Jump to content

Fox Fire

Members
  • Posts

    3092
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Posts posted by Fox Fire

  1. Its really an ignorant view that it is/was an extremist ideology, yes extremists took Nazism way too literal but they do not represent all of the Nazi's. They were only a minority. 

    What are the Nazi's suppose to do? condemn the activities of a minority of extremists who use Nazism wrongly? I dare say those extremists are not real Nazi's. 

     

    Well I'm not sure what ISIS values are so I can't comment, but as long as they're aren't doing bad things then they're fine. If a few extremists in ISIS are causing issues for the rest of ISIS then that is certainly a problem and hopefully ISIS can fix. 

    You realize that we're talking about 8.5 million people by 1945, right? I mean not 1938 or something, but 1945. You realize that these people rose to power on platforms of racism and aggression under a militant style, right? The Nazis weren't out trying to stop people from harassing Jews, drive them out of the country and eventually lock them up and kill them. They were the ones doing it and promoting it. They were the ones living next to a Jewish ghetto and feeling proud to be German. 

    What you say about ISIS is kinda funny. First off, you're accusing Islam of being evil but Nazism of being OK. Now you're (sarcastically I hope), saying that ISIS should stop people from being extremist..... Hmm.... I wonder why the Nazis didn't try stopping people from being extremist? I would imagine, and this is just a guess here, that it could possibly have something to do with the fact that Nazism is extreme, just like Wahhabism. 

     

    But yeah, I see you're point. There is nothing wrong with Nazism, except for the fundamental idea. 

    • Upvote 3
  2. Never said I wanted it, was merely giving some thoughts on it. Like I said I'm not all that familiar with it, but even then a lot of issues stand out. I'd be interested in hearing what these health concerns are though, always like picking up on new things. 

     

     

    What is your problem exactly? Several times now you've made this form of attack. I was asked a question and I gave some thoughts on the matter and that was all. A sign of intelligence to you apparently is not speaking about something... because not discussing something means you're smarter? In what world exactly? This is a discussion forum, if discussion repulses you so much then simply ignore the post/thread/subforum. 

    Prions which come from consuming the flesh of animals can cause incurable, degenerative and fatal neurological disorders. They are most abundant in brain tissue, the spinal chord and internal organs. Although one can pick up prion diseases from other animals there is a species barrier making animal to human contraction extremely rare. It's far more likely to happen when consuming the same species and far more likely when dealing with organs, specifically brain or spinal tissue. The initial birth of such diseases tends to be from acts of cannibalism. BSE (Mad Cow Disease), CJD and Kuru are examples. 

  3. No, I called some Nazi's extremists, very nasty people. That's me condemning Nazi extremists who did bad things. 

    Nazism is an extremist ideology. Thus the Nazis were extremist. Whether you physically took part in the slaughter of Jews or not, if you were a Nazi you were an extremist. You supported the idea of ethnic cleansing, racial purity and imperialism. 

     

    By your logic, not all ISIS members are bad. Most of them are good people.....

    • Upvote 1
  4. Does anyone know what happens to Muslims who leave Islam? 

    But systematically murdering millions of people was OK.....  :rolleyes:

     

    You're such a hypocrite. You legitimately sit here and defend the Nazi ideology while calling Islam evil? You call accuse people of being bigoted while spewing bigotry? GTFO.

    • Upvote 3
  5. Searching that doesn't turn up anything, though I am aware like with most things some people are attracted to visuals of such things (gore and such), I don't think that quite translates to "erotic cannibalism" the physical act. Cannibalism is something that certainly can be argued. A dead body is a dead body after all and if someone put down they wanted to be dead meat then there isn't any harm in that as long as proper procedures were to be followed in regards to safety, paperwork, and such. I'd say if legal to have your dead body made into meat it'd likely be a very low amount that gets put in the meat grinder. 

     

    Where it gets iffy is in two respects, well there is more but two wants that jump out at me. The first is that some people will inevitably eat some of the small supply of meat and some will gain a craving. A demand with little legal (and expensive) supply creates a black market and then you'd get criminals butchering people. Though organ harvesting is already a thing... ummm...

    The other is if we're talking about legalised Cannibalism than Euthanasia will certainly be legalised also. There have been cases of a person agreeing to be eaten by another, basically suicide. Would that be classed as Euthanasia? Logically it fits, but if so what problems does that bring? That is perhaps that cannibalism you talked about. The eater relishes in being eaten, the eater in the eating. 

     

    It's something that would need to be checked out fully pretty much and could be deadly. With zoosexuals it has I've seen been argued like with Homosexuals that the attraction is something you're born with. With Cannibalism I'm not fully familiar. I know it's an uncommon "disorder" in animals and in humans it may well manifest itself in similar numbers but with most people not getting any situation where they need to do the deed, not to mention the fear of the law, it being reviled in general, and so on they never act on their instincts. Or maybe it doesn't manifest, I'm not familiar. 

    Cannibalism has serious health concerns. It's a ridiculous idea to legalize it.

  6. A giant asteroid could hit the moon, blast it out of orbit, and cause earth's rotation to reverse

     

    Or it could be caused by a super volcanic eruption (remember it from a documentary).

    No. An asteroid hitting the moon wouldn't do anything to the Earth. A super volcano is also not going to change the earths rotation. The only way an impact could change the earths rotation, is for the impacting body to be absolutely massive, about the same size as earth. So massive, that every living thing on the facing side of the planet would be wiped out before it even actually hit and the impact would turn the whole globe into a molten ball of magma. There would be nothing to witness it. 

    You should stop learning your science from youtube. Go read a book. Something besides the Quran preferably. 

     

     

    OP question has been solved: There will be a geomagnetic reversal and the sun will (for all intents and purposes) rise from the west.

    Good job. What did you win?

  7. (You do know you can edit your posts Altim Atae?)

     

    I'm assuming you both didn't bother watching the video so I will summarise the argument that was made....

     

    >In the beginning our Earth used to complete one rotation around it's own axis in 4 hours.

    >It has been slowing down since then and now takes 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds

    >Scientists say that the earth is behaving like a spring and the rotation of the earth will continue to slow down until it can't any more do to it's mass

    >Then it will stop briefly, and begin rotating in the opposite direction.

    >When that happens the Sun will rise from the west. 

    No, the earth will not start spinning the other way. 

     

    Is everyone in this thread stupid? What you referenced was geomagnetic reversal. It's happened numerous times throughout earths history but the earth has always spun the same way. You almost had a decent argument here but it's obvious that you don't even understand what you're talking about.

  8. Would you say so? 

     

    A pig can think and feel up to a high level, quite like a child, but yet if somebody kills a pig. It is seen as ok, when a child is killed, it's pure evil.

     

    Should animal rights be expanded and meat eating and animal testing banned? If the left want to claim that it's wrong to bomb people, why don't they feel the same on animals being murdered? 

    Would you say the same thing about plants being murdered? I imagine you wouldn't. Life consumes life. That's nature.

    Animals should be afforded rights to a reasonable extent. That doesn't mean we should ban meat or animal testing. But of course, the Nazis did like animals and preferred human testing....

     

     

    No, they aren't sentient, so they aren't equal to humans. But they can still feel pain so conditions should be improved, and when killed done so in a painless way.

    Animals are sentient....

     

     

    Perhaps not the right word, self-awareness? As in, aware of our own existence instead of simply acting on instinct.

     

     

    Why are you so butthurt over a spelling error I made weeks ago?

    Animals are self aware. lol. Keep trying....

  9. W/o reading six pages worth of comments I'm just going to quickly state my opinion and view on this matter by specifically referring to this post. 

     

    That reasoning is very similar to theism. In theism you believe there is a creator and in atheism you believe there is no creator. If you believe there is no creator you literally believe that nothing has created something (molecules/stars/chemicals/what have you); which kick-started the big bang and all life as we know it. This is an inherent paradox, for how can nothing create something? 

     

    TLDR: It can't. Hence the meaning of the word nothing.

     

    Unless you ofc believe matter has just always been here which is an equally incredulous idea imo. How could something always just have been here "forever" (the idea of there always just being things here forever is also a paradox and in order to believe in this it is equivalent to theist beliefs of a creator). Then again believing in theism runs the same inherent paradox. Besides how do you explain those things science cannot account for as an atheist? Do you perhaps tell yourself that science will account for it all eventually, or just because science doesn't have an explanation it doesn't mean there isn't one too complex for us to understand? Are these not equal to theism beliefs of there being a creator (in the sense both are w/o concrete proof)? 

     

    TLDR: Both, theism and atheism, are beliefs with no "concrete" evidence  Theists simply believe a creator is responsible w/o tangible (arguably; and when I say arguably I mean believers of religions will believe there is tangible proof while others will not) and atheists believe that nothing created everything (???). Both run similarly strong beliefs with "no" evidence to support their claims. 

     

    I have no idea if I made myself clear here or if this is just incoherent ramblings of a mad man  :P

     

    TLDR: Theism and atheism run equally strong beliefs with no "facts" supporting their stance.

    No, the reasoning is quite different. For starters, I never claimed that something came from nothing. Everything that ever has, does or will exist has always been there and will always be there. This idea is not ridiculous at all, it's supported by physics. Matter, like time, space and energy, are all relative parts of one thing. The huge difference between theism and non-theism is that there is actual objective evidence for the universe. The big bang is a scientific theory along with a number of other accompanying theories that explain the phenomena of existence. Theism/creationism is a hypothesis on it's very best day without the slightest bit of scientific or even mathematical evidence. It has as much validity as believing in dragons. Of course it's possible that dragons might exist, but there's no reason to think they do.

     

    You can go back and read my argument which covers all of this, or not. But I don't feel like repeating my whole argument.

  10. Most of the Civil War in Syria can actually be put down to Assad's own mistakes. Trying to convert the economy from a socialist-style Baathist economy with state-ownership and subsidies for the poor/rural people to a market capitalist system, the result being that the rural people lost hope and were ripe for recruitment by Islamist propaganda. And also of course allowing the Islamists in Iraq to use Syria as a base during their insurgency against the Americans, result being that the Islamists were allowed free reign to recruit and spread propaganda in Syria's countryside. Of course much of the blame goes to the Saudis, Qataris, Turks for supporting the rebels, but the uprising would probably have never even occurred if not for Assad's attempt at liberalization and bringing the country into the imperialist world system of capital (similar situation with Gaddadi and Libya). His father Hafez suffered an Islamist uprising centered on Homs and he crushed it very quickly.

    1. Years of western produced anti-government propaganda being funneled into Syria.

    2. The invasion of Iraq.

    3. Drought.

  11.  

    ASSad

    CfV-aCvXEAAWuv6.jpg

     

    Any counter argument should be backed up with actual statistics. Debate...

     

    Right...... 

    I request a detailed methodology of how these statistics were compiled, because I know it doesn't exist. Mostly because these numbers don't even add up to the actual death toll or the civilian casualties documented by the opposition forces themselves. Not to mention what Roz said is very true:

     

    The source you quoted is known propaganda front funded by the EU orginally to push regime change

     

     

    Their propaganda and website isn't even well made. 

    • Upvote 3
  12. There is hadeeth that suggests that the largest group is the correct group.

    Therefore salafis and in greater sunnis are the largest so we are the people of truth

    Does that mean Christianity is the REAL truth, since it actually is larger? And that paganism was the truth before Rome made Abrahamic religion a thing?

     

     

     

    Sunni Islam is actually the single largest religion on the planet. You can't combine Protestants and Catholics under the banner of "Christianity" when they both have widely different set of beliefs. 

     

    Also the ahadith Abu Haddad was referring to are the following:

     

    “Follow the way of the largest group of Muslims! For, he who deviates from this group will be thrown into Hell!†[sunnan Ibn Majah, Hadith # 3950]
     
    “Allah will never allow my Ummah to unite upon misguidance and incorrect beliefs. Allah’s mercy, blessings and protection are with the largest group of Muslims. And he who deviates from this largest group of Muslims will be thrown into Hell.†(Sunan Al Tirmizi Vol.2 Pg.39)
     
    “He who deviates from the largest group of Muslims, even as much as a hand span, has himself cut off his connection with Islamâ€. (Abu Dawud)
     
    Allah will never let my Ummah agree upon misguidance, and the hand of Allah is over the group (Jama'ah), so follow the great mass of believers (Sawad ul-'Azam), and whoever dissents from them departs to hell(al-Tirmidhi (4/2167)

     

    But they actually don't. The differences between them are hardly even worth arguing about. Not to mention that this is just a cheap way of discrediting the largest religion on Earth. If Sunnis are the true religion, then what particular sect of Sunni is true and why? Because like you said, you can't combine them all under the same banner when they have different beliefs.

     

     

    Then ask yourself what is your purpose 

    "To be", like anything else that exists.

     

     

    No, really, if there is no greater power, what is the purpose of life? If we were to come from an explosion, how do you think life could ever exist. If something like that happened, how would Stars, Galaxies, Black Holes, Nebulae. or even Life exist. Better yet, how could Earth be so perfect if it by chance.

    Go read a book or two about quantum physics and modern theories of cosmology. Earth isn't perfect, nor was it by chance. There are literally an innumerable amount of planets in just the known universe. That doesn't even include the unknown. You're looking at this subject as if life is inherently special or important when in reality it isn't. It's just a chemical reaction formed on a planet, no different than any other activity that takes place in the universe. Life on Earth is just another part of the planet itself, like oceans, tectonic plates or the atmosphere. "To be" is the nature of existence. It matters not what form it takes as any and all forms are part of it.

  13. 1: The "fence" is nothing compared to the "wall". The wall will be larger, longer, and more manned naturally. If they build two (one of them can be significantly cheaper due to how it'd work) than you get a patch of land between the walls that they can control comfortably. Of course this means even more border guards, but that'd mean more jobs created and the increased effectiveness tackling illegal immigration and the drug trade would be well worth it I'm sure.

     

    Well actually all instances of multiculturism as far as I know, even the so called "bring me your poor" was ultimately an excuse to import cheap labour. In regards to America they also had a lot of land to fill with people, it was after all the "New World". It's not so new anymore and situations change, just because a country was X does not mean it must remain that way forever. 

     

    You've drank down that propaganda I'd say. I gave you the reasons they push mass immigration and multiculturalism and it ain't for "world peace", "love", or anything else. It's pure greed at work, uncaring greed that causes harm but they do not care for they will not suffer. They have their money, their large homes away from immigrants, and of course their bodyguards. 

     

    I'm a Nationalist, a cultural one specifically. If that is synonymous with Xenophobe because thats another word they've rendered meaningless by it's application to anyone who dares question immigration then so be it.  

     

    2: So you agree with me? The exploitation is mass immigration, it is globalisation, so on. You're for all that exploitation and then argue that those who are against such exploitation are for exploitation? It's all very odd to me. I don't want to take advantage of cheap laborers being imported. I don't want children working as slaves to make some cheap tat on the other side of the world. Why are you for it? Because if you support globalisation, sadly but ultimately you support such things. Remember who guides globalisation along. 

     

    3: That won't pass the test with anybody at this point. The way people see it is such people have been protected greatly, with any who have dared attack them being made to lose their jobs, be attacked in the media, jailed, and other such things. A long time that went on and they never integrated... giving them a soft hand will not cause integration, especially not when multiculturalism is championed. "Haven't integrated and formed a gtetto where the people see themselves as more X than Y? Thats cool, we'll be so diverse, how lovely".

     

    Like I said a firm hand is needed at this point as otherwise you'll see much worse in the future.

    1. So basically there is no difference at all other than a shit ton of wasted tax payer dollars? Because I mean, Operation Jump Start cost over a billion dollars, still didn't solve anything and that was but a fraction of what Trump is proposing.

    Multiculturalism is the foundation of the United States. Mexicans already live here and have made massive contributions to American culture already. They're as American as you and me and allowing them to move here is not going to destroy America considering they are already an inherent part of our culture. Nationalism is stupid, but you're beyond nationalist. 

     

    2. I was referring the the exploitation of middle eastern nations. And I don't want slave labor in the US either, which is exactly why I think a wall is a stupid idea. Want to end illegal immigration in the US? Want to end slave labor in the US? Then end the war on drugs and reform our immigration process so that people can move here legally. 

     

    3. Statistics say that you're wrong with growing secularism in Europe, including within the European Muslim community. The social divide is fueled by xenophobia, not innocent people looking for a better life. But it's because of all the xenophobia in Europe, that I think those Muslim migrants are better off going just about anywhere else. The ghettos formed in Europe for these migrants were not built by the migrants out of intention. Nobody moves to a new country and wants to be hated and stuffed in a camp. You accuse migrants of not integrating while refusing them any chance to. That's what I'd call xenophobia. Unfortunately, it's this cultural conflict that feeds the ideology known as Salafism. The more you express hatred for Islam the more Muslims are inspired to hate the west. Do you not see the self feeding cycle here? Continuing the cycle will only produce the same cyclical results. 

    • Upvote 2
  14.  

    1.Even though the massive steel fence doesn't even work? I mean what exactly is the significant difference between a wall, and the fence that's already there? 

    >>iirc that fence you are referring to doesnt stretch the whole border, only small portions of it, so comparing it to a big beautiful wall is more complicated than you're downplaying it as.

     

    The idea of a New World Order is more sincere and less diabolical than you think.

    >>you're part of why many older people dislike the newer generations

     

    Multiculturalism is the foundation of the United States of America. This nation was founded by immigrants, for immigrant so that people could be free to believe what they want and practice what cultures they want. This in and of itself creates the greater American culture.

    >>Its closer to a tossed salad than a melting pot, but there are numerous people who name 'American' as their culture and not 'x-country natives who happen to be in america' so... it can contribute to what is seen as the american culture, but that does not mean all cultures are beneficial or welcomed. accepting everything means accepting everything, and nobody in their right mind would want everything that is out there. You'd literally have to be !@#$balls insane.

     

    You're just a xenophobe. 

    >>roz is a xenophobe

     

    It's the opposite of globalization that is the foundation of this problem. The foundation of this problem is division. 

    >>just try to force me to do what you want me to do and see what happens

     

    You want people to integrate? You have to stop alienating them first. 

    >>stop scaring the shit out of the local populace and you've got a deal

     

    1. That doesn't explain what the significant difference would be. The fence actually covers quite a bit of the border in various forms.

    https://law.utexas.edu/humanrights/borderwall/maps/final_border_fence_locations_oct_2013.pdf

    Regardless, people still go right over it because walls are not unscalable. So what is the difference between the wall that's already there and can't even be finished and the one that Trump is proposing which would be even more unrealistic than the already unrealistic fence? 

     

    2. Orlly? Because I'm pretty sure it was the older generations that established things like the Bilderberg group and the foundations of a new world order. In fact, my generation seems more opposed to groups like this than any previous generation. And I'm not too fond of the older generations myself so I couldn't care less how they feel. The world turns.

     

    3. Obviously there are things out there that are almost universally loathed, like Nazism. A Mexican looking for a decent life is not one of those things. 

     

    4. Indeed.

     

    5. Salafism. That's what happens. 

     

    6. I'm not the one promoting xenophobia here.....

  15. They ain't comparable in the scenario you're speaking of. China's great wall is often summed up as a failure due to not stopping the Mongols when you know, it was around for a long time and helped against many raiders/tribes. It's reason for failure wasn't because people could climb over it either, but because it could be attacked with enough force by a military power. Illegal immigrants aren't a military power and even the cartels as armed as they are wouldn't dare such a thing. 

     

    I think in truth one wall is not something that'll work as effectively as possible, it'll stop some people and hopefully help tackle the drugs too... but two walls... now that would really nail it. 

     

    Globalisation stopping war is in the same realm as the EU stopping war in Europe, a pat on their back fantasy, or propaganda as it should be called. Tell me how Globalisation stopped America's many incursions over the years. Tell me how it stopped Russia. How did it stop what happened in the Balkans. What happens in Africa. So on. I suppose it stopped war between Western European countries, they are ultimately ruled by the same puppet masters after all. 

     

    I'd argue you've got it the wrong way round. When people talk of such concerns they ain't concerned about a foreign state, they're concerned about foreign people, people who don't integrate, who become a nation within a nation, a fifth column. That you see is division, not unity as you put it. People must integrate for unity and that is what those against immigration, globalisation, and so forth want... integration which is the sensible path to follow. It won't end well otherwise. Nationalism is unity, multiculturalism is disunity.

     

     

    Well no. The migrant crisis if we're talking the current one is down to Germany, Sweden, and those lot in pushing for all those migrants to come leading to the current situation. In regards to what happened 100 years ago we can't change that, if they hate us for it and always will then oh well nothing we can do, surrendering everything to them certainly won't matter to them. However we can stop them from entering if necessary. We can rip down what causes them to hate us if they decide to come over here. All these problems ultimately exist because lets face it, western governments subscribe to the religion of globalisation and so have their hands tied behind their backs on the matter, nothing must get in the way of cheap labour, profits, and capitalism. 

     

     

    France's prisons are 70% Muslim for one. People who are not integrated are going to naturally be more criminal I'd say, they don't have any unity with the rest of the nation. 

     

    They keep importing more of them, their birth rates are high, in a generation there are more of them again with high birth rates (even if they drop a bit as said), and still more will no doubt be imported. These people are not integrated, in fact non-integration is instead seemingly championed... non integrated people aren't going to leave behind those mad hateful beliefs. 

    What I'll tell you is that it won't end pretty. What is seen as nasty today will be kid's stuff compared to what people will want in the future if this keeps going as it is.

    1. Not one wall, but two? Even though the massive steel fence doesn't even work? I mean what exactly is the significant difference between a wall, and the fence that's already there? 

    Globalization has promoted world peace and international cooperation. The idea of a New World Order is more sincere and less diabolical than you think. Multiculturalism is the foundation of the United States of America. This nation was founded by immigrants, for immigrant so that people could be free to believe what they want and practice what cultures they want. This in and of itself creates the greater American culture. You're just a xenophobe. 

     

    2. All these problems exist because of western exploitation. It's not something that happened 100 years ago. It's something that's been happening for nearly 100 years and continues to this day. It's the opposite of globalization that is the foundation of this problem. The foundation of this problem is division. 

     

    3. France is becoming more anti-Muslim by the day and of course these people aren't going to integrate when they're greeted by a welcoming committee of white supremacist protesters. It's like expecting Vietnam vets to be proud to come back home when they're greeted with "baby killer". You want people to integrate? You have to stop alienating them first. 

  16. So basically you wanted to say that we should tolerant to the refugees rapist who rape our child? If not, what else we could solve European problem instead nationalism since our government gone full of cuckoldry? You got any better ideas to save your own country from those bloodthirsty that supposed to be a bigoted, homophobic refugees instead waste people time and money? That's some kind of treason in here.

    You heard it here folks. Immigrants of all kinds are child rapists....  :rolleyes:

    Listen buddy, there is a whole hell of a lot more crime being committed in any given place by the citizens themselves than by their immigrants. In response to your BS video, secularism and Atheism is the fastest growing religious ideology in Europe, even if you include a few million Muslim migrants. Pew Research predicts that Muslims will make up about 8% of Europe's population by 2030 and about 10% by 2050. Further more, the Muslim fertility rate is expected to drop while the non Muslim fertility rate is expected to slightly increase. Other research also suggests that about 1/3 of people raised Muslim in Europe no longer embrace Islam as adults. 

    (All of this data is from pre-migrant crisis, however, 2 million refugees is nothing when compared with a population of 742 million people. It's like trying to taste a drop of orange juice in an Olympic sized swimming pool.)

    • Upvote 2
  17. I didn't think you had a political agenda, more like a victim complex.

     

    Yeah the other alliances involved were also alliances Arrgh conducted mass raids against, UPN is the biggest alliance so it makes sense they take the credit as it was also an attack on them by Arrgh that lead to the quick defeat. 

    Arrgh wasn't trying to do anything interesting, they were just there to abuse and take advantage of things. Not sure what SI tried to do but sure. 

     

    We didn't change the rules and you were a part of Arrgh so that probably explains such nonsense. Arrgh changed the rules themselves by exposing the shortcomings of the system. Things that are broken usually get fixed in systems. 

    Pretty interesting stuff happens, Arrgh was responsible for very little of the interesting stuff. 

    I was confused about what the hell you were chatting about until you mentioned a reason to fight, people fight to set the other people back while they get ahead or a larger cushion. Things are plenty active, not sure what else you want. 

     

     

     

    The game is still the game nothing changed really, just some issues were solved that were damaging the game. In your opinion it was bad for the game and in the opinion of others it was good. 

    There was nothing good about what was fixed, anyone who thinks so has a bias. 

    Your post is oozing with emotion, its painful to read it. 

    There was never a problem to begin with. It was just Arrgh playing better than everyone else. That's literally all it was and literally anyone could have done the same exact thing.

    While the rest of Orbis put faith in pixels and trying to outgrow everyone, Arrgh simply warred. Something that everyone here constantly complains about there being a lack of, as clearly seen in this thread. The problem for Arrghs victims is the way that they built their nations which is their own fault. That's not a problem with the game at all. It's simply an alliance discovering a better strategy under the same mechanics that everyone uses. It's absolutely no different than the way the current building or warring trends were discovered. 

    And this isn't me being bias. This is me pointing out reality. I'm sorry to everyone here that Arrgh found a better strategy and actually gave you the war you're always whining about. Let's hope that nobody ever thinks outside their box of pixels again. Otherwise we'd have to "fix the game". 

    :rolleyes:

  18. Mongolian soldier is a military, not an immigrant in fact back in the era when the mongol invade China there was a corruption.

     
     

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGBdEb1_dL4

     

    Does this look good to you fam? :^)

    The point is that the wall, like all walls, failed because they are useless without every inch being constantly manned. There is already a massive steel fence along the border and people climb right over it. So unless Trump plans to permanently place the military along the entire length of the border, it's a complete waste of everyone's time and money.  

     

    As for the migrant crisis in Europe, it's the wests fault for exploiting the middle east for a century. It wouldn't even be a bad thing if not for just that, which lead to the rise of Salafism and the ideological war we have now. The problems in Europe are only being worsened by nationalist ideologies. Mass migrations always come with problems, but the situation in Europe is different than the situation in the US. Our migrants aren't caught in the middle of a culture war, which is the problem with the European migrant crisis.

  19. Off topic: I love that avatar, is it took from Natalia Poklonskaya fan art?

    Tis indeed.

     

     

    Well obviously you don't have the same concerns as those who are supporting him. To them globalisation and immigration (as it exists today) are very wrong things, however this difference doesn't make their concerns invalid (nor xenophobic for that matter).

    Our southern immigration problem can be solved by simply reforming our migration policies to actually be reasonable. I can assure you that a wall will do nothing. It's funny how he cites the Great Wall of China. Does he realize that wall was a failure? That no matter how tall or strong it was, people could just..... Go right over it? And did?......

    Globalization is good. In fact, it's the only future humanity has. The world needs more unity not nationalism. I enjoy how the worlds economy is so interdependent. It creates a world where people must work together rather than kill each other for ridiculous things like nationalism, land, race, or ideology.

    • Upvote 1
  20. I do also believe 4chan is full of edgy teenager who trying to be "kool", but you just implying at /b/, 4chan random board. 

     

    That post I took from /pol/ I'll guess but I'm still wondering how do you know he was lying. I mean it clearly have no evidence that he live in Russia or not,

    He just doesn't strike me as someone who was raised in USSR. He sounds very western raised and I would expect an anti-communist Russian who actually did live in the USSR, to come up with a far better argument than the same regurgitated western perception of communism. Because they usually do.

    That's just my impression. 

    • Upvote 1
  21. Fox Fire all you're doing is regurgitating the same old bourgeois line on Stalin, when in reality the USSR was engaged in a brutal class war and sabotage was rife (see the accounts of John D. Littlepage, who was an American expert employed by the Soviet government, who documented many, many cases in the Siberian mines of sabotage, in some cases entire mines were collapsed and people killed). The USSR wouldn't have even survived the Nazi invasion if it wasn't for Stalin's industrialization and his ruthlessness with enemies, especially considering that the Red Army was mostly staffed with Tsarist officers from before the Revolution, you think those guys would have fought for socialism against Hitler? And you'd probably say that purging the Red Army was unnecessary, I mean it's not like any Red Army generals revolted and joined the Nazi's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vlasov)....

     

    Prominent enemies of Stalin like Bukharin admitted to wanting state-capitalism in the USSR, Bukharin's line to the peasants was "enrich yourself", very socialist, wow. Trotsky became a terrorist and worked from inside America to overthrow the Soviet government at the same time as the fascist were preparing to invade.

     

    - Joseph Goebbels's personal diaries

    Stalin came to power after a power struggle. Then he forcibly crushed all political opposition, any chance at democracy, imprisoned and slaughtered farmers and land owners for nothing. It's HIS authoritarianism that lead to social upheaval and his response was the great purge, where he killed indiscriminately, including communists. I mean actual communists. The ones that followed Lenin in the revolution. His policies built a strong industry but also caused famine and the deaths of countless people for next to nothing. He also wasn't so opposed to the Nazis. He signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler and intended to work with him to take over Europe. Stalin was surprised when he was backstabbed.

    Lenin and Trotsky were internationalists and had completely different plans for the USSR. They were also good examples of left and right within the USSR. Stalin however rejected both the left and the right within the USSR and took on a 3rd position that got millions of people killed because he was afraid of some capitalist conspiracy. Guess who else did that? Hitler. So can we say that Hitler murdering millions was acceptable just because he had internal political opposition? 

    Think about what you're saying...

  22. No it is as I said, he personally has not gone bankrupt. There are different type of bankruptcies and his wasn't the kind people often think all bankruptcies are. Four of his many companies with his name went bankrupt, but that did not mean they went immediately out of business, nor that he personally went bankrupt. Such type of bankruptcies aren't always down to management either and casinos aren't the safest things anyway. 

     

    He knows the law on such matters and his business yes which is contrary which is often said about him. The "system" putting him in power has been consistently working against him with corrupt Republican processes (Bernie feeling them corrupt Democrat processes too naturally) and a corrupt media. In regards to Republicans if he'll change their system remains to be seen, but with the media he has said he'll change things so they can be sued for their lies. In regards to business he has promised to tackle immigration and globalisation, the only one to do so... as such thats who people go with. It's true he got rich in the current system, but that really means all of nothing. He's actually taken a significant financial hit thus far running for office and I don't just mean with the money he's spent (far less than the rest spending other's money), but with the business he's lost. If making money was his sole concern he'd make more not running and bribing Hillary. 

    Yeah, all of his ideas are shit. Complete shit. He's a complete idiot. That's all the time I care to spend on Trump anymore. He's ass backwards. There's nothing wrong with globalization or immigration. He's just a xenophobic !@#$ with far more money than brains. 

  23. How do you know it was a lie? You don't even know his name, his address and his face. 

    Well no shit... That's mostly it right there.....

    Also because it's 4chan of all garbage, where everyone is a retarded nobody troll and I actually live with a Russian from Russia.

     

    It's like me saying I'm from Ethiopia and I'm the second coming of Christ. Prove me wrong. You don't have to, because it sounds that stupid. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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