Valsuelm

There are few, if any people on earth, who don't have some skin in the game of what happens in the EU. Some of course have more skin, but what happens there has great potential to reverberate everywhere. I'd say the 'Brexit' vote potentially matters more (especially if the leave vote wins) on an international scale than any U.S. Presidential election (the one many traditionally think matters a great deal internationally) has in at least 70 years.

The question of whether Brexit is/isn't pro-globalisation isn't an easy one to answer. On the surface it's anti-globalist. But the whole thing can be finagled to be fit the agenda when all is said and done. At the end of the day, if the Brits vote to leave the EU, it might be a might setback to the globalist agenda, or it might not. I can personally see a number of scenarios play out. If 'Brexit' happens, what happens next will matter a lot, and is currently largely unknown, at least publicly. Rest assured, bets are certainly hedged.

Terrific. If i was briton, i would be more than ever convinced to leave the EU. It's like a textbook example on reverse psychology. Your comment made me watch, despite me thinking beforehand 'Gee, I'll wager this occasionally mildly amusing useful idiot commie/globalist pawn assclown is going to be pro EU, and will attempt to comically poop all over the idea of leaving it.' Yup, sadly predictable. Sad, because so many unintelligents get their information from him. Predictable, because he's a commie/globalist mouthpiece, and pretty much always falls in line with those agendas.

It certainly isn't to welcome all of the above with open arms. If a man isn't tolerating the fact that your daughter is telling him no, your reaction should not be to tolerate him when he forces her legs open.

Perhaps said in jest? but there's certainly a good deal of ugly truth to this statement.

Such a society is doomed when it tolerates and embraces those that won't tolerate them. 'Tolerance' is not always a goody goody gumdrop thing. It's become a destructive Orwellian buzzword such as 'progress', 'new', 'change', etc. Some things should not be tolerated. Just as some progress is down a bad path, some change is for the worse, and 'new' isn't always better than what it replaced.

You're a relatively astute person, so this is probably somewhat rhetorical: Did it ever occur to you that overthrowing Saddam and Qaddafi were not terrible mistakes? That perhaps the folks who orchestrated these things knew exactly what they were doing? The outcomes were indeed predicted by many, even as early as the 90s. So at least in some quarters there was no surprise at what happened. If we are to take the position that these things were terrible mistakes, what are we doing allowing those who made them to continue holding the strings of power? And if we take the position that they were not mistakes.... Then /pol/ is right and we are in for terrible times ahead. I do not wish for that to happen. Reddit and 4chan are places I do not frequent (I'm not sure which one you're referring to). But I would agree that terrible times are ahead. I also do not wish for them to happen. However, us wishing thus is akin to us wishing the tides to not happen. Rubicons have been crossed. We are past points of no return at this point, and have been for quite some time methinks. The calm before the storm is passed, and the waves are beginning to get choppy these last few years. The worst part methinks is that the longer the flames take to ignite the worse the explosion is going to be. I'm curious if you have any particular essays/articles/authors you would reference/recommend on /pol/. If not, no worries.

The irony on display here is just as delicious as it is staggering. Alas. /shoo troll

Have you stopped beating your girlfriend? lol Stupid question but I dont get this joke? It's fun because it goes both ways. Numbersman illustrates that my pontification is an accusation where there is no possible answer to refute the question(s), while on the same hand it is very permissable to beat your wife in islamic countries. Okay that is quite funny But we cant say that is true for all Muslims so we just need to not say things that will offend them No. They have to change their ways in our countries in order to fit in. If not, then there's the door back. Oh dear, But what if they don't want to leave? Offer incentive for returning (financial, logistical) and working with current regimes in stabilizing the region (like accepting that the overthrowing of Saddam and Gadaffi were terrible mistakes and start supporting Assad as the least evil option). If they still don't want to leave then sadly there will be conflicts on some degree or the other. You're a relatively astute person, so this is probably somewhat rhetorical: Did it ever occur to you that overthrowing Saddam and Qaddafi were not terrible mistakes? That perhaps the folks who orchestrated these things knew exactly what they were doing? The outcomes were indeed predicted by many, even as early as the 90s. So at least in some quarters there was no surprise at what happened. If we are to take the position that these things were terrible mistakes, what are we doing allowing those who made them to continue holding the strings of power? And if we take the position that they were not mistakes....

Have you stopped beating your girlfriend? lol Stupid question but I dont get this joke? It's fun because it goes both ways. Numbersman illustrates that my pontification is an accusation where there is no possible answer to refute the question(s), while on the same hand it is very permissable to beat your wife in islamic countries. Okay that is quite funny But we cant say that is true for all Muslims so we just need to not say things that will offend them No. They have to change their ways in our countries in order to fit in. If not, then there's the door back. Oh dear, But what if they don't want to leave?

Your complete inability to identify sarcasm somehow fails to surprise me. So I can assume that every ridiculous ignorant post you make is sarcasm then here forward? As your posts generally are combative, vitriolic, ignorant of facts at hand, as well as fairly prolific, and even somewhat consistent in the former qualities if inconsistent in their ideological content. This would lead one to believe that you are sincere in your posts, especially given the vehemence you often display. So are you just a prolific troll then? For your sarcrasm wasn't obvious (those who know me in the face to face world would find it amusing that I'm accused of not recognizing sarcasm). Always remember tone, inflection, facial expression, etc are missing in the world of black and white text. An emoticon wink, or some other such hint is generally advised when one wishes to convey humor, tongue in cheek, sarcasm, etc when one is discussing serious issues. Else one runs high risk they will be misinterpreted. Also, trolls suck fermented dung beetle excrement, and that is the most wholesome of their activities. I have more respect for the truly ignorant zombie morons out there. I sincerely hope you are not a mere troll, for your sake more than anyone's. Such a life is hopelessly shallow and sad.

So, in the last 5 years, on average, there's been slightly less than 17 deaths per year attributed to Muslim extremism. The US sees 14-15k cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter a year. The terrible menace you speak of is responsible for a little more than 0,1% of the total murder rate in the country. I can't help but add that about 70% of Americans profess to be Christians. In the absence of other data, we should default to the base ratios, meaning that we can safely assume that Christians committed 70% of those 14k murders. Even if we assume that Christians are especially peaceful, and are only responsible for half the normal rate of murders, this still puts them at around 5k. There you have it, folks - even by exceedingly conservative estimates, you're almost 300 times as likely to be killed by a Christian than a radical Muslim! Tremble before the true scourge of America. Your response was predictable (hence me typing the bolded above, more than once, yet to no avail as ignorance reigns in your head) and is as relevant as if I quoted some crime statistics for predominantly Muslim nation X, and laid the blame upon Muslims. The fact that 70% of the U.S. population is definitely not made up of devout Christians aside. As well as the fact that the murder rate within the U.S. is not uniform across the ethnic group board or religious group board aside. You're attempting to obfuscate evil with other evil (and oft lesser at that). There is a world of difference between the general crime that any given nation on earth experiences and violent attacks perpetrated by people who are foreign to a given nation who fundamentally believe they are at war with said nation or it's people (via culture, ideology, religion, etc). If you cannot see that difference, your brain is broken.

Actually, collectivists built the second world hellholes. The third world hellholes were built/made by both the first world and the second world together. Nowadays there is little difference between the first and second worlds, and both are largely highwaying it to the third. The nice individualists have allowed the more oft not so nice collectivists the stage for a bit too long. Also, both individualists and collectivists have allowed themselves to be fooled by evil MFers who adhere to neither general philosophy, but only to a philosophy of power. It's the latter folks who are driving the train all over, while employing conductors to make sure the passengers are so at odds with one another they don't look out the window to see where they're going nor realize who is driving.

LoL. No.

The religious right isn't massacring infidels in the U.S. Or gays. Or people with contrary political beliefs. Muslims are. I'm counting... one Muslim, in recent memory? Your 'recent memory' doesn't go far back at all. This doesn't surprise me. Off the top of my head, last year there was the San Bernadino killings, and before that in recent times the Boston Marathon bombing and Ft. Hood. Here's a couple lists for you, keeping track of attacks/killings that are widely attributed to Muslims within the U.S., and believed by authorities to be at least in part religiously motivated: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/big-list-of-muslim-terror-attacks-in-u-s-since-911/ This doesn't take into consideration attacks abroad, particularly in Europe, where more occur. If one is so brainwashed that they can't differentiate between the 'religious right' and Muslims, their brain is broken. If one thinks that religiously motivated Christians are running around within the U.S. (or Europe) wreaking violent havoc even remotely on the same scale that religiously motivated Muslims are, they are ignorant, delusional, and/or their brain is simply broken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pyfurxrEGw

Only about as much of a stretch a 800 lb person can make in any given direction.

Dont get annoyed by this, people like this I consider fundamentalist Christians and dont represent the views of the majority of Americans or Christians ...very few people nowadays in the US would be this open about there bigotry I am not sure about your assessment of very few people, there has been quite lot people in twitter and facebook that have openly celebrated this attack. Although all don't necessary directly declare death for gays but aren't really that sympathetic towards people being killed just because who they love https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McJcI7zcBfc Excellent taking words out of context, and inserting words that are not there for insano point gain there. Feed the zombies. Feed them! Here's an ever so slightly more honest take on Monsieur Robertson's yabbering:

What? How does a mass shooting inspire you to buy a long gun? Unless you are also getting serious training to go along those new toys, they are likely to do you little good in a situation like this, and more than likely to make matters worse. I'm not against people taking self-defense seriously, but responsible, effective EDC is a much more serious commitment than what your knee-jerk reaction suggests, though I may be reading you wrong. Beyond that, yeah. I don't see how these kinds of occurrences could be better prevented, beyond perhaps a more robust early warning/counseling system for people with issues, and more research into the root causes of those issues. I fear that strict(er) gun control laws will just push people to use other means, and laws only affect law-abiding citizens anyway. Not like a bomb vest/pipe bomb is rocket surgery, and you can build one with off-the-shelf stuff. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture, the answer to your question for me should come to you. If you're interested in discussing this more, pm me.

Cellophane for everyone!

I found that interesting. It completely flops at home, but the Chinese love it? Why is that? Are they all WoW addicts? Do the elements the Americans hate seem quirky and exotic to them? So we might get a War2 movie thank to China Chinese love it for a couple reasons... First, it didn't get the bad publicity that it did in the U.S. prior to release. Propaganda, buzz, 'marketing', etc. matter... a lot. The propaganda machine has a great deal of sway on the public. It will convince many a good movie is bad, or a bad movie is good. The title of thread is an example of just how much sway that machine has. So is the initial box office. Second, In China, Blizzard hasn't burnt so many bridges with their fans as they have in the U.S/Europe, and WoW is still quite popular (or at least at this point, more popular). It's China that has been propping WoW sub numbers up for years. Without going in to much detail (which could fill a few pages for even people familiar with WoW, let alone for those who aren't), in very short, Blizzard's name is a bit tarnished amongst a great many former major fans. Had this movie come out in say '06-'08, it would have been at least the better part of a billion dollar movie. I personally know at least a few dozen people who would have flocked to it back then, who couldn't care much less now. You can multiply that many times over, as there are oodles and oodles of disenfranchised former Warcraft fans out there. As popular as Blizzard still is among many, it's very possible they have more former fans than current ones, particularly when it comes to the Warcraft franchise. Also, it's 'cool' amongst many in the modern western video game community to hate on WoW these days.... All of the above barely if at all takes into consideration the quality of the movie itself, yet all factor huge into how much money it will make. As someone who had very low expectations when I went to see it, and couldn't even convince any of the half dozen or so disenfranchised former Warcraft fans I know locally to join me, I was very pleasantly surprised. As I said above, the movie is actually pretty good. And that's the sentiment of a lot of folks out there. The buzz amongst many if not most now is: 'The critics have no idea what they are talking about. The movie is pretty good, nothing amazing, but good. If you like fantasy films, or at any point in your life were a Warcraft fan, you should see it.' As for a sequel... Warcraft 2 is more than likely happening. The story was set up a continuation (and anyone who knows their Warcraft lore knows the first movie just scratched the surface and the best (potentially anyways) is yet to come). The current movie is on track to be the highest grossing movie ever, that was based on a video game. And if you've paid attention to the IMDB, and other media sources, 'Warcraft' as it was being referred to just a week ago, is now more commonly being referred to 'Warcraft: The Beginning'.... I'd wager that while not officially green lit yet, producers are already working on putting together a sequel.

Have you not paid attention to movie budgets before? Nothing spikes the cost of a movie like quality (for the time) CGI does. ~$160 million for Warcraft, given how much CGI was in it, is par for the course.

My gosh I hope you are jesting badly, and are not truly that deluded.