Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xmo1, May 17, 2018.
what do you mean by broken ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The last sentence should have had [sarc][/sarc] tags...
i was wondering how you would troll your own troll post.
i guess you opted for the "show my IQ is really quite a bit lower than you thought" option.
its a pitty you cant shout over the top of everyone and make a sexist joke, grope someone, dry hump a weak looking male (because most women have run away when they sobered up) and then pretend your still the smartest rock in the outhouse
good luck with that.
Edit: Really, I should have said "Go fuck yourself."
Good luck with that.
Confirmation bias, asshole?
you see that is the issue with Pure Capitalism
it deliberately breeds sadism and psychopathy & conditions people to want to inflict emotional suffering and truama on to others and to profit from it psychologically & economically.
it rewards dehumanization.
while rich elitists cry the system is broken & crime is free will and must be funded unquestionably by alt-right ideological conservatism...
preaching death penality and an eye for an eye to maintain the cycle of suffering and death so each bloodied hand validates the other while dancing in endless circles
all the while the system is working perfectly.
rewarding sadism & rewarding de-humanisation.
it never was broken
its doing exactly as its meant to do.
the laughing you were doing at the thought of casuing emotional turmoil is now you laughing at yourself.
Trolling there, huh? Since you have such strong opinions of others, please prove that you're human.
Take as long as you like.
When you come down from your ego high...
Mod Note -
OK Folks, lets refrain from the personal attacks on one another, shall we?
Here's an idea.
America can stop bombing other countries.
Or they can say "SUPPORT THE TROOPS", bomb other countries, destablize their economies and leaderships and then complain when a flood of immigrants comes their doorsteps.
Now all of the sudden the issue is a "race issue", instead of the fact that American politicians are a globalist conspiracy of garbage, while the world focuses on red herrings and instead focuses on what the news wants them to say.
America can stop the "war on drugs".
Because the war on drugs is what gave all these mexican drug lords so much money in the first place.
Or they can complain about mexican druglords, and support and kneel in obedience to the same politicians who made them rich in the first place.
But as it seems the great wheel of sispyhus is destined to roll on for eternity...
"All of a sudden"?
The "race issue" is a trick the elites use to divert focus on how the elites are screwing everyone over.
Muslims start immigrating into America.
People who dont like Islam, dont want Muslims here.
Then liberals say they are a racist, (even though Islam is a religion, not a race.)
And it becomes a race issue.
The more liberals want to open our borders, the more white-supremacists say that we need to close our borders. It becomes polarized.
And noone actually focuses on the real issue, which is America bombing the sh*t out of middle eastern countries, and destabilizing and removing their democratic leaders. If America did not do that, then Muslims would not be immigrating here in the first place.
The elites quietly slide away from the scene, while America devolves into civil war.
And then the liberals side with and support the very same elite who bomb the middle east, and cause the refugees they feel sorry for in the first place, and the white-supremacists side with the very same elite who caused the immigration and refugees they hate to happen in the first place. It is a classic con game the sheeple of america dont see.
War on drugs
War on poverty
War on terror
War on crime
war on cancer
There seems to be a pattern here (aside from not winning)
When we go around bombing and killing people we call it a police action.
(I ain't completely confused yet, but I am working on it)
Oh, that trope.
Actually, what makes it a race issue is profiling according to skin color and country of origin. An example of the creedism in that, instead of racism, would be when overseas investigators and the Ameican government went after a white lawyer on a bad fingerprint match they wouldn't otherwise have used, because they wanted to bust a Muslim. If investigators had done their work properly, could have properly busted a nonwhite guy much closer to home; they eventually did.
Oh, that trope.
The first sentence is at least arguable.
The second is a fallacious joke.
Odd non sequitur.
We might take the moment to recall your disdain toward actual history.
But another point stands out, here; your ahistorical nonsense isn't without precedent. Indeed, that last bit of narrative at least becomes comprehensible if we substitute an internationally-asserted, anti-American notion of liberalism by which John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and even Donald Trump himself are liberal.
And it's also true you do this quite a bit. To the other, we do get our share, around here, of Americans importing anti-American arguments. And when you insist on using words like "sheeple", it would behoove you to actually discuss some manner of reality. It's not that people don't see it; the U.S. is traditionally a white supremacist nation, and was from the outset, part of its birth heritage. White supremacism has always been a fundamental component of the American problem; history demonstrates that among the first things the European immigrants did after settling their war between themselves was fight about immigration. American liberalism is a market question, and not especially liberal; the perpetual compromise is in response to voters themselves.
And this is actually a useful illustration, because while one of our neighbors and I can go rounds on the history of the Democratic compromise during the Reagan-Bush years, the way around the question is demonstrable in American history during and since that period. Democrats keep creeping rightward in search of local victories, and even achieving statewide office, as they respond to increasingly conservative and self-harming demands from voters; consider, say, Kentucky and Kansas, where conservative voters will vote to harm themselves if the alternative means voting for a Democrat. The dynamics of a Blue Dog, for instance, disappear into the noise And this is, essentially, what the international authoritarian retort to "liberal democracy"—a circumstance many nations strive toward—does by setting its argument so far rightward that anyone attempting to calculate a mean point to describe the centrism between the circumstance my neighbor and I might dispute, to the one, and dictatorial coercion, to the other, will consistently derive results that utterly fail to match any functional description of reality. Any compromise point would only empower what you purport to complain about in the first place.
Nonetheless, it's true, if we accept the dysfunctional, explicitly anti-American argument, despite its historical ignorance, a priori, we can easily see how one comes to subsume American conservatism among "liberals".
Learn some American history; it is, indeed, a fascinating and infuriating tale, but not nearly so doomed as your antithetical, make-believe would pretend.
It's not that you're without a point about the need to end the war on drugs, but the race issue has been going on the whole time.
It is also worth noting we hear more about liberals and open borders from whining right-wingers than from liberals themselves. That particular stupid trope is one of several articles of faith promoted by white supremacists. And you would be amazed, then, how many people actually constitute "noone", by the way.
You are either naive or willfully ignorant about these issues, Tiassa.
The race issue is a trick the elites deliberately used as a technique to D&C the population.
Research the American history and you will find that in the 50's, America intentionally destabilized the middle east, in order to create a chaos and case a "race issue" of immigration from the middle east, as part of a smoke and mirrors technique to D&C the population as part of first past the post tactics to solidify their P&C monopoly.
D&C=Divide and conquer
P&C=Power and control
What's so great and moral about stability? Democracy isn't always democracy, not when dictators control the media and jail the opposition.
The United States put dictators in the middle east in the first place. To make it a warzone on purpose.
And yes you are right, the United States "democracy" is a farce as well as all first-past-the-post systems.
Separate names with a comma.