Lurker > VioletZer0

Of course, if they're nice people.

commit sudoku

The "Friendzone" doesn't exist. Women are more inclined to date a guy that she knows well. My brother married a girl who was his friend for 3 years before they started dating.

What you guys interpret as "The Friendzone" is actually "She's just not into you."

goldbman posted...

Women are not entitled to respect

Everyone is entitled to baseline decency.

Because "nice" more often than not correlates with "timid".

Women want confident men who know what they want and are willing to take risks to get it.

Also you're not entitled to a girl.

No, in the sense that I think Trump is a terrible President.

Yes in the sense that I think voting for Trump was the better of the two options between Trump and Clinton.

Mead posted...

Im ok with a wall or fence, Im ok with him sending stupid troops or whatever(they would do what the border patrol does now which is basically just give people water and blankets and at worst turn them away)

What Im not ok with is the idea that kids or people that have been allowed to live and work here for years or the majority of their lives should just be dumped somewhere where theyll be homeless or in danger.

That fundamentally goes against what I view as American ideals.

If we're soft on them tho, it's just going to invite more people to come illegally.

No because she might be an undercover cop and you could get charged with prostitution.

For those who don't know, I'm a lesbian.

I've been discussion about lesbianism with my friends and they're convinced that I'm bi because I'm aroused by men and I like dicks.

The thing is, while I do find men to be appealing, they don't do anything else for me. Being around a woman I like soothes my soul, she makes me feel like everything is going to be okay and makes me feel like I'm going to be okay.

A man doesn't evoke that kind of reaction.

Jesus dude pink chicken can fucking KILL you

I don't understand why she was suspended when I have given absolutely no fucks about what I post for years.

There is an ongoing ethnic genocide going on in North Korea, should we intervene?

I do think that if the US had not intervened in WW1 then WW2 wouldn't have happened to begin with. War of attrition would have worn down both parties, instead of resulting in a total victory.

yutterh posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

This is how egotistical we are that we think the world needs Daddy America to tell them what to do and how to live their lives. Make way for freedom police.

God forbid people are allowed to shape their countries themselves. God forbid that they define themselves on principles other than our own and maybe challenge our economic dominance.

I know it's a difficult to swallow, but the US is the villain of the world

Did you read my other post? I said it doesn't matter if it is us or someone else but somoen needs to police the world. If no one is going to do it, then maybe next time WW3 could happen. Also do you really want other countries to commit genocide among their people? We do what we do because without us, true evil will spread. We don't know what real war is like. If a WW3 happens i am pretty damn sure it will go global. meaning it will come to our soil, if we do nothing. I agree that we haven't always done good and sometimes done horrible things. Maybe we shouldn't police the world anymore. Maybe another nation like china should take over. But one thing is clear. As of right now, we are all the world has.

So how about I ask you something instead and ill listen to your side of the story. Why should we leave these nations? Why should we pull out and go back into isolationism? What would be the benefits to the world of doing such a thing? What will it change?

The intent is to allow nations to develop themselves the way they want. Free of foreign powers trying to intervene.

If they genocide their own people, that is honestly up to them. It's not up to us. We should intervene if they try to go to war with other countries.

The reason we should go isolationist is that this was the US at its peak. 1900 we were isolationist. We had a small government, no federal taxes, we were free.

WW1 changed everything. We used the wealth we built up into a strongarm government and made the world a worse place.

yutterh posted...

Zeus posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

Zeus posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

It may be stupid, but it is the right thing to do.

No, it's really not. The right thing -- both from a moral and pragmatic standpoint -- would be to ramp up our presence there (while encouraging our allies to do the same) and help them rebuild the region. Granted, pragmatic answer #2 would be installing dictators, giving them free reign to do whatever they want to put down the fighting (thus stopping the flood of refugees and occupying the terrorists), and just hope that they stay friendly to our interests thanks to economic manipulation and bribery. However, that will likely backfire eventually.

MOAR IMPERIALISM

no we do not need to ramp up our presence we need to withdraw from the world

We need to stop being the United States empire. We need to withdraw all of our ships, all military presence, all military bases.

You should probably familiarize yourself with what words actually mean before you use them. Working with foreign governments on a voluntary basis isn't "imperialism."

And a full withdrawal would catastrophic in places. As it is, neither the US nor UN intervenes enough when it comes to war crimes -- we've stood by while genocide was committed in Rwanda, etc, and right now we're turning a blind eye to the mass execution of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. However, you might not care about brown lives, so I should remind you that some of those bases are in place to give us access to potential hostile nations in the possibility of war which would help to save American lives.

This, it would be utter nonsense honestly. We need to start talking about why we are needed. And weigh the positives to the negatives. What exactly is bad about us being there? There are many things and I am sure a lot of you have the answer. but one thing is true, and that we are needed at this point in time.

We cannot have another Vietnam, we pulled out and southern Vietnam was destroyed. We were the only shield between us and them. Yeah we were losing american soldiers and they were losing their entire country! We fought, no one else fought for them. We backed out because we got tired of fighting and being the only ones actually trying to help. Regardless of the reason we were there, whether it was to fight against communism, oil,imperialism, etc we were the good guys, even if it was too clean up our own mess. We put Ho Chi Minh in power, so we actually had an obligation to save those people.

Just like now, we screwed up the middle east when we removed saddam hussen, who was a evil dictator that performed genocide on his people. You know why we do this? oil you say? or maybe because no one want's another hitler. WW2 is the reason why we started this crusade of policing the world. No one wants to see that happen ever again. Our military is 100% necessary and you thing the world is bad now? Wait for world war 3, right now we are all that stands against it. To pull out or let either of these nations have there way cannot and should not be permitted.

Now I am not saying we are infallible and are possibly not going about it the right way. But we are needed there none the less.

This is how egotistical we are that we think the world needs Daddy America to tell them what to do and how to live their lives. Make way for freedom police.

God forbid people are allowed to shape their countries themselves. God forbid that they define themselves on principles other than our own and maybe challenge our economic dominance.

I know it's a difficult to swallow, but the US is the villain of the world

Zeus posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

It may be stupid, but it is the right thing to do.

No, it's really not. The right thing -- both from a moral and pragmatic standpoint -- would be to ramp up our presence there (while encouraging our allies to do the same) and help them rebuild the region. Granted, pragmatic answer #2 would be installing dictators, giving them free reign to do whatever they want to put down the fighting (thus stopping the flood of refugees and occupying the terrorists), and just hope that they stay friendly to our interests thanks to economic manipulation and bribery. However, that will likely backfire eventually.

MOAR IMPERIALISM

no we do not need to ramp up our presence we need to withdraw from the world

We need to stop being the United States empire. We need to withdraw all of our ships, all military presence, all military bases.

I think Steam is headed towards obsolescence tbqh.

It may be stupid, but it is the right thing to do.

I could go either way on this, I am curious what you guys think tho.

Trump has signaled that he really wants to pull US forces out of the Middle East. The rest of the White House disagrees.

Of course we've heard this song and dance before, so we need actions before we get our hopes up.

Because it's a social board meant for discussing today's poll.

Mead posted...

what is a disc

I think I read about them in ancient history class, but I cannot for the life of me tell you what they were for.

so either you pay taxes or die? are those your options?

adjl posted...

Generally anywhere that doesn't have an actual society to be part of and contribute to. Let me know how that works out for you

There is no such place. You go into the middle of nowhere and start a society from the ground up, government will hunt you down for taxes.

I never agreed to pay taxes. Taxes you agree to pay to is called "Charity"

adjl posted...

Choosing to live in a community constitutes a tacit agreement to follow their laws, including paying the price they ask for. You agree to the local taxes by living where you do. Don't like them, you don't have to live there.

Where can I live where I don't pay taxes?

adjl posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

BADoglick posted...

Taxation is theft

Not by any definition of the word.

If it's not theft, then don't pay taxes.

That would be theft.

When you're so much of a slave you think the government owns the fruits of your labor.

_AdjI_ posted...

BADoglick posted...

Taxation is theft

Not by any definition of the word.

If it's not theft, then don't pay taxes.

It's complicated.

Selenara posted...

Once upon a time, there was no such thing as a "red" state or a "blue" state. Every state was a swing state until the 90s, when both parties began ratcheting up the mudslinging and campaigning on polarizing wedge issues. The results are as you see them today--political discourse is angry and bitter, no one listens anymore, and Americans are so divided they can't come together on any issue of substance. We're being screwed over by basically every institution with money and power around us: the government, corporate America, the media, Big Pharma, and more. Our Constitutional rights are being systematically eroded. And most people don't care, as long as they're full and entertained. I'm not going to pretend I know the future, but if things continue as they have been, tyranny is certainly a possibility. And history will wonder why the hell we were more obsessed with zombie apocalypses and cat memes when we had all this knowledge at our fingertips, yet ignored it.

It seems like so many of the nation's issues can be traced back to either Ronald Reagan or Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It's amazing how babies can turn their emotions on a dime like that.

Kigalas posted...

So what would be different? You really think the political parties would shift in any significant way? The whole burn it down to rebuild it thing is garbage; nothing would change. The rich would still have their money and power intact, the media would still be the same stupid manipulative media, and theres always the possibility wed end up in a far worse situation, like true tyranny.

To truly break what we have now would require removal (and exile) of most current politicians AND corporate leaders. Not happening.

All we have to do is remind them what happens when power is abused.

We have to remind them that they serve us.

It's either suffer tyranny and do nothing, or risk tyranny with a revolution. Seems like we got nothing to lose.

Then you're working to kill other families.

Same thing we did last time, get our best political scholars to write a new constitution, which would mostly be a carbon copy of the old one save for a few changes like the 13th amendment so to ban prison slavery.

I give up.

When the government laughs in your stupid faces for complaining about "infringement of muh rights" you should know you have no one but yourselves to blame for giving them that power to begin with.

mastermix3000 posted...

Peaceful resistance is also the best way.

I agree, but that is obviously just a starting point. Some governments will care, others will not.

If they attack peaceful protesters we need to move on to armed revolution.

VeeVees posted...

What's with crazy gun nuts and their obsessions with imaginary tyrants?

Because we know real tyranny still exists, and any government has the capacity to usurp its people.

This isn't imaginary. Kim Jong Un is still around. Dictators in Africa and the Middle East are still around. Venezuela is still happening.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

Because they can arrest you or even kill you, but they can never force you to work for them.

Often it's an aversion to those threats which motivates people to comply. Conflicts with the government arise either under the condition that the government is unable to effectively carry out those threats, or when the threat posed by compliance matches that of losing such a conflict anyway.

Compliance with the government is enabling the brutality to happen.

Therefore, complying with a government that commits murder is committing murder yourself.

Can you live with committing murder?

Whatever appeal the Vita had, the Switch killed it.

FatalAccident posted...

Cacciato posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

This is by far the most important thread I've ever made. So if there is any thread of mine to read, it is this one.

Shut the fuck up.

LOL ifknr?

Who does this kid think he is

My goodness. Dude really needs to check his ego fr

This isn't an ego thing, it really is important to understand if you don't want to live under tyrannical rule...

If what I say isn't true, then we are completely doomed and absolutely nothing we do matters.

So close, and yet so far

This is by far the most important thread I've ever made. So if there is any thread of mine to read, it is this one.

I've seen people convinced that conflict against the government is impossible. I'm here to prove you wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the government depends on the people and not the other way around. The government depends on people's labor, it depends on people willing to be governed. This is a huge advantage and also why peaceful resistance works when executed properly. Because anyone they kill is a loss to them. You're their capital, you're the reason they can exist at all.

Because at the end of the day, government requires your consent. Because they can arrest you or even kill you, but they can never force you to work for them. A government without subjects is just a bunch of shouting old men and some parchment.

Additionally, by necessity there will always be far more people than the government. Human capital is the most valuable capital as it turns out and if you get most people on your side it is almost a sure victory. While the government may have things like drones, planes, tanks, etc... it doesn't change that infantry defines warfare. Vietnam beat the US military in spite of vastly inferior technology. Insurgents in the middle east are STILL kicking in spite of being woefully underequipped. We have even more advantages than that, being a country that is armed to the teeth.

I am not saying we should go to war with the government, but there may come a day when it becomes necessary. We can do it.

Smarkil posted...

I'm not an NRA, but I presume it's because gun control has been slapped onto guns regularly over the past hundred years. Each time the same old argument of "We're just talking about common sense measures".

It's easy to demonize them, but the 2nd amendment has been hen pecked to the point where people don't give a fuck anymore. They're trying to get people to fuck off. Because every time something bad happens someone comes back and says, "Oh just give us a little more of your 2nd amendment right".

They can take away every rifle in the country and will have only stopped a few hundred deaths a year. So next they'll move onto handguns which are a far higher perpetrator of death than rifles

Yup, even in your precious European countries there are still shootings.

"Compromise" is how you affect any change you want. Because any compromise is a loss for the person who doesn't want the change being proposed. Just "compromise" repeatedly until you get the desired result.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

If it's still a crime, it doesn't matter if it's "victimless" or not. Society agreed to a certain set of rules and everyone is expected to follow them or face the consequences. The war on drugs is a massive waste of time and money. Legalize and regulate everything or take a Stalin approach to it. Those are literally the only ways to prevent the issue.

We didn't agree to this shit. NOBODY agrees to this except for the people who profit from prison labor.

The law is unjust.

The War on Drugs can be directly linked with a spike in crime, including homicides. Prohibition had the same effect. There was a marked depression in homicides and prison population in between Prohonition and the War on Drugs. It is intended to keep people in prison for the sake of slave labor...

But yeah call the waaaambulance right? Because people don't want to get murdered or unjustly go to prison?

Yeah it's a common thing, especially if you're working with a market constantly in flux.

PentelPaint posted...

Not a "victimless" crime. OD victims causes heartbreak to their friends and family. Present addicts often end up committing crimes to fund their habit. Then there's the fact that narcotics is a big income source for criminal and terrorist organisations, so turf wars over space to conduct business carries huge risk of collateral damage.

"Heartbreak"

Michelle broke up with her boyfriend. Lock her up and throw away the key.

Are we really going to go on the "potential criminals" nonsense?

You know why it funds criminal organizations? Because it's illegal.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

If it's still a crime, it doesn't matter if it's "victimless" or not. Society agreed to a certain set of rules and everyone is expected to follow them or face the consequences. The war on drugs is a massive waste of time and money. Legalize and regulate everything or take a Stalin approach to it. Those are literally the only ways to prevent the issue.

We didn't agree to this shit. NOBODY agrees to this except for the people who profit from prison labor.

The law is unjust.

I go insanely high on the heat so that it's crispy on the outside, medium rare on the inside~

I recently moved to Minnesota for my brother, and in the process I ended up moving into a black majority ghetto...

They have drug sniffing dogs all over the place. They just come and patrol the premises for people to arrest people for victimless offenses.

I knew the war on drugs was bad, but I didn't know it was THIS bad you know?

End of the war on drugs seriously.

Guns manufacture to meet market demand. It's not like there weren't enough guns to go around to crazed murderers before.

helIy posted...

can you return to not posting here, violet

everyone would appreciate it and you would win a prize

Why