Ben No.3

A conservative and a Marxist meet. Conservative: People shouldn't have the wealth they work for stolen for other people's benefits. Marxist: Yeah, I totally agree. Workers should control the wealth they produce rather than giving most of it to a capitalist class that does nothing to produce it. Conservative: .... Conservative:.... Conservative: I'm just gonna pretend I did not hear that.

I honestly don't remember anyone marching for Obama after the election. Again, why would they need to? As far as goons, this is the picture you chose to post: What the actual hell? First of all, what is wrong with the guy taking a photo or video? Second of all, you people do realise that self Defense is DEFENSE. If the antifa guy did attack, then they were allowed to defend themselves. However, by what is going on in the picture, it appears they are senselessly beating someone who is down already.

That's some incredible work Agiel!!!

So my beautiful girlfriend and me have this running joke since we found a certain meme... Now today, we finally turned it into an absolutely wonderful flag. Attached in Thumbnail

Fact: In Connorsville in Wisconsin, it is illegal for a husband to fire a gun during sex, if his wife has an orgasm at the same time.

You always bring up his family. "Well connected"? His father was a police officer and his mother did indeed work in a political party... the branch of that party in a small village. Did Schulz get into politics through that village? Yes. But those (local politician in a small village) are certainly not the kind of connections that make you EU parliamentarian. Please, inform yourself.

This is complete nonsense, how have we destroyed our way of life [by going against terrorism]?-Constant surveillance of everyone through several secret services-Rise of unreasonable and uneducated prejudice towards one specific religion -As a result, (rising support for) unreasonable policies against members of said religion -(rising support for) ignorance of humanistic values due to protectionist fears -Rise of authoritarianism -Rise of populism -Rise of demagoguery -Rise of nationalism -Rise of protectionism -Rise of isolationism That's just of the top of my head None of these automatically need to be relevant to any country that decides to be assertive in dealing with Islamic Extremism and this definitely applies to governments This is not a zero sum game, we can address terrorism without suddenly it signaling the perceived end of the Western world. How do you think the West has dealt with any ideological challenge over the last 100 years? Security gets increased but we dont lose our values around tolerance, equality and our belief in Democracy. We just make some societal and legal adjustments around the threat that we face at the time Its not complicated or difficult to implement You act as if the west had tolerance, equality and democracy during the last 100 years. HA! Good fun!

This is complete nonsense, how have we destroyed our way of life [by going against terrorism]? -Constant surveillance of everyone through several secret services -Rise of unreasonable and uneducated prejudice towards one specific religion -As a result, (rising support for) unreasonable policies against members of said religion -(rising support for) ignorance of humanistic values due to protectionist fears -Rise of authoritarianism -Rise of populism -Rise of demagoguery -Rise of nationalism -Rise of protectionism -Rise of isolationism That's just of the top of my head

I'm talking about BASIC not higher education. Faraday and Shakespear didn't live in a time where there was mandatory education. Schultz is an example where he was given positions not by his merits but by his political connection by family ties. He has a bad record as EU president including falsely counting votes etc. He is even worse than Merkel who was just bad ideologist, he is uneducated dictator basically. Erm, what? Sources please... you are putting up quite a claim there.... 1) show me Schulz family ties to high politics 2) show me instances of Schulz purposely creating a false count of votes

Is this a reference to him having no Abitur (German diploma you'll get after school and need to go to university)? I suspect someone who's been leading EU parliament for years will have some level of education. And interestingly, he incorporates his missing Abitur quite intelligently into his campaign... sort of "I came from the lower classl style (which is technically correct).

http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend-755.html If I can just interrupt.... If you go down the he article you'll see a graphical representation of our voters opinions right now. Keep in mind that in Germany, parliament elects chancellor (not people). Now: CDU-Merkels party, center-right, conservative: 32% SPD-Schulz (new guy who runs for chancellor) party, center-left/left (considerably more left since Schulz), social democrat : 32% Linke-far left populism (we don't have a serious far left party, there used to be a communist party but it got declared illegal in 1953): 7% Green-ecological leftist, also done a lot for women's rights in the past: 8% FDP-liberal in the European sense (more personal freedom, less market regulation): 6% AfD-far right populism (our trumps; we used to have a serious far right party, but it never managed to get into parliamenf and well it died out): 11% If voters COULD vote chancellor directly, 36% would vote Merkel and 45% Schulz. It appears Merkel is loosing her untouchable status. Luckily, unlike in many other countries right now, we have the choice between two good alternatives. But how do non Germans find the idea of Merkel loosing? To a left winger, perhaps?

Why not? Any policeman or government person involved in protecting institutions like the Houses of Parliament needs to be armed, what possible reason would you object to this? Answered that above

How can terrorists win? How can they destroy our way of life? Terrorists can not win through military means. They are too few. They do not posses the necessary resources, manpower, or, in most cases, even skill. Terrorists can not win through ideology. They are extremists, they are few, and they are all too aware of this. They know they can not convince us of their extreme beliefs. After all, they do find it necessary to resort to violence. And indeed, in theory, terrorists should have no chance at ever archiving anything. The number of people who follow them is incredibly small, so is the number of deaths they cause (especially in comparison to other causes). They should, in theory, play no role in our lives whatsoever. They should be but a footnote of society. But they do. One might even argue that the terrorists have already won. So, how could this happen? How could a handful of extremists take entire countries, societies, the entire western world in their tight and bloody grip? How is it possible for them to archive anything? The sad truth that we have to face is, that it isn't. The terrorists themselves can not win. It is simply impossible; nothing about this fact will ever change. But the cruel reality is, that they don't have to win. It is us who do their work. No, the terrorists can not kill every one of us. But they can make us fear that. And when we do, we forget about the values that we want to protect. No more privacy, terrorists are everywhere, and thus is the state. No more peace, the terrorists have guns, ours must be bigger. No more solidarity, those things you are saying are the same the terrorists shout. No more freedom, those looks you have are those of a terrorist. No more rights, we can not have those terrorists sympathisers here. Gone are the self evident truths. Those were naive. Evil is everywhere. Evil has to be fought. It has to be exterminated. It has to be exterminated by us. And better get five innocents to much than to let one get away. Down with those who hate us, now we hate back. And thus, you do everything in your power to fight the terrorists. And then you see that you have archived, what they fought for in a struggle doomed to fail: you destroyed your way of life. Your country. Your society. The entire western world. And thus, the terrorists win.

Who has less understanding of a historical figure? The one who takes biographical information and tries to set them up in today's world or the one who doesn't comprehend the difference between discussing a mans biography and a mans theory? I have laid out what I mean in front of you before. Instead of giving a proper comment, you just simply said "wrong". So don't come to me talking about how I don't understand anything when you are incapable of showing me why.

No

Regarding the one trick pony... I don't know if you realise, but so are most of you. Sharp_one is an excellent example. Everyone will probably remain in his political camp, and so calling someone a one trick pony because he sticks to his views seems a bit... useless?

Wait , what?

Heh. I just realized that I still haven't grown up. Heh. *chuckle* Sorry. It's a good skill to have. Really. Just not sure if a teacher should be the one teaching you. *snort*

Distributing marks according to ability and need would require a much more complicated system. Besides, the point was to test the myth of te "socialist classroom", that is often brought up

When talking about socialism, I often hear people bring up the "socialist classroom": a teacher redistributed the marks equally, and in the end, everyone lost motivation and grades fell endlessly. Well, my philosophy course (consisting of about 15 people) tried this. For us, it worked brilliantly. Let me say that while many (a bit more than half, others mostly liberal in the European sense) are certainly left wingers, anyone but me and one other girl is social democrat at max. It's lonely on the far left... the point of saying this is to show that this wasn't a bunch of socialist and communists trying to prove a point. Now, grades go from 0-15, 15 being the best. Before the experiment, the class average grade was between 10 and 11, with some below and very few spikes. Now, about came the socialist redistribution. First, we averaged at 11.6. After that, 9.7. Now, it became apparent that the "socialist order" created a dependence on one another. No one could be good unless everyone was good. And this lead to people helping one another out. The concept of only learning for yourself proved no longer viable. So people started helping each other a lot in class, and while I did not participate I know quite a few learning groups formed. Next test, everyone got around an 12 (11.78 I think). Yesterday, we received oral marks (which, in subjects like history, politics and also philosophy make up 50% of the total mark and is based on class participation). We ended up all getting a 14, which is the highest average the teacher ever gave a class. It appears, the "socialist classroom fails" concept is a myth. With the eatern holidays, the experiment comes to an end. I think we can declare it a success.

I could also see it being left extremists

Ah. Volo was right. Linking is useless because source will always be questioned.Not if the source is reliable. Sensationalist papers like the mirror, I tend to distrust. Papers like the economist, I tend to trust. Besides, questioning sources is a good and necessary practice.

Sensationalist papers like the mirror are though to trust, especially this early after the event. EDIT: apparently BBC has it?

British Daily Mirror. Link? Very unhelpful out of context...