Meshugger

Nah, there is nothing weird about that. He is one of the most respected Political commentators in mainstream US media What's even more funny is that i never said that it was weird, rather that it was funny. Kinda weird that you read my post wrongly.

I find it quite funny how a guy like Anderson Cooper, who comes from one the "big" aristocrat families in the US (Vanderbilt), who has worked and has connections to the CIA, who is also known as a Clinton-supporter, just so happens to be a moderator for the democratic debate, where the Clintons are so strangely attending. In all this world of objectivity, isn't it funny how these coincidences just seem to pop out? Hey, i am not saying that it clouds is judgement for investigating or asking the right questions, i just find it funny....and objective.

^Nothing to see here, folks! Just pure coincidence! No agenda pushed! There's no narrative to be had!

Guys, guys, GUYS! THERE'S LITERALLY AND ACTUALLY A HITLER TREE IN NORFOLK!!!!!oneoneone http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-25364423 I just wanted you guys to know that Norfolk sanctions trees like this, how can we as a society cope with possible tiny HITLERS cones everywhere, spreading HITLER seeds across East Anglia. I just wanted you guys to know what kind of people living there, i think they like Colombus as well.

Oh, lets talk about her likeability or her being a women then. You know, the stuff that really matters?

I read that Sanders said that no one cares about Hillary's emails. Welp, that's the end of that cuck. Nothing much to do unless this Webb guy starts attacking.

Completely ignoring my point. You're a good soldier. Yup, don't even respond to me. Just give the good old "you're just a SJW/whatever buzzword it is today". Me: "History is filled with blood and iron, of which our modern society is built upon. Those acts have created myths with sometimes rosetinted glasses, but they are our foundations, no matter what you think they should be. Trying to change the past is a tool of the useful idiot for its unknown master" You: "Are you saying that genocide is a-ok?!" 'k Nobody is trying to change the past. Like, what did you honestly think is going on here? He did all those things. It's documented. It's proven. Are you saying that simply acknowledging that things went differently than what is popular opinion.... is literally changing the past? Are you honestly saying that we should ignore the full (and actual) story just because a better story was told? That the myth is more important than actual history? You're saying that I'M a tool? By the way, I absolutely love how you're talking about an "unknown master" like you're Fox Mulder. Hahahaha, like clockwork. Well done, good sir. Please do continue, i find it absolutely fascinating that you deliberately either spin my point or change it entirely every single time. One more time: Everyone knows that Colombus, and pretty much every historical figure has some skeletons in the closet and did some really nasty things (from our or by then standards) from time to time, and that information is available for anyone bothering to open a book. But it so happens that these figures become myth when whole societies and civilizations are founded on the ideals that they conveyed and people tend to overemphasize the good parts. Like Thomas Jefferson was one hell of a thinker and one of the founding fathers, but he also happened to own slaves. So when you have useful idiots who, in a juvenile spell of hatred against themselves and the society they inhabit, share videos and information that overemphasizes on the negatives of the said person(s), thus actively participating in undermining the very foundations of that historical figure has grown to represent and symbolize, you can pretty much bet on that they are played into the hands of those that seek to destroy it. It happens all the times in all places of power. Business? you betcha, just read about the robber barons during the 19th century. War? it's intrinsic in war since Sun Tzu. Espionage? Well duh, just read any interview from defectors from the KGB or the Stasi papers. Realpolitik? Of course, just look at Syria for the most recent example. Now at ease, private.

Well, it's a dream after all.

Yeah... I get the feeling Gfted1 was being a wee bit facetious here... Poe's law at work. Goddammit, you're probably right.

No great civilization has been founded without a religion. Best of luck though!

I am have a dream of Sanders utterly destroying Hillary's talking points, her arguments and her narrative; leaving her only with her failings and harpy character, just screeching "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" back at him. Then Bill comes on stage and play them all off with his sweet sax solo of his for an hour non-stop:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201509/declining-student-resilience-serious-problem-colleges No wonder GG was called a terrorist group worse than ISIS. We have whole generation of vermin and maggots among our midst disguised as normal human beings.

Completely ignoring my point. You're a good soldier. Yup, don't even respond to me. Just give the good old "you're just a SJW/whatever buzzword it is today". Me: "History is filled with blood and iron, of which our modern society is built upon. Those acts have created myths with sometimes rosetinted glasses, but they are our foundations, no matter what you think they should be. Trying to change the past is a tool of the useful idiot for its unknown master" You: "Are you saying that genocide is a-ok?!" 'k

Keep 'em coming. I like to see the developments in themselves.

Completely ignoring my point. You're a good soldier.

If you consider actual history full of SJWs, then sure. Contrary to SJWs, i know quite a lot of history and history and study it in my spare time. I know that no historical figure or happening can be divided into any simple black/white moral dichotomy, and especially when trying to apply moral standards of today to yesterdays figures. I also know the importance of the creation of myth becoming larger than the actual man; whole societies are build upon that foundation. I know of the dangers of tyranny and how a cynic, apathetic population can be easily controlled. I know of how those that wish enlighten people about new discoveries abuot the past really seeks to control it and abolish the established foundations. When those myths are gone and the foundations crippled, they are in more control of the future. SJWs are just the useful idiots that help to spread these ideas, like sharing this video because their moral conscience tells them to. They will not understand until they are executed by their peers.

But you can understand how being penalized for having more than one child would make people more likely to do what the Chinese are doing.,.....this is very expensive so it would be rare so its not like there would be millions doing this Take your money and modernistic broohaa and stuff it. Using children as a ticket for materialist oppurtunity is objectively abhorrent and warrants the wrath of gods. I haven't had coffee yet this morning, so excuse the language.

Forced abortions and the chinese parents have to witness it. No excuses for knieving leeches and maggots in any society.

*sigh* http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/07/honor-killing-syrian-gang-rape-survivor-murdered-germany/

I haven't, and will not be bothered to watch the videos. Sounds like a whole lot of SJW butthurt. Should we listen to butthurt SJWs? Of course not

1. But the first link is what your link is based on. It's literally the latest official available data. The quarterly report doesn't have sex distribution. Merkel's statement was on the first week of september, so no data available yet. Also, she was specifically referring to Syrians, not "mostly everyone". Syrians, as has been established, do not make up a majority of the asylum seekers. So what is your point, again? 2. Erm, yeah. That's kind of the point. Not every immigrant is entitled to political asylum, and nobody has argued that they be granted it no questions asked. They must properly demonstrate that they are facing persecution in their country. 3. Do you have a source for this? 4. Ugh. Fine, let's check for Afghanistan and Iraq. Somalia doesn't have data. A little over 34% of Iraqis consider that non-Muslims should have to abide by sharia law. It increases to a bit over 60% for Afghanistan. The fraction that would favor the harsher stuff is necessarily lower as you'd be multiplying by a factor smaller than 1. Again, nowhere near "morally paramount" for muslims, even from the most reactionary of countries. The video showed a politician making an offhand reference to "research" which she didn't produce and nobody called her on it. Do you have this research? 5. Nope, fortunately I already provided a non-wartime example, which shows a disproportionate rape rate in a developed country during peacetime. Which you conspicuously ignored. 6. Nope, sorry. It actually isn't, and let's see why: population in France as a whole is increasing. Childbirth resulting from mixed (one French and one non-EU parent) couples is about 80% larger than the number of children being born from non-EU couples. There are more than ten times more children being born from one or both French parents than there are children born from foreigners (EU or not). Sure, the trend seems to be a decrease in full-on French births, but it will take *decades* for that trend to "radically change the demographics". Provided the trend holds. Please be so kind to reference your claims in the future. 9. Taking refugees in isn't about what you or me happen to be "interested" in. It's about human rights, themselves based on moral minimums. Wanting to avoid being forcefully conscripted to fight a war has little to do with cowardice. Nobody has a duty to take up arms. Non-violence is a perfectly valid personal choice, look it up. Again, the effects that conscription have on the population abound in history (cf. post-WWII Germany), and that's even without getting into the more muddy questions of whether taking up arms is the same as "fighting for freedom", especially in this context, where different factions are struggling to impose their own blend of tyranny. But whatever, it took being discharged from the military (I wasn't a pencil pusher) and a deep personal crisis for me to realize a lot of this stuff. I don't really expect you to agree just because I say so. Good luck with your heartbreak, btw. Depending on tonight's adventure, i will answer shortly.

/b/ will have endless of fun with Peeple if it is ever released. That's for sure.

GamerGate will not happen again, thanks to the Internet becoming BruceVC's wet dream: That ending, what the ****.

Okay, I really have to ask. Have you actually read any of the links you posted? I don't need to refute your sources, because your sources don't back your points! Let's see, factual errors first, politics later. Nearly four in every five (79 %) asylum seekers in the EU-28 in 2014 were aged less than 35 (see Table 3); those aged 18–34 accounted for slightly more than half (54 %) of the total number of applicants, while minors aged less than 18 accounted for one quarter (26 %). — Yep, clearly 3/4 of them are men in their best fighting age. (men aged 18-34 actually amount to ~41%) Out of the 185k first-time asylum seekers in Q1 2015, 26% were Kosovars, 16% Syrians, Afghans amounting to 7%. Those of Maghrebi (North African) origin are a negligible fraction at best — Yep, clearly about half of them are North African or Arab. In 2014, close to half (45 %) of EU-28 first instance asylum decisions resulted in positive outcomes, that is grants of refugee or subsidiary protection status, or an authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons [...] This share was considerably lower (18 %) for final decisions (based on appeal or review) / At the end of March 2015, around 530,000 persons were the subject of an application for asylum protection in the EU still under consideration by the responsible national authority — Yep, clearly everyone (well mostly everyone) is welcomed in Europe. In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith. [...] While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know. [...] By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land. [...] Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, relatively few Muslims who back sharia support severe criminal punishments. [...] Muslims in Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe are generally less likely to support stoning adulterers. [...] Elsewhere in the two regions, fewer than four-in-ten favor this type of punishment, including roughly a quarter or fewer across the countries surveyed in Southern and Eastern Europe. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, only in Tajikistan (22%) do more than a fifth of Muslims who want sharia as the official law of the land also condone the execution of apostates. — Yep, clearly executing apostates and non-Muslims and conducting female genital amputation is morally paramount. And you ask me why I'm so hostile? Well, you should well know: "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Seriously, if you try to flood me with a bunch of irrelevant or misleading links again, I'm just going to reply by posting a ton of cat memes. I do have a lot of free time — that doesn't mean you get to waste it. Now: Yes. Or we could also look at the rape of Polish and Soviet women by Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS members, the rape of German women by RKKA members, the Rape of Nanking, the rape rate in Detroit in '85 and so on and so forth, to see why "the increase in sex crimes in Germany is being fueled by the preponderance of Muslim males among the mix of refugees/migrants entering the country" is total bull****. It's not about Muslims as much as it is about a bunch of other factors such as a complete breakdown of the rule of law, absence of repercussions, dismal living conditions and hopelessness. A bit of сum hoc ergo propter hoc never hurt anyone, right? Now, for some quick fun, let's try a little thought experiment. Let's take Marseille, which ZeroHedge claims has the highest Muslim ratio of any city in Europe, and go with a worst-case scenario: 35% are already Muslims. Now we dump the whole of France's refugee quota (30k) in there. The Muslim percentage goes up from 35% to a whopping... 38%!!! OMFG!!! Clearly, this scheme is going to "radically change the entire demographics in Europe". If you want me to find links to prove that refugees fleeing from IS and Boko Haram who are granted asylum in Europe will not be raped en masse and murdered by IS and Boko Haram, well, yes, I don't have any. I also don't have any links proving that water is wet and rope is useful for pulling but not for pushing, so please don't ask. I still believe however that we have an immediate moral mandate to at least give people whose countries we're complicit of turning into hellholes a chance to request asylum. I haven't argued for accepting everyone no matter what, because nobody is proposing that. I'm just calling bull**** on your doomsaying. Europe and "the West" at large is much more likely to fall due to to dumbass westerners more worried about their level 100 Pikachu than the fact that their government murders abroad in their name, and who are incapable of thinking for themselves, of even understanding what the freedoms earned by their forebears entail (let alone standing up for them), than to hordes of Muslim refugee-rapists. No, I don't have evidence that absorption of unskilled and uneducated foreigners is positive from a socioeconomic standpoint, and to be honest, I don't believe it is. However, I'm of the opinion that moral imperatives must overrule macroeconomic arguments. And by the way: being an able-bodied male does not mean you are generally obligated to fight in any war. Especially not in those you haven't had a hand in causing. Removing potential manpower reserves from war-torn areas is a good thing, I should think. Alrighty then, i finally have the time to answer this. I have been quite busy with working on my next heart-break, and i have some spare time now. I will answer by points instead of quoting everything separately for everyone's viewing pleasure. 1. The first link is moot, because those stats rely on the events before Frau Merkel declared "All Syrians welcome, no questions asked!". 2. All Kosovars except maybe 4 or 5 were declined due to reasons of them not being persecuted in their home country. By the same rules, almost none of the current refugees would be allowed in any way. 3. With expectations of 1,5 million to Germany alone for 2015, i do not even know they will be able to process anything at all. 4. Too bad there are hardly any muslim refugees from Central Asia or south eastern Europe. Check the stats for those coming from Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan. Those are atleast overwhelming majority of sudden refugees. Take for example Denmark having problem with these new values, where 80% danish muslims do not agree upon the foundations of Danish society (link: 35:20-36:10). I agree with the Danish Minister btw.5. Lets not compare rapes in war-time, where it was unofficially sanctioned as a way of warfare, to civilian life in Germany. 6. About Marseille, the native population is already dwindling no matter what. Replacing them with refugees is not a sustainable long term solution. Besides, I am not pointing out the current amount of refugees this year alone, but the current trend and long term development. I do need to remind you have bad it is in the banlieues and about the reactions after the Charlie Hebdo-attack. 7. Of course will the West is it's own worst enemy, combining the welfare-state, low native birth rates and mass immigration will be the implosion of respective own countries making. The open borders are just a symptom. I wouldn't be surprised if almost every country is taking out loans (bond selling) from international banks in order to pay for this. (Paging KP for this) 8. Fair enough. I just hope that i am wrong (nothing happens, future is bright, people get together and embrace liberal values of self determination) and that you're not. If you're wrong about the future prospects, then we have several civil wars on our way, moral imperatives or not. 9. Disagree on being able-bodied and not fighting. I have no interest in harboring cowards and deserters in my midst. Of course there are exceptions and that's why there should be a thorough background check to see if there are any mitigating circumstances.

We do not talk about them