Boozy82’s profile

28 Nov 2014 23:01:47
Fascinating yet twisted. The nazis were the most repellent regime ever to walk the planet. Look how many of their scientists and engineers escaped to America and look at American foreign policy since 1945.

Kim Philby

We all improve Boozy82. With every passing year we change. Commend your fellow humans for improving so that we may continue improving.
zari

Sorry if you got slated for it Boozy82. Doubt it was any of the regulars. Hitler is a fascinating man no doubt about it.

Ryan.

Never noticed mate sorry.

07 Feb 2014 14:25:18
"they have sown the wind now they shall reap the whirlwind" so spoke your own air Marshall Harris, head of your bomber command.

Hitler certainly had no right to take the moral high ground given the bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam earlier.

But what did it achieve? 55000 British casualties, plus the Germans killed. Speer I believe thought it wasn't much of a disruption especially once everything was underground.

And then we have Dresden.

Kim Philby

Fair point ED001, not withstanding the drunk/bartender comparison. Churchill was indeed provoked by Hitler and took the decision to retaliate. You’re absolutely correct. I guess the point I was trying to make (rather poorly perhaps), was that Hitler’s moral outrage at the bombing of Berlin as though it was a completely unprovoked attack, was not credible, as the bombing was a direct response to the luftwaffe bombing London the previous day. He then used that moral outrage to declare that they would raze British cities to the ground. It was one of many examples of his warped morality.

Ryan.

I've read quite a bit about Hitler over the years and he really only has himself to blame for the caricature that has been created in his image.

Churchill authorised the bombing of Berlin in response to the Germans bombing residential areas in London. Hitler then ordered carpet bombing of British cities and London in particular. The allies responded in kind. Britain was defending itself against an aggressor that was trying to destroy it.

I agree there is no moral high ground for either side to stand on with regard to civilian casualties Zari. But the way I see it, Hitler was responsible for the bombing of German cities. Britain had every right to defend itself by all and any means available to them.

Ryan.

Hey Ryan, that is to be expected in the absence of personal contact. People have different backgrounds, different analytical processes and different ways of expression. It's impossible for someone to say something and for it to be understood the same way by everyone.
To clarify what I meant by that statement is that, the image in which certain historical figures are presented cannot be accurate. In any two sided conflict the one which dominates gets to establish their version of the events that took place, which we come to call (his+story?). Losers are always portrayed as evil figures because it helps the winning side appear as righteous and their actions justified.
I do not know what kind of person Hitler was, but what one can fault him with is for using the same criminal practices as the allies, namely bombing civilian targets.
Zari

Zari I don't doubt your intellect and all round knowledge at all, but sometimes your posts are as clear as mud. No offence pal you're obviously very bright, but I rarely understand what you're saying.

Ryan.

05 Feb 2014 18:20:39
He loved his mum, pets, was always courteous especially to women, described as a good host, was a non smoker, teetotal vegetarian who abhorred animal cruelty. He was also a genocidal maniac prone to violent psychotic fits.

I do not doubt that Hitler was not the man he was presented to be by those who targeted him, but anyone willing to stoop to the level of those who attack him is a fool. I am referring to the bombings of civilian targets of course.
Zari

Some great points, I'm with zari in that I believe the issues surrounding any substance use lay mostly with the individual rather than the substance. As mentioned above, if your will power is strong and you can use in moderation then no problem, whether we're talking weed, alcohol or other. Its the people who have addictive personalitites who can suffer or those who use to escape reality. Unfortunately i'm speaking from experience there!

very good point zari also, regarding the anti social behaviour and the way our 'social scene' is set up to make it that way for cannabis users. In my home town I feel like an outsider because I don't want to go out drinking til 2am in places that play loud, terrible music. I would rather listen to good music with close friends, in a comfortable environment where we can actually hear each other talk. If 'they' provided public places for me to do so or even allowed me to do so at home without breaking any laws, I would feel more in touch with the rest of society.

Personally, I would welcome decriminalisation but only alongside some sensible education - which is another vital issue imo. A big problem we face in the west is a lot of people still have no idea what cannabis is like and what properties it shares because they've been brainwashed with the whole 'reefer maddness' and 'drugs are bad' routine for years.

I remember being in a coffee shop in Amsterdam and being impressed by the common sense and open approach they showed. In particular, I was reading a pamphlet on the table that explained what's happening to your body when you 'whitey' (low blood sugar levels) and how to address it (take in sugary drink, stay calm etc) should you need to. Its this kind of honest, sensible and open approach to educating people that would need to accompany any decriminalisation, rather than the old propoganda form of 'dont smoke a reefer or you'll think its a good idea to jump off a tall bridge' I used to have to endure in school/society.

So decriminalise it yes but only alongside good, open education and firm controls over supply.

Harold

Like with everything weed/beer/food etc everything in moderation, I think its a jeremy kyle line that cannabis causes you psychological problems the person, its down to the person who would problery be cranky without a daily fix of caffeine, my mum uses it to take the edge of her arthritis, like I mentioned apart from the odd joint bk in the day I do not smoke but giving the choice I would make pot legal none of that super skunk s### that is laced with as many chemicals as cigarettes.

Cannabis creates a psychological addiction much like alcohol, not a chemical addiction like tobacco (nicotine).
If you have a strong character (will power) and do not wish to be using the substance you can do so.

Regarding the anti-social behavior people attribute to the particular substance, it is something personal and depends on the environment.
In societies where cannabis is accepted, I have seen no evidence from its users of anything that can be described as an anti-social behavior.
Perhaps if one tries to understand that the extrovert entertainment people search for in pubs, bars and clubs are designed for alcohol consumption, then one might understand why users of other substances would opt for a more relaxing environment, where people can interact with others through discussion.

The use of entheogenic substances as party drugs stems from the lack of an understanding as to the reason why such substances exist and their effects on human nature.
Don't blame the substance for the "bad trip", blame the self.

The legalization of cannabis would revolutionize the paper, textile, rope and pharmaceutical industries overnight. That is the reason cannabis is still illegal.

Alcohol, tobacco, coffee, sugar etc. are detrimental to human health. The overconsumption of these substances is proven to cause serious health issues.
There are no proven side effects from consuming cannabis and it is practically impossible to overdose on.
Physical entities have the right to do as they wish with their bodies.
Zari

04 Jan 2014 04:19:59
Great post mate, I have a mate that does weed regularly, he said you can't get addicted to weed but he's the same guy constantly smoking it being anti-social, born in England grew up in Australia, it's something that you can't escape, my kids have been offered weed an as young parents me and my wife do not want our kids to be accosiated with drugs as they are harmful, and cause anti social ness and other sorts of problems, my mate was depressed and went to every other drug he could, I don't want to be accosiated with it and either my kids, although I have no problem with people that smoke plant drugs, at there own risk

Cheers

Aron

HaHa you have me intrigued Lurgan Red, I would have bought a 'loose' in my younger days, and I did live very close to a shop which would have sold them in my later years. The Big Ship thing is baffling me though, don't think I've ever been to see them.

Great post boozy I know you said you know lurgan we'll could I ask if you would of bought a loose in a shop a few doors from your house.?
Not trying to be coy but I think I might you on a train a few years ago coming back from tall ships you recognised me. Am I right?

Thanks guys, maybe I sounded a bit naive in that post. I didn't mean to come across as if 'only one' can be right. Thanks for the replies, just another fellow human being in search of alternative answers to the important issues in life. I would rather listen to any of the above before I would listen to the usual television tripe. Not really bothered in which 'celeb' has had another baby (or bought one) or the usual nonsensical bull that the regular news comes out with.

I find Ventura extremely informative and have learnt from his work, I find him to be a honest guy simply researching different topics, he said in a interview tnrou editing it appears he is louder than is actually true

09 Nov 2013 13:27:05
I've seen and done my fair share of Guru bashing; but I don't see the point now.

Some of them are more immediately transparent than others, but that's only the way I see it. If you can get something out of it then what more can we ask for? In my experience, each of the talking heads out there can serve as a means to the next level of understanding. Some people seem to get to levels they can't get beyond though, and often I don't think that's their own fault, nor the fault of the man or woman expressing their opinion. Things change, you learn stuff today you didn't know yesterday. It's the same experience for all of us.
That said, i've no doubt there is a nefarious side to this, utterly devoid of innocence and integrity, and what difference would it make if someone told you who these particular characters are?

Keep peeling away the layers of the onion, keep listening, asking questions (of yourself as well), and progressing.

The man/woman who is not afraid to admit they have been fooled is the one that will progress furthest, I think. pea