Iraq, but it took several weeks and cost the lives of a couple hundred US soldiers. Had the US instead chosen to reduce to rubble Fallujah, the battle would have lasted less than a week and cost few, if any, US lives.

People who chose to live with the insurgents, rebels, etc. should understand that they also choose to share the fate of these insurgents, rebels, etc.

The only collateral damage that should be of concern to Westerners when fighting uncivilized freaks is whether or not a pilot's coffee spills during a bombing run.

No shift, you dummies @ the BBC. Smart people marry other smart people; they get an education and work hard. So, of course they're the top of society. Then, the lazy dummies vote to take the wealth earned by the upper class. It's the same in every democracy or republic.

As an ancient Greek philosopher wrote, "Every democracy contains within it the seeds of its own destruction, because eventually, the non-productive classes will vote to take from the productive classes. This results in society's breakdown, chaos, and, often, ultimately, civil war."

Or, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, 'A government that has the power to give to you anything, also has the power to take from you everything.'

Japan's military easily can take out N. Korea. Japan should issue to NK a warning that if NK were to fire a missile that comes even skims the skies over Japan's territorial sea border (200 nautical miles from the continental shelf off the coast of Japan), let alone goes over the skies of Japan's land, then Japan will tell (i.e., not ask) the US that Japan is going to bomb back to the stone age N.Korea. Then Japan should do it.

@ Shannon Clark:

By not pussy-footin' around. In other words, unrestricted warfare. If you're in the way, then you're a target. No worries or regrets about collateral damage.

So much BS. Here's the problem with most countries other than the US. In Japan, one will never see a non-Japanese heading a Japanese company (though there has been a few exceptions). This also applies to China (no non-Chinese national could head a Chinese company), Korea, Russia, Europe (which still retains its fossilized class system, along with most of Asia), Israel (no non-Israeli could head an Israeli company) and, for the most part, the rest of the world.

So, in the US, again, for the most part, the best of the world (not just the best of the US) are selected to be managers. This is why, in the long run, the US will prevail over other nations. Already, the US is easing out of the Great Recession of 2008-2012, well ahead of others

@ SuperLib:

In that case, give to NK good-old American frontier justice: Shoot first, ask questions later.

@ chucky#'s: You're possibly correct, but Kim Jung-Un is quite young and impetuous, so, who knows?

@MarkG,

Naw, drones are too antiseptic for the leadership of N. Korea. Let the former inmates of the slave labor camps decide upon what justice is due to what would remain of the NK leadership after a few weeks of 24/7 bombing.

Asia today is somewhat frightening. It bears many similarities to Asia in the 1930's.

Is it time to put an end to NK? Most of its troops are massed on its border with S. Korea, because it doesn't have enough fuel to transport them much of any distance, even within its tiny, dinky borders. Since the NK troops already are massed in one big, fat, juicy target, the US should hit'em now.

Then, free the internment camps and turn over to the former inmates of Camp 14 the leadership of NK.

Why did it take relatives two weeks to check up on things?

This will hurt the company's reputation. To recover from this, it'll have to change its name. Perhaps changing the name to Mrs. Donut might work.