Page #2
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#93
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.Cum isn't stored in the balls!!! 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
1. The Core Report
Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, has said Ford dealerships in the U.S. have about 5,000 open mechanic/technician jobs that can pay up to roughly $120,000 per year.
Farley and some articles frame this as a sign of a broader workforce issue in America — especially in skilled trades like mechanics, electricians, plumbers, manufacturing, and emergency services.
The headline you’re seeing — “I’m offering $120,000 jobs but nobody wants them” — seems to be an Internet exaggeration or social-media meme of that underlying claim.
💬 Public and Media Reactions
A. Business & Economic Coverage
Fortune and other business outlets note the shortage is not about laziness but about skills and training: auto technician jobs require years of apprenticeship/training before many workers hit the six-figure level.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the six-figure pay is not typical for people starting out; many techs start much lower and only reach high pay after years of experience and working conditions that are physically demanding.
B. Worker and Public Commentary
Many people online push back against the simplistic headline and offer alternative explanations:
Pay isn’t really “$120 k” right away: comments and threads point out that the phrase “up to $120k” can be misleading — that figure is often top end after many years on the job, not starting pay.
Training and tools cost time and money: many skilled trades require upfront investment in education, certification, and tools, which adds barriers.
Work Conditions Matter: some workers note that physically demanding jobs with long hours and limited flexibility are less attractive even with high pay.
Online critics also argue that employers sometimes inflate pay numbers for headlines or list jobs they’re not actively hiring for yet, contributing to confusion.
📊 Why These Jobs Are Hard to Fill (Beyond the Headline)
Experts and labor analysts point to several real reasons beyond “no one wants to work”:
1. Skills and Qualification Gaps
A lot of jobs that pay well require specialized skills, certifications, or years of experience — and there simply aren’t enough trained workers currently. Labour market research shows that mismatches between job requirements and worker skills are a major challenge today.
2. Training Time
Becoming proficient as a mechanic or skilled technician often takes multiple years of training or apprenticeships, and that delay means many people don’t enter the field immediately.
3. Job Conditions and Expectations
Even if compensation is good in the long run, the day-to-day reality — physically demanding work, safety risks, less flexible hours, and uncertain overtime — can deter applicants.
4. Labor Market Dynamics
In some sectors and roles, there are simply fewer open positions overall, or employers are very picky about qualifications, which can make openings linger even when workers exist. Research on hiring finds employers sometimes list broader skill “wish lists” that discourage applicants.
5. Broader Trends
Some data shows job openings overall have declined in late 2025, and hiring rates are sluggish even as claims of worker shortages persist — indicating structural complexity in the market.
📌 So Why Do People Say “Nobody Wants These Jobs”?
That interpretation tends to come from simplistic media memes or social posts, not detailed economic analysis. On deeper inspection:
✔ It’s not that Americans categorically refuse to do these jobs —
❌ It’s that the jobs may require skills many workers don’t yet have, or pay structures that aren’t transparent or worth it for people just starting.
✔ Many workers are interested in well-paid, sustainable careers, but they also value flexibility, training investment, and workplace conditions — and if those aren’t aligned, even high nominal salaries aren’t enough.
🧠 Conclusion
The viral story you linked is essentially a viral spin on a real labor market issue — namely, a shortage of trained workers in certain industries, including high-paying mechanic jobs. But the idea that “people don’t want to work these $120 k jobs” is too simple and misleading. The real challenges include:
The need for skills and training pipelines
Physical demands of jobs
Misleading salary framing (“up to $120k” vs starting pay)
Broader hiring and labor market mismatches
In short, it’s not that “no one wants them.” It’s that there aren’t enough traders with the right training, the pay ladder is long and opaque, and labor market dynamics are complex — a more nuanced picture than the meme-style headline suggests.
only registered users can see external links
I thought I would post this to help people understand the different races of people.
"The living peoples of the world are generally grouped into three major divisions: Caucasoid or “white”, Mongoloid or “brown” and Negroid or “black”
For centuries, people have tried to divide humanity into a small number of “races”—sometimes three, sometimes five, sometimes dozens. These classifications were often presented as scientific facts. Modern biology, genetics, and anthropology, however, show that there are no biologically distinct human races. All attempts to divide humans into races are arbitrary, historically contingent, and unsupported by genetic evidence.
1. Where the Idea of Human Races Came From
The concept of race emerged primarily in Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries, long before genetics existed. Naturalists such as Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach classified humans much as they classified plants and animals, relying on visible traits like skin color, hair texture, or skull shape.
Crucially:
- Different scholars proposed different numbers of races (3, 4, 5, 6, or more).
- The boundaries between races were never agreed upon.
- These systems often reflected colonial, political, and social ideologies, not biological discoveries.
If race were a natural biological division, scientists would have converged on a stable, consistent classification. They never did.
2. What Genetics Reveals About Human Variation
Modern genetics allows us to directly measure human biological diversity. Its findings are decisive:
- All humans share about 99.9% of their DNA.
- Of the small fraction that varies, most variation occurs within local populations, not between so-called races.
- Roughly 85–90% of genetic variation is found within any given population, and only a small fraction distinguishes populations from different continents.
This means that two people from the same “race” can be more genetically different from each other than either is from someone classified as belonging to a different race.
3. Human Differences Are Gradual, Not Categorical
Biological races, when they exist in other species, are defined by clear genetic boundaries. Humans do not show this pattern.
Instead:
- Human traits vary gradually across geography, forming what biologists call clines.
- Skin color, for example, changes slowly from the equator toward the poles, correlating with ultraviolet radiation—not with racial categories.
- There is no point where one “race” ends and another begins.
Any line drawn between races is therefore a human decision, not a biological fact.
4. The Arbitrary Nature of Race Classifications
The history of race science exposes its arbitrariness:
- Some systems grouped Indigenous Australians with Africans; others with Asians.
- People from North Africa have been classified as Black, White, or Middle Eastern depending on time and place.
- In the United States, Irish and Italian immigrants were once considered non-White; today they are considered White.
A classification system that changes with politics, geography, and culture cannot be a biological one.
5. Ancestry Is Real; Race Is Not
Rejecting biological race does not mean denying human diversity.
- Ancestry refers to genealogical and geographic history and can be studied scientifically.
- Population genetics can identify patterns related to migration, isolation, and adaptation.
- These patterns do not form discrete racial boxes.
Race, by contrast, simplifies continuous variation into rigid categories and assigns social meaning to them.
6. Why the Myth of Biological Race Persists
The idea of race persists because it is socially powerful, not scientifically accurate. It has been used to:
- Justify slavery, colonialism, and segregation
- Naturalize inequality by portraying it as biological
- Provide simple explanations for complex social differences
Science does not support these uses.
7. Scientific Consensus
Today, there is broad agreement among:
- Geneticists
- Anthropologists
- Evolutionary biologists
- Medical researchers
Humans form a single, interbreeding species with no biological races. Race is a social classification imposed on biological variation, not a natural division within it.
Conclusion
All attempts to divide humanity into three races, five races, or any other number fail for the same reason: human biological diversity does not come in discrete units. The boundaries are invented, the numbers are arbitrary, and the categories change over time.
What unites humanity is far more fundamental than what superficially distinguishes us. From a biological perspective, race is not a fact of nature—it is a story societies tell.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
What the fuck is this woman talking about?
"people who own private property were enabling “white supremacy”"
"“Impoverish the *white* middle class,” she wrote in a 2018 post. “Homeowenership is racist / failed public policy.”"
" Weaver, who argues that landlords who are being bankrupted by their inability to remove delinquent tenants are just the cost of doing business"
Ananas, this lady is just right up your alley aint she?
it is talk like this that prompts hatred of socialism and proof it's followers are idiots
Is that what you are outraged over now?
But, when I criticize Trump, a person backed by the most power military in the world,
for threatening the sovereignty of multiple countries at the same time, that's TDS.
By the way, I looked it up. This is the complete quote: “Private property including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy masquerading as ‘wealth building’ public policy.”
She was OBVIOUSLY not talking about citizens owning their OWN homes, she was talking about private rich and wealthy people, who own multiple houses, that they rent out.
Her reactions to this post surfacing are:
“some of those things are certainly not how I would say things today, and are regretful.”
She emphasized that her focus in her current role is on addressing racial inequalities in housing and ensuring that everyone has a safe, affordable place to live, whether they rent or own. She also noted that “for many years, people have been locked out of the property market, that has produced systemic and racial inequalities in our system.”
The Director of the FBI made a video of him cutting off the heads of his political enemies. That was more recent too; 2022. That is far more deranged and he is in a position of far greater power. If it was the only thing, we could discard it as a joke, but he has a wild history of promoting “deep state” conspiracies, directly engaging with QAnon–linked messaging and hashtags, sympathy with the convicted criminals of the January 6 Capitol attack, labeling officials as Government Gangsters on an enemy list and threatening to “come after” journalists and perceived political enemies.
If a few posts from her are evidence that the followers of socialism are idiots,
than Kash Patel fully justifies me in calling all of your side DANGEROUS LUNATICS.
only registered users can see external links
Don't they have tape measures Up there?
for people who want to follow religious books literally:
A hundred years from now, scholars will have trouble differentiating the terms
“butt dial” and “booty call”. Can you only imagine what we have been missing
in translation for the last two thousand years?
Ode to Winning So Much It Hurts
I love him loud.
I love him best.
He says he’s rich, so he must be blessed.
He talks about himself for hours on end,
That’s leadership, friend, not narcissism.
If he forgets what he said last week,
That’s strategy, not a mind gone weak.
They say he hates the working folk,
But he sells us hats, so that’s a joke.
Sure, they’re cheap, and cost us rent,
But that’s not greed, that’s commitment.
I bought the book with his holy name,
Printed overseas, but it’s not the same
As corruption, no, it’s faith you see,
Capitalism wrapped in divinity.
The Constitution? Optional text.
Rules are for losers, he knows what’s next.
When he breaks them all, it shows his might,
Real kings don’t read, they feel what’s right.
They cry about soldiers, medals, the dead,
But he loves them best when they’re useful, not red.
If they fall for oil or profit or pride,
That’s freedom’s price,don’t ask who decides.
He flirts with danger, threatens the globe,
Not because he’s scared, but bold, so bold.
If secrets leak and questions grow,
Just shout at the world,that’s strength, you know.
They whisper of friends he shouldn’t have had,
Of parties and tastes that look real bad.
But powerful men get misunderstood,
If it was wrong, he meant it good.
So let them talk, let truth offend,
I’ll love him louder till the very end.
Because if he’s guilty, corrupt, or cruel,
Then I’ll just say: that’s how you rule.
only registered users can see external links
The Dutch Republic (c. 1600s) developed some of the first fully modern capitalist institutions. The Dutch were pioneers in scaling and institutionalizing capitalism:
1. First permanent stock exchange
- Amsterdam (1602) hosted the world’s first stock exchange with continuous trading.
2. First modern multinational corporation
- The Dutch East India Company (VOC) issued tradable shares, paid dividends, and had limited liability.
3. Advanced financial markets
- Futures, options, short selling, and sophisticated credit markets existed in 17th-century Amsterdam.
4. Capitalist state structure
- The Dutch Republic protected property rights, enforced contracts, and kept relatively low feudal interference.
- Economic power was largely in the hands of merchants rather than nobles.
5. Capital accumulation on a national scale
- Profits from global trade, shipping, and finance were reinvested systematically.
That's why I get annoyed when people call my country "socialist".
We were one of the most successful capitalist countries in the world for hundreds of years, and still are. To me, socialism is the only way to save capitalism. We are heading towards feudalism, and socialism is the only stabilizer to prevent the system from collapsing.
The worst of these Leftist feudalists are the members of the WEF. These billionaire elitists are the main culprits. They are attempting to eliminate economic self-determination for everyone outside their neo-Leftist elite inner circle.
Everyone else outside this circle who advocates for Socialism, believing it to be a panacea to allegedly cure all the world's ills, are nothing more than the latest version of Lenin’s useful idiots. Every nation that has attempted to establish the varying degrees of Socialism have quietly backed away from it after it had, time and time again, failed to live up to its promises.
Pure Socialism is impossible. That’s why no one has ever attempted it.
The problem with Socialism is that it ignores human nature. People like to have nice stuff. They do not want to have to ask anyone else for permission to get it.
People also don’t want to support leeches who refuse to contribute anything back into the economy. Forcibly distributing the fruits of someone’s labor to others who only take and who give nothing back is theft, and it guarantees the collapse of any country that attempts to practices the purist forms of this theft: Marxist Socialism.
But of course, I’m sure you’ll have the mental gymnastics sufficient to come up with a justification as to how wrong I am for being against the overt coercive theft of someone else’s property gained through their own labor.
Or were you just triggered by my comment below it?
Do you even understand the terms 'left' and 'right'?
These originate from the French revolution, where the commoners sat on the left side
and the ruling elites sat on the right side. The 'left' was fighting for their freedom,
while the 'right' was defending their dominance (FEUDALISM).
The WEF is a global convening of elites dedicated to safeguarding and steering capitalism. How the hell can you call that 'Leftist'?
Billionaire elitists support the system that created their wealth: capitalism.
I agree that pure socialism is not possible, neither is pure capitalism.
We need something in between, that will not collapse.
This current state of predatory capitalism is collapsing.
To keep it from collapsing, we need a whole lot MORE socialism.
When you are saying "Socialism ignores human nature", are you referring to selfishness? That's based on the idea that humans evolved to the 'top predator' through 'survival of the fittest', which in itself is a mischaracterization of evolution. (Ask ChatGPT to explain why).
Humans became the dominant species on Earth, because of COOPERATION. We are not the strongest animal, not the fastest animal, we don't have the best eyesight, we are the smartest animal and used that to effectively COOPERATE. We survived all odds,
by developing bigger and bigger tribes. Those tribes had leaders, but they only accepted the leaders that were trusted to protect their common interests.
You obviously don't believe that billionaires are protecting our common interests, otherwise you wouldn't have accused the left of propping them up. Now, please tell me
if you remember me saying anything that supports the billionaires transitioning us all to feudalism. Is taxing them going to help them do that? Will it enrich billionaires to change private health insurance to a democratically controlled single payer healthcare system?
Who is supporting leeches? Do you think the wealthiest man in the world is contributing much? Elon Musk is going to be the first Trillionaire. Why is he not re-investing at least $800 billion back into the economy? He stole Paypal, he stole Tesla, and SpaceX is dependent on massive funding from the government. Can't he afford it himself?
What labor is Elon Musk doing? He is distributing the fruits of lots of other people's labor towards himself. He made electric cars cool. Is he now making them affordable for everyone? Is he really that useful to humanity now? How about Jeff Bezos?
You are using lots of terms, that I don't think you understand much. To you, those terms are arguments by itself, because they are "scary words". Inform yourself about the ideas behind them, instead of the straw-men of them.
It's the billionaires who are paying the media to tell you that taxes are theft. That resulted in them paying less taxes, and you making up the difference, either by paying more taxes, or getting less back. It is estimated that between 1975 and 2023, roughly $79 TRILLION
was redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. Why isn't that theft?
And did the 'Leftist feudalists' do that? HOW?
And it is easy to believe that taxes are theft when you don't get anything worth a damn for what you pay.Our roads are failing, our bridges falling,But we have a "diverse work force" and multigender bathrooms, oh boy! They don't teach what kids need to know in school anymore, they indoctrinate them and send them out the door not even understanding what a loan is or that they have to pay it back.
Did you see the video?
The Netherlands is 270 times smaller than the US.
Still our GDP is only 24 times smaller than yours.
I think we are still pretty strong, for such a small country.
Beating back the sea, that's our spirit of ingenuity and tenacity.
When the US needs to build a dike or sea-wall, you call the Dutch.
That's the result of 400 years of entrepreneurial thinking.
It's very likely that your country is the result of our merchant culture.
The US adopted it and turned it BIG. But now you're failing, because you don't adapt.
The term MAGA works for a reason; you have passed your peak, now you're failing.
Instead of understanding why, you are blaming everyone but yourself.
You fail to see that you did not become big by (just) exploitation,
but by giving everyone a chance to maximize their potential.
That's the real ideal of capitalism, not your perverted version of it.
How much debt did you leave school with? Do you know anyone of your age,
who studied and left school with a debt like kids today?
You are normalizing something that wasn't normal in your time.
It's also not normal in countries that are beating your ass,
because they understand that education is strengthening their country.
only registered users can see external links
What is the etymology of left and right?
Therefore the dominant hand (for the majority of people) became known as the “right” hand, literally meaning the correct hand. The word “left” comes from the Old English lyft, meaning “weak”, and was used to designate the weaker, non-dominant hand.Nov 1, 2016
only registered users can see external links
“the right” came to mean defenders of tradition and “the left” came to mean people who wanted to change the system to make it more fair." I will add, fair as in their opinion of what is fair
only registered users can see external links
There is no mention of politics being called 'left' or 'right' from before the French revolution, while the those bible text are much much older.
Funny that you are not referring to what Grok says this time, because that confirms my claim and not yours.
Here are some official sources:
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
is a case of stolen valor."
only registered users can see external links
That's because you have the luxury to not have to care about anything else.
Unlike people who cannot afford groceries, rent / their mortgage, healthcare
and a decent education for their kids.
They are just stupid distractions, from him failing as president.
What rock did you just crawl out from under?
or stealing their resources, while letting Putin doing the same.
He wants to steal those resources from the people who own them
and let the billionaires have them. IT'S STEALING!!!
Drugs are only dangerous to the stupid people who put them in their body.
If you didn't have those people, there would be no drugs cartels.
Or, if drugs were just made legally, there would also be no drugs cartels.
When it's guns, you say: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!".
At least that someone putting a bullet in someone else's body.
With drugs, it's you own decision to put it into your body.
That's purely your failure as a country. Don't blame other countries.
because if he was, Trump would have protected him.
Owning MAGA snowflakes IS one of my hobbies.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Of course, and everyone who denies it is an idiot.
That doesn't mean that all boys are the same and all girls are the same.
Some girls are behaving very much like boys.
Some boys are behaving very much like girls.
And that is based in the exact development that he is explaining.
People have a tendency to confuse the (large) majority for the standard, or even the norm.
When you're ripping a doll from the hands of your little boy and say "Boys don't play with dolls!", you are denying that some boys have developed differently, and you are enforcing "the norm". It is not preventing that boy growing up into a "sissy", it is forcing the boy into a male stereotype, that is probably not his strength, and preventing him to develop his real strengths. Parents like that will push their son into the life of being a sub-par plumber, instead of letting him develop into a great psychiatrist (just an example).
And if your daughter has interests and skills that doesn't fit your stereotype of girls,
you can end up harming her development, crush her confidence, and probably deny
your country a great engineer, entrepreneur, or top female athlete.
In the end he says: "The freer the society, the bigger the sex differences".
That is definitely not accurate, in general. It's a mixed bag.
Factors/Characteristics Where the Statement Has Some Support (Sex Differences Larger in “Freer” / More Gender-Equal Contexts):
1. Personality Traits
Differences in many Big Five personality dimensions (e.g., agreeableness, neuroticism, extraversion) tend to be larger in more gender-egalitarian, high-income societies.
2. Basic Personal Values and Preferences
Some studies find that men’s and women’s values and preferences (e.g., risk attitudes, prosocial preferences) differ more in gender-equal and wealthier contexts than in less egalitarian ones.
3. Educational / Occupational Choices in Some STEM Fields
Patterns termed the gender equality paradox sometimes show greater differentiation in field choice (e.g., proportions of men vs. women in certain academic tracks) in countries with higher gender equality indices.
4. Cognitive Abilities Where Women Tend to Excel
Differences in areas such as episodic memory and verbal ability have been reported to increase in societies with better living conditions, often correlated with gender equality.
Factors/Characteristics Where the Statement Is Not Supported or the Pattern Is Absent/Inconsistent:
1. Sexual Behavior
Differences in sexual behavior (e.g., likelihood of casual sex) have been found to be smaller in more egalitarian or high-income societies, likely due to permissive norms and access to contraception.
2. Cognitive Abilities Where Men Tend to Excel
For abilities like mathematical performance and semantic memory, sex gaps decrease in societies with higher living conditions and equality measures.
3. General Cognitive Measures and Some Sociodemographic Outcomes
Some research suggests that many sex differences don’t substantially vary with gender equality, so for traits like overall intelligence or school achievement, differences are relatively stable.
4. Some Well-Being and Emotional Outcomes
Studies find little or no consistent “paradox” effect for gender differences in emotional well-being or mental health outcomes across gender-equal vs. unequal contexts.
5. Methodological and Cultural Qualifications
Some researchers argue that the gender-equality paradox itself may not be a universal causal effect, but rather an artifact of measurement, social norms, or Western research bias, meaning it doesn’t necessarily reflect a simple link between freedom and sex differences.
When you take a doll from a boy, you may have prevented him from growing up being indoctrinated to thinking it is ok to not work a physical job and may leave him with college debt for a education for a field of work there is no money to be made in. How much college debt do most plumbers have?
Most I know have a bass boat out back, 36 foot 5th wheel camper and a F350 to tow it with, nice house they bartered work for most of the custom rock work,and granite counter tops, while your psychiatrist drives a prius and will never get out of debt.
It IS OK to not work a physical job. WTF are you talking about?
When you take a doll from a boy, you are the one indoctrinating the boy with your ideology. There is no good reason to let children not find out for themselves what they like and are good at. If they have interests and skills that would make them good plumbers, they will be drawn to that, without your narrow-minded meddling.
Are you saying that technical jobs require less education than non-physical jobs?
That's damn disrespectful to craftspeople.
You are also shitting on your own stupid education system, that inhibits people
to make the best of themselves, because of the ridiculous costs associated with it.
Only in your dumb country.
Sure throw around some caricatures. The idea that real men need to drive a pick-up truck and sissy men drive a Prius, is all conservative nonsense. If you drive a big pick-up truck, when you don't need one for work, I assume you have a micropenis. If you see a man step out of a small, fuel economical car, you know he has nothing to compensate for.
That's also caricaturing/stereotyping, but much more accurate.
Psychiatrists in the US generally make very good money, with average annual salaries typically ranging from $240,000 to over $300,000. That's worth the education.
But no amount of education can turn an Neanderthal into a psychiatrist. It requires
a special mix of character traits to be good at that job. If you have a boy with those character traits, he is likely not attracted to toys that you associate with boys.
Ripping the toys he likes from his tiny hands, will probably damage him for life.
All because of your conservative indoctrination, or downright homophobia.
only registered users can see external links
A commercial that is addressing the conspiracy theory problem.
only registered users can see external links
(only the voice over and the video filter are AI)
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Cut the budget of the U.S. Department of Education even more, that will help.
And now to be more serious, here are some articles related to the subject:
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
What has he ever done to you to make you hate him? How much damage has he done directly to your life?
He ran for president for self-aggrandizement and then found out that too many people are actually stupid enough to vote for him. He never wanted to be president, but his narcissism prevented him from quitting. Then he got hooked
on people worshiping him. It's so ridiculous that no one ever came up with a story like that, but it's real life. It's your stupidity that made it possible.
In 2024, he was forced to keep it up, to escape his own crimes.
He is now on a rampage vengeance campaign to hurt everyone who elected him.
You're just dumb enough to not understand when he tells you.
oops 87
Trump, head of The Trump Organization since 1971, first dabbled in presidential politics in the early summer of 1987.
The problem is that you agree with him.
Are you talking about Trump?
Enriching himself was his second goal, besides staying out of prison.
Trump is putting African dictators to shame, with his record corruption.
With every tariff announcement, his friends and family made a fortune
on the stock market, with insider trading, which is a crime. If he didn't
control the DOJ and the FBI, this would be investigated right now.
And, what has he done to you to earn such baseless loathing? You were fine with him until he ran for POTUS the first time.
I knew him to be a piece of shit, long before he ran for president.
I didn't know the extend of it, because he was keeping under the radar, but as soon as he went public, I started investigating him and found an almost unending pile of shit, that each on their own should discredit him to ever vote for him. His character alone should be a reason, but you support him despite everything combined.
Either you have been living under a rock, or you just like horrible people.
You started “investigating,” like some sort of Sherlock Holmes, but with the internet solely as your source, no doubt.
Yeah. We all know that everything on the internet is true, accurate, and based solely on facts and reality. It’s a totally reliable source on which to form opinions regarding politics, culture, and science.
(Rolling my eyes right now)
That was sarcasm, by the way. I had to alert you of that as this medium is not conducive to expressing it in clear fashion.
My, my, my. The derangement syndrome is real! It is absolutely stunning the amount of mental gymnastics those suffering from it will go through to justify their outrageous unsubstantiated claims based on rumors, misinformation, and propaganda! The street lawyers and basement detectives spewing this “information” are amazingly brilliant, all of them able to draw accurate and insightful conclusions from mere gossip, lies, innuendo, and rumor!
I can’t help but wonder if Hillary Clinton also got the same level of investigatory attention from you amateur sleuths, or is this all just sour grapes being pressed simply because she lost to him and you people just cannot let it go.
I find it telling that none of you had a problem with him before he replaced the (D) behind his name with an (R). The rage that was expressed after that happened is palpable. The desperation for extracting vengeance for daring to “leave the plantation” is driving force behind it all!
Nothing is too low nor unethical, just as long as “we get Trump.”
Wow.
Do you have anything else than the internet?
Did you ever do business with him? I guess not.
The internet is a jungle with everything between absolute lies and accurate science. It's up to your critical thinking skills and knowledge to know what's what.
It's easy to recognize when right-wing media is lying. If they are very vague,
you can be sure that they are lying. When journalists are adding lots of details,
it makes it easy to verify those claims.
I don't like Hilary Clinton. Why bring her up? It's a 'whataboutism'. In any case, she is horrible, but not nearly as vile, evil, criminal and corrupt as Trump.
I don't care about a D or an R, because there are lots of D's that I hate.
That's the thinking of an American, who is used to only 2 parties. We have 27. That requires lots more political insight.
Trump was an asshole when he was a Democrat too. You should learn to look beyond party lines. It makes you an easy victim for scamming.
Pal you got some kinda nerve to come to Bella’s forum thread trying to spread your communist hatred and your bull shit and shame on cat to agree with any thing you say take your commie bull shit and hit the high way peddle that crap 💩 in your own country
My question to you is, “Who gave you the right to comment on anyone’s right to post here as long as Bella! allows it? Ananas is not a communist. He’s a socialist with opinions that are relevant to the political situation in this country. Our politics don’t just affect this country. Right or wrong we influence the politics of the world. He has as much right to opine as you. Perhaps more. His views are well thought out. At the very least, he has solutions to our problems unlike from those that just criticize.
Yes, socialism is an important—and in many interpretations, essential—part of communism, particularly in Marxist theory, which has heavily influenced modern understandings of both terms.
Classical Marxist View (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)
Marx and Engels used "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably in works like The Communist Manifesto (184
Lower phase — Society still bears marks of capitalism (e.g., distribution "to each according to his contribution," with some inequalities).
Higher phase — A fully developed classless, stateless society with distribution "to each according to his needs," abundance, and no money or state.
Marx did not label the lower phase "socialism."
Later Marxist-Leninist Interpretation
Vladimir Lenin, in The State and Revolution (1917), popularized the distinction:
Socialism is the lower or first phase of communism: the transitional stage after the proletarian revolution, where the state (as a dictatorship of the proletariat) exists, classes are abolished, means of production are socially owned, but distribution is based on work contributed.
Communism is the higher phase: stateless, classless, moneyless, with full abundance.
This view became standard in Marxist-Leninist traditions (e.g., USSR, China), where countries like the Soviet Union described themselves as "socialist" (building toward communism). Socialism here is crucial as the necessary foundation and pathway to achieve full communism.
Broader or Non-Marxist Views
Outside strict Marxism, socialism is often seen as distinct and not necessarily leading to communism:
It can involve mixed economies, democratic processes, private property alongside public ownership, and gradual reforms (e.g., democratic socialism in Nordic countries or social democracy).
Communism is viewed as more radical: aiming for complete abolition of private property, classes, money, and the state, often through revolution.
In these contexts, socialism is not "part" of communism but a separate ideology sharing roots in opposing capitalism and seeking greater equality.
Summary
In the dominant theoretical framework influencing communist movements (Marxism-Leninism), socialism is fundamentally important as the initial, transitional stage required to build communism. Without socialism, communism cannot be reached, as it develops the productive forces and eliminates capitalist remnants. In other usages, the terms are more separate, with socialism as a milder alternative. The confusion stems from historical shifts in terminology after Marx's death.
1.6s
You can try to correct them, but they don't want to be correct.
Understanding politics doesn't serve their ruling class.
Socialism isn't the first step to communism, that is Grog parroting
decades of indoctrination. It just summarizes what's available.
Capitalism and communism end up at the same place; wealthy and powerful people controlling everything and the people owning and controlling NOTHING. That's because power and wealth corrupt everything. It doesn't matter where you start to centralize money. If it's the government, they will accumulate money and power and strip it away from the people.
If you let private citizens take too much money and exploit everyone else, they will accumulate money, buy more and more power, strip it away from everyone else and take over the government. The result is the same.
If you then combine it with stupid cult-like followers, who are willing to fight and die for their leaders, because they will get a bit more scraps than the rest, that is very similar to the 'communism' of Russia. The best term to use for that is totalitarian state-capitalism.
With the billionaires now entering your government, when they are not satisfied with buying politicians anymore, turning a corrupt democracy in a sham-democracy, while only allowing speech that they like, ignoring the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch, you're heading at mach speed to the same thing: totalitarian state-capitalism. I just call it 'communism',
in the comment below, because that's how it's known by the masses.
Marxian communism (theoretical):
- Economic power: fully distributed
- Political power: fully participatory
Socialism of the Dutch Socialist party (Idealism):
- Economic power: extensive redistribution, strong public control
- Political power: high participatory input and grassroots movements
Socialism of the Dutch Socialist party (current pragmatism):
- Economic power: highly redistributive, but constrained by status quo
- Political power: supports optimizing normal parliamentary politics
Stalinist USSR / Pol Pot’s Cambodia ('communism' as the masses know it):
- Economic power: extremely concentrated
- Political power: extremely authoritarian
Putin’s leadership (Russia, 2000s–present):
- Economic power: highly concentrated (state-control and oligarchs)
- Political power: extremely authoritarian (centralized, repression)
MAGA capitalism:
- Economic power: highly concentrated (billionaires = job providers)
- Political power: strongly authoritarian (cult-leader Trump rules all)
at some point.
I was just watching a video about people leaving MAGA.
Look what this woman said (from 6:27‑7:42).
only registered users can see external links
1947 webster dictionary
You are in the group of you will own nothing and be happy.
modern socialist try to separate themselves from their forefathers to try to win over skeptics. but in the end, either system will leave wealthy government officials riding the backs of the poor, only difference with socialism from communism, is the government feeds them some treats as they suffer like free aspirin and birth control pills calling it health care..
You are trying to put down the idea as bad. In excess it could be just like capitalism is as it’s being practiced today in our country. For your benefit here’s some information for you:
Socialism is fundamentally both an economic and political system, advocating for collective or government ownership/control of production and resources to promote equality, but its implementation varies widely, from state-run economies (like Soviet communism) to mixed systems with strong social welfare and regulation (like democratic socialism in Nordic countries). It's a broad ideology focused on social welfare, fair wealth distribution, and shared resources, contrasting with pure capitalism's focus on private profit.
Here’s another gem from the leading “socialist” of the 20th century:
"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the government?”
He was an evil bastard who laid the groundwork for what all the Leftist “useful idiots” are doing today.
Lenin was a Democrat. He said this: "We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”
I’m glad he is dead. I wish his ideas had died with him.
the difference between communism and socialism? You are really proud
of your ignorance, aren't you?
Your orange buffoon is literally forcing big companies (like Intel) to sell off
part of their ownership to the government. If a Democrat did that, you would
be shouting "COMMUNISM!" from the rooftops. I predicted that MAGA would
go communist, you just don't understand it enough to see it happening.
You let Elon Musk, a South African immigrant (probably got his citizen status illegally, if you check it) rummage around in your government finances and your private citizen data, without any oversight or transparency.
Your VP serves a billionaire who own a mass surveillance tech company.
You're blindly supporting a future where the trillionaire techbro's join with
your (next) billionaire president and corrupt politicians, and rule over the poor masses with mass surveillance and an iron fist, just like East Germany before the fall of the iron curtain. There is no difference between the government owning the means of production, and the owners of the means of production having full control of the government. It's both COMMUNISM.
YOU are the COMMUNIST!!!
I am a SOCIALIST: I want to maximize democracy and decentralize ownership of the means of production, making everyone who participates in it benefit
from it directly, without owners exploiting the working class. I would be content with Social Democracy, but I prefer Democratic Socialism, which is the flavor
of Socialism that I like. What you call "socialism" isn't Socialism, and it is definitely not communism as it is known from history.
When phart is talking about Ukraine, that's my business more than yours.
Europe is close to war, with your former enemy. We chose your side in the
cold war, joined NATO with you, gave you control over most of the world
and it's resources, and now your hanging us out to dry, because your
fascist wannabe dictator loves every horrible dictator in the world and
hates democracies. You follow that traitor like he is Jesus.
Until your dictator bans all speech that he doesn't like, I'll be here
crapping all over your cult of hate and ignorance.
How about the internet being the open marketplace of ideas, little snowflake.
The only differences between socialism and communism are just a matter of a few degrees of separation.
Confiscation of wealth are the principles of both philosophies. The Socialists merely put a smiley face on their theft of the resources for which we worked.
You’re a watered down Stalinist.
Lenin was accurately explaining Marx there, with socialism being the step towards communism, in his THEORY, but the what Lenin ended up working towards was the complete opposite of what Marx intended. Instead of full human emancipation (freedom from exploitation, alienation, and scarcity),
in a classless, stateless community, that provides people each according
to their needs, Lenin turned out to be a dictator, who exploited his people, 'alienated' everyone who disagreed and stole grain from his people to feed his army.
Obviously, Lenin had an absolute authoritarian view. If you are confusing that with the Marxist ideal, you're either being ignorant or dishonest.
It goes against 1.5 million years of human evolution, and is doomed to fail.
Marxism has also contributed to more human death and misery than all the wars in the 20th century combined, even to this day. His theory ultimately punishes success, stifles independent thought, crushes economic development, and establishes an impoverished generational dependency on the State.
Those who have been forced to accept it become impoverished spiritually, mentally, and economically.
The only way to make others accept this horrible political philosophy is by the use of force, or by the threat of the use of force, as rational people instinctively are repulsed by it.
Mao himself admitted this when he wrote, “Power comes from the barrel of a gun."
Marxism also does absolutely nothing to eliminate class, in spite of any claims otherwise. Instead, in reality, it establishes three new classes in every society that has ever attempted it: the repressive political elite class at the top, the apparatchick class who maintain the bureaucracy of the State in the middle, and the “people,” those left over, treated as subjects with no voice, no rights, and no self-determination. Their very existence is dependent upon the whims of the State.
The oppression of any and all who are not favored within the inner circle of the ruling class has been the ultimate outcome of every attempt to establish a Marxist state, everywhere in this world.
The only places Marxism has ever been successful have been in the naive minds of those who foolishly advocate for it, in spite of any and all evidence it is a highly flawed and dangerously oppressive political and economic system, an anti-human system that has destroyed entire cultures.
How could any sensible, decent, and reasonable person possibly support any of that?
Humanity is capable of much more decency than you are supporting, maybe not because of generosity or empathy, but maybe just for the basic selfish desire for safety, freedom to be, health, love, acceptance, belonging, friendship, comfort, creativity, fulfillment, inspiration, curiosity and rest, that we only get from living in harmony with others.
Human evolution is NOT based on conflict, but on cooperation. We have evolved in tribes, not as solitary predators. That evolution narrative is part of the capitalist propaganda they feed you 24/7.
That focus on money that the feed you is impoverishing you spiritually and mentally. They even twisted the church from the worship of a generous, humble, wise person, into a cult of selfishness and xenophobia, and mostly into a BIG BUSINESS.
If Marxism was not eliminating classes, you should be happy to have it, because your ideology splits the people into the owner class that owns and controls everything and the working class serving them. Of course, you are bullshitting, because Marx's whole idea was to eliminate that, which is the critique in his book "Das Kapital". You gotto come up with better arguments then "Nuh-uh!".
You keep referring to all those dictators who used the terms capitalism and socialism to fool the people. That was their way to steal back their power, after the French revolution showed people that they can live without elites exploiting them. It's the time when people created democracy, but the elites kept fucking with it with lies and violence. The people were stupid to believe the lies and sometimes commit violence in favor of their own exploitation, but they have ALWAYS wanted freedom. You yourself frame your support for exploitation as a message of freedom.
You keep accusing my side of politics of working towards a ruling class, but your own movement is based on exactly that, even concentrated in one leader that should be completely free from criticism. It's all based in the worship of wealthy people like gods, who need to be released from the burdens of taxes, regulations and responsibilities, so they create utopia (on Mars) and accumulate wealth that trickles down upon the peasants. They are advocating for techno-feudalism and you are saying: "Yes, yes, rule over me good lord!". Well, they will, for a while, until their mindless greed destroys the Earth's ability to support life. Then they will try to hide in their bunkers, or on their mega-yachts, or on Mars, or on some fucking space station (like in the movie Elysium), while their stupid rubes can suffer and croak, all in name of the most primitive nature of humanity, instead of the endeavor to evolve beyond it.
How could any sensible, decent, and reasonable person possibly support any of that?
Additionally, I don’t believe you understand communism at all. Otherwise, you would not be equating it with capitalism. They are not the same, and it’s either a blatant lie or extremely naive to assert they are one and the same.
You are using terminology like "worshipping at the altar", to intentionally associate it with a religion. That's also bullshit, because "Modern Socialism" is based on secular humanism, the opposite of religion.
In my country, the Socialist Party was funded by hardworking people, who were the sons of a factory worker, a pipefitter, and a butcher. They all grew up solidly working class, and they all started out working in factories or as craftsmen. Some of them became full-time trade unionists, but many of the original party organizers had working class jobs to pay the bills. When their political careers started to earn money (representatives are getting paid), they donated 50-75% to their party, only keeping around median wage. When they wrote books that made money, they donated the proceeds to the party. With that money, the party supported political activism for the working class people protesting their exploitation and unsafe working conditions. An early big action was protesting against houses getting build on the highly poisoned ground of demolished factories.
My current party leader, Jimmy Dijk, grew up in a working class family. His father worked as a window cleaner. His parents had to work hard to make ends meet, which contributed to his conviction that politics should pay more attention to people with modest incomes. He did support his own education, by working in a cardboard factory.
You are correct that most of the Socialist Party organizers now have at least decent educations, but they ALL came from solidly lower working class families. I myself have a good education and come from a solidly lower working class family. My father was the main income provider, as an electrician, working for employers his whole life. People get their socialist views from seeing working class people struggle. Right-wingers are the ones who had it easy, growing up spoiled, and having an easy go at life, in at least middle income families. They PRETEND coming from poor backgrounds, PRETEND that they needed to struggle, but having made it big, because they are so smart, but most of them grew up with a silver/golden spoon in their mouths.
Look at the party that you support, and find me one politician who wasn't at least a millionaire, or had millionaire parents, before they entered politics.
Did any of them work a normal working class job? How many of them needed to pay for their own education?
Trump had everything handed to him, but he still needed to be a criminal to cover up and compensate for his constant fuck-ups. He is the absolute example of someone failing upwards.
Hog wash!
We are a selfish species, like all others in existence, with our own self interests always in mind. No amount of wishfully naive faith in any fantastic secular 19th century philosophy that ignores human nature is going to change that.
Only violent force and the threat of violent force will coerce the “People” into accepting that which enslaves their labor, their minds, and their spirits.
Marxism and its alleged socialistic morality should go the way of the buggy whip. That’s how useless it has become in today’s world.
The “working classes” are a thing of the past today, a concept as dated as Marxism itself. Labor is going the way of the dodo, and your 19th century ideals refuse to accept it.
Admit it. You’re stuck in a mental philosophy that’s older than powered aviation.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people
can do evil; but for good people to do evil, that takes religion."
Who do you think invented socialism? This was the term for our system
for freedom, after the commoners freed themselves from the Bourgeoisie exploiting them. And yes, the freedom from religion was part of it, because people understood that religion is no more than a tool for submission.
It's not a belief in the "alleged innate altruistic nature of Man", it's a belief
in the right of Autonomy for everyone, while capitalism is a belief in the right to exploit others, which only applies to the favored few.
"Labor is going the way of the dodo" Damn, that's stupid, especially for an American. People are working multiple jobs to stay alive, in your country. Sure, they are working on AI to replace the working class, but they are not thinking of you working less AND staying alive, they are just thinking about not needing their sheeple anymore. What happens to you doesn't concern them. You either starve or go back to farming, or something. They have proposed NO solutions for you. I'm not including me, because your president is isolating you from the rest of the world. It's gonna be completely surrounded by walls, no one coming in or going out, and complete blackout, so you don't know how fucked you are.
Funny, how you are thinking that serving the selfishness of the wealthy
is modern. What do you think people have done for thousands of years? Following the High-priest, Pharaoh, Imperator, Emperor, Tsar, King, President, wealthy donors to your politicians, and soon the Trillionaire Tech-Lords. Every time the smart courageous people bleed to rid us of
our oppressors and every time cucks like you submit themselves to them again. It's so fucking tiresome.
You are just jacking off and then calling it intercourse.
There can be multiple sources all parroting the same lie. "Verification" is not going to help, unless you understand how to recognize facts and false arguments.
Sometimes I jack off, sometimes I have intercourse. I know the difference.
I still have some time left to inform myself about what's happening in the world.
I want to know what is real and what is false, because I make choices in life that affect me, people I care most about, and the world I one day will leave behind. I prefer to live my life among happy people who are thriving, humanity looking out for each other and people who represent me in politics solving the problems that negatively affect that. If you think that you are doing the same, then please explain your logic.
Plus, where were your complaints while the Biden family were taking advantage of not only the Biden presidency, but also the Biden vice-presidency during the Obama regime? (D) gets a pass, while (R) is pilloried?
My, how our outrage becomes selective when the letters behind the names of those in office change!
Can your bias be any more obvious?
Well?
to not support him. If you don't see Trump BEING a horrible piece of shit,
on a daily basis, then you probably think behavior like that is normal.
That makes me question your morality and how you treat other people.
If you don't, then why do you think people like Trump should be president?
from taking even more of Ukraine, the next time they feel like attacking Ukraine.
How can you expect Zelensky to agree with that?
Let's say he does sign it, how long do you think the "peace" will last?
Besides it may not matter anyway, Chernobyl is leaking due to a drone strike.
probably be the last to go extinct. It's wild bees that you need to worry about.
Other pollinators, including flies, butterflies, beetles, birds, and bats, would continue
to help pollinate plants, but they generally do not pollinate as effectively as bees for many crops. Some plants that depend heavily on bees would produce much less fruit or seeds without them. Humans wouldn’t necessarily go extinct without bees, but agriculture, food diversity, and ecosystems would face major disruptions.
Would humans go extinct without bees?
only registered users can see external links
Did you actually READ anything, or are you just saying shit that you want to believe?
There are generally two to three times as many wild honey bee colonies as managed ones worldwide. This is a worrying fact by itself, showing the impact
of humans on the earth. However, consider this: When combined, humans and livestock account for roughly 95–96% of all mammalian biomass on the planet.
What do you think that nature needs to survive?
Do you think humanity can survive, when nature dies?
Do you even care?
You could try to actually argue against it. Can you?
Yep, you got it right, we survived it, that doesn't mean we or anyone else haven't had side effects from it.
I remember when that plant in japan messed up, the radiation levels in the grain in the midwest US went up. Thanks to the radiation traveling by jet stream.
Radiation from thermo-nuclear war won’t kills the insects, including cockroaches and bees. It’s the ensuing nuclear winter that will wipe out most insect species.
Elevated radiation levels emitted by Chernobyl won’t ever come close to exterminating insect life. If the original initial release didn’t kill them, neither will a slowly leaking hole in the sarcophagus.
How Radiation Concentrates in the Food Chain:
1) Bioaccumulation: This occurs when an individual organism absorbs radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) from air, water, or soil faster than it can excrete them. Radionuclides often "mimic" essential nutrients; for example, Strontium-90 mimics calcium and is stored in bones, while Cesium-137 mimics potassium and builds up in muscle tissue.
2) Biomagnification: As small organisms are eaten by larger ones, the concentration of persistent radionuclides increases at each level of the food chain. Predators must consume large quantities of prey to survive, effectively "collecting" the total toxic load from hundreds or thousands of organisms lower in the chain.
3) Trophic Transfer: In aquatic environments, radionuclides are absorbed by phytoplankton and zooplankton, eventually reaching top predators like large salmon or lake trout, which may have concentrations high enough to cause deformities or death.
How This Affects People:
Humans sit at the top of many food chains and are affected primarily through the ingestion of contaminated food and water.
- Radioactive Iodine (I-131): Quickly moves from contaminated pasture to milk and, once consumed, accumulates in the thyroid gland, significantly increasing the risk of thyroid cancer, especially in children.
- Cesium-137: Distributes throughout the body's soft tissues and muscles, leading to long-term cancer risks due to its 30-year half-life.
- Strontium-90: Becomes a "bone-seeker," integrating into the skeletal structure and potentially causing bone cancer or leukemia.
Do you think an environment where the bees die, is not damaging YOUR health?
That's indeed all a more serious and more imminent problem than the current little increase in the background radiation, I agree. But it took hundreds of billions of dollars to keep it limited to a little increase in the background radiation. Those are the downsides of nuclear energy, which make it a stupid alternative for fossil fuels.
There are better alternatives, that are not linked with risks of country-disrupting costs for eons, making large areas of the earth uninhabitable and easy access to nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. Why support expensive and dangerous solutions over cheap and safe ones?
If you care about it, you are supporting the wrong party/president.
They care about wealthy people being allowed to exploit you,
at whatever cost to your livelihood, health and life period.
They show you daily how much they hate poor people with brown skin.
They hate poor people with white skin, only a little bit less.
If you think that you don't qualify as 'poor', don't worry, you will.
Nuclear is not a good answer to our energy problem.
Coal smoke can be filtered, coal slag used for arrogate in concrete and asphalt , solar works on the roof of a factory or home, wind can work but has alot of issues. hydro works and does the least damage, geothermal works with little to no damage to the enviroment.
Nuclear radiation is not causing the small things to just start dropping dead. It’s all the toxins being placed into the environment that is doing that, from female hormones from birth control pills being excreted into rivers and oceans, to pesticides and herbicides being sprayed on our food in the fields.
As for “green” energy, it is super easy to ignore the fact that the natural resources required to make it must first be mined in gigantic open pit mines, if you can’t see them.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Tour a typical above-ground mining operation sometime, and then come back to tell me how “green” green energy is.
Also, maybe you ask salmon how they feel about hydro-electric power generation sometime. I’d bet you’d be surprised at their answers.
Coal is strip mined just like other more modern stuff, no real difference there.
there is NO FREE RIDE.
There will always be a price to pay for energy
is perfect, is the surest path to ruin.
Where do you think the fossil fuels come from? From the sky?
Yes, all energy technology requires natural resources, but 'black' energy turns fossil fuels into CO2, water and pollution, while metals and minerals needed to make green energy can be recycled. That is not always easy, but it already
creates much less pollution than 'black' energy ever did.
Of course, if you let green energy be exploited to just profit the wealthy, they will pollute with that too. If it makes them 1 dollar more, they will poison anyone.
"Out of sight, out of mind." OK, not for 'black' energy, because Texans are breathing toxic air, 22 million Americans are advised to not drink their tap water and another 40 million don't trust that their tap water is safe to drink, and are probably correct.
There are ways to route the salmon around hydro-electric power plants, but who are you kidding? If it wasn't for 'environmentalists' like me, your fossil fuel pollution would have killed them all already.
So, you don't worry about radiation, climate change or pollution from fossil fuels, but you did say: "There are far worse manmade things going on right now..."
Like what then? What DO you worry about?
What is it that is causing humanities demise even sooner?
salmon, i just bought a big bag of frozen farm raised, didn't have to by pass any turbines to get to the bag!
to someone on your own political side. I am SO proud of you.
that radiation isolated.
only registered users can see external links
If they don't disassemble the reactor (which would be incredibly expensive), they will need to keep it covered for many hundreds to thousands of years, which would be incredibly expensive. Since Ukraine will probably not be able to pay for it, that means the rest of the world needs to, unless we want it to spread all over the earth.
At least Japan is capable of paying for their "little accident" themselves. They made the whole of earth a little bit more radioactive, resulting in accumulation of radioactivity in animals on top of the food chain (humans), but at least they are doing a reasonable job of containing it now. Still, it will probably cost them much more than nuclear power ever made them. That's the constant gamble being taken, by every country who is using nuclear power. The slightest accident or inevitable natural disaster can damage your country more than nuclear power ever benefited it.
If your country is ever at war, or there are some terrorist who don't like you, you could just paint a big bullseye on every nuclear plant, because that's the reality of it.
It's much better to use that big nuclear reactor in the sky for energy. It's cheap, it's safe, and it doesn't blow up for another 5 billion years.
New Comment Go to top