Oh, my mistake, sorry. I haven't read Marx's stuff yet, but I assumed that a violent takeover wouldn't exactly be necessary if the majority voted for Communism to be the country's economic system, since that's how democracy worksjohnmedina999 wrote:
It actually is, it's called for in the Communist Manifesto.
All your other points are solid, though.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,691
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus. In other news, how is everyone?
I tried to change topicFaust wrote:
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus. In other news, how is everyone?
Thanks Faust for support
A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.
No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..
No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..
Lets change the topic to what type of potato do you think you're. I think I'm Pringles.
I'll never stop fighting bigotry and fascism, even in such an insignificant place as these forums. I don't expect to reach a consensus with them, either.Faust wrote:
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus.
In other news, how is everyone?Pretty good actually
I've noticed I'm a lot better at expressing myself, and am also feeling much less sick right now.
I am THE potato. IrelandBlitzfrog wrote:
Lets change the topic to what type of potato do you think you're.
Re: B1rd asking why I have a burning disdain for DJT supporters -- just saw these two tweets that express my general sentiments about them:
"DT supporters are not going to come around. What they love about him is their own character flaw: never admitting you made a mistake."
"A lot of us are spending way too much time trying to appeal to the empathy of people who do not value empathy. We gotta back up on that."
Let's just disregard social issues, all the "PC police" talk, etc. for the time being, because if I didn't, this post would be five times as long. They don't care that he just reauthorized the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline, built by a company whose previous pipelines were responsible for 69 spills in the past 2 years, or that legislation preventing coal companies to dump their waste into rivers was just blocked. All because Trump, McConnell, etc. and a good portion of their voting base have some fetish for keeping coal mining relevant in a world where literally every other developed country is moving to other forms of generating energy. They don't care that they're destroying their own country's environment because "MUH FOSSIL FUEL JOBS." Hell, they probably don't know this even happened because the only news sources they listen to didn't report on it. Why? It all goes back to the first tweet I mentioned.
I don't see the first tweet as true for all Trump supporters, though. The supporters complaining about his repeal of the ACA (not just the people who thought Obamacare and the ACA were separate things), the few protests to Trump's travel ban that cropped up in red states, etc. show that not all of his supporters worship him like a messiah like I see everywhere on social media. But the ones that do, the ones that always rub it in your goddamn face on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and presumably Facebook too, and can never formulate an argument beyond "LOLOLOL WE WON, LIBERALS BTFO" are the ones that piss me off to no end. (P.S. When I said yesterday, in my blind haste, that I "don't wanna see any Trump supporters happy ever again," those people are who I was talking about.)
"DT supporters are not going to come around. What they love about him is their own character flaw: never admitting you made a mistake."
"A lot of us are spending way too much time trying to appeal to the empathy of people who do not value empathy. We gotta back up on that."
Let's just disregard social issues, all the "PC police" talk, etc. for the time being, because if I didn't, this post would be five times as long. They don't care that he just reauthorized the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline, built by a company whose previous pipelines were responsible for 69 spills in the past 2 years, or that legislation preventing coal companies to dump their waste into rivers was just blocked. All because Trump, McConnell, etc. and a good portion of their voting base have some fetish for keeping coal mining relevant in a world where literally every other developed country is moving to other forms of generating energy. They don't care that they're destroying their own country's environment because "MUH FOSSIL FUEL JOBS." Hell, they probably don't know this even happened because the only news sources they listen to didn't report on it. Why? It all goes back to the first tweet I mentioned.
I don't see the first tweet as true for all Trump supporters, though. The supporters complaining about his repeal of the ACA (not just the people who thought Obamacare and the ACA were separate things), the few protests to Trump's travel ban that cropped up in red states, etc. show that not all of his supporters worship him like a messiah like I see everywhere on social media. But the ones that do, the ones that always rub it in your goddamn face on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and presumably Facebook too, and can never formulate an argument beyond "LOLOLOL WE WON, LIBERALS BTFO" are the ones that piss me off to no end. (P.S. When I said yesterday, in my blind haste, that I "don't wanna see any Trump supporters happy ever again," those people are who I was talking about.)
We just need Kisses to post another asian girl who he considers "perfection" tbhMadvillain wrote:
A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.
No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..
We won't get a consensus there either, jsTae wrote:
We just need Kisses to post another asian girl who he considers "perfection" tbhMadvillain wrote:
A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.
No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..
Well, that's true tbh. At least there'd be a more agreed view there.Raspberriel wrote:
We won't get a consensus there either, js
picky picky_old
We got livesDawnsday wrote:
I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead
Do not.Hika wrote:
We got livesDawnsday wrote:
I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead
Judging by my last posts, seems I slept for about 16 hours. Feels good.
I'm talking about communism because you seem intent on unfairly labeling Nazism as the worst political ideology. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your position. Of course communism is violent, it's not like 100% will voluntarily hand over their property to the state. As I've already said, you can call lots of political ideologies violent. But instead of using "directly incites violence" as a basis for why it Nazism should be excluded from free-speech, you've basically shifted the goalposts and now you're saying "I think it's bad, therefore it should be excluded". That's not how free speech works, you combat words with words, and violence with violence. Your reasoning is little different from Antifa, who because they label Milo or Richard Spencer as 'nazis', gives them justification to use violence to stop them talking.
I think Islam is violent, and I think that people who advocate for unrestricted Muslim immigration are arguing for something that will cause violence and disorder in our society. Does that give me justification to use violence against anyone arguing for immigration?
I have founds lots and lots of anecdotal evidence, women being raped multiple times in different occasions, Rotherham, people working with new immigrants and giving account of how violent they, "no-go zones" where police are too afraid to patrol, etc. It's just hard to find 'official' statistics that give a link, because of reasons like: the studies are hidden behind paywalls, the evidence going against the official agenda. You know that the study you cited was made with the agenda of 'dispelling myths' about immigration and crime. Hardly unbiased. I mean it is somewhat more plausible that people from Mexico aren't that bad, but how can you really think that people from hardcore Muslim countries, countries with a completely different culture, with a low IQ, lots of human rights abuses, most of whom aren't even literate in their own language, do you really think these people would be an boon to Western countries?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
By saying that genocide and oppression have happened under Nazism (in the only time Nazism has ever been tried), you're basically admitting that Nazism causes this dangerous shit, no? I bet you don't let Communists have the same excuse (oh, REAL Communism has never been tried.). You bringing up death tolls under Communism helps prove that.
Not to mention Hitler was one of the founders of Nazism and so you can say that his actions are representative of the ideology in action. Marx wasn't in charge of the Communist revolution.
I also think that defenders of Stalinist Communism, i.e. Stalin apologists, are just as bad as Nazi apologists. They shouldn't be allowed near politics either, they're crazy and advocate for dangerous fascism.
Violent takeover of property isn't necessarily advocated in Communism either btw, if people vote themselves into that position then it's just a change in property law.
We also weren't talking about Communism in the first place, so I don't see why you're changing the subject and turning it into a rant about how Nazis are unfairly targeted for having an evil, dangerous ideology.
It also makes sense that Jews would violently resist Nazism since they'd be defending themselves from an ideology that oppresses them. Would it surprise you if black people violently resisted the KKK coming back and getting more powerful? It shouldn't, they'd be the ones most terribly affected by it.
I understand your point that free speech should let you say pretty much anything, but exceptions do need to be made for a reason. Ideologies like Nazism aren't good enough for humanity.
also, I just asked for evidence that immigrants commit more crime than natives. It shouldn't be hard to find if it's true. The opposite seems to be true, though, like I said.
I'm talking about communism because you seem intent on unfairly labeling Nazism as the worst political ideology. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your position. Of course communism is violent, it's not like 100% will voluntarily hand over their property to the state. As I've already said, you can call lots of political ideologies violent. But instead of using "directly incites violence" as a basis for why it Nazism should be excluded from free-speech, you've basically shifted the goalposts and now you're saying "I think it's bad, therefore it should be excluded". That's not how free speech works, you combat words with words, and violence with violence. Your reasoning is little different from Antifa, who because they label Milo or Richard Spencer as 'nazis', gives them justification to use violence to stop them talking.
I think Islam is violent, and I think that people who advocate for unrestricted Muslim immigration are arguing for something that will cause violence and disorder in our society. Does that give me justification to use violence against anyone arguing for immigration?
it's almost like its not about the consensusFaust wrote:
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus. In other news, how is everyone?
*gasp*
i'm well, how are you? Really nice avatar. Care to send me the full pic? :>
It is for me.
I just feel like a lot of alt-right politics are generally based on "feels" instead of actual statistics. Like you said, you can only really find anecdotal evidence, which shouldn't mean much when it comes to policy making. The real world often doesn't match expectations. I think most people would assume immigrants commit more crime, but if data repeatedly shows that they don't, then that's just a fact that people will have to accept. Statistics are the most important thing when it comes to policymaking outside of a simple race to get the most votes, which I think is something that should be avoided in a proper democracy.B1rd wrote:
I have founds lots and lots of anecdotal evidence, women being raped multiple times in different occasions, Rotherham, people working with new immigrants and giving account of how violent they, "no-go zones" where police are too afraid to patrol, etc. It's just hard to find 'official' statistics that give a link, because of reasons like: the studies are hidden behind paywalls, the evidence going against the official agenda. You know that the study you cited was made with the agenda of 'dispelling myths' about immigration and crime. Hardly unbiased. I mean it is somewhat more plausible that people from Mexico aren't that bad, but how can you really think that people from hardcore Muslim countries, countries with a completely different culture, with a low IQ, lots of human rights abuses, most of whom aren't even literate in their own language, do you really think these people would be an boon to Western countries?
I'm talking about communism because you seem intent on unfairly labeling Nazism as the worst political ideology. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your position. Of course communism is violent, it's not like 100% will voluntarily hand over their property to the state. As I've already said, you can call lots of political ideologies violent. But instead of using "directly incites violence" as a basis for why it Nazism should be excluded from free-speech, you've basically shifted the goalposts and now you're saying "I think it's bad, therefore it should be excluded". That's not how free speech works, you combat words with words, and violence with violence. Your reasoning is little different from Antifa, who because they label Milo or Richard Spencer as 'nazis', gives them justification to use violence to stop them talking.
I think Islam is violent, and I think that people who advocate for unrestricted Muslim immigration are arguing for something that will cause violence and disorder in our society. Does that give me justification to use violence against anyone arguing for immigration?
I also don't think I've ever said Nazism is the "worst" political ideology. There are definitely arguments to be made for it, but frankly I don't want to bother making them. I don't particularly care if Nazism is "the worst" or not, but I can definitely identify it as something that doesn't belong in society.
Directly inciting violence IS grounds for removing free speech of spreading ideology. I'm happy to say the same thing about gulag-denying Stalinists- they shouldn't be allowed a public platform either, because they're spreading dangerous shit that doesn't do anything good for society.
Antifa are different because they're vigilantes who use physical violence (attacking people) as opposed to the state properly dealing with them via things like warnings and, if necessary, jail. You can feel free to consider intervention by the state as "violence", but I feel like you're just arguing semantics at that point. Most people see the difference between people getting attacked in the streets for existing, and people being arrested for making a Nazi speech. It's a really clear contrast that you'd probably understand better if you were in Europe.
Also I read a really cool reddit post about Islam that explains how it doesn't quite advocate violence in a way that you'd expect. I haven't verified anything here though, because frankly Islam isn't interesting to me, but feel free to check it out if you want.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuesti ... n/ddbrmny/
Your last argument is flawed because that'd be an indirect cause of violence (Muslims coming into the country leading to more violence, which isn't even necessarily true) as opposed to a direct one (i.e. importing radical extremist muslims that want to bomb people). Vetting exists for a reason, and America's has presumably been one of the best in the world. Getting into America isn't easy.
That would be such a Fuz thoughFuZ wrote:
muslims should be removed from earth
I've seen this show up a lot lately in different contexts. I have to wonder who you're looking at in the alt-right that makes you feel this way, because you'll inevitably find people that place emotion over reason under any banner, typically being very loud, too.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I just feel like a lot of alt-right politics are generally based on "feels" instead of actual statistics.
I think the problem with "actual statistics" is that they are skewed very easily to fit a narrative. Properly informing yourself is a challenge nowadays since you can look up one thing and then find something else calling bullshit on it within the hour. It's easier to just settle with a comfortable conclusion than a hard look at the facts, especially when most sources won't even offer the latter.
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
The real world often doesn't match expectations. I think most people would assume immigrants commit more crime, but if data repeatedly shows that they don't, then that's just a fact that people will have to accept. Statistics are the most important thing when it comes to policymaking outside of a simple race to get the most votes, which I think is something that should be avoided in a proper democracy.
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.Brian OA wrote:
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.
Boy I hope so.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least.
It's especially infuriating when you look at all the major Supreme Court cases about gerrymandering or redistricting -- nearly all of the parties doing the redistricting are Republican.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.Brian OA wrote:
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.
There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.
Yes there isB1rd wrote:
but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college
If one person's vote is worth more than another's, that is profoundly undemocratic
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
I agree that the idea behind the electoral college is fine, honestly, it's just been turned into something grossly non-representative of America.B1rd wrote:
There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.
As for voter fraud: I mean, sure. From what I've heard, it isn't a big deal- and Trump quoting numbers like "If 3 million illegals hadn't voted, I would've won the majority" is full fucking retard, but yeah there should definitely always be research to see if it's a problem or not in the US.
Decent voter ID laws would also be fine. It's just a shame the ones that they've tried have disproportionately affected minorities so much (because the lawmaking itself was doing that on purpose, which is ridiculous)
Also: Both republicans and democrats partake in gerrymandering and it's despicable on both sides.
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
I've already had this debate here
I've heard that the "if 3 million illegals voted" claim has some substance. Don't just write something off without evidence.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.Raspberriel wrote:
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
I mean I don't really know jack shit about this so I'm just assuming everyone does it when they get the chance, and even then, my issue would be that this is a thing you can do at all, regardless of political affiliation.Raspberriel wrote:
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
No, we had this debate before. And at that same debate, I said I didn't worship the Democrats as infallible, so nice try.B1rd wrote:
I've heard that the "if 3 million illegals voted" claim has some substance. Don't just write something off without evidence.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.Raspberriel wrote:
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
Massively misrepresenting my argument. I'm completely fine with proper voter ID laws. The ones they tried to push disproportionately *targeted*, not affected, black voters (and minorities in general I assume). It got shot down in a federal court for racial discrimination. They essentially wanted to make it illegal to use the kinds of IDs that black people generally use, while doing nothing about the IDs that white people use.B1rd wrote:
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/f ... -news&_r=0
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
1 for horsesKisses wrote:
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
2 for unicorns
so at 3 for ponies
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
thisZain Sugieres wrote:
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
2 Years ago I think was the first time so I'd have been 16, but it only really became a regular thing in the past 12 months.Kisses wrote:
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
Says the person who's decided to permanently sit out from conversing with me when I present my evidence why he's always wrong.B1rd wrote:
Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.
friendly reminder that you don't have to identify your gender in a binary mannerZain Sugieres wrote:
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
We aren't amoebas, we don't fucking commit binary fission.Mahogany wrote:
friendly reminder that you don't have to identify your gender in a binary manner
I don't understand this at all. Last time I checked I had a swinging dong down there which makes it kinda hard to identify myself a woman or agender or a fox. Gender is a social construct idea isn't solid aswell, as you're a solid homo if you aren't content with the gender your sex has given to you, and should go out of the closet like the faggot you are. Not talking about you, but anyone in general.
When has identifying as a nonbinary gender ever hurt anyone
Biologically you're a dude, but you might not feel 100% a dude and want to identify in a nonbinary manner. And that's totally cool.Erlkonig wrote:
I checked I had a swinging dong down there which makes it kinda hard to identify myself a woman or agender or a fox.
But who is to say what makes one a dude or not, or even what 100% dude/dudette entails?
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
thats fucking gayKisses wrote:
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
also biologically im a frail man but mentally im a beautiful butterfly
That's up to that specific personBrian OA wrote:
But who is to say what makes one a dude or not, or even what 100% dude/dudette entails?
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
Yeah last time you didn't check you got pretty butthurt lolKisses wrote:
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
Pedophiles need mental help.Blitzfrog wrote:
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
Blitzfrog wrote:
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
lol wrote:
fuck off blitzfrog
But pedophiles are a sexual orientation too. Tell me you guys don't like lolis
If pedophiles need mental help, gays do too.
what kinda logic ^
He's trying to say that everyone needs mental helpHika wrote:
what kinda logic ^
obviously
Why pedophiles can't be free
That's not cool, what is worse about pedophiles than gays? How is gay worse than straight?
That's not cool, what is worse about pedophiles than gays? How is gay worse than straight?
Blitz you should probably work on your bait game if you want the same amount of attention as before
You got me broFoxtrot wrote:
Blitz you should probably work on your bait game if you want the same amount of attention as before
Blitzfrog has bait game?
I didnt even have a sensible chuckle, it was more of an internal giggle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8FhG44-J80
I had problems adding the video itself in this post so here you go kids.
I had problems adding the video itself in this post so here you go kids.
Because people seem to have trouble lately with YouTube embedding:
[youtube]JUST the video ID here (the characters that come after ?v=)[/youtube]
Raspberriel wrote:
Because people seem to have trouble lately with YouTube embedding:[youtube]JUST the video ID here (the characters that come after ?v=)[/youtube]
dawnsday seems like a clear knock-off of doomsday
There. Thanks Rasp!
[EAR RAPE WARNING AHEAD!]
If the right has no empathy, then why do we donate so much more to charity than left-wingers? And here you're saying 'I WANT TO DENY TRUMP SUPPORTERS ANY HAPPINESS POSSIBLE'. So no, don't tell me that the left has more empathy or compassion. When you complain and attack Trump supporters like you're doing, you can't simply attack them for posting memes in twitter and acting smug. Because if anything, liberals have been acting way worse. Even if they have been acting bad, if you respond in kind it makes you just as bad as them.Raspberriel wrote:
Re: B1rd asking why I have a burning disdain for DJT supporters -- just saw these two tweets that express my general sentiments about them:
"DT supporters are not going to come around. What they love about him is their own character flaw: never admitting you made a mistake."
"A lot of us are spending way too much time trying to appeal to the empathy of people who do not value empathy. We gotta back up on that."
Let's just disregard social issues, all the "PC police" talk, etc. for the time being, because if I didn't, this post would be five times as long. They don't care that he just reauthorized the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline, built by a company whose previous pipelines were responsible for 69 spills in the past 2 years, or that legislation preventing coal companies to dump their waste into rivers was just blocked. All because Trump, McConnell, etc. and a good portion of their voting base have some fetish for keeping coal mining relevant in a world where literally every other developed country is moving to other forms of generating energy. They don't care that they're destroying their own country's environment because "MUH FOSSIL FUEL JOBS." Hell, they probably don't know this even happened because the only news sources they listen to didn't report on it. Why? It all goes back to the first tweet I mentioned.
I don't see the first tweet as true for all Trump supporters, though. The supporters complaining about his repeal of the ACA (not just the people who thought Obamacare and the ACA were separate things), the few protests to Trump's travel ban that cropped up in red states, etc. show that not all of his supporters worship him like a messiah like I see everywhere on social media. But the ones that do, the ones that always rub it in your goddamn face on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and presumably Facebook too, and can never formulate an argument beyond "LOLOLOL WE WON, LIBERALS BTFO" are the ones that piss me off to no end. (P.S. When I said yesterday, in my blind haste, that I "don't wanna see any Trump supporters happy ever again," those people are who I was talking about.)
I don't know why right-winger would protest Trump for the very reason they voted him in, that makes no sense. I agree that people can be overly lenient to their own side, but that is hardly restricted to the right. I didn't see the left protesting Obama's dropping of 10,000 bombs in the middle east. Let's see, Obama kills thousands of innocent civilians including women and children? Silence. Trump wants to temporary restrict immigration from the countries Obama has destabilised and allowed America-hating terrorist groups to take root in? Outrage!
maybe when i'm not cranky as hell from a mix of being sleepy and reading through the abomination that is yet ANOTHER /r/the_donald front-page post
why the hell do i do this to myself
i feel like i wouldn't say half the stupid shit i say if i didn't follow politics this much
why the hell do i do this to myself
i feel like i wouldn't say half the stupid shit i say if i didn't follow politics this much
I hate this thread now. Ugh.
I find reading some posts on this forum is less entertaining than reading the terms of service or some product or online service, at least I don't feel the need to make a comment every time someone posts something like that.
B1rd wrote:
I didn't see the left protesting Obama's dropping of 10,000 bombs in the middle east. Let's see, Obama kills thousands of innocent civilians including women and children? Silence.
I don't understand why right-wing people keep perpetuating this myth. The anti-war movement might've led America to pull out of Afghanistan in a faster and messier way than they should've, actually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_ ... %80%932014)
(link kinda breaks itself due to forum formatting, but go check it out)
What myth am I perpetuating? I am citing sources provided directly by the government. What are you trying to say, that Obama had no part in that decision, or that bombing and drone strikes were somehow necessary?
No, you're saying that leftists were completely silent and didn't protest Obama bombing the crap out of the middle east. The anti-war movement was huge, and largely leftists.
I'll admit that I haven't looked into protests of the war. But I still get the feeling from liberals that Obama is "can do no wrong" type of guy, when with Trump, any flaw, existent or not, is blown out of proportion 10-fold. Look at all the horrific terror attacking in Europe that have stemmed directly from the lack of immigration control, why is it unreasonable for Americans to want to protect themselves from that? Rather, it is completely reasonable to block immigration from countries in which America is basically at war with, and this power has been invoked many times in the past, 19 times by Obama himself. The problem is, I get the feeling that liberal have already made Trump to be Hitler in their mind, and refused any possibility except to resist him in any way possible. It really is petty and immature and behaviour, and nothing good will come of it. The only thing that will happen is that Trump and the right will dig their heels in response, and things will escalate from there. I think that Trump can make America great again, but the way things are going he's only going to make half of America great.
The US government right now isn't exactly trustworthy.B1rd wrote:
What myth am I perpetuating? I am citing sources provided directly by the government.
Obama may have done bad shit, but he did it as necessary and properly, while still remaining a competent president.B1rd wrote:
But I still get the feeling from liberals that Obama is "can do no wrong" type of guy, when with Trump, any flaw, existent or not, is blown out of proportion 10-fold.
Trump is a fucking idiot who has gotten innocent people killed by doing precisely the opposite of what Obama decided to do.
If America wants to protect themselves from terror attacks, they should start deporting nationalist extremists. But no, instead they ban citizens from 7 innocent countries.B1rd wrote:
why is it unreasonable for Americans to want to protect themselves from that?
You mean Trump has made Trump be Hitler in reality.B1rd wrote:
I get the feeling that liberal have already made Trump to be Hitler in their mind
Again?B1rd wrote:
I think that Trump can make America great again
America has never been a great country.
If donny boy keeps going the way he is, there's going to be a revolution. People will not stand for his shit.B1rd wrote:
the way things are going he's only going to make half of America great.
These discussions could stand to use more citations, at the very least.
Oh, but didn't you hear? Trump can cite himself.Brian OA wrote:
These discussions could stand to use more citations, at the very least.
You're not doing the left any favours by saying retarded shit like "Trump is literally Hitler" or "America has never been great". C'mon, Mahogany.
Don't defend Obama's awful mistakes in foreign policy. A better explanation of why people like Obama is that they like him as a person, not as a politician. He comes off as a smart and nice guy, and he has been very professional too.
Don't defend Obama's awful mistakes in foreign policy. A better explanation of why people like Obama is that they like him as a person, not as a politician. He comes off as a smart and nice guy, and he has been very professional too.
just fuckin lol @ political discussions in 2017 tbh
Trump's own actions allow for many very valid comparisons. This isn't about "the left". Blame Trump, not me.
America has never been great. Are people referring to the post-WWII era? Tell me all about how the wealth from the war was shared from everyone. It wasn't. It was fervor and nothing else, and the country is lagging behind hard.
America has never been great. Are people referring to the post-WWII era? Tell me all about how the wealth from the war was shared from everyone. It wasn't. It was fervor and nothing else, and the country is lagging behind hard.
Obama sucked pretty hard on some of his policies tbh
but I did like Obamacare bc my mom is poor af and it saved her soooo much fucking money.
Same for me when I went into adulthood; grateful for it.
but I did like Obamacare bc my mom is poor af and it saved her soooo much fucking money.
Same for me when I went into adulthood; grateful for it.
B1rd and Mahogany aren't American, but they both post more about this subject than I do
What are meat prices like where you all live?
not a clue
even then, in relation and terms of what, exactly?
Mainly, lack of citation in this case.
even then, in relation and terms of what, exactly?
Doesn't mean you ought to start doing that, though. It would make things unnecessarily difficult for everyone if you ended up developing an ego as large as the same people you're criticizing along with all the shortcomings that entails.Mahogany wrote:
Oh, but didn't you hear? Trump can cite himself.Brian OA wrote:
These discussions could stand to use more citations, at the very least.
Mainly, lack of citation in this case.
I was more referring to b1rd's lack of citation but sure
We Wikipedia now.
Obama Suspended immgration from Iraq for 6 months in 2011: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016 ... s_in_2011/
In 2015 congress passed, and Obama signed, a law restricting visas from states of concern. Trump's immigration ban is based off of these states of concern which had already been identified under the Obama administration: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ore-127798
Some other tidbits:B1rd wrote:
I'll admit that I haven't looked into protests of the war. But I still get the feeling from liberals that Obama is "can do no wrong" type of guy, when with Trump, any flaw, existent or not, is blown out of proportion 10-fold. Look at all the horrific terror attacking in Europe that have stemmed directly from the lack of immigration control[1][2][3][4], why is it unreasonable for Americans to want to protect themselves from that? Rather, it is completely reasonable to block immigration from countries in which America is basically at war with[5], and this power has been invoked many times in the past, 19 times by Obama himself[6]. The problem is, I get the feeling that liberal have already made Trump to be Hitler in their mind, and refused any possibility except to resist him in any way possible. It really is petty and immature and behaviour, and nothing good will come of it. The only thing that will happen is that Trump and the right will dig their heels in response, and things will escalate from there. I think that Trump can make America great again, but the way things are going he's only going to make half of America great.
Obama Suspended immgration from Iraq for 6 months in 2011: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016 ... s_in_2011/
In 2015 congress passed, and Obama signed, a law restricting visas from states of concern. Trump's immigration ban is based off of these states of concern which had already been identified under the Obama administration: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ore-127798
In relation to the average circumference of the thoraxes of your local cricket population. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the price of meat are definite in their values. For example, I got some pork roasts today for $7 AUD/kg [SOURCE]Brian OA wrote:
not a clue
even then, in relation and terms of what, exactly?