how would biden take my guns.

[washamericom]

Abuses guns? Makes it sense to say so? Sounds strange in my ears. As ifg a gaun wo7zudlk be anincinent beings adn soen else is doing something bad to the gun. What I mean is that people use guns in a wrong way. For example by making other people fearful. "I own a gun" is able to be a harmless sentence - but it is also able to threaten someone with such a sentence for example.

No

Who is they?

t
The left. Cowardly unpatriotic wastes of oxygen. One day of basic alone and they would hang themselves with their panties.

Well, I spent a year in combat. I didn't meet many Lefties or Righties - just a lot of Americans pulling for each other.

What kind of fucked up America lives in your head?

Only a year?


Lol

Who is they?

t
The left. Cowardly unpatriotic wastes of oxygen. One day of basic alone and they would hang themselves with their panties.

Well, I spent a year in combat. I didn't meet many Lefties or Righties - just a lot of Americans pulling for each other.

What kind of fucked up America lives in your head?

Only a year?


Lol

What's funny about dead Americans?

What's dead Americans have to do with my post?

'68 Chu Lai. How many died?

Must have been nice to only have to go once.

I hail from a small farming community in which about forty kids rode a school bus thirty miles to HS in a different community. Of the twenty or so boys, I count a dozen who went to Nam. Three were KIA and three others were WIA, one losing both legs at his knees. There were eight boys in my Graduating Class. Seven of us did military service. I and four others went to Nam; two came home in a bag.

Going once was more than enough.

What is your point? Why so cryptic?

I'm happy you feel comfortable telling that, the impact and ripple effect so devastating.

You may not like hearing it, but you are an American hero, your story is exactly why we cannot thank you enough, why we shouldn't stop trying.

My respect for you is ultimate. Even more for the way you were treated, while pos' like Bill ayers collect government pensions he (they) are the cowards antithetical to your bravery.

Thank You.

Thanks for the good thoughts.

It's funny because I never thought much about what happened to the boys of that little farming town until years after Nam. I was flipping thru a book by Stanly Karnow, "A History of Vietnam" and ran across a comment about Bardsville, Ky and the price they'd paid. It got me to reviewing what had happened in a dusty little place in the California Desert.

Not everyone in the sixties protested. I was at the head of the Boomer Class, and our fathers served in the big one and we thought we were following in their footsteps. Didn't quite work out that way.

The complexity of Vietnam is a good reason not to erase history.

One of the best things aboute history is there's no time limit... unless.

 

[washamericom]

just imagining how the actual process would begin.
so far its political bluster. but communism is chipping away at democracy. other things constitutional are melting in the fakenews winds of liberal hysteria.
obama changed the constitution.

fake news is the enemy of conservative America.
journalism will make a fabulous comeback.

do they have a ... "plan" for rounding up ar 15's

i still need mine, so im keeping it (them)..

So I can have assault rifles and not get arrested?
Cool.

anyone can, even just for fun.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

No real point, just commenting, that's all.

I was an Army lifer, Airborne Infantry, and I deployed to more than one war, more than one time, and was still going eyeball to eyeball and toe to toe with the Taliban, running and gunning up and down mountains when I was in my late 30's....... one year of combat, in one's youth, doesn't seem particularly significant to me. I did shit from Central America to SW Asia, and the Middle East, and I have the scars and the foreign jump wings to prove it. As for the losses, nearly every person I ever liked in the world has already died bloody, some in combat, some from suicide, and one was gunned down by the cops in her own yard. It's a hard world.
I'm not trying to take anything away from you and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I'm just not impressed. Sorry.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain and respect your service, but I take exception to your inability to show the same respect to others. As regards what I bolded of yours, the loss of two young lives and a nineteen year old's legs is not a summer camp, and that fact doesn't change with whatever number of missions you served.

My post was not written to impress. A "year in combat" was cited as a simple pushback to the asshole who wrote: "The left. Cowardly unpatriotic wastes of oxygen. One day of basic alone and they would hang themselves with their panties."

Yes, life is hard, but it's all we have. Thank You for your service.

 

[freyasman]

No real point, just commenting, that's all.

I was an Army lifer, Airborne Infantry, and I deployed to more than one war, more than one time, and was still going eyeball to eyeball and toe to toe with the Taliban, running and gunning up and down mountains when I was in my late 30's....... one year of combat, in one's youth, doesn't seem particularly significant to me. I did shit from Central America to SW Asia, and the Middle East, and I have the scars and the foreign jump wings to prove it. As for the losses, nearly every person I ever liked in the world has already died bloody, some in combat, some from suicide, and one was gunned down by the cops in her own yard. It's a hard world.
I'm not trying to take anything away from you and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I'm just not impressed. Sorry.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain and respect your service, but I take exception to your inability to show the same respect to others. As regards what I bolded of yours, the loss of two young lives and a nineteen year old's legs is not a summer camp, and that fact doesn't change with whatever number of missions you served.

My post was not written to impress. A "year in combat" was cited as a simple pushback to the asshole who wrote: "The left. Cowardly unpatriotic wastes of oxygen. One day of basic alone and they would hang themselves with their panties."

Yes, life is hard, but it's all we have. Thank You for your service.

You're welcome. Thanks for yours.
And this life is not all we have, we have what we leave our offspring.

"My name is not my own,
It is borrowed from my ancestors,
I must return it unstained.

My honor is not my own,
It is on loan from my descendants,
I must give it to them unbroken.

Our blood is not our own,
It is a gift to generations yet unborn,
We should carry it with responsibility. "

-Vincent Elund

 

[zaangalewa]

... Democrats are fascists who stole the election and are using violence to silence your opposition. There is no doubt, Himmler

The Nazis were anti-democrats

I see what you did there. You used the word "democrat" to imply your Democrat party is democratic when you aren't, you're fascists.

I am a German. And the political party " the democrats" of the USA is in Germany not compatible with Nazis nor with Commies. Normally we compare your poltical party "the democrats" with our political party SPD = "the social democrats of Germany". The SPD is the oldest political party in Germany and the only political party, which had voted against Hitlers enabling act (Ermächtigungsgesetz). This enabling act was the first step, which had destroyed the parlamentarian democracy of Weimar and the first concrete real step into the time of the godless Nazi-disaster in Germany.

Read 1984 for totalitarian naming conventions.

I read it before 1984 came - together with some thousand other books, which I also don't remember in the moment.

You're personally attacking and destroying your opposition and rigging elections.

You should really try to think about what I said to you. Perhaps there's some truth inside. You never should forget that the fulfilling of truth is love. No one needs to live in fear of truth.

The United States is now a third world banana republic

The federal republic of Germany is called since it is existing from many people a banana republic. I remember in this context an old grandfather in the 1970ies from West-Germany, who gave on a transit through East-Germany some bananas to some children of citizens of the communistic sector of Germany. He spoke not any word - he gave the children just simple some bananas. And when his wife and my mother had protested, because it had been dangerous, what he had done, he said just simple: "If I have to go to prison, because I gave some children some banana, then I will go to prison."

A short time later "the Commies" decided to leave their perfect state back on the garbage heap of history and became part of our banana republic. So let me say: As long as someone sells bananas in your country and as long as a grandfather buys such bananas and gives a part of them for free to some strange children as long your country is not lost.

 

[kaz]

... Democrats are fascists who stole the election and are using violence to silence your opposition. There is no doubt, Himmler

The Nazis were anti-democrats

I see what you did there. You used the word "democrat" to imply your Democrat party is democratic when you aren't, you're fascists. Read 1984 for totalitarian naming conventions. You're personally attacking and destroying your opposition and rigging elections. The United States is now a third world banana republic

You are a riot... as if you attack no one.

Here's a suggestion. Trace back to our first encounter and see who attacked who, and who first indulged personal insult.

I'm confident in my demeanor but confess we all make mistakes. If I made one with you, here's your chance to prove some of your bullshit. I'll gladly apologize if I tripped up.

Or you could just continue to be you and bang out some more angry rants.

No, I don't do anything to destroy anyone's life or commit violence against them for having a different political opinion than me like the Nazi Democrat party does. Not ever

You are welcome to your opinion of the Democratic Party, just as I am welcome to criticize said opinion. But you didn't stop there, you made it personal by calling me a Nazi.

As for your displeasure at being called a racist, please show me where I called you a racist. You can't. As a matter of fact. I did exactly the opposite and wrote that I did not perceive you as a racist.
I can think of a reason for your behavior - but I'll let it rest.

Opinion? Democrats stopped people from wearing RED fucking HATS with the threat of violence. Democrats pound leftist propaganda in our schools and anyone who's conservative or libertarian knows to stay silent if they want to pass the class. Democrats are literally taking conservatives off the air and off the internet.

Your fascism isn't an "opinion," it's clear fact

 

[washamericom]

... Democrats are fascists who stole the election and are using violence to silence your opposition. There is no doubt, Himmler

The Nazis were anti-democrats

I see what you did there. You used the word "democrat" to imply your Democrat party is democratic when you aren't, you're fascists. Read 1984 for totalitarian naming conventions. You're personally attacking and destroying your opposition and rigging elections. The United States is now a third world banana republic

You are a riot... as if you attack no one.

Here's a suggestion. Trace back to our first encounter and see who attacked who, and who first indulged personal insult.

I'm confident in my demeanor but confess we all make mistakes. If I made one with you, here's your chance to prove some of your bullshit. I'll gladly apologize if I tripped up.

Or you could just continue to be you and bang out some more angry rants.

No, I don't do anything to destroy anyone's life or commit violence against them for having a different political opinion than me like the Nazi Democrat party does. Not ever

You are welcome to your opinion of the Democratic Party, just as I am welcome to criticize said opinion. But you didn't stop there, you made it personal by calling me a Nazi.

As for your displeasure at being called a racist, please show me where I called you a racist. You can't. As a matter of fact. I did exactly the opposite and wrote that I did not perceive you as a racist.
I can think of a reason for your behavior - but I'll let it rest.

Opinion? Democrats stopped people from wearing RED fucking HATS with the threat of violence. Democrats pound leftist propaganda in our schools and anyone who's conservative or libertarian knows to stay silent if they want to pass the class. Democrats are literally taking conservatives off the air and off the internet.

Your fascism isn't an "opinion," it's clear fact

It's true... I was just watching a guy on one of the church stations wrote a book on socialism...

Was talking about rent a mob and dropping palettes of bricks at protests...

I left Cpac 16 early, there was no love in the room for redheads hat people, I was undercover.

Mob behavior is a self fulfilling prophecy, we've all seen it, even felt it, it's very scary

 

[Utilitarian]

While we aren't on the same page, I'm interested in what you have to say and appreciate your civility.

Tolerance isn't a football game, it's a human attribute born of empathy. Progressivism is not an ideology, it's a general frame of mind, an approach to life that accepts change. Likewise, conservatism is a broad attitude, not an ideology.

I'm not the least religious but I respect Christian Charity and believe that the majority of people who try to help others do so simply out of good heart, and I include Scandinavians (Christian or not). Are there exceptions? Damn straight.

Thanks, I enjoy our debates as well, and thanks for your civility too.

I would agree that the concept of tolerance is empathetic, but when it is politicized, it's no longer about that.

In terms of the average person trying to help others in everyday life, sincerity might be present, but we're talking about national policies. Politicians are among the least sincere people that exist. The public in a lot of Scandinavia goes along with these agendas, because they don't want to be seen as intolerant or to potentially face negative repercussions for going against the narrative. A lot of politics is about saving face.

Granted, there are a lot of people who don't care about saving face, and so they oppose these agendas even if it results in a lot of condemnation and sometimes even losing their jobs.

Personally, I'm in the middle. I think most of the "allyship" and "tolerance" agendas are bullshit, but posting at political forums is the most I do regarding it. It's not worth my job to fight these things. I just try to make a living and hope that I can avoid the repercussions of these agendas by living in an area far removed from the fray.

 

[Utilitarian]

I'm no sure what you point is? I thought we were talking about the impact of homogeneous on racial issues.

Regardless, we are way off topic, but such is the nature of conversations. They wander.

My point is that Norway is a good example of a country that seems tolerant on the surface, but in reality, they just virtue signal in their immigration policy while putting their refugees in undesirable sections of town. It benefits neither the refugees nor the Norwegians themselves. The tolerance involved is just for show.

What do you suggest here: To throw Norwegians out of their houses and to give this houses to foreigners? To sell and to buy houses is a question of money.

I go with the suggestion that Tino Sanandaji had for Sweden. Instead of letting in so many migrants, why not instead invest in the country of origin to try to make it better?

If countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark stopped letting in so many migrants and instead put efforts and funds into rebuilding Afghanistan, for example, they could make life better for those people than if they were to enter these other countries. When most of these migrants reach Scandinavia, they don't have any needed job skills and can't even speak the local language. This ends up putting them in a situation where they have to live off of the system.

In short, if the West really wants to help refugees, they shouldn't be letting them in. They should stop escalating conflicts in various areas and invest in these countries to help them rebuild. These people are better off staying in their home countries with some financial help from the West. Bringing them to the West doesn't benefit them or Westerners.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Keep voting for Dimocrats, and gun rights will continue to be chipped away at.

 

[washamericom]

While we aren't on the same page, I'm interested in what you have to say and appreciate your civility.

Tolerance isn't a football game, it's a human attribute born of empathy. Progressivism is not an ideology, it's a general frame of mind, an approach to life that accepts change. Likewise, conservatism is a broad attitude, not an ideology.

I'm not the least religious but I respect Christian Charity and believe that the majority of people who try to help others do so simply out of good heart, and I include Scandinavians (Christian or not). Are there exceptions? Damn straight.

Thanks, I enjoy our debates as well, and thanks for your civility too.

I would agree that the concept of tolerance is empathetic, but when it is politicized, it's no longer about that.

In terms of the average person trying to help others in everyday life, sincerity might be present, but we're talking about national policies. Politicians are among the least sincere people that exist. The public in a lot of Scandinavia goes along with these agendas, because they don't want to be seen as intolerant or to potentially face negative repercussions for going against the narrative. A lot of politics is about saving face.

Granted, there are a lot of people who don't care about saving face, and so they oppose these agendas even if it results in a lot of condemnation and sometimes even losing their jobs.

Personally, I'm in the middle. I think most of the "allyship" and "tolerance" agendas are bullshit, but posting at political forums is the most I do regarding it. It's not worth my job to fight these things. I just try to make a living and hope that I can avoid the repercussions of these agendas by living in an area far removed from the fray.

Well said, most folks just want to live their lives, and of course the media whipping non stories into frenzie.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Keep voting for Dimocrats, and gun rights will continue to be chipped away at.

Thanks for trying to guide the topic back on course.

It's drifted way off.

Democrats are being used by Globalists. Most are so emotionally driven that they don't even know it.
They are using the media to sway weak minds into helping them achieve their fascist goals.

Disarming a population has ALWAYS been a prerequisite to Tryanny.

Even if they do not send troops to your door (in some cases they likely will) they will make it nearly impossible to resist.

They can deny Social Security payments, they can restrict your travel abilities, lock or deplete savings accounts (A behind the scenes push is ongoing to convert to a cashless society....now you know why), lock pension payments or even seize property.

The US Government has been illegally obtaining names and addresses of gun purchasers for decades by sending ATF agents to FFA's that sell guns and taking photographs of the books containing the information. So they have a database of nearly everyone who has a gun and what guns they have. It's why they are on a campaign now to eliminate transfers and gun show purchases that have ANY chance of anonymous purchases.

They are 100% dead set on disarming everyone (except the rich and powerful) and they will use force if necessary.

The push to take away American citizens guns is as real as the air you breathe.
There is no way in hell Americans are going to retain any rights to bear arms without a massive and likely bloody battle.
And since the vast majority are not willing to make those sacrifices, I predict Americans will eventually lose this battle as well.

I see no way to avoid the coming "Dark Ages" ahead for humanity.
People will continue to look the other way and deny it for as long as possible.....until they come for them or take something away that really impacts their personal life or someone they deeply care for. until then....head deep in the sand.

 

[washamericom]

Keep voting for Dimocrats, and gun rights will continue to be chipped away at.

Thanks for trying to guide the topic back on course.

It's drifted way off.

Democrats are being used by Globalists. Most are so emotionally driven that they don't even know it.
They are using the media to sway weak minds into helping them achieve their fascist goals.

Disarming a population has ALWAYS been a prerequisite to Tryanny.

Even if they do not send troops to your door (in some cases they likely will) they will make it nearly impossible to resist.

They can deny Social Security payments, they can restrict your travel abilities, lock or deplete savings accounts (A behind the scenes push is ongoing to convert to a cashless society....now you know why), lock pension payments or even seize property.

The US Government has been illegally obtaining names and addresses of gun purchasers for decades by sending ATF agents to FFA's that sell guns and taking photographs of the books containing the information. So they have a database of nearly everyone who has a gun and what guns they have. It's why they are on a campaign now to eliminate transfers and gun show purchases that have ANY chance of anonymous purchases.

They are 100% dead set on disarming everyone (except the rich and powerful) and they will use force if necessary.

The push to take away American citizens guns is as real as the air you breathe.
There is no way in hell Americans are going to retain any rights to bear arms without a massive and likely bloody battle.
And since the vast majority are not willing to make those sacrifices, I predict Americans will eventually lose this battle as well.

I see no way to avoid the coming "Dark Ages" ahead for humanity.
People will continue to look the other way and deny it for as long as possible.....until they come for them or take something away that really impacts their personal life or someone they deeply care for. until then....head deep in the sand.

Follow gun sales... ammunition, the cat is out of the bag... too late for this country, which was built on open carry. I feel safe in a State like Vermont, the bluest and greenest state has no gun laws, an odd but welcome paradox. ask comrade sanders about gun control, same answer as climate change.
Some consensus bullshit, he's such a telephoney.

 

[zaangalewa]

I'm no sure what you point is? I thought we were talking about the impact of homogeneous on racial issues.

Regardless, we are way off topic, but such is the nature of conversations. They wander.

My point is that Norway is a good example of a country that seems tolerant on the surface, but in reality, they just virtue signal in their immigration policy while putting their refugees in undesirable sections of town. It benefits neither the refugees nor the Norwegians themselves. The tolerance involved is just for show.

What do you suggest here: To throw Norwegians out of their houses and to give this houses to foreigners? To sell and to buy houses is a question of money.

I go with the suggestion that Tino Sanandaji had for Sweden.

Who?

Instead of letting in so many migrants, why not instead invest in the country of origin to try to make it better?

So he would not live in Sweden on his own because he was 9 years old when he came to Sweden. I heard the first 9 years of his life he had lived in Teheran. The paradox is: If it is true what he says, then he would not really be able to say so.

If countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark stopped letting in so many migrants

As far as I know in newer times Norway, Sweden and Denmark don't let come in many migrants.

and instead put efforts and funds into rebuilding Afghanistan, for example,

I had to laugh out loud and long now. Very amusing. Since 2001 our soldiers are searching for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan - and what to say about the success of this form of absurde "politics"? Successful are only the drug farmers there - successlessly our soldiers are still looking for Bin Laden in all directions of the Hilbert space. Our politicians seem to be convinced one day they will know everything about the Hilbert space in Afghanistan.

they could make life better for those people than if they were to enter these other countries. When most of these migrants reach Scandinavia, they don't have any needed job skills and can't even speak the local language. This ends up putting them in a situation where they have to live off of the system.

In short, if the West really wants to help refugees, they shouldn't be letting them in. They should stop escalating conflicts in various areas and invest in these countries to help them rebuild. These people are better off staying in their home countries with some financial help from the West. Bringing them to the West doesn't benefit them or Westerners.

Do you know why the German politicians let come so many migrants to Germany? I fear the only reasons are self-delusions and statistical reasons. From the Germans of the year 1913 have 50% a descendent in Germany now - what means all Germans die out with a half-life period of about 100 years (with accelerating speed). A population needs about 2.1 children per woman to stay on a stable level. Germany has now 1.37 children per woman - that's about 2/3 from 100%. Without migrants it would be much more worse. Whatever. As well we Germans and our migrants here in Germany have nothing to do with the real reasons behind this. For many refugees this is just simple a good chance.

But sure it would be a good idea to try to help refugees as near to their homelands as possible. No one likes to leave the own homeland and in the near of the own homelands it's more easy to hope to be able to go home again one day.

 

[Utilitarian]

So he would not live in Sweden on his own because he was 9 years old when he came to Sweden. I heard the first 9 years of his life he had lived in Teheran. The paradox is: If it is true what he says, then he would not really be able to say so.

I'm not following you here. How does Tino's personal history invalidate his assumption? Yes, he arrived in Sweden around that age, but his parents were well-educated professionals from what I understand. A lot of the people who left Iran in the late 80s were not political refugees. Most of those left in the late 70s/early 80s. Tino was 9 in 1989, which was well after the Revolution had happened. Iran still has some political refugees, but a lot of the Iranians who come to the West now are simply professionals. Also, Iran's standard of living is substantially higher than any wartorn nation. It's not comparable to Afghanistan or Syria.

As far as I know in newer times Norway, Sweden and Denmark don't let come in many migrants.

Compared to their own policies in the late 2000s, yes, but they're still relatively open compared to their peers.

I had to laugh out loud and long now. Very amusing. Since 2001 our soldiers are searching for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan - and what to say about the success of this form of absurde "politics"? Successful are only the drug farmers there - successlessly our soldiers are still looking for Bin Laden in all directions of the Hilbert space. Our politicians seem to be convinced one day they will know everything about the Hilbert space in Afghanistan.

OBL was killed in 2011. While the opium farming in Afghanistan is a problem, it's also something that only exists because of demand in other countries. Maybe if the West and other various countries didn't have so many addicts, it wouldn't have a market in Afghanistan.

Also, the Taliban under Mohammed Omar reduced opium production by 99% in Afghanistan in 2000. Had the Taliban remained in power afterwards, it's likely opium production would be a lot lower in Afghanistan today. So, again, investment in these countries is often better than invading them.

Do you know why the German politicians let come so many migrants to Germany? I fear the only reasons are self-delusions and statistical reasons. From the Germans of the year 1913 have 50% a descendent in Germany now - what means all Germans die out with a half-life period of about 100 years (with accelerating speed). A population needs about 2.1 children per woman to stay on a stable level. Germany has now 1.37 children per woman - that's about 2/3 from 100%. Without migrants it would be much more worse. Whatever. As well we Germans and our migrants here in Germany have nothing to do with the real reasons behind this. For many refugees this is just simple a good chance.

But sure it would be a good idea to try to help refugees as near to their homelands as possible. No one likes to leave the own homeland and in the near of the own homelands it's more easy to hope to be able to go home again one day.

Much of Europe's demographic issues are directly tied to the cultural rot that is progressivism. Feminism, in particular, pushes women toward the wrong priorities.

 

[zaangalewa]

So he would not live in Sweden on his own because he was 9 years old when he came to Sweden. I heard the first 9 years of his life he had lived in Teheran. The paradox is: If it is true what he says, then he would not really be able to say so.

I'm not following you here. How does Tino's personal history invalidate his assumption?

Because he has a migration background on his own.

Yes, he arrived in Sweden around that age, but his parents were well-educated professionals from what I understand.

So what?

A lot of the people who left Iran in the late 80s were not political refugees. Most of those left in the late 70s/early 80s. Tino was 9 in 1989, which was well after the Revolution had happened. Iran still has some political refugees, but a lot of the Iranians who come to the West now are simply professionals. Also, Iran's standard of living is substantially higher than any wartorn nation. It's not comparable to Afghanistan or Syria.

Eh?

As far as I know in newer times Norway, Sweden and Denmark don't let come in many migrants.

Compared to their own policies in the late 2000s, yes, but they're still relatively open compared to their peers.

I had to laugh out loud and long now. Very amusing. Since 2001 our soldiers are searching for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan - and what to say about the success of this form of absurde "politics"? Successful are only the drug farmers there - successlessly our soldiers are still looking for Bin Laden in all directions of the Hilbert space. Our politicians seem to be convinced one day they will know everything about the Hilbert space in Afghanistan.

OBL was killed in 2011.

The whole world saw how the government of the USA disqualified itselve with the entertainment execution of Osama Bin Laden.

While the opium farming in Afghanistan is a problem, it's also something that only exists because of demand in other countries. Maybe if the West and other various countries didn't have so many addicts, it wouldn't have a market in Afghanistan.

Exactly. Our soldiers fight for cheap drugs in Afghanistan and all over the world.

Also, the Taliban under Mohammed Omar reduced opium production by 99% in Afghanistan in 2000. Had the Taliban remained in power afterwards, it's likely opium production would be a lot lower in Afghanistan today. So, again, investment in these countries is often better than invading them.

The "investments" (=waste of money) of the western world ruined all prices in Afghanistan.

Do you know why the German politicians let come so many migrants to Germany? I fear the only reasons are self-delusions and statistical reasons. From the Germans of the year 1913 have 50% a descendent in Germany now - what means all Germans die out with a half-life period of about 100 years (with accelerating speed). A population needs about 2.1 children per woman to stay on a stable level. Germany has now 1.37 children per woman - that's about 2/3 from 100%. Without migrants it would be much more worse. Whatever. As well we Germans and our migrants here in Germany have nothing to do with the real reasons behind this. For many refugees this is just simple a good chance.

But sure it would be a good idea to try to help refugees as near to their homelands as possible. No one likes to leave the own homeland and in the near of the own homelands it's more easy to hope to be able to go home again one day.

Much of Europe's demographic issues are directly tied to the cultural rot that is progressivism. Feminism, in particular, pushes women toward the wrong priorities.

Feminism is doing what? Since more than a hundred years women have the right to vote. Unfortunatelly this leaded not to a female dominance in all political fields. I trust much more in women to make good decisions than I trust in men to make good decisions.

 

[Rambunctious]

Once the military has been cleaned of patriots they will come for your guns....and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it...we had better find some gonads in the GOP someplace or its all over...that shinning city on the hill will be dimmed forever....

 

[freyasman]

Once the military has been cleaned of patriots they will come for your guns....and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it...we had better find some gonads in the GOP someplace or its all over...that shinning city on the hill will be dimmed forever....

Nothing we can do?

You wanna bet?

 

[Utilitarian]

Because he has a migration background on his own.

His argument isn't against all immigration, just for limiting low-skill immigration, including refugees.

So what?

See above.

Eh?

I was providing more context for why Tino's personal history doesn't contradict his stance. He was not a political refugee.

The whole world saw how the government of the USA disqualified itselve with the entertainment execution of Osama Bin Laden.

How so? He was a terrorist leader. He killed more Muslims than Westerners anyway. He wasn't exactly loved by most people in general.

Now, that being said, I believe we should have taken up the Taliban's offer in 2001. We should have had a third country hold OBL in custody while holding a trial against him rather than engaging in war with Afghanistan.

Exactly. Our soldiers fight for cheap drugs in Afghanistan and all over the world.

No argument here. I'm anti-war in general.

The "investments" (=waste of money) of the western world ruined all prices in Afghanistan.

Foreign investment done privately works quite well, actually. I should clarify that I wasn't talking about nation building or using governments to invest in these countries. I'm talking about corporations investing in these countries. If people truly care about migrants, they should help to create better living conditions for these people in their homelands.

Feminism is doing what? Since more than a hundred years women have the right to vote. Unfortunatelly this leaded not to a female dominance in all political fields. I trust much more in women to make good decisions than I trust in men to make good decisions.

I'm not against much of the first wave of feminism. Even parts of the second wave are ok. However, a lot of feminism since the 60s has been detrimental to women and society in general.

I don't trust women or men more in decisions overall. It's just a matter of feminism pushing women towards things they won't necessarily prefer in the long run. For example, the "free love" movement of the 60s mostly benefited horny men, not women. Women are usually happier in societies that promote monogamy rather than polyamory.

 

[freyasman]