Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Caecus

  1. The truth is, Trump has been talking about a 30 foot concrete wall spanning the southern border for 2 years now. Even his "sample" walls are all 30 feet tall. Literally ask anyone whether or not the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUKIN STATES (which, surely you can reasonably say is "somebody") wants that wall. So yes, you are trolling. No it won't. Cite me, !@#$. No, entitlements are not normal ongoing income. That's taxpayer money being dumped into the economy for people to spend when they otherwise don't have that money. That's called a stimulus. So no u. And your argument is stupid because you are claiming that you're making more money from cutting taxes when you are obvious not. Just in case if you forgot your own dumbass argument: Oh, and this: Literally the only source you have says that the tax cuts don't add shit. Read your own argument. Ah huh. What's this then? Ok, Mr. CIA Seal Team Six who's going to hunt me down and kill me. What's your field, son? 1040 turbo tax with a single W-2? Account me this, u dumb !@#$. When the government loses $202 billion dollars in unrealized revenue due to the Trump tax cuts, is that increasing or decreasing income? Omg. That immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans. Holy shit, read your own arguments! Do I literally have to quote you line by line? Here: (which, I assumed the correct verb here to be "commit") I'm drawing the line at posting synopsis of the articles I cite and spoon-feeding your dumbass. If you're too god damn lazy to read basic articles I post, stop pretending like you know what they say. Unlike you, everyone else here can read them and know you're a dumb !@#$.
  2. Because I'm out to prove that one side of "used up" arguments is so indefensibly stupid and moronic that people should be reminded that they are. And they should be ashamed for having said indefensibly stupid and moronic arguments. Look at every argument in this thread that's against mine. Everyone has either quietly left after I make them eat their own arguments, or like Mr. Commander Thrawn, denies that my argument exists and claims that I'm somehow the idiot here when he can barely read.
  3. !@#$, stop trolling. The border wall isn't going to save money, it's going to waste money. Entitlements are what allow more spending in the economy to occur for retired and disabled individuals, which stimulates the economy. Go learn economics before lecturing professor dipwad. Read my argument. I'm not debating whether or not revenues are the highest they have ever been. I'm saying that despite that, the old tax code would have generated $202 billion more than the tax cuts. Maybe then, we could have bought a wall. It's like you can't read. READ DAMN IT. See everything above? See how there isn't a single source that makes your point that the tax cuts will be reducing the debt? You've reduced income and blamed the expenses as the reason why you can't get out of debt. Go learn accounting, dipshit. !@#$, read the source. I don't see you citing anyone for your bullshit. I was at least expecting some article from InfoWars, but I suppose even that is beyond you. I see your only method here is to just claim anything you don't like *AS* (correct grammar buddy) "fanatical bs." Add 5th grade English grammar to your list of subjects you should crack a book for.
  4. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-border-wall-a-look-at-the-numbers I tried not to include anything outside of Fox News, because I know that you think only Fox News exists as "news." I'm surprised I had to go find this shit for you. I wonder what caused reduced revenues, low growth, and the continued expansion of entitlements (and other stimulus spending)? Maybe, perhaps, it was the near total collapse of the world economy 10 years ago? Dipwad. So, are you saying that there have been increased tax revenue or not until the long term? You are presenting a red herring here. Double taxation of corporations has nothing to do with deindustrialization, which also has nothing to do with the fact that THE TRUMP TAX CUT LOST 200 BILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE LAST YEAR. Nothing here refutes that argument, most notably because it's a FU.CKING FACT. List me a single goddamn source that shows the CBO or any think tank group which thinks the Trump tax cuts doing anything other than increasing the debt for any time between now and the end of the republic. I f.uckin dare you. Actually, no. And you're right, this is a red herring and I don't know why you brought it up in the first place. https://www.cato.org/blog/white-houses-misleading-error-ridden-narrative-immigrants-crime Disagree. Trump has alone contributed to the significant acceleration of the deficit timeline, has had more members of his administration out because of corruption scandals than any president in US history, has had the other half of his administration resign because they either couldn't lie for him, couldn't obstruct justice for him, or plain thought he was a dumbass, openly tried to undermine NATO and privately toyed with the idea of pulling the US out, held private talks with an enemy of the United States and confiscated his interpreters notes to cover up god knows what, and has spent more time golfing and tweeting than actually fixing any problems we mentioned above. The only thing you could really say about Trump and his achievements are the two supreme court seats. Good for you, now you can prevent abortions and gay people from getting married in your visionary hellscape where China dominates world politics and owns the US via debt obligation.
  5. Still my argument. I think it's reasonable to fund certain aspects of the Trump budget, such as road improvements, a wall in certain sections of the border, and other "surveillance technology." And if you look at the bipartisan bill passed before the shutdown, all of those things are included. And yes, a wall in small sections of the border where it makes sense should be funded. Just not $5.8 billion for a continuous 30 foot concrete wall along the entire southern border, which most people familiar with border security would agree is useless or has a low cost/benefit ratio in most areas. Not to mention going through the eminent domain shitstorm, that alone is going to cost you the entire 5.7 billion in legal fees. Notice how even in the FY19 budget published by the WH, there isn't any mention of a stupid, fiscally irresponsible 5.7 billion dollar continuous 30 foot concrete border wall. It's because even everyone in his own white house thinks Trump's idea of a continuous wall is stupid. Let's be clear here, the debt may have skyrocketed under Obama, but the reason was largely due stimuli to the economy to combat the Great Recession. Republicans were correct in saying that we need to make changes to government spending to deal with the rising debt. What they did instead when they control all three branches of government was (A) not make any significant changes to spending and (B) cut taxes. The Trump tax cuts happened at a time when the American economy is at its peak strength, and when taxes should be rising to curb the deficit. So yes, politicians on both political sides have contributed to the debt, but at least Democrats have the excuse that they raised the debt to get the economy going again. Why did Republicans cut taxes again? Oh yeah, it's because all those billionaires and corporate investors need the extra dollars. Both deserve blame for the stupidity going on, but one side deserves more. Some corrections here: immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crime than native-born Americans. And again, do not mistake my argument for a lack of a continuous border wall (that is a waste of taxpayer money) as me being against border security. I would entirely agree with a border wall, if say, another country was fronting it. I mean, why not accept something that's free. But again, you got to be either a dumbass or a socialist to believe that money grows on trees. And I don't see no socialists here. I would agree with you on the last sentence regarding increased skilled labor and immigration to supplement the traditional "trickle-down" economics idea of the tax cuts to begin with, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump administration has been providing less visas (9% drop in 2017, and 12% drop in 2018) and are looking to get rid of Dreamers (who hold down real jobs and contribute to the US economy). So, good sentiment, unfortunately, Trump doesn't share yours. Also, also. It's true that the government revenues grew to a record level this year, but this is misleading. You need to compare the government revenues of the Trump Tax cuts to the government revenues that you would have gotten under the old tax system, not compare the revenues to the previous year. In which case, the actual amount of money that the previous system would have gotten (according to the CBO) is $3.5 billion, around $202 billion more than the measly $14 billion. That extra $202 billion would have covered the increased $127 billion in spending for this year. If you want to balance the budget, stop electing short-sighted !@#$ who want your approval numbers more than a good future for your children. Reforming entitlements is on a long list of things, but at the top of the list is stop electing dumb shits like Trump who wastes taxpayer money, erodes America's geostrategic position on the world stage, and spends more time misspelling words on twitter than actually learning how to govern properly. Literally everything I've mentioned above is easily googiable. Let me know if you need references.
  6. Damn frickin straight. 'MURICA.
  7. No u. In the full context of the sentence, the "Trump supporter" is doing the action of questioning (privately or publicly). You misread what I wrote. Semantics, and I don't see a point to it. Engage, my friend, don't just sit there and criticize my sentence structures.
  8. But it got torn down though! Now all the Mexicans can go from East Germany to West Germany without Soviet troops machine gunning them down. Hey! That's what we should do! We should have the Soviets come and build a wall on the border, station Soviet troops to machine gun those dirty immigrants, and we'll never have this problem again! I think that's why Trump has such a good relation with the Russians. That makes sense now. Yes, and let's get a giant moat of molten gold in front of it too, with diamond-encrusted alligators to swim in the moat and bite any immigrant that tries to enter. I mean, why stop there? Sometimes the immigrants can fly over it, right? Let's build a giant net in the sky that catches those dirty buggers.
  9. You ask if I'm an idiot in a rhetorical way while not knowing how to use quote. It's funny, because you're the idiot here. Again, making my point. You're wall is an expensive, ineffective way that does not replace border patrol agents. I can't believe I have to say the same thing over and over again. They count by catching people at the border. They catch people at the border by using drones, satellites, and modern security measures to tell border agents where people are crossing so they can drive out to meet them. Your wall being there doesn't do anything.
  10. Wait, what the frick is this suppose to be? This is making my point: Trump in this tweet is suggesting that America's obligation to NATO is contingent upon Germany's military GDP spending, an idea that the past 70 years of Republican and Democrat administrations would never have even thought of, much less utter it on a public platform. You think he's siding with NATO on this one? It's one thing to privately complain to Merkel that Germany doesn't have enough military spending and encourage them with private diplomatic channels to strengthen the alliance. It's an entirely different thing to tweet that dumb shit and make it sound like America's not going to deploy troops if a Russian tank column rams its head up your ass. So yes, absolutes are dangerous, but you're not proving that with this photo. No, you are still making my argument. Your argument is still this: Goal: Stop illegal immigrants Method: Wall Argumentative flaw: But admits that wall doesn't entirely stop immigrants, the border agents do. The chances of crossing successfully into the US is equal if there aren't any border patrol agents to stop them. It's like you can't comprehend that people can't just get ladders, or break down parts of the wall, or literally an infinite amount of other things. Border patrol agents, drones, satellites, and modern detection equipment stop illegal immigrants. !@#$ please. Don't talk like you think you know my positions. Obama added to the national debt to stimulate the economy because a combination of stupidity, greed, and corporate irresponsibility led to the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression. You are obviously too young to remember, so you're welcome for the free history lesson. Republicans say they could have done better for less, but anyone could say that when they're standing on the sidelines. Every administration since Coolidge has poured money into the economy for relief out of the recession. You talk a big game when you ask me if I'm against tax relief for American families and businesses, when you blame Obama for the rising national debt and forget the reason why he added to the national debt was for the same financial relief for American families and businesses. The only difference is, when Obama added to the debt, it was to break us out of the recession. When Trump added to the debt when the economy recovered, it was because it personally benefits him and all his rich friends and you're the idiot that voted for it. Good luck with that 401k, !@#$. You'll need it if you make it to 65. Social Security and medicare will be dead when you retire because idiots like you who can't see past next Tuesday. And you literally don't know jack shit about the tax code, Mr. I-didn't-take-accounting. The tax cuts removed the personal exemption and capped state/local taxes deduction. Most people are withholding more because of that, not less, especially in states like California and New York, where the property taxes are your entire year's salary. The people who do have less to pay in taxes are anyone who makes above $140,000, the greatest benefit being corporations. Maybe if Trump didn't give Tim Cook and Jeff "Bozo" a $1 trillion tax cut, we can have a wall. By the way, I'm opposed to the spending on the wall because it's a shit ton of money for a really inefficient method of border security. On the other hand, if someone else, say, Mexico, were to pay for the wall, I wouldn't mind. But fat chance, amirite? I mean, you would really have to be a giant dumbass to believe that someone else besides the US taxpayer would be paying for something so stupid. You're all dumbasses.
  11. For 70 years, NATO was the shield that prevented Soviet expansion. Every administration, Republican or Democrat, all collectively agreed that NATO was necessary to defend America and her interests abroad. Now, with a militant and ultranationalist Russia aggressively expanding its influence, it seems that the withdrawal of American troops from Syria and Trump's interest in breaking up NATO seems to only benefit our geopolitical enemies. Combined with the fact that there WAS COLLUSION (don't take my word for it, take the word of the dumbass Manafort lawyers who leaked the documents and Rudy Juliani on prime time TV) between the Trump campaign and Russia, any 3rd grader can make the connection that Trump is a traitor. So to you, Russian bot, I say this: America has had its problems and continues to have them, yes. But you're just an over-glorified gas station with subpar military tech. Your days of glory are long behind you, and let's face it: America's next geostrategic threat isn't you, it's China. The next administration is going to walk sanctions up and down your ass, and you'll go back to being the wannabe China that you are. And yes, you are a Russian bot. Because the first visceral reaction that any real American would have is "frick Putin." Even if they are a Trump supporter, they would be at least questioning why Trump always seems to be on the side of the Russians privately, and ignore it publicly.
  12. Literally this: And who is the one flooding the tunnels? You? You going to electric scooter your ass down to the border and get your squirt gun out? And just to be clear, the Democrats are willing to spend money on increasing border agent staff, new drones and security technologies, just not your dumbass useless 30 foot concrete wall. Do your opposition research son. Also, your argument doesn't make sense. "Lowest number of illegals crossing" at places with physical barriers isn't "zero illegals crossing." Also, how the frick do you think people know that there are people even crossing in that area? You think there is some walmart greeter with a punch counter sitting on the top of the fence taking those numbers? I'll tell you how: drones, modern security measures, more border patrol agents. You're still making the same argument as I am.
  13. Like what? The border patrol agents that got replaced by ur dumbass wall? Your entire paragraph is essentially this: 1. Border wall isn't totally foolproof and only slows people down. 2. When determined people get through there are "things" that prevent that. 3. I'm not making the same argument as you, ur a stupid anti-trumper. When my argument is this: 1. Border wall isn't totally foolproof and only slows people down. 2. When determined people get through there are "border agents, drones, and modern security measures" that prevent that. 3. 5.7 billion dollars later, and you will still be funding border agents, drones, and modern security measures elsewhere without any real cost/benefit being seen from the border wall. I see your "do some research dude" and I raise you a "read your own argument dumbass." In case if everyone forgot, you dumb !@#$es just cut taxes when we have a historical crisis-level of debt. Typically when the economy is good, we raise taxes and revenue to support the economic stimulus of the previous downturn. Interest payments (not principal payments, and if you don't know the difference, go to school) on the debt is going to eclipse all discretionary spending by the end of this year and will be 4th behind military, social security, and medicare. Social Security and Medicare are going to run out by 2034. If I honestly believed that you even worked a day in your life, I would tell you that you wouldn't be retiring until 75.
  14. Let me start by saying thank you for replying to my post, because I've been so frustrated with Trump and his supporters and I just can't get anyone to debate me back SO I CAN CRUSH THEIR PUNY LITTLE EGOS AGAINST THEIR WALL OF IDIOCY !@#$, u dumb. And here's why: a wall doesn't stop people from getting into this country. People can climb that shit, dig under it, fly over it. I can go to Home Depot today and climb that 5 billion dollars worth of stupid in under a minute. Fact is, border agents stop people from getting into this country, not ur dumbass wall. Border agents find people trying to cross via satellite/drones, drive out to meet them, and take them into custody. So why spend 5 billion dollars on a wall? Why not dump that money into something that's actually useful and actually stops people from entering into the country like drones and more officers? Also, Trump said Mexico was going to send us a check. What happened to that check? THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN DUPED BY A FAT CON MAN FROM LIBERAL NEW YORK! Also, also: I don't particularly care about domestic policy. In the grand scheme of things, domestic policy is only debated in the framework where the American hegemony exists. Trump is trying to break up NATO, and the only person in the world with any geostrategic understanding of foreign policy who wants that is Putin. Trump is a traitor, and you are all traitors for supporting his treasonous ass. History will look back and see that you betrayed your country because Trump promised you that brown people won't be coming to your country. Eat shit.
  15. Now, I know there are a lot of criticisms of the Trump wall, chiefly that it's an outdated, expensive, and inefficient form of border security from before the birth of Christ. But let me remind everyone that the Chinese built the Great Wall of China hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, and to this day not a single Mexican made it across that border. That's quite an impressive record, and I think we should fund the 5 billion dollars. Just kidding, the wall is stupid and so are the fanatical idiot supporters of it. If you thought the border wall would work, you're an idiot. If you thought the wall was going to be paid for by Mexico and not your tax dollars, I know a Nigerian prince you should meet. Oh, and you're an idiot.
  16. OH YEAH?! No, no no, son. Caecus means blind in Latin. I'M ALREADY BLIND! THE JOKES ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!! MUWAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
  17. Why, I say good sir! You have extraordinary observation skills! Perhaps you can tell me what color the sun is after you directly stare at it for half an hour. Some people say it turns green, or blue. Not that any of them can tell me what is green or blue anymore.
  18. Sure, but major gains in the house were made in Michigan, Penn, and Virginia. Not to mention Orange County. Places that Trump needed to win the electoral college. That doesn't look good for Trump's prospects in 2020, entirely throwing out the legal troubles he's found himself in.
  19. You make it sound like every administration has 10 people jailed on fraud and conspiracy. Nope, just Trump's. Donahue was fired because all those liberal cucks at CNBC didn't have the spine to tell the Bush administration to fu.ck off when they asked them to reduce bad media coverage on the Iraq war. Only children would think that there could ever be a world where media was a perfect institution free from corporate and political interests. Nonetheless, people rely on the media to get news of things that don't happen in their backyard, and to point out one flaw of a system and calling its destruction is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. By that logic, the US government !@#$ up quite a few times, but do we all go onto the streets demanding total anarchy? Sure, except everyone in the American intelligence community agrees that the prince had his hand in the affair. And people who know a lot more than you or me (i.e., Senate Intel Com) have already agreed to push sanctions. The only person who doesn't seem to know any better is Trump. I wonder, could it be that Trump may have... oh, I don't know... a conflict of interest? Also, you somehow think that the Saudis are A. Competent and B. Have foresight. What makes you think the Saudi's are not a bunch of amateurs? What makes you think that the prince isn't a short-sighted dumb frick who thinks he can get away with murdering a US journalist? You've jumped through all these hoops to absolve the Saudis of any blame without giving a single piece of evidence why, outside of your inherently flawed belief that the Saudis are competent and have foresight. This is the common defense that Trump supporters give. "But what about this person? Everyone is shit, so we're okay with this." It's a sad defense anchored in pessimism and indifference. I thought Trump supporters liked him because he promised to "Drain the Swamp" and remove corruption from DC, not bring it in. I thought Trump supporters liked Trump because he promised to "Make America Great Again," not subject to the interests of foreign powers. I thought Trump supporters liked Trump because he was going to stick stick it to Wall Street, not bring its CEOs to make fiscal policy. I thought Trump supporters supported Trump because he promised change and a better future. What happened? Here is where we agree: America's history is dark. But like you have just done today, we look back on those parts of our history with disappointment and disdain, wondering why the contemporaries and their actions are so inherently against the values of freedom and democracy that the United States claims as its creed. All I'm saying is, your children will one day learn about this period of time and wonder the same thing about you. Presumably because they saw the writing on the wall when the 2018 midterms rolled around.
  20. Remember, the Watergate investigation took 3 years. The Mueller investigation isn't over yet, it's barely been over a year. But I think it's safe to say when half of your administration is in jail or on their way for colluding with Russia, it gets harder and harder to say this "collusion" thing didn't happen. I disagree. The "American modus operandi" isn't just what Trump highlighted. On the contrary, I think Trump is the most un-American thing that has happened to this country in a long while. He is inherently un-republican and un-democratic. 1. He attacks the free press and calls the institution which serves to bring truth to power an "enemy of the people." Any civic-minded American will tell you that the president does not have unlimited power and cannot control a free press. It's the reason why Fox News was the first network to come to the defense of Jim Acosta when he was recently ejected by Trump from conferences. Trump's attacks on the press is UNAMERICAN. 2. Furthermore, he cannot bring himself to condemn a prince of Arabia for the brutal murder of a US journalist and resident. May I remind you, when the Iranian revolution held 80 American embassy workers hostage, Iran knew that killing a single American would have brought the wrath of the most powerful military in human history down on their heads. Each and every American, by virtue of being citizen to the most powerful nation in human history, should have the full weight of $800-billion-a-year military-industrial complex behind their every step in a foreign country. Civis Americanus Sum. The fact that Trump hasn't threatened crippling economic sanctions or the carpet bombing of Riyadh over the death of one of our own is inherently UNAMERICAN. 3. Furthermore, the office of the president is a civil servant position. It is a thankless task that at least half the country hates you for and dramatically ages your very soul. True servants of the public surrender their own petty self-interests in service of the nation and it is why every single man and woman under the flag salutes him. The fact that Trump did not step away from his businesses and allowed foreign dignitaries to give him money at his new international hotel in DC is UNAMERICAN. The list goes on. Trump even once said that Xi Jingping's unlimited terms of office was something "maybe America should do too." No one with at least a shred of love for this nation would dare to say that, especially if someone was actually the President of the United States of America, jokingly or not. So no, Trump is not America's "highlighted modus operandi." He is a dark stain on our nation's history that generations will remember as a time when the republic was threatened and a third of the country did nothing; highlighting the fragility of the Great Experiment and a dearth of decent men.
  21. I'm just going to step in here and say that the recent release of court documents related to Michael Cohen's indictment from federal prosecutors put Trump under criminal charges of campaign finance fraud. For those of you who don't know a lick of US law, the burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than it is for a civil case; in a criminal case, you have to be without a doubt. In civil cases, only the consideration of a higher likelihood. Translation: the fact that Cohen is going to jail shows that prosecutors have overwhelming evidence that Trump violated those laws. Trump is going to jail, or he's going to initiate a constitutional crisis where a sitting president looks to pardon himself. There is even speculation that Trump will resign 10 minutes before he leaves office and have Pence pardon him. If Trump runs in 2020, he'll have to do it behind bars or on the ashes of the American republic. The irony of all this is that Trump didn't need to pay hush payments to his mistresses. If Trump fricked a supporter's wife, that supporter would have still voted for him. That's how degenerate and broken Trump supporters are, they just don't care. Whatever the case, the Republican party is now the party of Trump. If Trump doesn't run in 2020, nobody is going to show up at the polls for Jeb Bush.
  22. 1 & 2. To be sure, any individual's perception of the current state of affairs is largely influenced by the news they watch and the media they consume. While the media is important to a democracy, it is important to understand the power they have over the populace. No, I'm not talking about "Fake News." What I'm talking about is the media's power to NOT say something. Take for example, the uncomfortable war that is going on in Yemen. Now, I know what you are thinking: "What? There's a war going on in Yemen? Are you sure it's not Syria?" To which my answer is "Both." There is about a million people dying of starvation in Yemen, and already 80,000 dead children from the lack of food, because Saudi Arabia has bombed the shit out of their supplies to attempt to starve the nation into submission. But all the media ever talks about is Syria, and occasionally runs a story about Yemen. Why? Because the rebel Yemenis Houthis are backed by Iran, and the US's geostrategic interests are to curb Iran's influence and power in the region now that Iraq has a giant hole in its backside from 2004. The media isn't focused on this story too much because the Trump administration is focused on containment of Iran and its an uncomfortable truth that this containment requires the mass starvation of men, women, and children in a forgotten and impoverished country. Another example is MSNBC. You know, the liberal ass media with the lesbo (Rachel Maddow), the other black woman, and the closet democrat (Joe Scar). In 2004, NBC had cancelled the Donahue program that was critical of the hawk sentiment of the Bush administration. The network had later admitted that the reasoning behind it was because the Donahue program was anti-war. The media rarely lie about something. In this day and age, it's quite easy to google and find facts independently of the media and be able to quickly know who is spreading bullshit. However, what the media can do is omit, increase, or decrease coverage of something. For example, Fox News in the weeks up to the midterm elections broadcast almost continually the coverage related to the "invasion caravan" that was filled with Mexican rapists and MS-13 coming to kill your grandchildren. What they failed to mention was that the caravan was on foot, 900 miles away from the border, and had planned on entering the US through a standard port of entry. But no! The president of the US deploys combat troops to the border in anticipation of the coming barbarian horde! He says to treat rock-throwers as combatants. And then the day after the election...? Nothing. Suddenly everyone stops talking about it and nobody gives a shit anymore. It's almost Thanksgiving, who gives a frick? !@#$ I WANT TURKEY. And the troops at the border? Well, the Trump administration suddenly sees the light and starts recalling troops, hoping to get them back home in time for Christmas while wasting millions in taxpayer money and the time and effort of the troops. Social media, on the other hand, is full of shit. Nobody at Facebook or Twitter gives a frick who or what posts what, not unless they have their asses dragged in front of Congress, chastised, and then see a subsequent 13% drop in their stock (accounting for a $14 billion dollar loss in value). frick Facebook, it's a black hole that sucks away productive time and is a drain on our country's productivity, all to satisfy people's needy vanities. 3. I guess my question is, why the frick anyone cares about Kanye? His entire existence is a cry for attention because he had childhood daddy issues. I think Kanye and Trump are a good match for each other though. Both are rambling, self-absorbed stroke victims (I'm assuming they both had a stroke, because I can't understand how anyone could be so stupid without a neurological diagnosis) without impulse control who don't belong anywhere near positions of power and influence. 4. I live in the grand state of Utah, which is 87% white in my county, most of which is fanatically religious to the local faith of Mormonism. I still sometimes see confederate battle flags that make me question people's memory of geography and American history (since Utah was an independent country that opposed slavery at the time of the Civil War), but my state is honestly quite peaceful in that regard. I'm an Asian history teacher clocking in at 6'1 and 190 pounds (186 cm and 89 kg, for you pathetic globalists who use the inferior metric system), which means the most racist thing I've heard someone say to me is "Wow! I didn't know you guys came in that size." or "Are you Yao Ming?" That being said, I'm not black, hispanic, or (god-forbid) middle-eastern, so I can't say how things would be if I was.
  23. No question or interest in history is stupid. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. The Vietnam War draft is essentially like the modern "selective service." Upon the age of 18, every American citizen was required to register with the government their name and information, which was then partially cooped by the relatively nascent Social Security Administration. You wanted to get social security benefits? You have to register with the government. You want food stamps or college aid? You have to register with the government. Not to mention it was a federal crime not to. Your view of drafting sounds more along the lines of something out of the Soviet Union during the Second World War ("Great Patriotic War"), where military police, reserves, and NKVD secret police units would round up young men into trucks and trains and "draft" them into the conflict. Not that much prodding was necessary then, given the situation, but everyone was either in a factory position or on the frontlines. The Vietnam era was a lot more different with less stakes. To give you a sort of scale, the Soviets lost 3 million men in the Rezhev meatgrinder alone between winter of 1941 and fall of 1942. By the end of the war, Soviet losses were at a staggering 15 million fighting men, and even more countless civilians. Roughly 1 in 8 Russians died in that conflict. In contrast, the US, since its inception in 1776 to the modern day, has not had more than 2 million total war casualties across every war, including the Civil War, where roughly a million Americans on both sides lost their lives. The Soviets lost that on a good day in the Rezhev pocket. In reality, the amount of American troops in the Vietnam war deployed at any given time was around 100,000 men at the time of the surge in the 1970s. The drafting process beings as such: First, you receive a letter in the mail after you have registered with the Social Security Administration and the government. The letter is similar to a subpoena, in which you are required to appear at a military base (we have them all over the place in the US, since quartering troops in houses was something we fought a war over previously) under the penalty of criminal punishment. i.e., you get a letter in the mail saying that if you don't pack your things and show up to a military base to be drafted, we will arrest you and put you in jail. Second, you receive training at the base camp, typically around 8 weeks give or take your branch of service. The training would include small arms fire training, squad tactics, explosive and special weapons training, basic first aid, and military culture. After your training, you are assigned a unit, typically newly formed or added to an existing unit. If you are a newly formed unit, you may be called upon to deploy to Vietnam with your unit. If you are attached to an existing unit as replacements, either for those who had died or were on leave for whatever reason, you would be shipped out immediately. Most often, you would board a commercial flight, typically to a naval base in the region or directly to US-controlled Saigon, depending on the conditions and logistics that were laid out for you. If you were in the navy, you were likely posted to Okinawa, Japan and then sent on a ship to patrol the South China Sea region and support carrier task forces. If you were in the air force, you were likely take a flight to Guam or the Philippines, depending on what kind of pilot you were, and then stationed either there, on a Forward Operating Base (FOB), or on an aircraft carrier for missions. If you were in the army or marines, you were likely directly flown to Saigon or a nearby military base and then transported via truck to a FOB where you were deployed. Helicopters were generally used for medical or transport directly into a combat zone, and rarely used for ferrying troops, contrary to popular belief. FOBs varied in size, but this is generally where all frontline troops stayed at. They could be a giant encampment outside of Saigon with a fully functioning airfield and transport infrastructure, or, if you have crap luck, a clearing in a jungle where a company of 300 men constantly patrol the base camp with mines all around you. If you were on the big FOBs, you enjoyed cooked food, proper restrooms, office space for desk workers and administration officials, and a general life similar to a typical army base camp. If you were on a smaller FOB, the purpose of the FOB is to hold a location. Often, these FOBs were pockets deep inside the jungles, with the real possibility that you could be surrounded at any moment. Life in these FOBs were hard. No warm food, no toilets, rudimentary tents and shelters. It was wet, miserable, and deadly. Imagine camping out in a humid, hot jungle with centipedes the size of your head and poisonous snakes everywhere. Imagine squatting in a designated shit zone a little outside of the camp with your bare ass exposed to mosquitos and flies. Imagine wet rain pouring every other day making the place a wet, smelly, hot shithole. Imagine that the only food you have is meat in a can that gives you constipation. Now imagine that place that you've decided to camp out in is filled with mines and ferocious Asians with AKs trying to kill you. Compare that life with the cushy desk job of a communications officer in a FOB outside Saigon. It honestly depends on where you are deployed. And to be clear, the people who were drafted were not completely random. By the Vietnam war, the army's policy of segregating the armed forces by color was dissolved. For the first time in American military history, Black NCOs commanded white enlisted men. But by far, proportionally to the population size, there were more black men fighting in the dark holes of Vietnam than white men. To be sure, the draft itself was not racist. It's just that the draft affected the less affluent. There were several ways you could "avoid" the draft at the time. You could have been in college, in which case your draft was "deferred." You could also avoid the draft if you had a medical condition. The draft was suppose to make everyone equal, but because of these exceptions, the draft disproportionately affected some more than others. Most colleges had their student bodies entirely made up of white people. College required tuition and was thus out of reach for some Americans. Having a medical condition meant that you had a primary care physician that you paid money to diagnosis the condition. Furthermore, even though there was a penalty for not registering with the SSA, some people risked it anyway, particularly more affluent people who didn't rely on social security or government programs. You rolled the dice when you draft dodged, since the government could come after you at any moment. White people just tended to have more resources at their disposal to defer the draft. The best example of draft dodging by a rich white person is the current president of these United States. Donald Trump had "deferred" his draft by having his physician diagnosis him with "bone spurs." Three times, actually. It helped that his father was one of the richest men in Manhattan and had powerful connections to get him out of the draft. Trump just had to defer his draft enough times to outlast the length of the war. Not all people tried to avoid the draft. There were people who really did believe that what the US was doing in Vietnam mattered. The late senator John McCain was one such person, though he was a navy pilot. Navy pilots, generally speaking, have it better than the boots on the ground in terms of day-to-day lifestyle on a carrier, but at no less risk. His life story there is one such example, and if you are interested, I suggest you read more about him. Ultimately, the most miserable part of the Vietnam war was ironically the lack of technological and infrastructural sophistication of the enemy. The US had taken the Blitzkrieg tactic of the Germans from the Second World War and added supersonic jets and a massive Cold War military-industrial complex behind it. The standard tactic of the US was to use aircraft and artillery to soften up an enemy, send fat armored tanks to roll over the remains, and send infantry to mop up and capture strategic objectives that inhibited the ability of the enemy to fight back. In the Vietnam jungles, there were no artillery targets. You couldn't run a 30 ton armored tank into the jungle to soak up bullets. You couldn't see what you were dropping bombs on. There were no strategic objectives to hold. Vietnam was an infantry fight, a brutal, close-quarters small-arms firefight where the enemy would shoot at you, run away, let you get wet and miserable in the shithole jungle, and then come back and see if you are more exhausted yet. When the Germans attacked Stalingrad in 1942, they first bombed out the entire city, creating this massive jungle of bricks that their tanks couldn't roll over. To mitigate German air superiority and artillery firepower, the Soviets ordered their troops to advance as close to the enemy as possible. That battle also became an infantry fight, often resulting in hand-to-hand combat with shovels and knives. The Germans called the battle the "Rat War." Only the most cunning, ferocious, kill-or-be-killed resourceful badasses survived there. Vietnam was America's Rat War.
  24. Dipshit teenagers tipping over a portapotty while a pregnant woman is inside dealing with a compressed bladder isn't illegal or any of our business. But I don't think anyone with a moral compass would look at that and say "those teenagers have the right idea." Again, you're kind of making my point for me. Is there anything else that I should add onto this? "Even children know such a basic truth" that men who are rich and powerful can sexually assault women? No wonder why you're a mess. Maybe that's what you've been taught growing up. You're lack of morality shouldn't be denied, but it also sounds like its not entirely your fault either. Sorry. !@#$! The Nazis didn't get more than a third of the Reichstag at any point in time. If that number sounds familiar, guess what the percentage of America are Trump supporters. Enabling Act, 1933. Go learn history. WHY THE frick DO NAZIS NOT LEARN THEIR OWN HISTORY?! Like, France studies Napoleon, Americans study the revolution and civil war, why the frick can't neo-Nazis get their shit together and know anything about themselves?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.