Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "VICE News"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
Firstly, it's very unlikely that we, the people, actually "run the show." Politicians need to make money and keep their jobs, and "donations" by corporations do that much better than a silly vote. Money rules, not law. Not you.
Secondly, the idea that your semi-automatic can stop the force of the U.S. military, is a fucking joke. What is a civilian-grade weapon going to do against an Abram? Or against a military grade weapon, for that matter? The classifications exist for a reason- civilians with the capacity to defend against the national military makes a very unstable country- one that can't defend your right to carry a weapon, period. Stop being delusional.
Gun restrictions need to be implemented based on type, and self-control of the customer. Or you can continue to support a status quo that lets children die. Your choice.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@scruggs6633
Yes, they are. At least from the social point of view.
I don't see liberals pushing prayer and creationism in schools, setting up Ten Commandment statues in courthouses, blocking access to health clinics (not just for abortions, but because they don't want people using contraceptives), teaching abstinence without proper sex ed, opposing gay marriage, opposing nonwhite political representation, and spreading their asscheeks open for the rich in the assumption that they'll 'invest in the economy' instead of taking the simpler route of just taking the tax-cut money...
We might have an "overbearing" economic view, but at least we aren't busybodies obsessed with what goes on in others' bedrooms, or whether or not we take Adam and Eve Studies 101...
3
-
@Dan16673
Actually, it in some ways did. The term Karōshi ("overwork death") only first appeared in 1969, and became more prevalent in the '80s. The modernized pace of life of Japan, fueled by government investment into infrastructure, architecture, firms, etc, had introduced a new level of work stress the Japanese hadn't come across.
That aside, it doesn't matter who "tells them" that they should or shouldn't be proud of something. I just wanted to show you that being homogenous doesn't solve your problems. And praying that America does the same will not produce any results.
Nobody addressed my other points. Poland ranks 46th in the world on happiness, and they're disproportionately "pure" in terms of racial makeup.
Plenty of mixed countries have high happiness levels, as well.
This indicates that there is little to no actual benefit from being a homogenous society. There is simply no causation or even correlation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@АндрійКовальчук-о8ч
Because the agreement was kept private for decades, and has only now been de-classified, _after) the U.S. got what it wanted through lying.
Surely you can read English, yes?
These are American documents, conversations between Soviet Foreign Minister Эдуард Шеварднадзе and Secretary of State James Baker. Read the 2nd paragraph on page 3:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/dc.html?doc=4325678-Document-04-Memorandum-of-conversation-between
Baker guarantees Шеварднадзе that "there would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction of forces would not move eastward."
Or the conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Baker?
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/dc.html?doc=4325679-Document-05-Memorandum-of-conversation-between
Page 6, 2nd paragraph:
"If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction of forces for NATO one inch to the east."
Read the American documents, and tell me they're "Russian propaganda." Go ahead, do it. Try and convince yourself.
You're the one who's been fed propaganda. You might not like Russia, but that doesn't make America perfect just because they oppose Russia. The false promises were known to the U.S., England, France, and Germany.
They were just kept private because it would make them look bad. Of course the diplomats would deny it. You believed them?? You're as naïve as a child, then. Silly Ukrainian.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Omar_E11
"wE hAd nO iDeA"
The West has had decades of experience to draw upon, why don't Americans ever learn? Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Guatemala, all happened before Libya.
The U.S. just doesn't understand nation-building, fundamentally, because it has never seen true hardship.
Its land is easy to govern (flat, arable land with many rivers). It can never get through its thick skull, the fact that other places require strong, centralized, often brutal control to keep the territory from falling apart.
Progress happens slowly, and the Americans are like impatient little children.
The Obama administration just needed an enemy to grandstand against, one that threatened their economic interests, and it chose Libya.
Yes, Gaddafi was a brutal dictator. But he was the best that country had, and if the Americans were so thoroughly unaware of the difficulties governing a massive desert, then they should just stay out of others' affairs.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
SirVixIsVexed
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Am I speaking with a person, or a broken record player? It doesn't really help your credibility, if you were looking to convince me of anything. You remind me of me, at 12.
Anyway,
"LOL So what?!"
So, a justification is all you need. Irrespective of religion, history has shown us that religious dogma has little impact on the behavior of any single adherent. Conquistadors slaughtered millions of natives who resisted the spread of Christianity throughout the Americas.
Secular ideas haven't fared much better. Stalinism and Maoism have eradicated tens of millions and warped entire societies.
Why can't you understand that the capacity for murder and conquest is not bound or even amplified by religion? Even Buddhists have committed (rather, are committing) genocide, in Myanmar.
Scriptural text can and will be interpreted to a society's will. Islam is no exception to that. You ignored the fact that they were capable of maintaining stable, peaceful societies on their own.
Needlessly? You're making a strange distinction— which areas did the Muslims need to conquer? Why did Europe need to conquer that land?
"Taking back" is bullshit. Just because a region has people practicing your religion, doesn't make it yours. The Middle East wasn't even a part of Europe geographically.
To be frank, I found that last part rich, considering how much of the world Christian Europe would go on to conquer, colonize, and ruin.
As for the Westboro Baptist church, stop dodging. My point wasn't their scope, but the capacity for people to become extreme regardless of ideology.
I'm aware that all countries currently issuing capital countries are Muslim. Australia and Britiain did the same not long ago. Again, religion plays a smaller part than historical context.
And as for your last thing, I don't even know what to say. That's just completely the opposite of true. It's leftists that try to justify Islam being a 'normal' religion. It's usually rightists who can't see it as anything but a death cult, which certainly won't encourage Muslims to see your side of the story. They're doing the grueling work of de-radicalizing an entire Tori tomb religion, so please let them get to work. If you wanna keep speeding garbage go ahead, but we need to finish up. This either goes somewhere or it doesn't.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2