Started by tecsan at 09,Oct,20 08:17 other posts of tecsan
 | Just looking for opinions...Please no fights...༼☯﹏☯༽ |
Similar topics: 1.Does it actually matter? 2.SYD is a great place 3.Trump/Pence or Biden/Harris...Which do you feel will prevail??? 4.Kneeling before the American Flag during the National Anthem... 5.༼☯﹏☯༽
YOU know, those folks that support abortion, mercy killings, assisted suicides and such,
"No lives matter"
Starting tomorrow morning all Democrats and liberals are to report to the Grand Canyon for jump off. Surrender all assets to the nearest government office and walk to the Grand canyon at once.
I am willing to bet, within a week 200,000 plus idiots will jump to escape Trump, the rest will say "wait a minute, my life matters!" then they will confess that All lives matter .Because when it comes to theirs, it matters to them. It is just that YOUR life does not matter to them.
You literally told me that you think that NO ONE HAS ANY VALUE.
You also said that the whole idea of human rights is nonsense.
According to you, people don't have any responsibility for each other.
That's literally saying: "No lives matter".
Or did I not understand you correctly?
In that case, explain HOW anyone matters, according to you.
I support the right of abortion, because the woman's life matters.
A clump of cells only matters, when the woman thinks it does.
When it's a clump of cells in a test tube, it only has value related to
the possibility to help people with a desire to have children.
During its development, the clump of cells gains what "matters".
Still, at any point during gestation, the life of the woman carrying it matters MORE.
I support the right to euthanasia, because the quality of life matters too.
People with functioning brains have a right to life, not an obligation.
So you are just straw-manning people, who YOU don't understand.
most lives matter to those living them. if i were to try to take your life,you would ask me not to,would you not? that means your life matters to you.
when someone mentions the 10 commandments to you, i am sure you just brush it off as nonsense as you have no concept of faith or religion. but some bunch of 1 world government folks sit down and write up a few "rights" you think it is the equivalent of the gospel.
you put way to much value in the words scribbled by some do gooders a few decades ago.
"most lives matter to those living them". A fetus doesn't.
If lives only matter, because it matter to those living them, why do you care?
Why would you be against assisted suicide? They WANT to die!
When it's very easy to come up with a better 10 commandments,
than supposedly god did, I don't believe a god was involved at all.
It was just something that primitive people came up with, mostly to assure their religion.
I think the human rights are better, because it's based on 2000 years further advancement in the debate on morality.
since you disagree with that statement,would you feel the same way about it as you do what was written in history?
the fetus matters because 2 humans interacted, created it,and once it comes from its womb it will grow to become a man or woman that can contribute to the world and procreate to ensure humans are on earth for a long time.
if you abort all babies, or clumps of cells as you call them, the human race will be racing towards extinction.
if you don't want to create a new life, do something to avoid it happening. it is not the fetus's fault you chose to be reckless.
Then humanity will never outgrow it savagery.
How much more do you want people to work? Isn't it enough already?
How about humans actually getting to enjoy their lives?
Productivity has skyrocketed for decades. People's lives didn't improve.
I'm disagreeing with you because your ideas aren't based in reality.
"would you feel the same way about it as you do what was written in history?"
I have no idea what you're trying to ask here.
"it will grow to become a man or woman that can contribute to the world"
So, why are you ONLY assigning this value to fetuses?
You didn't provide this argument for anyone outside of the womb.
Do you now acknowledge that those have value too?
The problem with your "value system" is that it is not consistent.
"and procreate to ensure humans are on earth for a long time."
That procreation it the biggest problem threatening humans on earth.
If we want to humans to keep on existing, that procreating needs to decrease a lot.
Too many new humans do not contribute to the world, they contribute to our demise.
If humanity grows from 10 billion to 20 billion, humanity doesn't improve by 2X,
but we destroy the last bits of nature AND THEN WE ALL FUCKING DIE.
That's why my "value system" related to why humans have human rights is not related to their personal contribution to the world. Your "value system" would mean that someone who is fully disabled doesn't have any value. To me, their human rights
don't differ at all from the human rights of a genius inventor.
I don't call babies a clump of cells, I call the stage before zygote a clump of cells, which you call a baby. To me, it's a baby when it is capable of living outside of the womb, without a machine to keep it alive.
Your argument shows that your ideology is mostly about punishing people for having sex. You still haven't explained why a baby has any value, besides what its parents assign to it. If you have the same "value system" as the other extreme right-wingers, you tell me why they strongly forbid the abortion of a malformed zygote or fetus or even a dead one. What "contribution to the world" do they provide?
It shows their ideology to be based on nothing by dogma, not logic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for my "value system": people have human rights, because that's a vital condition to achieve a flourishing, peaceful and sustainable civilization. If we all accept that humans have rights, then we might finally stop horribly murdering and torturing each other, all the goddamn time. It's the basis for humanism. It's also the basis for your Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That's 100% the identical idea as the basis for humanism. Of course, you need to do some rewriting of history, and interpret things literally, to make belief that it isn't, but it fully support my ideology. They just added the "Creator", because everyone was religious back then. It helps acceptance, when you can make the idiots believe that it's a Commandment From God. It works just as well in a secular society. Probably better, because religion adds a lot of baggage and destroys people's ability to think logically.
what i was trying to say is if your human rights were rewritten 20 years ago would you still value them as much as you do the 1's you go by?
2000 years ago, or 20 years ago,or yesterday,does it matter?
your 1 world government,no one exceeds the next person society would really just be similar to a bunch of people high on dope, no reality,no motivation,no desire,no challenges,no problems,no reason to get up in the morning,nothing. a very boring life.
with your value system, it doesn't have any when they don't think it has any.
Do you want a kid to be 'punishment'? What a 'contribution to the world' will that kid turn out to be. Again, NO LOGIC, just dogma.
The human rights are based on a simple proposition. I don't need a text, to guide me, I have logic, which enables me to make up my own mind about a human rights laws, instead of taking the text as gospel. When they change something, I can decide whether I think it improves human rights or diminishes it.
The 10 commandments are not primitive to me BECAUSE they are 2000 years old (actually 3,000 to 3,300 years old), but because there is no advanced philosophy behind it. There are texts that are almost as old, that obviously represent much more advanced thinking, mostly from ancient Greece.
Lets address them:
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.
1-4 Are just religion confirming and shows 'god' to be a snowflake.
5 Family is important, but the idea that this is one-sided is primitive shit
6 duh
7 "Be honest to each other" is superior. People are not property.
8 duh
9 "Be honest" is superior. Just "your neighbor"? Tribalism!
10 What? A thoughtcrime? Unless you act on it, it's not a crime.
The ones that are 'duh' can be simply replaced with the idea that other people have rights. The 10 commandments are primitive crap, because it doesn't provide the simple basic values that humanism provides, like: Freedom, Equality, Compassion, Empathy, Critical Thinking / Inquiry, Justice, Love for Humanity, Environmental and Social Responsibility, Consent / Autonomy. It's missing all those principles, while several Greek philosophers were already providing the groundwork for them.
Even the new testament could do better, than the so-called "Divine Revelation".
A neutral eye can see 1000 years of human progression in the morality of it.
Did they supreme being improve their thinking over time? Strange idea.
But even the new testament is flawed. It's still very primitive, but better.
"1 world government" Bullshit right-wing propaganda!
I support countries, with sovereignty, working together for the benefit of all.
Supporting international solidarity isn't supporting a "1 world government".
why say duh to do not kill, you don't mind killing a baby in what should be it's safest place,it's mothers womb.
if it is not safe there, it is not safe anywhere with your mindset.
and how can anyone explain value of life to someone like you when you consider family 1 sided bullshit. you don't even value family.
i am wondering what you do value,other than the concept of controling everyone else while being free yourself
Apparently, I'm smarter than god, who didn't consider this.
However, it was just primitive people who came up with it, and it shows.
If you want to fuck other people, you're not in a good relationship.
Be honest about it and leave. Find happiness with someone else.
I DO mind killing a BABY, in it's mothers womb, but I'll allow abortion, for
good reasons, not willy-nilly, up to around 20-24 weeks, except special cases. Still, I am all for improvements in healthcare and culture, to reduce abortions.
Making abortions illegal doesn't result in less abortions, just more suffering.
Still unable to read? I think "Honor your father and your mother" is one-sided.
Why shouldn't parents honor their children? Did god not think of that?
The bible endorses killing a child if it doesn't obey its parents.
Are you fucking kidding me? Do you support THAT?
The bible is also full of killing ACTUAL babies. And it supports abortion.
It just supports it for when the man THINKS that his' woman fucked around.
Do YOU think THAT 'baby' has lost its 'value of life'?
I told you what I value; human rights. Basic values that humanism provides, like: Freedom, Equality, Compassion, Empathy, Critical Thinking / Inquiry, Justice, Love for Humanity, Environmental and Social Responsibility, Consent / Autonomy.
Not freedom for me, freedom for everyone. I just understand that the freedom
of one person can have a negative effect on the freedom of another person.
When you give maximum freedom to powerful and wealthy people,
they WILL negatively affect the freedom of a shitload of other people.
Do you really fail to understand that? It's not a difficult concept.
You really need to learn to read or are you just straw-manning?
i still don't get how you think we have rights just because we are born. rights and privileges are earned,
"i still don't get how you think we have rights just because we are born."
It's not something magical or supernatural, that makes me think
we HAVE rights, it's a principle. I ACCEPT it as true
(We hold these truths to be self-evident), for a PURPOSE.
The purpose is to improve civilization, for the well-being
of the most living and thinking beings who are part of it.
Do you think it was self-evident, that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? That was very much NOT self-evident, at a time when two sides had just stopped brutally murdering each other, over who controls the people and the continent. Your Founding Fathers wanted the wars to stop, so they DECIDED that people should have those rights. It was self-evidently NEEDED.
They goddamned didn't get it from god. God was nowhere to be found.
That was pragmatic make-belief (intentionally misspelled make-believe).
If everyone accepts human rights, that means less genocide and torture.
Because genocide and torture have a negative effect on civilization.
Human suffering has a negative effect on the motivation to solve problems.
Maybe not the problems causing the human suffering NOW, but definitely
all the other problems, that will or might cause human suffering long-term.
There is no morality, without living and thinking beings creating it.
The only thing that is objectively true is that some actions have a
positive effect on the well-being of the living and thinking beings
and other actions have a negative effect on the well-being of the
living and thinking beings. Some actions have a local or personal effect
and some actions a widespread effect.
That means morality is FLUID. Circumstances can change,
which can turn previously 'good' actions into 'bad' actions.
Still, the purpose behind the morality does not change, improve civilization.
When a horrible disease has killed humanity, except for 100 people,
I will surely change my mind on abortion. "Sorry, you were raped women,
we will punish the bastard, but you need to deliver this child."
"You won't have to care for it, if you don't want to and we will help you
during your labor. Humanity needs this from you. We need more humans."
This is not such a time.
in a world where even a donkeys life doesn't matter
Isn't this the 'Black lives matter' topic?
Or are you thinking that "XX =XY" is race related?
NO ONE is claiming that "XX =XY". That's just you failing to understand it.
There are people who were assigned the sex "Male" at birth, by the doctor, because they had all the "Male" characteristics at birth.
There are also people who were assigned the sex "Female" at birth, by the doctor, because they had all the "Female" characteristics at birth.
If you don't understand anything about it, then don't try to start a discussion on it.
I don't know anything about ART, so when phart tried to start a discussion on whether
the paintings made by Hunter Biden were art, I told him that we cannot discuss that, because NEITHER of us knows ANYTHING about art. On my vacation in Paris, I saw many paintings that looked like a toddler made them, but those were highly priced and treasured works of art. Maybe I would start to understand it, if I put in the effort studying it.
But, you come around and think that you know everything, on no effort studying it at all.
100% confidence, 0% knowledge. Just your "common sense".
Too bad, some thing are a scientific question, not a gut feeling.
You never say what you do for a living, or if your profession requires ANY knowledge
on any subject. If you do have that, and I don't, you could pull the "authority card" on that subject. Then you can call "bullshit". On not even elementary school "book smarts" on biology related subjects, you cannot do that, for the discussion around sex and gender.
Then I pull the "authority card" for at least understanding cell biology and genetics.
At least I'm willing to listen to what the specialists on the science subject have to say,
you only care to listen to propagandists.
You are incapable of a serious discussion.
Why do you even need this question answered? Do you find it difficult?
ALL LIVES MATTER! It's basically what my political views are based on; humanism.
That's why I support the principle that everyone has a right to a decent quality of life.
Can you tell me now how you support the principle that all lives matter?
But where the wall starts crumbling is when you want to take away from the achievers and give to the non achievers to level the playing field for the decent quality of life.
You have never explained what the motivation would be for the achievers to continue to achieve when they reap nothing more than what is necessary to survive from their efforts and those that do nothing are in a equal place in life.
If you achieve more, you should reap more. humanism does not account for rewards for success, just survival of all
to ANYTHING. If people don't have rights, they don't matter.
Of course humanism accounts for rewards for success.
It says people have a right to basic standards, to provide a fair shake in life.
That's not just good for those people, but for humanity as a whole.
The desire for MORE than basic standards provides the rewards.
Actually your preferred system eliminates the motivation to achieve, because it provides so much power and wealth to some people, that they never have to achieve anything anymore, because their power and wealth makes them infallible, no matter how stupid and evil they have become. That hurts society tremendously.
And if a baby is found in the forest, where is it written it has a "right" to anything? It has basic NEEDS like food and water,to survive, but even the bare needs have to be paid for somehow,has to be administered by someone, that cost MONEY, no matter how much you hate money, it takes it to do ANYTHING>
Do you understand what a RIGHT is? It's NOT something you have to work for.
Yes that baby has rights! Read your DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE!
It has the right to be free by our constitution . 2 different things.
Bill of rights says the baby can pursue happiness and have free speech and etc. But there is nothing that says the baby has a RIGHT to food and water. We just provide it to preserve life and prevent hunger.
Of course a baby will die if it's not provided by someone else to maintain it's life.
BUT, it has a RIGHT to someone else to maintain it's life. We have built a civilization that is capable of providing everyone with what's necessary to survive, humanity has decided that humans have those rights, and we have created laws to defend those right.
The US adopted the UDHR too. Did you ever bother to read it?
only registered users can see external links
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
How clear do you want it?
Why do you deny those facts? Do you think that is in your best interest?
Did someone tell you you don't have these basic rights? Why would they?
Maybe they consider you worthless, unless you make yourself worthwhile to them.
That's the last people you should support, if you have any self-respect.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
Do you think it just means the right to be free?
What is freedom to you? Is it freedom, if you don't have a right to survive?
And why keep talking about babies? Because they are powerless?
That doesn't matter. A strong, able and intelligent adult has the same rights.
So basically what you just stated in that first line is humans are slaves to the young, a right to someone to care for it? God forbid letting the parents take care of it right?
dark scary group of elites, in your mind. Nice ethics!
Are you kidding? Slaves to the young, because we ALL have human rights?
You think pregnant woman are slaves to their fertilized cell, zygote or fetus.
I think the woman has human rights, because she is a sentient human being
with a future, just like a baby. So, we consider everyone's human rights and
make the optimal decision. The whole benefit of a civilization is cooperation,
to assure human rights. If the parents cannot take care of a baby, civilization
has the responsibility to facilitate it's human rights.
You are contradicting yourself again:
"humans are slaves to the young, a right to someone to care for it?"
"God forbid letting the parents take care of it right?"
That means parents are slaves to their young. Unless you think they have a right to just let it starve. They don't, because that would put them in prison.
You're making my arguments for me.
You're saying a baby's life doesn't matter, as long as it has parents.
If it has no right to live, according to you, why does it's life matter?
There is no consistency to any of your ideas. My idea is simple and consistent; the more sentient a being is, the more priority it's right to life has. A bug has low sentience, so we can kill it if it's a nuisance. Still, all bugs on this earth as a whole, do have a right to live, by my opinion. That's a higher right to life, than I grant a pathogen virus or bacterium. A chicken has a bit higher sentience, so we can kill it for food, but we cannot torture it to death wantonly. There are laws against that.
A dog is considered even more sentient, so we don't allow killing it for food.
If a dog had the same sentience as a healthy adult human being, it would have the same rights. It's all very consistent; A basic principle, supported by reason, leading to conclusions.
Your view on the other hand, eliminates the rights of a woman, in favor of the 'rights' of a fertilized cell. But, somehow, when that fertilized cell has developed into a baby, it has no rights anymore, according to you. I find your explanations
for that completely lacking. What's your basic principle for it?
A fly hardly has any sentience, so we can kill it, if it's a nuisance.
That's literally what I said, and you're trying to find some got-you in it?
In any case, I usually try to catch flies alive. Not because I don't want to hurt them, but because insects are an important part of the ecosystem and insects are already declining. The higher the life-form, the more I care about it's life.
I asked you for your basic principles, for why (all) lives matter.
Do even you have any basic principles for ethics at all?
I don't care about some mugger getting shot when he raises a gun.
I care when they get shot while the cop isn't in any danger.
And there are too many of those cases.
Either your cops are fucking cowards, or they are bloodthirsty monsters,
and it's not some bad apples, it's a pattern of behavior.
I will say,alot of the cops that claim they felt they were in danger,probably were NOT and just took the safe route and shot anyway.
People that apply for a cop job should know by now in 2025 with all the media coverage that the job is unsafe and if they are chicken shits they should go apply at the local post office.
They are trained to be bullies and to escalate, to intimidate.
They are not trained to protect and serve, they are being trained to prioritize
their own lives over anyone else's, at all cost. They are trained to be cowards.
I think this is a reason for why there are so many people in prison in the US.
If you teach people to FEAR the police and the law, it should always be present
to assure lawful behavior from your citizens, but if you teach people to RESPECT
the police and the law, it stimulates lawful behavior from your citizens, when there
is no risk of punishment too.
Black people are afraid for their lives if a cop just talks to them.
Do you have any ability to imagine what that must be like?
Try to speak to a black person randomly in a store or something and most of the time,you get a friendly reply,maybe even conversation,
But there are those few exceptions, "oh that cracker is a racist i gots to be on the defensive" .
those are the only 1's you hear about on the news.
They are people, like you! What do you expect?
Besides the many stories of black people getting killed by police,
every single black person can tell you many stories about COPS bothering them, while they were just minding their own business, like shopping, traveling home or to work, jogging or exercising in a park, eating in their car near a drive-through.
No matter what normal shit they do, some COP asks "What are you doing here?".
Then they are expected to be very polite, or the COP instantly escalates the situation. But, being polite is no defense; if a COP is in the mood of bothering a black person,
it will continue. It's literal bullying, and it happens to black people a fucking lot. It's a constant pressure on black people to know their place. They better take it, because if they resist in any way, the COP ends their life. Then you come along telling me that they got themselves killed, by not being polite enough. THAT IS RACISM, because it doesn't happen to white people. On the news, you only see the bullying that ended
in the death of some black person, but there is a pattern of abuse behind it.
Then there are just instances where entering your house while holding a sandwich
is considered suspicious enough to get shot with several bullets. And then you think that's ample justification for a cop to shoot. But, that's not you being racist, right?
only registered users can see external links
I don't take on a job that consist of me being shot at,cussed and so on
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Black people are harassed by cops constantly.
Most black people just see it as a fact of life,
but some think this is not how it should be and protest it.
Those cops deserve NO respect and I think it's courageous to show that.
Your party once supported FREEDOM. Remember that time?
Or was that only for white people? Dumb question; of course.
You actually know I'm right, you just like it that way.
"A Black person is five times more likely to be stopped without just cause than a white person. A Black man is twice as likely to be stopped without just cause than a Black woman. 65% of Black adults have felt targeted because of their race."
only registered users can see external links
Prove them wrong!
This video is not completely related, but please listen to this American guy
who explains how much different it feels for him living in The Netherlands:
"I Found In The Netherlands What We Lost In America | An American Living In The Netherlands"
only registered users can see external links
We all know you hate America, you are a socialist and we do not want that shit here ananas2xlekker.
And they didn't mean cut money to police and not replace what police does in other ways.
Spend a few minutes on actually researching what they mean, and you would know that.
Biden increased police funding. You just keep straw-manning and making up shit.
Meanwhile Trump is cutting money to EVERYTHING that is important for Americans, even the police. Agencies who secure your elections, protect people against scamming financial companies, protect communities from environmental disasters and willful pollution, and that goes after corrupt politicians (dems as much as reps) that's police too.
I DON'T hate what America stands for, I love it! I hate what YOU stand for.
YOU ARE NOT AMERICA!!! You are a traitor to every single American principle.
I want a government of the people, by the people, for the people. That's SOCIALISM.
That makes me more American than YOU!
You deal drugs and someone dies from one pill then I say put the dealer to death.
Yes law enforcement usually secures the elections, but during shitty britches reign the law was weaponized against Republicans.
Talk about traitor, that is you. I was born here and I vote so I have a right to bitch; however you do not. By your definition of me, I guess 77 million Americans disagree with you.
Now run along little boy and mind your own damn business.
It's YOUR CONSTITUTION and you are crapping all over it.
Many of those 77 million Americans are already regretting their vote.
Many are saying "We didn't vote for THIS!".
But we warned that THIS would happen, so they DID vote for THIS!
They fucked around and found out.
Georgia has already been denied their Hurricane Helene relief extension.
Latinos who voted for Trump already see friends and family members get deported.
Farmers who voted for Trump are already complaining about his policies.
Teachers who voted for Trump are already seeing their job security at risk.
HE IS JUST ONE MONTH IN!!!
Lunatic extremists on the left have NO POWER WHATSOEVER.
Lunatic extremists on the right are RUNNING YOUR COUNTRY NOW.
Who had "Defund the Police" on their Trump Bingo card?
Kamala wasn't going to defund the police.
She was also not canceling the agency to protect you against international corruption.
She was also not going to make insulin expensive again.
She was also not cutting 70% of the cancer research budget.
I could go on, but you wouldn't care anyway.
Surely she wouldn't have let a bunch of hacker kids hack the treasury.
One of them was fired by a cybersecurity firm for leaking company secrets.
That's who you trust with 6 trillion tax-dollars and your secret information.
I might do a lot of the same, but I would let the guy breath.
It's possible to subdue someone without squeezing the life from them.
Even in a situation of self defense, you still have an obligation to use the minimum force necessary. If you don't do that and intentionally kill someone, who didn't need
to be killed, then there should be consequences for it.
NOT GUILTY.
The fellow that died was homeless. family friends apparently didn't give a fiddlers damn about him and left him out on the street knowing he needed help and should have been somewhere safe.
But now that the fellow is dead, his father is trying to cash in on his death. suddenly the family cares. because there is MONEY to be had.
He is a neoliberal; someone who wants to hand over everything to capitalism;
PRIVATIZATION. He just didn't get to destroy their public healthcare system, yet.
"Neoliberalism came to Canada with the government of Brian Mulroney in 1984. Mulroney initiated the privatization of Canada’s publicly owned corporations
(crown corporations). They included Air Canada, Petro-Canada, and Connaught Laboratories, one of the top vaccine companies in the world. Mulroney’s decision to enter into a free trade deal with the U.S. was a key moment in Canada’s neoliberal transition."
"It was extended to Mexico under NAFTA and ratified by the Chrйtien-Martin government. The Liberal government’s neoliberal architecture ... delivered massive cuts: from transfers to provinces for health, education, and welfare; cuts across almost all departments and agencies, social housing, and international assistance. It was followed by the privatization of the Canadian National Railway."
"A central consequence of decades of neoliberalism has been the rise of the oligarchs and the unprecedented increase in income and wealth inequality, including within Canada."
only registered users can see external links
Dams that held water in lakes that could be drank or used for fire protection were destroyed for the sake of a fish.
Taxes in that state are high, regulations are tight,and they STILL can't get it right.
Just proves that taxation and regulation only harms in the long term
only registered users can see external links
While the fire department's budget was cut, the police department's budget increased by $125.9 million, a roughly 7% increase. Is that wasted money?
As you know, you can't spend money twice.
So, lets agree that it would be very unwise if DOGE is going to cut funds for the fire department even further. OK?
What would not be dumb is to cut out social programs that provide safe spaces to do drugs and so forth. and cut out them damn methadone clinics to.
Those programs are intended to reduce harm on society.
There is nothing better to reduce the addiction problem than those programs.
They are also much more cost efficient in lowering crime, than raising police budgets.
The best solution to reduce the wildfires in California is to nationalize PG&E, and directly invest public money into modernizing their power grid. No company should be allowed to cause 1,500 wildfires in 6 years. Imagine the cost of the damage to their citizens.
Where the hell do you get your stories? The Santa Ynez Reservoir was closed for fish? It was offline this month for previously scheduled maintenance. If a reservoir that provides water to fire-hydrants needs maintenance, January would be the best month to plan it in. That's normally the month with the least risk for wildfires. The problem is that the climate isn't normal anymore.
his life didn't matter to much to him or he woulda known not to point a gun to his own head and pull the trigger.what else did he expect?
only registered users can see external links
"Gun-related deaths from preventable, intentional, and undetermined causes totaled 48,204 in 2022, a decrease of 1% from 48,830 deaths in 2021. Suicides account for 56% of deaths related to firearms, while 41% were homicides, and about 1% were preventable/accidental. Please note that the term gun is used on this page to refer to firearms that can be carried by a person, not to the larger class of weapon."
1% is shy of 500 people/year. You never cared about it before,
so why do you think it's newsworthy now?
One stupid black kid accidentally shot himself and that's what you think?
No, you just want to justify your hate for black people.
And what's the 'once again' about? The other black kid, who was dumb enough
to ring the doorbell in the evening, without knowing the address 100% surely?
Yeah, obviously that's not valuing your life, because that mistake is lethal.
Only in your fucked up country.
However, you only value the lives of zygotes and fetuses,
and everyone who has left the womb is worthless the next day,
so I'm not surprised you think that way.
You all were very clear that the old guy was justified
to kill that black kid ringing his doorbell in the evening.
You have lots of opinions about countries you've never been in.
And you don't know shit about anything, not even your own country.
My own family is tiny, I have just one brother. He has a white girlfriend.
My family in law are racists, they cannot even talk with black people.
Your black family members surely call you racist behind your back.
They don't agree with you, they just want to shut you up.
Racism is having negative opinions about a race in general.
Saying "black people do not value their OWN lives" is racism.
Even if some black people say it themselves, that's still racism.
If you don't understand that, that's ignorance.
Ask your black family members if they value their own lives.
And if they like it that phart generalizes them as people who
do not value their own lives, because they are black.
Blacks do not value their own lives or they would do something to stop killing each other.
NOTHING racist about that. Just a simple factual statement. EDIT, now that I think about it,it is showing sympathy for them and is a small attempt to wake them up to the problems.
IF I wanted to make what you feel is a racist rant I would further that by saying they ENJOY killing each other,it gets them on the nightly news.
You keep supporting gun rights without restrictions, which is killing tens of thousands of people of all colors. Most mass shooters are WHITE.
And you do NOTHING!!! Do you enjoy it?
It just makes them exactly the same as you. Do you value your own life?
You think healthcare is just for people who can afford it. You can not.
That's you not caring about your own life enough, to do something.
Racism is generalizing people by their color. What you are saying for ALL black people is objectively untrue for lots of black people. There are many black people organizing to solve their problems, working to keep their kids out of trouble and providing them with a future.
only registered users can see external links
True, health care is expensive for me,but my care is not everyone else's problem.
Yes, it is, that's called 'solidarity'.
The average animal cares more about it's peers,
than you want humanity to care about each other.
IF each person took care of them selves, there would be no need for all this solidarity crap.
"Social solidarity emphasizes the interdependence between individuals in a society, which allows individuals to feel that they can enhance the lives of others. It is a core principle of collective action and is founded on shared values and beliefs among different groups in society"
Groups, others, why not take care of 1's SELF!???
"Independent living means the ability to examine alternatives and make informed decisions and direct one's own life. "
Although I am partially handicapped, this concept should apply to everyone.
only registered users can see external links
Your idea just means survival of the fittest. This is what animals do.
Have you seen any animals building a civilization lately?
Humanity only survived and evolved because we developed our brains.
Without our brains we are just a weak, naked ape.
But one brain alone doesn't build a civilization.
We did that by working together as communities.
Every conflict between communities just set us back.
The communities that worked together on the most equal footing
and had the mentality of 'your problem is my problem' the most,
created the most progress.
"why not take care of 1's SELF!?" Because with that mindset
we would have been EXTINCT millions of years ago.
That's even less for people in another city nearby and even less again in the next state. When something bad happens in another country, most people will not consider that their community. If they see that country as
an opposing tribe, they might even consider their suffering welcome.
In any case, humanity has spread over the earth like locusts, affecting every square inch of its surface, the resources below it, every drop of water and every breath of air. There is no going back. If we continue
the way we have done, we will destroy the vulnerable balance of life
that supports our own lives.
The only way humanity can survive is to enlarge our sense of our tribe to the whole global community. Some people call that 'globalism' and consider it a bad thing. That's because they only see corrupt politicians and owners of corporations embrace 'globalism', who are the most selfish and least qualified people to save humanity. They just want to control the global population for their own wealth and power. If we want to save humanity,
we have to all enlarge our tribes and do it soon, or we will all see the demise of our small tribes, sooner than most of you think.
BUT for crying out loud what so hard for you to understand about a older person minding their own bussiness in their own home, being concerned for their safety in a country that the justice system is failing more and more every day,allowing criminals to roam like cattle in the streets?
How was the old man to know if the kid was ok and making a mistake or if he was there to harm and rob?
He wasn't wearing a sign.
Then the kid would have just said he was there to pick up his brother.
If he doesn't go away, after hearing he's at the wrong house, then it starts to get suspicious. Still no reason to shoot him, but a reason to threaten him with it.
You don't assume that someone is out to get you and kill them just to make sure.
If you are scared, don't open the door. Or buy one of those brackets that keep the door from opening completely.
If you shoot someone without justification, you should go to prison.
Unless the old man was demented as fuck, but then his family should have taken his gun away. If you are pro life enough to ban people from having sex, you should be pro life enough to take away the guns from people who are a danger to society.
Would you shoot someone just for ringing your doorbell?
If you would, you are not a responsible gun owner, but a threat to society,
and someone should take away your gun(s).
The justice system in your country isn't failing, you are failing!
Crime has been going down for decades and you are getting more afraid
by the day. Your fear is what causes all those murders.
No justice system can solve that.
It requires common sense gun reform and a culture shift.
Right-wingers are a bunch of scared little bitches. MAN UP!
Being old isn't a reason, thinking some random kid, the mailman, the neighbor
or your own family is a robber, that is a reason to get your guns taken away.
There is a line between your right to defend yourself
and other people's rights to be defended from YOU.
At some point old people get their drivers license revoked,
to protect the other people on the road. SAME THING!
i can't believe you are that naive.
you are educated past the point of thinking it is ok to leave old people at home alone with out defense.The only way I guess you will understand is when you get old and can still do things for yourself but your family says to hell with you and leaves you alone. living alone can be scary enough if you can defend yourself. much less being UNable to defend yourself and be at the mercy of thugs barging in on you in your own home.It is called home invasion. And the folks doing it don't exactly announce their intent.
No one is able to defend themselves against "thugs barging in on you in your own home". I'm not a small guy, but I'm probably not able to defend myself against two or three hardened criminals, so why should some old guy be able to defend himself against that? You are saying it yourself: "the folks doing it don't exactly announce their intent". Are you carrying your gun in a holster,
like a cowboy? Unless you have that gun at the ready, you won't have any time in that case.
You are a scared little kitten, for imagining you are in need of protecting yourself against that. And you have illusions of being Rambo, for thinking if that happens you can save yourself. There are almost no accounts of people actually defending themselves against actual violence like that. Meanwhile, there are 50,000 gun deaths each year. The risk of some old man or you dying from an accidental shooting is many many times higher than the possibility of you surviving an assault that you had otherwise not survived. All because of your fantasy that you might one day be forced to defend yourself, your risk resulting from everyone having guns is about 1000 times higher.
I'm sure you are not as stupid with guns as that rapper kid.
But there are lots of people walking around who are just that stupid,
and your ideas put a gun in the hands of all those stupid people.
There are way more stupid people than there are thugs who want to kill you.
Your cause of death will most likely be a lack of healthcare, which is also a result of your own ideas. If a bullet ends your life, it will either be from your own gun, the AR-15 from some lunatic mass shooter, some idiot discharging his gun by accident, some idiot doing target practice on his scrap wood fence when you drive by, or some other random thing you have no possibility of defending yourself against. Those things do not happen in my country,
where random idiots usually don't have guns to play with.
Well I HOPE you are never a victim of a crime. But if you are, and survive, I am willing to bet you are smart enough to put the facts together.
And another thing you seem to miss ,responsible gun owners KNOW how to USE their guns and when it is justified. protecting 1's life and family, is that justification.
Why is it that you can't understand that you can't secure the people with a few law men that are minutes away in a emergency? And why leave ALL defenseless because of a few loonies? The loonies not being kept locked up is part of what breeds insecurity.
I may not be able to run fast,or fight, But i am no so damn slow I am just going to sit here and let someone shoot me without them needing some corks to.
ok, that was being a smart ass but really, just because YOU don't care, doesn't mean the rest of us should not.
My life means alot to me,if I am gone, others i care about have no 1 else to depend on in their time of need. A criminal with intent to harm me, is like you,he doesn't care, he thinks he has the right to end my life. He don't. And I don't intend to let him without a fight.
I don't care about your fantasy of defending yourself.
I care about actual risks to my life being minimized.
In 5 years, about 650 people were killed in my country,
mostly by people they knew. Or criminals killing criminals.
We had three mass shooting in our whole history.
The risk that I need to protect myself is incredibly small.
Way smaller than your risk of getting killed, without you ever
having the chance to defend yourself or trying and failing.
Your risk of getting killed is much much higher.
You care more about your fantasy of defending yourself,
than about the actual risk to your life.
I prefer to live my life, instead of being too afraid to live.
I understand which risks are irresponsible and which are worth it.
Look at what several states have done recently in regards to guns, Louisiana for 1.
There is alot of stuff here you will love BUT, there are also clear statements made about it not being documented about guns preventing crimes well enough to prove 1 way or another.
That is done on purpose in my opionion.
only registered users can see external links
over 70,000 crimes prevented with guns in 2018. ok, let's say that they didn't have a gun but had a big stick, how high would that number be? And what do you tell those 70,000 potential victims if they ask why they shouldn't have a gun when it is documented that a gun prevented them from being a victim?
so why do you need to defend yourself in rural areas?
"According to the survey, firearms were used defensively in 166,900 nonfatal violent crimes between 2014 and 2018, which works out to an average of 33,380 per year."
This data is collected by means of surveys. Are they calling it using their firearm defensively, when they are in an argument and take out their gun to make the other guy back off? That's not a crime prevented, that's what leads to your 43,000 gun deaths per year.
In any case, if there is any truth to that number of crimes and prevented crimes, I understand you wanting to arm yourself. But that's your country being out of control. We don't have that. We don't have your violent crime and murder rates, so I have no reason to arm myself.
In my opinion, your violent crime and murder rates are caused by your 2nd amendment rights. You would be safer if you didn't have them.
IF guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns, is a old saying that's been around for decades BUT it is the truth and totally logical.
If you are of criminal intent, the sudden outlawing of your tool of choice to commit crimes with is NOT going to prompt you to surrender it to the first cop you see. You will sit back and wait until all the law abiding citizens turn in their guns and then use yours to further your criminal activity ,knowing full well your victims are defenseless.
This is that basic argument all gun lovers start with.
Being an 'outlaw' isn't in people genes. People become an outlaw when they commit their first crime. For some, that first crime is mass murder with an AR-15. For others, that first crime is shoplifting.
With guns being available to everyone as easy as in your country, it is easy to become a mass shooter or an armed robber. In my country, this is both difficult and expensive. They either have to go through the trouble of taking up shooting sports and getting a silence or they have to buy a gun on the black market. At that point, they have to involve themselves with (other) criminals, which is dangerous.
Our criminals are not in the gun selling business, because that is not profitable in our country, they distribute guns among themselves as their tools of the trade, which is mostly drugs-related. They are not interested in a small profit, because they are making millions in their business. They don't need the risk of the buyer being an undercover cop, a competitor messing with their business or a crazy person attracting attention.
Most mass murderers don't plan that far ahead or are not even mentally capable of planning and executing that. In your country, they just have a gun laying around. Armed robbers are mostly working alone. It is an inefficient crime;
to much risk for its reward. We had 467 armed robberies last year.
71% of them are caught and imprisoned.
In my country, anyone who is searched or arrested by police, having an unlicensed gun carries a prison sentence of maximum 4 years.
In your country, criminals can just walk around with their guns, looking for a chance to us it, without the risk of being imprisoned.
The situation where all law abiding citizens are defenseless already exists, in my country. Almost no one is allowed to carry a gun on them and all other gun owners either have their gun locked in a safe at the shooting range or at home. Of all licenses, 88% is issued for shooting sports. A much lower percentage than 12% (I cannot find the actual percentage) of licenses is issued for justified self-defense.
Even an owner of a jewelry store would need additional justification.
Target sports guns are all limited to .22. Hunting requires a two year course and exam. Any criminal would have terrible bad luck of ever meeting a law abiding citizen who can defend themself.
So, what are they waiting for?
You say "PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT",
but I have heard NO FACTS FROM YOU.
He is similar to a teen ager that thinks he knows the world and doesn't know how to change a tire.
Give him time and ananas will eventually wake up day and a light bulb will flash in his head as he looks around and realizes, when the liberal coke bottle glasses fall off,the world is not what he has been lead to believe.
And you are indoctrinated by corrupt politicians and media,
taking money from the military industrial complex and NRA.
You hear your arguments 24/7 from them, and parrot them along.
No one is telling me what to think.
I want everyone to have the freedom to live their lives and have the opinions they want, up to the point that it affects others in a negative way too much. I accept that freedoms have some negative side effects. The right to life, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom to protests, bodily autonomy, the freedom of commerce, the freedom of identity expression, the freedom of movement, and all the others I have forgotten, all have restrictions to protect other people, who have the same rights and freedoms. Those rights are not evenly important, your right to live is more important than some other persons freedom of religion or freedom to protests, and vice versa.
People have a right to defend themselves, as long as that right doesn't reduce the rights of other people too much. Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment does reduce the rights of other people too much. Too many people die (in violent attacks) because of your right to protect yourself against dying (from a violent attack). All your schools need to be protected with many armed guards, for your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The police is even too afraid to do their jobs of protecting people, because of your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. This is not acceptable. That's why you cannot have whatever tools you want, for your right to defend yourself. Only people who are at risk, because of their service to society, should have better tools to be able to defend themselves. An exception would be shooting sports, but I would strictly license those so the weapons are not used in self-defense, for people who are not at risk because of their service to society.
I am also a socialist, which means I support solidarity. The freedoms I support should improve society or at least not hurt it too much. As members of our society, we should not selfishly demand freedoms that hurt the majority of other peoples freedoms too much. Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment does hurt the majority of other peoples freedoms too much.
Furthermore; they (the officers) have to be worried constantly for anything they say or do. It is left up to public opinion or a corrupt soro's District Attorney or a corrupt libtard judge. PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT idiot.
You are an idot SOCIALIST is the major problem. Wanna be socialist and progressive libtards are also part of the problem. Open your eyes and be more attentive.
The police is afraid to go to any relational conflict, because there might be a gun involved. Our police officers don't have to be afraid like that.
The cops just walk up and say, "hey pedro, we got fresh califlower in at the jail downtown, you want some and your criminals just go get in the range rover and ride in for free food.
Violent crimes with guns are mostly related to the drugs crimes.
People fighting, beating or killing partners, r@pe, etc. mostly don't involve guns. Those are crimes, but not the usual behavior of career criminals. People who commit those violent crimes have no guns.
In my country that is, in your country they mostly do have guns.
My country is even more capitalist in some sectors of the economy.
We just still have some social safety net, regulation and democracy left,
which is intended to protect capitalism. If you take it away from people, they either turn to socialism or fascism. The last is happening to you.
only registered users can see external links
Listen to what he got arrested for.
Keep listening and learn something about your two-tier justice system.
A liberal supports maximizing freedom for the individual,
a socialist supports maximizing cooperation within humanity.
You probably don't like about "the libs" that they support maximizing freedom for ALL individuals, which means they support "equality".
"... all Men are created equal ..."
"... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all ..."
Fuck the "... under God ..." part that Eisenhower added.
Being liberal on social issues means I support maximum PERSONAL freedom, because that involves people's personal choices. The limit is where those personal choices impact other people too much.
What is "too much", is complicated. It's not being offended.
Being liberal on economic issues means supporting people's economic freedom. The problem is that those choices ALWAYS impact other people, because money is INTERpersonal, by definition. Supporting people's maximum freedom on financial choices, will immediately result in exploitation and fraud, which impact the economic freedom of others.
Make your mind up about what you think I love, will you.
You're making a fool of yourself.
No one has the right to not be offended.
Free speech is the right to offend.
However, you could only change my mind with ARGUMENTS, which you are never providing. Simultaneously, it's impossible for me to change your mind, because you are completely IMMUNE to arguments. Therefore, our interaction is only worthwhile if we both would enjoy it.
I don't think either of us did. It's not me though, it's you.
Libtards are stubborn as hell and only vote for a D. I weigh both against each other unlike you.
You actually could, if you were right on something. It's easy, you just need to have a fact on your side and a logical argument tying the fact to an opinion. If there are no facts that contradict your opinion and there are no better arguments contradicting your opinion, I have no reason to disagree with you. However, I've been trying to get any facts and logic out of you for months, but you just can't do it.
I'm not a libtard and the Democratic party has no loyalty from me.
Some of my opinions are set in stone, because I do not base the value of human life on facts and logic. All my other opinions are based on facts and logic and are therefore changeable to facts
and logic. Calling things bullshit or calling me stupid are not going
to change my mind. No one would change their mind for that.
“ Libtards are stubborn as hell and only vote for a D.”
Not true.
And AI says,
"Although historically related to social liberalism and progressivism, the current relationship between liberal and progressive viewpoints is debated. Modern liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party while modern conservatism is typically associated with the Republican Party. "
And this link says,
"https://news.gallup.com/poll/467888/democrats-identification-liberal-new-high.aspx"
54% vote democrat,that is a majority.
'
"Tecsan
“ Libtards are stubborn as hell and only vote for a D.”
Not true."
And uh, Only joking here but you basically called yourself a libtard when you made this post!
in your last election.
The #1 issue they pointed out, in a YouGov poll: Biden's support of Israel doing mass murder of Palestinians and Harris not promising any real change.
29% Support of Israel doing mass murder
24% The economy
11% Immigration
only registered users can see external links
Of course, this is their OPINION, it doesn't mean they were right
or now regret staying home. That's a nice subject for another poll.
Civil rights are such a concern in regards to people that have ALREADY committed a crime and are being punished for it, but yet, just being old and not trusting every stranger that comes to your door makes you a danger and you should be locked away is perfectly ok??
Young people that think this is a great idea are forgetting 1 thing, they will either get old if they don't die first. And they are wisked away to the old folks farm just for being cranky about a cold coffee at micky d's, then it 's to late for logic.
I understand wanting to own a firearm for protection. Many do and they come in all ages, but, how realistic is it that it will prevent harm to you? Isn’t it true that most of the time, when the firearm is in a handy place like your living room table, YOU ARE TAKING A DUMP?
I’m not sure how it is in your state but, in Florida, the only way you can be put away temporarily if you didn’t commit a crime, is to get Baker Acted. That is good for a few days while a court orders an evaluation on your mental state. Most times they have to let you go.
I have a couple guns that are not popular,nothing hardly worth stealing, but 1 is where I am sitting now and the other is the other location I normally am and you wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of the barrel of either because i have practiced
That may not be what he is thinking but it kinda reads that way
Is that what this was to you? He was just old and didn't trust every stranger ringing the doorbell, therefore it's OK that he shoots anyone who rings the doorbell after 8 pm, because he should be able to defend himself?
How about defending society from someone who is afraid enough
to just kill for such a stupid reason?
The people you should be most afraid of are right-wing extremists
with a huge gun fetish. Would I be allowed to snipe one of those,
if they set one foot on my property?
I know we have castle laws here in some states but most require the enemy to be entering or in the structure first from what I can remember reading.
It is not ok that he shot him, but it is easy to understand WHY he felt threatened. we have what is called home invasions here in the US, and most are done to rich or disabled or elderly people.
Stupid reason? Not trusting strangers is not stupid it is being proactive in protecting 1's self from threats.
you don't have the necessary responsibility to own a gun.
If your laws protect people who shoot people for feeling threatened,
without their lives actually being highly at risk, then they're wrong.
Our laws are well tuned to defend the innocent. Self defense is an important right to defend the innocent. However, the one doing the violence is most often the one who's infringing on the right of the innocent. It doesn't allow for violence at the slightest suspicion that someone is doing something illegal. Even if someone is doing something illegal, we don't allow citizens to do violence against that person, unless the illegal act directly causes an imminent threat to the life or health of a person.
Self-defense or the defense of someone else is limited by law to the maximum level of violence that is needed to stop the imminent threat.
In practice it would need to be at the level of someone charging with a knife, to be allowed to shoot that person, if you by some reason have a gun. However, most people don't have a gun, because by law the police has a "monopoly on violence".
The basic principle of Dutch law is that citizens do not have the right to own or carry a gun. Possession of a pistol or revolver is punishable by three months (unconditional) imprisonment, possession of an automatic firearm is punishable by nine months. The maximum penalty for illegal possession of a category 2 and 3 weapon, such as a rifle, is 4 years’ imprisonment or a fine of Ђ45,000. The maximum penalty for illegal trafficking in firearms is 8 years’ imprisonment or a fine of Ђ45,000.
There are some exceptions to get a license for a gun. The basic principle is that you have a good reason for it. Being old is not a good reason. Having a job that puts you at risk could be a good reason. Being a hunter or a sports shooter is a good reason to own a gun, but not to have it at home. A collector of guns would be able to get a license to collect guns at home, but if they would be able to shoot modern bullets, then they should be made not functional.
It's not necessary to get a license for a big knife, a bow, a crossbow, or a blowpipe, as far as those are freely sold. Personally, I own a huge survival-knife, a cheap machete and a blowpipe with steel darts. I bought a set of throwing knives too once, but I cannot find them anymore. In case of someone entering my house uninvited, I would get the survival-knife and the machete. Still, I cannot just claim self-defense, if the intruder ends up dead. That would definitely be investigated. It still requires a justification to use lethal force. They won't believe a skinny 5ft teenager would try to fight a 6ft2 guy with a huge knife, unarmed or with a small stiletto. We are not allowed to defend property with lethal force.
I understand that you lot have the 2nd amendment. Understand that we don't. The principle of our government is that allowing everyone to defend themselves with firearms makes everyone LESS SAFE. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but your gun death statistics clearly shows our approach is correct. We don't have children getting massacred in school so much, that schools need armed guards and kids need to go through
the trauma of Active Shooter Drills.
so you don't care about a person feeling unsafe if they are old? what do you suggest doing with a older person who is in fear for their life if you don't want them to be able to defend themselves?
1 detail you leave out, some folks are not physically able to shoot a bow and arrow,or throw a knife. a gun is much easier to hold,and operate. it can even have a laser added so the person can shoot for the shoulder for example.
bump stocks were designed for us that have disability's and have issues holding a gun with alot of recoil. I would like to see you use that knife after you get a bad case of arthritis or loose your ability to maintain your balance. it won't work as well and your assailant will just laugh at you.
Well my government has been fucking me hard for the last 4 years and I never got pregnant
Me me me it’s always about them
Committing a massive amount of crime in relationship to their small population base.
No, not the massive fraud and scams that evaporates granny's pension.
That's mostly WHITE MEN and goes unpunished most of the time.
The criminals who do the most damage, are white guys in expensive suits.
(Read it in the way I meant it; not 'all white guys in expensive suits are criminals', but ...)
Look up some polls about how people feel about Luigi Mangione
and the CEO Brian Thompson, who he killed. Yes, Mangione is a killer,
but most people say the same about Thompson. Why would they think so?
Why did the family not help Jordan Neely when he really needed help instead of waiting to capitalize?
Forty felony arrests...give me a damn break.
So, he's gonna have to live with the pure contempt of the fascists.
Of course not for him, but for YOU and everyone else who voted for Trump,
because they had trouble affording groceries.
I saw older guys, who were living on social security, disability or unemployment benefits saying they voted for Trump, hoping he would make it easier for them to afford groceries. Understand that their INCOME and all other costs of living are more of a factor in their ability to afford groceries. Let's have the discussion in 4 years,
if those people, living on social security, disability or unemployment benefits, will be more able to afford groceries then. You know my prediction. What do you predict?
The price of a product is determined by the manufacturer. Ask them.
I can answer too. There wasn't 291% inflation or a 291% increase in costs
for the manufacturer, they just decided that their product would still sell
well enough at 99 cents and then they would make more profit.
A simple supply and demand consideration, which is made easy when customers don't blame them management for the decision to fuck over their customers,
but who are stupid enough to blame Democrats for that obvious price gauging.
It would be very easy for me to steal your stuff, if I'm sure you are going to blame your black neighbor. That's what your food manufacturers and supermarket executives are doing.
The company needs a certain % of profit over expenses. Or it is a waste of time to run a company at all.
If the cost of materials,labor and so forth go up , the price has to go up to cover the cost and maintain a profit margin. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
If cost of fuel goes up 14%, steel goes up 30%, paint goes up 30%,for a product, just those 3 items increase cuts away profit big time. of course i know you don't want people to profit from taking risk and investing and working hard. sorry, i forgot.
only registered users can see external links
"All Urban Central is your news source for todays pop culture and urban entertainment. Stay Updated with the latest Hip Hop / Rap Music Videos releases, interviews, lives, red carpets, and social media updates from the world of entertainment and urban pop culture."
No, I'm not interested in todays pop culture and urban entertainment.
Hip Hop and Rap Music is also not my thing. I'm more of a (hard) rocker.
News about celebrities and the entertainment industry is not news to me.
News is supposed to inform you about things happening in the world, that have
an impact on your life, liberty and future. It should hold powerful people to account,
who are messing with your life, liberty and future. It should be objective, profound
and transparent. If it isn't, it's a waste of time.
I'm not opposed to wasting my time, I'm just not interested in this waste of time.
"In retrospect, I wish I’d posed a variation of the old election-year question. I’d have asked if their lives are better after the last 40 years, not just four. Then again, they may have given me the same answer I heard over and over: It’s so messed up."
There is absolutely no depth of thinking there. No principles, no analytical capability,
just simplistic gut feelings and thinking anecdotes are representative of the world.
They probably flip from party to party, every time asking themselves: "Did my life become better under this president?". Yes? I'll vote for the same party. No? I'll vote for the other party. If this is how far your understanding of the world goes, stop voting, because you're not able to make a justified decision.
I even have more respect for a principled right-wing conservative, than someone who votes for Democrats over gut feelings. Being wrong is better than not thinking at all.
However, as obvious from this story, Fox 'News' supports those stupid gut feelings.
just simplistic gut feelings...
Your ideas are just limited to "socialism bad!". You're a primitive numbskull.
You know NOTHING! You picked up some talking points on social media and your propaganda outlets and that's it. Try to actually learn some things about capitalism, communism, socialism, etc., before you think you know better than me.
Socialism is an economy and government structure, with the purpose of providing
all people with the most equality in power. Woke is an ideology of equality as a person, instead of grouped into a race or sex and of personal freedom.
These principles are at best compatible. You don't even know what these terms mean, but you have heard it's bad and that's all you know.
How is it "common sense" to give away power over your life to some wealthy assholes or religion, which is based on what ignorant, iron age people wrote in some book.
And I think it’s funny
I just love watching you liberals squirm
DEI is not the same as woke.
DEI is just a management strategy to get the best out of people.
but he is also ignorant as fuck about a lot of things.
Just hearing him talk, makes clear that there is something wrong with his brain. He either has Asperger's or autism.
Second, it's just a completely vapid thing to say.
"Go WOKE and go BROKE"? Why? There are very rich woke people.
There are even people making money off woke.
Woke is a strategy in advertising, if the product is intended for that market.
It's just an example of Elon Musk saying something stupid, to please stupid people.
only registered users can see external links
Shame on you for discriminating against the disabled.
I am willing to bet good money if you had a diagnosis like that you would be sitting at home drawing a disability check instead of revolutionizing the Transporation industry and making leaps and bonds in space tech.
--------------------------------------- added after 22 hours
Destroying historical statues is despicable and against the law.
Take a bath before a flight?is it to much to ask?
Having worked with black people, there have been times the smell was intolerable.
You and Soros would probably fall in love with each other if you ever met each other.
Whenever your side gets excited, you chant: "The Jews will not replace us!"
Sometimes, intrusive protests are necessary to fight injustice,
like in the case of a country committing a genocide.
Why do you even care about students blocking their University?
If it was up to you, there wouldn't be any. You hate knowledge.
"Open Society Foundations (OSF), formerly the Open Society Institute, is a US-based grantmaking network founded by business magnate George Soros. Open Society Foundations financially supports civil society groups around the world, with the stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media."
That's the exact opposite of anarchy.
If you'd care about division, you would hate Donald Trump.
Weak arguments! If he wasn't a Jew, right-wingers wouldn't care about him.
Your whole replacement theory is based on a Jew conspiracy.
You're side are the anti-semites. Trump is an anti-semite.
You just hate Muslims even worse, so you endorse their genocide.
The folks that went to college for the right reasons couldn't even graduate in peace because of his money
a lot of paid chaos actors amongst them. And those are not paid by George Soros,
unless he supports Israel in their genocide. Also, there is clear evidence now that
most of the violence is coming from the counter-protesters.
Understand that every little bit of damage or violence being associated with anti-genocide protesting only hurts the cause. My Socialist Party very much supports anti-genocide protesting, but because of damage to our universities, we have not joined them. We are however in discussion with one of the most law-abiding, peaceful groups and might join them in their next protest. Worth to mention is that they have actually achieved some of their goals and that university is actually considering cutting ties with some Israeli universities.
I do need to note that cutting ties with all Israeli universities is not necessarily
a good thing. It depends on how much they support their government in committing
a genocide. The strongest protests within Israel itself is actually coming from the highly educated community, associated with some universities. The last thing my side should do is alienate them. They deserve all the support we can give them, because the extremist Netanyahu government is already cracking down on them.
Right-wingers always hate free speech, everywhere in the world.
The goal of going to university is not to graduate, but to LEARN. If graduating
is more important to them, than international law and preventing a genocide,
then they don't deserve to 'graduate in peace'.
Normally those people fund Republicans. Just not Soros.
They just need to demonize him, for that reason.
Or google "opensecrets george soros".
only registered users can see external links
You could Google translate this Dutch article to English:
only registered users can see external links
I do not care much about George Soros specifically. The people who do care so much should ask themselves why rich people are allowed to have so much influence in your politics at all. They can vote, just like you, that should be enough.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
" Cities under the influence of Soros-backed prosecutors are less safe than a decade ago. The promise of increased safety was an illusion."
Organizing is not paying protesters to protest.
And you are associating that with violent protesters? Bullshit!
If Soros is funding Jewish Voice for Peace, then I am pleasantly surprised.
I'm a member of Environmental Defense. They helped organize protests against big polluters, the sad state of our climate policies and TTIP. They are also funding lawsuits against big polluters and our government not acting to protect its people.
Do you think that is supporting 'anarchy and division'? If so, you're a dumb-ass!
We are protesting the destruction of nature and humanity. If that causes people some mild inconvenience, they might think of the inconvenience that the dying of nature and humanity will cause them.
Was the German anti-Hitler resistance causing 'anarchy and division' too?
Trumpists only care about the other side getting bribes from the wealthy,
while their party only exists to do the bidding of the wealthy.
Is that it? Or is there more?
Because I agree that is pretty bad. Supporting Palestinians is the opposite of supporting the terrorists, who not only killed and kidnapped many innocent people,
but now obviously also assured the impending murder of many Palestinians by Israel.
Meanwhile, you are saying that the whole Gaza strip should be taken in by Israel.
That is a horrific statement that you should be ashamed for.
But save yourself the trouble, because it doesn't matter.
A terrorist has no level of depth, they don't want to descend to.
That's why no one cares when Israel kills those terrorists.
But there are standards that nation states have to uphold.
That's why they shouldn't lower themselves to the level of terrorists.
Do you understand that? It very much appears like you don't.
I am not going to 'research' all the incredibly incremental and anecdotal shit,
that you want me to look at, because you are not taking your responsibility
to do general research into world problems that really matter.
Are you telling something new, that I didn't 'research'?
For everything that happens in the world, you just listen to propaganda.
I do the hard thing; researching the causes and solutions.
You don't add anything significant to that discussion.
Israel descents bombs that kill innocent people. At least 8,000 now.
More than 40% of the Palestinians killed in Gaza are children,
the child death toll has reached 3,457 yesterday.
I asked you a question:
Should nation states lower themselves to the level of terrorists?
I do not support the killing of civilians, even if they agree with terrorist acts,
and of course I do not support killing children, not by intent and not 'by accident'.
I do not support Hamas; I am fine with Israel killing every single one of them, without a trial. It's not what a civilized country should do, but clearly you are OK with a country just executing people they call terrorists. I agree it would be to much to ask to arrest and judge all Hamas terrorists, therefore just hunting them down and shooting them is fine by me. However, I draw the line at bombing whole apartment buildings for a claim that there are Hamas terrorist hiding there. That is causing too much collateral damage.
Now, if that is too much to ask, from a country which calls themselves a democracy, then it is lowering itself to the level of terrorists. I do not support terrorist act, not from Hamas and not from Israel. That makes me better than YOU. Even while I don't believe in a soul or karma, supporting terrorist acts is something my conscience does not allow. I don't know if you expect to be judged by a god after you die, but if you do, ask yourself if that god would be OK with you supporting what Israel is doing. Maybe the god from the old testament would allow it, but I thought Christians supported Jesus. And that Jewish socialist hippie would not like you, for many reasons, but also for this.
I don't want Israel to be genocidal maniacs, because that WILL cause more hate and extremism. That's the opposite of supporting terrorists.
I want less terrorists, not more. When will you understand that your way of 'fighting terrorism' only creates MORE OF IT? You really didn't learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein
Why should I care about censure of congress persons?
Those are just political games. That's not what censure is intended for.
You answered (Nov 11, 00:46): "Hell fucking yes,..."
I asked you: "Is there a level of brutality that you would criticize Netanyahu for, or does he have carte blanche?"
You answered (Oct 31, 04:41): "He has carte blanche, gold and platinum until all of them uncivilized savage SOB are dead and yes palestinians that support hamas as well."
On Oct 31, 23:50 you added: "That's what YOU ARE SAYING, by saying Netanyahu "has carte blanche, gold and platinum until all of them uncivilized savage SOB are dead and yes palestinians that support hamas as well." DAMN FUCKING STRAIGHT."
I said: "Stop bombing hospitals, schools and apartment buildings. Stop cutting off people from water, food and power. Stop doing genocide."
You answered (Nov 1, 23:39): "Like I stated to you, hard to do when the cowards use hospital and civilians for cover."
On Nov 1, 23:52 you said: "Yes it is end of time for some and it is the end of civilation for those left standing."
When you implied that Israel is trying to minimize collateral damage, I said "No they are not, that will not result in 8000 deaths, with more than 40% children."
You answered (Nov 3, 01:46): "Actually it does not matter how many deaths it takes if palestinian hamas is fucking annihilated. That will guarantee that they will not do anymore terrorist acts. They are fucking savages and deserve to die. Coward bastards hide behind innocent civilians, no how the fuck do you suppose we kill the fuckers without collaterl damage and ensure in the process they will do no harm to more innocents."
That's you clearly not caring about innocent Palestinians dying and supporting Netanyahu even if he kills ALL OF THEM. That's genocide. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO'S LYING!
Feel free to keep that crap up. I will not though. Again I do not mind if you feel it necessary. PM, 'p' means private.
If you don't want your PM's copy-pasted here, don't lie that I'm lying.
women and children around them.
It's like if a cop shoots an RPG into a crowd, to kill a murderer.
They can kill the terrorists, but not the civilians, period.
But Netanyahu wants to kill civilians, because he's an evil bastard.
Netanyahu even supported Hamas, so he would be allowed to kill civilians.
So if you want to kill Hamas supporters, start with Netanyahu.
But it's applicable that we have this discussion in this forum.
Your own question is: "do All lives matter...". Your answer is definitely: 'NO!'.
I must admit, this is a strange but good thing,
only registered users can see external links
So I guess i will go by there and eat a little more often.
Just because Israel does fucked-up shit, doesn't make Hamas good.
Israel is stealing land, because of their horrible religious beliefs.
Hamas just gave them the justification to steal more land and kill more Palestinians
and Israel is taking that justification. I would be surprised if they don't steal the North
of the Gaza strip now.
Hamas is just a horrible Islamic extremist organization, who is using the suffering
of the Palestinians to spread their horrible ideology.
There is no good side here, only evil sides.
Well, that would make them worse than Hamas, or don't you think so?
And what is keeping hamas from leaving with the palestinians just to come back when the shit settles down?
this is a terrible situation, but hamas had no business attacking for no reason ,that is why it is terrorism and a swift, brutal response is in order to deter further attacks
Israel has been in the cross hairs for so long,It is easy for me to understand why and how they came to this point of "fuck it, kill em all". Enough is enough. Israel was given the Jews in 1945 to try to give them a new start in the land holy to them,
hamas and iran are right in the same boat with hitler regarding the jews.it was fine to go after hitler but suddenly the jews are just supposed to sit back and take it?? Naw, let them defend themselves.They have been persecuted enough.
"Israel was given the Jews in 1945" People were already living there!
Only people who own something have the right to give that something away.
How would you like it, if we give your state to the Palestinians?
"Israel has been in the cross hairs for so long"
As they should be, for stealing people's houses and land.
I don't give a fuck if the land is holy to them. They don't have any more right to it than the people who lived there and also claim their land is holy to them.
Israelis and Palestinians are genetically indistinguishable from each other.
The only thing that divides them is those fucking religions.
Man, do I wish that people can finally get past that bullshit.
How would you like to be in a prison,watch your family be taken to a oven and burned, and be rescued, and given a home, only to grow up and have to fight just to be left alone?
All that has to happen is the hamas group be eliminated.
And hasbroloa or how ever you spell it. BUT the Palestinians aid and abet hamas, so are they innocent?
Don't you know any history? Then there was a new region that didn't exist before, stolen from Palestine and it was called Israel. Then from then forth, Israelis kept stealing houses and land and slowly or not so slowly enlarged Israel and reduced what was left of Palestine. They kept building houses for Israelis in occupied territory, breaking every treaty that was ever made and breaking international law.
Israel has been a horrible apartheid regime for decades.
They have never accepted the sovereignty of Palestine, they have never been serious about peace and they have only ever aspired to the destruction of Palestine.
"they are citizens and have a right to be just as any Palestinian has."
Then why are you allowing them to take it from the Palestinians?
No, the Palestinians are not innocent. As I told you before, there is no good vs evil here. There is just a people with longer rights to the land, which are the Palestinians, and there are conquerors, who are the Israelis.
Palestinians are stupid to look to horrible Islamic extremists for their protection, because horrible Islamic extremists don't care about people. They only care about spreading their ideology and they would sacrifice anyone for that goal.
only registered users can see external links.
"Early in the second century A.D., the Emperor Hadrian prohibited the Jews from entering Jerusalem. From that period dates the dispersion of Jews throughout the world. Since then, until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, no Jewish Government has existed in Palestine. Although some Jews have always lived in Palestine, their numbers have fluctuated depending on the tolerance of the successive rulers."
It used to be acceptable to just create a big militia, enter an area that doesn't belong to you, kill and subjugate all the inhabitants and place your flag on it.
At some point, civilization decided that this is no longer acceptable. In the 18th century, the 'Right of Conquest' is a right of ownership to land after immediate possession via force of arms. It was recognized as a principle of international law. Then after the Second World War, the 'Right of Conquest' was outlawed as a crime against peace, introduced in the Nuremberg Principles, in 1945.
There is an argument for claiming that Palestine had been legitimately conquered by the British empire and the land of Israel was legitimately 'gifted' to the Jews, calling it Israel. However, international law has encouraged many conquering nations, who owned land they conquered before 1945, to give back that land to its original occupants. Still, I would personally recognize the original borders of Israel, but I consider it a crime against the freedom of religion, which was at that time laid down in every constitution, to define Israel in its declaration of independence as a "Jewish state". I also consider it a crime against international law, every time Israel expanded its borders at the detriment of the Palestinian state. According to international law, the colonies in occupied Palestine are illegal.
I'm sure you don't like how children are getting bombed to death either.
But you are still supporting Israel to keep doing that.
Nearly 5,100 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip,
nearly half of them are children. That's terrorism TOO!!!
How about being a 'realist' on that?
The truth, in my mind, is that all war is an act of terrorism, just in a bigger scale. We tend to separe killings by the number of people killed in each occasion. One person killing another is an act of terrorism. One nation killing five million +/- people is terrorism. Shooting innocent civilians from a hang glider is that too. Some people say that war is Hell. It’s a gentrified way of saying that in war, killing it expected without any concern for whom gets in the way.
As I’ve said before in different words, I’m mortified about the suffering of ALL CHILDREN, but not so much for the people that started this, directly or indirectly.
But I don't think you can say they 'started this'. This conflict has been going on for decades and the atrocities performed by Israel, during most of that time are just as horrible.
Before this terrorist act, Israel has been killing many Palestinian children too. They have snipers killing children from the guard towers. How is that different from Hamas' terrorist attack?
report on many cold-blooded murders.
If there is a justification for Israel to do horrible things, than your one-sided 'the past is the past' is not fair.
Your government has outlawed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which non-violent international diplomacy support for the right of Palestinians to exist, so you cut of their methods for non-violent protesting. And when they do violent protests it is a justification to mass-murder them.
So what you're saying is that Palestinians should just shut-up and take whatever Israel does to them. What is left for them? Just wait until Israel or the rest of the world decides that they have a right to live somewhere too?
Public opinions on the BDS movement and anti-BDS laws
Edit
According to University of Maryland's Critical Issues Poll from October 2019, a majority of Americans oppose anti-BDS laws; 72% opposed laws penalizing people who boycott Israel and 22% supported such laws. The poll also found a strong partisan divide on BDS; among those who had heard of BDS, 76% of Republicans opposed the movement, compared to 52% of Democrats.[8] In a 2019 poll from Data for Progress 35% to 27% opposed anti-BDS laws. Split by party affiliation, 48% of Democrats opposed anti-BDS laws and 15% supported them; 27% of Republicans opposed anti-BDS laws and 44% supported them. 70%-80% believed boycotts were a legitimate protest tactic.[9] According to a 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center, 5% of Americans support BDS and 84% do not know much about it. 17% of Republicans have some familiarity with BDS compared to 15% of Democrats, while 7% of the latter and 2% of Republicans support the movement.[10]
CAT
Ananas, the laws you are talking about affect government contracts and entities, but, the public has access to the BDS and their political views. Bottom line? Israel and Palestine are now, and have been, in a state of war.
I know you have a narrow view of the freedoms we enjoy in this country, especially as to what’s available to us in the news. I believe you are confusing what the great unwashed of this country consider worthy of them to find out about with what is really available. That’s two different things.
Even if most people supported anti-BDS laws, it would still not be OK to pass them, because BDS is free speech, which is protected by your Constitution. Is it OK to pass laws that are in conflict with the Constitution?
It that 'a narrow view of the freedoms you enjoy in your country'?
When politicians in my country try to pass laws that are in conflict with our Constitution, they are immediately pushed back by either the House of Representatives or the Senate or not immediately but later some judge.
We don't even need a Supreme Court to get that right.
You do have a Supreme Court, who's only job is testing laws against the Constitution. How can your country fuck up that responsibility so much?
The people you elect are not doing what you want, but what their donors want.
Republicans made it even easier for themselves; they made their voters think they want what their donors want and they made them think what they get is what they want.
In short, the donors decide what you get. That's not democracy.
True, there are many other countries like that, but that doesn't make
it good. America once provided the best example for democracy.
You could do that again, but you got to have better standards for politicians. They should serve you and not just themselves.
It also relies on having choices for who to vote for
and accurate, objective information about those choices.
In a winner takes all system, like the US, the people are forced to vote for either one of the two corrupt parties, or their vote is meaningless. Since all your media is owned by big corporations who use it as their personal propaganda outlet, you are only getting told the truth, if they want you to know the truth and then they still always put their own spin on it.
That's why the US is ranked 36th by Quality of Democracy.
only registered users can see external links
You're followed by Cape Verde, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago.
Restoring democracy will happen when all the libs are ousted. You know that Ananas2xLekker.
BTW who the fuck cares what others think of us, we know you hate America as many other turds hate America.
How do you define democracy exactly? Sort of like Putin does?
their principles on how the country needs to be organized?
you are a much more civilized person to talk with even when in total disagreement than Leo. But I will say the same thing I said to him. along with the criticism, share some solutions. Jerusalem is where Jesus was born, that land is holy to the jewish people. millions were slaughtered by hitler, a group of civilized countrys, made it so their holy land would legally be their home. IF you watch the videos I posted on another thread for leo, Truman explains the people that left the land, were COMPENSATED for it, it was NOT stolen.
The only thing holy to a muslim is having your blood all over themselves while laughing and chasing a goat for pleasure.
Likewise, does Israel have no justification to commit terrorism.
The definition of terrorism is: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Many acts of Israel are terrorism, by definition.
Still, Israel has the right to defend itself.
Israel is allowed to attack Hamas terrorists.
But their level of 'collateral damage' is unacceptable.
It's you, who is defending terrorism, not me.
Also Palestine has the right to defend itself.
If they attack an Israeli military target, that's not terrorism.
Just as it wouldn't be terrorism if Israel targets JUST Hamas.
It's the percentage of innocent civilians getting killed, that makes it terrorism.
It's the methods and the results that define terrorism, not which side commits it.
you have no idea how good you have it. They don't have a choice.
Throwing away freedom is easy, getting it (back) is almost impossible.
Even Netanyahu supported Hamas, because Hamas assures him no peace.
Whenever Hamas kills his people, he is justified to keep stealing more land.
only registered users can see external links
I would rather no innocent people were hurt or killed,I would rather hamas had never attacked those folks at that shin dig and killed them.BUT hamas did and now they are reaping the harvest from the seeds of hate and violence they sown, They hopefully will get a bountiful crop, looks like about half the place is flat already.
with your own concept of 'to the victor go the spoils'.
Just because that's often how war goes, doesn't mean it should be.
The traitors of your civil war were legitimately dealt with.
The south should have been under better control to not let racism brew,
but the citizens should have been protected and treated well.
There is however no parallel with the Israeli Palestine conflict, other than
who kills too many citizens as collateral damage is a war criminal.
"looks like about half the place is flat already."
Most likely! And then what? When the north of Gaza is flattened, push back all the Palestinians from the south back to the north and than flatten the south? Then all the Palestinians live among the rubble, even more dependent on Hamas to feed them and put a roof over their heads again. That wall is still there, Egypt and Libanon still don't allow them to leave.
It's either die, or support Hamas. With many of their children, spouses, family and friends having been killed by Israel, that sure is a hard choice, right?
I'm asking you; is that the intention?
only registered users can see external links
before Jim Crow.
Ben is already biassed on subjects that he doesn't care about.
How objective am I supposed to think he is on Israel, being Jewish?
He doesn't even consider the AIPAC to be the 'The Israel Lobby'.
The Daily Wire rakes in millions of dollars per large donor.
I have no idea what he really believes, because he gets paid
to believe whatever his donors want him to believe. He's a fraud!
But that's the consequence of stealing that land for themselves.
The Jews lived there for about 3000 years, but they lived together
with many other peoples and religions. People get upset,
if you kick them from their land and put your own flag on their land.
Is that so difficult to understand?
It's easier to kill all the natives when you conquer land, because then
they cannot bother you anymore. It's what your American ancestors did.
That's pretty bad though. Wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical, if the whole world
first united against Hitler, for exterminating 6 million Jews and then help those Jews to exterminate tens or hundreds of millions of Muslims, to clear out the whole Middle East, for themselves?
Besides, after WWII, there were about 3.8 million Jews left in the world.
That's not enough people to populate and protect the whole Middle East.
Israel was big enough for that population. It's just getting a bit small, now there are about 10 million of them. That's why they are stealing more land.
"Arab fears that Jews were attempting to seize control of Jerusalem's Wailing Wall in August 1929 caused a series of riots which left 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead."
This was one more tic on the side of nationalization. The clincher was the 5,000,000+ Jews kIlled by the Nazis while other countries looked away.
They where willing to co-exist with other Arab people. Heck, in the nationalization Arabs were included.
Israel was clearly intended to be a Jewish nation state, and it turned
into an apartheid regime against Palestinians very quickly.
Don't take my word for it, read what Amnesty International writes about it.
only registered users can see external links
"Arab fears that Jews..." They feared correctly.
They have been under attack, because they have never stopped attacking.
It's like if you cut the tires of your neighbors car every night
and then go crying if he kicks your ass one day, when he caught you.
And then you kill him, his family, his friends and all his colleagues.
Another example then. I'm sure you heard of the IRA in Ireland?
They did some horrible terrorist attacks and killed children too.
So was it OK if Ireland then bombed the whole of Belfast to rubble?
Or how about if some gangsters from the Bronx kill the owner, his wife and the stock clerk of a 7/11. Is it now OK, to bomb the whole 'hood'?
Oct 11 (Reuters) - The fighting between Israel and Hamas, which launched a surprise attack on Saturday, is the latest in seven decades of war and conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that has drawn in outside powers and destabilized the wider Middle East.
you are not going to pull a "Trump" fake news, now, are you?
Of course, it's an analogy. Just like the other two examples.
Do you think it's not a fair analogy? If not, why not?
Have you seen what happens in Gaza now?
Do they show you or is it censored in the US?
I do not pick sides, when both sides are doing evil.
I just want the killing and suffering to end.
What do you see as the outcome of this? Does this solve anything?
Is this allowing Israel to administer revenge, until they feel satisfied?
Is leveling Gaza going to prevent future attacks? For how long?
Don't you think Hamas will be back with a vengeance in a few years?
And then what, do it all over again?
Yes, Hamas will return or some like group. Sometimes, people look at the near future only. In this case, I believe Israel reached a point where it wants some tranquility. You have to admit that it doesn't matter who threw the first punch long ago. The problem is with the present.
History does tend to repeat itself.
It is past time to let Israel do what needs to be done to END the violence. If the muslims aint got no more sense than to side with hamas or hazbrola or some other nit shit terrorist group, then blow them to hell.
there are times that call for dealing with a problem once and for all, and this is 1 of them. Problems with israel have been going on for decades,time to end it so the world can get on with fixing other problems.
the aid being sent there could be going elsewhere to folks who need it that didn't kill their way into the situation they are in.
--------------------------------------- added after 27 seconds
Hamas is a horrible organization. Israel is not.
Which means bombing or starving 2 million people to death?
I would like this to end too, but not in a Holocaust.
The realistic solution would be to force Egypt to take in ALL Palestinians as refugees and then let Israel take the whole Gaza strip. That would be less of a crime against humanity than flattening Gaza and then keep te surviving population starving among the rubble. You are literally asking Israel to starve every last person in Gaza. That would make them worse than anything any terrorist has ever done. It's even worse than Hitler's gas chambers. Do you really want the US to be complicit in that?
However, I don't think Netanyahu will end Gaza or Hamas.
He needs both Gaza and especially Hamas, to justify his killing and stealing the rest of the West bank.
Just like he propped up Hamas before, he will do it again, so Hamas can start bombing Israeli's again ASAP, and then Netanyahu can rinse and repeat this over and over and over, while stealing the rest of the West bank.
You are being horrible to support genocide.
And you are a dumb-ass to think Israel wants to solve anything.
The cost and logistics.
The US funds and arms Egypt too. Don't you find it incredibly strange how much your presidents cuck themselves to Israel? YOU PAY THEM and arm them and they get cocky with you.
You know why both Trump and Biden suck up to Netanyahu? Because there are lots of Pro-Israel Super-PACs giving contributions to the candidates of both parties. A lot of them aren't even Jews or Israelis, they are Christian conservative fundamentalists, who see Israel as important to their religion.
Those Christian fundamentalists are the same people who fill your politics and your airwaves with pro-Israel propaganda.
I'm not affected by that propaganda, because our politics isn't as muddled by campaign contributions and because we don't have that many Christian fundamentalists muddling in our politics and our media. Neither Israel nor Palestine mean anything to me. They are just two cultures fighting to live on the same plot of dust and rocks. I see one culture being sneaky bastards and constantly being dicks tot the other culture and I see the other culture lashing out in horrible hatred and violence, which is then answered with faux indignation and 10 times the violence.
There is no good vs bad, it's only and all fucking evil shit.
And what I find mostly ridiculous, is how people can think that there is an all-powerful, omniscient, and all-benevolent god in control of this all. There are three major religions involved and I see nothing but evil, petty, human stupidity at work.
That's like my country trying to conquer all the rest of Europe.
Israel has a pretty strong defense force, but Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Iran are stronger.
The attacking force always requires more soldiers and more weapons to make a dent against the defending force.
OK, Ukraine is still standing, but what chance do you think Ukraine would have had, when they had attacked Russia?
They could protect an Islamic ally.
Which countries could Israel conquer or be allowed to conquer realistically? Maybe Lebanon and Syria, because those countries are not really friends of the West. The West would not allow Israel to attack Jordan and Egypt. The other Muslim countries are behind those other countries. If Israel would want to attack Iraq or Iran, they would be at war with all the other Muslim countries too. Israel is very small. Sure, they have a strong military, but the combined force of the other Middle Eastern countries can wipe them off the map in no time. Those nukes are useless. If they use them, they start a nuclear war and get obliterated instantly. It only takes a few nukes to end Israel, but it takes many to end all those Middle Eastern countries. The US is not going to back them up. That's not being a traffic cop, that's protecting your own oil interests.
very cheap fuel prices. I still pay $7.77/gallon for Euro95,
and that's at the cheapest gas station in the area.
Don't you pay less than half that?
What is left can only be extracted by fracking.
This is destroying your dwindling water sources.
You're sacrificing your agriculture and health, for oil.
That's why alternative energy isn't just the smart thing
to do to reduce climate change. It also reduces pollution.
And it reduces our dependency on horrible tyrannical regimes, like Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Would it's mindset ,attitudes ,actions, define it? Or would The Holy Spirit be gender neutral?
Everything in the bible describes Jesus as a person who respected people for who they are. His character is obviously described as a man, identifying as a man. But, he could be expected to adopt gender-neutral pronouns, purely out of support for a subjugated group of people.
Jesus spoke a Galilean dialect of Aramaic. "The lack of specific feminine forms for the pronouns is also found in Biblical Aramaic, which has different forms for third person singular (hu versus hi), but not always for the plural,53 and the second person feminine singular does not exist at all (Quimron 1993: 65)."
God is described in the bible as making Adam in his image.
However, most Christians describe God as a being outside of time and space.
How and why would such a being have a human body with a dick&balls?
But you were not in Jesus's head, maybe he wanted to be female. And maybe he secretly identified as female.
It's also very much possible that he was gay, if you read the stories.
only registered users can see external links
The fact is, that the first letter of his stories were written decades after he died.
It's possible that Jesus is completely fictional or based on several different people, living in that time period. There is no evidence that he ever existed, besides what's written about such a character in the bible. Different people wrote similar but different stories about the Jesus character, but it's clear that they were copying each other. There are lots of similar stories, about similar people, originating from earlier and other cultures, that are clearly mythical. There might have been some carpenter's son, walking around telling stories and performing rudimentary healthcare, that would have been miraculous in that time. Add a few decades and stories get mixed and exaggerated. Religions have been started over less. It is no evidence of anything supernatural ever happening and no reason to base your morality on the morality
of Jews from 2 millennia ago.
Before you start rambling that the next pieces are a copy-paste job; yes it is. It would be easy for you to find the source. It's called the Bible. I don't have one, but if you have one, go ahead and double check if it's in there.
The comments on Jesus' words are also not mine. You say you can use Google, so I'm sure you can find it.
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.” [Matthew 25:41-43 KJV]
Jesus says that on Judgment Day, He will look askance at people who refused to help those less fortunate than themselves. Not only that, Jesus Christ will curse them and cast them away “into everlasting fire.”
“For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” [Matthew 25:34-40 KJV]
Jesus Christ’s views on feeding, clothing, and helping people in need is unequivocal: He sees it as directly serving Him.
“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” [Matthew: 11:28 KJV]
Jesus Christ sympathized with those who work day-to-day to scrape by, and preached that they would get their reward. Meanwhile, Republicans refuse to even consider raising the minimum wage to keep up with the cost of living.
“For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” [Luke 12:48 KJV]
That means; If you have much, we will expect much from you.
In other words: Tax the rich!
“And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.” [Luke 11:46 KJV]
That's condemning lawmakers, for passing laws and promoting policies that make things harder for most of your fellow Americans.
“But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat.” [Matthew 14:16 KJV]
Jesus Christ always wanted to feed people and extend hospitality to strangers, no matter what their circumstances. Yet, conservative, so-called “Christians” seek to cut back on food stamps and deport immigrants — or bar them from entry.
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.” [Matthew 6:5 KJV]
Conservative Christians claim to love Jesus, and seem to adore shouting their faith from atop their soap boxes any chance they get. But the real Jesus Christ scorned these showy – and often phony – displays of piety, and went out of his way to preach against them.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” [Matthew 22:37-40 KJV]
When Jesus Christ’s adoring crowds asked which of the 10 Commandments are the most important ones for them to follow, Jesus turned around and changed the rules. He said that if we first love God, and then love our neighbor, the rest would follow naturally. It’s hard to see how denying gays the right to marry and cutting anti-poverty programs follows Jesus’ teachings. Yet, our conservative “Christian” lawmakers insist this is what we should do.
“And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” [Matthew 19:24 KJV]
If you’ve got any doubt about how Jesus Christ would feel about income inequality, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, or rich CEOs raking in huge profits while crusading against a long-overdue minimum wage hike, this passage makes it pretty clear that making profits at other people’s expense gives you bad karma in the Great Beyond.
“And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.” [John 2:14-16 KJV]
Unlike your Mammon-worshipping conservative Christians, Jesus Christ clearly loathes capitalism. Pretty much the only time we ever see Jesus totally lose his cool and go into an Incredible Hulk-like rage is when he returns to Jerusalem with his disciples, and finds the Temple clogged with bankers and vendors. He doesn’t just yell at them, He totally goes apeshit, wrecks their booths, and drives them out with whips He somehow manages to improvise and fashion on the spur of the moment. One can only imagine how Jesus would feel about Wall Street, the Koch brothers, and ALEC.
“Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.” [Matthew 9:35]
FREE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!!
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” [John 8:7 KJV]
Unlike today’s conservative Christians, who eagerly serve in the vanguard of the GOP’s war on women, Jesus Christ has no regard for double standards that hold men and women to different rules.
“Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?” [Matthew 6:26]
If the previous quotes make Jesus Christ sound mildly liberal, this one makes 'Our Savior' sound like a 'Goddamned hippie COMMUNIST'.
Before you try to flip all of the things Jesus said, think of who you are doing it for. I'm an atheist, I don't give a fuck. However, if you have some belief that you will be judged after your die, better be sure about how you are quoting, the one that you think will judge YOU.
“You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. ' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” (Matthew 5:38-39).
Is that something you would say?
Is that something what a gun lover would say?
Or is that something a pacifist would say?
He gave food to the hungry and free healthcare to the sick.
And he kicked over the the tables of loan sharks on the temple square.
"turn the other cheek", "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Definitely a socialist and not a MAGA conservative.
It took a while for the tide to change but in the 60s the undercurrent of what is considered the prevailing culture began to shift. It took a while for the momentum to reach what it did around the turn of the century, but somewhere along the line those that use to be marginalized by the prevailing culture moved into a position where they were setting policy. For the others, who subscribe to the glorification of anything atavistic, and are nostalgic for a time when the US seemed to be in an age of innocence, the 50s, this shift met with reenforced reticence and even outright violent opposition.
This recent shift in cultural priorities during the 21st century produced contempt, especially in rural areas, for this progressive current which became a prevailing cultural force in urban areas.
However, those who glorify atavism and those for whom nostalgia worsens their feelings of abandonment by the state are not confined to rural areas. It's just the tendency of people in such areas. Urban areas condition people towards regulation which manages the impact on nature. As well as increasing exposure to multiculturalism.
I don’t care if Jesus had a pair or a slit. The man was a good man/woman, and, if we Christians, want to emulate him, that is a good thing. What we don’t need is for one group of Christians telling another group of Christians how to believe.
This question comes as close to being a “woke” question from an anti-woke member of “That” section of Christianity. 👿
1.) Mainly because they offer fellowship.
2.) People prefer certainty over accuracy, even when certainty cannot be achieved.
3.) Our childhood experiences predispose us to uncritical approval of those we see as authoritative.
4.) Most people have neither the time nor the resources to research any claim to its most fundamental source as well as all the intersecting social phenomena.
There are more reasons than this, but these are the most common.
2 people, then a entire world ,to close a relatives.
In animals this makes for weak, deformed creatures.
Who was Cain's wife in the Bible?
Awan. According to the Book of Jubilees, Awan (also Avan or Aven, from Hebrew אָוֶן aven "vice", "iniquity", "potency") was the wife and sister of Cain and the daughter of Adam and Eve.
"adj"
a state of awareness only achieved by those dumb enough to find injustice in everything except their own behavior.
The right desperately want to change the meaning trying to push back on the fact that the right is racist and misogynistic.
There fore I can NOT for the life of me see how a state can take control of who is on a ballot for a FEDERAL position and use the so-called insurrection as a reason.
Face book employee frauds people out of 4 million bucks!
only registered users can see external links
If it's the former, I have no knowledge or opinion about the organisation. But "All Lives Matter" is not an organisation, so if it is the former, the question doesn't really make sense.
If it's the latter, the saying clearly means "black lives matter as much as white lives". Does anyone here disagree with this sentiment?
Dgraff, remember, you started this.👿
then everyone would surely be happy to support it.
Here's a novel idea; implement the goals.
Why does it require endless protesting to do something?
Are the riots not just a justification for you to say 'fuck you!'?
Are the demands so outrageous?
Or is it now just stubbornness, to not 'give THEM anything'?
The Black Panthers, I think. Black clothes, different kind of 'hoods',
but also very much supporting the 2nd amendment.
only registered users can see external links
Cheating wife, hung her self instead of taking responsibility.
DUH.
Not to mention has no ethics either.
I guess if it makes a 'buck' then it is fair to the *%*#@!& party.
Where the hell is 'cornpop' when we need him?
only registered users can see external links
The writer of the book focused on just 10 billionaires, donating to 50 organizations, that were instrumental in pushing an agenda of institutionalized racism and crushing the public school system. That was 3.2 billion dollars that he was able to trace.
Why do wealthy people want to crush public schools?
Are they thinking private schools are better?
Are they just not willing to pay taxes for public schools?
Are they against poor people getting a good education?
Are they not dependent on smart people working for their companies?
Are they against American being smart, to understand how they get screwed?
That's of course nonsense. Billionaires fund organizations and politicians
they agree with and then they go do the work for them.
Mostly it comes down to legislation and funding decisions.
Shutting down schools in black areas hurts black people, but you too.
Do you prefer black people to be educated or turn into criminals?
The president appoints the judges. Trump appoints his 'beautiful conservative' corporate minded judges and Biden appoints a bit more liberal judges.
If you are in a legal dispute against some company that is crushing you,
you can be sure you want one of Biden's judges, because any of Trump's judges
will always speak out in favor of any company over any working class civilian,
no matter how much the law agrees with you.
Civil, I will take the Trump appointee, atleast they have common sense and know the difference between a man and a woman.
If you think you can win in civil court against a company that screwed you, out of money or your house or your health, with a Trump appointee, you're very much confused.
But, you might think of getting sued by someone you discriminated, sure then you are better off with a Trump appointee.
They indeed prioritize your kind of 'common sense' over the actual LAW.
Talk about defrauding the poor tax paying people, what do you consider witholding millions unless you comply with my demands. Son of a bitch, you are a disgraceful biden.
It takes a sorry son of a bitch to ignore his own grand
daughter. What a moron.
Can you clarify what you are talking about?
Are you referring to Trump, withholding congressionally approved military aid
to Ukraine, to help himself, which is actually against the law?
When your son hasn't acknowledged his daughter yet, any father would wait until his son is ready to come out with it.
When you are the president, you first wait for evidence.
There are always people that try to discredit their family.
Now the evidence is in and Hunter accepted it, Joe does too.
Biden with-holding tax payer money from Ukraine until a prosecutor is fired. Hell, everyone here can see it, I guess you are playing the part of the ostrich.
only registered users can see external links
But, if there is evidence Biden broke the law, present it to the courts and wait until after his presidency to start the indictments. It's your own site that claims that the law cannot indict a sitting president.
Or indict and try to convict Biden now, so he can pardon himself, which is what your side thinks a president should be able to do.
Or do they only care how much they suck up to Trump?
Vivek Ramasmarmy made his billion dollars by investing in and hyping a scam biotech pharmaceutical product. His company Roivant Sciences is described as having a "business strategy, which involves buying patents from pharmaceutical companies, further developing the patented drugs, and bringing the finished drugs to market.".
I know how that works. Those companies are developing shit. They are just gaining the system, taking government funded ideas for pharmaceuticals and then hyping them, marketing them, and then walk away with billions. Sometimes those drugs are useful, but most newly developed drugs fail their clinical trials.
Companies like his', take billions of tax-dollars and more billions of the industry, only making the development of drugs more expensive for the tax-payer and the final products more expensive for patients.
He bought up the Alzheimer’s treatment Intepirdine, developed by the biotech startup Axovant Sciences, raised $315 million, before starting clinical trials, probably for a large part from Alzheimer's Foundation donations, ballooned the business value to
$3 billion, then sold his shares, and then the drug failed the trials. He's just a leech.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Alot of liberals make money shitting people, He at least made his money doing something.
you call it hyping, most Entrepeneur's call it promoting. That is what investors do ,that is how our retirement systems are funded, by investments.
What has biden done besides be a career politician and a life guard that had little girls rub the hair on his legs?
I also condemn liberals when they make money by scamming people,
you just condemn liberals when they do something immoral,
but you defend any right-winger, no matter what they do.
Why aren't you condemning Soro's? He bankrupted nations for crying out loud,
only registered users can see external links
Why has George Soros purchased news outlets throughout America? Living in Hungary during WWII, he learned controlling the media controls the people.
only registered users can see external links
Guys like Ramasmarmy are just jacking up the price of the process.
Just like land speculators, profiting over what should be public capital.
The research and development of new medical treatments is mostly publicly funded, but that is turned into private profits for scammers like Ramasmarmy
and his ilk, who don't contribute anything. It's just socialism for the rich.
I think we agree that we don't want parasites profiting of taxes.
However, your get indoctrinated to think it's the 'obese milkin' welfare',
to distract you that guys like Ramasmarmy make billions of your tax-dollars
and charity donations, without doing anything useful.
It has been exposed for the corrupt person it is.
BUT AOC for example, claims to only been a bartender before getting her position. I would say she probably fucked her way to where she is,She is not hard to look at until she starts talking.
Alot of others are so rich,way to rich to be getting that way off their salary's alone.
They saw her as a political talent and pulled her in.
Lauren Boebert literally was a prostitute!
Greene, I am just glad she is republican and not democrat,they would put her for president!
If it's a white woman who enriches herself through her political position,
who was literally a prostitute, then she has good business sense,
but if it's a woman of Mexican decent, who was identified as a strong debater,
and therefore got offered a political position, then she must be a prostitute,
because, to you, obviously she has no right to be in politics.
Republicans like them crazy, it's their brand now.
Most Democrats like weak losers. Only progressives liked AOC.
Because she is/was a working class fighter for the working class.
Something Republicans masquerade to care about, but always
get unmasked over.
You are so right about the talking part, that just shows the ugly nasty person it is. Remember it whining about not having enough money for rent. I bet there are millions of people that wished they had it's salary and benefits. Poor little thing has to live in poverty. It should resign and go back to being a poor bartender. Yeah, I mean poor, probably did not get many tips spewing it's BS.
The correct gender-neutral pronouns are they/them, thank you.
The only reason you have, to dislike her is that she makes a politician's income?
Why just her? All Democratic politicians make that income too.
And why not Republicans? They are not even satisfied with that income.
That's why they are all using their job to benefit themselves, by taking money from wealthy donors, stock trading with insider information, not abstaining themselves when they vote on laws that benefit their businesses, and blatantly introducing laws purely to benefit themselves.
So, is it just discrimination or also shitting on lower-class people?
It's like I'm listening to stuck-up billionaires, but you're all peasants to them.
Past time to ditch public schools, they don't work,
with their own ideas and don't want them exposed to any other ideas, but their own.
That's a SAFE SPACE! I thought you were against that?
Any parent who thinks that their ideas shouldn't be challenged, probably understands that their ideas are FRAGILE and any REASONING will destroy them.
If just the mentioning of racism and history of black people destroys your racism, than it is WEAK. Have some confidence that your racism will prevail.
If just the idea of gender, sexual identity and sexual orientation makes your kid doubt themselves, then they ARE NOT sis and/or heterosexual, as you want them to be.
They need your guidance to understand themselves, not your stupid oppression
of their feelings.
Sorry (not sorry), education is for the public benefit and it's not to the public benefit to fill the heads of your children with fragile ideas, that don't stand the scrutiny of REASON.
If you want to indoctrinate your children in private education, go ahead, but you're setting them up to fail in any occupation requiring REASON.
Also, private schooling is EXPENSIVE!
The whole idea of public schooling is to provide children from poor parents
with an education, so they can escape the poverty of their parents.
Find me any country that only has private schooling, that works.
They simply want their kids to learn math, english, history, and etc.
The birds and the bee's talk is supposed to be with the father and the son, or the mother and the daughter ,not some man in a dress telling a boy he can get pregnant when a simple medical exam can prove that is not possible.
It's not remotely true.
The 'birds and the bees' is a responsibility of education, because parents suck at doing that and pregnant teens and HIV are damaging to the general public.
Teachers are just providing knowledge, based on current science.
You are anti-knowledge and stuck at 1950's science and BS propaganda.
The less they know at a young age, the less problem.
Don't you think kids would have been taught sex earlier on for many decades had it been a good idea? Their minds are not mature enough to even know what sex is.
Sorry to tell you, but Americans are horrible dumb and getting dumber.
The only way to provide any future for those kids, is compensating for the stupidity of their parents.
There is no age too young to start providing information about sex.
Of course, you keep it at their level and expand on it later.
You cannot teach biology without the 'basics', and biology starts in first grade
in The Netherlands. I read that in the US, biology starts in 8th grade.
I hope that's not true, but damn it would explain a lot.
Most kids learn to use a microscope in primary school these days. In my time, we didn't have them, but we had many classes about anatomy, the brain, cells, species and genes and even evolution, while it was a Christian School.
There was some sexual education too, but it was very prudish. They explained how it was done very shortly and focused on how the sperm fertilizes egg and then grows. Then they very quickly explained how the baby comes out.
I certainly didn't have any problems getting my head around it.
My parents showed a sexual education documentary on TV, when I was around 10 or something. I just remember it being very humiliating and learning absolutely nothing new.
At what age do you think children know how boys and girls are different?
Children discover that as soon as they see a diaper changed in kindergarten.
In my country, parents already explain some basics to their children when they are in the why, why, why phase, when they are 2 or 3. A toddler once told me, with a big smile: 'boys have a tollie, girls have a punani', which is more then I knew, because those are the Surinamese words for penis and vagina. I laughed with her parents, that I just got educated about sex, by a toddler.
Compare your teen pregnancy statistics with ours, and learn something.
The problem is logical reasoning; understanding the cause of problems and understanding reasoning errors and fallacious argumentation. Because of that, Americans believe anything they are told by someone they trust and believe nothing, no matter how solid the arguments, from someone they distrust.
They only have to teach you to trust a specific group of people and then you
trust them and no one else, for life. That makes it very easy to con you.
Understand that the teaching of critical thinking skills is actively opposed,
by people who want you to trust them unconditionally, so they can keep lying
to you and keep taking advantage of you.
Many of the books that DeSantis banned in Florida taught critical thinking skills. Those books didn't contain any CRT or black history or transgender ideology or whatever else you think is woke, they just taught logical reasoning. Nothing is more important to be successful in life, than being able to understand the cause of a problem and think of a logical solution. It's also important to employers, if their employees are able to solve problems. BUT, those logical reasoning skills carry one big risk for the establishment; you will not believe their lies anymore. They cannot have that, so they structure your economy to work with monkeys, who work for peanuts, and reduce education to just teaching you some tricks.
And teachers and the system has lost total sight of what they were intended for .
I think teachers should teach kids how to think and how to learn.
They should also teach kids knowledge as a starting point, to build on,
but learning should never stop after you leave school.
It's impossible to teach kids everything they will need in life,
so you teach them how to learn for themselves what they need after school.
There are 2 sexes or genders, not 24.
But teachers try to teach that there are more and how boys can have babies and shit and the science is not there,the anatomy is not there and so on.
No matter what you learned in school Ananas, I am willing to bet a dozen donuts YOU personally can NOT have a BABY.
All the knowledge in the world,will not put a womb in your torso. Why teach kids that they can do something that is physically impossible?
I am just using that 1 issue as a example , there are more about race and so forth
I was told that and every kid in even the 'wokest' school in my country too.
Only higher education in genetics will expand on the variations in sex.
The teachers who are correct, make a distinction between sex and gender.
Sex is biological and gender is a social/identity construct.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? The scientific definition of 'gender' has never been the same as the scientific definition of 'sex', it was just misused by people who do not know any better. The reason people started using the word 'gender' in stead of 'sex' was prudishness, but that's no reason to confuse science.
I have explained it to you at length, you have not provided anything to the contrary, other than repeating your 1950's ideas and straw-manning the arguments, instead of what scientists have actually demonstrated on the subject.
Oh, also feel free to keep up your bullshit semantics.
Are you kidding? How about too many crimes against humanity to count?
There is only one narrative that I care about; what is true!
There are people who are gay, lesbian, intersex and transgender.
Your side has done nothing but suppresses them and deny those people their very existence. Your side is getting crazy enough to start killing.
And your argument for that is the meaning of a word? That's bullshit!
May be a surprise to you, but not all trans people agree with your BS.
You have just confirmed that trans people exist. Didn't I say:
"There are people who are gay, lesbian, intersex and transgender."?
So how is that BS? What is not true about it?
From every discussion we have had, I get the idea that you are completely incapable of logic. Answer this; if trans people exist, why then is sex binary and why then is 'gender' the same as 'sex'?
How do we categorize transGENDER people, if you are correct?
Lets examine your claim that not all trans people agree agree with me. First of all, that's an 'appeal to authority fallacy', it's not an argument supported by logic. Even if it's true that those people say that, it doesn't say anything about them being correct. They can be just as ignorant of the science as you are. Being transgender doesn't come with a science curriculum in sex and gender studies.
So do those trans people, you are referring to, agree with your view, that they are mentally ill, due to woke propaganda from drag queens, and they shouldn't be allowed to look the way they want to look, take gender-affirming medication and especially not get gender-affirming surgery, because they are obviously confused, because of the 'woke mob'?
Maybe that's putting 'words' in your mouth, but you have called every related opposite idea, that I've proposed 'BS' and worse, so that IS YOUR POSITION. If not, clarify what you don't agree with. If you don't, you confirm everything I just stated.
Ask those trans people, you know, if they agree with that.
If they do, they agree with being stripped of the right to exist.
"There are people who are gay, lesbian, intersex and transgender."?
So how is that BS? What is not true about it? #1 what are the percentage of those people that make you think millions should go along with the BS?
Trans people are about a group of minimum 1% and maximum 5%.
They exist, and they want the right to exist. Is that BS?
What do you consider 'going along with the BS'?
Are you talking about just treating them like human beings?
Is allowing them professional help 'going along with the BS'?
If you are not clear, then how can we have a discussion?
Personally, I think it's BS to make a fully transitioned trans-woman pee at the men's toilet, but you seem to think that is very important. I would feel a bit uncomfortable to find a trans-woman in the men's toilet.
"Did I walk into the wrong toilet?". Not 'going along' with their wish to use the women's toilet, is BS in my opinion.
And I also think women would feel uncomfortable when trans-men have to pee in the women's toilet. Most of them have beards. How is it BS to allow them into the men's toilet? Hell, you wouldn't even notice.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Or things like the right to say 'sir' to someone wearing make-up and a dress. Why would you want that? You're bound to mistake a biological woman for a transvestite or transsexual and look like an idiot. That's why it is BS, in my opinion, to keep saying 'sir' to trans-women.
Do you want to say 'ma'am' to a ripped guy with a beard?
You better know what you're doing then, because if you guess wrong...
Is it BS to let a ripped man, wearing a skirt, compete as a woman?
Yes, of course it is. No one wants that. Lets be honest and practical about it. Stop your BS, saying that's what people want.
How are they put ahead of the majority?
How are YOU hurt by their existence?
They decided to do that as a strategy, because they have nothing else to give you.
They provide you with an enemy, so you think they are doing something for you, when they make that enemy suffer.
Making people suffer doesn't cost anything for the elites,
but it's very useful if people like to see other people suffer.
It's the oldest playbook in politics ever.
It's time people aren't fooled by that anymore.
'Libs' and progressives have logical reasoning.
You have never provided any logical argument for any idea you hold.
The constitution was fixed to give equal rights.
equal rights, means EQUAL EFFORT on the part of all involved.
1 race whining about what was done 100 years ago wants the people of today to give them money for something they are not responsible for and so many other examples .IT's all because of to much tolerance, to much compassion, to much leniency .
if blacks get money for restitution for thier ancestors I want money for my ancestors being forced to walk all the way to Oklahoma
It's not whining over what was done 100 years ago,
they are constantly discriminated against TODAY.
Here are some examples:
When you are just walking around, a cop is not going to think
that you look suspiciously. It is what they get every day and that puts them danger of police violence every day.
Hospitals and schools are taken out of black neighborhoods and polluting industry and highways are put into their neighborhoods.
Their votes get canceled by voter suppression and gerrymandering.
They get racially profiled against getting loans and insurances.
They are stigmatized in the justice system and get harder punishment than white people, for the same crimes.
Not just black people with an equal education make lower wages than white people, but they even make less money with a higher education than white people.
That's called systemic racism and according to the constitution,
that should not happen.
Bella posted a link to a video of a black woman screaming cuss words at a cop, and you have YET to comment on it, Gee I wonder why? Because it disproves your idea that blacks are mistreated? 13% of the population commits 30% or so of all crime
Based on the 2018 NCVS and UCR, black people accounted for 29% of violent-crime offenders and 35% of violent-crime offenders in incidents reported to police, compared to 33% of all persons arrested for violent crimes
Hospitals are not built in black neighborhoods because they can't or don't pay their fucking BILLS. Medical care cost money and they won't work to earn it.
"
"What race has the most medical debt?
Black
And across the middle class, racial disparities persist, with Black and Hispanic families seeing the highest rates. 4 million (37.5%) Black middle-class people have medical debt, 8.5 points higher than Black low-income people and 16 points higher than Black high-income people.Aug 21, 2023"
Please I know I have ask this a dozen times and you or cat neither 1 have shown indisputable evidence that black votes are actually suppressed. You show the potential for it to happen,just as we can show the potential for voter fraud. But you ignore us and try to push your agenda,that has far less actual evidence.
All that is required is a legit id to vote, something everyone has or should have for many other reasons besides voting. The 1 right Americans have that is so simple to qualify for ,being a citizen, and folks are unwilling to prove that simple thing, by having a simple id. SOMEHOW< it is wrong to ask people to prove who the hell they are.
According to liberal theory I should be able to fly over to the Nether regions and vote in YOUR elections. No proof needed to vote right? May I come vote in your next election? You can vote in mine if you swim over the river and give my name if you come to my voting precinct.
So what if they get punished for a crime, it has been going on long enough that everyone,not just blacks ,should know better than to commit crime in the first fucking place.
You are actually not supporting equal reward for equal effort, at all.
Most of the wealthy provides no effort at all, but you think they are entitled to very unequal rewards. They sit behind a desk, thinking of plans to screw their workers, to squeeze even more profits out of their labor and make 400x the money of those workers. How is that equal reward for equal effort?
What did the kids of wealthy people do, to get unequal more access to quality education?
What would that one video tell me? That one cop had the restraint to not kill someone for just disrespecting them?
"13% of the population commits 30% or so of all crime"
One poor black criminal has to do a crime every day to get by.
One white white board criminal can do one crime and make enough to retire.
And that black guy has a much higher chance to get caught and add to the statistics.
Of course poor people have more medical debt than rich people.
I don't need statistics to understand that. BUT THAT IS WRONG!
Healthcare should be a right for everyone and not a thing you need to work for.
Why do you need evidence for voter suppression?
There are laws designed to suppress the votes of black people.
You can READ, don't you?
When Republican politicians draw a map for voting districts to catch every single black person in just one district and then put every white person in all the other districts, that's voter suppression. Are you denying that they do that?
"According to liberal theory I should be able to fly over to the Nether regions and vote in YOUR elections."
Of course not, only everyone living in the Netherlands, who is 18 years or older, and has the Dutch nationality, may vote. Also Dutch people who are in prison. The group of people who are not allowed to vote is very small. You don't have the Dutch nationality, so you would not be allowed to vote, except in some cases for the municipal elections and water board elections.
Everyone who's eligible to vote in my country, gets a voting pass by mail, without any registration needed.
On election day, we go to the polls, handover the voting pass and our identification and we vote, most of the time withing minutes. Our elections are very secure and we don't have any gerrymandering or voter roll purges.
here is a black woman that thinks it is OK to steal.
only registered users can see external links
Another thinks they can cause a accident and not be blamed,
I could go on, but the black people have this "entitlement" mentality and it is just wrong.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Also those that pay should have a say in education of the children, which last time I checked is everyone that pays taxes. Not just the idiot loon dems.
Even if you don't have kids, you are benefiting
from an economy where children get education.
How far do you want to take this? Should people
who don't own cars not pay for road infrastructure?
Should people who don't use public transport not pay for it?
Should people who never visit a park not pay for it?
Should people who recycle pay less for waste disposal
than people who don't recycle? How will you check that?
The system that is required to track all the things
people would pay for and not, would be very expensive.
Libertarian ideas like that are ridiculously impractical.
Parks,put a 10 spot in the can when you walk in,
if you don't ever walk in,then you don't pay,if you don't drive,why the hell would you owe for a road?
It didn't go anywhere, so that's why we invented organized society.
Libertarianism is just chaos. And don't think you support it,
you support a conservative autocratic oligarchy; Trumpism.
You know most of them will argue with a fence post as evidenced by many already. The majorit disagrees with this crap.
I also know a few trans people and they are with me, they say it is just BS the left is using to distract from other things. Maybe bully joey.
The actual people that are dealing with the issues that cause the desire to be trans or whatever, are having issues getting what they need because of all the copy cats and idiots stealing the spot light and resources.
1% or so of the population does not warrant all the screen time it gets.
The only good thing about the uteruses transplants is the rejection rate will be high I am sure and the idiots will have to suffer alot of pain. And maybe,just maybe,they will have to come to terms with the fact they are idiots as they look down at all the scars on their bodies.
I can't see how it is sensible to want to look down and see scars where a dick used to be,or where a boob used to be, the body is destroyed, men with the dick turned to puss deal with infections and such the rest of their lives. when just dealing with the fact you have a dick and living your life would be cheaper, and less harmful healthwise.
It wouldn't be their eggs, but have the DNA of the donor.
At least with a transplanted uterus a person would be able
to bear children which would otherwise be impossible.
Having the ovaries of someone else is totally pointless.
At least with someone else's testicles, you can give cumshots.
That requires a prostate as well, or they would be very dry ones.
Think dude, that would be crazy for me to argue the politics of your Country. Really no one here cares about the politics in your Country. In other words your politics mean nothing.
But there is no school in my country teaching CRT or have kids
'indoctrinated by drag queens'. How does that calculate for you?
Every time some right-wing story comes out, about kitty litter boxes
or some shit, it always turns out to be completely fabricated nonsense.
Or it turns out it's some right-wing parent, who's is trolling people.
Or it is something common sense that schools are obligated to provide, by law.
But it's hyped on every right-wing news outlet, like it's the end times.
It would be crazy for you to discuss politics in my country, because you don't know anything about it. Why should you? What happens in my country doesn't affect you. However, everything that happens in your country affects my country. Just one tiny example: When we had the 'wappies' in my country, denying the very existence of COVID-19 or even the existence of viruses itself, and thinking the vaccines were a government conspiracy to decimate the population, and threatening our politicians over it, that was ALL caused by American made disinformation. I've seen my brother in law turned into a complete lunatic, because of your nonsense. He is not capable of thinking straight anymore. It is ruining his life. He's constantly making horrible mistakes, switching jobs, going into debt, and since recently his 10 year old son doesn't want to live with him anymore, in the weekends. He used to be a sensible, down to earth guy, but American made disinformation turned his mind into mush.
However, I have been following and investigated your political subjects for years now and most of the time I know much more about it than you do. Sure, you live in the US, but you are dependent on the media, to tell you what is happening in schools, just like me. You might hear some stories, but you're only accepting the stories from people in your echo chamber and rejecting the stories your hear from everyone else. They are just crazy liberals to you, so you can ignore them.
You don't know anything about your own country, because you chose to believe bullshit and deny reality.
1 neighbors kid that I spoke to during the plandemic said he was very disappointed about his grades. He was making good grades in school then they closed the schools and went online. He said if you even signed in each day and marked answers on test you were given passing grades rather or not your answers were correct. Schools closed less than 3 months from end of year and with no precedent to follow ,teachers just slacked their way thru.. 1 school teacher explained they are not able to teach history before WW2! Nothing is mentioned about the founding fathers or anything of the sort
But it was necessary to keep the spread of the virus down.
If they had done nothing, the death toll would have been millions higher.
Kids are huge infection spreaders. They don't get very sick themselves,
but they infect everyone around them. The damage done to their education
is still less than when parents are unable to work, end up in hospital,
die or suffer long covid.
Yous hospitals were overburdened. People died due to lack of healthcare,
who wouldn't have died if it was available. One factor that overburdened
your hospitals was people who refused to vaccinate. That had a negative
effect on those children's education too.
However, we were talking about woke and CRT and now we are talking
about covid measure. Maybe that's all the same to you, but it isn't.
the virus,the crt,the "wokeness'. Which I seldom use that term, does not apply to what it is used for
when wise and thoughtful policies serve the public interest.
They tell you 'think about the kids', when they only think about themselves.
Meanwhile they are reducing education to teaching monkeys some tricks.
That's for sure.
Learning there is 514 genders is not any kind of info a person can use to earn a living.
But learning how to keep track of your money,how to invest, how to write, talk, and so on,are some things that need to be taught.
That's more than they taught you, because that won't provide them with a job that pays the rent of a one room apartment these days.
What you think is sufficient education, is just enough for a shop assistant.
If they want to do what I do, and make just enough to buy a house today,
they need to learn real science and learn actual thinking skills.
That was all in the banned books of Ron DeSantis, so sorry for those kids.
Children in the red states will all grow up to be poor or criminals.
Unless they have rich parents of course, they are allowed to learn useful knowledge, because they need it to rule over the poor and dumb peasants.
And no, you're a dumb-ass for thinking there is any specific number of genders or that kids are taught that. They are just hearing that some people feel like they don't belong in the body they were born with, which is a fact, supported by science. But apparently, that information is very dangerous to your ideology. It must be incredibly weak, if you feel so threatened by reality.
The people that are being taught it is ok not to accept themselves as what they are born as in the physical sense is a issue .The suicide rates have not improved since this gender bending thing started.it has gotten worse.
It's bullshit, the percentage of transgenders is completely consistent with historical and researched facts. There are just a whole lot of young people supporting them. Then there are lots of young people who don't like your religiously originated ideology of prudishness and abstinence (as long as it's heterosexual abstinence). Just like punk kids rejected society imposing their idea's onto them, pink haired kids using gender neutral pronouns are rejecting your ideology that you want to impose on them. They are not 'confused' about their sex, they won't go through any surgery, they are just not accepting your outdated ideas and celebrate personal freedom.
Just like when being left-handed was allowed, the percentage of left-handedness increased from 3% to 12% and then stabilized at 12% for
60 years, and the percentage of gay people increased to about 7.5%,
when they are not murdered or imprisoned over it, the percentage of transgenders transitioning or partly transitioning will be at maximum 2% (which is probably too high of an estimation).
only registered users can see external links
If suicide rates have not improved, that's because your ideology
keeps turning their life into a living hell.
US numbers: "Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth."
I could not find any consistent numbers on the general population, but your suicide rate is 10.1 per 100,000 people per year (ours is 7.9).
Dutch numbers: "Transgender people are 5 to 10 times more likely to attempt suicide and 7 times more likely to think about suicide compared to non-transgender people."
About 4.3% of the Dutch population considers suicide at one time in their lives. That means it's 30% for transgender people.
The conclusions:
1) It sucks to be a transgender, in general.
2) Life in the US generally sucks more than life in The Netherlands.
3) For transgender people life sucks way more in the US, than life
in The Netherlands.
If you can convince fat people they are pretty,you should be able do similar for trans people.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
person admits the hate comes from within!
only registered users can see external links
The meds these people are taking are not working,or they need some meds.
DUH@
Just as the 1 link mentioned, i can't qoute it but , when blacks stop acting the stereo type, it won't be used anymore.
This is understandable, because you agree with cops and old white idiots
killing any black person who looks suspicious.
'Don't look suspicious' is not a solution, because all black people
look suspicious to you, all the time, because of their skin color.
You are pointing to statistics for that, but we can do that for you too.
Terror attacks are committed by right-wing extremists in the large majority of cases,
in 2020 more than 90%. If police spot an armed white man, with a MAGA hat,
in the vicinity of a school, by your logic, they should assume he's a school shooter,
and shoot him dead, before he can kill any children. He fits the stereotype.
only registered users can see external links
You only support that lethal 'law enforcement' against black people and not against white people. Should the capital guards have shot more jan 6th rioters? They even attacked, wounded and killed guards, not just stole some nice unprotected loot.
Just have a security guard or two around, who tackle at least two of them and hand them over to the police. There were nine looters there and they did not even get one of them. There were no security gates and no alarms (in my country, even the discount stores have security gates). That's incompetence. It's choosing crime over security expenses.
If there's 0% chance of getting caught looting, there will always be people who choose to loot. Catching at least two of them, would have increased to risk of that heist to 22%. That turns the risk/reward percentage to not worth the crime.
it used to be equality that folks were after, a logical goal.
Now it is equity. Which is unattainable without taking from those that have achieved and giving to those that can't or wont strive to achieve.
A unfair and unrealistic goal that will only creates hatred and division.
Look at what the idiots are doing now. What is it up to now 91 indictments, sorry, I lost count.
how is it 'division' to indict a president who at least committed 91 crimes?
The reality is that black lives MATTER LESS or often not at all.
By denying that, you are denying that 'all lives matter'.
I have yet to see any argument from any right-winger
that shows how they really think that 'all lives matter'.
You are always saying it, but all your ideas come down to
that 'NO lives matter'. Except your own, but often not even your own.
The fact that "BLACK" is put in front of lives is the issue.
That prompts the reader to think the statement is in reference to a black life being more important.
No color or race should be put in front of "lives matter" ,if the person or group is trying to get folks to value life.
It is all meant to create division and hatred ,nothing less, nothing more. and it has worked.
But it will work out ok in the end. As NO lives will matter and AI will take care of the worlds issues in a organized and logical manner.
That's because you cannot think yourself, beyond what you hear.
You are whining about a slogan, they are demanding to not be killed.
Your fifis are hurt, they see innocent family members getting killed by police.
Maybe they are dividing people with that slogan, but they have a right to,
because you have divided them, from the rest of Americans, for ever.
They should not have to include you, in front of 'lives matter',
because you are responsible yourself for how much your lives matter.
You are in power of the system that harms (all) people, they are not.
You think you are the only one, who is allowed to divide people. You're not!
They should not give a fuck about what you think, because you are harming them. They are in the right, to fight your ideas, until YOU stop your thinking and YOU close that division. They have asked nicely for decades and they are done with that.
Fix your racist police and fix your racist system, or they will never stop protesting,
no matter how much you think it is creating division and hatred.
Same as they should be.
If they obeyed the damn law, the police would not be in contact with them much at all.
I know it is a slogan in reference to police, but it is divisive and no ones opinion will change that.
Ok so they are tired of being nice eh?
Well, So are the rest of us.
You haven't saw the recent videos of the snatch and grab robberies in california?
No respect for private property,no respect for the law, nothing.Has been that way for years, and they want US as in the rest of the races of the world, to change OUR MINDSET FIRST? forget it, it is a 2 way street,until THEY make a effort to improve, we shouldn't have to either.
only registered users can see external links
People who are making billions a year, are telling people who make $40,000 a year, that people who make $10,000 a year, are stealing their crumbs.
Or they just distract you with culture war bullshit.
You'll give up EVERYTHING for the 'right' to be an asshole to a transvestite.
And you are gobbling up that shit and voting for people who keep telling that shit,
while you are probably one of the people most affected by that shit.
You will vote for the people who will destroy Medicare, that you will need.
NO, a person that wants to commit violence will do so on their own accord.
Black supremist ,a new term I just heard here.
only registered users can see external links
Marine, Pfc. Dan Bullock, of Brooklyn, NY. went in at age 14, died at age 15.
How many black men volunteer for the military today?
only registered users can see external links
Black Panthers Protesting In Washington D.C.
In 1969 the Black Panther Party, a group of revolutionary African Americans, came out of Oakland, California to peacefully protest the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War. Aside from simply protesting the war, the Panthers were able to institute free breakfast for students in every city where they had a chapter, and they gave out free shoes to the poor.
When the Panthers marched on Washington D.C. in 1969 it became one of the largest peaceful protests to ever hit America. Despite the peaceful protest, the FBI considered the Panthers public enemy #1. Ideals of empowerment and resistance have persisted, but enthusiasm for the Black Panther party itself waned.
Now tell me, does the black panthers still give out shoes to the poor?
It took me just one minute to find these statistics. Seeing that 13.6% of Americans are black, they are overrepresented in your military. White Americans are underrepresented.
The Black Panthers were not a charity organization. Their full name is The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP). It was a revolutionary organization with an ideology of Black nationalism, socialism, and armed self-defense, particularly against police brutality.
As far as I can find, they don't exist anymore.
There are still many 'black charities' though. Here are some of them:
only registered users can see external links
How did phart find his information?
How do you find something on the internet?
Google? Yahoo? DuckDuckGo? Ecosia (prabably not
--------------------------------------- added after 5 minutes
They go by the name of the new black panther party and they are very much involved with the BLM movement
only registered users can see external links
Stay strong brothers & sisters!
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
That’s some thing that interests me in my quest to find out why the blacks hate whites so much i don’t hate them i just hate the way they act with their boom box music and their jive talk and their walking around with a comb in their hair and pants down around their ass I have a friend that is black and he was adopted and raised by a well off white couple he’s one of the nicest people you would ever meet we still go fishing together to this day
like generalizing them all in they way you describe them,
unless they were raised by white people, of course.
They should not respect you, for treating them as human beings,
after you used their ancestors as cattle, for hundreds of years.
Think of this: You'll work for me, do the worst jobs I can find for you, while you'll only get to eat my scraps and live in my shed. When you won't work hard enough, I'll whip you to submission. After a few decades, the government says that I'll have to stop. They'll pay me money to compensate for my loss. You'll be free to go, in a country where everyone hates you. Your final moments are hanging on a burning cross.
I'm sure you'll think back of me, with respect, in your last moments.
My father shot your father in the head, because he was worn out, after 30 years of hard unpaid labor. Your grandfather died from his wounds, when my grandfather whipped him for disobedience, after 25 years of hard unpaid labor.
Will your grandchildren respect my grandchildren, for not doing that anymore?
because you haven't learned anything.
You still don't see them as human beings.
And if your side would legalize slavery again,
or something similar, you would probably support it.
And they don't tax rich people, when your side wins. They'll just tax YOU.
I have yet to get a straight answer from anyone on that question.
Most of them have only known their enslavement, and died as a slave.
Had the US not enslaved the ancestors of the black people living in the US,
they would either have been born in the countries that those slaves were taken from or they would have been immigrants. The US still needed lots of workers and could have asked people to come work in the US, just like how so many Chinese people ended up in the US.
I seriously doubt they would be drinking starbucks and driving lexus.
maybe even more generations than your ancestors.
You see them as 'blacks', but they are Americans.
They are Americans with a tough past, because of white man's evil
and they are still struggling because of that past en what still remains of it.
Africa isn't doing very well, maybe because of the same reason;
interference from the western world. If we hadn't enslaved and subjugated their countries, they could have all been drinking Starbucks and driving a Lexus there now too, but we keep messing up their ability to do so.
It's also fun to see how your stories flip, for the points you want to make;
for one narrative, they are all poverty stricken drugs dealers
and for another narrative they are drinking Starbucks and driving a Lexus.
No they didn't kill him,but I bet he will think twice before he steals again. I love this method of dealing with theft. no law enforcement needed, just beat the fuck out of em and kick them out the door.Problem solved.
I am sure leo will think they should help him pile more in the can so it will be worth his time.he seems to support crime
only registered users can see external links
I say more of this need to be done. Notice also,no white guys involved.
Even blacks and others are getting tired of the shit.
You only get one. Would be a shame to waste it.
I figure that was my “one and only reason” to “carry”. I don’t want to be a hypocrite. Owning a gun and advocating against them is not right.
Well, if guns solved everything, that would be easy.
Looking at your country, it doesn't look like guns solve everything.
Actually, it looks like guns solve nothing, except for 'ascending early'.
I see no reason to believe that 'ascending' is real. When the brain dies, it's over.
Still being kind to other people is the way to go, to make the world better,
where we spend our one and only life.
If I would live in an area with bears and mountain lions, I would want to be armed. That's not the problem in your country, it's the people who think they need to be able to protect themselves in villages and cities, where the only danger comes from other people.
Allowing people to protect themselves from other people is also providing everyone with the most effective tools to kill other people. Maybe you wouldn't hurt a human unless they had it coming, but, isn't it clear that many people do hurt other people, who not have it coming?
And what does 'unless they had it coming' mean? Does it mean them ringing your doorbell at 10 pm? Maybe you are responsible enough to own a gun, but many of your countrymen don't. They might think you have it coming, when you keep stinking up the laundry, hanging outside in the neighbors garden, with your BBQ smoke. Or maybe they think you have it coming, when you cut someone off in your car accidentally. Arming everyone means arming crazy people. And I don't see your government do anything to restrict guns from crazy people or improve mental healthcare.
You don't have to fear death, but you're certainly at risk of it. Being a a good man who does unto others as you would like them to do unto you, is no guarantee against that. I remind you of how many innocent children get gunned down in your country. That doesn't happen anywhere else in the world like that.
"When people don't believe in heaven or hell, then that's what you have today."
Reality doesn't change according to your beliefs. Heaven and/or hell are either real or not. Do you care about your beliefs being consistent with reality, or would you prefer to believe in something that's not true, just for it giving you comfort?
I experienced full anesthesia several times. That felt like not existing, during that period. It would feel the same to be dead; nothing.
I can be wrong, but I'm not seeing any good arguments for why I should be.
I'm not going to live my life, believing something that I find illogical.
"float around in cyberspace forever" No thanks! First of all, I don't believe that would be me, but just a copy of me. Second; forever is too long a time for me. Everything will get very boring, before forever gets even close.
If I can add another 100 years to my life in health and strength, that would be very attractive. However, since humanity is doing its best to destroy the world,
I don't know If I would want to see so much of the future or even if all the rest of my life, that I hope to have, is going to be that pleasant.
I still have both my parents, but they are getting old. I will miss them a lot,
when they'll eventually leave me. I'm sure your beliefs could help that make more bearable, but solace is not a reason for me, to have any beliefs.
I'm sure many things will help me remember them. That's good enough.
My father and I share a little joke; whenever you do something good, you get a voucher for the canteen in heaven. I'm sure I will imagine him spending his vouchers, even though I don't believe in it.
Then what?
I vaguely remember reading or hearing the greeks idea of hell was a person spending eternity doing something he could never finish.Like rolling a rock up a hill and get it almost to the top and it rolls back down.that sort of thing.I sure hope I don't spend eternity trying to get my shoes tied!
That's the issue when you don't have public broadcasting, which is obligated to inform the public about political candidates.
--------------
A gun damn sure keeps unwanted people off my property.
Have you ever really thought about that concept?
How ever nice that 'life after death' would be, I would get bored eventually.
I actually prefer it all to end, just after a good and long life.
But, what I prefer is not an argument for what is real.
Consciousness is dependent on a functioning brain. Chemicals can change or stop your consciousness. Getting brain damaged makes people unable to perform thinking tasks that functioning brains can do, like recognizing shapes, or faces, or sounds, or retain memories. Those facts eliminate the concept of a soul. Have you ever been under full anesthesia? That part that you cannot remember, that's how it would feel to be death. How you felt 100 years ago, is exactly how you would feel in 100 years; nothingness.
It's a very simple concept to me. It's only a difficult concept for people who were indoctrinated with religious ideas. The concept of an afterlife or some form of consciousness after death is not based on experiences or reasoning.
Any idea how it would feel to be a cosmic like entity comprised of all the essence? Can you still think, see, feel, move and communicate? What is the benefit of being such an entity? Is there still a purpose into being, at that point? Why is it better than not 'being' at all?
Heaven and hell are just human creations to make people compliant.
Considering that my body will be cremated, unless they will think of something more environmentally friendly for me to choose, all my atoms will return to the proverbial soup as well.
I see our essence as data on computer memory. When the hardware is destroyed, the data is truly wasted. However, I can store some of those memories on the people around me and on society. And the impact I had on society will always remain, even if everyone who ever knew me is gone too.
I don't think much of me will remain, when humanity is destroyed.
I think that's the source of me caring about what happens to humanity,
after I'm gone.
Except, for my brother having a son as progeny, we don't have that.
It was a conscious choice not to have children. Still, I care more about the future of humanity, than most people who do have children.
Even the majority of Americans accept the consequences of what climate science has presented. So either people are being ostriches or they think it's inevitable (it's not). Why are people not demanding from their politicians to stop following the road to oblivion? What we are leaving behind now, is the debt of not having done enough. Our generations will be remembered for the misery of future generations, for as many as there still will be.
We are being selfish, by using up all the natural resources and destroying all of nature. We are leaving progeny with a dying earth, with nothing on it, but toxic and nuclear waste.
If there's a creator, would he like the people who are destroying his creation?
I don't believe in a soul, but I still prefer to keep my conscience clean.
Strange how some of the strongest believers are strong supporters of selfishness and not giving a fuck about destroying the earth.
Not having a BBQ party is not going to save the climate.
71% of the problem is caused by 100 companies.
Not even you or I being fully 'green' from tomorrow on, will help anything.
No one can solve this problem with personal choices.
Unless all the powerful people are making the right choices,
it's up to the 'good' people to make them make the right choices.
Telling us today to use a solar panel may bite us in the ass in 30 years when ,material from solar panels has been shown to cause cancer or something along that line for example.
I posted this elsewhere but this is a prime example of Everyone being told how good something they were doing was,only to find out it was a hoax. Big time.
I'm talking about getting an economical car or conserving water or not littering.
This shouldn't keep you from trying to do the right thing.
There is however a difference between your tire story and solar panels.
The tires were claimed to be intended to build sea life reefs. How much of a NECESSITY was that? And how much did it save money, by just throwing old tires in the ocean?
Climate change is real, whether you chose to believe it or not. The only remedy is to strongly reduce our carbon emissions. Using the power of the sun, as an alternative to using fossil fuels, is the best option, to keep powering our current way of living, without killing nature and ourselves. That's something that justifies us taking more risks,
than when we decide what we do with old tires. Sea life reefs
are now dying in record pace, because of sea temperatures
comparable to a hot tub. Some old tires are not going to help.