Triggered: Stories to make you mad.

Started by jaden_2.0922 pages

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
1. Wikipedia is a laughable source, jaden.

2. Oh please, the United States didn't make countries like Venezuela poor. F***in' socialist policies did that. It's pathetic, but not really surprising, for you leftists to deflect away from the problems y'alls precious socialism causes. Too stubborn to admit that socialism sucks ass and that capitalism is far superior.

3. Even if what you were claiming were true, the American people are not responsible for what our government does and so should not be puinished for its actions. The law is the law and as a sovereign nation the US has every right to decide who does and who doesn't get to come into our country. Period.

1. Wikipedia is simply a collection and summarisation of sources. Not that you'll click on any of them.

2. Your denial of history is unsurprising. I suggest you read up on the history of United Fruit Company as an example of what not just US government but private companies can do.

3. Who votes in your governments? But yes, you're partly right. Every sovereign country should decide who gets to come in. That's not the issue. The issue is if you don't want poor people coming in then don't enable government policies that impoverish those countries. The issue is much the same in Europe with middle Eastern migrants. Don't bomb their countries back to the stone age and perhaps the people there won't want to leave in the first place. It's not difficult.

Wiki is only good for looking up Usless Info. Such as Entertainment
and Stupid Trivia. Actual News and History.

Go ELSEWHERE!

In other words Wiki is only good for facts as long as you agree with those facts. 👍

Nah. Its less Biased then the Major News Outlets. Places like NBC , MSNBC.,Yahoo. Google. They just out right LIE to you.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
If you don't want people going to the US from impoverished South American countries it probably was a bad idea to spend decades helping to make them impoverished countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America

South Americans make up almost none of the illegal border crossers. It's almost 100% Mexicio.

The better poignant point would be something like, "If you don't want illegal border crossers, you should end the drug war."

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
1. Wikipedia is simply a collection and summarisation of sources. Not that you'll click on any of them.

2. Your denial of history is unsurprising. I suggest you read up on the history of United Fruit Company as an example of what not just US government but private companies can do.

3. Who votes in your governments? But yes, you're partly right. Every sovereign country should decide who gets to come in. That's not the issue. The issue is if you don't want poor people coming in then don't enable government policies that impoverish those countries. The issue is much the same in Europe with middle Eastern migrants. Don't bomb their countries back to the stone age and perhaps the people there won't want to leave in the first place. It's not difficult.

It's been a while since I've actually visited Wiki but from what I remember about it pretty much anyone can edit it to put whatever the Hell they want on there. It's a joke.

LOL. Now, you're obviously just trolling by insulting me. Not surprising. It's you leftists that love to deny actual history & are constantly trying to rewrite it. For example, no doubt you think the Nazis were "right-wing" (despite them being socialists), that Hitler was a "Christian" (LOL), and that the republicans of today are equivalent to the democrats of the slavery era lol. I'm sure you will continue to deny the actual truth of all those things no matter how much someone tries to educate you on the matter thus you're the history denier, not me. I'd wager I know far more about real history than you do.

I agree that we shouldn't be getting involved in all the affairs of all these foreign countries. Trump actually ran on a non-interventionist policy which is why it made me mad when he bombed Syria not just once but twice over flimsy evidence that Assad bombed his own people.

However, the past can't be changed and as I said, the American people as a whole are not responsible for our government choosing to get involved in so many other countries' business. Yes, the people put our leaders in office but the problem is once they get in they have a habit of not keeping their promises and the people have to wait till the next election to vote them out. All politicians are corrupt to some extent.

Also, on The Little Mermaid being cast with a black woman instead of a white-ginger girl:

Disney has a long history of racism. But they are pandering mad-crazy to get rid of their racist roots.

That or the casting director is dyslexic and read "ginger needed for the role" the wrong way.

Edit - Also, I lol'd at this:

https://files.catbox.moe/obnb4i.mp4

Originally posted by dadudemon
South Americans make up almost none of the illegal border crossers. It's almost 100% Mexicio.

The better poignant point would be something like, "If you don't want illegal border crossers, you should end the drug war."

Most of the recent immigration bands are from Central America. For those that question how much the USA gives to said countires:

https://foreignassistance.gov/explore

In some of those countries, we are giving more aid than their GDP, which really spells out the problem it isn't that we don't put forth an effort, the money they get is obviously not being dispersed.

Even IF you ended the drug war those countries would have serious problems "modernizing" to a more effective economy.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Most of the recent immigration bands are from Central America. For those that question how much the USA gives to said countires:

https://foreignassistance.gov/explore

In some of those countries, we are giving more aid than their GDP, which really spells out the problem it isn't that we don't put forth an effort, the money they get is obviously not being dispersed.

Even IF you ended the drug war those countries would have serious problems "modernizing" to a more effective economy.

Central America represents 15% of the illegal immigrants with a majority of the illegal immigrants being from Mexico.

14% are from Asia.

South America represents a small portion of the illegal immigrants.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/analysis-unauthorized-immigrants-united-states-country-and-region-birth

The original point I'm refuting is the US-destabilization of South American countries and immigration-connection claim Jaden presented. It's mostly just Mexico.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It's been a while since I've actually visited Wiki but from what I remember about it pretty much anyone can edit it to put whatever the Hell they want on there. It's a joke.

LOL. Now, you're obviously just trolling by insulting me. Not surprising. It's you leftists that love to deny actual history & are constantly trying to rewrite it. For example, no doubt you think the Nazis were "right-wing" (despite them being socialists), that Hitler was a "Christian" (LOL), and that the republicans of today are equivalent to the democrats of the slavery era lol. I'm sure you will continue to deny the actual truth of all those things no matter how much someone tries to educate you on the matter thus you're the history denier, not me. I'd wager I know far more about real history than you do.

I agree that we shouldn't be getting involved in all the affairs of all these foreign countries. Trump actually ran on a non-interventionist policy which is why it made me mad when he bombed Syria not just once but twice over flimsy evidence that Assad bombed his own people.

However, the past can't be changed and as I said, the American people as a whole are not responsible for our government choosing to get involved in so many other countries' business. Yes, the people put our leaders in office but the problem is once they get in they have a habit of not keeping their promises and the people have to wait till the next election to vote them out. All politicians are corrupt to some extent.

Ah the old classic "Nazis were left wing because their name is national socialists" argument.

I'm sure they'll be remembered in history for their guiding economic principles rather than the ethnostate ambitions and racial and religious genocides.

The nazis only used the term "socialist" for propaganda purposes. It sounded good and some people were into it. They were not socialists.

Originally posted by Surtur
The nazis only used the term "socialist" for propaganda purposes. It sounded good and some people were into it. They were not socialists.
👆

They were National Socialists which is a type of socialism. Hence, they were left-wing. In fact, they were more socialists than they were nationalists. That is why they called themselves "National Socialists" rather than "Socialist Nationalists." The "nationalist" part is only the adjective while the "socialist" part is the noun hence the "socialist" part is the one emphasized. Besides just their name, you can also look at some of the policies they implemented to see that they were in fact socialists.

Naziism is a yet another big-government ideology and all big-government ideologies are inherently left-wing. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, & Naziism are all sister ideologies; that is an undeniable fact.

At the extreme left of the political spectrum is total government control; at the extreme right is total anarchy. Where you fall on the political spectrum is not based on Nationialism or the lack thereof. I know that is what many leftists have been indoctrinated into believing but they're wrong. It's based on what size government you support.

Nazi Germany clearly used big-government control hence they are on the left. Granted, they are not nearly as far to the left as Communism but they're still on that side, nonetheless.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
They were National Socialists which is a type of socialism. Hence, they were left-wing. In fact, they were more socialists than they were nationalists. That is why they called themselves "National Socialists" rather than "Socialist Nationalists." The "nationalist" part is only the adjective while the "socialist" part is the noun hence the "socialist" part is the one emphasized. Besides just their name, you can also look at some of the policies they implemented to see that they were in fact socialists.

Naziism is a yet another big-government ideology and all big-government ideologies are inherently left-wing. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, & Naziism are all sister ideologies; that is an undeniable fact.

At the extreme left of the political spectrum is total government control; at the extreme right is total anarchy. Where you fall on the political spectrum is not based on Nationialism or the lack thereof. I know that is what many leftists have been indoctrinated into believing but they're wrong. It's based on what size government you support.

Nazi Germany clearly used big-government control hence they are on the left. Granted, they are not nearly as far to the left as Communism but they're still on that side, nonetheless.

Oh Dear, Fly, you have tried this same troll a million times and a million people have shot it down. DMB the most concisely. DMB, if you please.

Nazis were socialists in that the economy was largely centrally planned but that's about it.

Yeah economically the Nazis weren't particularly right wing, most economic placements of the Nazis I've seen put them somewhere near the center actually. But once again, nobody really gave a shit about the Nazis' economic policies, that's not at all the reason why people hated the Nazis so much, it was more due to their social policy.

Someone's economic policy really isn't going to do anything to conflate or associate them with the Nazis.

And you can actually see the irrelevance of economic policy within the alt-right as well, where you get former libertarian alt-right people who believe in more of an ethnostate with a free market, and those such as Richard Spencer who support single payer healthcare.

Now as far as what you might call the social axis goes, the Nazis were traditionalist rather than "progressive," and more nationalist rather than globalist, so they're more right-wing along that axis, which is the dimension to the Nazis that people actually give a shit about.

Now at the same time, just being right-wing socially, being more traditionalist and nationalist, isn't remotely enough to conflate a person with being a Nazi, because there were two other absolutely vital components to their social views.

The first is rather serious authoritarianism. So a libertarian or classical liberal, even one whose more culturally traditionalist and nationalist, is completely antithetical to a Nazi due to their respect for the private lives, liberty, and human rights of the people. Even your typical American conservative, despite being more nationalist and traditionalist, if they put any value in the constitution (which they usually do), the constitution is ultimately a charter of negative liberties meant to limit what the government is allowed to do to its people.

This is why the alt-right was named the way it was by Richard Spencer, the alternative right, because it is an alternative to the typical right-wing politics in the US which tend to revere what is fundamentally an anti fascist founding document and a call for smaller government.

The other necessary component of the Nazi ideology is racial collectivism, which isn't inherent or unique to either the left or the right, but rather can manifest or not manifest in both. On the right, if it manifests, it generally manifests as a doctrine of racial superiority tied into the traditional identity of the nation, tying into nationalism and traditionalism. On the left, if it manifests, it generally manifests in the opposite direction as some kind of vengeful spitefulness towards the "privileged" race in a manner more coincident with Marxist principle, except instead of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, it's the minorities and the "privileged."

So again, if you get a right-winger, or somebody considered to be a right-winger (ie. Tim Pool, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, etc.) who emphasizes individualism as their central point of principle and shits on the idea of racial collectivism... they're not a ****ing Nazi lmao.

So yeah, it's kinda a pathetic and disingenuous game to either try and associate those on the left with Nazis due to economic policy, as well as trying to associate Nazis with those on the right who reject two of their most fundamental essential principles.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that's the same point I made about this topic.

We have 2 choices and they are mutually exclusive:

1. The detention centers are better than where they came from.

2. Their homes are better than where they came from.

Democrats are b*tching about the first one. So if that's the case, then send them back home to wander through the wilderness to die on the way back home. Or...the super shitty services we can offer is much better than their home and this complaining is silly.

Regardless, politicians have a responsibility to their constituents, not foreign nationals. They are elected to represent me, not a foreigner. My tax dollars need to go to the 1 out of 5 starving American children or the 1 out of 20 homeless veterans, not foreigners.

Why can't private companies use them for slave labor but they are required to provide them with decent living conditions (housing, food, electricity, internet)? Basically, free room and board but they work for free. They do their time, they can get paid for it. Then they pay taxes on it. Then they get a path to citizenship. Bring back slavery. lol


I think Democrats are b!tching that these people, who have just escaped poverty and war, deserve better than such inhumane conditions in these immigrant detention centers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The better poignant point would be something like, "If you don't want illegal border crossers, you should end the drug war."

Well add that to the long list of reasons to end the drug war.

Originally posted by MythLord
I think Democrats are b!tching that these people, who have just escaped poverty and war, deserve better than such inhumane conditions in these immigrant detention centers.

Agreed.

All humans do.

But until we have a single world government and Star-Trek-esque replicators, tax dollars should be going to help US Citizens, not foreign nationals. If you think they are escaping war and poverty and want them to have better, donate your money and/or time to help them.

Or you could help the impoverished and needy in the US, first. That would be best.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well add that to the long list of reasons to end the drug war.

Saw another reason: innocent US Citizens were shot down due to a CIA operation. Because they were only slightly suspected of being drug smugglers.

A mom and her baby died.

This happened about 9 years ago. We are just now hearing about it because the CIA went public.

Drug war needs to end very quickly. But a LOT of money is being made off of the drug war.