Started by bella! at 13,Aug,23 11:15 other posts of bella!
 | This thread is for questionable content. WHY? Just because! I am someone who enjoys the Hodge Twins. YEP, the Hodge Twins. They probably make the hairs on the back of a WOKE person stand straight up! Anyway..... |
Similar topics: 1.Cum isn't stored in the balls!!! 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
My mother did when she was young,
i guess kids need to go back to doing it because the chemicals are so "dangerous".
only registered users can see external links
you can't have your cotton full of weeds
without using pesticides. There is no reason to pick cotton by hand, just because
you don't use pesticides anymore.
only registered users can see external links
It's not like that requires an AI revolution.
instead of using them because it's easy.
That's an acceptable trade off, for not killing nature.
Strange how you do care, when it's solar panels, for which it isn't even true.
While organic farming is better for soil health, a total shift would likely result in a 90%+ reduction in available cotton fiber, creating a major supply-demand crisis for the textile industry.
It would still cause some shortages of cotton but it’s doable
ChatGPT cannot find any data that comes close to a 90%+ reduction.
"Most research suggests organic cotton yields tend to be somewhere around
10–50% lower, depending on region, farming practices, climate, and years
after conversion." That's ChatGPT searching all sources, even the ones
that might have some bias against organic cotton.
We don't need to reach the 'organic cotton' certification completely.
That is a requirement to stop using synthetic fertilizer too.
I'm only talking about banning toxic pest and weed control.
Synthetic fertilizer is no where near as harmful to the environment.
New technologies make it possible to extract very useful fibers from e.g. bamboo, on a large scale. Bamboo can yield ~5–7 times more fiber per square mile than cotton. It doesn't require any weed control, because bamboo outgrows everything, and the pest control can be done biologically, without any impact on yield. (I'm not talking about very rare cases of pests.) At the moment, creating those bamboo fibers is a damn polluting process, but that's just a matter of innovation.
Again, oops. Sorry. 🤣🤣
"They suffer only a 82–93% reduction of the conventional yield."
If you read that and do the math, that doesn't leave much cotton! 93% from a 100% leaves 7% of the cotton for use. NO wonder my fruit of the looms cost more now!
I didn't even see that until now.
I will turn off the lights and suffer my shame for an hour.
I'm OK again, but I will never forget this cleansing experience.
Anyway, saving nature really doesn't require huge sacrifices.
Continuing to pollute it will come back to hunt us eventually.
We are in a future where robots have taken over ALL the jobs, even prostitution is replaced by robotic Waifu whores. There was a war between the wealthy, and now "The Table of Privileged" (10 immortal wealthy people) control EVERYTHING and EVERYONE ELSE.
People get a monthly allowance of $1000/month, and prices for food and rent and everything else are stable, and about similar with today. It is strictly forbidden to build
your own shelter or grow your own food.
For every dollar above the standard $1000/month, someone older than 50 dies;
one 50+ person, for every $1000.
"The Table" is adamant that the random death is quick and painless, but most people have seen someone kick and scream for an hour, before they burn up into a pile of ashes.
"The Table" is almost untouchable, because they have a huge mercenary army of "Loyalists", that brutally suppresses all protests and disappears people who criticize the system. The "Loyalists" get $10,000/month, but they voluntarily kill themselves on their 50th birthday. Of course they all prove their loyalty, by committing heinous acts for "The Table".
Some people manage to live their life, by buying a tent and a sleeping bag, and the food they need, to save up for a mini-home, costing $25,000. They are not allowed in the city, they live in the wasteland, until they buy that mini-home. Others live like there is no tomorrow, live in a $10,000/month luxury apartment and spend like crazy. Their argument: "I'm 25 years old. I have another 25 years without a care in the world. Don't expect me to cry for some old fart, who had a good life and gets a quick painless death!".
There have been attempts to beat this system. By word of mouth, a "Day Of Retribution" was set several times. The "Loyalists" found out every time, and it was a massacre every time. The people almost won a few years back. Another date has been set. It can work,
if everyone fights them, with whatever weapons they can lay their hands on.
However, the "Loyalists" gain ranks every single year.
What will you do?
In that kind of world, you will probably be executed for it, by the "Loyalists".
The suicide pact is only for the "Loyalists".
It's a damn shitty situation, but if everyone accepts to not go over the $1000/month limit, no one gets the horrible random death. But, how do you get everyone to agree?
"The Table" would not care if the people tried to start a movement to have people agree with limiting their spending to a $1000/month. That's not considered criticizing them.
They might not even care if some join forces to kill the big spenders.
However, what is the moral choice here? The big spenders didn't create this system,
they just prefer a 50 year long good life, over a long shitty one. Who is right?
There is also the inherent evil of the wealthy gaslighting people and the big spenders copying that, to help ease their conscience. Criticizing that is dangerous.
There will be enough to buy in the stores. Everyone gets $1000/month, robots can make everything, and the wealthy do want some sort of economy to keep the sheeple docile. Guns will obviously be banned, but kitchen utilities and sports accessories will be available. They got to keep the big spenders happy. People can buy a lot of knives and baseball bats and create an arsenal. The "Loyalists" are not everywhere, all the time, people can practice to become quite lethal with knife throwing. If everyone attacks them everywhere at the same time, it will be a bloodbath, but the people will win, in a day.
I didn't say that they were protected by a robot army, didn't I? (It's just a scenario)
'The Table' must have created this system for a reason, which is probably reducing overpopulation and taking most of the remaining resources for themselves.
There is no war, climate change is under control, nature is recovering.
The wealthy saw that humanity was destroying itself, Mars turned out to be
just a fantasy, so they acted to save themselves, with totalitarianism.
Will you join the big spenders? It depends a bit on your age, right?
As a young person, you would feel a lot different about it, than as an older person.
I designed this scenario to contain lots of shitty dilemmas.
So, what do you do?
Newly released documents from the U.S. Department of Justice provide additional details about Jeffrey Epstein’s final hours at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York, raising fresh questions about the official account of his death.
What the Video Logs Show
The surveillance logs note a flash of an orange-colored shape moving near Epstein’s cell tier around 10:39 p.m., the night before he was found dead. The logs describe it as unusual, but interpretations differ:
- The FBI log suggested it could have been an inmate.
- The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) said it might have been a corrections officer carrying bedding or performing routine duties.
Why the Public Has Not Seen the Footage
The frames showing this activity were never released to the public, because they occurred during a brief camera reset. Authorities describe this as routine technical downtime for the surveillance system, but the timing has fueled skepticism. Observers note that the unusual activity coincides exactly with a moment when the camera was offline, creating a gap in the visual record that cannot be independently verified.
Limited Camera Angles and Ambiguities
Even for footage that exists, the camera covering the stairwell and cell tier provided only a single, partially obstructed angle. Analysts have noted that this makes it difficult to clearly identify anyone approaching the cell, further complicating interpretations of the unusual movement logged that night.
Discrepancies in Guard Reports
Interviews with the corrections officers on duty, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, reveal gaps in memory and inconsistencies in inmate counts. Both had previously faced charges (later dropped) related to falsifying records. While these discrepancies do not prove foul play, they contribute to ongoing public concern about the circumstances of Epstein’s death.
Timeline and Official Narrative Remain Unchanged
Official records maintain that Epstein was discovered dead the following morning and that his death was ruled a suicide. No medical examiner or DOJ statement has formally revised the cause of death. However, the newly released logs and internal descriptions provide additional detail that was previously invisible to the public, leaving open questions about timeline, surveillance gaps, and activity near Epstein’s cell.
Why This Matters
While there is still no direct evidence of murder, the combination of missing video, unusual movement near his cell, and inconsistencies in officer reporting makes the events of that night harder to fully verify. These details underscore the lingering uncertainty surrounding Epstein’s death and explain why the case continues to attract intense public scrutiny.
Evidence also has sources, which are evidence for the evidence being real.
You can convict the ones who killed him, and find the reason for it.
People who are likely to have dirt on powerful people keep ending up dead.
That's not acceptable. Those powerful people need to face the law.
We cannot have powerful people doing whatever they want, to whoever they want.
That's one of the most important principles that your founding fathers wrote in
The Constitution. It's why Lady Liberty wears a blindfold. Do you still remember?
Jeffrey Epstein) Dated (One Day) Before His Death
only registered users can see external links
Newly released Epstein files include a draft statement attributed to federal prosecutors that is dated the day before Jeffrey Epstein was found dead.
The draft appears among at least 23 documents in the disclosure labeled as statements from the Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s Office.
One draft bears a date of Aug. 9, 2019, the day before Epstein was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.
Here’s a list of major US consumer protection or regulatory bodies that were weakened, attacked, or targeted under the Trump administration with Elon Musk’s involvement:
🇺🇸 Consumer Protection Agencies | Weakened or Targeted:
1. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
What it is: A federal agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers in financial markets (credit cards, loans, mortgages).
What happened: Director fired and leadership replaced.
Staff ordered to stop work, HQ temporarily closed, major layoffs.
DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk) embedded within the agency and influenced shutdown and layoffs.
Proposed rules (e.g., data broker regulation) were cancelled.
Enforcement actions dropped, lawsuits dismissed or abandoned.
A federal judge blocked full dismantling, so it still exists in name, but its capacity is severely weakened.
Impact: Essentially gutted: most consumer complaint work halted, budget cut, staff slashed, priorities narrowed. Enforcement and protections sharply reduced.
Status: still legally existing but much weaker.
2. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
What it is: The main U.S. consumer protection and antitrust agency.
What happened: President Trump fired the two Democratic commissioners, leaving the agency controlled entirely by Republicans.
Impact: Independence reduced: Political balance disrupted, which may weaken aggressive consumer protection and antitrust enforcement.
3. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
(Not strictly consumer protection, but relevant to labor rights which affect employees’ consumer power)
What it is: Protects workers’ rights to unionize and fair labor practices.
What happened: A board member was fired, dropping the board below quorum needed to act.
Impact: Operational disruption, investigations paused, reducing labor enforcement effectiveness.
4. United States Digital Service (USDS) / DOGE takeover
What happened: Trump reorganized USDS into a new entity (DOGE), firing many USDS tech staff.
Impact: Tech and regulatory oversight capabilities weakened, though this is more structural than direct consumer protection.
🧠 Elon Musk’s Role
Musk publicly called to “delete” the CFPB as a consumer watchdog.
In DOGE, his team influenced layoffs and shut down of CFPB operations.
Musk was not legally in charge of agencies, but as head of DOGE his influence contributed to restructuring and weakening enforcement in agencies like CFPB.
When winners choose the lump‑sum (cash) option, the amount they actually can take immediately is much lower than the advertised jackpot. For huge jackpots (~$1.6 billion), the lump sum is typically around 50–60 % of the advertised amount before taxes.
From a tax perspective, lottery winnings in the U.S. are treated as ordinary income,
just like wages or business income. So the high tax, federal and possibly state,
isn’t unique to lottery winnings.
Some states do not tax lottery winnings (e.g., Florida, Texas, California).
In the Netherlands there is a g@mbling tax (kansspelbelasting), currently 30.5%.
When our State Lottery advertises with the grand prize being like Ђ16.8 million,
the one who wins it gets that exact amount.
There is a constant fight going on in my country, between companies who are trying to get away with false advertising and our government making laws to protect consumers from misleading pricing. It worked pretty damn good last time, but non-governmental Consumer organizations are already raising the alarm again. Then the Government regulators (with enforcement powers) respond later.
Here is one ChatGPT dump with some examples:
🇳🇱 Recent laws and regulation on pricing transparency in the Netherlands
1) Stricter rules on advertised prices
As of 1 January 2023, new Dutch rules were introduced that make it illegal for sellers to show misleading “from-for” (van/voor) pricing — for example, temporarily hiking a price just to show a big discount later. The “from” price (the price before discount) must be the lowest price actually used in the last 30 days.
2) Transparency about additional costs
Dutch regulations and enforcement by the Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) require that all mandatory costs (e.g., tourist tax, booking fees) must be included in the first price shown for holidays or other services. Hidden costs that only show up later in the booking process are considered misleading.
3) Penalties and enforcement
Companies can be fined significant amounts for misleading pricing — for instance several webshops were fined hundreds of thousands of euros earlier in 2024 for fake discounts that didn’t reflect real prior prices.
⚠️ So why do misleading prices still keep showing up?
1. Businesses find loopholes or new tricks
Although the law is stricter, merchants have adapted to use “recommended retail prices” or other reference prices that were never actually charged. These can still make discounts appear bigger than they really are, and this tactic is not fully covered by the current rules.
2. Enforcement and compliance are ongoing
The ACM and consumer groups frequently find continued non-compliance, especially in online travel deals and booking platforms. Even after warnings or investigations, some companies still fail to fully comply until they are directly sanctioned.
3. Regulation is complex and evolving
Price transparency law applies to many sectors (retail prices, webshops, travel sites, etc.) and enforcement evolves over time. Some misleading practices stay just outside the current legal language until a new update or enforcement case reveals a gap.
4. Consumer patterns and tech
Especially online, new marketing models (like auction systems with hidden charges, or dynamic pricing) create unexpected ways to mislead consumers that regulators are still catching up with.
Biden on the golf course!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Robots will work 24-7 without overtime pay if their function is needed. no bitching either. No family leave, wow, all the advantages. I say bring em on and get them here quick.
Look over this page and see just what is involved cost wise to hire 1 employee for a job.
only registered users can see external links
Now look at the cost of robotics and it's advantages.
only registered users can see external links
And just a quick quote to reinforce what I said above,
"For example, many organizations find that vacuuming takes up approximately 30% of total facility cleaning time. When this repetitive task is automated, cleaning teams report a 25% boost in efficiency. The existing cleaning staff can then relocate their time to higher-value services like disinfecting, deep cleaning, and polishing"
Increases efficiency,that is 2d priorty after PROFIT,without profit,the rest is moot.
As for going to Mars, For years I was scratching my head why "going to the moon" was so important. Which I still don't think we ever went, it was movie magic. But anyway. alot of the tech we are using right now to argue at each other 1000's of mile apart is thanks to the space program. So a trip to mars, may not be feasible, but the tech coming from it will change the world in a positive way.it will take time. There have been times when poor people had a great idea nad it changed the world.But it took alot of people investing in the idea to get it mainstream. most of them rich as they had profited from other investments. You hate money so bad, But our world would be ALOT different if there was no rich people. we would be using rotary dial phones, which I still do at home. but our tech would be "old" because there would be no money to invest in improvments.
And now you are supporting that these billionaires replace those jobs with AI and robots.
They are not just planning to eliminate cleaning. That is possible TODAY.
They are imagining processes that take 10,000 people now to be done by 100 max.
It only leaves some jobs for the most highly educated people.
You are not supporting a system that allows everyone to maximize their education.
So, tell me what the future you are imagining looks like. PLEASE?
Going to the moon was a PR STUNT. It was ONLY intended to show the US to be stronger than the USSR. If you're really susceptible to such a dumb conspiracy theory, you are not capable of logically analyzing anything going on today. Not even the RUSSIANS ever argued that the US didn't go to the moon. Do you think some dumb-ass on YouTube can come up with better arguments, than the Russians, who had their own damn impressive space program? You acknowledge the technology gains from going to the moon and what the US was capable after. All of that is in line with ACTUALLY going
to the moon, instead of faking it. It's probably more complicated and expensive to FAKE going to the moon, without missing any details that would debunk it, than actually going
to the moon. Then why WOULDN'T they actually go? Do you think they would risk giving the Russians the best PR EVER?
If you think that some YouTuber has actually debunked it, you're wrong. Those people
are idiots and their pathetic debunking attempts can be debunked in minutes. A socialist, 'America-hater', like me, would love another reason to show your country to be horrible.
If there is any REAL evidence that they faked going to the moon, I would mention it every other day.
There is NO GOOD REASON to go to Mars. You don't have to show your technical dominance anymore. We all know it, and are trying to become independent from it, because you cannot be trusted anymore. Going to Mars doesn't help convince anyone not to. The only reason why Elon Musk wants other people to go to Mars, is to glorify HIM. Why would the US spend trillions of PUBLIC money to glorify a PRIVATE wealthy man? It's NOT for the technology benefit, because there are way better challenges to do that, that also benefit humanity much more.
Musk argues that Mars is a backup for Earth, for when we destroy the livability of Earth. That's incredibly stupid, because it is about a billion times easier and cheaper to preserve Earth than to make Mars habitable. Until it IS habitable, it's NOT a backup for Earth. It will require a constant supply of resources from Earth to support any poor soul living on Mars.
Those are exactly the types of jobs that will be gone.
Jobs like hairdresser will probably survive. How comfortable will people feel with a robot using scissors and razors close to their eyes and major arteries?
Production jobs will be the first to go. A lot of them are already gone. Repair jobs will take a bit longer, but with production becoming cheaper, parts will become cheaper.
It's possible to design complicated machines to be easily repaired by robots, by just exchanging disposable parts.
They are not spending trillions on AI for fun. They are intending to replace MOST jobs. That means that people will be competing over the remaining jobs. And that means we will all be vulnerable to exploitation. That's what happens to things that are scarce but vital. It is why a drug that is easy to make can cost $50,000 per dose.
What are you considering to be "college educated wages"?
Does it allow a family food, housing, healthcare, raising children and paying for their education on a single income?
If not, what kind of education is required for that?
How many people are in the position to have that, today?
That burger flipper probably has no education. What can he/she do, to provide themselves food, housing, healthcare, raising 1 child and paying for its education?
Stop talking about those lazy people. I am asking for the most motivated and efficient burger flipper his employer have ever seen, working his ass off 50 hrs/week. He just has no education, because he needed to work, because his father died of colon cancer and his mother was working the graveyard shift as a nurse, so he needed to take care of his 2 siblings. In your world, he is fucked, unless he beats incredible odds.
This is the education level in your country:
No High School Diploma (less than high school): ~9%
High School Graduate (no college): ~28%
Some College / Associate Degree (no bachelor’s): ~25%*
Bachelor’s Degree (college education): ~23%
Advanced Degrees (master’s, professional, doctorate): ~14%
Which of them deserve to earn food, housing, healthcare, raising 1 child
and paying for its education?
Do we agree about the Moon and Mars now?
Kinda sad really that so much education is needed, my grandfather had a 2d grade education and made a damn good living as a welder and machine operator,supported his wife and kid.but died due to heart failure.
Yeah, why is that, that so much education is needed to make a living?
do you want a surgeon doing your heart bypass with a associates degree?
Do you want a high school grad formulating your medicines?
Well if you don't want these things, you have to have education available for them to obtain. And if they obtain the education, score well, they deserve "interest" on the investment they made in themselves by earning a better wage than a burger flipper. Burger flippers that have done it for 15 years obviously don't have ambition to do any better so they would probably still be at moms anyway.
We are not talking about "good paying jobs", we are talking about being able to LIVE from a job. The minimum is being able to rent a small apartment, to buy food, and to have access to healthcare. Anything less is a risk to your survival.
You are saying that this minimum is only possible with a collage education.
That means without it, you cannot build yourself a LIFE.
Jobs that required a bachelor, in the 1980s, those were GOOD paying jobs. Father drove home in an expensive car, to go home to his family, living in a big house, with kids who were all set to go to university. Today, it's about the minimum, to get by. There are not a lot jobs requiring a bachelor, that would make it possible to buy a house in the current market. You need a couple now, who both have such a job, to be able to buy a house, and it's not even a big one.
Over regulation of industry drove up cost, they have to cut cost to maintain profit, the purpose of running a business. Labor is a cost that can be cut or eliminated with automation.
Those regulations are due to liberals democrats and unions. they claim to push for higher wages but then in turn make the cost of doing business to high for the employers. My cousin paid autoworker union dues for several years and said he got absolutely NOTHING for those dues.
Say you and your buddies on a work crew get a new system of working put in place,all of you know it's unsafe,are you going to go to work in an unsafe environment for your corporate overlord or are you all going to stick together to call out the unsafe way of working?
Yeah unions really fucked up the USA didn't they?
What about all the law enforcement agency unions? Almost every police officer is part of a Union,are they fucking up the USA?
I did work in a dangerous job,that's why I wound up injured. no union,no nothing. i was just as hurt being non union as if I had paid in dues for years. Shit happens in a work place. union or not.
But just as with the postal service, the unions now have it so screwed up you can't even fire people.
when a janitor sleeps in the break room half his shift, and a temp worker goes to pickup a broom to clean up a mess he made and gets wrote up because it's not his job and the sleeping janitor gets a bonus for it,that's fucked up, but it happened to a friend of mine that worked at a usps warehouse over Christmas. the union protects the cops that fuck up and get fired from 1 place,and they just go elsewhere,because the record keeping is in favor of the cop,not the people. do some reading before you support unions in modern times.
only registered users can see external links
The US averages 3.5 on the job fatalities / 100,000 workers,
The Netherlands has 0.4 on the job fatalities / 100,000 workers.
only registered users can see external links
That's because our workplaces are heavily regulated.
You don't need a union if the government protects you.
But it doesn't, because your politicians take money from corporations.
Your politics has not listened to the people in a very long time.
only registered users can see external links
The NFL is big business and only does what their wallets tells them is popular.
I can imagine that Nascar could hurt itself by going 'woke',
that's the sport that is most popular in solidly red areas.
You got to understand your client base as a big company.
The NFL isn't just popular in solidly red areas.
only registered users can see external links
WOW, does he lay it out in PLAIN ENGLISH.
only registered users can see external links
Listen to this lady, another smart lady explaining some things about islam. At 4:30, not quite perfect quote but close, "if I hate you and want to behead you if you don't convert to my religion ,where is the room for compromise?"
only registered users can see external links
That is the heaviest sunbed tanning, spray-tan or dedication to lay in the sun for months, that I have ever seen on a white guy. The grease is either pouring out from his skin, because he fried himself, or because he tries to minimize the damage to his skin
with gallons of skin care product. And the suit bugs me too; char(cough)latan!
OK, personal attacks are not arguments, but what a caricature of a man.
Oh, it's popular on X is it? Maybe because Elon Musk favors and reposts the shit out of that grievance porn?
Oh, showing some videos of black people misbehaving is validating your 'black fatigue'. No context why they did that there. Could be a reaction to some fucking racist. But, of course, there is never a reason to be an ass-hole, as a reaction to some ass-hole. We only get to see REACTIONS. And even if this was just uncalled for (1% chance), have you ever heard the term 'Karen'? A few videos are not evidence for black people being nasty more often than white people. Do you know how many videos of white people being ass-holes
I have seen? Or how many white ass-holes I have seen IN PERSON? But, I understand that it satisfies your bias.
Some people are insufferable cunts, the majority is white. Hey, I'm white...
His definition for "Anti-white-racism" are all the terms that describe actual racism.
There is no logical reaction to this. The only valid respons is FUCK YOU!
Oh, the cat comes out of the bag. He is repurposing the term 'black fatigue' in order to destroy a term made up by a black woman. He knows that it was successful with 'woke', so he uses that strategy again. How devious.
"The term was first coined and popularized by American diversity, equity, and inclusion expert Mary-Frances Winters. She introduced the term in her 2020 book Black Fatigue: How Racism Erodes the Mind, Body, and Spirit, using it to describe the cumulative emotional, physical, and psychological exhaustion that Black people experience from navigating persistent systemic racism and microaggressions."
He even admits this, but that's all IMAGINARY. Even if it was, it would still be a dick move. Are YOU, phart, seriously backing up this guy, saying that racism/discrimination isn't real, never was real, and is now only directed at white people? Can you say that, without fear
of damaging your soul? (You believe in a soul, don't you?)
Sorry, phart, I wanted to see this video to the end, but I can't stand that garbage person any longer than about 5 minutes.
I don't have to watch the video to agree that there are lots of Muslims in the world, who feel exactly like you're quoting there. There are also many Muslims who want to live in freedom from that ideology. Why do you think that people in Iran are protesting? When Saudi Arabia is beheading people, those are Muslims, who are rejecting that ideology. Your government is now arguing that they are helping the Muslims in Iran to live free, but your government is also helping the regime in Saudi Arabia to suppress Muslims like that in Saudi Arabia. Your government doesn't care about their freedom, it only cares that their government plays ball with yours. That's why the actions of your government have only resulted in creating more of the ideology that you quoted.
There is no reason for why Muslims could not be a peaceful religion, as much as Christianity can be called a peaceful religion. There is objectively less evil in the koran, than in the bible. The good parts are about equal. Muslims clearly have a longer path to walk towards what I consider beneficial to humanity, but that could also be a good thing.
It might be easier to drop a horrible religion all-together, than one that keeps lingering between half-decent and generally annoying. Just drop the primitive dogmas and finally evolve to using REASON to UNDERSTAND what's good for humanity, instead of someone telling you, based on what's written in some very old book.
only registered users can see external links
Would suit me fine if building stopped RIGHT NOW. Our roads in this area are cluttered with yankees and californians that can't fucking drive. they had to be living somewhere,they coulda stayed!
only registered users can see external links
Storming a church and interrupting the peaceable assembly of others can be charged as a crime, because it is.
"It is a criminal act to intentionally interfere with the expression of free speech of others." Don Lemon was just arrested for covering an anti-ICE protest. If there is ONE thing that should be protected by the 1st Amendment, it's the right to REPORT on protests.
Protest organizers and participants said they were targeting a pastor at Cities Church who they believed also serves as a local ICE official (specifically an acting director of the ICE field office in Minnesota). That dual role, religious leader and immigration enforcement official, was central to their reason for taking the protest into the church.
If a Christian leader is still involved in ICE, as it is operating today, they are unqualified to represent Jesus.
If police is going to arrest organizers or the main participants of a protest, which
is breaking the law, that is warranted, and the risk they take for doing that.
Arresting journalists covering the protest is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment, and I am sure only intended as INTIMIDATION. You don't seem to understand that the 1st Amendment is intended to protect the people from GOVERNMENT interference.
In fact, broadcast companies are failing to do journalism nowadays
and new media is picking up the broken pieces.
You're not providing a legal argument, that will stick in court.
The fact that journalists get paid is not relevant and never has been.
Journalists who work for broadcast companies get paid too, sometimes
even many millions per year.
But, they would of course not be arrested while doing that.
Of the 9 people who were arrested in that protest, 2 were journalists.
When do you start to care about ICE breaking the law,
instead of the victimized citizens who are protesting that?
A woman can be grabbed by 4 armed masked men, and pulled into a van,
while the police is watching, because that's how ICE operates.
How idiotic for a country, to not just allow that, but organize that?
Before Trump, you would have said that it was your 2nd Amendment duty, to protect that woman, and shoot her assaulters, But now your idiot president hired thousands of thugs, who's uniform is just what the end up buying at their local military surplus. Who the hell came up with that? It's not just the cruelty, it's also the sheer INCOMPETENCE of your stupid regime, that makes me angry.
I doubt fox news or newsmax reporters would crash into a church for views. Even they are above doing something that sacrilege .You don't mess with places of worship.I would feel the same if it was a mosque. I don't like the people that go in them,or their beliefs but it is just mutual respect for 1's place of worship.
Your government says the protest interrupted the service and impeded congregants’ rights, and prosecutors claim Lemon’s presence and actions went beyond neutral reporting. Whether his presence constitutes protected journalism or unlawful interference is now a matter for the courts to decide.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248, makes it a federal crime to use force, threats, obstruction, or intimidation to interfere with a person’s exercise of rights at a place of worship or reproductive health facility. I have seen NO evidence of him engaging in force, threats, obstruction, or intimidation. An unbiased judge will dismiss the charges.
ICE is not law enforcement, ICE are themselves criminals now.
Until they start to obey the law, they cannot enforce the law.
If you go somewhere that you're not supposed to, you get a fine. Unless you have evidence that Don Lemon broke something, there is no reason for a judge to be involved.
Religion is a first amendement right, so it should have protections from the government and people trying to take people's right away. A little first time 'interference' should not be a crime, it should be no more than an infraction/violation. The law should not protect religion anymore than any other expression of free speech. The term 'sacrilege' is a religious term, which doesn't fit the 1st Amendment. Churches should also no longer be exempt from paying taxes. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
"I don't like how people are mean to me, when I am mean to them."
"That shouldn't be allowed."
This was his way of emphasizing what some call a “color‑blind” approach to race,
the idea that if we stopped highlighting racial categories in everyday interactions,
racial divisions could diminish over time. He is not a representative for most black people in the US. This contrasts with the majority view among Black Americans, who see racism as both systemic and structural, requiring active attention and solutions.
You're making an "appeal to authority" fallacy. The reasoning goes like:
“Morgan Freeman says stop talking about race → therefore, that is the best way
to reduce racism.”
It’s fallacious because his celebrity status does not confer special insight into
systemic sociology.
I think it's just an argument from people who want people to stop talking about racism.
The reality is that racism is reemerging in alarming ways, more openly than in previous decades, making silence both unrealistic and dangerous.
Ignoring race doesn’t make racism disappear. It can hide inequalities,
invalidate experiences, maintain the status quo, and erase cultural identity.
Real change requires acknowledging race, while addressing inequities.
I remember when it was bad to believe in the doctrine of “separate but equal.” Now, it is perfectly acceptable, so long as your skin is a politically correct shade, and not too pale, of course.
Indeed, the audacity of calling a country that elected a half-black man to be POTUS not once but twice, and where the wealthiest woman in the world is Oprah Winfrey, and thousands of black men and women belong to the millionaires club, is palpable. It is staggeringly mind numbing to hear many insisting it is now worse for black people in this nation than it was in 1925!
What rot!
But, do go one. Please. Perpetuate that myth. Keep claiming America is racist merely because white people live here. Ignore the unapologetic racism of Leftist activists and black separatist race grifters who get richer with each manufactured outrage, which oddly always seems to be the fault of whitey for some reason.
This is racism is being projected onto those who have committed the cardinal sin of being born white, by those who profit most from the division it creates. Up is down, war is peace, and ignorance is power in a world turned upside down by those who, failing to find racism in our society, create it themselves and then reward themselves richly for calling it out. It is a world in which the only people who can now be safely discriminated against are the ones who are melanin lacking, and those who profit from discrimination this laugh on the way to the bank.
Why is your president constantly publicly insulted the intelligence of Jasmine Crockett, who knows all of the law from memory and obviously speaks and reads at a much higher level than the president himself?
Can you point me to some of those 'Leftist race grifters', who are pushing 'Black separatism'?
A grifter is someone who makes money, influence, or attention by deceiving people, especially by pretending to be sincere, principled, or aligned with a cause they don’t genuinely believe in. There is a lot of it on the right, because right-wing ideology favors the wealthy. It is openly documented how almost all right-wing media, old and new, is funded by billions of dollars from the wealthy. To a lesser extend there is corporate liberal media, funded by liberal billionaires, but there is none of that on the LEFT. The left threatens billionaires, because we think they should not exist. They are not funding a movement that wants to tax them out of existence.
When I accuse the US of being racist, I have lots of other examples than that white people live there. Like the fact that ICE is racially profiling people to attack, consistently on a large scale, while we are speaking.
Being born white is not a sin, it's a privilege. No one is accusing me of having low IQ and being incompetent, based on my skin color, because I'm white. If I was black in America, I would now have to prove I am qualified for my job, based solely on being part of a GROUP, that was hired while DEI existed, without being INDIVIDUALLY assessed. Being treated as a ethnic group, instead of as an individual, is discrimination.
If melanin people are discriminated against, than why are white people on average still SO MUCH BETTER OFF, than black people on average? You can only explain that with racism or by engaging in racism. Which one will you pick?
The wealthiest woman in the world is NOT Oprah Winfrey, it is Alice Walton, the Walmart heiress, with an estimated fortune of around $101 billion. Oprah Winfrey’s net worth is about $3.2 billion. Funny how you put sexism on top of racism, and making a separate category for women. The wealthiest PERSON in the world is Elon Musk, with ~$700 billion+. He is white, from South Africa, from a line of apartheid supporting white wealthy people. He is also known from his weird waving, that exactly looked like two Nazi salutes, during your PRESIDENT'S campaign. No one on the side of your president has acknowledged this and condemned this, and Elon Musk was allowed to go into your government's finances and do whatever he wanted with it. Are you going to deny that those were intended as Nazi salutes, or are you going to say that Nazi salutes are not disqualifying for such an important position?
Race wouldn't be near the issue it is if Black people themselves would stop making it 1.
Otherwise, you are arguing that 'blacks' are doing that, because they are black,
which is: racism.
No, race is an issue, because you cannot stop making it an issue.
You have no arguments against anything else I said, so racism is real.
If I turned on the news and the majority of criminals displayed on the screen were white, um,i wouldn't think blacks were the majority ,nothing there to enforce that observation.
If I were to veiw the population of the nearest jail and they were all white, um, blacks aren't the issue,nothing there to enforce the observation.
So HOW are people of other races bringing attention onto themselves?
One of you is denying that have any problems and the other is calling them
all criminals. How am I supposed to take you lot seriously?
You're not dealing in reality. Your "facts" change according to what you want
to argue for. Discuss you ideas with each other first, and come to me with your combined conclusion, about how black people are either incredibly privileged or
how they are awfully struggling.
If you are saying that they are privileged AND struggling, then you are just saying that it's because they are black, which is: racism.
In any case, if that WOULD be the reality, how the fuck is IGNORING race then going to solve anything? IF race WAS the ACTUAL problem, then how stupid
is ignoring it? Your whole support for ignoring race, proves that wrong.
You obviously care about the problem, so explain why you don't want to fix it.
Or, just keep your head buried in the sand regarding anything I post that questions your politics..
Your choice.
"I Looked at the New US Food Guidelines And Something Doesn’t Add Up"
only registered users can see external links
One example; the messaging was: "We are ending the war on protein!".
Like there are not shelves stacked with products marketing "EXTRA PROTEIN".
Why is everything your administration does SO INCREDIBLY STUPID?
If you want to stay healthy, listen to specialists.
Do not listen to your administration, because they DON'T listen to specialists.
Your administration listens to lobbyists and people with brain-worms (literal or figurative).
The milk and meat lobby has significantly delayed and distorted public understanding
of the health risks of animal-product consumption, contributing to preventable disease.
Men can't even work anymore, they don't have the strength to lift things, they depend on machines, they can't think because their brains are malnourished. We need carbs and protein in our diets to get our humans back up to a level they can function. Weak people means weak country.
a food supplement, it would possibly be risky to use that in large quantities.
Products like protein bars and protein shakes are considered food in the EU,
not food supplements, so they should be safe.
I think the whole protein hype is nonsense. Our consumer information program "Keuringsdienst van waarde" (Inspection service of value) researched it and they conclude that almost everyone gets enough protein in their food. Only top athletes might benefit from same extra.
And did you check that they contained all essential amino acids?
Often it's just whey protein, a byproduct of cheese-making, which they had
lots of trouble selling, until they marketed the shit out of protein products.
The body can create creatine itself, but they say it helps produce energy for short, intense bursts of activity. Think of it as a rapid fuel reserve for your muscles and brain. If you work out vigorously, I can imagine it would help.
Short answer: **No — that explanation is largely false and mixes a few half-truths with outright misinformation.** Let’s unpack it cleanly.
---
## What’s wrong in that statement
### 1. **Creatine does NOT require 75 g of glucose to work**
* Creatine uptake into muscle is **not dependent on a massive insulin spike**.
* Insulin can *slightly* enhance creatine transport, but **normal meals already provide enough insulin**.
* Research shows creatine works perfectly well **with water alone**.
👉 You do **not** need 75 g of glucose (that’s ~300 calories of sugar) for creatine to be effective.
---
### 2. **More expensive creatine ≠ better creatine**
* The gold standard is **creatine monohydrate**.
* It’s cheap, stable, and extremely well-researched.
* Added glucose does **not** make it higher quality — it just makes it a carb supplement plus creatine.
If anything, “expensive creatine with tons of sugar” is often **marketing fluff**.
---
### 3. **Creatine is NOT injected**
This is a big red flag.
* Creatine is taken **orally** (powder, capsule).
* There is **no standard or legitimate practice of injecting creatine**.
* The body absorbs creatine through the gut → bloodstream → muscles.
If someone says “inject creatine,” they either misspoke badly or don’t understand the topic.
---
### 4. **Creatine doesn’t directly “repair muscles”**
Creatine:
* Increases **phosphocreatine stores**
* Improves **short-burst power output**
* Allows **more reps, heavier loads**
* Indirectly supports muscle growth by improving training quality
It does **not** directly repair muscle tissue like protein or calories do.
---
### 5. **Insulin spikes that big are unnecessary and often counterproductive**
* 75 g of glucose daily just for creatine can:
* Add unnecessary fat
* Spike blood sugar
* Be harmful for insulin sensitivity (especially long-term)
Top athletes absolutely do **not** rely on sugar bombs just to make creatine work.
---
## What’s actually true (the real science)
✅ Creatine monohydrate works on its own
✅ Taking it with meals is sufficient
✅ Insulin *can* help uptake slightly, but normal eating covers this
✅ No glucose minimum exists
✅ No injection required
✅ Cheap creatine is just as effective
---
## Bottom line
That explanation is **scientifically incorrect** and includes:
* A fake glucose requirement
* A misunderstanding of insulin
* A false claim about injection
* Confusion about muscle repair
--------------------------------------- added after 8 minutes
cally designed to cause a significant, measurable spike in blood sugar and a corresponding surge in insulin, often used to diagnose diabetes or insulin resistance. This amount is typically given as a liquid drink, causing a faster, more intense spike than a similar amount of carbohydrates eaten in solid food.
--------------------------------------- added after 11 minutes
Yes, consuming 75 grams of glucose is a standardized, high-carbohydrate load specifically designed to cause a significant, measurable spike in blood sugar and a corresponding surge in insulin, often used to diagnose diabetes or insulin resistance. This amount is typically given as a liquid drink, causing a faster, more intense spike than a similar amount of carbohydrates eaten in solid food.
Like I said, I just asked ChatGPT.
Stop letting a machine do it, and think for yourself. There are far better and more reliable sources of info than a software written by individuals with personal prejudices and agendas.
and it uses algorithms to figure out logical connections between ALL that data.
Are you doing that?
This was one time that I didn't have a clue about the truth of this, and I didn't care to learn, because it has no use for me. That's when I just ask ChatGPT.
I didn't even read most of it, just formatted it, AND I CLEARLY SAID THAT.
I mostly use ChatGPT as a factchecker. If ChatGPT is incorrect, I know enough to know that, on most subjects that we are taling about, because
I get news from many sources. When I ask ChatGPT something I care about,
I always ask it for it's sources and confirm what it answered.
So, how do you do it? Do you ask Google or some other search engine for links to information? Do you admit that all those search engines can have the exact same problem of being programmed by individuals with prejudices and agendas?
If you are finding information with a search engine, you are reading ONE source that can be completely biased. If you are finding information with AI,
it is usually based on multiple sources. That can be more accurate, but it can also be completely wrong. It all depends on your own knowledge and critical thinking skills to separate the lies and nonsense from the truth.
Grok is written by individuals with personal prejudices and agendas, ChatGPT is NOT, or a least FAR LESS. There is clear evidence that Elon Musk himself is involved in manipulating Grok, but that is exactly why people on your side favor it over AI's from more neutral organized companies.
By the way; if you think that AI is such a threat to the truth, why do you not BERATE Trump, for letting the techbros fill your country with AI datacenters and Trump wanting to forbid ALL regulation that would prevent them from destroying the truth for ever? Do you like being lied to?
I want strict regulation to make sure that no one can use fake pictures or video for propaganda, with heavy penalties if they do. The Trump regime just changed a photo of civil rights attorney and activist Nekima Levy Armstrong, to make it look like she was crying, while she was not. I consider that a crime. I DON'T like being lied to.
You're making a "Correlation–causation fallacy".
You are correct in thinking that sissy/weak men care about their health more,
but you are reversing the logic. It's not the healthy food that made them sissy/weak,
it's being sissy/weak that makes men care about their health.
Together with the manly culture of meat and BBQ, that makes you relate unhealthy food with "real men" and healthy food with "sissy/weak" men. That's irrational thinking.
Understand that there is lots of marketing behind the idea of manly men. They advertise it with a big hairy man, on his ranch, cutting up a dead animal, putting it on the grill, in a leather apron, covered in smoke, drinking beer, with his mates. And for a while, that's all a lot of fun, good eating, good times. But if that makes you eat unhealthy everyday, you end up fat, out of breath, with diminished heart function from blocked arteries, elevated cholesterol and hypertension, requiring medication with side-effects, possibly turning diabetic, and all medical bills associated with it. It was all very manly for a while, but it can turn that big burly man into a weakling, who cannot do his job anymore and probably dies before his retirement.
Is it manly, when he leaves his wife without his income and lots of medical debt?
Studies show that top athletes perform much better on a fully plant based diet, than on meat, even high quality unprocessed meat that is considered healthy. It takes more effort to balance a plant based diet, to compensate for some deficiencies (only Vitamin B12 cannot be compensated without supplements), but then it provides the body with a much more complete source of nutrients. It opens up all the arteries to utilize the full power of the heart, which make top athletes perform their best.
Actually that manly American food culture turns people malnourished.
All those jiggly asses you see walking around are STARVING for vitamins (Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Carotenoids), minerals (Potassium, Magnesium), fiber, anti-oxidants, healthy fatty acids, complex carbohydrates, prebiotics & gut-supporting compounds. They're not strong and tough, they're dying.
Of course, I'm not turning this knowledge into full practice. I still eat meat (but a bit less), because I like it. A long healthy life is not worth a lot, if you need to suffer every day to achieve it. I have no interest in sports, I just don't want to suffer illness and die young. That requires a healthIER diet and some exercise. That's not much of a sacrifice. A well-balanced diet is much more interesting than only hamburgers and steaks. I like variety and eating food from all over the world. Especially Asian countries have developed a diet that is both healthy and great in taste and variety.
“Variety’s the very spice of life, that gives it all its flavour.” — William Cowper
only registered users can see external links
of abolishing their own monarchy, while their king has almost no power.
About 31–37 % of Dutch people want The Netherlands to be a republic.
I'm not one of them, because I see how awful your republic is.
I don't want ONE person to have so much power to only represent one group of people, and fuck over the rest, while they were voted in by only 31,6 % of the people who are eligible to vote.
I want all voters to represented in a compromise. And I want a cabinet that lays down their jobs, when people lose trust in them. None of your presidents has ever done that, no matter how low their approval had become.
Seriously, why would anyone want a kill that killed his wives?
I am exactly saying that I DON'T want a stupid king to rule over us,
but a government of people with brains. We have that, much more than YOU.
OK, Trump ONLY killed one wife.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
OH now it all makes sense,A democrat judge.
U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett
Who appointed judge Margaret Garnett?
Joseph R. Biden
Nominated by Joseph R. Biden on July 11, 2023, to a seat vacated by Vincent Louis Briccetti. Confirmed by the Senate on November 28, 2023, and received commission on January 9, 2024.
only registered users can see external links
I would assume he was a flight risk, But didn't get much punishment.
when you understand how fugging hard it often is.
I let this brilliant piece of comedy support my point:
only registered users can see external links
Irritable Male Syndrome
only registered users can see external links
The term irritable male syndrome (IMS) is used in scientific and popular texts to describe a pattern of irritability and mood changes linked to hormonal fluctuations in males. However, it is not an officially recognized medical diagnosis in major clinical classifications like the DSM-5 or ICD-11; it remains a descriptive concept rather than a standardized clinical condition.
I would say that irritable male syndrome is the clearest reason for the existence of MAGA that I ever heard. The whole movement is based on primitive gut feelings, that things in the US are not going well, without any rational thinking about the reasons for why things in the US are not going well. If you look at MAGA crowds, it's clear that ALL these men have some form of hormonal imbalance. Either they are testosteron bombs who are frustrated for women not being interested in them, or they are middle-aged men in their penopause.
That's all rational reasons to feel depressed about the state of THEIR country.
It's not your country, because your side has always hated America.
You want America to be like Putin's Russia and Erdoğan's Turkey.
Lets take a look at some apartments in new york.
only registered users can see external links
1750 a month
and then compare them to apartments in RUSSIA.
only registered users can see external links
750 a month, a 1000 dollars less than new york and MUCH larger in most cases.
NOW, Please remind me what political party has been running new york and for how long?
Oh,let me google that for you to save time
"City government is dominated by the Democratic Party, which also normally attracts majority support within the city in State, Congressional, and Presidential elections. The suffrage has been extended in stages since the founding of the state: African Americans (men only) received the vote in 1870 and women in 1920."
Democrats have been trying to make America in russia and theres the proof in those 2 links. looks nearly the same to me,except the democrats have got the cost much higher.Who struggles under the higher democrat prices in new york? the poor. DUH,
Moscow Average Annual: 1.25 Million RUB ($1,000+ monthly net).
Moscow Living Wage (Bachelor): RUB 75k-100k/month (approx. $800-$1,000 USD at recent rates).
In Summary:
Expect substantially higher dollar figures for salaries in New York, but factor in the much higher cost of living in NYC versus Moscow; however, even with cost adjustments, New York generally offers greater real purchasing power.
Give it a rest, Phart.
USD RUB
500 USD 39,000 RUB
1000 USD 78,000 RUB
2000 USD 156,000 RUB
5000 USD 390,000 RUB
Which relevant economic principle, that you have ever advocated for,
is championed by Russian politics and opposed by Democrats?
And how is that affecting rent prices for working class people?
In one post you are praising Russians for keeping rent low (which is nonsense,
if you consider their spending power) and in the other post you are accusing Democrats of trying to make America in Russia.
What is it?
Still, those Democrats did some things to keep rent prices from not escalating to even more ridiculous levels. Do you think that Republicans would have done anything?
Of course not, they would call that 'socialism' or 'communism'.
There are no capitalist solutions to a capitalist problem.
That's why the working class in New York voted for Zohran Mamdani.
You want America to be like Putin's Russia and Erdoğan's Turkey."
This is what got me comparing russia to the us, The rent is similar
Not being sent to die in a dictator's senseless wars is higher on my priority list.
Good questions, Trump telling it like it is! Well a AI cartoon Trump,
only registered users can see external links
MORE good 1's like why can a woman abort a baby because she doesn't want the responsibility, but a man goes to prison if he doesn't pay child support?
The gender pay gap is real but Gender is not?
Elon ask a good 1 here, If genitals don't define gender,why does cutting them off affirm it?
only registered users can see external links
You're political side really has a disability to do humor.
You still don't understand the difference between sex and gender.
One is biological and the other is identity. That simple concept explains EVERYTHING.
And all those questions and jokes prove that this simple concept is too difficult for your side to understand. This indicates a general low IQ on your side of politics.
only registered users can see external links
They have no hearts and no brains, sounds just like a democrat to me!
But look at Republicans. Almost none of them agreed with tariffs and said nothing.
Most of them think that Trump is crazy to focus on Greenland, but they say nothing.
The only ones who say something are the ones who are not up for re-election anyway.
They are all jelly fish. The only one with some principles and half a spine is Rand Paul.
only registered users can see external links
(Unfortunately he often has a spine over the stupidest shit ever imagined)
My God how does a country function with people like this?
only registered users can see external links
and to think some of them come here and are part of our government!!
🔍 1. What This “Average IQ by Country” Data Actually Is
The WorldPopulationReview page you linked aggregates IQ estimates from various sources — especially the International IQ Test online platform and older datasets like those by Richard Lynn & David Becker — and presents them as “average IQ by country.”
However, it’s not original scientific research. It doesn’t collect truly representative, systematic data across whole national populations. Instead, it:
Uses voluntary online tests taken by internet users (self-selected samples).
Compiles and mixes data from multiple sources (some decades old) that use different methods and test types.
Often includes small sample sizes for many countries.
So the WorldPopulationReview figures are estimates or derived rankings, not rigorous scientific measurements of national intelligence.
📉 2. Problems With This Kind of Ranking
❌ Non-representative samples
Online platforms only include people who choose to take an internet IQ test. That group is typically:
More educated,
More urban,
More digitally literate,
… than the overall population. This skews results systematically.
❌ Varied test types & methodologies
Different IQ tests measure different skills (verbal, nonverbal reasoning, memory, etc.). Aggregating heterogeneous data without consistent norms makes comparisons unreliable.
❌ Sample size issues
Some low-population or low-internet-access countries might only have very few test-takers, invalidating the idea of an “average IQ.”
❌ Questionable historical sources
Datasets like the one by Lynn & Becker have been widely criticized by academic researchers for using unrepresentative data and for biases in how they estimate national IQs.
➡️ A recent critique argues that “national IQ” datasets do not provide accurate, unbiased, or comparable measures of cognitive ability worldwide due to methodological flaws like inconsistent sampling and test diversity.
🧠 3. What the Scientific Community Actually Says About Cross-Country IQ Comparisons
✅ IQ tests do measure certain cognitive skills
IQ tests can be useful in psychology to assess reasoning or problem-solving within well-standardized contexts.
⚠️ But conclusions about national differences are controversial
There is no scientific consensus that average IQ differences between countries accurately reflect innate intelligence differences. Environmental, social, and cultural factors play huge roles. For instance:
Education quality
Nutrition and health
Literacy
Socioeconomic status
Test familiarity
… all influence test performance and are not evenly distributed between countries.
Environment vs. innate differences
The mainstream view in intelligence research today emphasizes that environmental factors, not genetics, explain most group-level differences in IQ scores. Claims that genetic differences account for national IQ disparities are not supported by credible scientific evidence.
🧩 4. Other Explanations for Score Variations (Aside from “Smarter Countries”)
Here are important reasons why average IQ scores might differ — none imply one nationality is inherently more intelligent:
📊 Educational access and quality
Better schooling systems and early childhood education boost test-taking performance.
🍽 Nutrition and health
Early nutrition affects brain development; better diets often correlate with higher cognitive test performance.
📚 Literacy and test exposure
People familiar with testing formats and abstract reasoning tasks do better on IQ tests.
🌍 Cultural familiarity with test content
Even “culture-fair” tests can still favor certain ways of thinking or problem-solving.
🧪 Sampling bias
If only a subset of people in a country participates (e.g., mostly well-off, urban, educated), the “average” is skewed.
🧠 5. Should You Trust This Source?
WorldPopulationReview is not a peer-reviewed scientific source for IQ research. It’s a publicly accessible statistics site that compiles existing estimates without rigorous methodology.
It doesn’t ensure representative sampling,
It mixes diverse data sources, and
It does not conform to the standards you’d expect from academic research in psychology or psychometrics.
Therefore, the data can be interesting for informal comparisons but should be treated with strong caution — particularly when drawing conclusions about national intelligence.
📌 Bottom Line
✅ IQ testing can measure some cognitive skills.
⚠️ But country-level averages based on online, non-random samples are not scientifically robust.
❌ These rankings do not prove that some populations are inherently more intelligent than others.
📌 Factors like education, health, environment, and test-taking bias are huge contributors.
👉 In short: no — the “Average IQ by Country” list is not a scientifically valid or reliable measure of national intelligence.
Does that look like a group of smart people to you?
only registered users can see external links
can't even build bridges
only registered users can see external links
Your videos show people who are forced to do stupid things out of poverty and desperation. That is not evidence for their IQ.
Most flat earthers on the internet are Americans. Does that make all Americans stupid?
Are they forced to think stupid ideas?
The US faces significant challenges, ranking lower in international assessments (like 36th in literacy) due to large numbers of adults with low literacy skills (below 6th grade level) and lower educational attainment compared to top-ranking developed nations like Canada, Japan, and Ireland. (This last paragraph is not from me, but, the studies made by worldwide observations by researchers)
Another problem is the extreme hatred generated by a government bent on providing our Capitalist system fodder for its enrichment.
as an example of their low IQ.
Let's assess an example. India has the highest number of road deaths in the world, in terms of absolute fatalities. I saw the TV-show Deadliest Roads, where they followed a truck-driver, with the most beat-up truck you ever saw. He sat on a crate, because he had no seat, his steering had about half a rotation of play, his brakes hardly functioned, and he drove from early in the morning till late in the evening, along crumbling roads on the edge of deep drops. Phart would say that this truck-driver is absolutely crazy, and he must have a very low IQ. That assumes that the truck-driver doesn't understand his danger. The reality is that he knows exactly that he is risking his life every day, but he is working to feed his family. He doesn't make enough money to fix his truck. In other words; the system that he is living (and dying) under is FORCING him to ACT stupid. That's no reason to assume that he has low IQ.
Then I see lots of Americans ACTING stupid, like believing in obvious nonsense,
so I ask phart if they are forced to act stupid. If they are NOT, that's a good reason
to assume that they have low IQ.
Amartya Sen (Indian Nobel Prize winning economist): "People should be judged
by the options genuinely available to them, not by the outcomes they endure."
only registered users can see external links
As for the guy with the beat up truck in India,
I think he smart to be able to keep it running, that is a feat in it's self.
IT does beg the question though why other countrys like Japan and such can't send their older trucks there instead of scrapping a 50,000 mile truck for no reason, as they do daily.
However, it doesn't take much, to make a simple truck keep going forward.
Most scrappers in a scrap yard will be able to drive, with some tinkering.
The difference is that developed countries have standards for safety.
Your truck has other requirements than just the ability to go forwards.
Those requirements are for your safety as well as everyone else's on the roads.
That's why the US doesn't have the same rate of road deaths as India.
The reason for why so many 50,000 mile trucks end up in the scrap yard in the US:
1. Severe collision damage — Frame or structural damage makes repair unsafe or uneconomical.
2. Flood / water damage — Electrical systems become unreliable and uninsurable.
3. Insurance total-loss economics — Repair costs exceed vehicle market value.
4. Frame rust / corrosion — Structural rust fails inspections and can’t be economically fixed (regional: salt belt states).
5. Part-out value exceeds whole value — Truck is worth more dismantled than repaired.
6. Fleet write-offs — Companies retire vehicles for accounting or liability reasons.
7. Emissions or regulatory failure — Compliance cost exceeds vehicle value.
8. Theft recovery damage — Stripped or vandalized vehicles are too risky to repair.
9. Manufacturer buybacks / recalls — Rare safety or lemon-law removals.
(This ranking reflects real-world frequency)
Clarification: Most 50k-mile trucks that are “scrapped” are:
- Not mechanically worn out
- Often drivable
- But, removed due to economic or safety reasons
Nurses walking off their jobs in the middle of winter during flu season. people whine about health care cost, doesn't matter if it's free or a million bucks if the damn nurses aint there to work!, Shame on them,
only registered users can see external links
a nurse anymore. Unions are just a way for employees to organize themselves,
so they can demand respect from their employer. Why do you hate that so much?
Why do you always fight for the powerful to exploit the powerless?
Don't you think that the little guy has been exploited enough already?
Besides ,being a nurse, a dr,or a teacher is a calling to do better for your neighbor ,it's not supposed to make you a millionaire, it's supposed to better your community
The strike isn’t just about higher pay (though that’s part of it). It’s a broad labor action driven by multiple long‑standing workplace and patient‑care concerns.
Here’s what the nurses are striking for:
-Safe staffing levels: Nurses want limits on how many patients one nurse is expected to care for at a time, so care is safer and less exhausting. Many say chronic understaffing threatens patient and worker safety.
- Workplace safety protections: They’re demanding stronger measures to protect against violence from patients or visitors, a significant and growing concern on hospital units.
- Healthcare benefits: The union says hospitals have resisted guaranteeing full healthcare coverage for nurses and are proposing changes that could reduce benefits.
- Wages/Pay: Nurses also want pay that better reflects their workload and the high cost of living in NYC, though the precise numbers being discussed are disputed between unions and hospital management.
What triggered the strike now?
Contracts for nearly 15,000 nurses at major New York private hospitals (like Mount Sinai, Montefiore, and NewYork‑Presbyterian) expired December 31, 2025, and months of negotiations failed to resolve core issues before the nurses formally walked out in early January 2026.
So that's why they did that "in the middle of winter during flu season".
Yes, "it's supposed to better your community", that's mostly the reason for their strike.
If these jobs are not supposed to make anyone a millionaire, then why do allow them under private ownership, which is exactly intended to enrich the owners.
You are literally telling me that education and healthcare should be exempt from
private wealth creation, while you always argue that they should be privately owned.
Did you not even think of that, before you wrote it?
But to me for those folks to strike when people need them the most,they are putting lives at risk,that is uncalled for.
If folks die because they don't receive proper care,it is not the hospitals fault it's the stikers fault
You don’t approve that these nurses should be paid more. Do you think that these employers should fire them all and start all over with new nurses?
There are hardly any laws or regulations left, restricting them.
When a system is publicly owned, there is no profit incentive. The only incentive is efficiency; maximizing benefit for the user and minimizing cost for the tax-payer.
When the user and the tax-payer are the same group, it's up to them to decide the quality of service vs the cost. They get what they pay for.
The only limits on private companies robbing their employees and their customers is them losing all their employees and customers. Since there are ever more monopolies in both market and employment, private companies are getting away with ever more robbing. The customer is not getting what they pay for, and the employee is not getting what they work for, they are both getting the scraps that are left, after the private owners satisfied their hunger.
And then you would gleefully forbid employees from organizing themselves and striking, making it even easier for companies to rob their employees.
I see no argument from you for why an employer should be allowed to become a millionaire or billionaire from maximizing profit and minimizing the benefit for your neighbor. You will allow them to exploit the need of the community as much as they can, while you simultaneously deny their responsibility, saying that it is on those nurses when people die.
Understand that companies will always do the maximum possible or allowed harm,
to maximize their profits. It's up to citizens to push back, to protect their community.
If you want to take away the right of workers to strike, because they have a responsibility for people's lives, then you should come up with alternatives for them not getting exploited.
When those nurses are spread to thin, over way too many patients, it's also their responsibility to act, because patients are not receiving proper care.
This is not a auto assembly line that if it stops we can just drive our current cars until they get something worked out.
This is sick and injured people depending on a system to take care of them that suddenly the people walk out and leave them stranded.
Do I think they should be fired and replaced by the temp workers that have the sense of personal responsibility to do their jobs without the brain washing of a union to do it? HELL YES. Fire the strikers ASAP. Teach them a lesson, don't put peoples lives at stake for your purses sake. If you don't make enough as a fucking nurse get your ass out of there and get another job!
Why is it not the owners of the hospital putting peoples lives in jeopardy by understaffing?
If there is a responsibility for the nurses, there is at least as much responsibility for the owners.
Firing those nurses will make the understaffing even worse. It's the responsibility
of the owners and management to provide the sick and injured people with enough nurses to take care of them. A strike is temporary, but if the nurses don't get their demands of better staffing, that's a permanent risk for the patients.
I think that it's not about the patients for you, it's only about workers being obedient and never asking for anything.
I don't understand why you want to live in feudalistic society. It doesn't serve you,
it will only make the system disrespect you even harder.
1. The Core Report
Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, has said Ford dealerships in the U.S. have about 5,000 open mechanic/technician jobs that can pay up to roughly $120,000 per year.
Farley and some articles frame this as a sign of a broader workforce issue in America — especially in skilled trades like mechanics, electricians, plumbers, manufacturing, and emergency services.
The headline you’re seeing — “I’m offering $120,000 jobs but nobody wants them” — seems to be an Internet exaggeration or social-media meme of that underlying claim.
💬 Public and Media Reactions
A. Business & Economic Coverage
Fortune and other business outlets note the shortage is not about laziness but about skills and training: auto technician jobs require years of apprenticeship/training before many workers hit the six-figure level.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the six-figure pay is not typical for people starting out; many techs start much lower and only reach high pay after years of experience and working conditions that are physically demanding.
B. Worker and Public Commentary
Many people online push back against the simplistic headline and offer alternative explanations:
Pay isn’t really “$120 k” right away: comments and threads point out that the phrase “up to $120k” can be misleading — that figure is often top end after many years on the job, not starting pay.
Training and tools cost time and money: many skilled trades require upfront investment in education, certification, and tools, which adds barriers.
Work Conditions Matter: some workers note that physically demanding jobs with long hours and limited flexibility are less attractive even with high pay.
Online critics also argue that employers sometimes inflate pay numbers for headlines or list jobs they’re not actively hiring for yet, contributing to confusion.
📊 Why These Jobs Are Hard to Fill (Beyond the Headline)
Experts and labor analysts point to several real reasons beyond “no one wants to work”:
1. Skills and Qualification Gaps
A lot of jobs that pay well require specialized skills, certifications, or years of experience — and there simply aren’t enough trained workers currently. Labour market research shows that mismatches between job requirements and worker skills are a major challenge today.
2. Training Time
Becoming proficient as a mechanic or skilled technician often takes multiple years of training or apprenticeships, and that delay means many people don’t enter the field immediately.
3. Job Conditions and Expectations
Even if compensation is good in the long run, the day-to-day reality — physically demanding work, safety risks, less flexible hours, and uncertain overtime — can deter applicants.
4. Labor Market Dynamics
In some sectors and roles, there are simply fewer open positions overall, or employers are very picky about qualifications, which can make openings linger even when workers exist. Research on hiring finds employers sometimes list broader skill “wish lists” that discourage applicants.
5. Broader Trends
Some data shows job openings overall have declined in late 2025, and hiring rates are sluggish even as claims of worker shortages persist — indicating structural complexity in the market.
📌 So Why Do People Say “Nobody Wants These Jobs”?
That interpretation tends to come from simplistic media memes or social posts, not detailed economic analysis. On deeper inspection:
✔ It’s not that Americans categorically refuse to do these jobs —
❌ It’s that the jobs may require skills many workers don’t yet have, or pay structures that aren’t transparent or worth it for people just starting.
✔ Many workers are interested in well-paid, sustainable careers, but they also value flexibility, training investment, and workplace conditions — and if those aren’t aligned, even high nominal salaries aren’t enough.
🧠 Conclusion
The viral story you linked is essentially a viral spin on a real labor market issue — namely, a shortage of trained workers in certain industries, including high-paying mechanic jobs. But the idea that “people don’t want to work these $120 k jobs” is too simple and misleading. The real challenges include:
The need for skills and training pipelines
Physical demands of jobs
Misleading salary framing (“up to $120k” vs starting pay)
Broader hiring and labor market mismatches
In short, it’s not that “no one wants them.” It’s that there aren’t enough traders with the right training, the pay ladder is long and opaque, and labor market dynamics are complex — a more nuanced picture than the meme-style headline suggests.
only registered users can see external links
I thought I would post this to help people understand the different races of people.
"The living peoples of the world are generally grouped into three major divisions: Caucasoid or “white”, Mongoloid or “brown” and Negroid or “black”
For centuries, people have tried to divide humanity into a small number of “races”—sometimes three, sometimes five, sometimes dozens. These classifications were often presented as scientific facts. Modern biology, genetics, and anthropology, however, show that there are no biologically distinct human races. All attempts to divide humans into races are arbitrary, historically contingent, and unsupported by genetic evidence.
1. Where the Idea of Human Races Came From
The concept of race emerged primarily in Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries, long before genetics existed. Naturalists such as Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach classified humans much as they classified plants and animals, relying on visible traits like skin color, hair texture, or skull shape.
Crucially:
- Different scholars proposed different numbers of races (3, 4, 5, 6, or more).
- The boundaries between races were never agreed upon.
- These systems often reflected colonial, political, and social ideologies, not biological discoveries.
If race were a natural biological division, scientists would have converged on a stable, consistent classification. They never did.
2. What Genetics Reveals About Human Variation
Modern genetics allows us to directly measure human biological diversity. Its findings are decisive:
- All humans share about 99.9% of their DNA.
- Of the small fraction that varies, most variation occurs within local populations, not between so-called races.
- Roughly 85–90% of genetic variation is found within any given population, and only a small fraction distinguishes populations from different continents.
This means that two people from the same “race” can be more genetically different from each other than either is from someone classified as belonging to a different race.
3. Human Differences Are Gradual, Not Categorical
Biological races, when they exist in other species, are defined by clear genetic boundaries. Humans do not show this pattern.
Instead:
- Human traits vary gradually across geography, forming what biologists call clines.
- Skin color, for example, changes slowly from the equator toward the poles, correlating with ultraviolet radiation—not with racial categories.
- There is no point where one “race” ends and another begins.
Any line drawn between races is therefore a human decision, not a biological fact.
4. The Arbitrary Nature of Race Classifications
The history of race science exposes its arbitrariness:
- Some systems grouped Indigenous Australians with Africans; others with Asians.
- People from North Africa have been classified as Black, White, or Middle Eastern depending on time and place.
- In the United States, Irish and Italian immigrants were once considered non-White; today they are considered White.
A classification system that changes with politics, geography, and culture cannot be a biological one.
5. Ancestry Is Real; Race Is Not
Rejecting biological race does not mean denying human diversity.
- Ancestry refers to genealogical and geographic history and can be studied scientifically.
- Population genetics can identify patterns related to migration, isolation, and adaptation.
- These patterns do not form discrete racial boxes.
Race, by contrast, simplifies continuous variation into rigid categories and assigns social meaning to them.
6. Why the Myth of Biological Race Persists
The idea of race persists because it is socially powerful, not scientifically accurate. It has been used to:
- Justify slavery, colonialism, and segregation
- Naturalize inequality by portraying it as biological
- Provide simple explanations for complex social differences
Science does not support these uses.
7. Scientific Consensus
Today, there is broad agreement among:
- Geneticists
- Anthropologists
- Evolutionary biologists
- Medical researchers
Humans form a single, interbreeding species with no biological races. Race is a social classification imposed on biological variation, not a natural division within it.
Conclusion
All attempts to divide humanity into three races, five races, or any other number fail for the same reason: human biological diversity does not come in discrete units. The boundaries are invented, the numbers are arbitrary, and the categories change over time.
What unites humanity is far more fundamental than what superficially distinguishes us. From a biological perspective, race is not a fact of nature—it is a story societies tell.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
What the fuck is this woman talking about?
"people who own private property were enabling “white supremacy”"
"“Impoverish the *white* middle class,” she wrote in a 2018 post. “Homeowenership is racist / failed public policy.”"
" Weaver, who argues that landlords who are being bankrupted by their inability to remove delinquent tenants are just the cost of doing business"
Ananas, this lady is just right up your alley aint she?
it is talk like this that prompts hatred of socialism and proof it's followers are idiots
Is that what you are outraged over now?
But, when I criticize Trump, a person backed by the most power military in the world,
for threatening the sovereignty of multiple countries at the same time, that's TDS.
By the way, I looked it up. This is the complete quote: “Private property including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy masquerading as ‘wealth building’ public policy.”
She was OBVIOUSLY not talking about citizens owning their OWN homes, she was talking about private rich and wealthy people, who own multiple houses, that they rent out.
Her reactions to this post surfacing are:
“some of those things are certainly not how I would say things today, and are regretful.”
She emphasized that her focus in her current role is on addressing racial inequalities in housing and ensuring that everyone has a safe, affordable place to live, whether they rent or own. She also noted that “for many years, people have been locked out of the property market, that has produced systemic and racial inequalities in our system.”
The Director of the FBI made a video of him cutting off the heads of his political enemies. That was more recent too; 2022. That is far more deranged and he is in a position of far greater power. If it was the only thing, we could discard it as a joke, but he has a wild history of promoting “deep state” conspiracies, directly engaging with QAnon–linked messaging and hashtags, sympathy with the convicted criminals of the January 6 Capitol attack, labeling officials as Government Gangsters on an enemy list and threatening to “come after” journalists and perceived political enemies.
If a few posts from her are evidence that the followers of socialism are idiots,
than Kash Patel fully justifies me in calling all of your side DANGEROUS LUNATICS.
only registered users can see external links
Don't they have tape measures Up there?
for people who want to follow religious books literally:
A hundred years from now, scholars will have trouble differentiating the terms
“butt dial” and “booty call”. Can you only imagine what we have been missing
in translation for the last two thousand years?
Ode to Winning So Much It Hurts
I love him loud.
I love him best.
He says he’s rich, so he must be blessed.
He talks about himself for hours on end,
That’s leadership, friend, not narcissism.
If he forgets what he said last week,
That’s strategy, not a mind gone weak.
They say he hates the working folk,
But he sells us hats, so that’s a joke.
Sure, they’re cheap, and cost us rent,
But that’s not greed, that’s commitment.
I bought the book with his holy name,
Printed overseas, but it’s not the same
As corruption, no, it’s faith you see,
Capitalism wrapped in divinity.
The Constitution? Optional text.
Rules are for losers, he knows what’s next.
When he breaks them all, it shows his might,
Real kings don’t read, they feel what’s right.
They cry about soldiers, medals, the dead,
But he loves them best when they’re useful, not red.
If they fall for oil or profit or pride,
That’s freedom’s price,don’t ask who decides.
He flirts with danger, threatens the globe,
Not because he’s scared, but bold, so bold.
If secrets leak and questions grow,
Just shout at the world,that’s strength, you know.
They whisper of friends he shouldn’t have had,
Of parties and tastes that look real bad.
But powerful men get misunderstood,
If it was wrong, he meant it good.
So let them talk, let truth offend,
I’ll love him louder till the very end.
Because if he’s guilty, corrupt, or cruel,
Then I’ll just say: that’s how you rule.
only registered users can see external links
The Dutch Republic (c. 1600s) developed some of the first fully modern capitalist institutions. The Dutch were pioneers in scaling and institutionalizing capitalism:
1. First permanent stock exchange
- Amsterdam (1602) hosted the world’s first stock exchange with continuous trading.
2. First modern multinational corporation
- The Dutch East India Company (VOC) issued tradable shares, paid dividends, and had limited liability.
3. Advanced financial markets
- Futures, options, short selling, and sophisticated credit markets existed in 17th-century Amsterdam.
4. Capitalist state structure
- The Dutch Republic protected property rights, enforced contracts, and kept relatively low feudal interference.
- Economic power was largely in the hands of merchants rather than nobles.
5. Capital accumulation on a national scale
- Profits from global trade, shipping, and finance were reinvested systematically.
That's why I get annoyed when people call my country "socialist".
We were one of the most successful capitalist countries in the world for hundreds of years, and still are. To me, socialism is the only way to save capitalism. We are heading towards feudalism, and socialism is the only stabilizer to prevent the system from collapsing.
The worst of these Leftist feudalists are the members of the WEF. These billionaire elitists are the main culprits. They are attempting to eliminate economic self-determination for everyone outside their neo-Leftist elite inner circle.
Everyone else outside this circle who advocates for Socialism, believing it to be a panacea to allegedly cure all the world's ills, are nothing more than the latest version of Lenin’s useful idiots. Every nation that has attempted to establish the varying degrees of Socialism have quietly backed away from it after it had, time and time again, failed to live up to its promises.
Pure Socialism is impossible. That’s why no one has ever attempted it.
The problem with Socialism is that it ignores human nature. People like to have nice stuff. They do not want to have to ask anyone else for permission to get it.
People also don’t want to support leeches who refuse to contribute anything back into the economy. Forcibly distributing the fruits of someone’s labor to others who only take and who give nothing back is theft, and it guarantees the collapse of any country that attempts to practices the purist forms of this theft: Marxist Socialism.
But of course, I’m sure you’ll have the mental gymnastics sufficient to come up with a justification as to how wrong I am for being against the overt coercive theft of someone else’s property gained through their own labor.
Or were you just triggered by my comment below it?
Do you even understand the terms 'left' and 'right'?
These originate from the French revolution, where the commoners sat on the left side
and the ruling elites sat on the right side. The 'left' was fighting for their freedom,
while the 'right' was defending their dominance (FEUDALISM).
The WEF is a global convening of elites dedicated to safeguarding and steering capitalism. How the hell can you call that 'Leftist'?
Billionaire elitists support the system that created their wealth: capitalism.
I agree that pure socialism is not possible, neither is pure capitalism.
We need something in between, that will not collapse.
This current state of predatory capitalism is collapsing.
To keep it from collapsing, we need a whole lot MORE socialism.
When you are saying "Socialism ignores human nature", are you referring to selfishness? That's based on the idea that humans evolved to the 'top predator' through 'survival of the fittest', which in itself is a mischaracterization of evolution. (Ask ChatGPT to explain why).
Humans became the dominant species on Earth, because of COOPERATION. We are not the strongest animal, not the fastest animal, we don't have the best eyesight, we are the smartest animal and used that to effectively COOPERATE. We survived all odds,
by developing bigger and bigger tribes. Those tribes had leaders, but they only accepted the leaders that were trusted to protect their common interests.
You obviously don't believe that billionaires are protecting our common interests, otherwise you wouldn't have accused the left of propping them up. Now, please tell me
if you remember me saying anything that supports the billionaires transitioning us all to feudalism. Is taxing them going to help them do that? Will it enrich billionaires to change private health insurance to a democratically controlled single payer healthcare system?
Who is supporting leeches? Do you think the wealthiest man in the world is contributing much? Elon Musk is going to be the first Trillionaire. Why is he not re-investing at least $800 billion back into the economy? He stole Paypal, he stole Tesla, and SpaceX is dependent on massive funding from the government. Can't he afford it himself?
What labor is Elon Musk doing? He is distributing the fruits of lots of other people's labor towards himself. He made electric cars cool. Is he now making them affordable for everyone? Is he really that useful to humanity now? How about Jeff Bezos?
You are using lots of terms, that I don't think you understand much. To you, those terms are arguments by itself, because they are "scary words". Inform yourself about the ideas behind them, instead of the straw-men of them.
It's the billionaires who are paying the media to tell you that taxes are theft. That resulted in them paying less taxes, and you making up the difference, either by paying more taxes, or getting less back. It is estimated that between 1975 and 2023, roughly $79 TRILLION
was redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. Why isn't that theft?
And did the 'Leftist feudalists' do that? HOW?
And it is easy to believe that taxes are theft when you don't get anything worth a damn for what you pay.Our roads are failing, our bridges falling,But we have a "diverse work force" and multigender bathrooms, oh boy! They don't teach what kids need to know in school anymore, they indoctrinate them and send them out the door not even understanding what a loan is or that they have to pay it back.
Did you see the video?
The Netherlands is 270 times smaller than the US.
Still our GDP is only 24 times smaller than yours.
I think we are still pretty strong, for such a small country.
Beating back the sea, that's our spirit of ingenuity and tenacity.
When the US needs to build a dike or sea-wall, you call the Dutch.
That's the result of 400 years of entrepreneurial thinking.
It's very likely that your country is the result of our merchant culture.
The US adopted it and turned it BIG. But now you're failing, because you don't adapt.
The term MAGA works for a reason; you have passed your peak, now you're failing.
Instead of understanding why, you are blaming everyone but yourself.
You fail to see that you did not become big by (just) exploitation,
but by giving everyone a chance to maximize their potential.
That's the real ideal of capitalism, not your perverted version of it.
How much debt did you leave school with? Do you know anyone of your age,
who studied and left school with a debt like kids today?
You are normalizing something that wasn't normal in your time.
It's also not normal in countries that are beating your ass,
because they understand that education is strengthening their country.
only registered users can see external links
What is the etymology of left and right?
Therefore the dominant hand (for the majority of people) became known as the “right” hand, literally meaning the correct hand. The word “left” comes from the Old English lyft, meaning “weak”, and was used to designate the weaker, non-dominant hand.Nov 1, 2016
only registered users can see external links
“the right” came to mean defenders of tradition and “the left” came to mean people who wanted to change the system to make it more fair." I will add, fair as in their opinion of what is fair
only registered users can see external links
There is no mention of politics being called 'left' or 'right' from before the French revolution, while the those bible text are much much older.
Funny that you are not referring to what Grok says this time, because that confirms my claim and not yours.
Here are some official sources:
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
is a case of stolen valor."
only registered users can see external links
That's because you have the luxury to not have to care about anything else.
Unlike people who cannot afford groceries, rent / their mortgage, healthcare
and a decent education for their kids.
They are just stupid distractions, from him failing as president.
What rock did you just crawl out from under?
or stealing their resources, while letting Putin doing the same.
He wants to steal those resources from the people who own them
and let the billionaires have them. IT'S STEALING!!!
Drugs are only dangerous to the stupid people who put them in their body.
If you didn't have those people, there would be no drugs cartels.
Or, if drugs were just made legally, there would also be no drugs cartels.
When it's guns, you say: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!".
At least that someone putting a bullet in someone else's body.
With drugs, it's you own decision to put it into your body.
That's purely your failure as a country. Don't blame other countries.
because if he was, Trump would have protected him.
Owning MAGA snowflakes IS one of my hobbies.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Of course, and everyone who denies it is an idiot.
That doesn't mean that all boys are the same and all girls are the same.
Some girls are behaving very much like boys.
Some boys are behaving very much like girls.
And that is based in the exact development that he is explaining.
People have a tendency to confuse the (large) majority for the standard, or even the norm.
When you're ripping a doll from the hands of your little boy and say "Boys don't play with dolls!", you are denying that some boys have developed differently, and you are enforcing "the norm". It is not preventing that boy growing up into a "sissy", it is forcing the boy into a male stereotype, that is probably not his strength, and preventing him to develop his real strengths. Parents like that will push their son into the life of being a sub-par plumber, instead of letting him develop into a great psychiatrist (just an example).
And if your daughter has interests and skills that doesn't fit your stereotype of girls,
you can end up harming her development, crush her confidence, and probably deny
your country a great engineer, entrepreneur, or top female athlete.
In the end he says: "The freer the society, the bigger the sex differences".
That is definitely not accurate, in general. It's a mixed bag.
Factors/Characteristics Where the Statement Has Some Support (Sex Differences Larger in “Freer” / More Gender-Equal Contexts):
1. Personality Traits
Differences in many Big Five personality dimensions (e.g., agreeableness, neuroticism, extraversion) tend to be larger in more gender-egalitarian, high-income societies.
2. Basic Personal Values and Preferences
Some studies find that men’s and women’s values and preferences (e.g., risk attitudes, prosocial preferences) differ more in gender-equal and wealthier contexts than in less egalitarian ones.
3. Educational / Occupational Choices in Some STEM Fields
Patterns termed the gender equality paradox sometimes show greater differentiation in field choice (e.g., proportions of men vs. women in certain academic tracks) in countries with higher gender equality indices.
4. Cognitive Abilities Where Women Tend to Excel
Differences in areas such as episodic memory and verbal ability have been reported to increase in societies with better living conditions, often correlated with gender equality.
Factors/Characteristics Where the Statement Is Not Supported or the Pattern Is Absent/Inconsistent:
1. Sexual Behavior
Differences in sexual behavior (e.g., likelihood of casual sex) have been found to be smaller in more egalitarian or high-income societies, likely due to permissive norms and access to contraception.
2. Cognitive Abilities Where Men Tend to Excel
For abilities like mathematical performance and semantic memory, sex gaps decrease in societies with higher living conditions and equality measures.
3. General Cognitive Measures and Some Sociodemographic Outcomes
Some research suggests that many sex differences don’t substantially vary with gender equality, so for traits like overall intelligence or school achievement, differences are relatively stable.
4. Some Well-Being and Emotional Outcomes
Studies find little or no consistent “paradox” effect for gender differences in emotional well-being or mental health outcomes across gender-equal vs. unequal contexts.
5. Methodological and Cultural Qualifications
Some researchers argue that the gender-equality paradox itself may not be a universal causal effect, but rather an artifact of measurement, social norms, or Western research bias, meaning it doesn’t necessarily reflect a simple link between freedom and sex differences.
When you take a doll from a boy, you may have prevented him from growing up being indoctrinated to thinking it is ok to not work a physical job and may leave him with college debt for a education for a field of work there is no money to be made in. How much college debt do most plumbers have?
Most I know have a bass boat out back, 36 foot 5th wheel camper and a F350 to tow it with, nice house they bartered work for most of the custom rock work,and granite counter tops, while your psychiatrist drives a prius and will never get out of debt.
It IS OK to not work a physical job. WTF are you talking about?
When you take a doll from a boy, you are the one indoctrinating the boy with your ideology. There is no good reason to let children not find out for themselves what they like and are good at. If they have interests and skills that would make them good plumbers, they will be drawn to that, without your narrow-minded meddling.
Are you saying that technical jobs require less education than non-physical jobs?
That's damn disrespectful to craftspeople.
You are also shitting on your own stupid education system, that inhibits people
to make the best of themselves, because of the ridiculous costs associated with it.
Only in your dumb country.
Sure throw around some caricatures. The idea that real men need to drive a pick-up truck and sissy men drive a Prius, is all conservative nonsense. If you drive a big pick-up truck, when you don't need one for work, I assume you have a micropenis. If you see a man step out of a small, fuel economical car, you know he has nothing to compensate for.
That's also caricaturing/stereotyping, but much more accurate.
Psychiatrists in the US generally make very good money, with average annual salaries typically ranging from $240,000 to over $300,000. That's worth the education.
But no amount of education can turn an Neanderthal into a psychiatrist. It requires
a special mix of character traits to be good at that job. If you have a boy with those character traits, he is likely not attracted to toys that you associate with boys.
Ripping the toys he likes from his tiny hands, will probably damage him for life.
All because of your conservative indoctrination, or downright homophobia.
only registered users can see external links
A commercial that is addressing the conspiracy theory problem.
only registered users can see external links
(only the voice over and the video filter are AI)
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Cut the budget of the U.S. Department of Education even more, that will help.
And now to be more serious, here are some articles related to the subject:
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
What has he ever done to you to make you hate him? How much damage has he done directly to your life?
He ran for president for self-aggrandizement and then found out that too many people are actually stupid enough to vote for him. He never wanted to be president, but his narcissism prevented him from quitting. Then he got hooked
on people worshiping him. It's so ridiculous that no one ever came up with a story like that, but it's real life. It's your stupidity that made it possible.
In 2024, he was forced to keep it up, to escape his own crimes.
He is now on a rampage vengeance campaign to hurt everyone who elected him.
You're just dumb enough to not understand when he tells you.
oops 87
Trump, head of The Trump Organization since 1971, first dabbled in presidential politics in the early summer of 1987.
The problem is that you agree with him.
Are you talking about Trump?
Enriching himself was his second goal, besides staying out of prison.
Trump is putting African dictators to shame, with his record corruption.
With every tariff announcement, his friends and family made a fortune
on the stock market, with insider trading, which is a crime. If he didn't
control the DOJ and the FBI, this would be investigated right now.
And, what has he done to you to earn such baseless loathing? You were fine with him until he ran for POTUS the first time.
I knew him to be a piece of shit, long before he ran for president.
I didn't know the extend of it, because he was keeping under the radar, but as soon as he went public, I started investigating him and found an almost unending pile of shit, that each on their own should discredit him to ever vote for him. His character alone should be a reason, but you support him despite everything combined.
Either you have been living under a rock, or you just like horrible people.
You started “investigating,” like some sort of Sherlock Holmes, but with the internet solely as your source, no doubt.
Yeah. We all know that everything on the internet is true, accurate, and based solely on facts and reality. It’s a totally reliable source on which to form opinions regarding politics, culture, and science.
(Rolling my eyes right now)
That was sarcasm, by the way. I had to alert you of that as this medium is not conducive to expressing it in clear fashion.
My, my, my. The derangement syndrome is real! It is absolutely stunning the amount of mental gymnastics those suffering from it will go through to justify their outrageous unsubstantiated claims based on rumors, misinformation, and propaganda! The street lawyers and basement detectives spewing this “information” are amazingly brilliant, all of them able to draw accurate and insightful conclusions from mere gossip, lies, innuendo, and rumor!
I can’t help but wonder if Hillary Clinton also got the same level of investigatory attention from you amateur sleuths, or is this all just sour grapes being pressed simply because she lost to him and you people just cannot let it go.
I find it telling that none of you had a problem with him before he replaced the (D) behind his name with an (R). The rage that was expressed after that happened is palpable. The desperation for extracting vengeance for daring to “leave the plantation” is driving force behind it all!
Nothing is too low nor unethical, just as long as “we get Trump.”
Wow.
Do you have anything else than the internet?
Did you ever do business with him? I guess not.
The internet is a jungle with everything between absolute lies and accurate science. It's up to your critical thinking skills and knowledge to know what's what.
It's easy to recognize when right-wing media is lying. If they are very vague,
you can be sure that they are lying. When journalists are adding lots of details,
it makes it easy to verify those claims.
I don't like Hilary Clinton. Why bring her up? It's a 'whataboutism'. In any case, she is horrible, but not nearly as vile, evil, criminal and corrupt as Trump.
I don't care about a D or an R, because there are lots of D's that I hate.
That's the thinking of an American, who is used to only 2 parties. We have 27. That requires lots more political insight.
Trump was an asshole when he was a Democrat too. You should learn to look beyond party lines. It makes you an easy victim for scamming.
Pal you got some kinda nerve to come to Bella’s forum thread trying to spread your communist hatred and your bull shit and shame on cat to agree with any thing you say take your commie bull shit and hit the high way peddle that crap 💩 in your own country
My question to you is, “Who gave you the right to comment on anyone’s right to post here as long as Bella! allows it? Ananas is not a communist. He’s a socialist with opinions that are relevant to the political situation in this country. Our politics don’t just affect this country. Right or wrong we influence the politics of the world. He has as much right to opine as you. Perhaps more. His views are well thought out. At the very least, he has solutions to our problems unlike from those that just criticize.
Yes, socialism is an important—and in many interpretations, essential—part of communism, particularly in Marxist theory, which has heavily influenced modern understandings of both terms.
Classical Marxist View (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)
Marx and Engels used "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably in works like The Communist Manifesto (184
Lower phase — Society still bears marks of capitalism (e.g., distribution "to each according to his contribution," with some inequalities).
Higher phase — A fully developed classless, stateless society with distribution "to each according to his needs," abundance, and no money or state.
Marx did not label the lower phase "socialism."
Later Marxist-Leninist Interpretation
Vladimir Lenin, in The State and Revolution (1917), popularized the distinction:
Socialism is the lower or first phase of communism: the transitional stage after the proletarian revolution, where the state (as a dictatorship of the proletariat) exists, classes are abolished, means of production are socially owned, but distribution is based on work contributed.
Communism is the higher phase: stateless, classless, moneyless, with full abundance.
This view became standard in Marxist-Leninist traditions (e.g., USSR, China), where countries like the Soviet Union described themselves as "socialist" (building toward communism). Socialism here is crucial as the necessary foundation and pathway to achieve full communism.
Broader or Non-Marxist Views
Outside strict Marxism, socialism is often seen as distinct and not necessarily leading to communism:
It can involve mixed economies, democratic processes, private property alongside public ownership, and gradual reforms (e.g., democratic socialism in Nordic countries or social democracy).
Communism is viewed as more radical: aiming for complete abolition of private property, classes, money, and the state, often through revolution.
In these contexts, socialism is not "part" of communism but a separate ideology sharing roots in opposing capitalism and seeking greater equality.
Summary
In the dominant theoretical framework influencing communist movements (Marxism-Leninism), socialism is fundamentally important as the initial, transitional stage required to build communism. Without socialism, communism cannot be reached, as it develops the productive forces and eliminates capitalist remnants. In other usages, the terms are more separate, with socialism as a milder alternative. The confusion stems from historical shifts in terminology after Marx's death.
1.6s
You can try to correct them, but they don't want to be correct.
Understanding politics doesn't serve their ruling class.
Socialism isn't the first step to communism, that is Grog parroting
decades of indoctrination. It just summarizes what's available.
Capitalism and communism end up at the same place; wealthy and powerful people controlling everything and the people owning and controlling NOTHING. That's because power and wealth corrupt everything. It doesn't matter where you start to centralize money. If it's the government, they will accumulate money and power and strip it away from the people.
If you let private citizens take too much money and exploit everyone else, they will accumulate money, buy more and more power, strip it away from everyone else and take over the government. The result is the same.
If you then combine it with stupid cult-like followers, who are willing to fight and die for their leaders, because they will get a bit more scraps than the rest, that is very similar to the 'communism' of Russia. The best term to use for that is totalitarian state-capitalism.
With the billionaires now entering your government, when they are not satisfied with buying politicians anymore, turning a corrupt democracy in a sham-democracy, while only allowing speech that they like, ignoring the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch, you're heading at mach speed to the same thing: totalitarian state-capitalism. I just call it 'communism',
in the comment below, because that's how it's known by the masses.
Marxian communism (theoretical):
- Economic power: fully distributed
- Political power: fully participatory
Socialism of the Dutch Socialist party (Idealism):
- Economic power: extensive redistribution, strong public control
- Political power: high participatory input and grassroots movements
Socialism of the Dutch Socialist party (current pragmatism):
- Economic power: highly redistributive, but constrained by status quo
- Political power: supports optimizing normal parliamentary politics
Stalinist USSR / Pol Pot’s Cambodia ('communism' as the masses know it):
- Economic power: extremely concentrated
- Political power: extremely authoritarian
Putin’s leadership (Russia, 2000s–present):
- Economic power: highly concentrated (state-control and oligarchs)
- Political power: extremely authoritarian (centralized, repression)
MAGA capitalism:
- Economic power: highly concentrated (billionaires = job providers)
- Political power: strongly authoritarian (cult-leader Trump rules all)
at some point.
I was just watching a video about people leaving MAGA.
Look what this woman said (from 6:27‑7:42).
only registered users can see external links
1947 webster dictionary
You are in the group of you will own nothing and be happy.
modern socialist try to separate themselves from their forefathers to try to win over skeptics. but in the end, either system will leave wealthy government officials riding the backs of the poor, only difference with socialism from communism, is the government feeds them some treats as they suffer like free aspirin and birth control pills calling it health care..
You are trying to put down the idea as bad. In excess it could be just like capitalism is as it’s being practiced today in our country. For your benefit here’s some information for you:
Socialism is fundamentally both an economic and political system, advocating for collective or government ownership/control of production and resources to promote equality, but its implementation varies widely, from state-run economies (like Soviet communism) to mixed systems with strong social welfare and regulation (like democratic socialism in Nordic countries). It's a broad ideology focused on social welfare, fair wealth distribution, and shared resources, contrasting with pure capitalism's focus on private profit.
Here’s another gem from the leading “socialist” of the 20th century:
"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the government?”
He was an evil bastard who laid the groundwork for what all the Leftist “useful idiots” are doing today.
Lenin was a Democrat. He said this: "We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”
I’m glad he is dead. I wish his ideas had died with him.
the difference between communism and socialism? You are really proud
of your ignorance, aren't you?
Your orange buffoon is literally forcing big companies (like Intel) to sell off
part of their ownership to the government. If a Democrat did that, you would
be shouting "COMMUNISM!" from the rooftops. I predicted that MAGA would
go communist, you just don't understand it enough to see it happening.
You let Elon Musk, a South African immigrant (probably got his citizen status illegally, if you check it) rummage around in your government finances and your private citizen data, without any oversight or transparency.
Your VP serves a billionaire who own a mass surveillance tech company.
You're blindly supporting a future where the trillionaire techbro's join with
your (next) billionaire president and corrupt politicians, and rule over the poor masses with mass surveillance and an iron fist, just like East Germany before the fall of the iron curtain. There is no difference between the government owning the means of production, and the owners of the means of production having full control of the government. It's both COMMUNISM.
YOU are the COMMUNIST!!!
I am a SOCIALIST: I want to maximize democracy and decentralize ownership of the means of production, making everyone who participates in it benefit
from it directly, without owners exploiting the working class. I would be content with Social Democracy, but I prefer Democratic Socialism, which is the flavor
of Socialism that I like. What you call "socialism" isn't Socialism, and it is definitely not communism as it is known from history.
When phart is talking about Ukraine, that's my business more than yours.
Europe is close to war, with your former enemy. We chose your side in the
cold war, joined NATO with you, gave you control over most of the world
and it's resources, and now your hanging us out to dry, because your
fascist wannabe dictator loves every horrible dictator in the world and
hates democracies. You follow that traitor like he is Jesus.
Until your dictator bans all speech that he doesn't like, I'll be here
crapping all over your cult of hate and ignorance.
How about the internet being the open marketplace of ideas, little snowflake.
The only differences between socialism and communism are just a matter of a few degrees of separation.
Confiscation of wealth are the principles of both philosophies. The Socialists merely put a smiley face on their theft of the resources for which we worked.
You’re a watered down Stalinist.
Lenin was accurately explaining Marx there, with socialism being the step towards communism, in his THEORY, but the what Lenin ended up working towards was the complete opposite of what Marx intended. Instead of full human emancipation (freedom from exploitation, alienation, and scarcity),
in a classless, stateless community, that provides people each according
to their needs, Lenin turned out to be a dictator, who exploited his people, 'alienated' everyone who disagreed and stole grain from his people to feed his army.
Obviously, Lenin had an absolute authoritarian view. If you are confusing that with the Marxist ideal, you're either being ignorant or dishonest.
It goes against 1.5 million years of human evolution, and is doomed to fail.
Marxism has also contributed to more human death and misery than all the wars in the 20th century combined, even to this day. His theory ultimately punishes success, stifles independent thought, crushes economic development, and establishes an impoverished generational dependency on the State.
Those who have been forced to accept it become impoverished spiritually, mentally, and economically.
The only way to make others accept this horrible political philosophy is by the use of force, or by the threat of the use of force, as rational people instinctively are repulsed by it.
Mao himself admitted this when he wrote, “Power comes from the barrel of a gun."
Marxism also does absolutely nothing to eliminate class, in spite of any claims otherwise. Instead, in reality, it establishes three new classes in every society that has ever attempted it: the repressive political elite class at the top, the apparatchick class who maintain the bureaucracy of the State in the middle, and the “people,” those left over, treated as subjects with no voice, no rights, and no self-determination. Their very existence is dependent upon the whims of the State.
The oppression of any and all who are not favored within the inner circle of the ruling class has been the ultimate outcome of every attempt to establish a Marxist state, everywhere in this world.
The only places Marxism has ever been successful have been in the naive minds of those who foolishly advocate for it, in spite of any and all evidence it is a highly flawed and dangerously oppressive political and economic system, an anti-human system that has destroyed entire cultures.
How could any sensible, decent, and reasonable person possibly support any of that?
Humanity is capable of much more decency than you are supporting, maybe not because of generosity or empathy, but maybe just for the basic selfish desire for safety, freedom to be, health, love, acceptance, belonging, friendship, comfort, creativity, fulfillment, inspiration, curiosity and rest, that we only get from living in harmony with others.
Human evolution is NOT based on conflict, but on cooperation. We have evolved in tribes, not as solitary predators. That evolution narrative is part of the capitalist propaganda they feed you 24/7.
That focus on money that the feed you is impoverishing you spiritually and mentally. They even twisted the church from the worship of a generous, humble, wise person, into a cult of selfishness and xenophobia, and mostly into a BIG BUSINESS.
If Marxism was not eliminating classes, you should be happy to have it, because your ideology splits the people into the owner class that owns and controls everything and the working class serving them. Of course, you are bullshitting, because Marx's whole idea was to eliminate that, which is the critique in his book "Das Kapital". You gotto come up with better arguments then "Nuh-uh!".
You keep referring to all those dictators who used the terms capitalism and socialism to fool the people. That was their way to steal back their power, after the French revolution showed people that they can live without elites exploiting them. It's the time when people created democracy, but the elites kept fucking with it with lies and violence. The people were stupid to believe the lies and sometimes commit violence in favor of their own exploitation, but they have ALWAYS wanted freedom. You yourself frame your support for exploitation as a message of freedom.
You keep accusing my side of politics of working towards a ruling class, but your own movement is based on exactly that, even concentrated in one leader that should be completely free from criticism. It's all based in the worship of wealthy people like gods, who need to be released from the burdens of taxes, regulations and responsibilities, so they create utopia (on Mars) and accumulate wealth that trickles down upon the peasants. They are advocating for techno-feudalism and you are saying: "Yes, yes, rule over me good lord!". Well, they will, for a while, until their mindless greed destroys the Earth's ability to support life. Then they will try to hide in their bunkers, or on their mega-yachts, or on Mars, or on some fucking space station (like in the movie Elysium), while their stupid rubes can suffer and croak, all in name of the most primitive nature of humanity, instead of the endeavor to evolve beyond it.
How could any sensible, decent, and reasonable person possibly support any of that?
Additionally, I don’t believe you understand communism at all. Otherwise, you would not be equating it with capitalism. They are not the same, and it’s either a blatant lie or extremely naive to assert they are one and the same.
You are using terminology like "worshipping at the altar", to intentionally associate it with a religion. That's also bullshit, because "Modern Socialism" is based on secular humanism, the opposite of religion.
In my country, the Socialist Party was funded by hardworking people, who were the sons of a factory worker, a pipefitter, and a butcher. They all grew up solidly working class, and they all started out working in factories or as craftsmen. Some of them became full-time trade unionists, but many of the original party organizers had working class jobs to pay the bills. When their political careers started to earn money (representatives are getting paid), they donated 50-75% to their party, only keeping around median wage. When they wrote books that made money, they donated the proceeds to the party. With that money, the party supported political activism for the working class people protesting their exploitation and unsafe working conditions. An early big action was protesting against houses getting build on the highly poisoned ground of demolished factories.
My current party leader, Jimmy Dijk, grew up in a working class family. His father worked as a window cleaner. His parents had to work hard to make ends meet, which contributed to his conviction that politics should pay more attention to people with modest incomes. He did support his own education, by working in a cardboard factory.
You are correct that most of the Socialist Party organizers now have at least decent educations, but they ALL came from solidly lower working class families. I myself have a good education and come from a solidly lower working class family. My father was the main income provider, as an electrician, working for employers his whole life. People get their socialist views from seeing working class people struggle. Right-wingers are the ones who had it easy, growing up spoiled, and having an easy go at life, in at least middle income families. They PRETEND coming from poor backgrounds, PRETEND that they needed to struggle, but having made it big, because they are so smart, but most of them grew up with a silver/golden spoon in their mouths.
Look at the party that you support, and find me one politician who wasn't at least a millionaire, or had millionaire parents, before they entered politics.
Did any of them work a normal working class job? How many of them needed to pay for their own education?
Trump had everything handed to him, but he still needed to be a criminal to cover up and compensate for his constant fuck-ups. He is the absolute example of someone failing upwards.
Hog wash!
We are a selfish species, like all others in existence, with our own self interests always in mind. No amount of wishfully naive faith in any fantastic secular 19th century philosophy that ignores human nature is going to change that.
Only violent force and the threat of violent force will coerce the “People” into accepting that which enslaves their labor, their minds, and their spirits.
Marxism and its alleged socialistic morality should go the way of the buggy whip. That’s how useless it has become in today’s world.
The “working classes” are a thing of the past today, a concept as dated as Marxism itself. Labor is going the way of the dodo, and your 19th century ideals refuse to accept it.
Admit it. You’re stuck in a mental philosophy that’s older than powered aviation.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people
can do evil; but for good people to do evil, that takes religion."
Who do you think invented socialism? This was the term for our system
for freedom, after the commoners freed themselves from the Bourgeoisie exploiting them. And yes, the freedom from religion was part of it, because people understood that religion is no more than a tool for submission.
It's not a belief in the "alleged innate altruistic nature of Man", it's a belief
in the right of Autonomy for everyone, while capitalism is a belief in the right to exploit others, which only applies to the favored few.
"Labor is going the way of the dodo" Damn, that's stupid, especially for an American. People are working multiple jobs to stay alive, in your country. Sure, they are working on AI to replace the working class, but they are not thinking of you working less AND staying alive, they are just thinking about not needing their sheeple anymore. What happens to you doesn't concern them. You either starve or go back to farming, or something. They have proposed NO solutions for you. I'm not including me, because your president is isolating you from the rest of the world. It's gonna be completely surrounded by walls, no one coming in or going out, and complete blackout, so you don't know how fucked you are.
Funny, how you are thinking that serving the selfishness of the wealthy
is modern. What do you think people have done for thousands of years? Following the High-priest, Pharaoh, Imperator, Emperor, Tsar, King, President, wealthy donors to your politicians, and soon the Trillionaire Tech-Lords. Every time the smart courageous people bleed to rid us of
our oppressors and every time cucks like you submit themselves to them again. It's so fucking tiresome.
You are just jacking off and then calling it intercourse.
There can be multiple sources all parroting the same lie. "Verification" is not going to help, unless you understand how to recognize facts and false arguments.
Sometimes I jack off, sometimes I have intercourse. I know the difference.
I still have some time left to inform myself about what's happening in the world.
I want to know what is real and what is false, because I make choices in life that affect me, people I care most about, and the world I one day will leave behind. I prefer to live my life among happy people who are thriving, humanity looking out for each other and people who represent me in politics solving the problems that negatively affect that. If you think that you are doing the same, then please explain your logic.
Plus, where were your complaints while the Biden family were taking advantage of not only the Biden presidency, but also the Biden vice-presidency during the Obama regime? (D) gets a pass, while (R) is pilloried?
My, how our outrage becomes selective when the letters behind the names of those in office change!
Can your bias be any more obvious?
Well?
to not support him. If you don't see Trump BEING a horrible piece of shit,
on a daily basis, then you probably think behavior like that is normal.
That makes me question your morality and how you treat other people.
If you don't, then why do you think people like Trump should be president?
from taking even more of Ukraine, the next time they feel like attacking Ukraine.
How can you expect Zelensky to agree with that?
Let's say he does sign it, how long do you think the "peace" will last?
Besides it may not matter anyway, Chernobyl is leaking due to a drone strike.
probably be the last to go extinct. It's wild bees that you need to worry about.
Other pollinators, including flies, butterflies, beetles, birds, and bats, would continue
to help pollinate plants, but they generally do not pollinate as effectively as bees for many crops. Some plants that depend heavily on bees would produce much less fruit or seeds without them. Humans wouldn’t necessarily go extinct without bees, but agriculture, food diversity, and ecosystems would face major disruptions.
Would humans go extinct without bees?
only registered users can see external links
Did you actually READ anything, or are you just saying shit that you want to believe?
There are generally two to three times as many wild honey bee colonies as managed ones worldwide. This is a worrying fact by itself, showing the impact
of humans on the earth. However, consider this: When combined, humans and livestock account for roughly 95–96% of all mammalian biomass on the planet.
What do you think that nature needs to survive?
Do you think humanity can survive, when nature dies?
Do you even care?
You could try to actually argue against it. Can you?
Yep, you got it right, we survived it, that doesn't mean we or anyone else haven't had side effects from it.
I remember when that plant in japan messed up, the radiation levels in the grain in the midwest US went up. Thanks to the radiation traveling by jet stream.
Radiation from thermo-nuclear war won’t kills the insects, including cockroaches and bees. It’s the ensuing nuclear winter that will wipe out most insect species.
Elevated radiation levels emitted by Chernobyl won’t ever come close to exterminating insect life. If the original initial release didn’t kill them, neither will a slowly leaking hole in the sarcophagus.
How Radiation Concentrates in the Food Chain:
1) Bioaccumulation: This occurs when an individual organism absorbs radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) from air, water, or soil faster than it can excrete them. Radionuclides often "mimic" essential nutrients; for example, Strontium-90 mimics calcium and is stored in bones, while Cesium-137 mimics potassium and builds up in muscle tissue.
2) Biomagnification: As small organisms are eaten by larger ones, the concentration of persistent radionuclides increases at each level of the food chain. Predators must consume large quantities of prey to survive, effectively "collecting" the total toxic load from hundreds or thousands of organisms lower in the chain.
3) Trophic Transfer: In aquatic environments, radionuclides are absorbed by phytoplankton and zooplankton, eventually reaching top predators like large salmon or lake trout, which may have concentrations high enough to cause deformities or death.
How This Affects People:
Humans sit at the top of many food chains and are affected primarily through the ingestion of contaminated food and water.
- Radioactive Iodine (I-131): Quickly moves from contaminated pasture to milk and, once consumed, accumulates in the thyroid gland, significantly increasing the risk of thyroid cancer, especially in children.
- Cesium-137: Distributes throughout the body's soft tissues and muscles, leading to long-term cancer risks due to its 30-year half-life.
- Strontium-90: Becomes a "bone-seeker," integrating into the skeletal structure and potentially causing bone cancer or leukemia.
Do you think an environment where the bees die, is not damaging YOUR health?
That's indeed all a more serious and more imminent problem than the current little increase in the background radiation, I agree. But it took hundreds of billions of dollars to keep it limited to a little increase in the background radiation. Those are the downsides of nuclear energy, which make it a stupid alternative for fossil fuels.
There are better alternatives, that are not linked with risks of country-disrupting costs for eons, making large areas of the earth uninhabitable and easy access to nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. Why support expensive and dangerous solutions over cheap and safe ones?
If you care about it, you are supporting the wrong party/president.
They care about wealthy people being allowed to exploit you,
at whatever cost to your livelihood, health and life period.
They show you daily how much they hate poor people with brown skin.
They hate poor people with white skin, only a little bit less.
If you think that you don't qualify as 'poor', don't worry, you will.
Nuclear is not a good answer to our energy problem.
Coal smoke can be filtered, coal slag used for arrogate in concrete and asphalt , solar works on the roof of a factory or home, wind can work but has alot of issues. hydro works and does the least damage, geothermal works with little to no damage to the enviroment.
Nuclear radiation is not causing the small things to just start dropping dead. It’s all the toxins being placed into the environment that is doing that, from female hormones from birth control pills being excreted into rivers and oceans, to pesticides and herbicides being sprayed on our food in the fields.
As for “green” energy, it is super easy to ignore the fact that the natural resources required to make it must first be mined in gigantic open pit mines, if you can’t see them.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Tour a typical above-ground mining operation sometime, and then come back to tell me how “green” green energy is.
Also, maybe you ask salmon how they feel about hydro-electric power generation sometime. I’d bet you’d be surprised at their answers.
Coal is strip mined just like other more modern stuff, no real difference there.
there is NO FREE RIDE.
There will always be a price to pay for energy
is perfect, is the surest path to ruin.
Where do you think the fossil fuels come from? From the sky?
Yes, all energy technology requires natural resources, but 'black' energy turns fossil fuels into CO2, water and pollution, while metals and minerals needed to make green energy can be recycled. That is not always easy, but it already
creates much less pollution than 'black' energy ever did.
Of course, if you let green energy be exploited to just profit the wealthy, they will pollute with that too. If it makes them 1 dollar more, they will poison anyone.
"Out of sight, out of mind." OK, not for 'black' energy, because Texans are breathing toxic air, 22 million Americans are advised to not drink their tap water and another 40 million don't trust that their tap water is safe to drink, and are probably correct.
There are ways to route the salmon around hydro-electric power plants, but who are you kidding? If it wasn't for 'environmentalists' like me, your fossil fuel pollution would have killed them all already.
So, you don't worry about radiation, climate change or pollution from fossil fuels, but you did say: "There are far worse manmade things going on right now..."
Like what then? What DO you worry about?
What is it that is causing humanities demise even sooner?
salmon, i just bought a big bag of frozen farm raised, didn't have to by pass any turbines to get to the bag!
to someone on your own political side. I am SO proud of you.
that radiation isolated.
only registered users can see external links
If they don't disassemble the reactor (which would be incredibly expensive), they will need to keep it covered for many hundreds to thousands of years, which would be incredibly expensive. Since Ukraine will probably not be able to pay for it, that means the rest of the world needs to, unless we want it to spread all over the earth.
At least Japan is capable of paying for their "little accident" themselves. They made the whole of earth a little bit more radioactive, resulting in accumulation of radioactivity in animals on top of the food chain (humans), but at least they are doing a reasonable job of containing it now. Still, it will probably cost them much more than nuclear power ever made them. That's the constant gamble being taken, by every country who is using nuclear power. The slightest accident or inevitable natural disaster can damage your country more than nuclear power ever benefited it.
If your country is ever at war, or there are some terrorist who don't like you, you could just paint a big bullseye on every nuclear plant, because that's the reality of it.
It's much better to use that big nuclear reactor in the sky for energy. It's cheap, it's safe, and it doesn't blow up for another 5 billion years.
Sheesh, go in for your tonsils, have a heart attack on the side!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Why is it people try to tie EVERYTHING to racism?
Are we going to have to change the color of BLACK PAINT to something "less offensive?
It mean it is is "Negro" in other languages.
The dark skys have always been referred to as "black skys"> Are we going to have to change that to?
When do people with some common sense stand up and say enough is a fucking nough and put the brakes on this BULLSHIT?
The word "Negro" comes from Spanish/Portuguese for "black" but is now generally considered dated and often offensive in English, largely replaced by "Black" or "African American" since the 1960s, though it was once a term of dignity used by leaders like W.E.B. Du Bois; exceptions exist for historical contexts or specific organizations (like the UNCF or Negro Leagues Baseball Museum) where it's part of the official name.
"What is the difference between negro and Negroid?
The suffix "-oid" means "similar to". Negroid as a noun was used to designate a wider or more generalized category than Negro; as an adjective, it qualified a noun as in, for example, "negroid features"."
How would You describe this man to the police without offending anyone?
I would describe him to a cop similar to what you did trying to be accurate and honest to help catch the crook. But if the crook was brought to trial, the fact that race was mentioned and such may degrade creditability of the witness's to the case as the description would be interpreted as racist and could spell no justice being served because of it.
I moved this from where i posted it on kembos post,
But If I ever ride on a airplane I am going to sit beside the biggest black lady I can find. Because if it crashes the emergency personal always look for the black box first!
only registered users can see external links
She's cutting the training to SIX weeks. They are letting in:
- recruits that have failed drugs test and have disqualifying criminal backgrounds
- people who's doctors signed forms that they are unfit for any physical activity
- people who are failing open-book tests, because they can barely read or write
- people up to and over the of 60, while it was previously 37
They are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
From the people who get arrested nationally, only 7% has any violent criminal conviction.
In Washington and Massachusetts it's 2%. In Washington, 84% do not even have a traffic violation. People understand that this is not about fighting crime.
The cruelty was always the point and the incompetency is making the cruelty visible.
That's why only 37% of Americans agree with how Trump handles immigration.
Holy crap! What floors! that 1 is 5 foot deep!
only registered users can see external links