|
Let me break down in some very simple terms why UBI is bad.
With the government being in charge of handing out the resources that people would need to live under UBI, you immediately create a conflict of interest. The people will always vote for more "free" stuff, and the politicians, not being the ones to personally foot the bill pander to them and hand out more free stuff. A cycle of dependence is created on both sides as people vote for more free stuff and politicians hand out more and more to buy votes using our own money. Also what happens if they decide you aren't worthy of being supported any more? Now the government has the power to cut off your income. Furthermore money for nothing will pervert market signaling and create inflation and scarcity of the most in demand products, essentially bringing us full circle right back to where we started with haves and have nots.
UBI is simply just rebranded Socialism/Communism. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Don't ever forget it.
|
|
|
|
Excuse me. Remember Rep. Steve Scalise? What about Rand Paul getting his ribs broken? The ricin in the mail? There really are so many cases of unhinged leftists losing it or calling for violence, I don't want to spam up the thread with a huge list of examples. Hey you are concluding this MUST be some one on the right attacking the left, suddenly people who disagree with you can not make similar conclusions?
You can unbunch your panties. Make any conclusions you want and I'll laugh at them any chance I get, as I would with anyone who pretends to have "opinions" and "conclusions" and rejects basic facts. For you to suggest that Trumps QUITE REASONABLE criticism of the press is equivalent to calling for violence is juvenile. You know who has been calling for violence over and over though? The Democrats and the left.
"Enemy of the people" is not reasonable criticism. Look at how media is treated by Trump rally participants if you're in any doubt as to what's going on here. Please, don't impose your imaginary emotional states upon me. Yeah, laugh it up, because this is a hilarious topic. You know what I am using here that you lack completely? Critical thought. You believe the world is as it presents itself and the TV tells you so, so it must be true. You act like "conspiracy theories" have never been proven true, and the media doesn't CONSTANTLY lie to us. There is nothing unreasonable about these conclusions. Regarding your "enemy of the people quote, lets look at what he ACTUALLY said: "The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!" "The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @CNN, @NBCNews and many more) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people," he wrote. "SICK!" LOOK HOW THE MEDIA IS TREATED BY TRUMP? LOL what poor poor victims. They certainly don't deserve this! The media has been totally civil and never calls for violence or makes up lies about Trump. Nope... never. As you can see he was specifically calling FAKE NEWS the enemy of the people, but of course the media, like with everything, has to take it out of context and sell it as the most extreme angle possible. Thanks for this public demonstration on your inability to even check the source material before making a claim, and just believing what the TV says. Also for the convenient example of what Trump was talking about when he made that statement. Reading matters. I'm laughing at Tecshare's "conclusions" (more like conspiracy theories) as well as the ridiculous assertion that I'm somehow trying to prevent said "conclusions" from being made...
Again, a hilarious topic for you I am sure. Who said you were trying to prevent anything? As I predicted it is starting to come out that the devices were not even explosive, and this was all a hoax to elicit sympathy for these people. As a democratic supporter, I feel as though I could be next personally, if a certain individual really wanted it so. Get over yourself. You aren't important enough for anyone to attack with bombs. You wanna talk about being afraid as an individual? Put on a MAGA hat and walk around LA, Seattle, or NY and tell me how long it takes before you are assaulted. Unlike these victims, I don't have a security detail. They're obviously getting a basic hit-list from some place. Oh its obvious is it? Is it even obvious they were intended to actually be targets? Nope, the FBI and ATF will not even say the devices were explosive, only that they "appeared to be explosive". Watch this little detail get glossed over again and again and the story fades to black as people find new pictures of Kim Kardashian's butt. Now, onto the actual perpetrator. The hit-list comes from Trump himself, as so far, only the individuals targeted have criticized them. The victims are all registered democrat voter, as far as I'm aware. There were political and cultural people victims. It comes from Trump himself now directly does it? I mean really, what are you doing wasting your time here, you should be working at the FBI with those investigative skills to have figured this out so quickly with zero information related. You don't think it is at all coincidental that these people are largely irrelevant, EXCEPT for the fact that they are a perfect little sample summary of people Trump has criticized? A few questions; was this a state-sanctioned act? is America under attack?
Sadly, without evidence, we can't even rule this out. It's obviously an internal attack, and I'm sure our borders are safe. I don't feel as though it'd be a nation-state level of events, even though Putin does hate some of these individuals (including Clinton). Is it really obvious though, or are you just drawing conclusions that fit your narrative and filling in the gaps as you go? Yes, our borders are TOTALLY safe xD right. Now you are making assumptions about who Putin hates (based on nothing but your confirmation bias ofc). I don't really follow right wing extremist (eg. Alex Jones) but I know of it. I know there was calling of violence, anger, hate, pretty much everything that breeds political incitement. He never called for violence. This is again just another example of parroting what you see on TV without checking any source material. If you think I am wrong, please do find me an unedited, un-cropped, quote of his calls for violence on video. However I know you can't because it doesn't exist. The targets are democrats that haven't been mentioned in months by moderate left media....I'm not sure about the moderate left or right to be honest. I think they're mostly keeping their heads down and staying out of it. I'd like to rule those people out. Yep, quite interesting so much supposed rage would be focused on largely irrelevant people isn't it? Now, looking at the evidence, we can probably assume the individual was a right-wing extremist with mental issues. A meth-head with a stolen laptop searches internet bomb and prints off a couple labels, drops them off at random sections, and them damned evil doers will be dead. Oh can you? Can you assume? A meth head trying to build a bomb is only going to have one result, horrible catastrophic failure. If you think it is THAT easy to build mail bombs then you should go back to watching 24 or something. Anyway, until the FBI releases more details, I'm making the assumption it's some rural meth addicted right wing extremist executing his wild aggressive fantasies without regard to reality. My assumption could be wrong pretty quickly if all of a sudden political allies to Trump were targeted next, not individuals that he has attacked.
Yeah, because this meth head you have in your imaginations, he is smart enough to coordinate a national level organized attack without being immediately caught, but not smart enough to know that these people don't even open their own mail. Yeah. Ok. This is an extremely odd and skilled meth head you have here. |
|
|
|
Oh believe me I have no trouble visualizing your fantasy, the problem is you have ZERO methods for reaching that goal. You are telling me a lot about what you think Socialism is not, but very little of what it actually is (in your mind). I keep asking how it is implemented and how we get there but all you have are nebulous buzzwords and some scoffing like I am just too obtuse to understand your advanced ideology. Get over yourself.
If this is a real thing, that can really be done like you imagine it, then you should have no problem explaining exactly how we get there. Then there is the minor fact that every time this was ever attempted at scale millions died. I am sure this time though will be all cupcakes and fireflies.
I've given you examples already but you were only interested in how state capitalism/ state socialism could be implemented and never bothered to ask about how the economy could be converted to socialism democratically. Your questions were about how things could be taken by force which is absolutely what socialism is against. Workers have never controlled the means of production at scale. Sweden's 82% union participation is the closest example. I see, so YOU feel you have proven your argument, therefore you have no need to support your premise with facts. I don't give a FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU BELIEVE, stop telling me what you believe. Tell me how you plan, using facts, not feelings, not beliefs, not ideological buzz words, to voluntarily implement Socialism. I argue it can not be done as the nature of Socialism requires a state and requires force to acquire resources for that state. You have done nothing so far to counter this argument but tell me what you BELIEVE. You know, I always wondered why Communists were so hostile to religion in general, then one day I figured it out. Communism wants to be God. Under secular life, without God, the state is the default to take that place in peoples minds. Communism is your God, and Socialism is your religion. It is all about having faith and beliefs, and you have completely reinforced this premise time after time. I simply want to give people the opportunity to control their own destiny. You never really seemed interested in talking about socialism and only talked about authoritarianism. Many of the seeds of socialism already exist in our government. No new power grabs would be necessary. We already have a modern monetary system and a public education system. The only new thing involves is encouraging worker cooperatives (workers owning the means of production). These are currently illegal in many cases, or extremely difficult to start because liability laws and ownership laws do not address worker cooperatives. There also are no lawyers who are capable of worker cooperative litigation. We talked about Marcora law, but other moves such as grants, subsidies, and nonprofit classification for new worker cooperatives (tax-free) would give people more of an opportunity to chose to have control over their labor. In addition to that, more practical training in high school and college would help prepare people to work in a trade and join a cooperative at a young age. Its all about empowering people to start their own businesses and do work that is needed in their community. Within current business structures, some simple band-aids would be to strengthen unions by getting rid of "right to work", and empowering labor unions to have more control over the workplace. It is a lot like religion. Socialists have faith in the individual and believe if individuals are free to self-determination, good things will happen. God is in each one of us, so we must take care of the Earth, and all of its inhabitants. What you want is largely irrelevant to this conversation. I believe you probably do have good intent, but again this is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is facts. I "never seem interested" because you aren't discussing anything of substance. I keep asking you to fill out your ideas with specific strategies and methodologies, but you just keep telling me what you feel and how great your ideas are, and I just need to learn a little bit more to "get it". Since when have power grabs been required to be "necessary" in order for them to happen? You are advocating for taking a large collective of resources and allow them to be managed by people who, by their nature are fallible, and will exploit this authority. I keep bringing up authoritarianism, because there is NO WAY for Socialism/Communism/Marxism to operate long term WITHOUT authoritarianism. The two concepts are INEXORABLY LINKED. You can imagine it away, but the laws of physics, economics, and human psychology are going to operate in spite of your belief systems. Yes, we already do have a modern monetary system. A system built by Capitalism. A system which will inevitably collapse under Socialism because in a system where everyone gets what they need for free, there is no incentive to work. If people aren't working they aren't producing. If they aren't producing, there is nothing to buy. If there is nothing to buy what is the point of money? This may seem abstract to you but it is a very well established fact of economics. Tell me, how do you "encourage" these cooperatives? "The means of production" is an extremely nebulous term that could mean quite literally anything. So workers should just be GIVEN the means of production (ie capital)? The means of production fairy flies by and grants them 3 productive wishes? How does this work? If they are working anyway to do this why can't they just do this within Capitalism? Other than motivating people with warm fuzzy feelings of equality and abundance what does Socialism have to offer ACTUALLY? "...grants, subsidies, and nonprofit classification for new worker cooperatives (tax-free) would give people more of an opportunity to chose to have control over their labor." So what you are saying is cooperatives should be funded by grants, subsidies, and tax breaks... by taking money ... from workers ... to pay for these programs ... is giving workers "control over their labor?" OOOOk. The contradiction is pretty clear here but you keep just hinting that I need to have some kind of paradigm shift to even understand your advanced humanitarian progressive concepts. All these things you are suggesting require the taking of funds by force. If it was not with force it would just be called charity. Also, forcing a worker to associate with a union they do not wish to associate with is a violation of freedom of association under the 1st amendment of The Bill of Rights. it is little more than an extortion scheme. If the union was so valuable people would fund it regardless. Yes, it is exactly like religion. Socialism/Communism/Marxism are the gods of the secular world. I didn't ask about your faith or what you believe in. I asked you to explain EXACTLY how you expect to manifest this reality. So far you aren't advocating anything that hasn't been already tried over and over again and failed resulting in a holocaust. |
|
|
|
|
I find people who call themselves Anarchists are usually just Socialists and they simply can't define either one. Communist dictators are well known to have supported Anarchism as a method of tearing down the existing system to make way for Communism. The two are inexorably linked.
|
|
|
|
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts
on human and natural systems. 1 1. Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an assignment of confidence. The summary terms for evidence are: limited, medium or robust. For agreement, they are low, medium or high. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99100% probability, very likely 90100%, likely 66100%, about as likely as not 3366%, unlikely 033%, very unlikely 010%, exceptionally unlikely 01%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95100%, more likely than not >50100%, more unlikely than likely 0<50%, extremely unlikely 05%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely. See for more details: Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame, H. Held, E. Kriegler, K.J. Mach, P.R. Matschoss, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe and F.W. Zwiers, 2010: Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 4 pp. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven
largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in
at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers,
have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1} The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is
extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was
caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate
of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3). Anthropogenic
forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century
over every continental region except Antarctica4
. Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since
1960 and contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice
sheet since 1993. Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea-ice loss since 1979 and have very likely
made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0700 m) and to global mean sea level rise
observed since the 1970s. {1.3, Figure 1.10} It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily
and seasonal timescales, as global mean surface temperature increases. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a
higher frequency and longer duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur. {2.2.1} --- http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdfGee, it is likely they like to make lots of projections. It almost seems like all of your "facts" are really just theories, projections, and simulations. Lets pretend for the sake of argument that these studies even represented facts. Now lets look at how many times the IPCC has been exposed for fraud and manipulating data to get desired results. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climatehttp://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/urban_heat_island_could_it_account_for_most_warming_attributed_to_agw/https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Climategatehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/workday/2018/10/25/a-top-priority-for-todays-cfo-having-confidence-in-your-data/Long story short, the IPCC has been shown to not take into account urban heat islands when placing temperature monitoring stations leading so skewed (higher) measurements. In addition their models are based off of the data presented by Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been proven to have manipulated the past data to make it appear lower than it should have to give the appearance of a rise in temperature. Your supposed facts here have already been shredded, you just refuse to take our head out of the sand and review it, because if it disagrees with you, it must be made by "science denying idiots". |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNojwqylYMMany explosion, such fear, wow. -- No, but seriously, the youtube video shows a tank of compressed hydrogen being shot. The gases escape and quickly rise into the atmosphere. If we tried that same test with either natural gas, gasoline, or pretty much any other carbon based fuel, it'd probably explode terribly. Hydrogen is dramatically safer than petroleum. If you are going to criticize my points at least address the correct scientific effect. Shooting tanks doesn't dismiss anything I said. Also the fact that you think liquid fuel tanks will explode when shot tells me you get most of your "scientific knowledge" from movies and TV. Try watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0jtD_OWLU |
|
|
|
I would say shame on those in this thread who are attempting to politicize this act of terrorism.
I agree, and I am ashamed of myself for jumping into the politicization of this event. It is terrorism, and there's no other way to describe it. Even if the bombs turn out to be fakes, the intent was obviously to intimidate. Regardless of the perpetrator's political motives, this is terrorism and we should all be condemning it. Quickseller really has no business shaming anyone frankly. You see you have the good sense to moderate yourself. This is some thing I am not seeing a lot of on the left. Coming to a conclusion based on motives is not unreasonable or equivalent to "politicizing" it. We all condemn the behavior no matter what narrative it was, but it is not yet obvious what the intent truly was. Now public figures on the other hand, I agree completely. They have a larger voice and people respond to their words. The idea you should mute yourself while these talking heads and politicians go wild is asinine. |
|
|
|
Trump was right to quickly condemn this act of terrorism, and he was right to describe this as an attack on our democracy. This type of behavior has no place in our society.
I can't say if this is a "false flag" or not, however it is very shameful for those on the left to claim this is somehow Trumps fault, when it has been many on the left actively advocating for what can reasonably be described as acts of violence on the right.
"Enemy of the people" ring a bell? "Anybody that can do a body-slam is my guy"? Trump stokes violence because it plays well with his base and supports his "tough guy" image. A few nice words later he was still attacking the media at his rally in Wisconsin last night. Excuse me. Remember Rep. Steve Scalise? What about Rand Paul getting his ribs broken? The ricin in the mail? There really are so many cases of unhinged leftists losing it or calling for violence, I don't want to spam up the thread with a huge list of examples. Hey you are concluding this MUST be some one on the right attacking the left, suddenly people who disagree with you can not make similar conclusions? Conservatives have been biting their lips and not reacting to violence from the left for a LONG time, because they, unlike the left, really understand what results from solving political issues with violence. They would rather be repeatedly attacked than start a violent civil war. For you to suggest that Trumps QUITE REASONABLE criticism of the press is equivalent to calling for violence is juvenile. You know who has been calling for violence over and over though? The Democrats and the left. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzBEeVOw4q0 |
|
|
|
|
I am not saying LPG is not a viable alternative, but it is a valid point that it is inherently more dangerous based on some simple mechanisms. Pressurized gas, if there is any puncture will evacuate nearly all of the fuel in the container, presumably resulting in a flame plume. Depending on the rate of escape, tank orientation, fuel levels, etc it could easily erupt resulting in aerosolization of the fuel mixture with the oxygen in the atmosphere. This is an EXTREMELY destructive effect. It does not always happen, no, but the chances are never zero.
Now lets look at liquid gas fuel. Most of these fuel tanks are not pressurized, and have special bladders to prevent punctures and leaks. If they are leaking the fuel will only empty to the level of the puncture at a generally slower rate. Most liquid fuels also have the added safety benefit that the liquid itself is very difficult to ignite. It requires it to first vaporize and get a proper fuel air mixture, then have a spark be introduced.
So again, I am not saying we cant use these alternative fuels, but lets argue facts please. Pressurized fuels will be inherently be more dangerous to use in vehicles just based on simple physics.
|
|
|
|
|
Might wanna start with a picture there smart guy. No one is so obsessed with pearls they are going to contact you over some mystery pearl they know nothing about. This is lazy.
|
|
|
|
|
Informed consent has been a very important ethical rule for medicine since the hearings for the horrific Nazi experimentation during WW2. In the case of a child they are not of age to give consent, therefor the parents should be the ones to make this choice. Forced medical treatment of any kind should not be normalized or institutionalized under any circumstances as the results will inevitably be horrifying in the long term if not the short term.
|
|
|
|
|
WOW. An Atlas post. I haven't seen that name in a long time.
The US Department of Education is based on a Soviet model. It is about creating indoctrination and socialization, not educating, teaching logic, or critical thought. This process has seriously degraded the abilities of hundreds of millions who might otherwise be living under logic and enjoying the fruits of critical thought.
|
|
|
|
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
Sounds about right, don't it lad? I wonder what AUTOBAN is. Bpip is confusing me. @Vod what does "profile has been autobanned" mean? Autobanned from bpip? Autobanned from sending you PM? German word for highway   Nope, not really. Sounds more like a normie trying to force a meme to me. |
|
|
|
Well, put it this way: people deny or hate anything they don't understand and know nothing about. Worst is misinformation. These days it's so easy to get information from everyone and everywhere, and most of them are false. If they don't believe in climate change, let them believe otherwise. Someday, when the climate gets worst, to the point where it will affect our civilization, they will finally understand and believe it's real after all. Just you wait and see.
They'll deny it then even. Blame it on the wraith of God or some other nonsense. People absolutely refuse to accept reality. I do agree with the sentiment that there's not really much reason to argue with them. They're not looking to change their opinion. -- Climate getting to that point won't really be good for anyone. Think of the animals. Think of the children. -- As more people join the pollution train than leave it, you have a positive feedback loop that nobody is talking about.
We needed radical, dramatic change globally years ago. We've just entered the start of the loop. Hopefully, we'll be able to make a technological break through to solve the problem globally. Awareness simply won't work. It seems there's a loud bunch of people that are science-denying idiots. It's the same shit as anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, moon-conspiracist, etc. To be honest, other than an amazing megastructure that can offset our carbon emissions, I don't see the science making way for a lot of the active individuals here in politics and society, regardless of how much evidence is presented. Since you have opted to ignore me since you have realized you are incapable of debating me logically, I have decided I will simply just start replying to your other comments  I haven't seen anyone here bring God into this except for you, just now. This is just more character assassination having nothing to do with the facts. "Radical" change huh? Such as what? Oh please do tell me your plans to fix this problem you think humans are causing. You don't see the science making way.... WAT? WTF does that even mean. Also if you want to convince people, perhaps post some actual empirical data instead of projections, theories, and simulations and pretending they are facts. |
|
|
|
|
He is right. It is very simple. Pressurized fuel is more dangerous than liquid fuel by its very nature. It may be managed to an "acceptable" level of risk, but one is always going to be less safe than the other.
|
|
|
|
|
As any Conservative here (and also a lot of Liberals) will tell you, CNN is irrelevant. This is how the right largely sees it, as a joke. I have never once, even on comment sections on the net, seen ANYONE EVER suggest carrying out acts of violence on CNN. Right wingers aren't forming mobs outside of CNN headquarters trying to bust the doors down, now or ever. The concept itself is quite retarded and would accomplish nothing... unless of course your only intent was to pick a handful of people who most symbolized the left and cast them as victims. This is a pathetic attempt at relevancy for these people.
|
|
|
|
I can't help but guess your pillars of identity on the basis that you automatically think the entire concept of privilege is "stupid". Probably proves my point. Thinking this is stupid is highly indicative of privilege.
Or perhaps he supports equality of opportunity and has the good sense to know equality of outcome is impossible. No one has suggested equality of outcome but nice strawman. Oh but you have. You telling people to check their privilege shows very clearly you do not beleive in outcome of opportunity, because you think certain people should have limited opportunities to make up for the ones you think have more. It is at the very core nature of this privilege argument. |
|
|
|
Oh believe me I have no trouble visualizing your fantasy, the problem is you have ZERO methods for reaching that goal. You are telling me a lot about what you think Socialism is not, but very little of what it actually is (in your mind). I keep asking how it is implemented and how we get there but all you have are nebulous buzzwords and some scoffing like I am just too obtuse to understand your advanced ideology. Get over yourself.
If this is a real thing, that can really be done like you imagine it, then you should have no problem explaining exactly how we get there. Then there is the minor fact that every time this was ever attempted at scale millions died. I am sure this time though will be all cupcakes and fireflies.
I've given you examples already but you were only interested in how state capitalism/ state socialism could be implemented and never bothered to ask about how the economy could be converted to socialism democratically. Your questions were about how things could be taken by force which is absolutely what socialism is against. Workers have never controlled the means of production at scale. Sweden's 82% union participation is the closest example. I see, so YOU feel you have proven your argument, therefore you have no need to support your premise with facts. I don't give a FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU BELIEVE, stop telling me what you believe. Tell me how you plan, using facts, not feelings, not beliefs, not ideological buzz words, to voluntarily implement Socialism. I argue it can not be done as the nature of Socialism requires a state and requires force to acquire resources for that state. You have done nothing so far to counter this argument but tell me what you BELIEVE. You know, I always wondered why Communists were so hostile to religion in general, then one day I figured it out. Communism wants to be God. Under secular life, without God, the state is the default to take that place in peoples minds. Communism is your God, and Socialism is your religion. It is all about having faith and beliefs, and you have completely reinforced this premise time after time. |
|
|
|
I am sure this is all just a coincidence that all these people promoting this invasion caravan stuff suddenly are all getting "bombs" in the mail, right before the elections. Gotta cast yourself as the victim just like the invasion caravan. Funny, Soros's employee was pretty ballsey moving it rather than following the standard procedure of leaving the device in place and contacting law enforcement. Of course moving an IED is a little less nerve wracking if you know it won't go off...
Also notice the FBI nor the ATF are confirming that they were ACTUAL explosive devices yet, only that they "appeared to be explosive device(s)". Since standard operating procedure is to blow up the devices, there would be little way to know if it was actually armed or not. This reeks as yet another desperate last ditch attempt to salvage midterms for the Democrats.
I wasn't expecting a conspiracy theory until at least page 3, well done. Even Trump had the self-awareness to not go full retard before all facts are known. Most of the recipients are targets of right-wing rhetoric but largely irrelevant to Democrats. No sane person on the left gives a shit about Wasserman-Shultz or Holder or even Clinton so why would they set up such a lame conspiracy to send fake bombs to some has-beens who are not part of midterms in any way? Butthurt Bernie supporters perhaps? 2 years later? It's more now, CNN got one and I thought I just heard Holder got one as well...
One was a addressed to Holder but had a return address of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, so it ended up at her address. I am sure this is all just a coincidence that all these people promoting this invasion caravan stuff suddenly are all getting "bombs" in the mail...
It truly amazes me that some people can completely dismiss multiple high profile democrats receiving bombs in the mail... Would you dismiss it so easily if multiple republicans and Fox News got mailed bombs? I'm guessing not since I have seen your hypocrisy before I didn't dismiss it, I said it was done for an ulterior motive, likely not even by their enemies. Also, as I said the conclusion they were actually explosive devices has not been stated by the FBI or ATF, only that they "appeared to be." As I explained the standard procedure is to blow the device in place, so chances are we will never know for sure. It could have simply been a box off unassembled components of a bomb, no one would ever be able to tell the difference after it is detonated with added explosives used to deactivate it. When a bunch of Republicans got sent ricin a few weeks back you didn't see me here blaming Democrats over it. Also everyone knows now days these high profile people are like the 10th person to check out their mail. There was never any risk to any of them. This is exactly the kind of Hail Mary move they would make out of desperation. They constantly must fill the role of victim to sell their narrative. Also exactly the kind of movie script people who live in TV land would suck up and ask for more. In reality, things almost never have such a clear narrative. Also all of these people are complicit in very serious federal crimes, and they know prosecution is on the way. What better way to elicit sympathy than looking like they are under physical attack as they literally call for incivility themselves, and support the mass invasion of our country. This was very carefully timed, it was not a coincidence. Ask some simple questions like any investigator... Who benefits from this? Who has the ability and means to pull this off? What does this accomplish? What possible motivations could be behind this? Why is the timing so close to midterm elections? Who has traditionally occupied the rhetoric of victimization? What could this serve to distract from? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
