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.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.Be honest!! 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
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
only registered users can see external links
One day, your pregnancy goes catastrophically wrong. The baby cannot live,
the doctors know it, you know it. The only question left is; DO YOU GET TO LIVE?
Suddenly, all those "pro-life" laws that you supported are the reason that the doctors
are too afraid to save your life.
IF you get caught starring at a woman's boobs and she complains you can give her a legitimate explanation as to WHY you are looking at her boobs.
What are the benefits of a man looking at breasts?
Men who stare at breasts are healthier | Aristocrat Plastic ...
Beautiful female breasts can inspire and keep men healthier, says a German study. The research says staring longer at women's breasts is as effective as some exercise. Gazing at breasts can lower the blood pressure and lower the resting heart rate which will lower the chance of cardiovascular conditions.
So since my recent heart procedure, I guess i have been doing myself a favor looking at boobs here.
I am being a smart ass with this paragraph i just typed because I am trying to expand on explain the idiocy of Racism taken to the extent folks are nowadays. Jingle bells being racist, sheesh.
I looked at a can of paint on the discount shelf this morning at lowes, Black, Negro- carbon.
only registered users can see external links
I’m just over here, waiting for the shit to hit the fan somewhere, again.
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
Step 1: Find box.
Preferably not box Mama use for Mama special new toys Mama buy after Diabeto leave again to jail. Mongo sniff biggest one Mongo think it smell like turtle cage. Mama put all on dresser cos Mongo rip box. Mongo no tell Mama Mongo used biggest one. Mongo think this why now have ass cancer.
Step 2: Put Mongos dick in box.
If box 2 small Mongo smash it like bag of bread til it fit. Mongo legendary for Mongo retard strength. Mongo problem solver. Mongo pull trailer hitch after Mama Nissan Rouge transmission brake.
Step 3: Present box with confidence of man who comments sexy on pictures of Mama friend Lix.Let the lady her open box. No tell surprised like last time. Mongo forget ladies like Lyuba no lie hearing Mongo tell. Lying scarred think amigo sound like gorilla beating cage.
That how Mongo do holiday romance.
Sounds like pure “romance in a box” to me!
Good, over the moon that this happened! These, for the lack of a better term, numb nuts content creators are being held accountable for the crap they upload on the internet!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I bet poor old Ben Franklin is spinning in his grave
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
--------------------------------------- added after 12 hours
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
There are lots of these accounts that pose as American MAGA,
which now are turning out to be located in countries that do not
hold democracy in high regard, to put it mildly. Isn't that strange?
only registered users can see external links
McGovern was Chief Creative Officer / Design Director, responsible for:
- Vehicle aesthetics (exterior & interior design)
- Brand identity (logos, marketing visuals, and overall “look & feel”)
- Concepts and styling of new models
McGovern did NOT decide the powertrain or corporate product strategy,
e.g., whether Jaguar becomes fully electric. That is the role of:
- CEO & Board (corporate strategy)
- Chief Product & Technology Officers (engineering, EV adoption)
- Marketing & Finance teams (market positioning, budget, risk)
He was responsible for the shift of Jaguar’s image away from its older, traditional base (classic luxury/“old British car” buyers) and instead reach a younger, more global, possibly more fashion- or lifestyle-oriented clientele: “a newer, international elite,” as some branding experts put it. There is nothing 'woke' or 'progressive' about that. The change felt too abrupt, too radical, and too detached from what made Jaguar; engineering pedigree, British heritage, the “soul” of classic carmaking.
Did this upset old conservative elites? Sure, but that doesn't make it 'woke'.
The heads of the company decided to make Jaguar 100% electric.
This designer probably thought that the customer base of Jaguar, didn't fit that strategy, so he tried to appeal to a younger customer base. I don't think he was wrong, but I am willing to agree with Jaguar that this is a big risk. The people who have the money to buy Jaguars tend to be 'older', affluent, conservative-taste luxury buyers. You can convince them to drive electric, but if you combine that with Avant-garde fashion, the old clientele will leave.
There is NOTHING 'woke' about trying to cater to the nouveau riche.
only registered users can see external links
A good actor can spot a bad one easily.
only registered users can see external links
The Economy could prosper and the people not because of high labor prices
If a large number of people in any country ,US included, are on income plans claiming mental illness, that financial burden drags down a country. You don't fix mental, it is a drain.
You find something those people can do to earn a wage if it is something as simple as sweeping floors
With benefits, it's the people who prosper, without it's the wealthy.
Your country is for 70% dependent on internal consumption.
It's not the wealthy who create a healthy economy, it's the people.
If the people have money to spend, the economy prospers.
The only escape from that economic principle is trade, but Trump created tariffs.
You said you don't care about trade, but if you want your economy to do well,
you need Americans to buy your products. Lowering wages is a downward spiral.
Your billionaires cannot spend your economy healthy.
Maybe you should think about people not spending money on useless expenses
to directly pay the wealthy, without creating economic activity. For instance, high rent
for buildings that have existed for decades. That's just a clear handout to the owners
of the buildings, that creates almost no economic activity. Another is health insurance.
It only takes a lot of money from everyone, to transfer money to the wealthy, without creating health benefits for the people. It damages the economy, because it reduces people's spending power, without creating much economic activity. They are leaches.
What's the cause of the high number of mental illness cases in your country?
I think that it's the individualism, and the anti-rationality movement.
/ˌindəˈvij(ə
noun
noun: individualism
1.
the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
"a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth"
h
Similar:
independence
self-direction
self-reliance
freethinking
free thought
originality
unconventionality
eccentricity
libertarianism
self-centered feeling or conduct; egoism.
2.
a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
"encouragement has been given to individualism, free enterprise, and the pursuit of profit"
So you are saying our mental illness is caused by freedom?
Let me paste this again so you won't miss it
"individualism
1.
the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
"a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth"
h
Similar:
independence
self-direction
self-reliance
freethinking
free thought
originality
unconventionality
eccentricity
libertarianism
In other words you think everyone should follow the leader,not think for themselves and just be a drone and they will be Your definition of mentally healthy??
you know better than that!
In that sense, it means the opposite of solidarity. It means you're on your own,
no communities of people helping each other in a time of need.
It is sold as freedom, but it actually strips the thing that made humanity prosper.
Yes, it is creating mental illness, to push people apart, like your movement is doing.
I am personally very much an individualist. I don't do anything just because it's what society expects of me. The term for that is "nonconformist individualism".
I am very much an autonomy-focused individualist. I value:
- Personal freedom of thought
- The right to choose your life path
- Not being pressured into traditional roles
- Authentic self-direction
This aligns with:
- Existentialist individualism (Sartre, de Beauvoir)
- Left libertarian / anarchist individualism
- Liberal humanism
- “Self-direction” in modern psychology
However, I am also a socialist, which means that I am definately NOT:
1) Atomistic individualist
- The belief that people are essentially separate, self-contained units
- Downplays interdependence
- Treats community as optional or irrelevant
- Often assumes social obligations = loss of freedom
This is the type many socialists (and sociologists) criticize.
2) Egoistic or competitive individualist
- Prioritizes self-interest above all
- Views society as a competition of individuals
- Measures success by outcompeting others
- Favors inequality as a natural outcome
This is incompatible with socialist values.
3) “Rugged” individualist
- “Everyone should fend for themselves”
- Distrust of social welfare, solidarity, public services
- Resistance to collective safety nets
- Often tied to neoliberal or libertarian-conservative ideology
This is the main type of individualism that I reject.
4) Market individualist
- Defines freedom mainly as consumer choice
- Sees society through a market lens
- Frames people primarily as economic actors
- Accepts or encourages large inequalities as a result of market outcomes
Definitely at odds with democratic socialism.
Is this all you had to say about that?
I was talking economics mostly. Got anything to say about that?
I am sorry, you are not 100% wrong but you sure aren't 100% right either. You have been indoctrinated to believe you have to depend on others to meet the simplest most basic needs in life. So sad really,I honestly can't even visualize your motivation to get out of bed in the morning.
Why would you think that?
How about the "I take care of my village" attitude?
To be indoctrinated, there needs to be someone doing the indoctrination.
There is none, it's 24/7 celebration of capitalism here too.
I cannot turn on the TV or radio, without being fed right-wing lies.
I recognize it, because I can think for myself, that's what happened to me.
I see what is happening, and I understand how to recognize causes.
There are simple facts that you cannot deny. Housing was mostly done by the government before, when most people could easily afford to rent, and a mechanic could buy a house. Then housing was left to 'the market', making investors wealthy, and now only couples with two highly paid jobs can afford to buy a house. Owning a house is the strongest wealth-building tool in capitalism, but the number of people who can afford it has gone done a lot and keeps going down. That's hard evidence for right-wing policies fucking the average person over. Why don't you understand?
I actually have a good reason to get out of bed, because my job is worthwhile and it pays well. Do you know how many Americans hate their jobs? They work and work and work, and they still don't make enough money to pay for a $500 emergency.
Do you think that is good motivation to get out of bed?
Everything is backwards with you, because YOU consume propaganda 24/7.
You are sharing it here. It's all designed to divide people, blame each other,
for why you're all working like slaves for peanuts, so you don't notice that
the wealthy are taking all your money.
How do you tell someone who is getting scammed that they're getting scammed?
What needs to happen to you, to make the blinders drop from your eyes?
No where is it in stone that life is easy,cheap or fair.
But if you want a future, no better time to learn how to work for it than when you are young and impressionable. The struggle ends 1, when you retire from a reputable company and have a good check coming in each month,or 2, when you die.
No where is it in stone life is fair,easy or cheap
Another thing, retirement is not the end of the struggle. You are looking at the income part only. Life is much, much, more than that.
If you waste your entire check living above your means,no you won't get there
Also, what happens with people like you and my ex? Both of you got injured. Are you a dumb f…k because you got hurt? And what happens if the retirement fund goes insolvent and your pension stops?
Like what? Work 100 hrs/week?
I just told you that a mechanic could afford a house, on 40 hrs/week, when I was young. I'm talking about my father, who first bought an apartment and then a pretty big family home, only a few years later. Interest on mortgages was around 10% back then, and you had to pay a significant sum from your pocket.
My father was the family provider and my mom was a stay at home mom.
Buying a house like my father bought, today, takes TWO people, both with higher educations, and good steady jobs, to afford. A mechanic cannot even afford to RENT on their own anymore.
Do we all need to be managers or lawyers now? Are mechanics still allowed
to live a decent life? Or do they all need to work 100 hrs/week?
You're also not consistent; when we talk about education becoming unaffordable, you are saying that people don't need it, they should just be a tradesperson.
And now you are telling people to work and study hard to get good grades to get a scholarship to help pay the cost of college. Where are those scholarships coming from? Can everyone get them? This is obviously not a solution for everyone.
Even if everyone is working and studying the hardest that is humanly possible,
then scholarships are STILL going to the few smartest people.
Why do people need to do all this "finding ways to make more money",
when they didn't need to do that before?
That 500,000 dollar house was 230,000 dollar, not even 2 decades ago.
Wages didn't go up that fast, so what happened?
Why did life get less "fair,easy or cheap" in only 20 years?
You keep giving nonsense reactions, to obvious problems. Be more honest.
I will pm the rest,
You're still not addressing the fact that tradespeople could afford to buy a home and support a family on one income. More people are working than in that time, but people are less well off, even if couples are both working. That's just a fact.
This is not just bad for tradespeople, it's bad for the whole country.
Didn't you say that you wanted America to make stuff again?
To make stuff, you need people to want to be tradespeople,
instead of everyone picking educations to be managers and lawyers.
If you want America to split itself off from the rest of the world,
and you want to close the borders to trade, you need to create
a strong internal economy. You cannot do that with poor people.
America was at it's strongest when the middle class was booming
and you had high taxes on the wealthy, which paid for big investments.
Now your middle class is suffering and your country is losing its place
in the world. The ideas that you support are clearly the cause of this,
but you keep supporting those failed ideas. The US is crumbling.
There is nothing MAGA about it, when Trump is clearly destroying America.
Trump is clearly "winning" too much, and he IS destroying your country.
I don't know how to translate this money to Us dollars
only registered users can see external links
That's $53,918.27/year, $25.68/hour. Google can easily convert it for you.
Just ask "Ђ22 in dollar" and it tells you.
There are of course many types of mechanic, at different levels of education.
At $53,918.27/year, the mechanic could get a mortgage between $215,656 and $269,570. There are still some houses in some areas of my country for sale at that price, but the house of my parents is 3 times the value.
only registered users can see external links
If you work for 10 years and make $1,000,000, you pay $300,000–$400,000 in taxes.
Who thinks it is fair to get taxed for working, but not for just getting it?
Could it be organized more fairly?
I know Anannas thinks when family dies all their money and stuff goes to the state to be dispersed among those that did nothing for it.
What people miss is if a person looses a parent or loved 1, that money is not free, it cost them their father ,mother or etc. Taxes were already paid.
Land and material things, taxes and fees have been paid for length of time of ownership.
Why is worked taxed so high and inheritance so low?
The answer is NOT "because the parents already paid their taxes".
We can fix that and tax working LESS and tax having lost of money MORE
and tax generational transfer of money MORE.
Why is EARNING money taxed so much more, than HAVING money
and just GETTING money that you haven't EARNED yourself?
You're only focusing on the parents, not on the kids.
Didn't I ask: "Could it be organized more fairly?"?
Why is it fair that some people don't have to work, because their parents are rich
and some people have almost no chances to make it, no matter how hard they work,
because their parents are poor? Is that fair?
Why is winning the birth lottery rewarded and working punished?
phart, lay off on this one, let quint answer.
You already answered for me, don't answer for him too.
just because you don't want your family to be better off than you when you pass away doesn't mean others don't love and care for their kids.
it is simple jealousy from those who parents were drunken hippies and didn't leave them anything that complain.
Generational wealth transfer is the cause of the problems, NOT the solution.
People's kids WILL be poorer than them, because politics favors the wealthy.
You should want those kids to be ABLE to make a life for themselves.
My father bought his first apartment at age 25. How old does the current generation need to be, before their parents die and leave them some money, to finally be able
to buy a house?
Houses are scarce goods, they are either owned by the people who live in them
or they are owned by the wealthy who ask top dollar for them, to become more wealthy and buy up more houses. It's our generation that can still make a choice to have people own their own homes, and prevent that the wealthy own everything.
Remember your side being outraged about the phrase "you will own nothing and be happy"? This was a prediction made by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in a 2016, and your side is turning it into a reality. TAX THE RICH, or be happy owning NOTHING.
only registered users can see external links
Note this video was made in 2022, and they are talking about how bad the economyiis crashing! Who was pres then?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I only do business with 1 place that does not take cash and that is the county dump. And I complain to the commissioners all the time about it
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
No bills, no problems
No problems? One tiny infection can kill you.
What do you think his teeth are like? Would he still have some?
Maybe you would have more rational political insights, if you wouldn't romanticize
living like a wild animal or some caveman. You are probably still recovering somewhat from a medical intervention that saved your life, but instead of absorbing that into your worldview, you think people are better off living like we did 10,000 years ago.
Understand that even the poorest person in the modern world has a much better
quality of life than the people back then. About half the children died before the age of 5, from some disease, accident or being eaten by a predator.
Every Day Began With Uncertainty. A person woke up not knowing if they would eat that day. Seasons mattered brutally: winter or drought could mean days with almost nothing—maybe a handful of nuts, bitter roots, or dried meat if they had been lucky enough to store some.
Cold, heat, wind, and rain all mattered more than any predator.
Clothing was animal hide, often stiff, smelly, and poorly insulating. Shelters were drafty huts or temporary camps. A single storm could wipe out a group’s food stores, trap them indoors, or kill the very young and the very old.
Aches, injuries, and infections were simply part of existence.
- No painkillers beyond plants that dulled the senses
- No medical treatment for sprains, fractures, or infected wounds
- Teeth worn down from grit in stone-ground food
- Parasites, fleas, lice
Most adults lived with chronic pain that would send a modern person to the ER.
Large predators still roamed in many regions—lions, wolves, cave bears, saber-toothed cats (in earlier periods), hyenas.
Even more dangerous were simply:
Falls, Cuts that got infected, Snakebites, Fires and Conflict with other groups. Any of these could be fatal.
Parents expected to lose children; grief was constant, quiet, and communal.
Whether hunter-gatherer or early farmer, work was exhausting.
For hunters:
- Track animals for hours or days
- Carry heavy meat back to camp
- Face dangerous prey
For gatherers:
- Bend and kneel for hours collecting roots, seeds, nuts
- Process plants by scraping, pounding, grinding
For early farmers:
- Dig, plant, weed, haul water
- Defend fields from animals
- Store grain or risk starvation
While some individuals lived into their 50s or even 60s, the average life expectancy was dramatically pulled down by:
- infant deaths
- infections
- accidents
- childbirth risks
- malnutrition
Living to 30 was already an accomplishment.
Anxiety was a permanent companion:
- Will we eat tomorrow?
- Will the weather turn?
- Is that sound a predator?
- Are other tribes approaching?
There was wonder, community, and meaning—but also relentless uncertainty.
The only upside I see from that time is that the tribe helped each other to stay alive. Nowadays, people are completely isolated from each other. People are selfish, because that is idolized as the goal for self improvement. The sad thing is that people who support that selfish system often point to 10,000 years back, calling it "survival of the fittest".
That is very dishonest propaganda to justify inequality, because it is the opposite of what evolution teaches. Humans survived because of cooperation, resource sharing, division of labor, caring for the vulnerable and group solidarity.
they didn't have micro plastics in their water. They didn't have jet fuel particles falling on them from the sky. They didn't have covid,
So many things they didn't have that we have to deal with today.
IF 1 caveman stole another cavemans woman that cave man could wack the thief over the head and get his woman back.didn't have to go thru divorce either if they spilt up.
Question is, did a form of racism exist back then?
Is there an evolutionary explanation for racism?
Another theory from evolutionary psychology is that racism may have evolved as an “energy-saving” strategy. To interact or mate with ethnically different groups would have involved a lot of time and energy, through coordinating with different social norms.
right-wing news outlets, they were worried if they would survive the oncoming winter.
Coronaviruses have been around for millions of years, long before humans existed. Paleovirology has found some evidence that we inherited some resistance from the Neanderthals. Still, they died of so many diseases that we consider mild today.
And of course modern medicine has conquered several horrible diseases.
Unfortunately, modern anti-science is bringing some of them back.
The behavioral tendencies for racism are probably very old, but back then tribalism overruled it. People didn't just distrust other races, they distrust everyone outside of their tribe. It's behavior that is even observed in apes.
What I've read about it is that we have evolutionary tendencies to determine in-groups and out-groups, but racism emerged from cultural, political, and economic forces.
Racism as we understand it today—fixed, hierarchical, and global—emerged primarily in the last 500 years, driven by:
- colonial expansion
- the transatlantic slave trade
- European imperial ideologies
- scientific racism in the 18th–19th centuries
Slave trading has been going on for thousands of years, but it wasn't based on race. Read the bible and see how the Jews had different rules about owning slaves for Jews and everyone else. That was not based on race, because everyone in that area looked the same. It was based on in-groups and out-groups.
I don't think it's based on energy conservation, I think it's based on power preservation.
For a dominant group, defining another group as “inferior,” “different,” or “dangerous” creates:
- a boundary around the in-group
- a rationale for unequal treatment
- a story that justifies their power
This makes it easier to maintain control without relying solely on force.
Racism provides ideological cover for distributing benefits unequally: land, jobs, political rights, education, wealth and safety.
By claiming that some groups are “naturally suited” to labor, or “less civilized,” or “less intelligent,” the ruling group can preserve advantages and restrict competition.
A key principle of power is: It’s easier to rule a population that is divided than one that is united. Racism:
- creates divisions among the working class or subordinate groups
- prevents coalitions that might challenge the dominant group
- redirects frustration toward minority groups instead of toward the powerful
It legitimizes coercive institutions. Cultural beliefs about racial difference allow the in-group to build institutions that reinforce inequality, such as:
- segregated schools
- restricted voting rights
- discriminatory policing
- immigration controls
- unequal legal systems
These become seen as “necessary” instead of oppressive.
It stabilizes the dominant group’s identity. Power is not only material—it is also psychological. Racism gives the in-group:
- a sense of superiority
- a justification for their privileged position
- a shared identity built around dominance
This creates emotional cohesion within the ruling group.
It masks the real mechanisms of power. Racism can make inequality appear:
- natural
- inevitable
- rooted in biology
- the “fault” of the oppressed group
This hides the structural causes, allowing the powerful to avoid accountability.
Thus, racism is not an evolutionary adaptation, it is a cultural strategy that societies can (and often do) use to maintain power structures.
only registered users can see external links
I guess the democrats run similar experiments on adults. give them everything then tell them the republicans are going to take it away! instilling fear in them at election time to win their votes yet again.
only registered users can see external links
was 81.9% at the end of the second quarter of 2025.
In the second quarter of 2025, the U.S. government's debt-to-GDP ratio was 119.4%.
If the EU is broke, the US is much more broke.
The EU is asking the UK for “billions”, but these are not arbitrary demands; they are part of a legally binding Brexit financial settlement. It’s the UK repaying agreed obligations as part of the Brexit exit deal.
So, you're just parroting filthy lies for a political reason.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
"Markets don't crash when things look bad, they crash when the forces
holding everything together finally break"
only registered users can see external links
Real economics destroying the wealthy's favorite lie.
Well apparently you CAN live without a brain!!!
only registered users can see external links
I don't think it's possible to live without any piece of brain.
Still that aint much.
the parrot has that much brain!and he can talk!
How about knowing early in the development of the zygote/fetus, that the child
will end up like this, and giving the woman the choice to end that pregnancy?
" oh this baby may have a iq lower than 125" abort abort abort!
You may rest easy killing the unborn, but i can't
Really? Do you think that people are thinking that, about their pregnancy?
You have strange ideas about people.
If there are people like that, I very much think they shouldn't have children.
But, let me answer your slippery slope fallacy, with a whataboutism.
If murder is illegal, how can people still defend themselves?
The answer: Because we "draw the line" with LAWS.
You may rest easy by killing people in boats, who are drugs smugglers at worst, without a day in court. Those are living and thinking people, the unborn are not.
Your ideas are forcing women to carry and give birth to a child like that,
and then have parents or society care for a vegetable 24/7 for it's life.
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other if abortion exists. I just don't want my tax dollars to fund what is, essentially, an elective medical procedure.
That was exactly in line with my meaning.
It's a slippery slope argument. Here is an example:
"If trespassing is illegal, then why are Jehovah's Witnesses not arrested?"
Reverse logic: "If listening to music is legal, then why can’t people
blast it at airplane-engine volume in the middle of the night?"
Why don't you want your tax dollars to fund elective medical procedures?
The only difference between emergency care and elective medical procedures
is that an emergency is needed to prevent the patient from dying right-now,
while elective medical procedures can be scheduled in advance, because
the life of the patient is not in immediate danger.
The next examples are all elective medical procedures:
- Hip replacements
- Knee replacement or reconstruction surgery
- Most hernia repairs
- Cataract surgery
- Gallbladder removal (when not emergent)
- Heart bypass surgery (when not done during an active crisis)
What makes it better for you, to fund these medical procedures through
for-profit insurance, instead of tax-dollars? Do you think that you will never
need an elective medical procedure?
Unless the Jehovahs had to defeat some sort of barrier, such as a locked gate, or they ignored a sign warning them to keep out, they may still enter, until such time you demand they leave. If they refuse to leave, or if had they defeated barriers or ignored signage, then they have committed the crime of trespass.
It seems a basic understanding of trespassing laws is in order here.
Then there is the elephant in the room. How can you equate joint replacement and other serious medical procedures with abortion? That is a false equivalence argument. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison! One may be pregnant and still function normally in most physical activities, such as walking, reading, etc. How can one function if he cannot see or walk, or is living in constant severe pain? Really!
Abortion IS an elective procedure, one that historically has demanded that I fund it without my consent! You don’t have to get pregnant. It is a choice that involves a certain voluntary activity for a vast majority of the cases, whereas people rarely choose to lose the function of joints and organs. Pregnancy is 100% preventable! Aging is not!
I’m surprised you didn’t also throw insulin into that mess, with the attitude you’ve displayed thus far!
You’re scraping the bottom of the logic barrel, grasping at totally unrelated medical procedures in an attempt to justify using other people’s money for a procedure that could easily have been prevented!
That’s just lame.
that was the whole argument. I'm explaining the slippery slope argument to you, because you didn't understand it the first time, and it's going right over your head again.
I am arguing against pharts argument "where do you draw the line?",
saying "oh this baby may have a iq lower than 125, abort abort abort!"
The "line" that we draw is the law. The same law that defines the limit between Jehovahs entering your property and trespassing, which you specified.
So, there could be al law that keeps abortion legal, but excludes the reason that it's IQ would be lower than 125, or whatever other nonsense phart makes up.
We we talking about abortion for a fetus that develops without a brain, like the woman from the article that phart shared. Do you you have an opinion on that?
Do you think that every fetus with abnormalities or genetic diseases should be born, even if they are sure to live like a vegetable or will likely die immediately after birth? That's what Republicans are enforcing now, so your primitive thinking about who funds it, is a bit unsatisfactory for all those women who must deliver a baby that has no chance at a normal life, and the parents who have to care for it, the rest of it's life (if it dies young) or the rest of their life (if it doesn't die young).
We are talking about abortion being legal or not, not if it is funded with tax-dollars.
It was YOU who said that elective procedures shouldn't be funded by tax-dollars. That includes joint replacement and other serious medical procedures.
But, since we are talking about money. Do you understand the energy, time and MONEY that a severely disabled child costs? With your broken healthcare system, a child like that is unaffordable. If parents cannot meet that burden, is your government stepping in? Are you OK with your tax-dollars funding all those severely disabled people, because Republicans took away the CHOICE to abort them?
Is it a false equivalence to compare abortion with joint replacement and other serious medical procedures? It fucking well isn't, when Republicans are excluding abortions for DEAD fetuses. The total abortion ban has already caused 59 deaths of women with abnormal or death fetuses, and the ACPM estimates potentially 210 additional maternal deaths per year in certain states as a result of abortion bans. That makes abortion more important than a joint replacement, in a lot of cases. How can one function, when they are DEAD?
No, pregnancy is not 100% preventable. Many girls and women get r@ped. Republicans in some red states are already banning abortion for r@pe victims.
Do you think every fertile female should be on anti-conception, in case they get r@ped? Also, anti-conception is not 100% effective. The end result is that many women get pregnant unintentionally, without any fault of their own.
Let's throw insulin into that mess. Who is grasping at totally unrelated medical ... , here? (it's not even a procedure)
I think it should be either 100% covered by insurance or funded by taxes.
With your attitude, I expect you don't.
Again, no one was talking about who pays for abortions, until YOU did. We were talking about abortions being allowed by law, or not. Most abortions can be performed with some pills. I am fine with people paying for them out of pocket.
In 75% of the cases, abortions in the US are performed because the woman
is not financially secure enough to take care of it. So, if you don't like abortions,
maybe start thinking about solving that. Even giving birth itself sets people back on average $2,743. Do you think giving birth is an elective procedure?
And even if some women are getting pregnant due to their own stupidity, do you think that those dumb-asses should be parents? How about having people wait with parenting, until they have some idea that they are up to the responsibility?
Why do people like you always support ideas that fuck up your country?
It's very clear that you don't have an IQ limit for abortions. DAMN!
**** is 1 of the few exceptions i would negotiate a settlement to make frivolous 1's illegal. I would like to know where you get the 75% number being because of money issues.
A quick googleing,
"The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%).Jul 5, 2013
Understanding why women seek abortions in the US - PMC
National Institutes of Health (.gov)"
That tells me alot, that tells me that most of them could very easily be prevented by simply keeping legs closed and zippers up or give the poor guy a "hoover" job and move along.
R@pe should be covered by the rapist with his assets being put in a trust to take care of the baby once born if the mother chooses to keep it or pay for the abortion and the fellows food while rotting in jail.
Convenience abortions should be paid for out of the woman's pocket or the mans pocket or both. since it took both to create the situation, ideally both should cover the cost. IF the woman even has a clue who's it's daddy.
Timing and partner reasons are mostly financial too. That's where the 75% comes from.
That mostly of them COULD be prevented is probably true. That's not reality though. Women get pregnant unintentionally, and the reason can be an argument for who pays for it, but not for it being illegal.
Do you think having children should be punishment, for being stupid?
I sort of agree that careless people need to pay for their own abortion,
but look at it this way: the people who cannot pay for it are in the worst position to take care of a child.
Why do you want all those unwanted children, being raised by stupid people,
in desperate financial need? Don't you think your country has enough losers?
You are complaining about your drugs problem, but that is not a supply problem, that is a demand problem. And your idea of putting more losers on this earth
is creating the demand.
“What about the **** victims?” they declare while wringing their hands.
Typical. It’s always the worst case scenario, every time, when abortion is questioned!
The vast majority of abortions NEVER involve sexual assault. They rarely do. Only a tiny percentage of “****” victims ever get pregnant from the assault.
This is the moral equivalent to saying, “In order to prevent drunk driving, we must force everyone blow into a breathalyzer in order to start their cars, because some of them like to drink and drive."
H.R. 3, with the exception of a few narrow categories that have been accepted for many years, provides that the Federal Government shall not make taxpayers pay for, subsidize, encourage, or facilitate abortions or insurance coverage that includes abortion.
I have no problem with being called stupid, if you can show me to be wrong on anything.
Instead, you show you don't understand basic concepts.
Wheel barrow,only works when pushed!
Don't work, and sit at home?, then loose your ass,
only registered users can see external links
10,000 dollar bonus for being there for the American people to insure their safety!
I am surprised the damn union let them work,
If their job IS providing safety, then when are they 'going beyond the call of duty'?
Here is an assessment of ChatGPT:
Overall Assessment
Yes, there is strong evidence that many TSA agents are serious about safety and do their job diligently. The high rate of firearm detection, combined with TSA’s public statements about security priorities, supports that view.
But no, the picture is not totally unblemished:
- There are genuine risks in how TSA handles internal misconduct (per the OIG report).
- There are serious policy and legal concerns around discrimination (e.g., transgender screening).
- There are tensions between security and operational efficiency.
- Labor unrest could erode performance or morale going forward.
That last sentence leads me to believe that they might deserve a raise, instead of a one time bonus. A bonus can be a good temporary motivation, but it doesn't attract new personnel. If they deserve $10K, better raise their wage by $5K-$8K and add a bonus program for achieving goals of $2K-$5K.
only registered users can see external links
He should have known to not be friends with people who challenge you to do stupid things.
They just want to have a laugh at your expense.
only registered users can see external links
I don't know what you mean with "in theory". Do you understand that your freedom
of speech is dependent on someone else's freedom of speech?
If you can say by law: "I fucking hate 'N-word's", is it then also legal by law to say:
"If you say the 'N-word', I fucking kill you!"? It's all just speech isn't it?
That's why your Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to allow for specific, narrow exceptions or limitations on certain categories of speech that are considered unprotected or have lesser protection. The government may regulate these types of speech, which include:
- Incitement to "imminent lawless action"
- True Threats
- Fighting Words
- Defamation
- Obscenity and Child Pornography
- Commercial Speech (false or misleading advertising)
- Content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions to expressive activity
So, do you think there should be 'truly freedom of speech', which is being able to say,
whatever you want say, without legal repercussions?
Or do you think there should be some legal limits?
I don't understand why you add 'unashamedly'. I would say that shame over speech is either dependent on your own morality or on the morality of 'common sense', which we are all contributing to. In any case, everyone is 'free' to say shameful things, because it doesn't result in restrictions of your literal freedom (prison, fines or damages). If you are ashamed yourself, by your own speech, that means that you stepped over your own norms of what is socially acceptable. If you get shamed by other people for your speech, it means that you stepped over THEIR norms of what is socially acceptable. For being able to say anything unashamedly, it means dropping all norms of what is socially acceptable.
One consequence is that any man can approach any women to express all his sexual desires, in explicit detail, even if he controls her professional and financial future.
I would say that dropping all social norms would be deleterious to society.
Stepping over norms what is socially acceptable to say, could result in people not liking you and excluding you socially and professionally. We call that cancellation nowadays.
To achieve free speech with regards to shame, cannot be accomplished by law. It means that society drops all social norms for how we treat each other. It means that people can say whatever they want to you, no matter how hateful or terrifying, without you thinking:
"I don't want to deal with this person anymore.".
Is this the world you want to live in?
Would it be possible in theory? What kind of society would it result into?
Or is the whole concept of society based on what is socially acceptable?
It's always "free speech for me, but not for thee".
I agree that being offended is not a reason to take people's speech away, but that's not what she is defending. Most of her ilk is defending literal incitement, threats, defamation and doxing, which is indeed 'offensive', but also puts people in danger, because there are always stupid people who act on the words of someone who thinks that they are only being 'offensive'.
She will probably also attack 'the left' for getting Charlie Kirk killed.
No one actually did incitement, threats, defamation or doxing against him,
but the left still gets blamed. If she wants 'true freedom of speech', I hope
she defended every liberal and lefty who ever criticized Charlie Kirk and defended
Jimmy Kimmel. Do I even have to look to know that she obviously didn't do that?
The fact that all your favorite politicians are still alive,
is evidence that Obama isn't doing what you think.
When liberals start killing, you wouldn't know what hit you,
because they outsmart you 10 to 1.
Don’t forget the largest armed force in the world are the hunters in the United States 🇺🇸 and 90 percent of them are republicans
Don’t take my word for it look it up for yourself
When you want to kill a snake, you cut off the head.
Sure, the tail will flop around aimlessly for a while, but it will die soon.
That's you, 'not knowing what hit you'.
That's why it's stupid to think that there is a mastermind behind Charlie Kirk's murder, unless it's right-wingers or Netanyahu. Charlie Kirk was a grifter for your cause, but he was having second thoughts about the genocide, mostly because
the young people he caters to don't like it. There is even a record of Charlie saying that he was afraid of getting killed for his defiance against Netanyahu and Trump.
Here is Netanyahu, feeling the need to reject the idea, in his own paper.
only registered users can see external links
That's a strong confirmation of my claim.
Anyone with a brain understands that killing Charlie Kirk would not help liberals and lefties. It removed ONE voice in thousands, and that voice was starting to diverge from the rest. Someone who is NOT diverging will fill his shoes.
It might be his widow, who is has been grifting off his death, before he was even in the ground. It's a sickening display, even for me, who really didn't like Charlie Kirk, but at least admired some of his skills. He was a goldmine for analysis of truth twisting and debating tricks. I miss him a lot more than Trump misses him.
Here is the grieving widow, dressed like a couch, to woo her new love:
Bye Usha!
It's your own side that claims that Charlie Kirk feared Netanyahu.
Since the murder, one weird claim after another has been surfacing.
The constant redressing, the constant assembly and disassembly of the rifle, the messages that don't sound like a young adult who was fully engaged in gamer culture, but confirm every move in the FBI story. It's exactly what you expect from a corrupt and incompetent FBI, which is what it turned into under Kash Patel.
He has shown the world what a bad liar he is, when he claimed that there is no credible information that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women and under@ge girls
to anyone other than himself. Really? What about the island and all those flights?
Prince Andrew lost his royal style, titles, and honours, including the title of "prince" and "His Royal Highness", because of Epstein's trafficking. Maybe Patel thinks that YOU are stupid enough to believe him, but the rest of the world doesn't have shit in their heads.
It's also several people on your own side who have expressed public criticism
or even outrage over the interaction between Erika Kirk and J.D. Vance.
If this happened between liberals, you would not shut up about it for years.
She said on camera: “No one will ever replace Charlie, but I do see some similarities of my husband in JD, Vice President JD Vance,”. Note how she put "but" in that sentence. She is definitely thinking about replacing Charlie, there.
Before that even happened there was already talk about Usha wanting a divorce.
There is no need to limit protected speech, no matter how offensive or how much it bothers you, as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others. You are free to refute any statements or opinions with which you may disagree with your own protected speech. In the alternative, you may also ignore it, if you choose. Silencing or threatening to silence others with whom you may disagree is, indeed, a slippery slope down which we must not go.
Who is to say your own ideologies or opinions may not also someday be subjected to censorship, should circumstances change?
That is what free speech means. It means you don’t have to play, if you don’t want to, or, you may play, if you want. It also means you are not allowed to stop others from playing, as long as they’re not violating the rights of others.
Your rights end where mine begin. Always keep that in mind.
In reference to cancellation, this is already the world in which we live today. People are cancelled regularly for having differing opinions. Denying that this exists is either done in ignorance, or else, ii is an effort to support an insidious agenda to restrict ideologies that counter one’s own. There is nothing new about this, however. Cancellation is as old as humanity itself. Homicide and attempted homicide are part of that cancellation, as recent events have shown us.
That, too, is as old as humanity.
Read again what you wrote, because your either intending to say:
"Categorizing unprotected harmful speech as part of “free speech” opens the door to people's rights being violated."
or "Categorizing “free speech” as part of “harmful speech” opens the door to the censorship of opinions.."
I know what you mean, and I agree. That is not the limits of freedom of speech
that I'm talking about.
"There is no need to limit protected speech, no matter how offensive or how much it bothers you, as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others."
"There is no need to limit protected speech" Exactly!
Why are you arguing against something that I'm NOT saying?
"as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others." Exactly!
You are agreeing with my exact position on the matter.
I am definitely NOT denying that cancellation exists.
And indeed (attempted) homicide is the most extreme version of cancellation.
According to your first amendment, the law is responsible for protecting free speech,
but ALSO to protect people when their rights WERE violated by the speech of someone else, primarily through civil lawsuits for specific types of "unprotected" speech, such as defamation, harassment, or true threats.
The law in my country is very much similar, and I fully support it.
When Trump is using his FCC Chairman, Brendan Carr, to put pressure on ABC and
its parent company, Disney, to take action against Jimmy Kimmel, which led to the temporary suspension of Kimmel's show in September 2025, for speech that DIDN'T threaten, harm or violate the rights of anyone, that was clear censorship and a clear violation of the First Amendment.
If Jimmy Kimmel was doing defamation, then the victim has a right to start a civil lawsuit against him. However, the president is not just a private citizen. Government officials are protected against defamation, but they face a much higher standard of proof, compared to private individuals when they sue someone for speech related to their official conduct.
Trump would have clearly lost a civil lawsuit against Jimmy Kimmel, so he decided to cancel him, using his FCC Chairman. Trump has admitted this and shows clear intent
of doing more like it to lots of others.
only registered users can see external links
They are probably also anti-fascism, but is that a reason to call them 'Antifa'?
There is no organization called 'Antifa'. There are many people protesting against fascism.
At some point in history, millions of people died fighting against fascism.
Your whole country was against anti-fascism once. What happened to you?
If you get hit, who ya gonna call?
and the street, because the video blurs her. Either the cop is blind as a bat,
or she was hard to see.
It looks to me like a failure from everyone involved.
Reportedly people urged her to not keep laying there.
If she didn't want to or couldn't get up, at least
stand in front of her, so she doesn't get run over.
Or put your own car in the way, to keep her safe.
The presenter is at least correct to say that this should be investigated.
Police has the tendency to never take responsibility. That should be changed.
only registered users can see external links
I guess the russians learn from history how to drop unconventional things.
only registered users can see external links
Is that a reason to celebrate them in this conflict?
What's the intent of this video?
that they are using soup cans for munition.
You can take whatever you want from it.
That's why anecdotes like this are useless to understand the complete picture.
Russia Might Soon Run Out of Money for the Ukraine War
only registered users can see external links
Russia to Sell Debut Yuan Bonds as War-Driven Deficit Widens
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Short: only registered users can see external links
Long: only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
She was denied by 26 churches, but the one mosque she called immediately agreed.
It's already picked up by Islamic channels to show how they are better than Christians.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Pretty damn smart, from a public relations standpoint, isn't it?
However, are many Christians not donating to their church, so they can do CHARITY?
Why are they not helping a mother in need to feed her baby then?