Ben No.3

I know the ones I used was weak sauce cept cracker, they were used as examples. The thing is u can flip the word and instead of "damn there's a bunch of Whitey's in here" is acceptable, but "damn there's a bunch of darkeys in here" is not acceptable right? That's what makes it confusing because it seems like a double standard. Sure, there is a double standard, but that is rooted in a long history of bigotry and systematic discrimination in the US. The reason we have all these special interest groups for minorities, or stations like BET and LOGO, is because these are groups which have been historically under-represented, mis-characterized, or worse. edit: Gorgon beat me to it and we are at start of again, so when/how long it will it take to not be an issue anymore?Until an truly egalitarian society is established. So probably not anytime soon

Well the US is paying more than everyone else, so we should expect to have the best coverage and care. I'm pretty sure we looked at a bunch of data that showed that wasn't true recently. So yes, there are a number of examples of health systems with less cost and better quality and coverage.*Rising hand*That wasn't what he asked, Mr. Teacher. I'm concerned about your reading comprehension marks, student. What do you actually teach?

Which should lower the amount of lobbying according to the market laws Sorry. I couldn't resist

Are the personal attacks really necessary? Ad hominem attacks are often the last resort for people who have lost the debate. I feel you... "if you are a socialist, then why do you live and participate in a capitalist system?" If people are at the point where they become ad hominem, you actually already won the debate since they apparently lack any argument against your theory (so they instead attack you personally). Of course, ones character changes nothing about the (non)validity of ones statements. But people don't like to admit they're wrong sometimes (and I myself am often guilty of this).

So if you die now your relatives get the bill? Beautiful. Yes there is, Accelerationism. Trump will cause the burgeoning nationalist movement to miscarry before it has a chance to live while letting the most destructive forces of capital run unchecked. You're a ****ty commie if you don't understand this concept.the devil is in the detail. You have a point, and that would mean I see a benefit in Trumps presidency, however, it does NOT mean that I support Trump. There is an important difference here.

A little more than 100 days, and already there's no rational reason left to support Trump in any way, shape or form. I hope he will not step down, because I want to feel the satisfaction of him getting impeached.

And, of course, used for this song by Joan Manuel Serrat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHcypSLIp_A The whole album, Dedicado a Antonio Machado, Poeta, is superb and well worth tracking down. damn. Thanks

Agreed. An attempt at interpretation, as brief as humanly possible: "Wanderer, your footprints are the path, and nothing else;" =no predetermined life, only your own choices (doomed to be free and so on) "Wanderer, there is no path, the path is created through walking." =it's the decisions you take that form who you are (existence before essence and so on) "Through walking, the path is created, and when you take a look back, you see the path, that you will never again walk." =probably the absolute character of your choices? Not sure though "Wanderer, there is no path, only backwash in the ocean." =the inevitability of death, the senselessness of our actions and our lives (but of course, we have to imagine Sisyphus as a happy man).

Let's see how long this one survives. First entry by Spanish Antonio Machado Antonio Machado Caminante, son tus huellas el camino, y nada más; caminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar. Al andar se hace camino, y al volver la vista atrás se ve la senda que nunca se ha de volver a pisar. Caminante, no hay camino, Dino estelas en la mar. My beautiful translation: Wanderer, your footprints are the path, and nothing else; Wanderer, there is no path, the path is created through walking. Through walking, the path is created, and when you take a look back, you see the path, that you will never again walk. Wanderer, there is no path, only backwash in the ocean. Now, the poet lived from 1875-1939, however, I find this poem very fitting for existentialist philosophy. Which is probably why I like it.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/05/trump-s-travel-bannon?fsrc=gnews Hehehehehe

Here's the deal: if I have time later today, I will make a detailed analysis of the entire video Ansbach post it.Why bother? It will not give us anything new or interesting. You will definietely not go out of your comfort zone or try to see other side point of view.My friend, I watch tons of conservative, neo liberal and alt right videos to understand your respective points of views. I just disagree. But I get it. EDIT: I was in the process of writing a very long response, but then I realised it boiled down to one simple question: How does the fact that other people enslaved other people influence black slavery in America? I mean, it doesn't male the slaves' suffering less real. Nor does it affect the American society today. And it most definitely does not justify anything. So what exactly is the purpose of it?

Here's the deal: if I have time later today, I will make a detailed analysis of the entire video Ansbach post it.

Watched the debate between Le Pen and Macron yesterday. Two things I noticed: Firstly, wow, this is, although the starting point is very similar, a lot better than the US debates. I'm proud of the French Secondly, Macron memorised everything and she brought this huge stack of papers. Quite embarrassing

"What is this? The people we stomped on for decades are suddenly equal and mildly pissed about the past and their still, on average, worse living conditions? It must be that they absolutely hate me, my race and my way of life. Why can't we just go back to the good old days when being white was easy and you didn't have to think about being decent towards other races?" Seriously?

Socialism: Set of ideologies seeking to build a egalitarian and (thus) free society based on common ownership of the means of production.How is this totalitarian or insane? It's not insane. It's not even necessarily totalitarian (although history provides few examples that were not). What it really IS is impossible. And it would not be free by any description.Rojava is in a warzone and it's more free than burgerland by many descriptions.Adding to the examples, Catalonia during the Spanish civil war

Socialism: Set of ideologies seeking to build a egalitarian and (thus) free society based on common ownership of the means of production. How is this totalitarian or insane? It's not insane. It's not even necessarily totalitarian (although history provides few examples that were not). What it really IS is impossible. And it would not be free by any description.Here's one description: In order not to slip into a plutocracy, a state requires a high degree of egalitarianism amongst its citizens. This can (based in the assumption that the economy is the basis of society and its powers structures) best be ensured by giving every citizen equal amount of control over the economy, effectively democratising it. This prevents any single individual from gaining too much power, and thus ensure te freedom of all of societies members in a highly democratic state.

Socialism: Set of ideologies seeking to build a egalitarian and (thus) free society based on common ownership of the means of production. How is this totalitarian or insane? Conservatism: set of ideologies centred around preserving the status quo. In America, said status quo is a de facto plutocracy. How is this protecting other people's rights, notably those of the poor?

I wouldn't say it is necessary. In many cases, authority is respected regardless of actual law. Take churches: very, very few will interrupt those speaking not because some law prohibits it, but people don't end up shouting. The reason for this is the "authority of the place", to speak so. An authority not attributed to a specific person (or even actually a specific place), but enshrined to certain types of places, protected by society and its norms. So I don't think that for most people, the existence or nonexistence of such a law change so anything about their behaviour.

Perhaps they don't believe that her laughter was a reflex. It's legal to protest, but not during Senate hearings.If this can be justified trough a law, it becomes more, not less outrageous Not that I would like to look like I agree with persecution for laughter but there are places where you are suppose to keep quite - e.g at court IIRC Should you be respectful and keep quiet? Yes. Does this mean keeping quiet should be made a law, punishable with fines and even imprisonment? No.

Perhaps they don't believe that her laughter was a reflex. It's legal to protest, but not during Senate hearings. If this can be justified trough a law, it becomes more, not less outrageous

This is from the article:"The Times regaled Castro – who sent thousands, including Christians, LGBT Cubans, writers, and dissidents generally, to labor camps and killed thousands of others using firing squads – as a “victorious guerrilla commander in 1959” and lauded the alleged “medical advances” and “racial equality” of communist Cuba in November when the Cuban government claimed Castro had finally died." I don't see what breitbarts problem here is. What times is saying right here is simply technically correct.

;_;And here I thought you liked me... Don't worry comrade, Germany takes in refugees. We can give you asylum

They said something along the line "we will hire refugees instead of veterans". Those a**holes.I am sure that America, a country so proud of its military, can take care of its veterans so that they can live a pleasant life after the incredible service they have done. I am sure those heroes won't ever required to compete for low level jobs normally only non Americans would even think about taking. And even if that were ever to happen, I am sure the American people would be smart enough to see that the problem is not the low paid worker trying to feed his family abroad or the veteran himself, but the system that refuses to pay for its soldiers and thereby creates competition and aggression amongst the workers instead of unity and solidarity.Let me google it for you.I would bash you but I know you are just indoctrinated little kid. http://bfy.tw/BYQ3 Boy, I'm attacking the fact that they are homeless. Do bash me. I want to see you at your best! Bash me successfully, have a wonderful line of argument, backed up by tons of facts, so bulletproof I'll have no choice but to cover to the holy church of alt right

They said something along the line "we will hire refugees instead of veterans". Those a**holes.I am sure that America, a country so proud of its military, can take care of its veterans so that they can live a pleasant life after the incredible service they have done. I am sure those heroes won't ever required to compete for low level jobs normally only non Americans would even think about taking. And even if that were ever to happen, I am sure the American people would be smart enough to see that the problem is not the low paid worker trying to feed his family abroad or the veteran himself, but the system that refuses to pay for its soldiers and thereby creates competition and aggression amongst the workers instead of unity and solidarity.

Wait, Starbucks gives jobs to refugees and you complain? You force me to side with big business? Damn you!