Valsuelm
-
Posts
405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Valsuelm
-
-
Turns out, unfettered immigration of muslims isn't such a great idea.
Most Muslims in France are citizens of France (being old colonist super power has habit to make country's population diverse) and most terrorists in past couple dark years has been home grown.
The guy was of North African origin. It was not a native French, even if it is 2nd or 3rd generation, it is not home grown. it is still a result of importing alien and hostile culture.
What?
You can't just change the definition of a word to make it fit your narrative. Well, I guess you can, but it sounds ridiculous.
He changed the definition of no words. And
No... it really doesn't.
-
-
I cannot in good conscience support either Hillary or Trump. But although I am a dues paying, card carrying LP member I've voted Republican more often than not. Actually, that isn't true. I voted AGAINST the democrat more often than not. And like Val and WoD tell me I understand that voting for the LP candidate means throwing away any say, however small, in the outcome.....
I honestly don't think you'd be throwing your vote away. I do think however you're underestimating just what is at stake if Hillary wins. If she wins this very well may be the last U.S. Presidential election that ever matters (in fact I'd put a lot of gold on it, yet at the same time pray to God (and I'm not really a religious man) I lost that wager). For a variety of reasons, not the least of which (but probably most easily discussable as well as most obvious) is the SCOTUS.
For most of my adult life I have argued against voting for the lesser of two evils. In the past the analogy I've used is: you've got two daughters. One has a person holding a gun to their head, the other has a knife at their throat. You are told to choose between the two. The answer in that scenario is none of the above; don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Put on your action hero boots and find another way. And that has been every Presidential election in the last 20+ years (there truly hasn't been that big a difference where it really matters between the about equally evil Blue or Red frontrunners in a long time). This election is different, for a variety of reasons I will never have time to fully discuss on this forum.
This election the analogy is better put: You have two daughters. One has a person holding a gun to their head, the other daughter has person holding a knife at their throat. The same person holding the knife has a suicide vest armed with a 500 megaton yield hydrogen bomb that will go off as soon as your daughter's throat is slit, killing you, your daughter with the gun to her head, everyone you care about in a very large radius, as well as a whole lot of other people. It also is linked with hundreds of other 500 megaton bombs scattered throughout the United States and even a few dozen scattered about the world. If the knife runs across your daughter's throat and the vest is triggered, so are all those other bombs....
You are told to choose between the two.
This time, isn't like the last few times. Any potential action heroing has been checked and mated. This time, if you want to live to fight another day, live to find another way in the future, you gotta tearfully resign yourself to that gun going off....
-
1
-
-
Tell me you would not rather have this guy than Clinton or Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2UP2mtSm4
First LP Campaign Commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGD8gJt7weU
Yosemite Sam > Mickey Mouse > Donald Trump > A Whole Big Bunch of Other People > Vladimir Putin > Nigel Farage > Ron Paul > Ralph Nader > Micky Donovan > a totally random person chosen from the citizenry of the United States > Homer Simpson > Gary Johnson or Bernie Sanders (they're quite similar where it matters) > the drunk psychopath at my local bar > nearly *ANYONE* else on capital hill > Bruce Jenner > Kim Jong-un > BruceVC > Nancy Pelosi > Harry Reid > Charles Schumer > Spoiled Fermented Dung Beetle Excrement Come to Life > Any of the Kardasians > Obama for a Third Term > Obama for a Fourth Term > Another Bush > King Obama for life > Kim Jong-il's carcass > Mao Zedong's carcass > Bruce Jenner's discarded phallus >The Devil himself > The most SJW person on earth > Hillary Clinton
('P enis' is censored?!? WTF?!!?)
-
2
-
-
It boggles my mind how a supreme court justice can give such unprofessional statements. This is banana-republic-****-tier level of arguments.
This is nothing new from Ginsburg.
If congress had any balls and even a smidgen of morality it would have impeached her long ago. If ever you want to read some convoluted insanity, a safe bet is to look up and read an opinion authored by her for the court. There's a good chance with any given random read you will have struck crazy gold.
Note: If congress had any balls and even a smidgen of morality it would have impeached many folks at the top long ago. And of course, we'd need the senate to have some balls and a smidgen of morality as well to actually follow through and kick the various incompetent/criminal/treasonous scums we've had in D.C. to the curb.
Sadly, and ultimately scarily, congress and the senate sold it's balls and became devoid of morality long ago...
-
If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton really think the United States is a great country, as they say the do, why do they want to "transform" it? How would you feel if you wife tells you you're great and she loves you and she wants to "transform" you? If you are great and she loves you why would she want to change you into something else?
And what do they want to transform the US into? Right now it is a free and prosperous country. What kind of transformation do they have in mind? One that isn't free?
Relative to the rest of the world sure. Relative to yesteryear? No.
It's generally less so with each passing year....
-
-
-
2
-
-
No. They are evil racist pieces of craps. Just like all GGers are sexists. Even female GGers are sexist. Know your own group's rule SJW Nazi.
Nazis were many things but they weren't 'social justice warriors'. You really should stop insulting the Nazis by continuously lobbing them in with SJWs.
-
The more the word 'racism' is misused, the more it loses it's meaning. Sadly, through increasingly rampant misuse over the last few years, it's well on it's way to meaningless. On this forum, and in the world at large....
-
1
-
-
Likely just retaliation for the State Department's standing cautionary travel advisory in regards to the rampant crime in the Bahamas. Or, it could just be pure stupidity. Either way, it's safe to say that the vast vast vast majority of Americans won't miss the oodles and oodles of tourism dollars that don't come in from the Bahamas.
In other words, this is like a 500 lb man telling Planet Fitness he's not going to frequent their establishment anymore. The joke is on him.
Edit: Bahrain and the UAE have also joined the Bahamas in issuing a travel warning in regards to the U.S.....
'nuff said.
-
Why is it so difficult?
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/751821575410880512
What is to gain by playing willfully ignorant? Nothing will be solved that way.
Come now, you know better.
What's to be gained from playing willfully ignorant?
That's one of the primary cards in the deck of of evil used by both politicians and criminals to get what they want, get away with X, further agenda X, and so on.... A *lot* can be gained by playing ignorant, willful or not.
It's even a legitimate rhetorical strategy, of neutral (not necessarily evil) persuasion, when dealing with those who are less intelligent than the speaker. If you're talking to someone who can't understand concept X (for whatever reason: too dumb, too ignorant themselves, not informed enough, etc), and want to get a point across, dumbing down your words, or pretending to be as dumb/ignorant/uninformed as the listener(s) in order to relate to them (or make them think you relate to them) is often the successful way to go. Sad (usually; not necessarily sad when dealing with children for example) but true.
Why is Obama doing it here? Well, a much longer essay (that I'd rather not spend time writing) could be written on that. I trust you're astute enough though to see why yourself. Just don't make the mistake of thinking he's trying to solve the widely perceived problem(s). Or make the mistake of thinking that Obama (and most other politicians) doesn't do it all the time. The example you give is certainly not a break in the norm for him.
-
This particular situation was actually handled relatively well by the local police and DA. The policeman was arrested and charged. Ultimately he plead guilty. Sentencing has yet to occur, so it's unknown yet if the judge will give him a pass or not.
-
because I'm 99% sure that Roger Waters would vote Remain.
Agreeing 100% with your idols is never healthy.
Neverminding that one should not make intellectual idols of musicians or artists (or very arguably anyone at all), agreed that it is never healthy to agree with anyone 100%.
That said, I'd wager a medium sum that Waters was pro 'Brexit'. He's actually a relatively politically conscience person, and is more awake than most of his contemporaries. He also has a history of criticism of consolidated power and corruption (The EU is the modern 'poster boy' for consolidating power and corruption). There's more than a few songs penned by him on the subject. One of the best albums ever made in my opinion being essentially one big song on the subject:
-
1
-
-
The erosion of nation states is exactly the thing we need. We need not forget that the nation state was a much bigger destroyer of languages, customs, traditions and ethnic groups. The construct of a unified French, German, British, Polish, Italian, etc. nation is nothing "natural", it is an effect of the 19th century nationalistic movement. Modern society with large-scale mobility (even within one country), unprecedented means of communication, very influential mass media, and so on is a much bigger factor of levelling differences between regions and classes, than government ever is. Most governments today explicitly support regional traditions, minority languages, and specialist economies. That is a new development; a few decades ago, national governments did the exact opposite and actively tried to suppress minorities (look at the Welsh language, for example). It is an example where we have overcome the destructive effects of the ideology of unified nations and found a better solution. And that is what we need in Europe.
You knowledge and/or understanding of history is grossly lacking....
While I'm not going to spend much time schooling you, you should at least look up the history of the nations which you mention before you write about them. It wouldn't take you long to realize that more than half of the nations you specifically mention effectively existed prior to the 19th century, some by number of centuries. Oh, and Poland didn't exist in the 19th century, but it did prior to.... and then again after it largely essentially during the in between 'world wars' period as a vassal state of the British Empire.... which played no small part of the reason that 'WW2' even happened.
And that's less than 1% of what I could tell you which would thoroughly crush that idea you have....
That idea being that you think 'nationalism' is all bad and stuff. It generally isn't (that is unless one is an anarchist and thinks all forms are governance are illegitimate (which is a legitimate philosophical at least argument, if arguably not a pragmatic one), but that isn't you). You're buying into the modern popular propaganda of some blue blood 'globalist' minded folks that wish to squash the sovereignty of folks everywhere in order to further enrich themselves and consolidate more power for themselves. Or, buying into similar propaganda from those that would see the world ruled via Marxist ideals. Effectively both of those general schools of evil, insane, or deluded thought go down the same road, strange as that may seem to some, and hard as it unfortunately seems to be for many to grasp.
One could say that the last laugh down this road is on the Marxists, if one didn't realize that this road will see the world burn....
-
1
-
-
We didn't need a second thread on a very obviously horribad movie, that could very well win the 'Never should have been made' award of the decade.
-
If one thinks/thought Hillary was ever in danger of being prosecuted by the Federal government, no matter what she did, one is/was naive.
-
1
-
-
If Bernie endorses Hillary, which is extremely likely (my money has been on it for months), it's all the proof any rationally thinking and even partially politically informed person needs that he is absolutely not a man of principle.
Neverminding all the other arguable evidence there is out there that he isn't at this point....
Bernie actually has (or rather at this point: had) a significant amount of rationally thinking at least partially informed folks in his corner....
-
Why? Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all men of principle.
Ha!
Why? Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all men of principle.
So was Hitler...and so were Theodore Roosevelt, and George Washington, and James K. Polk, and Robert E. Lee, and...
Ha! Ha!
-
-
-
-
-
Things are not nice in Nice
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by Valsuelm
His name was Mohamed.
Whodathunkit?