Trump's Valor

[Tecmos Deception]

http://youtu.be/M3CiPKueqo8

:(

[R Flair]

Im confused, are you opposed to the US going after Isis or taking the oil while we do it?

I'm for both.

[Lune]

Im confused, are you opposed to the US going after Isis

Please explain to me how you would propose we "go after isis"?

Do we just invade and flood Syria with American troops? What happens when they put away their black flags and towels and start planting IED's as 'civilians'? How would it be any different than Iraq, Vietnam, or Afghanistan when, over 10 years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, we'd have accomplished nothing and probably just made things worse?

You cannot "win" a counter-insurgency occupation under the current rules of engagement. People who support deploying American troops against ISIS are fucking retarded.

The only way to win the war against Islam without systematically exterminating Muslims is to:

1. Achieve energy independence from Arab oil.
2. Enact a policy of economic, cultural, and social containment where Islamic countries (or any country with a non-secular culture/constitution/government) aren't allowed to consort with the rest of the world, and certainly not allowed to immigrate unless extensively vetted.
3. Weather the inevitable terrorist attacks without flying off the handle and invading somewhere, which is exactly what they want. Retribution comes by persevering with #1 and #2, continuing to allow Western life to flourish and the Middle East to rot until they figure out how to get their own shit together.

The way you don't win a war against Islam is:

1. Hand-delivering valuable Western lives to their shithole countries where life is meaningless and suicide attacks are ubiquitous, and crippling our own domestic development by squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on nothing.

It was Bin Laden's plan and it's ISIS's goal.

[big_ole_jpn]

You cannot "win" a counter-insurgency occupation under the current rules of engagement. People who support deploying American troops against ISIS are fucking retarded.

In one sense you're not wrong, but Donald's been implying that we would in fact be operating under a different set of rules. Kill families and associates; openly loot the occupied area; torture and terror tactics to suppress the resistance.

I can understand not supporting this, or doubting that the political will exists to actually execute such activities, but in theory it's not nearly as bad for the country as diving into an unwinnable quagmire just to funnel taxpayer money into some defense contracting companies. Imperialism has been profitable before and I'm positive it could be again if carried out properly.

[Daywolf]

Please explain to me how you would propose we "go after isis"?

Do we just invade and flood Syria with American troops?

What happens when they put away their black flags and towels and start planting IED's as 'civilians'?

How would it be any different than Iraq, Vietnam, or Afghanistan when, over 10 years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, we'd have accomplished nothing and probably just made things worse?

You cannot "win" a counter-insurgency occupation under the current rules of engagement. People who support deploying American troops against ISIS are fucking retarded.
I'd go with not funding and arming isis in the first place. Odd you being a dem supporter and complaining about war now, which is what 0bama got elected on and just accelerated all the wars instead.

It's been the dems rattling the sword about boots on the ground in Syria (along with some rep neocons), and while supporting a proxy war vs. Russia. Even that's not good enough now, we are practically in the era of the Cuban missile crisis again, but reversed, we put them next to Russia blatantly breaking the treaty, and no dems take note. Where's code pink? Where's all the war protesters now? Oh yeah... it's not really an issue of war, but who gets to wage it, really :(

[Lune]

I'd go with not funding and arming isis in the first place. Odd you being a dem supporter and complaining about war now, which is what 0bama got elected on and just accelerated all the wars instead.

It's been the dems rattling the sword about boots on the ground in Syria (along with some rep neocons), and while supporting a proxy war vs. Russia. Even that's not good enough now, we are practically in the era of the Cuban missile crisis again, but reversed, we put them next to Russia blatantly breaking the treaty, and no dems take note. Where's code pink? Where's all the war protesters now? Oh yeah... it's not really an issue of war, but who gets to wage it, really :(

The mean the wars Bush started?

Here's how the voting played out for the Iraq War resolution:
Republican: 215 Yes, 6 No
Democrat : 82 Yes, 126 No

You are beyond ignorant.

[Nihilist_santa]

The mean the wars Bush started?

Here's how the voting played out for the Iraq War resolution:
Republican: 215 Yes, 6 No
Democrat : 82 Yes, 126 No

You are beyond ignorant.

Now now Lune the senate was democrat led and they voted 77-22 in favor of the war.

[Raev]

Under Obama (D-IL), the US created ISIS in order to help our 'ally' Saudi Arabia, whose government funded and organized 9/11, overthrow Assad and replace him with a Syrian government that would allow the Saudis to build a pipeline to Europe and deny Iran the same. This resulted in lots of people dead, the destruction of most of Syria, and the entire European migrant crisis. Let's also not forget Ukraine (same strategy, same result).

It's amazing how bipartisan our government can be when it comes to Third World governments.

P.S. I checked the vote. Summing the House and Senate, about 50% of Democrats voted for war vs 95% of Republicans. It's so sad that Byrd's resolution was denied :(

[Nihilist_santa]

This is more than just Iraq though. General Wesley Clark laid it out pretty well they planned to take out 7 countries in what they thought would only take 5 years. All for the reasons Raev outlined above. Clark makes it seem much more bumbling and innocent than the reality of things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

[Tecmos Deception]

Im confused, are you opposed to the US going after Isis or taking the oil while we do it?

I'm for both.

It's just some poor folks kids in exchange for oil and a safer world, right? So simple.

[Daywolf]

The mean the wars Bush started?

Here's how the voting played out for the Iraq War resolution:
Republican: 215 Yes, 6 No
Democrat : 82 Yes, 126 No

You are beyond ignorant.
And I'm suppose to defend Bush here? lol
See, 100% proved my point.
0boma carried Gulf War II longer than Bush, after running on how wrong it was and promises of getting out. That's only the tip of the iceberg, 0bama and the dems are HAWKS, to the bone.

Fun point: you brought up Vietnam, since that was LBJ. See, if it's a Rep then it's the Reps fault. But if Dem, its America's fault. That's some deep denial...

Now now Lune the senate was democrat led and they voted 77-22 in favor of the war.qft

---
edit
I'll just add a reminder note here: Twice not voting for W, voted other. Never once supported nation building, I debated years with reps telling them it'll never work; it's a land of dictators, period.

The neocons in both parties do nothing but fight over who is going to do it, that's it.
Oh, so to not come off as a total hippie peacenik, I did support Gulf War I. Shouldn't have stopped there though, I didn't support sanctions at all. Iraq should have been smashed and a new dictator installed :P Clinton, the Germans and the French raped the country for 8 years.

[Tankdan]

900-something troops died each year under Bush Jr average
900-something troops died each year under Clinton average

99% of people seem to forget this.

[Lune]

Now now Lune the senate was democrat led and they voted 77-22 in favor of the war.

Shamelessly misrepresenting reality. The Senate consisted of 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

Republican: 48 Yes, 1 No
Democrat: 29 Yes, 21 No

Combining the House and Senate, 111/258 Democrats (43%) voted Yes, 263/270 (97%) of Republicans voted Yes.

Look at all the alt rights desperately trying to make it look like 97% of Republicans didn't vote Yes on the Iraq blunder.

Anyway playing the blame game is pointlessly irrelevant in this thread, even if you believe Obama created ISIS. The relevant point is deploying troops to fight ISIS is just another blunder. And no, the DoD under Donald Trump is not going to commit atrocities and warcrimes like targeting families.

[Nihilist_santa]

Shamelessly misrepresenting reality. The Senate consisted of 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

Republican: 48 Yes, 1 No
Democrat: 29 Yes, 21 No

Combining the House and Senate, 111/258 Democrats (43%) voted Yes, 263/270 (97%) of Republicans voted Yes.

Look at all the alt rights desperately trying to make it look like 97% of Republicans didn't vote Yes on the Iraq blunder.

Anyway playing the blame game is pointlessly irrelevant in this thread, even if you believe Obama created ISIS. The relevant point is deploying troops to fight ISIS is just another blunder. And no, the DoD under Donald Trump is not going to commit atrocities and warcrimes like targeting families.

I was merely pointing out it was a shared responsibility and also I went on to explain that this is a long term plan meant to be carried out regardless of who the establishment puts in there. That is why Trump is the wild card he doesn't seem to be supporting their plans he just wants to weaken and contain the terrorist. The establishment has been trying to run something like a controlled burn.

[Daywolf]

900-something troops died each year under Bush Jr average
900-something troops died each year under Clinton average

99% of people seem to forget this.
Nah just white washers do. I was very against Clintons war in Yugoslavia/Bosnia, to the core. Both wrong war and wrong side (3-way civil war). I lost a childhood friend and his father in that, went to help family get out of the region, killed by the red white and blue supported muslims as they slaughtered Christians in a blood frenzy. The dif between Hitllary and Bubba is just Bubba has way more blood on his filthy hands at this point, but Hitllary given enough time will likely surpass the amounts of blood lust ever seen in our lifetime combined :mad:

[Daywolf]

Anyway playing the blame game is pointlessly irrelevant in this thread, even if you believe Obama created ISIS. The relevant point is deploying troops to fight ISIS is just another blunder. And no, the DoD under Donald Trump is not going to commit atrocities and warcrimes like targeting families.
How is it a game? My point is both 0bama and Bush are screwed up. isis is just a reformation, but just the same group with a different name. They were around during Bush just as much as during 0bama. We're talking humans, not some abstract idea or movement.

I don't think you really understand what's going on, you are only listening to the commentaries of the mainstream media which is sold out to the liberals, a tool of the established order. You're still using last elections talking points like Bush vs. 0bama narrative junk, and the election before that. Do you know what actually happened within the repub party? what all the commotion and fighting was about? I mean even the dems had been building up their war chest to fight Jeb as everyone's obvious business as usual choice, or so they thought.

And it seemed like something the dems were almost going to go through too, a revolt against the established order. But in hindsight, especially with Bernie easily folding and what his wife said to him at the podium during all the boos (yeah someone cleaned that up so we could hear her words over the hot mic), it's looking like he was fully a plant to ensure Clinton's nomination. And something even the DNC didn't fathom.

The Clinton's had the metrics down from their political simulations (yes they do that) for what Bernie to say/promise to get enough of a following so that anyone truly sincere about pushing back against the established order wouldn't have a chance, then he hands it to Clinton, just like he did exactly. Well didn't totally come off as planned, the boos were not expected in their plan, their followers were not as gullible as they thought. But still managed the general result they wanted.

Bernie was the dems plant in a lot of ways as Cruz was for the reps, an inside man for Bush in his case. We're just hoping Trump isn't even another layer of the same onion, diabolically so. So far though he has seemed to check out as sincere, not linked to the establishment of the dems and reps (if you don't think that's an oligarchy you have way missed it btw). All there is is what's left for the imagination, like meeting with Kissinger etc, of which I like to think he let him know that if something happens to the Don, people have been left with instruction with who to go after and deal with ;)

[Slathar]

How is it a game? My point is both 0bama and Bush are screwed up. isis is just a reformation, but just the same group with a different name. They were around during Bush just as much as during 0bama. We're talking humans, not some abstract idea or movement.

I don't think you really understand what's going on, you are only listening to the commentaries of the mainstream media which is sold out to the liberals, a tool of the established order. You're still using last elections talking points like Bush vs. 0bama narrative junk, and the election before that. Do you know what actually happened within the repub party? what all the commotion and fighting was about? I mean even the dems had been building up their war chest to fight Jeb as everyone's obvious business as usual choice, or so they thought.

And it seemed like something the dems were almost going to go through too, a revolt against the established order. But in hindsight, especially with Bernie easily folding and what his wife said to him at the podium during all the boos (yeah someone cleaned that up so we could hear her words over the hot mic), it's looking like he was fully a plant to ensure Clinton's nomination. And something even the DNC didn't fathom.

The Clinton's had the metrics down from their political simulations (yes they do that) for what Bernie to say/promise to get enough of a following so that anyone truly sincere about pushing back against the established order wouldn't have a chance, then he hands it to Clinton, just like he did exactly. Well didn't totally come off as planned, the boos were not expected in their plan, their followers were not as gullible as they thought. But still managed the general result they wanted.

Bernie was the dems plant in a lot of ways as Cruz was for the reps, an inside man for Bush in his case. We're just hoping Trump isn't even another layer of the same onion, diabolically so. So far though he has seemed to check out as sincere, not linked to the establishment of the dems and reps (if you don't think that's an oligarchy you have way missed it btw). All there is is what's left for the imagination, like meeting with Kissinger etc, of which I like to think he let him know that if something happens to the Don, people have been left with instruction with who to go after and deal with ;)


lol dum

[Lune]

How is it a game? My point is both 0bama and Bush are screwed up. isis is just a reformation, but just the same group with a different name. They were around during Bush just as much as during 0bama. We're talking humans, not some abstract idea or movement.

I don't think you really understand what's going on, you are only listening to the commentaries of the mainstream media which is sold out to the liberals, a tool of the established order. You're still using last elections talking points like Bush vs. 0bama narrative junk, and the election before that. Do you know what actually happened within the repub party? what all the commotion and fighting was about? I mean even the dems had been building up their war chest to fight Jeb as everyone's obvious business as usual choice, or so they thought.

And it seemed like something the dems were almost going to go through too, a revolt against the established order. But in hindsight, especially with Bernie easily folding and what his wife said to him at the podium during all the boos (yeah someone cleaned that up so we could hear her words over the hot mic), it's looking like he was fully a plant to ensure Clinton's nomination. And something even the DNC didn't fathom.

The Clinton's had the metrics down from their political simulations (yes they do that) for what Bernie to say/promise to get enough of a following so that anyone truly sincere about pushing back against the established order wouldn't have a chance, then he hands it to Clinton, just like he did exactly. Well didn't totally come off as planned, the boos were not expected in their plan, their followers were not as gullible as they thought. But still managed the general result they wanted.

Bernie was the dems plant in a lot of ways as Cruz was for the reps, an inside man for Bush in his case. We're just hoping Trump isn't even another layer of the same onion, diabolically so. So far though he has seemed to check out as sincere, not linked to the establishment of the dems and reps (if you don't think that's an oligarchy you have way missed it btw). All there is is what's left for the imagination, like meeting with Kissinger etc, of which I like to think he let him know that if something happens to the Don, people have been left with instruction with who to go after and deal with ;)

The government is clearly adding rainbows to our sprinkler systems to make us gay

[Ahldagor]

http://i.imgur.com/FmYjcHV.gif

[maskedmelon]

what's it like in the cave guys?

[Daywolf]

[/img]https://youtu.be/PgX5XUoeN3I

[R Flair]

https://youtu.be/PgX5XUoeN3I

Wow first rap Ive heard in a while I thoroughly enjoyed.

[Jarnauga]

http://i.imgur.com/mS9Onnu.jpg

Black people, amirite :rolleyes:

[Tasslehofp99]

I read these threads and still cant believe people think the democrats and republicans are on different sides and not the exact same thing nowadays.

[Daywolf]

[/IMG]

Black people, amirite :rolleyes:
No, just another globalist selling out the human race, much like as yourself.

Wow first rap Ive heard in a while I thoroughly enjoyed.Yep, amazing how some people are finally waking the F* up, been waiting half a lifetime for this. One last push before their world comes crashing down on them.

http://i.imgur.com/zG6Zq.png

[Nihilist_santa]

http://i.imgur.com/mS9Onnu.jpg

Black people, amirite :rolleyes:

Nice one (((Jarn))).

http://i.imgur.com/kC1iP2q.jpg

[Jarnauga]

it's funny that 72% of muricans were in favor of the war despite all evidence, despite the whole world telling you, despite your allies telling you.. and now, 10 years after, nobody was in favor it seems.. another case of "hurr i feel i'm right despite all evidence". I actually was on the streets protesting that shit, Daywolf i'm sure you were one of the assholes pouring french wine down the drain and ordering freedom fries.. filthy globalist ;)

Grow a pair and take responsibility of your own shit, 150,000 dead iraqis, 80% of them civilians.. and the birth of ISIS is on you.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/French_address_on_Iraq_at_the_UN_Security_Council + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_1hWqSz6I

the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.

Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.

the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?

http://i.imgur.com/NIkkxkp.jpg

Still waiting for bush, cheney, wolfowitz, rumsfeld to be prosecuted as war criminals ;)

[Daywolf]

I actually was on the streets protesting that shit, Daywolf i'm sure you were one of the assholes pouring french wine down the drain and ordering freedom fries.. filthy globalist ;)
You don't even admit to being of French descent, uh-huh, while as I did. The fact you even know what "freedom fries" were, I'm starting to suspect you are located in mom's basement somewhere in Ohio with plenty of time to put into "protesting" down at Starbucks.

[Jarnauga]

You don't even admit to being of French descent, uh-huh, while as I did. The fact you even know what "freedom fries" were, I'm starting to suspect you are located in mom's basement somewhere in Ohio with plenty of time to put into "protesting" down at Starbucks.

i'm really good at faking a french accent on teamspeak then

[Daywolf]

i'm really good at faking a french accent on teamspeak thener you take everyone for a fool with your shifty replies? I know a bit about Africa and the languages they speak and why, w/o even consulting Dr. Google. What? You don't even know that French is an international language and most spoken in Africa? What are your favorite cookies your mom brings you in her basement?

[Jarnauga]

er you take everyone for a fool with your shifty replies? I know a bit about Africa and the languages they speak and why, w/o even consulting Dr. Google. What? You don't even know that French is an international language and most spoken in Africa? What are your favorite cookies your mom brings you in her basement?

Ok, sure, i'm african living in ohio in my mom's basement. Good.

So what were you doing in 2003 ? opposing the irak war ..?

[Daywolf]

Ok, sure, i'm african living in ohio in my mom's basement. Good.

So what were you doing in 2003 ? opposing the irak war ..?
Well good, I'm glad we got that straightened out, wasn't so hard was it?

Anyway, like I said, I was debating republicans on their idea of nation building during that time. I have always opposed the idea and action for the mid-east. I support what the military is suppose to be, to break things and kill people, not peace-keeping, and CERTAINLY not under some fake UN flag that's best used for target practice.

Nope, no way, didn't join the "protesters", they were just as much fooled by it all and even more so. ...and still are but just went silent when 0bama played war.

Also then as I do now I speak out about the NWO. You're fooled because you think that opposing a war or supporting a war, that one side is right and the other wrong. But really they are both wrong, they are inventions for you to surrender your freedoms, your liberties.

If this could be had through peace, then peace would break out today world-wide. But just the thought of strife and war brings you to the masters table to eat his crumbs. You're whole thinking is sculpted into what they want you to be; to play to their tune and dance for them like a puppet after your stale empty meal. It's enough to make tower #7 implode by just the hot air coming off the opposing factions.

sand -> fire -> glass -> dust.
That's the future with the path we're set on.

[Jarnauga]

http://i.imgur.com/yraGqK6.png

[Dimble]

If this could be had through peace, then peace would break out today world-wide. But just the thought of strife and war brings you to the masters table to eat his crumbs. You're whole thinking is sculpted into what they want you to be; to play to their tune and dance for them like a puppet after your stale empty meal. It's enough to make tower #7 implode by just the hot air coming off the opposing factions.

sand -> fire -> glass -> dust.
That's the future with the path we're set on.

Man, you really put a lot of thought into being an idiot.

[Daywolf]

[/IMG]See, it's not even about peace for you. What I post on is true peace, not the dupe you're in. If what you claimed is true, the "protests" would have never went silent, but they did. You and your anti-war crowd got played, and you still don't see it. 0bama went on with the wars and everything was cool. It's just about ideology, and who gets to eat the biggest crumbs among the opposing party factions. They brainwashed ya.

[Jarnauga]

https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2228

Poll from last year, and guess what:

http://i.imgur.com/iZ5ucFT.png

Seems republicans still thought it was the right thing to do last year ..? The same republicans that chose Trump to be their candidate ? That same Trump that, asked if he would go to war with iraq 6 months prior to the start: "yeah i guess so" ? (said multiple times he said he was against, but no trace ever found of that of course) The same Trump that chose as potential future VP someone that voted FOR the war ..?

You're dellusional.

[Daywolf]

https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2228

Poll from last year, and guess what:

http://i.imgur.com/iZ5ucFT.png

Seems republicans still thought it was the right thing to do last year ..? The same republicans that chose Trump to be their candidate ? That same Trump that, asked if he would go to war with iraq 6 months prior to the start: "yeah i guess so" ? (said multiple times he said he was against, but no trace ever found of that of course) The same Trump that chose as potential future VP someone that voted FOR the war ..?

You're dellusional.you're still grasping at the narative, as you give a pass to 0bama and the dems. You bought into it being Bush's war, when the dems kept right at it. It's the establishments war.

Trump opposed it, but not until 04. At least he came to the realization, which is more than we can say for you it seems :o

[Jarnauga]

You bought into it being Bush's war, when the dems kept right at it. It's the establishments war.



So a republican president supported by the overwhelming majority of repuiblicans, that was re-elected after the war started, despite the whole world being against it, UN experts in iraq being against it, your allies being against it.. but somehow, it's not "bush's war", but the "dems" ? At least Obama said he was against prior to it and had to deal with the mess you left behind, for fuck sake.

Seriously, you're the perfect subject for an orwellian society. Eurasia is the enemy, Estasia is our ally. (2 days after) Estasia is our enemy, Eurasia is our ally, and it's always been like this. I never said Eurasia was the enemy. You're wrong, probably because you're an estasia agent.

[sOurDieSel]

lol if you think there is a difference between the Bushs and Clintons. Two sides of the same Shekel.

[Daywolf]

lol if you think there is a difference between the Bushs and Clintons. Two sides of the same Shekel.
lol yeah he doesn't get it. I mean, is he not reading my posts? He's saying "you" as if he thinks I'm a repub or something with my parties war., about headed to full retard there. Doesn't understand what the word "establishment" means and still thinks I mean not the reps war but the dems war. When I say they are both puppets of the nwo, I'm somehow defending Bush's honor or something. It's like the twilight zone here.

This guy seems more about just hating on America, facts be damned hehe

[fash]

http://youtu.be/M3CiPKueqo8

:(

Faux libertarians like Johnson are a far cry worse than a Trump though. Vote Johnson for rapefugee.

You cannot "win" a counter-insurgency occupation under the current rules of engagement. People who support deploying American troops against ISIS are fucking retarded.

Changing the rules of engagement and laws of war is exactly what Trump proposed in the video (and elsewhere). You currently can't seize oil fields under the Geneva Convention.

The way you don't win a war against Islam is:

1. Hand-delivering valuable Western lives to their shithole countries where life is meaningless and suicide attacks are ubiquitous, and crippling our own domestic development by squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on nothing.

A trillion dollars in oil is something.

Oil smuggling is the big source of revenue for ISIS. The US has refrained from targeting oil facilities since many civilians in the area rely on ISIS oil. Russia and France (and maybe US now?) have begun targeting oil facilities/transports in the last half year in order to cut off that revenue. Entirely seizing the oil fields would have a greater impact on ISIS's revenue.

Its effectiveness depends on how many troops are required. Elsewhere, I recall Trump saying he'd seize the oil with a few troops. If intelligence indicates that's possible, seizing may be an effective tactic.

[Jarnauga]

In the end i don't even care about democrats or republicans. Even tho i feel closer to democrats (i feel closer to sanders actually, he's the closest to european style left), the republican views about taxation, economy, small government etc.. i get it. I may not agree with it, but i see their point, the economic theory makes sense as a whole (friedman etc).

But yeah, i reject the whole science denying, LGBTQ hating, bible humping, foreigners scape-goating, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, conspiracy theorists etc etc.. the day americans will stop giving a voice to those, you'll be better than you have ever been.

[Nihilist_santa]

In the end i don't even care about democrats or republicans. Even tho i feel closer to democrats (i feel closer to sanders actually, he's the closest to european style left), the republican views about taxation, economy, small government etc.. i get it. I may not agree with it, but i see their point, the economic theory makes sense as a whole (friedman etc).

But yeah, i reject the whole science denying, LGBTQ hating, bible humping, foreigners scape-goating, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, conspiracy theorists etc etc.. the day americans will stop giving a voice to those, you'll be better than you have ever been.

Sorry pal but hate and conspiracies are pure Americana. Hell we got so paranoid about the Masons after the founding of the country they banned them and had a whole anti-masonic political party and movement for a while. The biggest problem is we always do a half assed job of removing our enemies. McCarthy wasnt allowed to go far enough in my opinion. We could have nixed that whole subversive commie 60s shit right then and there.

[Slathar]

McCarthy wasnt allowed to go far enough in my opinion. We could have nixed that whole subversive commie 60s shit right then and there.

hahahahah. jesus these forums are always great for laughing at dumb people.

[Nihilist_santa]

hahahahah. jesus these forums are always great for laughing at dumb people.

Thanks for stopping by.

http://i.imgur.com/AMO8dF0.jpg

[Slathar]

your unfunny picture doesn't make sense. sorry you couldn't afford a college degree.

[Nihilist_santa]

your unfunny picture doesn't make sense. sorry you couldn't afford a college degree.

I dont think you understand how higher education works. I will break this down for you.

http://i.imgur.com/3lJWqm2.jpg

[Trungep99]

All you trump supporters are nuts for trusting this guy. Lack of government experience, , and a career of taking advantage of other citizens.

[maskedmelon]

All you trump supporters are nuts for trusting this guy. Lack of government experience, , and a career of taking advantage of other citizens.

I addressed this the other day Trunge. It has nothing to do with trust:

I look at it more like this,

Trump says he's selling bologna sandwiches. He hasn't sold any sandwiches before, but in the past has expressed a particular fondness for vegemite sandwiches. Sone people suspect he doesn't really plan to offer any bologna sandwiches if elected and will instead offer the same faux-vegemite sandwiches shilled by his 'opponent'.

Hillary markets her Vegemite sandwiches as Nutella sandwiches. Everyone knows their not Nutella and they smell like shit for some reason.

Game theory urges me to take my chances with the bologna sandwich. It may be great. It may even have a tomato. If it is not, or if it turns out Trump does end up only offering vegemite or even faux vegemite sandwiches, then I am no worse off than I would have been going with Hillary's shit sandwich. And, there is a chance that in the process, Trump's foray into sandwichdom may make some waves and lead to better sandwiches in the future. With Hillary, we can be assured that accepting her offering only strengthens the resolve of shit-sandwich manufacturers and we can expect more indefinitely.

[Lune]

Trump doesn't believe sandwich mold exists even though it's a consensus among the entire scientific and academic community that it, in fact, does. Trump is willing to accept scientific consensus for other important things like how to manage cholesterol, treat cancer, or run a business/economy. But in the case of sandwich mold, an entire party has special interests pulling the strings and he bends over to comply. He proposes that we don't bother putting sandwiches in the fridge because sandwich mold isn't real and if we put our sandwiches in the fridge we won't be able to compete with China, which doesn't have fridges.

[Lune]

Faux libertarians like Johnson are a far cry worse than a Trump though. Vote Johnson for rapefugee.



Changing the rules of engagement and laws of war is exactly what Trump proposed in the video (and elsewhere). You currently can't seize oil fields under the Geneva Convention.

Again, the DoD (and the general public) is not going comply with Trump ordering them to commit warcrimes (and that's assuming he isn't just talking out of his ass). The alt-right window-licking 4channers that inhabit this forum might find it tasteful to kill ISIS's families, but the international community does not.



A trillion dollars in oil is something.

Oil smuggling is the big source of revenue for ISIS. The US has refrained from targeting oil facilities since many civilians in the area rely on ISIS oil. Russia and France (and maybe US now?) have begun targeting oil facilities/transports in the last half year in order to cut off that revenue. Entirely seizing the oil fields would have a greater impact on ISIS's revenue.

Its effectiveness depends on how many troops are required. Elsewhere, I recall Trump saying he'd seize the oil with a few troops. If intelligence indicates that's possible, seizing may be an effective tactic.

Syria does not have even close to a trillion dollars in oil reserves. Syria has 2.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (not all of which is controlled by ISIS). The current price of oil is around $40 a barrel, which comes out to $100 billion. To put that in perspective, the Iraq war has cost $1.7 trillion. Even if you assume Trump "makes some smart deals" and a war with ISIS only costs 1/10 what Iraq cost, which is unrealistic, it's still a stupid and unprofitable idea. If we plunder all their oil quickly to minimize the cost of the war, we flood the market with oil and the price plunges-- we're one of the world's leading oil producers, and that would be devastating.

Occupying their oil fields is a fucking stupid idea. Iraqi insurgents, Taliban, and the Vietcong didn't have access to oil revenue and they were still able to conduct costly insurgencies.

[maskedmelon]

Trump doesn't believe sandwich mold exists even though it's a consensus among the entire scientific and academic community that it, in fact, does. Trump is willing to accept scientific consensus for other important things like how to manage cholesterol, treat cancer, or run a business/economy. But in the case of sandwich mold, an entire party has special interests pulling the strings and he bends over to comply. He proposes that we don't bother putting sandwiches in the fridge because sandwich mold isn't real and if we put our sandwiches in the fridge we won't be able to compete with China, which doesn't have fridges.

Very high quality post and excellent analogy. I think I still might prefer a moldy, shit-free sandwich over the shit sandwich though :/ However, as I have indicated, Trump sandwiches run the very real chance of being both shitty and moldy :/


Nevertheless, it is important to note that while I do not care to have shit or sand in my sandwiches, nor do I care for the ilicit practices or adverse conditions giving rise to such a nefarious malady as is sandwich mold, I worry little of sandwich mold itself.

Sandwich mold's most pronounce effects are associated with long term exposure. Since there will be no young melons to worry about and populations most severely affected are likely those whom will suffer disproportionately due to the forthcoming age of automation anyway, I am at worst indifferent to sandwich mold and at best mildly hopeful. ^^

[Raev]

Yeah I don't understand how anyone could think that occupying the Middle East could possibly be a good idea. The only way that would work is if we literally killed every Arab man, woman, and child we found on sight. I don't think anyone is seriously considering that.

A far better plan would be to quarantine the Muslim disease in Arabia and give huge tax incentives to renewable energy use (not production, which just leads to idiot corruption/theft like Solyndra) until we are no longer dependent on their oil, at which point the Muslim world can fade back into the 8th century irrelevance that they enjoyed until recently.

[big_ole_jpn]

Iraqi insurgents, Taliban, and the Vietcong didn't have access to oil revenue and they were still able to conduct costly insurgencies.

https://i.imgur.com/kAImRuC.png

[Raev]

Trump doesn't believe sandwich mold exists even though it's a consensus among the entire scientific and academic community that it, in fact, does. Trump is willing to accept scientific consensus for other important things like how to manage cholesterol, treat cancer, or run a business/economy. But in the case of sandwich mold, an entire party has special interests pulling the strings and he bends over to comply. He proposes that we don't bother putting sandwiches in the fridge because sandwich mold isn't real and if we put our sandwiches in the fridge we won't be able to compete with China, which doesn't have fridges.

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that anthropogenic global warming is a 100% certainty (and I still think it's unbelievably stupid to trust a group of people who say they can simulate a chaotic system, regardless of how many PhDs they give themselves), so what?

Do you seriously think world leaders will agree to make real cuts in CO2 production when the global economy is even now melting down under a mountain of debt? And even if by some miracle emissions were slashed 25%, how much of an effect do you really think it will have?

Conclusion: if AGW is real, it's baked into the cake already regardless of what Trump, Hillary, or anyone else tries to do.

[Slathar]

I dont think you understand how higher education works. I will break this down for you.

http://i.imgur.com/3lJWqm2.jpg

another hilarious image from 2006. D- but you can resubmit it again after you finish your criminal justice associates.

[Nihilist_santa]

another hilarious image from 2006. D- but you can resubmit it again after you finish your criminal justice associates.

Says dude playing a 17 year old elf sim and salty as fuck about it. Still plan on being the last person on red? You are definitely on track if diabeetus doesnt slay you first.

[Ahldagor]

Says dude playing a 17 year old elf sim and salty as fuck about it. Still plan on being the last person on red? You are definitely on track if diabeetus doesnt slay you first.

That's some distilled weak sauce unapproved by your strong fascist desired model.

[Tecmos Deception]

and a career of taking advantage of other citizens.

Sounds like he has plenty of experience with how to be a politician.

[Lune]

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that anthropogenic global warming is a 100% certainty (and I still think it's unbelievably stupid to trust a group of people who say they can simulate a chaotic system, regardless of how many PhDs they give themselves), so what?

Do you seriously think world leaders will agree to make real cuts in CO2 production when the global economy is even now melting down under a mountain of debt? And even if by some miracle emissions were slashed 25%, how much of an effect do you really think it will have?

Conclusion: if AGW is real, it's baked into the cake already regardless of what Trump, Hillary, or anyone else tries to do.

Under the current system, no, it won't be fixed as long as the baby boomers are alive and likely long after they are dead. Fixing this problem would require widespread cultural changes away from a growth/consumption driven economy and towards a more sustainable model where we aren't gobbling down resources like fucking outrageous gluttons. Those cultural changes won't occur if huge swaths of society deny various environmental problems even exist.

When people like Trump and the Republicans deny facts and evidence regarding climate science, evolution, or any other issue (under considerable influence from energy companies, religious fundamentalists, etc), those cultural changes get stalled. Huge masses of people fall into lockstep with party dogma and it gets reinforced in conservative media that serves the party establishment (just like the liberal side and immigration, social justice, political correctness).

We don't even know for sure if the effects of global warming will be net-negative, but either way I just want policy to be guided by facts and evidence. The way I see it, this desire to deny global warming and the climactic effects of industry is tied in with our obsession with growth and consumption. Nevermind that there are a lot of good reasons to oppose coal and other forms of pollution aside from global warming.

[big_ole_jpn]

Under the current system, no, it won't be fixed as long as the baby boomers are alive. Fixing this problem would require widespread cultural changes away from a growth/consumption driven economy and towards a more sustainable model where we aren't gobbling down resources like fucking outrageous gluttons.

When people like Trump and the Republicans deny facts and evidence regarding climate science, evolution, or any other issue (under considerable influence from energy companies, religious fundamentalists, etc), those cultural changes get stalled. Huge masses of people fall into lockstep with party dogma and it gets reinforced in conservative media that serves the party establishment (just like the liberal side and immigration, social justice, political correctness).

We don't even know for sure if the effects of global warming will be net-negative, but I just want policy to be guided by facts and evidence. The way I see it, this desire to deny global warming and the climactic effects of industry is tied in with our obsession with growth and consumption.

It's called realpolitik duke. pandering to climate change and evolution denial is vital to securing Don the presidency. He's going for a coalition of luddite retards and single-issue homosexual identitarians who remember hillary opposing gay marriage until the last. This is democracy in action.

Good news is TRUMP is clearly smart enough to understand what he is doing, unlike the average career Rebuttlickan.

[maskedmelon]

Nevermind that there are a lot of good reasons to oppose coal and other forms of pollution aside from global warming.

See, this is the angle the church should be working. It is clearly a massive piece of common ground between science deniers and the church of climate change. Need a real enemy like cancer or autism, not some intangible supposition that fell outta a hippy's hash pipe.

[Raev]

Under the current system, no, it won't be fixed as long as the baby boomers are alive and likely long after they are dead. Fixing this problem would require widespread cultural changes away from a growth/consumption driven economy and towards a more sustainable model where we aren't gobbling down resources like fucking outrageous gluttons.

I just can't help but think this is incredibly naive. Yes, the earth is finite and the exponential growth of the economy will soon cease. However, humans are a highly k-selected species with a great deal of practice living in finite spaces. The solution involves killing your neighbor.

I think everyone who grew up before 1960 or so would find this very natural and realistic if slightly depressing, but for the past 50 years or so the West has been suffering from the Leftist delusion, spread by their complete control of the media, that if we just put the Left in charge everyone can have everything they want. It has never worked in the past (Venezuela now has government enforced slavery, hooray) and more and more people are realizing that it will never work in the future.

Highly k-selected people don't care about your plans give everyone a small environmentally friendly slice of the planet. They are going to come fuck you up and take your shit. Trump is their candidate, and if he doesn't work (and he won't, IMO) we will see a war in the near future.

[Daywolf]

See, this is the angle the church should be working. It is clearly a massive piece of common ground between science deniers and the church of climate change. Need a real enemy like cancer or autism, not some intangible supposition that fell outta a hippy's hash pipe.
Incompatible. My favorite developing technology for power generation is cold fusion, by far. Theoretically possible and has come a long way in research thanks to quantum physics. This would also require further development of a space program, which too is a complete joke to the left.

But the left is fully invested into their green energy farce, making money hand over fist and using the whole man made global warming scam to put the chains of global governance around the necks of humanity one UN accord at a time. If the entire world were able to flip on the switch, have power to better grow food and filter clean water to drink, what need would the world any longer have for the UN and globalists?

If the cancer of which they are is not removed, and they picked up actual development of realistic energy technologies, it would only collapse under the weight of their deep corruption thus halting the likelihood of such technology ever being developed.

[Lune]

I just can't help but think this is incredibly naive. Yes, the earth is finite and the exponential growth of the economy will soon cease. However, humans are a highly k-selected species with a great deal of practice living in finite spaces. The solution involves killing your neighbor.

I think everyone who grew up before 1960 or so would find this very natural and realistic if slightly depressing, but for the past 50 years or so the West has been suffering from the Leftist delusion, spread by their complete control of the media, that if we just put the Left in charge everyone can have everything they want. It has never worked in the past (Venezuela now has government enforced slavery, hooray) and more and more people are realizing that it will never work in the future.

Highly k-selected people don't care about your plans give everyone a small environmentally friendly slice of the planet. They are going to come fuck you up and take your shit. Trump is their candidate, and if he doesn't work (and he won't, IMO) we will see a war in the near future.

Liberalism and pussy-pacifism don't necessarily go together, even though they've been branded that way. Don't forget that in many ways Hitler and his party were big-time socialists who wanted to create a huge welfare state for German people and loathed some of the more parasitic aspects of free market economics... and were arguably the most "k-selected" people of all time.

[R Flair]

Don't forget that in many ways Hitler and his party were big-time socialists who wanted to create a huge welfare state for German people.

In many ways? You do realize that NAZI stood for NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. rofl

[maskedmelon]

Highly k-selected people don't care about your plans give everyone a small environmentally friendly slice of the planet. They are going to come fuck you up and take your shit. Trump is their candidate, and if he doesn't work (and he won't, IMO) we will see a war in the near future.

Unfortunately for humanity, democracy favors R-selection :(

[Lune]

In many ways? You do realize that NAZI stood for NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. rofl

Yea, that was their term, but obviously Nazis had their own brand of socialism that was far from pure socialism. Just like how we call Nordic governments democratic-socialists. It isn't about owning the means of production (pure socialism), but it is about having a robust welfare state and investing in your people. Hitler and Germans still strongly believed in private enterprise, it was just subservient to the state's interests.

[Ahldagor]

In many ways? You do realize that NAZI stood for NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. rofl

Yeah, and they acted as fascists from Musolini's model by blending businesses and government so that government controlled the business realm. While consolidating all business dealings into the government, a vast welfare state was created to ensure the strength of the citizenry during the Ein Tausend Jahre Reich.

[Nihilist_santa]

Yea, that was their term, but obviously Nazis had their own brand of socialism that was far from pure socialism. Just like how we call Nordic governments democratic-socialists. It isn't about owning the means of production (pure socialism), but it is about having a robust welfare state and investing in your people. Hitler and Germans still strongly believed in private enterprise, it was just subservient to the state's interests.

No its not. Welfare state has nothing to do with NS. It is utilitarian not egalitarian and is meritocratic. Class doesn't have anything to do with it and is only a distinction made between levels of skill.

A National Socialist economy is not centrally planned, but centrally directed. Central planning involves taking demand for granted and then using the state to regulate supply. Central direction involves determining adequate supply and then using the state to limit demand. Hence a National Socialist economy should not be confused with a mixed-market economy, which is a fundamentally capitalist economy with state intervention in subservience to implicitly capitalist values. Hitler himself had no role in micromanaging the economy of National Socialist Germany, but rather was responsible for preventing the economy (and hence those who would seek to manipulate it by investments) from leading astray the state.


The government guarantees zero unemployment by making it duty of the state to assign a living-wage job to anyone and everyone who wants one. Private businesses, whose task is not to put people to work but to be a reliable provider of their professed products/services, are justified in not hiring more employees than they need to provide their product/service in the required quantity (and no more than this quantity). It therefore falls upon the state to create public works projects – typically in infrastructure, community service or any other field that passively benefits the country as a whole - capable of absorbing all the workers that the private sector cannot absorb, as demonstrated in the Reichsarbeitsdienst and related programs of National Socialist Germany. "

The idea that a national economy needs to constantly grow in order to be healthy is insane. Economic growth implies more consumption, which in turn implies either increasing indulgence by the same number of people or an increasing number of people (or both). A healthy national economy from the National Socialist perspective is simply an economy where nobody is hungry or homeless or otherwise in fear over their imminent future, and where nobody is in debt to anybody else."

The state would be an autarky and completely self sufficient. What could not be generated from the state is acquired through international barter.

Currency is tied to a labor backed system.

"Labor-backed currency alone precludes any shortages or excesses of money in circulation, as the quantity of money in circulation would never have any justifiable reason to be other than directly proportional to the quantity of production within the country. What happens in other countries henceforth becomes economically irrelevant to a National Socialist state. Conversely, a National Socialist state can never be plausibly blamed by other countries for manipulating their economies, as it has explicitly relinquished all means by which it could do so. Furthermore, a National Socialist economy must be one that prevents monetary gain through lease or financial speculation of any kind, which is always reducible to the Jewish idea of profit by possession, the principle behind usury whose mathematically certain conclusion is concentration of all money in the economy under the ownership of the usurers."


"The advantage of a labor-backed currency in this case is that it prevents usurers from disguising their gains behind inflation or other temporal distortions. In a National Socialist state, identification of usurers will be a trivial matter of spotting non-producers who are able to remain solvent."

"The principle that labor should only be employed where necessary in a National Socialist economy completes our understanding of the role of its money. This strictly rejects any use of labor in the production of unnecessary commodities or of any commodity in excessive quantities. The people’s primary concern is assisting in the ennoblement of themselves and others, not producing commodities with which to derive maximum pleasure. A National Socialist economy does not merely oppose excess and espouse moderation, but opposes the very core of consumerism, thereby espousing frugality in all aspects of daily life as an Aryan ideal in its own right."

Would have been interesting to see how that type of system would have played out. They had to acquire massive amounts of gold initially but as the system would have moved away from traditional currency that would not have been a long term issue.

[big_ole_jpn]

The government guarantees zero unemployment by making it duty of the state to assign a living-wage job to anyone and everyone who wants one. Private businesses, whose task is not to put people to work but to be a reliable provider of their professed products/services, are justified in not hiring more employees than they need to provide their product/service in the required quantity (and no more than this quantity). It therefore falls upon the state to create public works projects – typically in infrastructure, community service or any other field that passively benefits the country as a whole - capable of absorbing all the workers that the private sector cannot absorb, as demonstrated in the Reichsarbeitsdienst and related programs of National Socialist Germany. "

The idea that a national economy needs to constantly grow in order to be healthy is insane. Economic growth implies more consumption, which in turn implies either increasing indulgence by the same number of people or an increasing number of people (or both). A healthy national economy from the National Socialist perspective is simply an economy where nobody is hungry or homeless or otherwise in fear over their imminent future, and where nobody is in debt to anybody else."

im ready Don just say the words^ and i'll

https://i.imgur.com/CASM3I6.png

also seize george soros's american assets to pay for it

[Nihilist_santa]

Haha. I did find it funny in the hit piece the Atlantic put out on the ghost writer for The Art of the Deal the writer was painting Trump as ignorant with no attention span. He said that Trump had been given a copy of Mein Kampf which was one of the only books he had displayed near his bed at his home in FL. The writer tried to make it seem like Trump not only had never read the book but was incapable of doing so. I think the Don likes to play dumb ;).

[Lune]

No its not. Welfare state has nothing to do with NS. It is utilitarian not egalitarian and is meritocratic. Class doesn't have anything to do with it and is only a distinction made between levels of skill.

The state would be an autarky and completely self sufficient. What could not be generated from the state is acquired through international barter.

Currency is tied to a labor backed system.

Would have been interesting to see how that type of system would have played out. They had to acquire massive amounts of gold initially but as the system would have moved away from traditional currency that would not have been a long term issue.

I was talking about historical Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're quoting some Jew-hating wacko fantasizing about what he thought the ideal National Socialist state would look like.

[Nihilist_santa]

I was talking about historical Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're quoting some Jew-hating wacko fantasizing about what he thought the ideal National Socialist state would look like.

Its mostly theory seeing as the Jew World order took them out before they could implement most of their ideas. You have to look at what the economist and thinkers of the era were talking about. Gottfried Feder was a big influence. The 25 point program and the "historical" thing you are mentioning was like 4-5 years before everything was a wartime economy under Schact. Its not actually answering the question of what NS economics was about. You keep trying to make NS into this pseudo-communist idea of yours. Like I said it was meritocratic. Your idea of a welfare net was for Germans only it wasn't for a parasitic non-producing underclass to be dependent on the state.

[AgentEpilot]

3. Weather the inevitable terrorist attacks without flying off the handle and invading somewhere, which is exactly what they want. Retribution comes by persevering with #1 and #2, continuing to allow Western life to flourish and the Middle East to rot until they figure out how to get their own shit together

I am looking so sternly at Germany and Sweden right now. I really think they screwed the pooch here.
(Not that they invaded, but the mass immigration and coddling, not letting it rot so to speak)

[Lune]

Your idea of a welfare net was for Germans only it wasn't for a parasitic non-producing underclass to be dependent on the state.

create a huge welfare state for German people

I don't think you even know what welfare means in this context. You hear welfare and you think of a black woman and her 6 kids sitting at home getting a check from the government. That's not what I'm talking about, and that's not what anyone is talking about when they mention "welfare state", except ignorant rednecks.

[Daywolf]

I don't think you even know what welfare means in this context. You hear welfare and you think of a black woman and her 6 kids sitting at home getting a check from the government. That's not what I'm talking about, and that's not what anyone is talking about when they mention "welfare state", except ignorant rednecks.
Of course not. What they mean by it is raping the middle-class out of existence. It's been working too - over the past ~decade. Because once you have no economic middle-class, you just have rich and poor, and so kick off the communist revolution out of that class warfare like other nations have done.

See, it burns their little skulls, because the US mostly invented the middle-class, and so the class warfare tactic has been useless against us. The US is too prosperous, all this freedom leads to exceptionalism in invention, work ethic, economic strength, has led to great advancements never seen in our world history.

Well, that doesn't fit a world socialist/communist system, the US must be overthrown and made into the image of what they think it should be. Broken families, broken economies, endless debt, destroyed economic middle-class. Basically Chicago, but everywhere.

You're new socialist formula doesn't work, not unless you remove the socialism. What was the definition of insanity? Oh yeah, to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

[R Flair]

but, but, it would work. Just because A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H failed, doesn't mean it wouldn't work if WE did it. They just didn't do it "right."

[LostCause]

more people vote because they don't like this guy or that guy so they just vote

i don't even think 99% of the people who vote even know why they really are voting expect for the fact they don't like the other party.

[R Flair]

That makes it easy in this election. One candidate stole the democratic nomination, so vote for the other for the sake of democracy.

[AzzarTheGod]

Its mostly theory seeing as the Jew World order took them out before they could implement most of their ideas. You have to look at what the economist and thinkers of the era were talking about. Gottfried Feder was a big influence. The 25 point program and the "historical" thing you are mentioning was like 4-5 years before everything was a wartime economy under Schact. Its not actually answering the question of what NS economics was about. You keep trying to make NS into this pseudo-communist idea of yours. Like I said it was meritocratic. Your idea of a welfare net was for Germans only it wasn't for a parasitic non-producing underclass to be dependent on the state.

damn this ***** cookin em to the third degree

bricks dangerously close to being unloaded from the boat, hope (((Lune))) backs down for his own sake. playing semantics doesn't end well.

[Daywolf]

"pseudo-communist idea".... with all these f2p mmo's now (I don't play them :P ) has anyone tried modeling one on socialism? Oh what fun... I can just imagine hehe

Like daily... mostly ... sometimes ... the server automatically deposits a welfare check into your bank account, a few copper pieces ... or made out of some metal anyway (led?). Your characters gotta eat, so you log in daily, stand in a bread line for 4 hrs for your daily quest and hope they have enough bread pixels left so you can get some.

If they run out of bread, you sneak out of the ghetto zone, into the swamp zone near by looking for some slugs or a rare snail, and hope you don't get spotted and guard whacked.

Snail shells are good drops after eating the insides raw, if you collect enough shells you can trade them for a piece of string or a button, maybe craft with them one day.

After half a day of farming a virtually barren swamp where nothing hardly spawns and is usually picked clean, you head back to your house, which is more like a small utility shack where eight other people share rent with you. You log and wait for the next welfare check to maybe bribe some players to get further up in the quest que line next time.

I'd imagine there would be no way to level-up, the point is just not to die, which likely will come by the tip of a guards club, or starvation.

To be fair, this socialism would be set 20 years after the revolution, when it's run out of everybody else's money.

Venezuela Online

[R Flair]

"pseudo-communist idea".... with all these f2p mmo's now (I don't play them :P ) has anyone tried modeling one on socialism? Oh what fun... I can just imagine hehe

Like daily... mostly ... sometimes ... the server automatically deposits a welfare check into your bank account, a few copper pieces ... or made out of some metal anyway (led?). Your characters gotta eat, so you log in daily, stand in a bread line for 4 hrs for your daily quest and hope they have enough bread pixels left so you can get some.

If they run out of bread, you sneak out of the ghetto zone, into the swamp zone near by looking for some slugs or a rare snail, and hope you don't get spotted and guard whacked.

Snail shells are good drops after eating the insides raw, if you collect enough shells you can trade them for a piece of string or a button, maybe craft with them one day.

After half a day of farming a virtually barren swamp where nothing hardly spawns and is usually picked clean, you head back to your house, which is more like a small utility shack where eight other people share rent with you. You log and wait for the next welfare check to maybe bribe some players to get further up in the quest que line next time.

I'd imagine there would be no way to level-up, the point is just not to die, which likely will come by the tip of a guards club, or starvation.

To be fair, this socialism would be set 20 years after the revolution, when it's run out of everybody else's money.

Venezuela Online

Actually, the current MMO design paradigm is highly Marxist in nature and thats exactly why they're failing. Not as far as the in-game economy as you suggest, but rather the design which is driven by philosophies of entitlement. This has led to them lacking any sense of achievement for most adult players.

Where our success in old mmos was mostly born out of hard work, time spent, skill of play as well as social skills, today mmos are full of systems that enable even the worst of players to succeed.

[Jarnauga]

Of course not. What they mean by it is raping the middle-class out of existence. It's been working too - over the past ~decade. Because once you have no economic middle-class, you just have rich and poor, and so kick off the communist revolution out of that class warfare like other nations have done.

See, it burns their little skulls, because the US mostly invented the middle-class, and so the class warfare tactic has been useless against us. The US is too prosperous, all this freedom leads to exceptionalism in invention, work ethic, economic strength, has led to great advancements never seen in our world history.

Well, that doesn't fit a world socialist/communist system, the US must be overthrown and made into the image of what they think it should be. Broken families, broken economies, endless debt, destroyed economic middle-class. Basically Chicago, but everywhere.

You're new socialist formula doesn't work, not unless you remove the socialism. What was the definition of insanity? Oh yeah, to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

May i remind you that the USA is probably the most all-out capitalistic of all western countries ?

http://i.imgur.com/1kMjYac.png

[Daywolf]

May i remind you that the USA is probably the most all-out capitalistic of all western countries ?

http://i.imgur.com/1kMjYac.png

I don't grade on a curve. How very progressive of you.

[Raev]

May i remind you that the USA is probably the most all-out capitalistic of all western countries ?

You linked a graph of wealth inequality as a proof that the USA is a capitalist economy. This is mind-bogglingly stupid.

Inequality can be quite high in socialist countries. For example, the socialist paradise Venezuela is bringing back slavery (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/07/venezuela-new-regime-effectively-amounts-to-forced-labour/) while the government officials are eating a $65,000 cake (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/venezuela-bakes-cake-citizens-starve/).

Also, inequality in the US is primarily rising due to (((Bernanke))) transferring huge amounts of money to the 1% by inflating asset prices, not our nonexistent free markets.

[Jarnauga]

the socialist paradise Venezuela

..who ever said that ? Anyone with his right mind knows venezuela is just an oligarchy.

You think european countries are comparable to venezuela ?

My whole point with my graphic is that the whole "trickle down" doesn't work at all. Of course in the right wing all capitalistic, the poors are just too lazy to get rich. When you work 3 jobs at once working 90 hours per week to barely make a living, you obviously are a lazy asshole.

[Tecmos Deception]

May i remind you that the USA is probably the most all-out capitalistic of all western countries ?

http://i.imgur.com/1kMjYac.png

Hypothetical for you.

Everyone in the world has the same amount of money, and each individual is free to spend it how they choose. When someone invents the next latest and greatest tech gadget and delivers it to the market and some people choose, on their own, willingly, to buy it, and others don't.... now you've got a group with what they wanted (and less money), a group with what they wanted (and the same amount of money as before), and a group (investors, inventors, workers for the newest inventor guy) with what they wanted (profits from sale of the latest tech device).

At what point exactly did something happen that caused this sudden inequality to be a bad thing?

[Lune]

Hypothetical for you.

Everyone in the world has the same amount of money, and each individual is free to spend it how they choose. When someone invents the next latest and greatest tech gadget and delivers it to the market and some people choose, on their own, willingly, to buy it, and others don't.... now you've got a group with what they wanted (and less money), a group with what they wanted (and the same amount of money as before), and a group (investors, inventors, workers for the newest inventor guy) with what they wanted (profits from sale of the latest tech device).

At what point exactly did something happen that caused this sudden inequality to be a bad thing?

I don't think reasonable people make the argument that inequality is inherently a bad thing. There is supposed to be inequality; talented and/or hardworking people are supposed to be rewarded far more than indigents. However, at a certain point, it starts becoming harmful.

Remember that in capitalism, having capital frees you from having to sell your labor for sustenance, and your money works for you. The more money you have, the greater the share of new and existing wealth you capture. Couple that with what Raev said, Bernanke pouring gasoline into the whole thing, and the government providing a corporate safety net to offset some of the risk inherent in investment, and you have a situation where people with capital are performing tremendously well. And before you know it we're in the Gilded Age again.

[Tecmos Deception]

I don't think reasonable people make the argument that inequality is inherently a bad thing. There is supposed to be inequality; talented and/or hardworking people are supposed to be rewarded far more than indigents. However, at a certain point, it starts becoming harmful.

Remember that in capitalism, having capital frees you from having to sell your labor for sustenance, and your money works for you. The more money you have, the greater the share of new and existing wealth you capture. Couple that with what Raev said, Bernanke pouring gasoline into the whole thing, and the government providing a corporate safety net to offset some of the risk inherent in investment, and you have a situation where people with capital are performing tremendously well. And before you know it we're in the Gilded Age again.

Right.

So, more or less, it's the criminal acts of some people that contribute to inequality that are the real problem? I agree with that. And I assume Jarn and most people (not many Marxists around anymore, after all) agree too.

So how is any socialist-ish policy going to fix this? Preferably without infringing upon the rights of people who haven't done anything wrong in accumulating wealth, such as, you know, stealing some of their wealth away from them and giving it to someone else instead of letting them decide what they want to do with their own property.

[Jarnauga]

Lol i'm not a marxist..

I don't want pure equality either. I just want a world where anyone working any job for 35-45 hours a week can live decently. I really don't think it's too much too ask.

[Lune]

So how is any socialist-ish policy going to fix this? Preferably without infringing upon the rights of people who haven't done anything wrong in accumulating wealth, such as, you know, stealing some of their wealth away from them and giving it to someone else instead of letting them decide what they want to do with their own property.

Unionizing allows labor to capture a greater share of wealth through wages and helps achieve a living wage rather than slavery.

Providing healthcare, education, infrastructure, and benefits for military service increases the chance that somebody born into a poor or broken family can be a productive member of society.

Small business owners and successful professionals who make $300k-$500k aren't the problem and reasonable people aren't talking about them when they whine about inequality. It's the people who have gamed the system so extensively that they have captured a truly outlandish amount of wealth.

And it's not about taking away what they have, but fine-tuning many factors that made such a disproportionate accumulation of wealth possible in the first place. Much of it was built on tax fraud, outsourcing, labor exploitation, government corruption, exploiting globalization, and inheritance. If these things are fixed, within a few generations it will even out. We've been through this before with the Gilded Age.

[R Flair]

Lol i'm not a marxist..

I don't want pure equality either. I just want a world where anyone working any job for 35-45 hours a week can live decently. I really don't think it's too much too ask.

Theres always going to be jobs that aren't meant for people to live decently on. Of course, what is decent is the real issue as that varies wildly.

The idea that you can just flip burgers all your life and expect to afford a family and children and other luxuries, is stupid. Some jobs are meant for youth or unskilled laborers while they are learning a trade and looking for a better job.

[maskedmelon]

Unionizing allows labor to capture a greater share of wealth through wages and helps achieve a living wage rather than slavery.

Providing healthcare, education, infrastructure, and benefits for military service increases the chance that somebody born into a poor or broken family can be a productive member of society.

Small business owners and successful professionals who make $300k-$500k aren't the problem and reasonable people aren't talking about them when they whine about inequality. It's the people who have gamed the system so extensively that they have captured a truly outlandish amount of wealth.

And it's not about taking away what they have, but fine-tuning many factors that made such a disproportionate accumulation of wealth possible in the first place. Much of it was built on tax fraud, outsourcing, labor exploitation, government corruption, exploiting globalization, and inheritance. If these things are fixed, within a few generations it will even out. We've been through this before with the Gilded Age.

Welp, I agree with pretty much all of this. Does this mean I have to get baptized now? Not sure I am ready to take that step... ^^

[Nibblewitz]

It's the people who have gamed the system so extensively that they have captured a truly outlandish amount of wealth.


banks

[Lune]

banks

Which also had a lot to do with a complete lack in trust-busting activity on behalf of the government to restore competition among financial institutions. As of 2016 the monopolistic and 'too-big-to-fail' conditions in the financial sector are still going strong (reflecting a similar trend in almost every other industry).

http://i.imgur.com/fI0zm7M.jpg

*Sanders was the only candidate to propose breaking up these institutions.

[Nibblewitz]

Economic inequality is required for this system to function. We need the poor to motivate the middle classes to fight over the limited hamster wheels. If most of the population wasn't kept in a constant struggle with one another they would notice the cooperating institutions pressing down on them.

[Jarnauga]

Economic inequality is required for this system to function. We need the poor to motivate the middle classes to fight over the limited hamster wheels. If most of the population wasn't kept in a constant struggle with one another they would notice the cooperating institutions pressing down on them.

you lie it's all because the mexicans

[Nihilist_santa]

I was talking about historical Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're quoting some Jew-hating wacko fantasizing about what he thought the ideal National Socialist state would look like.

http://i.imgur.com/5WubkT3.png

http://i.imgur.com/Z9X4m7T.png

http://i.imgur.com/yzkOSk4.jpg

[maskedmelon]

lol

[Lune]

Yes I too remember that thread where everybody was getting bogus results from a simplistic and wildly inaccurate online quiz. You probably ended up up there with Hitler because of the questions about spanking children or some shit.

[Nihilist_santa]

Yes I too remember that thread where everybody was getting bogus results from a simplistic and wildly inaccurate online quiz.

Its not inaccurate. Hitler made distinctions between Marxist unions and those aligned with the Nazi party. You favor trade unions so it puts you on the left along with how you answered some of the social.


"The trade union in the National Socialist sense does not have the function of grouping certain people within a national body and thus gradually transforming them into a class, to take up the fight against other similarly organized formations. We can absolutely not impute this function to the trade union as such; it became so only in the moment when the trade union became the instrument of Marxist struggle. Not the trade union is characterized by class struggle; Marxism has made it an instrument for the Marxist class struggle. Marxism created the economic weapon which the international world Jew uses for shattering the economic base of the free, independent national states, for the destruction of their national industry and their national commerce and, accordingly, the enslavement of free peoples in the service of supra-state world finance Jewry." - AH- Mein Kampf.

[Ahldagor]

That quiz was very inaccurate. The questions were easily worded so that anyone with half a brain could alter their outcome to what they were trying to represent. Just because, x value was negative 1 and the y value was 0 for me.

[Lune]

Its not inaccurate. Hitler made distinctions between Marxist unions and those aligned with the Nazi party. You favor trade unions so it puts you on the left along with how you answered some of the social.

"The trade union in the National Socialist sense does not have the function of grouping certain people within a national body and thus gradually transforming them into a class, to take up the fight against other similarly organized formations. We can absolutely not impute this function to the trade union as such; it became so only in the moment when the trade union became the instrument of Marxist struggle. Not the trade union is characterized by class struggle; Marxism has made it an instrument for the Marxist class struggle. Marxism created the economic weapon which the international world Jew uses for shattering the economic base of the free, independent national states, for the destruction of their national industry and their national commerce and, accordingly, the enslavement of free peoples in the service of supra-state world finance Jewry." - AH- Mein Kampf.

Hitler's idealized national socialist system didn't need unions because the government ensured all the welfare features unions fought for-- a living wage, pensions, healthcare, etc.

I don't deny I'm on the left side of the spectrum. That part was right. Where it is wrong is putting me as anarchist as opposed to authoritarian. That's simply impossible seeing as how I'm a big-government statist liberal who advocates for universal healthcare and heavy government intervention in the environment, etc.

And it's hilarious you're proud of being put next to Hitler and think that gives your argument authority. There are some merits to fascism, but Hitler was a fucking racist genocidal retard with all his bullshit about racial purity and socially conservative aryanism.

[Nihilist_santa]

That quiz was very inaccurate. The questions were easily worded so that anyone with half a brain could alter their outcome to what they were trying to represent. Just because, x value was negative 1 and the y value was 0 for me.

Make your own test then. There are multiple similar test and the outcomes will be similar. Have you heard of the Disgust Sensitivity Test? It claims that with 27 non-political questions it can guess your affiliation between Repub or Dem. There is a lot of science behind it (several reputable published studies from various universities). Its pretty interesting if you want to give it a go.
http://chartsme.com/

[maskedmelon]

...


































cognitive dissonance



















... ^^

[Nibblewitz]

We only need a large government now to combat the marginalizing forces of greed. In the future, entitlement programs and their execution could be simplified so much with a universal base income.

[Nihilist_santa]

Hitler's idealized national socialist system didn't need unions because the government ensured all the welfare features unions fought for-- a living wage, pensions, healthcare, etc.

I don't deny I'm on the left side of the spectrum. That part was right. Where it is wrong is putting me as anarchist as opposed to authoritarian. That's simply impossible seeing as how I'm a big-government statist liberal who advocates for universal healthcare and heavy government intervention in the environment, etc.

And it's hilarious you're proud of being put next to Hitler and think that gives your argument authority. There are some merits to fascism, but Hitler was a fucking racist genocidal retard with all his bullshit about racial purity and socially conservative aryanism.

Why is it funny exactly? You were dismayed to not be included previously.

Like before with the welfare issue. The welfare wasn't just a given. It was reciprocal. For instance there was a program where newly married Aryan couples (cant recall if this was just for the SS/party members or all German citizens) would be given an interest free home loan for 100% of the home cost. The family could then have 25% of the loan cost removed for each child they had up to 4 children.

[maskedmelon]

Make your own test then. There are multiple similar test and the outcomes will be similar. Have you heard of the Disgust Sensitivity Test? It claims that with 27 non-political questions it can guess your affiliation between Repub or Dem. There is a lot of science behind it (several reputable published studies from various universities). Its pretty interesting if you want to give it a go.
http://chartsme.com/

This needs its own thread. I'll do it later if nobody else is up for it. I was awarded 69 percent liberal for my responses and was branded a democrat for it :c Happy to not be a republican, but not at the expense of being a democrat. We need a third less retarded scale.

[Raev]

And it's hilarious you're proud of being put next to Hitler and think that gives your argument authority. There are some merits to fascism, but Hitler was a fucking racist genocidal retard with all his bullshit about racial purity and socially conservative aryanism.

Yeah regardless of the economic results, Fascism seems to come with some substantial negative externalities . . .

[Ahldagor]

Why is it funny exactly? You were dismayed to not be included previously.

Like before with the welfare issue. The welfare wasn't just a given. It was reciprocal. For instance there was a program where newly married Aryan couples (cant recall if this was just for the SS/party members or all German citizens) would be given an interest free home loan for 100% of the home cost. The family could then have 25% of the loan cost removed for each child they had up to 4 children.

That would likely have been for all due to the Reich needing younglings for the Hitler youth. Total immersion for the state from day one. The reciprocity ultimately came down to citizen soldiers, forget the German word for it, that was enacted when Hitler gave the order making all citizens soldiers and put them into combat positions if you could throw a grenade or hold a gun. Child soldiers were part of the war machine at that point.

[Daywolf]

Tyson on Trump: You gettin beatin! (https://youtu.be/N8uoKa_fuQ4)