Jump to content

GOOD! Commies Threaten To Leave America IF Trump Elected!


Mutsuo Toi
 Share

Recommended Posts

It might not be as easy as some may think but any human being with a functioning mind and body is capable of learning how to do it. It's something almost every single human being is capable of, including children. It's not some kind of mystical esoteric knowledge hidden to all but a few people, it's just a matter of information, training and equipment which is accessible to a lot of people all over the world.

 

It's fine that you're able to give credit where it's due, but my point was that however small such a group is today, vastly increasing the numbers of that group is simply a matter of deciding to make it happen. It doesn't really matter how small the group is today, what matters is the group's potential size and strength should they seek those ends, which they're currently not doing.

 

"A lot of kids become socialists when they get into college", "they also adapt anti-gun stances and develop a fear of guns". Those are some pretty tenuous statements, who are you that knows these people so well? Do you actually have any facts backing that up besides what you "see"? And do you understand the distinction between being afraid of getting shot and being afraid of the results of widespread possession and use of firearms? Because there's a difference. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with fearing weapons that are designed to kill people, I wouldn't blame anyone for it.

Have you cleaned a semi-automatic rifle that has shot hundreds of rounds during a day at the range? Do you know how many hours it takes to clean that to a 'decent' standard?

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you cleaned a semi-automatic rifle that has shot hundreds of rounds during a day at the range? Do you know how many hours it takes to clean that to a 'decent' standard?

 

That's completely beside the point. The task itself requiring time and effort in order to be completed doesn't correlate to how easy it is to learn how to complete the task. The point is that while completing certain tasks like cleaning firearms can be time consuming, learning how to clean a firearm and being informed of the necessity of doing so are not obstacles. It's something almost anyone can understand and learn how to do, no matter how much effort it takes to actually do it.

 

There's a difference between learning how to perform a task and actually performing the task you have learned. Do you honestly believe that most people are incapable of learning how to clean firearms? Or how to operate firearms? Well, regardless of what you believe they're not. And since they are not incapable of learning these things, once they have learned all they need is to put in the time and effort to perform the task(s) they have been taught to perform. It may very well be time consuming and require a lot of effort as you've pointed out, but that simply doesn't mean it's difficult to learn.

Edited by Big Brother
  • Upvote 1

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The task itself requiring time and effort in order to be completed doesn't correlate to how easy it is to learn how to complete the task. 

 

You're not taking into account the fact that the average person is &#33;@#&#036;ing retarded when it comes to being taught to be a soldier, and only with an extremely skilled instructors over an extended period of time, in a well maintained and stocked environment mind you, could any 'halfway-decent militia for any purpose' be formed, as you said. And even then, you're going to have failures, especially since you'd be drawing from an oddball and tiny pool of volunteers. Its a &#33;@#&#036;ing joke of an idea and you just don't get it. There is no massive pool of young, able-bodied, para-military loving, gun-accepting, socialist people in America who want to move into a facility for months on end in order to train to be some sort of gun-toting idealistic rabble, not taking into account whatever paltry sum you'd come up with as payment for their time and efforts. They'd have garbage for food, since your budget for a socialist paramilitary force within the US would be garbage, just to name one huge logistical problem. Only nutjobs would throw their money away into something so clearly wasteful, since it'd be funded by donations. Its just stupid and you should think harder.

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not taking into account the fact that the average person is  !@#$ retarded when it comes to being taught to be a soldier, and only with an extremely skilled instructors over an extended period of time, in a well maintained and stocked environment mind you, could any 'halfway-decent militia for any purpose' be formed, as you said. And even then, you're going to have failures, especially since you'd be drawing from an oddball and tiny pool of volunteers. Its a !@#$ joke of an idea and you just don't get it. There is no massive pool of young, able-bodied, para-military loving, gun-accepting, socialist people in America who want to move into a facility for months on end in order to train to be some sort of gun-toting idealistic rabble, not taking into account whatever paltry sum you'd come up with as payment for their time and efforts. They'd have garbage for food, since your budget for a socialist paramilitary force within the US would be garbage, just to name one huge logistical problem. Only nutjobs would throw their money away into something so clearly wasteful, since it'd be funded by donations. Its just stupid and you should think harder.

 

Half of this is just gibberish and completely subjective concoctions without any basis in reality, because you cannot possibly have any legitimate idea of what organizing a socialist militia would be like, how well functioning it would be, how well organized, and so on. The only way to actually know these things would be to conduct extensive surveys and actually attempt to create such a militia, neither of which you have done. So many people make the mistake of thinking that their subjective opinions and beliefs are somehow actually representative of reality and facts when they're not. You lock things down, dismiss them, deny possibilities in favor of false certainties. Ignorance to arrogance, arrogance to ignorance, over and over.

 

You underestimate the capabilities of the average, determined person. You seem to be intent on depicting average people as incapable of becoming soldiers. But all soldiers that have ever been started out as average people. Like I've pointed out before, there are children, undeveloped human beings, who are capable of becoming at least somewhat effective soldiers and instruments of war. Why would you deny this? Why would you deny that people are capable of learning? It doesn't make any sense. Sure, they need skilled instructors (extremely skilled seems a bit far fetched to me), sure they need a well maintained and stocked environment. Now, are average people incapable of acquiring these things? No. All they need to do is act.

 

What's this idea you're talking about? You seem to be misinterpreting my position. It's not my idea to create socialist militias, nor is it an idea I'm particularly in favor of. But just because I don't support something doesn't mean I'm going to deny obvious realities and possibilities. To do so would be to choose arrogance fueled by ignorance. Reason is reason, no matter what my personal opinions and ideas are.

 

If Socialists in America wanted to create a militia, it would, like I've said many times over, simply be a matter of doing so. Average people are just capable as any other.. average person. They are perfectly able to create militias and overcome any logistical, organizational and ideological problems that might occur. There is literally no point in denying that people are capable of doing these things.

 

And all this nonsense about food, payment, budgets. You're thinking inside the box dude, have you no imagination? Are you, unlike the average person, incapable of creating solutions to the practical problems of your life? These aren't people who lack food and funding, and no one is reliant on support from the American government to create militias. All these logistical problems you bring up, they have solutions. And the average person is capable of finding and utilizing these solutions, just like you and I are able to. Another thing there's no point in denying. Stop trying to squeeze the world and its people into your box of final, definite certainties and start opening your mind to the possibilities that are so easily within reach. If there's one thing human beings are good at, it's being completely certain of things and their own convictions, only to discover that they were dead wrong. I'm not saying that Socialist militias will automatically be successful, but I will not deny the possibility that they can be and neither should you. "All Socialist militias are doomed to fail" and "all Socialist militias will inevitably succeed" are both equally irrational statements, whereas the statement "Socialist militias can succeed or fail" is not.

  • Upvote 1

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Determining your happiness by using the HDI index is total irrelevant. I'd never move to Norway (ranked #1) because their politics are too left leaning for me. Sure they have free stuff but taxes make up 45% of their GDP (double the U.S), they spend practically nothing on military and I don't speak the language. Northern European culture is too atheist for me as well. I already hate giving my state 28% income tax as it is, I could fix my local roads for $20 when the state department will pay 10 guys $20 a hour to fix a few potholes. One guy stands and watches them and two of them hold signs. Government is not efficient, that's why I support the privatization of almost everything. If Trump wins I hope that a bunch of people leave, we have a enough left wing thought police cucks as it is. Canada can have the majority of this latest generation, they are all &#33;@#&#036;ed up on drugs or protesting because they can't murder their own babies.

“I'm cheap and enjoy butchering” - Manthrax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Determining your happiness by using the HDI index is total irrelevant. I'd never move to Norway (ranked #1) because their politics are too left leaning for me. Sure they have free stuff but taxes make up 45% of their GDP (double the U.S), they spend practically nothing on military and I don't speak the language. Northern European culture is too atheist for me as well. I already hate giving my state 28% income tax as it is, I could fix my local roads for $20 when the state department will pay 10 guys $20 a hour to fix a few potholes. One guy stands and watches them and two of them hold signs. Government is not efficient, that's why I support the privatization of almost everything. If Trump wins I hope that a bunch of people leave, we have a enough left wing thought police cucks as it is. Canada can have the majority of this latest generation, they are all !@#$ed up on drugs or protesting because they can't murder their own babies.

 

Well, HDI is not meant to measure happiness, it's meant to measure quality of life, which is what we were talking about. Personal preferences will naturally always play a part in how a person perceives their surroundings but as an objective measure of where you're most likely to live a good life with good quality, looking past all the politics and religion, HDI is perfectly applicable and relevant. And regardless of what your personal preferences are, if you look past the practical issues like the language barrier and tax rate and look past the values of the society as a whole and consider the country in regard to how good the quality of life of individual people living in Norway is, the opportunities they have, the freedoms they possess, it's a damn good country to live in (at least for most people).

 

It's not like living there would prevent you from holding your personal opinions or expressing them, and there are undoubtedly people in Norway who share your opinions, particularly in regard to the tax rate. As many faults as your personal opinions might find with living there, with its people, its values and society, the point is that if you do live there, you have access to pretty much everything you could ever need and you have the opportunities to get pretty much anything you could ever want, except perhaps god and no taxes.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's apolitical- you can be a communist or neo-Nazi and the Second Amendment is still your God-given right.

 

How do I, a very patriotic conservative with strong anti-left sentiment feel about communists or socialist owning guns? I don't care. It's still your right.

 

The funny thing, though, is that most people in the country who are anti-gun and socialists are, at the same time, completely ignorant of guns and how to operate/maintain one properly- on top on being ridiculously scared of them (it's okay to have a healthy respect for the dangerousness of a firearm, but I'm talking ​really terrified). So I doubt a lot of American socialists do own guns and could form, in theory, a halfway-decent militia for any purpose. That's not to say that there aren't socialists in America who own and can proficiently use firearms, but they're a small group.

I don't believe you, because I believe that conservatives are hypocrites and only care about "rights" when it suits they're interests. If a socialist/communist/worker militia became reasonably well organized and armed in the US, they would absolutely support the State using arrests and brutality to disarm them because the Second Amendment is only for conservatives to have guns. Same reason that conservatives support "State's Rights", until of course a state passes a progressive law, then they don't support state's rights. They also support the US Supreme Court, until of course the court said homosexuals could marry, and then they didn't support the Court. The Black Panthers for example become very well armed and organized, and then they were attacked by the Nixon government with arrests etc, which was supported by the conservatives.

 

Also, the anti-gun people you talk about are liberal-reformist capitalists, not real revolutionary socialists.

 

In my view, the Second Amendment and it's fanatical devotees are a weakness of the imperialist United States, not a strength, and as a weakness it should be exploited and used to harm them.

Edited by Andrezj Kolarov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All they need to do is act.

 

Try so you fail and then see you're wrong. Since no words can fix you.

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that conservatives are hypocrites and only care about "rights" when it suits they're interests. If a socialist/communist/worker militia became reasonably well organized and armed in the US, they would absolutely support the State using arrests and brutality to disarm them because the Second Amendment is only for conservatives to have guns. Same reason that conservatives support "State's Rights", until of course a state passes a progressive law, then they don't support state's rights.

 

In my view, the Second Amendment and it's fanatical devotees are a weakness of the imperialist United States, not a strength, and as a weakness it should be exploited and used to harm them.

All parties, thoughts and ideologues do this- not just conservatives.

 

So only the ruling leadership and its blind devotees should be armed then? Excellent use of control over the masses by disarming the population so tyranny can rule. You proved the purpose for the reason of why we have the Second Amendment.

Edited by Lord Asmodeus
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need fixing, it's you who are wrong in denying every possibility of a Socialist militia succeeding.

Even your tears taste crazy.

  • Upvote 1

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good riddance! Get outta here! All we want is to destroy the middle east and our freedoms! If you don't like that, please move to a third world country where we can bomb you over a nice cheeseburger while watching Donald Trump flaunt his ego on CNN!

 

http://archive.is/LxqGX

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/canada-ready-to-receive-250000-american-refugees-in-case-trump-is-elected-president/

FTFY.

 

Also, this is something I legit considered. But at the end of the day, the Canada is just an American puppet like half the planet so it matters little where one moves. Might as well stay here and just accept that my president is a complete retard. At worst, we invade Mexico or go bankrupt like Trump.

  • Upvote 1

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need fixing, it's you who are wrong in denying every possibility of a Socialist militia succeeding.

A socialist militia succeeding at anything in the worlds most capitalist nation which bears the worlds strongest army? Yeahno.... 

The strength of a determined person is easily crushed under a tiny bullet. Just ask LaVoy or the countless other political militia men that have been gunned down over the last 200 years or so. I think you underestimate the resources and expertise of the US government. They've put down tons of groups with this same idea over the course of centuries. Determination only goes as far as you're physically capable. A 20lbs bomb can make that determination turn into a pile of scorched flesh quite quickly. Not to mention that we're talking about a nation where most people are too ignorant to vote let alone fight a war against a God like military. 

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTFY.

 

Also, this is something I legit considered. But at the end of the day, the Canada is just an American puppet like half the planet so it matters little where one moves. Might as well stay here and just accept that my president is a complete retard. At worst, we invade Mexico or go bankrupt like Trump.

 

If they are puppets then they'll be closing up their borders anyway then. Nice.

 

Trump has never personally gone bankrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A socialist militia succeeding at anything in the worlds most capitalist nation which bears the worlds strongest army? Yeahno.... 

The strength of a determined person is easily crushed under a tiny bullet. Just ask LaVoy or the countless other political militia men that have been gunned down over the last 200 years or so. I think you underestimate the resources and expertise of the US government. They've put down tons of groups with this same idea over the course of centuries. Determination only goes as far as you're physically capable. A 20lbs bomb can make that determination turn into a pile of scorched flesh quite quickly. Not to mention that we're talking about a nation where most people are too ignorant to vote let alone fight a war against a God like military. 

Of course a militia would stand no chance against a conventional standing army with advanced weapons, the purpose of a militia is asymmetrical guerilla actions and gaining popular support. The main strength it would have is that the US government would be reluctant to actually shoot civilians in their own territory, that "humanitarianism" is their weakness and can be exploited. Also most of the militia groups in the US are rural phenomenon out in the middle of nowhere, how do you think the US government would go with a militia that had solid working class support in densely-populated urban cities? The one time the US government used violence to attack a civilian group (I'm talking about recent history, and not such small incidents) was Waco and that turned into a fiasco and stained the reputation of the govt for years. The US Armed Forces would always never intervene directly in such matters as they would refuse orders to attack civilians even if ordered by the President, so a militia would probably not have to contend with tanks, artillery or combat aircraft.

Edited by Andrezj Kolarov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A socialist militia succeeding at anything in the worlds most capitalist nation which bears the worlds strongest army? Yeahno.... 

The strength of a determined person is easily crushed under a tiny bullet. Just ask LaVoy or the countless other political militia men that have been gunned down over the last 200 years or so. I think you underestimate the resources and expertise of the US government. They've put down tons of groups with this same idea over the course of centuries. Determination only goes as far as you're physically capable. A 20lbs bomb can make that determination turn into a pile of scorched flesh quite quickly. Not to mention that we're talking about a nation where most people are too ignorant to vote let alone fight a war against a God like military. 

 

Well I'm not saying that it wouldn't be difficult, challenging or fraught with danger, merely that I'm not going to state or agree with that it's simply impossible for it to happen, even though the odds are against it. However unlikely, it's still possible.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're grasping at straws.

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are puppets then they'll be closing up their borders anyway then. Nice.

 

Trump has never personally gone bankrupt.

But he actually has according to paper. And we're to believe that such a schemer is going to change the system that put him in power? Many politicians have made this claim. Not one has done so. At least Jackson tried to change the course of the world before suddenly going all genocide. 

 

 

Of course a militia would stand no chance against a conventional standing army with advanced weapons, the purpose of a militia is asymmetrical guerilla actions and gaining popular support. The main strength it would have is that the US government would be reluctant to actually shoot civilians in their own territory, that "humanitarianism" is their weakness and can be exploited. Also most of the militia groups in the US are rural phenomenon out in the middle of nowhere, how do you think the US government would go with a militia that had solid working class support in densely-populated urban cities? The one time the US government used violence to attack a civilian group (I'm talking about recent history, and not such small incidents) was Waco and that turned into a fiasco and stained the reputation of the govt for years. The US Armed Forces would always never intervene directly in such matters as they would refuse orders to attack civilians even if ordered by the President, so a militia would probably not have to contend with tanks, artillery or combat aircraft.

No, the US government would not be reluctant to shoot their own citizens. Tell that to every political rebellion that the feds have put down (because there have been a lot). IDK what history you've been reading but our own soldiers have killed unarmed college protesters in recent history. The feds have shot down nationalists in Texas and countless others who've stood up to the federal government. So much for your delusion that our soldiers would never kill Americans even if ordered by the president. Recent history says they need only be ordered by the towns mayor.

Mass organization in urban areas? You mean like occupy wallstreet? Yeah, that did nothing. Not to mention that urban areas have tight gun restrictions with heavily militarized police. So an actual armed standoff would just be a quick shoot out with a few dead bodies to show for it at best. That's it.

 

 

Well I'm not saying that it wouldn't be difficult, challenging or fraught with danger, merely that I'm not going to state or agree with that it's simply impossible for it to happen, even though the odds are against it. However unlikely, it's still possible.

Do you have any idea how many times this has actually been attempted in US history? The civil war might have been the most notable, but it certainly wasn't the only time people organized a militia against the government. Nor is it the only time they've been crushed with overwhelming force. 

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he actually has according to paper. And we're to believe that such a schemer is going to change the system that put him in power? Many politicians have made this claim. Not one has done so. At least Jackson tried to change the course of the world before suddenly going all genocide. 

 

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. 

Edited by Rozalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 &#33;@#&#036; with far more money than brains. 

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's just a xenophobic !@#$ with far more money than brains. 

 

>Xenophobic

 

 

I kek'ed

 

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

Edited by lizard noob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?......

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 /\

/||\

 ||

 ||

 

Does this look good to you fam? :^)

 

With Globalism, killing people for ridiculous thing like nationalism, land, race, or ideology is still happen but not for white people. 

Edited by lizard noob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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