Caecus
-
Posts
1171 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Caecus
-
-
19 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:
Only 1/20. I suppose that is more than Warren's native ancestry, though.
Why? Both side bring the same, used up arguments and deny the other side's. Politics today is more toxic than the Agbogbloshie Dumpsite.
Because I'm out to prove that one side of "used up" arguments is so indefensibly stupid and moronic that people should be reminded that they are. And they should be ashamed for having said indefensibly stupid and moronic arguments.
Look at every argument in this thread that's against mine. Everyone has either quietly left after I make them eat their own arguments, or like Mr. Commander Thrawn, denies that my argument exists and claims that I'm somehow the idiot here when he can barely read.
-
19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:
So Like I said, no one advocated a 30 ft concrete wall along the entire border. Thanks for confirming it.
!@#$, stop trolling.
19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:I never said the reduction in revenue wasn't due to the recession. I also didn't attempt to make this a pointless Obama vs. Trump or republicans vs. democrat debate. I literally said that neither party has done anything about deficit reduction. But the border wall will likely save money if anything and will not be a major blip in comparison to the actual drivers of our growth in government spending.
Entitlements are not stimulus spending. So you should really learn what you are talking about.
The border wall isn't going to save money, it's going to waste money. Entitlements are what allow more spending in the economy to occur for retired and disabled individuals, which stimulates the economy. Go learn economics before lecturing professor dipwad.
19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:Revenues are the highest they have ever been this year.
Read my argument. I'm not debating whether or not revenues are the highest they have ever been. I'm saying that despite that, the old tax code would have generated $202 billion more than the tax cuts. Maybe then, we could have bought a wall. It's like you can't read. READ DAMN IT.
19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:Its not a red herring at all. Capital investment occurs in the areas where the expected return on investment is highest, with the US global tax system and the highest statutory rate in the industrialized world the US was noncompetitive and this shifted investment overseas and prevented the repatriation of billions of dollars, a lack of investment means that we end up with lower growth and lower employment. Both of those reduce revenues and increase costs as people rely more on government programs and pay less in taxes.
If the tax cuts increase growth over the prior tax system then of course the tax cuts will increase revenue over time. You are going to have to be more specific about "the end of the republic"
But if you look at the CBO estimates they said https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53651-outlook.pdf that over a 10 year period the tax cuts increase economic growth by a cumulative .7% (which is basically no change at all). And that revenues increase by $1.088 Trillion due to economic factors and revenues decrease by $1.690 trillion over that period on the basis of legislative changes. So 2/3 of the tax cuts are made up for by growth even assuming that that growth benefit is negligible. If the impact of the tax cuts were to spur growth by 1% per year and compound on itself, or even a half a percent per year the revenue would increase even more.
See everything above? See how there isn't a single source that makes your point that the tax cuts will be reducing the debt?
You've reduced income and blamed the expenses as the reason why you can't get out of debt. Go learn accounting, dipshit.
19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:I see your only method here is to just claim anything you don't like is a red herring.
!@#$, read the source. I don't see you citing anyone for your bullshit. I was at least expecting some article from InfoWars, but I suppose even that is beyond you.
19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:Ah yes, back to this old narrative. I see you have returned to your fanatical bs.
Yep, you are definitely the rational one here.
I see your only method here is to just claim anything you don't like *AS* (correct grammar buddy) "fanatical bs."
Add 5th grade English grammar to your list of subjects you should crack a book for.
-
14 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:
No one has advocated a 30 foot concrete wall along the entire border. So that's a strawman. It has been a fake news creation since the start.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-border-wall-a-look-at-the-numbers
I tried not to include anything outside of Fox News, because I know that you think only Fox News exists as "news." I'm surprised I had to go find this shit for you.
28 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:Not really. The biggest contributors to debt growth were reduced revenues, low growth, and the continued expansion of entitlements.
I wonder what caused reduced revenues, low growth, and the continued expansion of entitlements (and other stimulus spending)? Maybe, perhaps, it was the near total collapse of the world economy 10 years ago? Dipwad.
30 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:Tax revenues are higher this year than they have ever been, and the tax cuts have spurred growth. So wrong again. If we can have a good run of 3+% growth and 2% inflation that will help a lot with reducing the debt burden relative to the nominal economy and revenues. But we'd still need to reduce the growth in government spending to under that 5% on a nominal basis for make gains long term.
Except that the tax cuts will provide greater revenue long-term especially when you consider the large amount of investment that has already occurred with the changes to the corporate side of the code. The biggest problem we have had for decades is that our tax code was set up to double tax corporations on their US operations and income disproportionately weakening small and medium sized businesses and manufacturers based in the US, this caused the shift of many large supply chains outside of the US. That trend is reversing now and this influx of private investment will lead to higher growth rates in the long run, higher employment levels at higher wages, and higher long run revenues. If you are going to demand we compare revenue lost under the past system then you need to consider the impact of the current system on our well-being.
So, are you saying that there have been increased tax revenue or not until the long term? You are presenting a red herring here. Double taxation of corporations has nothing to do with deindustrialization, which also has nothing to do with the fact that THE TRUMP TAX CUT LOST 200 BILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE LAST YEAR. Nothing here refutes that argument, most notably because it's a FU.CKING FACT. List me a single goddamn source that shows the CBO or any think tank group which thinks the Trump tax cuts doing anything other than increasing the debt for any time between now and the end of the republic. I f.uckin dare you.
41 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:Illegal immigrants contribute a lot of crime actually. Especially when it comes to criminal gangs and drug and human trafficking. But regardless, you need a secure border first before you can expand and reform immigration. We've been down the amnesty with a promise of reform path before and it left us in this situation decades later.
Actually, no. And you're right, this is a red herring and I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.
https://www.cato.org/blog/white-houses-misleading-error-ridden-narrative-immigrants-crime
43 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:Like which people? If we want politicians to make and real changes we are going to need term limits. So far Trump has upheld most of his campaign promises and done a lot of unpopular (but important) things, so I think your criticism is clearly misguided.
Disagree. Trump has alone contributed to the significant acceleration of the deficit timeline, has had more members of his administration out because of corruption scandals than any president in US history, has had the other half of his administration resign because they either couldn't lie for him, couldn't obstruct justice for him, or plain thought he was a dumbass, openly tried to undermine NATO and privately toyed with the idea of pulling the US out, held private talks with an enemy of the United States and confiscated his interpreters notes to cover up god knows what, and has spent more time golfing and tweeting than actually fixing any problems we mentioned above.
The only thing you could really say about Trump and his achievements are the two supreme court seats. Good for you, now you can prevent abortions and gay people from getting married in your visionary hellscape where China dominates world politics and owns the US via debt obligation.
-
16 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:
A lot of messy nonsense above. But...
Trump's plan(s) over time have included a ton of different options, a wall/fence/physical barrier is just one part of that plan. It is not a standalone issue.
For example:
The Budget proposes sizable investments in a border wall; border security technology and equipment; funding to hire additional CBP and ICE law enforcement officers; and increased capacity to detain and deport illegal aliens. • The Budget requests over $2.2 billion in high-priority investments in border security technology, infrastructure, and equipment to help CBP prevent, detect, and interdict illegal border crossings. These investments include: o $1.6 billion for new border wall in locations identified by the Border Patrol as necessary to obtain operational control of the border and impede illegal crossings. o $183 million for aircraft and other aviation assets to help identify and track illegal border crossings and support enforcement actions on the ground. o $149 million for critical equipment and facility needs, such as Border Patrol stations, vehicles, and radios. o $182 million for surveillance technology, such as towers, radars, cameras, and sensors, to give the Border Patrol situational awareness in high-risk areas. o $107 million for road maintenance to give Border Patrol access to difficult to reach locations. o $44 million to recapitalize non-intrusive inspection equipment at ports of entry, anticipating that stronger enforcement between the ports may lead to increased contraband flowing through official border crossings. o These funds are all in addition to the 2018 Budget request of $2.6 billion for these activities, as well as an additional $15.56 billion the Administration is seeking in 2018 for border security as a result of the Congressional caps deal.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FY19-Budget-Fact-Sheet_Border-Security.pdf
Also, setting aside the fact that generally politicians on both sides of the aisle have done nothing material to seek a balanced budget or attempt to reduce the debt.
Securing the border and ensuing immigration reform would probably be revenue positive in the long run because it would allow the US to more adequately prevent crime, deal with drug trafficking etc. and would provide a legal status for many people (and ideally) provide more visas and things for skilled trades and other areas where we have a skill gap.
Also, the comment about the tax reform increasing the deficit and debt to crisis levels is wrong. Government revenues are up this year and will be up again next year, its just that spending has increased faster than the rate of revenue growth. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart
If you want to balance the budget in the long term you are going to need to reform entitlements anyway.
Still my argument. I think it's reasonable to fund certain aspects of the Trump budget, such as road improvements, a wall in certain sections of the border, and other "surveillance technology." And if you look at the bipartisan bill passed before the shutdown, all of those things are included. And yes, a wall in small sections of the border where it makes sense should be funded. Just not $5.8 billion for a continuous 30 foot concrete wall along the entire southern border, which most people familiar with border security would agree is useless or has a low cost/benefit ratio in most areas. Not to mention going through the eminent domain shitstorm, that alone is going to cost you the entire 5.7 billion in legal fees. Notice how even in the FY19 budget published by the WH, there isn't any mention of a stupid, fiscally irresponsible 5.7 billion dollar continuous 30 foot concrete border wall. It's because even everyone in his own white house thinks Trump's idea of a continuous wall is stupid.
Let's be clear here, the debt may have skyrocketed under Obama, but the reason was largely due stimuli to the economy to combat the Great Recession. Republicans were correct in saying that we need to make changes to government spending to deal with the rising debt. What they did instead when they control all three branches of government was (A) not make any significant changes to spending and (B) cut taxes. The Trump tax cuts happened at a time when the American economy is at its peak strength, and when taxes should be rising to curb the deficit. So yes, politicians on both political sides have contributed to the debt, but at least Democrats have the excuse that they raised the debt to get the economy going again. Why did Republicans cut taxes again? Oh yeah, it's because all those billionaires and corporate investors need the extra dollars. Both deserve blame for the stupidity going on, but one side deserves more.
Some corrections here: immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crime than native-born Americans. And again, do not mistake my argument for a lack of a continuous border wall (that is a waste of taxpayer money) as me being against border security. I would entirely agree with a border wall, if say, another country was fronting it. I mean, why not accept something that's free. But again, you got to be either a dumbass or a socialist to believe that money grows on trees. And I don't see no socialists here. I would agree with you on the last sentence regarding increased skilled labor and immigration to supplement the traditional "trickle-down" economics idea of the tax cuts to begin with, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump administration has been providing less visas (9% drop in 2017, and 12% drop in 2018) and are looking to get rid of Dreamers (who hold down real jobs and contribute to the US economy). So, good sentiment, unfortunately, Trump doesn't share yours.
Also, also. It's true that the government revenues grew to a record level this year, but this is misleading. You need to compare the government revenues of the Trump Tax cuts to the government revenues that you would have gotten under the old tax system, not compare the revenues to the previous year. In which case, the actual amount of money that the previous system would have gotten (according to the CBO) is $3.5 billion, around $202 billion more than the measly $14 billion. That extra $202 billion would have covered the increased $127 billion in spending for this year.
If you want to balance the budget, stop electing short-sighted !@#$ who want your approval numbers more than a good future for your children. Reforming entitlements is on a long list of things, but at the top of the list is stop electing dumb shits like Trump who wastes taxpayer money, erodes America's geostrategic position on the world stage, and spends more time misspelling words on twitter than actually learning how to govern properly.
Literally everything I've mentioned above is easily googiable. Let me know if you need references.
-
6 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:
Finally we can agree on something!
Damn frickin straight.
'MURICA.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:
Nice to see you didn't eve read what part of your post I was referencing/quoting with that.
No u. In the full context of the sentence, the "Trump supporter" is doing the action of questioning (privately or publicly). You misread what I wrote.
Semantics, and I don't see a point to it. Engage, my friend, don't just sit there and criticize my sentence structures.
-
USA, !@#$es!
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, MinesomeMC said:
The Berlin wall worked, no Mexican was able to pass it. So yeah libtard, destroyed.
Well actually it's a great obstacle, especially if its made of steel. Making it even more easier to block em.
But it got torn down though! Now all the Mexicans can go from East Germany to West Germany without Soviet troops machine gunning them down.
Hey! That's what we should do! We should have the Soviets come and build a wall on the border, station Soviet troops to machine gun those dirty immigrants, and we'll never have this problem again! I think that's why Trump has such a good relation with the Russians. That makes sense now.
Yes, and let's get a giant moat of molten gold in front of it too, with diamond-encrusted alligators to swim in the moat and bite any immigrant that tries to enter. I mean, why stop there? Sometimes the immigrants can fly over it, right? Let's build a giant net in the sky that catches those dirty buggers.
-
9 minutes ago, Lordship said:
Are you an idiot?
"And who is the one flooding the tunnels? You? You going to electric scooter your ass down to the border and get your squirt gun out?" - Uh, the literal people who's job it is to defend the border. So its not a legitimate strategy because I myself am not the one filling the tunnels? What are you 12?
And just to be clear, the Democrats are willing to spend money on increasing border agent staff, new drones and security technologies, just not your dumbass useless 30 foot concrete wall. Do your opposition research son. - If it is so useless, why did a ton of democrats support border walls until Trump became President? It's almost as if there is no logical reason at all, and only a bunch of hate for Trump himself.
"Also, your argument doesn't make sense. "Lowest number of illegals crossing" at places with physical barriers isn't "zero illegals crossing." Also, how the frick do you think people know that there are people even crossing in that area? You think there is some walmart greeter with a punch counter sitting on the top of the fence taking those numbers? I'll tell you how: drones, modern security measures, more border patrol agents. You're still making the same argument as I am. " - Obviously there isn't a full wall in place, so presumably they can move around it. Something tells me that walking straight though vs walking around a wall are two entirely different things. It's funny just how many mental gymnastics you guys have to do to come to this moronic conclusion haha. How do people know anything? By counting. I don't know exactly how they do it, but presumably the agents on the border who's literal job it is to keep people out know a thing or two about what they need or what might make their lives easier, so I'm gonna defer to them on this rather than some online internet troll who is on a forum for a game which he doesn't even have a nation in.
You ask if I'm an idiot in a rhetorical way while not knowing how to use quote. It's funny, because you're the idiot here.
Again, making my point. You're wall is an expensive, ineffective way that does not replace border patrol agents. I can't believe I have to say the same thing over and over again. They count by catching people at the border. They catch people at the border by using drones, satellites, and modern security measures to tell border agents where people are crossing so they can drive out to meet them. Your wall being there doesn't do anything.
-
5 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:
They have to go through this entire vetting process before they enter, keeping out undesirable/dangerous people.
Absolutes are dangerous.
Wait, what the frick is this suppose to be? This is making my point: Trump in this tweet is suggesting that America's obligation to NATO is contingent upon Germany's military GDP spending, an idea that the past 70 years of Republican and Democrat administrations would never have even thought of, much less utter it on a public platform. You think he's siding with NATO on this one? It's one thing to privately complain to Merkel that Germany doesn't have enough military spending and encourage them with private diplomatic channels to strengthen the alliance. It's an entirely different thing to tweet that dumb shit and make it sound like America's not going to deploy troops if a Russian tank column rams its head up your ass.
So yes, absolutes are dangerous, but you're not proving that with this photo.
3 hours ago, Justin076 said:I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm well aware of my argument, it being that yes the wall isn't impenetrable, but its goal is to discourage crossings and slow crossings to allow agents to prevent those crossings before the people can land and claim asylum.
Like I know you robots have trouble with logic but I'm betting that the chances of crossing into the US are lower in the situation on the left rather than the right.
Also please, don't for a second try and talk to me about 5.7 billion. Since when have lefties ever been economically conscious with their spending? That is literally a fraction of the US budget and hundredths of a percent of the 10+ trillion dollars your golden boy Obama added to your national debt. So don't try and target Trump for lowering taxes when you have such a high debt. Like is that how thick your side of the aisle is? You are literally against tax relief for American families and businesses? Like your side doubled the debt, don't complain that we are now not suffering trying to pay off your bills.
No, you are still making my argument. Your argument is still this:
Goal: Stop illegal immigrants
Method: Wall
Argumentative flaw: But admits that wall doesn't entirely stop immigrants, the border agents do.
The chances of crossing successfully into the US is equal if there aren't any border patrol agents to stop them. It's like you can't comprehend that people can't just get ladders, or break down parts of the wall, or literally an infinite amount of other things. Border patrol agents, drones, satellites, and modern detection equipment stop illegal immigrants.
!@#$ please. Don't talk like you think you know my positions. Obama added to the national debt to stimulate the economy because a combination of stupidity, greed, and corporate irresponsibility led to the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression. You are obviously too young to remember, so you're welcome for the free history lesson. Republicans say they could have done better for less, but anyone could say that when they're standing on the sidelines. Every administration since Coolidge has poured money into the economy for relief out of the recession. You talk a big game when you ask me if I'm against tax relief for American families and businesses, when you blame Obama for the rising national debt and forget the reason why he added to the national debt was for the same financial relief for American families and businesses. The only difference is, when Obama added to the debt, it was to break us out of the recession. When Trump added to the debt when the economy recovered, it was because it personally benefits him and all his rich friends and you're the idiot that voted for it. Good luck with that 401k, !@#$. You'll need it if you make it to 65. Social Security and medicare will be dead when you retire because idiots like you who can't see past next Tuesday.
And you literally don't know jack shit about the tax code, Mr. I-didn't-take-accounting. The tax cuts removed the personal exemption and capped state/local taxes deduction. Most people are withholding more because of that, not less, especially in states like California and New York, where the property taxes are your entire year's salary. The people who do have less to pay in taxes are anyone who makes above $140,000, the greatest benefit being corporations. Maybe if Trump didn't give Tim Cook and Jeff "Bozo" a $1 trillion tax cut, we can have a wall.
By the way, I'm opposed to the spending on the wall because it's a shit ton of money for a really inefficient method of border security. On the other hand, if someone else, say, Mexico, were to pay for the wall, I wouldn't mind. But fat chance, amirite? I mean, you would really have to be a giant dumbass to believe that someone else besides the US taxpayer would be paying for something so stupid.
You're all dumbasses.
-
On 1/16/2019 at 10:06 AM, Thalmor said:
I hereby diagnose you with Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
Please seek help for your benefit and for the benefit of those around you. It is not a fatal condition and you will be able to make a full recovery.
For 70 years, NATO was the shield that prevented Soviet expansion. Every administration, Republican or Democrat, all collectively agreed that NATO was necessary to defend America and her interests abroad. Now, with a militant and ultranationalist Russia aggressively expanding its influence, it seems that the withdrawal of American troops from Syria and Trump's interest in breaking up NATO seems to only benefit our geopolitical enemies. Combined with the fact that there WAS COLLUSION (don't take my word for it, take the word of the dumbass Manafort lawyers who leaked the documents and Rudy Juliani on prime time TV) between the Trump campaign and Russia, any 3rd grader can make the connection that Trump is a traitor.
So to you, Russian bot, I say this: America has had its problems and continues to have them, yes. But you're just an over-glorified gas station with subpar military tech. Your days of glory are long behind you, and let's face it: America's next geostrategic threat isn't you, it's China. The next administration is going to walk sanctions up and down your ass, and you'll go back to being the wannabe China that you are.
And yes, you are a Russian bot. Because the first visceral reaction that any real American would have is "frick Putin." Even if they are a Trump supporter, they would be at least questioning why Trump always seems to be on the side of the Russians privately, and ignore it publicly.
-
15 hours ago, Lordship said:
" And here's why: a wall doesn't stop people from getting into this country. People can climb that shit, dig under it, fly over it."
Actually, the places that do have some sort of physical barriers are the ones with the lowest number of illegals crossing. You may argue that they simple go into the places without a wall, but that kills the entire premise of your argument. Presumably people climbing a 30 foot wall with spikes at the top is a much harder task than simply walking across a zone without a barrier. Dig under it? We'll simply flood the tunnels. Fly over it? I don't think people with that sort of money care very much about whether there is a wall or not.
I'd like for you to answer why the Democrats shouldn't give the border security agents the 5 billion they are requesting when they are willing to send 150 billions of dollars to a terrorist state and enemy of our republic in Iran.
Literally this:
33 minutes ago, Patrick Higgins said:To be fair majority of illegal immigrants come over in planes and just overstay their visas/green cards or w/e they use idk
And who is the one flooding the tunnels? You? You going to electric scooter your ass down to the border and get your squirt gun out?
And just to be clear, the Democrats are willing to spend money on increasing border agent staff, new drones and security technologies, just not your dumbass useless 30 foot concrete wall. Do your opposition research son.
Also, your argument doesn't make sense. "Lowest number of illegals crossing" at places with physical barriers isn't "zero illegals crossing." Also, how the frick do you think people know that there are people even crossing in that area? You think there is some walmart greeter with a punch counter sitting on the top of the fence taking those numbers? I'll tell you how: drones, modern security measures, more border patrol agents. You're still making the same argument as I am.
-
On 1/16/2019 at 9:02 AM, Justin076 said:
Hello NPC Anti-Trump robot. Hopefully your programmers gave you the ability to interpret English so you have the ability to read my post.
First off, wow what a load of unhinged garbage in your two posts. It’s become cliche for you anti-trumpers but wow you’re on a high level of WOW.
As proven by basic logic and the laws of physics, the Human body is incapable of walking through solid, physical barriers. That is the reason why for many many thousands of years humans have been building physical barriers to protect themselves from the elements and other humans. We build walls around our homes to protect us from the elements and others. We lock our doors to prevent break-ins. We build fences around school playgrounds to keep the children from runnings away. We install fences around compounds, sometimes adding barbed wire to prevent entry and or exit by unauthorized persons. Now while we do all of these things, we are of the full understanding that these barriers are penetrable. No boat is unsinkable and no barrier can’t be broken. However, they do fill their purpose of protecting us and other things. They are designed to make it difficult if not almost impossible for penetration to occur. And quite frankly that’s the goal of the wall. Yeah sure we can try and climb it despite it probably being designed to make it incredibly difficult to do so, we can also try and tunnel it but that would take a long time and there will probably be things in place to prevent that. The wall isn’t designed to completely stop illegals and isn’t promised as that. The goal is to make it way more difficult than simply walking across a imaginary line we call national borders and to discourage those from making an original plan to try and cross.
If I’m someone thinking about making the long journey to cross the US border I’d be a lot more discouraged if their was a massive barrier in my way than nothing at all and all it took was walking in and claiming asylum. That would probably prevent me from ever making the trip. Further if I did make the trip, the chances of me being able to cross the barrier before being caught and prevented from ever crossing into the US and claiming asylum are low. That’s the other goal, to delay those crossings so there can be a response so the original crossing can be prevented and those migrants can’t claim asylum on US territory.
Do some research dude, where barriers have been built along stretches of the border with Mexico, crossings have decreased exponentially. The fence put in from El Paso to New Mexico decreased crossings by 89%. Facts are facts. I know you robots are designed to ignore facts and logic but try and fight the instinct and think for yourself for once.
Like what? The border patrol agents that got replaced by ur dumbass wall? Your entire paragraph is essentially this:
1. Border wall isn't totally foolproof and only slows people down.
2. When determined people get through there are "things" that prevent that.
3. I'm not making the same argument as you, ur a stupid anti-trumper.
When my argument is this:
1. Border wall isn't totally foolproof and only slows people down.
2. When determined people get through there are "border agents, drones, and modern security measures" that prevent that.
3. 5.7 billion dollars later, and you will still be funding border agents, drones, and modern security measures elsewhere without any real cost/benefit being seen from the border wall.
I see your "do some research dude" and I raise you a "read your own argument dumbass."
In case if everyone forgot, you dumb !@#$es just cut taxes when we have a historical crisis-level of debt. Typically when the economy is good, we raise taxes and revenue to support the economic stimulus of the previous downturn. Interest payments (not principal payments, and if you don't know the difference, go to school) on the debt is going to eclipse all discretionary spending by the end of this year and will be 4th behind military, social security, and medicare. Social Security and Medicare are going to run out by 2034. If I honestly believed that you even worked a day in your life, I would tell you that you wouldn't be retiring until 75.
-
23 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:
The lack of self-awareness in your post is striking.
"Fanatical idiot supporters" - that would seem to be a good descriptor of the people who have suddenly decided physical barriers don't make it harder to enter into a place, despite the fact that fencing/walls and other physical barriers have been a staple of border protection across the aisle for decades and are routinely used across the world.
Let me start by saying thank you for replying to my post, because I've been so frustrated with Trump and his supporters and I just can't get anyone to debate me back SO I CAN CRUSH THEIR PUNY LITTLE EGOS AGAINST THEIR WALL OF IDIOCY
!@#$, u dumb. And here's why: a wall doesn't stop people from getting into this country. People can climb that shit, dig under it, fly over it. I can go to Home Depot today and climb that 5 billion dollars worth of stupid in under a minute. Fact is, border agents stop people from getting into this country, not ur dumbass wall. Border agents find people trying to cross via satellite/drones, drive out to meet them, and take them into custody. So why spend 5 billion dollars on a wall? Why not dump that money into something that's actually useful and actually stops people from entering into the country like drones and more officers?
Also, Trump said Mexico was going to send us a check. What happened to that check? THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN DUPED BY A FAT CON MAN FROM LIBERAL NEW YORK!
Also, also: I don't particularly care about domestic policy. In the grand scheme of things, domestic policy is only debated in the framework where the American hegemony exists. Trump is trying to break up NATO, and the only person in the world with any geostrategic understanding of foreign policy who wants that is Putin. Trump is a traitor, and you are all traitors for supporting his treasonous ass. History will look back and see that you betrayed your country because Trump promised you that brown people won't be coming to your country.
Eat shit.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Now, I know there are a lot of criticisms of the Trump wall, chiefly that it's an outdated, expensive, and inefficient form of border security from before the birth of Christ. But let me remind everyone that the Chinese built the Great Wall of China hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, and to this day not a single Mexican made it across that border. That's quite an impressive record, and I think we should fund the 5 billion dollars.
Just kidding, the wall is stupid and so are the fanatical idiot supporters of it. If you thought the border wall would work, you're an idiot. If you thought the wall was going to be paid for by Mexico and not your tax dollars, I know a Nigerian prince you should meet. Oh, and you're an idiot.
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, Paul Warburg said:
It turns BLACK!
Thats the answer
reasoning (since i care about you....annoying you)- YOU TURN BLIND!!!! Jokes on you now!!!
OH YEAH?!
No, no no, son. Caecus means blind in Latin. I'M ALREADY BLIND! THE JOKES ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!! MUWAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
-
21 minutes ago, Paul Warburg said:
Just want to point out that the title of this thread did not age will. Assuming that it takes more than 14 days start-to-finish, on an impeachment process (he aint resigning)
Why, I say good sir! You have extraordinary observation skills! Perhaps you can tell me what color the sun is after you directly stare at it for half an hour.
Some people say it turns green, or blue. Not that any of them can tell me what is green or blue anymore.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:
Better than a tan suit.
Probably, granted it was far from a "blue wave."
Sure, but major gains in the house were made in Michigan, Penn, and Virginia. Not to mention Orange County. Places that Trump needed to win the electoral college. That doesn't look good for Trump's prospects in 2020, entirely throwing out the legal troubles he's found himself in.
-
2 hours ago, Zaxon said:
A lot of people have been locked up for making false statements to the FBI and other technicalities no one has been caught directly colluding. The one guy Rick Gates who got charged with "conspiracy " had nothing to do with 2016 election but was one of offenses involve false statements or misrepresentations of financial and lobbying activity.
This is all run of the mil corruption you could find on most of the corrupt politicians business leaders and their associates if you put high profile microscope on them.
You make it sound like every administration has 10 people jailed on fraud and conspiracy. Nope, just Trump's.
2 hours ago, Zaxon said:Let's be honest here the American press is hardly about bringing truth to power as this is the same media that cheered on the Iraq war uncritically and currently acts as stenographers for the Pentagon and Intelligence agencies while giving a platform to non scientist climate deniers on the same stage as scientist and then playing it down the middle.
The same press which fires guys who had it right like Donahue for questioning the Iraq war policy but decries Acosta superficial grandstanding press credentials being withheld and within weeks fires another journalist Marc Lamont for speaking up for Palestinian rights at the same time they continue to ignore Julian Assange treatment is really telling.
Their not watchdogs to power their lapdogs ! There is a reason why when Trump calls them fake news it resonates if only a little with people.
Donahue was fired because all those liberal cucks at CNBC didn't have the spine to tell the Bush administration to fu.ck off when they asked them to reduce bad media coverage on the Iraq war. Only children would think that there could ever be a world where media was a perfect institution free from corporate and political interests. Nonetheless, people rely on the media to get news of things that don't happen in their backyard, and to point out one flaw of a system and calling its destruction is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. By that logic, the US government !@#$ up quite a few times, but do we all go onto the streets demanding total anarchy?
2 hours ago, Zaxon said:Again the arrangement with Saudi Arabia is nothing new we have been selling them weapons all the while the bombing in Yemen was going on and the humanitarian crisis being ignored by the mainstream media and secondly it's never been confirmed that the Prince called for the execution but allegations seem to be the same as definitive proof these days.
The fact this hit was carried out in an Saudi embassy a place under surveillance with a bone-saw shows how sloppy and amateur B-Team this was and not likely the Prince himself but those in the faction against the Prince looking to remove him from power. On top of the fact Turkey's Edrogan is hardly a champion of the free press in his own country but magically he has a video tape and a supposed recording conveniently solving the case at the ready wow so CSI .
Firstly the Prince spent some time in the US talking to business leaders trying to improve foreign relations and showcase himself as being a reformer. Why would he risk all his new found credibility by carrying out such a foolish and sloppy action which obviously would blow back in his face.
Do you really think with all the money he has if he really wanted to he couldn't get a professional to get rid of this guy quietly in a hotel room or at a restaurant make it look like an accident why make it so obvious in your own embassy it's like your asking to be caught may as well take a selfie. Who wins from this, the other ousted princes cause the call for regime change is in the air
Sure, except everyone in the American intelligence community agrees that the prince had his hand in the affair. And people who know a lot more than you or me (i.e., Senate Intel Com) have already agreed to push sanctions. The only person who doesn't seem to know any better is Trump. I wonder, could it be that Trump may have... oh, I don't know... a conflict of interest?
Also, you somehow think that the Saudis are A. Competent and B. Have foresight. What makes you think the Saudi's are not a bunch of amateurs? What makes you think that the prince isn't a short-sighted dumb frick who thinks he can get away with murdering a US journalist? You've jumped through all these hoops to absolve the Saudis of any blame without giving a single piece of evidence why, outside of your inherently flawed belief that the Saudis are competent and have foresight.
2 hours ago, Zaxon said:This sounds like it came straight out of the boy scouts manual. Again no surprise here people in government profiteering did you not know about Dick Cheney & Hailburtan during the Iraq war. The Clinton's have been making speeches to Russian Banks and getting millions in donations from dictators like Sasudi Kings to their "foundation". How about US banks being fined $204 billion during 2009-2016 lol corporate corruption is about as American as you can get these days.
OMG Trump says inappropriate things and hes rude omg that must make him the worst ever lol. Lets just whitewash George W Bush's war crimes lying us into a war that lead to the death of 1 million Iraqi's and thousands of US troops. It destabilized the region and they tortured innocent people some of which may still be detained even today with no chance of being released. Yeah but Bush hinted at being anti-Trump so let's just rehabilitate him and welcome him back to polite society.
Americas history has always been dark from the slaughter of Native Americans to the enslavement of Blacks and Jim Crow laws to the CIA backed coups and killing democratically elected officials, the training of death squads in S America to prop up dictators, the 85+ elections America meddled in , the irrational anti-communist/socialist fever fueled arrests (Woodrrow Wilson pushed for laws that would criminalize opinions via the Sedition Act of 1918) (Palmer Raids) (Smith Act) and killings that gutted unions and climaxed in McCarthyism , FBI infiltration of civil rights movements, to the Gulf of Tonkin lie that led to the Vietnam war and leapfrogging forward to the latest catastrophes of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Yemen.
So unless you've been living in a bubble the current on goings of Trump tweeting and saying means things are hardly the worst America has had to endure. The problem is people have not been informed about what our country has really been up to because America is country in deep denial about its past and present and the corporate media is not interested in informing you only in manufacturing consent to keep the status quo going.
This is the common defense that Trump supporters give. "But what about this person? Everyone is shit, so we're okay with this." It's a sad defense anchored in pessimism and indifference. I thought Trump supporters liked him because he promised to "Drain the Swamp" and remove corruption from DC, not bring it in. I thought Trump supporters liked Trump because he promised to "Make America Great Again," not subject to the interests of foreign powers. I thought Trump supporters liked Trump because he was going to stick stick it to Wall Street, not bring its CEOs to make fiscal policy.
I thought Trump supporters supported Trump because he promised change and a better future. What happened?
Here is where we agree: America's history is dark. But like you have just done today, we look back on those parts of our history with disappointment and disdain, wondering why the contemporaries and their actions are so inherently against the values of freedom and democracy that the United States claims as its creed. All I'm saying is, your children will one day learn about this period of time and wonder the same thing about you.
17 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:Alternatively, Fox saw the precedent it set and didn't want to be insta-banned by any future Democratic president.
Presumably because they saw the writing on the wall when the 2018 midterms rolled around.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Zaxon said:
Still a long way off the original collusion charges chimed around by the desperate Russiagate crowd. You put an investigation on any politician or businessman you're going to find something to use against them. Clinton was investigated for Whitewater and it ended up being about Monica Lewenski and her stained blue dress.
Surprise most politicians and businessmen are corrupt what a shocker.
So looks like the Russians are NOT taking over and it was all a scheme to distract people from the original corruption revealed by Wikileaks about the DNC and Podesta. So the left and right could come together in true bipartisanship to silence a truth teller Julian Assange.
The propaganda parade about Trump being the center of all evil as if all the bad things our country does and is started only in Jan 2017 when Trump took office and will magically be vanquished once Voldermort/Dr Evil/Darth Sidious/Skeletor is defeated then we can all go back to the egalitarian peaceful society we we're before is nothing short of wishful thinking and the stuff pipe dreams are made of.
If the essence of Americas modus operandi could be boiled down to a sentence Trump would be the exclamation mark at the end. Nothing is changed only highlighted .
Remember, the Watergate investigation took 3 years. The Mueller investigation isn't over yet, it's barely been over a year. But I think it's safe to say when half of your administration is in jail or on their way for colluding with Russia, it gets harder and harder to say this "collusion" thing didn't happen.
I disagree. The "American modus operandi" isn't just what Trump highlighted. On the contrary, I think Trump is the most un-American thing that has happened to this country in a long while. He is inherently un-republican and un-democratic.
1. He attacks the free press and calls the institution which serves to bring truth to power an "enemy of the people." Any civic-minded American will tell you that the president does not have unlimited power and cannot control a free press. It's the reason why Fox News was the first network to come to the defense of Jim Acosta when he was recently ejected by Trump from conferences. Trump's attacks on the press is UNAMERICAN.
2. Furthermore, he cannot bring himself to condemn a prince of Arabia for the brutal murder of a US journalist and resident. May I remind you, when the Iranian revolution held 80 American embassy workers hostage, Iran knew that killing a single American would have brought the wrath of the most powerful military in human history down on their heads. Each and every American, by virtue of being citizen to the most powerful nation in human history, should have the full weight of $800-billion-a-year military-industrial complex behind their every step in a foreign country. Civis Americanus Sum. The fact that Trump hasn't threatened crippling economic sanctions or the carpet bombing of Riyadh over the death of one of our own is inherently UNAMERICAN.
3. Furthermore, the office of the president is a civil servant position. It is a thankless task that at least half the country hates you for and dramatically ages your very soul. True servants of the public surrender their own petty self-interests in service of the nation and it is why every single man and woman under the flag salutes him. The fact that Trump did not step away from his businesses and allowed foreign dignitaries to give him money at his new international hotel in DC is UNAMERICAN.
The list goes on. Trump even once said that Xi Jingping's unlimited terms of office was something "maybe America should do too." No one with at least a shred of love for this nation would dare to say that, especially if someone was actually the President of the United States of America, jokingly or not.
So no, Trump is not America's "highlighted modus operandi." He is a dark stain on our nation's history that generations will remember as a time when the republic was threatened and a third of the country did nothing; highlighting the fragility of the Great Experiment and a dearth of decent men.
-
I'm just going to step in here and say that the recent release of court documents related to Michael Cohen's indictment from federal prosecutors put Trump under criminal charges of campaign finance fraud. For those of you who don't know a lick of US law, the burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than it is for a civil case; in a criminal case, you have to be without a doubt. In civil cases, only the consideration of a higher likelihood.
Translation: the fact that Cohen is going to jail shows that prosecutors have overwhelming evidence that Trump violated those laws. Trump is going to jail, or he's going to initiate a constitutional crisis where a sitting president looks to pardon himself. There is even speculation that Trump will resign 10 minutes before he leaves office and have Pence pardon him. If Trump runs in 2020, he'll have to do it behind bars or on the ashes of the American republic.
The irony of all this is that Trump didn't need to pay hush payments to his mistresses. If Trump fricked a supporter's wife, that supporter would have still voted for him. That's how degenerate and broken Trump supporters are, they just don't care. Whatever the case, the Republican party is now the party of Trump. If Trump doesn't run in 2020, nobody is going to show up at the polls for Jeb Bush.
-
On 4/30/2018 at 12:32 AM, Mad Max said:
Do you believe that most of the US Citizens believe what is projected to them from politicians they look up to and the media they watch or scroll through (including popular social media), causing a 'racial divide' among extremist believers?
Do you believe the media, including social media is correct in what they project?
Do you maybe think Kanye is a true Trump supporter and stands by what he believes in or is he gaining publicity for new album releases and using the 'love for trump' as a slap in the face to the president and will eventually go back to the assumed leftist lifestyle most people thought he led?
lastly, when was the last time you saw something racist IRL - in person.
1 & 2.
To be sure, any individual's perception of the current state of affairs is largely influenced by the news they watch and the media they consume. While the media is important to a democracy, it is important to understand the power they have over the populace. No, I'm not talking about "Fake News." What I'm talking about is the media's power to NOT say something.
Take for example, the uncomfortable war that is going on in Yemen. Now, I know what you are thinking: "What? There's a war going on in Yemen? Are you sure it's not Syria?" To which my answer is "Both." There is about a million people dying of starvation in Yemen, and already 80,000 dead children from the lack of food, because Saudi Arabia has bombed the shit out of their supplies to attempt to starve the nation into submission. But all the media ever talks about is Syria, and occasionally runs a story about Yemen. Why? Because the rebel Yemenis Houthis are backed by Iran, and the US's geostrategic interests are to curb Iran's influence and power in the region now that Iraq has a giant hole in its backside from 2004. The media isn't focused on this story too much because the Trump administration is focused on containment of Iran and its an uncomfortable truth that this containment requires the mass starvation of men, women, and children in a forgotten and impoverished country.
Another example is MSNBC. You know, the liberal ass media with the lesbo (Rachel Maddow), the other black woman, and the closet democrat (Joe Scar). In 2004, NBC had cancelled the Donahue program that was critical of the hawk sentiment of the Bush administration. The network had later admitted that the reasoning behind it was because the Donahue program was anti-war.
The media rarely lie about something. In this day and age, it's quite easy to google and find facts independently of the media and be able to quickly know who is spreading bullshit. However, what the media can do is omit, increase, or decrease coverage of something. For example, Fox News in the weeks up to the midterm elections broadcast almost continually the coverage related to the "invasion caravan" that was filled with Mexican rapists and MS-13 coming to kill your grandchildren. What they failed to mention was that the caravan was on foot, 900 miles away from the border, and had planned on entering the US through a standard port of entry. But no! The president of the US deploys combat troops to the border in anticipation of the coming barbarian horde! He says to treat rock-throwers as combatants. And then the day after the election...? Nothing. Suddenly everyone stops talking about it and nobody gives a shit anymore. It's almost Thanksgiving, who gives a frick? !@#$ I WANT TURKEY. And the troops at the border? Well, the Trump administration suddenly sees the light and starts recalling troops, hoping to get them back home in time for Christmas while wasting millions in taxpayer money and the time and effort of the troops.
Social media, on the other hand, is full of shit. Nobody at Facebook or Twitter gives a frick who or what posts what, not unless they have their asses dragged in front of Congress, chastised, and then see a subsequent 13% drop in their stock (accounting for a $14 billion dollar loss in value). frick Facebook, it's a black hole that sucks away productive time and is a drain on our country's productivity, all to satisfy people's needy vanities.
3.
I guess my question is, why the frick anyone cares about Kanye? His entire existence is a cry for attention because he had childhood daddy issues.
I think Kanye and Trump are a good match for each other though. Both are rambling, self-absorbed stroke victims (I'm assuming they both had a stroke, because I can't understand how anyone could be so stupid without a neurological diagnosis) without impulse control who don't belong anywhere near positions of power and influence.
4.
I live in the grand state of Utah, which is 87% white in my county, most of which is fanatically religious to the local faith of Mormonism. I still sometimes see confederate battle flags that make me question people's memory of geography and American history (since Utah was an independent country that opposed slavery at the time of the Civil War), but my state is honestly quite peaceful in that regard. I'm an Asian history teacher clocking in at 6'1 and 190 pounds (186 cm and 89 kg, for you pathetic globalists who use the inferior metric system), which means the most racist thing I've heard someone say to me is "Wow! I didn't know you guys came in that size." or "Are you Yao Ming?" That being said, I'm not black, hispanic, or (god-forbid) middle-eastern, so I can't say how things would be if I was.
-
On 9/25/2018 at 4:28 PM, godfrey811 said:
I was kind of curious about the process of how US citizens who were drafted to the front line in the Vietnam War went from their homes to fighting. Were they picked up in trucks and then flown to Vietnam? How much training was given and was that given in the US first? And how exactly did they get to the front line? Are they flown there? Do they have base camps that they return to or do they stay out on the front line for a long time?
I know a lot of these questions would sound pretty stupid but I'm not really sure how it worked back then and was wondering how the random people being drafted to the infantry coped.
Any insight would be very appreciated.
No question or interest in history is stupid. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
The Vietnam War draft is essentially like the modern "selective service." Upon the age of 18, every American citizen was required to register with the government their name and information, which was then partially cooped by the relatively nascent Social Security Administration. You wanted to get social security benefits? You have to register with the government. You want food stamps or college aid? You have to register with the government. Not to mention it was a federal crime not to.
Your view of drafting sounds more along the lines of something out of the Soviet Union during the Second World War ("Great Patriotic War"), where military police, reserves, and NKVD secret police units would round up young men into trucks and trains and "draft" them into the conflict. Not that much prodding was necessary then, given the situation, but everyone was either in a factory position or on the frontlines.
The Vietnam era was a lot more different with less stakes. To give you a sort of scale, the Soviets lost 3 million men in the Rezhev meatgrinder alone between winter of 1941 and fall of 1942. By the end of the war, Soviet losses were at a staggering 15 million fighting men, and even more countless civilians. Roughly 1 in 8 Russians died in that conflict. In contrast, the US, since its inception in 1776 to the modern day, has not had more than 2 million total war casualties across every war, including the Civil War, where roughly a million Americans on both sides lost their lives. The Soviets lost that on a good day in the Rezhev pocket. In reality, the amount of American troops in the Vietnam war deployed at any given time was around 100,000 men at the time of the surge in the 1970s.
The drafting process beings as such: First, you receive a letter in the mail after you have registered with the Social Security Administration and the government. The letter is similar to a subpoena, in which you are required to appear at a military base (we have them all over the place in the US, since quartering troops in houses was something we fought a war over previously) under the penalty of criminal punishment. i.e., you get a letter in the mail saying that if you don't pack your things and show up to a military base to be drafted, we will arrest you and put you in jail. Second, you receive training at the base camp, typically around 8 weeks give or take your branch of service. The training would include small arms fire training, squad tactics, explosive and special weapons training, basic first aid, and military culture. After your training, you are assigned a unit, typically newly formed or added to an existing unit. If you are a newly formed unit, you may be called upon to deploy to Vietnam with your unit. If you are attached to an existing unit as replacements, either for those who had died or were on leave for whatever reason, you would be shipped out immediately. Most often, you would board a commercial flight, typically to a naval base in the region or directly to US-controlled Saigon, depending on the conditions and logistics that were laid out for you. If you were in the navy, you were likely posted to Okinawa, Japan and then sent on a ship to patrol the South China Sea region and support carrier task forces. If you were in the air force, you were likely take a flight to Guam or the Philippines, depending on what kind of pilot you were, and then stationed either there, on a Forward Operating Base (FOB), or on an aircraft carrier for missions. If you were in the army or marines, you were likely directly flown to Saigon or a nearby military base and then transported via truck to a FOB where you were deployed. Helicopters were generally used for medical or transport directly into a combat zone, and rarely used for ferrying troops, contrary to popular belief.
FOBs varied in size, but this is generally where all frontline troops stayed at. They could be a giant encampment outside of Saigon with a fully functioning airfield and transport infrastructure, or, if you have crap luck, a clearing in a jungle where a company of 300 men constantly patrol the base camp with mines all around you. If you were on the big FOBs, you enjoyed cooked food, proper restrooms, office space for desk workers and administration officials, and a general life similar to a typical army base camp. If you were on a smaller FOB, the purpose of the FOB is to hold a location. Often, these FOBs were pockets deep inside the jungles, with the real possibility that you could be surrounded at any moment. Life in these FOBs were hard. No warm food, no toilets, rudimentary tents and shelters. It was wet, miserable, and deadly. Imagine camping out in a humid, hot jungle with centipedes the size of your head and poisonous snakes everywhere. Imagine squatting in a designated shit zone a little outside of the camp with your bare ass exposed to mosquitos and flies. Imagine wet rain pouring every other day making the place a wet, smelly, hot shithole. Imagine that the only food you have is meat in a can that gives you constipation. Now imagine that place that you've decided to camp out in is filled with mines and ferocious Asians with AKs trying to kill you. Compare that life with the cushy desk job of a communications officer in a FOB outside Saigon. It honestly depends on where you are deployed.
And to be clear, the people who were drafted were not completely random. By the Vietnam war, the army's policy of segregating the armed forces by color was dissolved. For the first time in American military history, Black NCOs commanded white enlisted men. But by far, proportionally to the population size, there were more black men fighting in the dark holes of Vietnam than white men. To be sure, the draft itself was not racist. It's just that the draft affected the less affluent. There were several ways you could "avoid" the draft at the time. You could have been in college, in which case your draft was "deferred." You could also avoid the draft if you had a medical condition. The draft was suppose to make everyone equal, but because of these exceptions, the draft disproportionately affected some more than others. Most colleges had their student bodies entirely made up of white people. College required tuition and was thus out of reach for some Americans. Having a medical condition meant that you had a primary care physician that you paid money to diagnosis the condition. Furthermore, even though there was a penalty for not registering with the SSA, some people risked it anyway, particularly more affluent people who didn't rely on social security or government programs. You rolled the dice when you draft dodged, since the government could come after you at any moment. White people just tended to have more resources at their disposal to defer the draft.
The best example of draft dodging by a rich white person is the current president of these United States. Donald Trump had "deferred" his draft by having his physician diagnosis him with "bone spurs." Three times, actually. It helped that his father was one of the richest men in Manhattan and had powerful connections to get him out of the draft. Trump just had to defer his draft enough times to outlast the length of the war.
Not all people tried to avoid the draft. There were people who really did believe that what the US was doing in Vietnam mattered. The late senator John McCain was one such person, though he was a navy pilot. Navy pilots, generally speaking, have it better than the boots on the ground in terms of day-to-day lifestyle on a carrier, but at no less risk. His life story there is one such example, and if you are interested, I suggest you read more about him.
Ultimately, the most miserable part of the Vietnam war was ironically the lack of technological and infrastructural sophistication of the enemy. The US had taken the Blitzkrieg tactic of the Germans from the Second World War and added supersonic jets and a massive Cold War military-industrial complex behind it. The standard tactic of the US was to use aircraft and artillery to soften up an enemy, send fat armored tanks to roll over the remains, and send infantry to mop up and capture strategic objectives that inhibited the ability of the enemy to fight back. In the Vietnam jungles, there were no artillery targets. You couldn't run a 30 ton armored tank into the jungle to soak up bullets. You couldn't see what you were dropping bombs on. There were no strategic objectives to hold. Vietnam was an infantry fight, a brutal, close-quarters small-arms firefight where the enemy would shoot at you, run away, let you get wet and miserable in the shithole jungle, and then come back and see if you are more exhausted yet.
When the Germans attacked Stalingrad in 1942, they first bombed out the entire city, creating this massive jungle of bricks that their tanks couldn't roll over. To mitigate German air superiority and artillery firepower, the Soviets ordered their troops to advance as close to the enemy as possible. That battle also became an infantry fight, often resulting in hand-to-hand combat with shovels and knives. The Germans called the battle the "Rat War." Only the most cunning, ferocious, kill-or-be-killed resourceful badasses survived there. Vietnam was America's Rat War.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Rozalia said:
Because you have no evidence. You're just a dishonest person playing at puritanism so you can manufacture some outrage and send it my way. You break a promise to no longer post here if you lost the bet (which you did) and then attack me on morality? Get the hell out of here with that you damn liar.
Dicking women, dicking dudes, whatever. It ain't illegal nor is it our business. It ain't Trump's business to be your role model. He ain't your father. He ain't your brother. He doesn't let such things slow him down and good on him. As for grabbing !@#$, even children know such a basic truth as what Trump said. If you ever decided to use your brain you'd realise that fact. Why is a rich famous guy easily getting women in bed so damn shocking to you? It has been the case since man began. Denying it only makes you look like an idiot.I didn't comment on the case so you go straight into thinking I'm defending him. Dishonest as usual. I have no need to comment on something ongoing and by all accounts will lead to nothing happening to him.
No. I have a reasoned and sound morality rather than this pathetic puritanism you're trying to push, which you, being dishonest, only push so strongly because you want to attack Trump. You're completely see through and everybody can see it.
Dipshit teenagers tipping over a portapotty while a pregnant woman is inside dealing with a compressed bladder isn't illegal or any of our business. But I don't think anyone with a moral compass would look at that and say "those teenagers have the right idea."
Again, you're kind of making my point for me. Is there anything else that I should add onto this? "Even children know such a basic truth" that men who are rich and powerful can sexually assault women? No wonder why you're a mess. Maybe that's what you've been taught growing up. You're lack of morality shouldn't be denied, but it also sounds like its not entirely your fault either. Sorry.
4 hours ago, Rygus said:Good job twisting what I said to fit your own argument. The majority of Germans pre-WWII hated the Jews, this is a good example of mob rule. Hitler made himself a representative of the German people at the time. If you knew this, you would agree with me that mob rule is bad. I never said there were more, I said the discrimination in South Africa is more verifiable, since there have been numerous documentaries and papers on it, and especially because it's extremely recent, relevant, and easily provable in the modern world.. How about you read up on those? Your argument is based on falsehoods. Roy Moore isn't a pedophile because his accuser has little to no evidence, and has even forged evidence against him. Attacking me personally, calling me mentally ill as an insult, makes you look like an inconsiderate child. I don't like National Socialism, I've never advocated for the ideology, so I don't know why you continue to accuse me of being one. You're a sheep in a flock of ignorant folks who are stuck in their own bubble throwing names and insults around to people you don't even know. My argument is that mob rule, where the populous, though incorrect in their thinking (PROVED TO BE INCORRECT IN THEIR THINKING), still have the power over the government, and that it shouldn't be a thing, giving all the power to the people degenerates a society and ultimately weakens it, it feels good to have, but it's not ultimately good for the society, government, and culture that exists there. It's less of a blame, and more of a consequence. Their invasion of Germany lead to the Germans abandoning the concentration camps, the supply lines to the concentration camps, and any hospital facilities there in order to fight the allies in Berlin and the Battle of The Bulge. So the allies are partially responsible for some of the deaths in the concentration camps due to disease. If you understood history, and read "Night," you'd know this was true.
!@#$! The Nazis didn't get more than a third of the Reichstag at any point in time. If that number sounds familiar, guess what the percentage of America are Trump supporters. Enabling Act, 1933. Go learn history. WHY THE frick DO NAZIS NOT LEARN THEIR OWN HISTORY?! Like, France studies Napoleon, Americans study the revolution and civil war, why the frick can't neo-Nazis get their shit together and know anything about themselves?
Why the wall is a great idea
in General Debate
Posted
The truth is, Trump has been talking about a 30 foot concrete wall spanning the southern border for 2 years now. Even his "sample" walls are all 30 feet tall. Literally ask anyone whether or not the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUKIN STATES (which, surely you can reasonably say is "somebody") wants that wall. So yes, you are trolling.
No it won't. Cite me, !@#$.
No, entitlements are not normal ongoing income. That's taxpayer money being dumped into the economy for people to spend when they otherwise don't have that money. That's called a stimulus. So no u.
And your argument is stupid because you are claiming that you're making more money from cutting taxes when you are obvious not. Just in case if you forgot your own dumbass argument:
Oh, and this:
Literally the only source you have says that the tax cuts don't add shit. Read your own argument.
Ah huh. What's this then?
Ok, Mr. CIA Seal Team Six who's going to hunt me down and kill me. What's your field, son? 1040 turbo tax with a single W-2?
Account me this, u dumb !@#$. When the government loses $202 billion dollars in unrealized revenue due to the Trump tax cuts, is that increasing or decreasing income?
Omg. That immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans. Holy shit, read your own arguments! Do I literally have to quote you line by line? Here:
(which, I assumed the correct verb here to be "commit")
I'm drawing the line at posting synopsis of the articles I cite and spoon-feeding your dumbass. If you're too god damn lazy to read basic articles I post, stop pretending like you know what they say. Unlike you, everyone else here can read them and know you're a dumb !@#$.