Trump is winning

They don't have kids because kids get free shit, what kind of dumbfuck logic is that? They have more kids so these kids go into more jobs and earn more money which the parents coast off.
Are you 100% about this? How can you prove it?

Let me introduce you to Slovak village Jarovnice. There's settlement on the edge of this village, inhabited solely by gypsies. People from the settlement are living in makeshift houses, without any sewage system, there's unemployment reaching 100% in this place, and the entire population is on welfare. None of the elementary school graduates continue their education, and almost nobody gets a job after graduation. These folks are perfectly fine with free stuff granted by our legislative, so they have zero motivation to change their habits.

zg35Cb2.jpg
vlJGFVF.jpg
 
Are you 100% about this? How can you prove it?

Let me introduce you to Slovak village Jarovnice. There's settlement on the edge of this village, inhabited solely by gypsies. People from the settlement are living in makeshift houses, without any sewage system, there's unemployment reaching 100% in this place, and the entire population is on welfare. None of the elementary school graduates continue their education, and almost nobody gets a job after graduation. These folks are perfectly fine with free stuff granted by our legislative, so they have zero motivation to change their habits.

zg35Cb2.jpg
vlJGFVF.jpg
Does that make them have more kids? Not necessarily, also that proves my point in another way. If each kid get's free shit, wouldn't the parents be able to skim off top?
 
Yes, I think so. The social benefits are being paid per kid to every family monthly, and there's 10-15 kids in average ghetto family here. Having kids seems to be pretty lucrative job for young gypsy women here. We've been registering a lot of 13-14 years old pregnant gypsy brides annually, they start pretty soon in order to have as many kids as it gets.

We had to change the system recently, since they were skimming off top alright! Parents drank all day long, with 10-15 naked kids playing in mud, so now all they get is food tickets instead of money. So now we have new black food market rolling on, with adult gypsies changing their food for drinks and cigarettes with the locals.
 
Yes, I think so. The social benefits are being paid per kid to every family monthly, and there's 10-15 kids in average ghetto family here. Having kids seems to be pretty lucrative job for young gypsy women here. We've been registering a lot of 13-14 years old pregnant gypsy brides annually, they start pretty soon in order to have as many kids as it gets.

We had to change the system recently, since they were skimming off top alright! Parents drank all day long, with 10-15 naked kids playing in mud, so now all they get is food tickets instead of money. So now we have new black food market rolling on, with adult gypsies changing their food for drinks and cigarettes with the locals.
We need to ship them to humane labor camps. Not anything like what the Nazis and Soviets had, but enough to make use of them and care for them.
 
We need to ship them to humane labor camps. Not anything like what the Nazis and Soviets had, but enough to make use of them and care for them.
As cool as history and memes have made labor camps out to be, they are in fact ineffective and cost a lot. Why not just cut the Gypsies from the government tit and be done with it.
 
Oh you neo-liberals are sure cute. Like as that solves the problem ... like as it ever did.

The issue most people have with abortion clinics is that they don't want them to be funded by tax dollars. And there's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with not wanting wars you disagree with be funded through your money.
Eh, no. I am talking about those pro-life idiots that scream bloody murder when someone performs an abortion, but don't give a shit about what kind of education or life the child has after birth. Pretty much the ideas you have shown, blaming children for their shitty parents.

It's got nothing to do with us being "the good guys", it has everything to do with us being us. Just like someone throwing a grenade into the room next to yours is more disturbing than someone throwing it somewhere on the other side of town.
Yeah, except this is exactly what happend when Bush explained them as "Axis of Evil" comparing Sadam with Hitler, that they have or seek weapons of mass destruction and so on.

You know, someone once compared the US with a glazier who wanders around at night throwing rocks at windows smashing them and the next day he's offering his service to repair them.

You can spin this aorund as much as you want, but the Iraq is a real shit hole since Bush decided to get in, and 100 000 of people died, for what you can only describe as a lie at this point, and the nation has been in a civil war since then. Imagine if any, ANY other nation did this, what kind of reaction we would have seen from the US.

That's irrelevant. The relevant question is - How am I responsible for the child having shitty parents? And if I'm not, why is my money being spent on them?
I can explain it to you, but I can not understand it for you.
 
The National Socialists got voted into power and the Communists had a violent revolution where they murdered the entire royal family. Kind of different.

No, they weren't. Hitler was defeated at the 1932 presidential elections, then subsequently appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg's clique of old men who thought they could control him, and utterly failed at doing so.

Anyhow, solid debate from both candidates this time around, Trump and Clinton mostly stuck to the issues and it didn't turn into a shameful bickering match. The moderation was both fair and more forceful than in the previous two debates, which was really required.

In my books Clinton lost points because she simply couldn't defend the Clinton Foundation's less-than-ideal set donors and her Wall Street friends, and Trump lost points because of his obsession with the elections being ''rigged'' ahead of time. A presidential candidate answering ''we'll see'' to the question of him accepting the result of a democratic vote is not acceptable as far as I'm concerned. Not when there's no proof of any sort of widespread fraud.
 
Oh you neo-liberals are sure cute. Like as that solves the problem ... like as it ever did.
There's a word I haven't heard in a long time. People still say neo-liberal?

Eh, no. I am talking about those pro-life idiots that scream bloody murder when someone performs an abortion, but don't give a shit about what kind of education or life the child has after birth. Pretty much the ideas you have shown, blaming children for their shitty parents.
So if you don't give a shit about how other people live their lives, you're a hypocrite for being against murder? How is not wanting to pay for someone else's mistake blaming children?

Yeah, except this is exactly what happend when Bush explained them as "Axis of Evil" comparing Sadam with Hitler, that they have or seek weapons of mass destruction and so on.

You know, someone once compared the US with a glazier who wanders around at night throwing rocks at windows smashing them and the next day he's offering his service to repair them.

You can spin this aorund as much as you want, but the Iraq is a real shit hole since Bush decided to get in, and 100 000 of people died, for what you can only describe as a lie at this point, and the nation has been in a civil war since then. Imagine if any, ANY other nation did this, what kind of reaction we would have seen from the US.
I wasn't talking about Iraq, just explaining that it's perfectly natural for us to give less of a shit for people dying elsewhere than in our own civilizational sphere.

As for other countries doing such shit, sure, the US would probably get mad that someone else was trying to act like they owned the place. Nothing weird there, just states being states.

I can explain it to you, but I can not understand it for you.
Wow, really makes you think.
 
There's a word I haven't heard in a long time. People still say neo-liberal?
So that we both know what we're talking about. Sweden is not a purely socialist state and the US is not purely capitalistic. But when you put both nations on a scale, Sweden and Germany are definetly closer to socialism or the 'idea' of it, compared to the US, otherwise some wouldn't' call those states "nanny-states". But strange enough Germany is one of those that suffers very few security issues and Sweden is one of those nations with the happiest citizens. Again, compared to the US. Many nations that dealt one way or another with military interventions and conflicts, suffered heavily from terrorism. And not just the US. France, Britain, Russia and many more. In that sense Germany historically speaking, also luckily never dealt to much in colonialism. Many people in Africa and Asia, have still strong feelings regarding Britain and France.

So if you don't give a shit about how other people live their lives, you're a hypocrite for being against murder? How is not wanting to pay for someone else's mistake blaming children?
How did we come to this point again? We started to talk about affordable high quality education, for all people, regardless if they are rich or poor. And I don't think this is unreasonable.

You can see education like a resource in some case, good and affordable education is an investment into the future. If you want to make sure that a nation maintains a certain amount of progress and development then you need creative minds and places from where you can obtain it and you have to provide those people with the challanges and interesting oportunities to put their skill to use. Having a lot of physicists, if they end up working outside, because there is no real research going, isn't very effective. And not offering young minds the chance to actually get an affordable education in the field they are very interested in, is even worse.

If you can't afford education, then secrew you! Might sound nice on paper from a capitalist/neo-liberal point of view - or what ever you want to call it - but at the end of day, it means that you lower youre pool when it comes to academics and highly skilled people. People that will come up trough their ingenuity and education with solutions to possible future problems. Be it as scientists or engineers. The US is already loosing in many areas here, simply because there is less education and less oportunities to actually put that in use. ITER and CERN are mainly European projects these days.

It can't be stressed enough, how important high quality and affordable education is for nations in our time.

I wasn't talking about Iraq, just explaining that it's perfectly natural for us to give less of a shit for people dying elsewhere than in our own civilizational sphere.
Yeah, and those same people run around and fly planes into buildings. The kind of people we don't give a shit about. The world isn't like the 18th century anymore. People are conected. They can get informations in a very short amount of time. We can hate people like Bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and they probably deserve everything that is coming at them. But you can not denny the fact that they have a huge appeal on all of those people, that saw some 'damage' from this "(...)it's perfectly natural for us to give less of a shit for people dying elsewhere than in our own civilizational sphere". People don't wake up one day with the decision to strap a bomb around their weist or drive a car full of explosives in to a crowd of people they never meet in their live. Extremism, is not something people are born with. If weo don't keep those things in mind, we will always run in to the same issues over and over again.
 
So that we both know what we're talking about. Sweden is not a purely socialist state and the US is not purely capitalistic. But when you put both nations on a scale, Sweden and Germany are definetly closer to socialism or the 'idea' of it, compared to the US, otherwise some wouldn't' call those states "nanny-states". But strange enough Germany is one of those that suffers very few security issues and Sweden is one of those nations with the happiest citizens. Again, compared to the US. Many nations that dealt one way or another with military interventions and conflicts, suffered heavily from terrorism. And not just the US. France, Britain, Russia and many more. In that sense Germany historically speaking, also luckily never dealt to much in colonialism. Many people in Africa and Asia, have still strong feelings regarding Britain and France.
So, is Germany relatively safe because of socialism or because of its lack of imperialism?

I'm sure Singapore and Hong Kong just hate those accursed Brits for coming in and... making them the most prosperous states on Earth.
The French were pretty inept colonialists, that bit's true.

How did we come to this point again? We started to talk about affordable high quality education, for all people, regardless if they are rich or poor. And I don't think this is unreasonable.

You can see education like a resource in some case, good and affordable education is an investment into the future. If you want to make sure that a nation maintains a certain amount of progress and development then you need creative minds and places from where you can obtain it and you have to provide those people with the challanges and interesting oportunities to put their skill to use. Having a lot of physicists, if they end up working outside, because there is no real research going, isn't very effective. And not offering young minds the chance to actually get an affordable education in the field they are very interested in, is even worse.

If you can't afford education, then secrew you! Might sound nice on paper from a capitalist/neo-liberal point of view - or what ever you want to call it - but at the end of day, it means that you lower youre pool when it comes to academics and highly skilled people. People that will come up trough their ingenuity and education with solutions to possible future problems. Be it as scientists or engineers. The US is already loosing in many areas here, simply because there is less education and less oportunities to actually put that in use. ITER and CERN are mainly European projects these days.

It can't be stressed enough, how important high quality and affordable education is for nations in our time.
Yes, education is a resource. That means it's not infinite, and thus should not be wasted on over-educating the dumb. You want to make the most accurate prediction of how a child is going to perform in school? Look at how its parents performed when they were in school. The parents who performed well are more likely to be well-standing folk who can afford to send their children to a better school. The parents who performed worse are probably not doing so great and their child is better off gaining work experience than wasting time on useless degrees. And that's not even mentioning the fact that it's the smarter kids that lose out because the classes have to be adapted to the lowest common denominator.

Your entire idea of what education should be like is based on the idea of the poor smart kid who can't get ahead in life because he's poor. But smart poor kids aren't the norm, they're the exception, just like smart poor parents are an exception.

Education isn't some kind of magic pill which makes you more intelligent. Some people are smarter than others, and thus perform better, be it in school or in their chosen profession, and no amount of social engineering can change that.


Yeah, and those same people run around and fly planes into buildings. The kind of people we don't give a shit about. The world isn't like the 18th century anymore. People are conected. They can get informations in a very short amount of time. We can hate people like Bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and they probably deserve everything that is coming at them. But you can not denny the fact that they have a huge appeal on all of those people, that saw some 'damage' from this "(...)it's perfectly natural for us to give less of a shit for people dying elsewhere than in our own civilizational sphere". People don't wake up one day with the decision to strap a bomb around their weist or drive a car full of explosives in to a crowd of people they never meet in their live. Extremism, is not something people are born with. If weo don't keep those things in mind, we will always run in to the same issues over and over again.
Extremism is not something you are born with, true, and the bombing and invasion of Iraq were important factors in bringing about this "golden age" of Muslim terrorism, but where are all the German terrorists? Or the Japanese? Both got bombed a whole lot worse than the Arabs ever were, and occupied for a whole lot longer. Where are all the Serbian terrorists? Or the Vietnamese?

Bringing democracy through occupation worked with the Germans and the Japanese, so it should have worked with the Arabs too, if ethnic egalitarianism was even remotely valid.
 
I'm sure Singapore and Hong Kong just hate those accursed Brits for coming in and... making them the most prosperous states on Earth.
There is so much hate on the Empire even though it basically laid the foundations for the modern world.
Every Empire (including the Americans [yes, you have an empire], and the Romans and so on) did dickhead things. But there are many good things as well.
Here is one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee#British_suppression
 
Increasingly Nervous Man for the 6millionth time this year said:
Is this is the end of Donald Trump's campaign?
FwhKFl.png


The debate was typical Hillary, repeat everything she said the last two debates, blame everything on "muh russians comin to get me!", handwave all her fuck ups with "I take full responsibility and zero consequences ;^)", and of course being a massive hypocrite who pulls out "muh poor children :^(" while saying having an abortion less than a week before the birth is ok or "he's disrespectful to women" while having this be public...
 
Pentagon Officials Furious After Clinton Announces US Response Time for Nuclear Launch During Debate
Following Wednesday’s presidential debate Pentagon officials found themselves completely dumbfounded as to why former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would feel it appropriate to announce U.S. Special Access Program intel on national television.
According to sources within the Department of Defense speaking under anonymity, Clinton likely violated at least two Dept. of Defense SAP protocols during the debate by announcing on live television the United States Government’s response time for a nuclear launch.
http://libertynews.com/2016/10/pent...sponse-time-for-nuclear-launch-during-debate/

lol first her emails and now this. She can't keep classified information that way for shit.
I guess those pesky Ruskies hacked her brain too.
 
Too bad Bernie is nowhere to be seen anymore. He was the phenomena of this election. If Hill-dawg takes it, she better make Bernie a...foreign minister? Do they have foreign ministers in US? That way the rest of the world would get the best out of the deal. I wouldn't mind Bernie's finger on the button. Hmm, that sounded weird.
 
Bernie is too busy with his Beach Houses and sports cars he got with all that donation money (the money he didn't give to Hillary anyway).
#FeelTheBern indeed.
 
As cool as history and memes have made labor camps out to be, they are in fact ineffective and cost a lot. Why not just cut the Gypsies from the government tit and be done with it.
Fine, drop the Humane and just force them to work with substandard care. It's pretty much the same as cutting them off.
 
Back
Top