Meshugger

Uh-huh. Not good enough, sorry. If you aren't helping out all day everyday, you have no right to raise a point. It's not that I believe this, of course, but that's pretty much the logic you are using with the tired "he likes immigrants, he can take them all in his house instead of speaking up" nonsense. Also, I have serious doubts that you actually know anything about the author(s) considering that you can barely spell the name right. Feel free to prove me wrong. They are dumb, but you aren't exactly raising the level of the debate, yourself. The answer is simple: You are already raising the debate better than Banksy ever did. And if a nobody does it on a random message board, then the bar isn't that high to begin with, is it? All i want is some sensibility and rationality in this quagmire and it is hard to find when it is either good feelz on one side, or burning down asylum centres on the other. Well, that's probably too much to ask when the EU leadership have already proven to be imbecilles. I will not tell anything more about which non-profit organizations i work for or donate due to privacy reasons.

Bernie's done: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/democrats-punish-bernie-sanders-campaign-following-clinton-data-breach It's Hillary then. Strange how history repeats itself with "outside" people sounding rational and adressing the core issues, just look no further than to what happened to Ron Paul to see what i am talking about.

I suggest naked mudwrestling! GOgogogogo

Yeah, only a poorly thought-out post that you composed in less than five minutes cannot really compare to a mural and even in this day and age would not be considered art by anyone. Feel free to go draw up a rape scene involving refugees on the side of the town hall, though. And hey: if you care so much about the victims of such rapes, why aren't you devoting every single free second of your time to help rape victims? There are volunteer organizations for this as well as career choices you can make to help people, you know. (see what I did there?) But it isn't about people at all, but rather your own issues, yes? Maybe get help? It's clear that venting is just not doing the trick. Good luck. I appriciate your concern, but i am already a member of such organisation that actively help people and donate my own money monthly. These "artists" piss me off like no other since they are the most vocal while doing the least. Previously, at least they managed to raise a debate with some insight, but now they are just dumb.

Dude, a continuous litany of fauxnews and daily fail articles? At best you'll give yourself an ulcer worrying about bollocks designed to get page views from knee jerk reactionary morons, at worst you'll rot your brain worse than a gallon of methanol a day and spread the infection like a slavering zombie biting poor innocents and giving them a yearning for poorly written absymally 'researched' pseudo journalistic crack equivalent. They're a gateway drug to Alex Jones, Breitbart et alia. Just Say No to Stupid Fear Mongering; it's time to declare a War on Clickbait; Friends Don't Let Friends Read the Daily Fail or Fauxnews (Unironically, At Least). You sound like one of those "Choose life"-kinda guys now with phrases like "spreading infections" and "gateway drugs" The media climate is so streamlined that you pretty much have reach out to the edges to get anything other than the same pizza of opinions. Meanwhile, things like these get very little attention: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/263626-pelosi-unsure-omnibus-can-pass http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/house-spending-tax-votes-216896

I'll be sure to tell to the next rape victim of 22 year old Afghani "child" that she should be grateful that she was enriched by the next Steve Jobs in the making. See what i did there? I used the same logic right back in order to show what kind of infentile idea that is. One is called trolling, the other an artistic message for the press to report, but basically the same thing. Bansky should import all the refugees as he can to his own house if he supports it so much instead playing high and mighty on other people's tax money. God forbid for any sane approach to the problem when there's these kinds of idiots around. That too.

No...we really don't want Trump in the White House ...unless you want to weaken Western influence in the world That's a bold statement to make. Are you implying that any of the other candidates won't? No, the candidates that could potentially do as much damage as Trump to the USA foreign policy won't get through..like Carson So we are realistically talking about Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Bush as the front runners ? And I don't think there has ever been a Republican candidate as bombastic and offensive as Trump....maybe someone knows someone from the past? No, i am genuinely interested here. What should be done to strengthen western influence in the world and how are none of the republican candidates up to it? Sure, I'll explain This is a question of "what in fact would make the USA more prominent around its global influence and this is aligned to the question around how to make the USA safer " So the Republicans believe Obama has made the USA weaker and less respected, I disagree. Most Republican candidates believe the following The Iran deal was a mistake The USA should have supported its " allies " in the ME and attacked Syria at least when Assad used Chemical weapons They think Putin is making a fool of the USA and taking advantage of Obamas apparent reluctance to resort to a military option to resolve certain political events Before I carry on what is your view on the 3 points above ? - The Iran deal is not completely bad, but none of the candidates of either side are actually working to undercut the arab peninsula in favour of Iran and Syria. Neither talks either about putting pressure on Turkey to stop try to outrussian the Russians. - Absolutely not in any way. Syria consists of so many people and religions that only a slow process is, if ever, possible. Assad is the only secular leader that can represent Syria as sovereign at the moment. Those 200 000 could turn into much more if any other faction tries to usurp power. - I bet Putin likes Trump the most, of which pretty much the middle east fears the most. Russia and US best pals? Oooh boy. But those points have little to do what i am wondering about. My point is that neither side has implied any changes in policy that would radically change the western influence for the worse on a global scale, as you suggested. Yes I'll get to the policy difference So now if someone like Trump comes to power he has maintained he will End the Iran deal Attack ISIS directly and also remove Assad from power through a coalition of Arab countries Start to be much more critical about the Russian relationship and also take on the Chinese who are apparently ripping off the USA on numerous financial areas Just these points alone are enough to completely change the global dynamics of the world, new groups of ideological consensus would be formed and things would be very tense...surly you can agree no one wants a world where Russia is aligned with Iran and they both really dislike the West even more ? Well...that doesn't change any western influence for the worse, so we're just back to nitpicking the finer details. Aligning with Iran before the Russians do should be a top priority though, and i am not talking about through some petty Realpolitik revolution, but rather a normalization of relations. The next generation is veeeery secular and likes freedom, rock 'n roll and bubblegum and almost threw out the old leadership by themselves a few years ago. All they need is to be treated seriously and respectfully as any other nation and they will be an ally within a generation. That way the only card that the Russians have, simply not being USA, will be then proven useless. At the same time the influence of Israel goes back to a normal country and Saudi as well, and they hate it that and effectively lobby against any Iranian normalisation.

No...we really don't want Trump in the White House ...unless you want to weaken Western influence in the world That's a bold statement to make. Are you implying that any of the other candidates won't? No, the candidates that could potentially do as much damage as Trump to the USA foreign policy won't get through..like Carson So we are realistically talking about Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Bush as the front runners ? And I don't think there has ever been a Republican candidate as bombastic and offensive as Trump....maybe someone knows someone from the past? No, i am genuinely interested here. What should be done to strengthen western influence in the world and how are none of the republican candidates up to it? Sure, I'll explain This is a question of "what in fact would make the USA more prominent around its global influence and this is aligned to the question around how to make the USA safer " So the Republicans believe Obama has made the USA weaker and less respected, I disagree. Most Republican candidates believe the following The Iran deal was a mistake The USA should have supported its " allies " in the ME and attacked Syria at least when Assad used Chemical weapons They think Putin is making a fool of the USA and taking advantage of Obamas apparent reluctance to resort to a military option to resolve certain political events Before I carry on what is your view on the 3 points above ? - The Iran deal is not completely bad, but none of the candidates of either side are actually working to undercut the arab peninsula in favour of Iran and Syria. Neither talks either about putting pressure on Turkey to stop try to outrussian the Russians. - Absolutely not in any way. Syria consists of so many people and religions that only a slow process is, if ever, possible. Assad is the only secular leader that can represent Syria as sovereign at the moment. Those 200 000 could turn into much more if any other faction tries to usurp power. - I bet Putin likes Trump the most, of which pretty much the middle east fears the most. Russia and US best pals? Oooh boy. But those points have little to do what i am wondering about. My point is that neither side has implied any changes in policy that would radically change the western influence for the worse on a global scale, as you suggested. //edit: I am more worried about the future leaders of the next generation emerging from the universities: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/yale-fail-ivy-leaguers-caught-on-video-clamoring-to-kill-first-amendment/

No...we really don't want Trump in the White House ...unless you want to weaken Western influence in the world That's a bold statement to make. Are you implying that any of the other candidates won't? No, the candidates that could potentially do as much damage as Trump to the USA foreign policy won't get through..like Carson So we are realistically talking about Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Bush as the front runners ? And I don't think there has ever been a Republican candidate as bombastic and offensive as Trump....maybe someone knows someone from the past? No, i am genuinely interested here. What should be done to strengthen western influence in the world and how are none of the republican candidates up to it?

No...we really don't want Trump in the White House ...unless you want to weaken Western influence in the world That's a bold statement to make. Are you implying that any of the other candidates won't?

The voters.

"Page could not be found"

So they scrapped all pretenses of indiscriminate surveillance? No going through DHS? Way to go you idiots. The EU is next.

Hai guyse. Wanna know about the Clinton Foundation? The records have been released and here's a commentary about it: http://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

I'm more of the school that Islam is a magnet for the perpetually butthurt. Meaning that it has to be respected or else they will blow up, figuratively or literally. I mean, those guys at San Bernadino just waited for an excuse to blow it all up.

Yes it has been proven irrefutably that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people...not sure what Meshugger is trying to say? You mean this evidence? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505 /sarcasm TLDR: UN had testimonies already in 2013, that sarine was used by rebels... No this ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10796175/Syria-chemical-weapons-the-proof-that-Assad-regime-launching-chlorine-attacks-on-children.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/syria-chemical-weapons-assad_n_3437640.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/07/assad-using-chemical-weapons-again-us-eyes-new-allegations-consequences-unclear.html http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html Lets not's defend Assad, lets not try to understand his reprehensible decision to use the full might of his army to suppress any political change. He has spent 5 years desperately hanging on to power. It is highly unlikely he will supported by the West in any future negotiations where he plays a part in the future government of Syria and this is understandable Nah, how about the US and EU not meddling with Syrian internal affairs at all? like trusting the Saudis and Quataris to establish channels for arming rebels who just either took the weapons and joined ISIS or are just as bad as them? The current civil war, ISIS and the refugee crisis is a direct result by this level of incompetence by those who thought that the Arab spring would give unicorns and rainbows overnight. Well, my angle is that the current policy is morally repugnant (just ask the Assyrians, Yazedis, Kurds and Alawites in the region on what they think), sorry about that. If your angle is Realpolitik without any scruples, i am then keen to listen on what the end game is for your part.

Deleted link about connections to Britam to conduct the operation: http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html Money funneled through Quatarian (what a surprise), and God knows what else, channels. I have to admit that a sales pitch with the phrase "Washington approved" can be quite hard to resist. Lots of dollar, good dollar.

Nah, he and Leia, or whatever the new heroine is called, falls in love is my bet.

In LA, Schools for about 700 000 children have been shut down today after apparent threat: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Los-Angeles-Schools-Bus-Classes-LAUSD-362374531.html

Yes it has been proven irrefutably that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people...not sure what Meshugger is trying to say? The source is two members of the turkish parliament (CHP). Take it as you will.

Bump: - Assad didn't gas his own people according to RT: https://www.rt.com/news/325825-sarin-gas-syria-turkey/ - Apparently it was Al-Nusra and alikes: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188 Oh my, what have the Turks gotten themselves into here? Not to mention what kind of people who finance this kinds of things...like Quatar? Maybe even The White House gave a thumbs up? Who knows, but fun times ahead either way.

Nah, They are just the useful idiots. Those who give them grants, finance their projects, seminars and workshops are the ones running the show. It's not even a conspiracy, it's just people in power LARPing a game of Risk. If a country falls or a another rises is little of their concern. They make money out of it anyway. I give you a hint: What doesn't the millions of refugees have when they arrive in the western world? Debt.

Just a bunch of like minded fools who read, and deliberately misintrepret the works Foucault and Derrida. Turn-ons: - Discussing social changes in hip cafées - Getting governmental grants - Creating new social contexts that only they can solve - Leading or being in charge of revolutions - Moral ambiguity for some, moral absolutes for others Turn-offs: - Normal people working for a living - Normal relationships - High art - Uncontrollable joy - Beauty

Well, in Sweden there was a debate about possible lack of objectivity among the journalists, since 70% of the them responded to either vote for the Social Democrats (normal left), Vänster (communism, but the democratic and not boot in your face-kind) and Green Party (SJWs, Feminists, AntiFa). This made many people to question whether the news they were reading were actually news since the general election on 2014 gave the following results countrywide: Social Democrats: 31,01% Vänster: 5,72% Green Party: 6,89% This leaves the off-set between the general public and the journalists to be about 25-30%, which can be considered quite jarring because of the position media has in society. Anyhow, the journalists assured that it was no problem as their views did not interfere with their work, and that it is a good thing that they are mostly left-leaning; as leftists are always questioning norms and authority, according to themselves. Thus the debate ended with that note. http://jmg.gu.se/digitalAssets/1284/1284227_nr38.pdf <--(Do a translate yourselves, i am too lazy)

It's an even greater shame how some of the translations are... outright misinterpretive. Case in point: János Pilinszky: Fish in the net Writhing in a star-net like fish hauled on land we gasp in the emptiness our gills filled with sand The element we've left and lost whispers in vain we pant on the shingle were we've been thrown. Crammed one against the other fighting for breath we struggle and tremble in the face of death. From the wriggling mass come stifled cries but the massacre continues till one, then other, dies. Atonement and repentance are the language of the soul but nothing can save us from this hopeless hell – We writhe in the net of some cosmic fisherman and maybe at midnight will be in his frying pan. (Translation by a certain Kenneth White) It almost unrecognizably distorts the original meaning in at least two places. That was great until the last line. 'Frying pan' sounds too raw and direct compared to the overall flow of the rest of the poem. Sounds better in hungarian perhaps? The original ending went like this: "Roppant hálóban hányódunk s éjfélkor talán étek leszünk egy hatalmas halász asztalán." Literally, it means something like "we're writhing in a vast net and at midnight, perhaps, we'll be food on an immense fisherman's table". I think it's a pretty major departure from the original meaning, although it isn't quite as bad as some other lines. Thanks for the clarification!