Page #5
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#88
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.Be honest!! 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
only registered users can see external links
People given everything they need and more from the tax payers pockets and do nothing, have no reason to change their ways. no motivation, no desire to do better. Because they don't give a damn.
Toxic masculinity, i hear that word alot lately. The new liberal idea is to make being a actual MAN and standing up for yourself and your family and what you believe into being toxic and terrible and shouldn't be allowed. you are supposed to be a humanoid being with a penis that cry's when your latte is not warm enough and you are supposed to drive a pink prius and never be proud of yourself, your accomplishments ,never have any goals or desire to achieve. Liberals just want you to be a useless bag of water with a phallus. that's the liberal definition of a man nowadays.
You're sounding like your country is some sort of socialist Utopia, where people don't need to work to stay alive. Who in his right mind can still think that? When you need to feed kids in school, because they are hungry, that's not 'socialism', that's a sign that your people are HURTING. Their parents are working their asses off, but their employers don't pay them enough, their landlords are taking all their money, so they don't have any left for food, to feed their children. That shouldn't be fixed with taxes, that should be fixed by reducing the EXPLOITATION SYSTEM.
How do people need to do better? Work harder for their employer? They will love it, but won't pay a cent more. How about education? Trump is destroying schools as we speak. No one can afford to go to school anymore.
Standing up for yourself and your family is NOT "Toxic masculinity", that's a stupid
straw-man. Treating women like slaves and whores is "toxic masculinity". That is what your manosphere influencers are supporting. What they are also supporting is millions for them and obedient servitude for all their followers. They are telling them the same fantasy that you believe, but that's not how they get rich. They got rich by selling a lie, like every other scammer who profits from people's misery. It's millionaires lying for billionaires.
Not everyone can get rich from spouting propaganda on the internet. Some people
need to do actual work.
Do you remember who those "essential workers" were, during Covid?
Those jobs still don't pay shit. We cannot all be managers, business people,
stock traders and infuencers. We DON'T all need to "improve" ourselves,
every job is important to keep the economy growing and progressing.
And everyone who contributes to that should be able to make a good living
for their family. That's not a privilege, that's what we ALL deserve.
The people who are privileged are the people who are born with a silver spoon
in their mouth, thinking they deserve to have more than everyone else, by birth-right.
Why do stupid people always flip that around?
Why isn't it obvious to you what they are doing?
YOU ARE INDOCTRINATED BY THE WEALTHY WHO OWN YOU!
never having done anything positive for anyone else,
but only served your own wealth and power,
and then getting elected for POTUS,
because people like your hate and bullshit.
Since you are so keen into United States politics, please share which one of our CAREER POLITICIANS you feel has deserved to become President.
Perhaps this is like comparing apples to oranges but if possible, would you care to share what your royal family has done for your country?
Why do you think that a billionaire nepo-baby would make a better president
than a career politician? Do either care about YOU?
It's your stupid corrupt system that churns out 'career politicians'.
I want real REPRESENTATIVES, from working class families,
who gained knowledge and experience and then go into politics
to improve the system for YOU, because they still understand people like YOU.
People like Trump only understand how to USE people like YOU.
What does Trump say about someone from a poor family who goes into politics?
When they support the working class, he treats them like GARBAGE.
That should be enough for you to understand the problem.
My royal family doesn't have ANY power. They are just well-payed mascots
and diplomats. They serve the same purpose as the national soccer team.
But i am waiting to hear which of our folks you think should be or deserves to be president. I bet it will be some left wing nut job.
I don't ignore your words, i just don't agree with them most of the time. You do take time to explain why you feel the way you do and some of it makes sense, that is why i try to refrain from calling you vile names and such.. and trust me, this is not the only place i argue and you have really sharpened my pencil. I even got banned from 1 local web site because i was just to uh, honest in how i felt about things. but i had alot of folks agreeing with me.
Not even ALL of them? Damn, that's Freudian slip, if I ever heard one.
No, Trump is more damaging than all welfare recipients put together.
He is currently putting your country into STAGFLATION. He is destroying the relationship with every other country, without even succeeding in befriending the horrible dictators that he likes so much. Your country has been failing for a while,
but he is accelerating it. This will be you, once you finally realize it:
Tweeting and destroying is 'doing things', but even you cannot call it 'working'.
Bernie Sanders should have been president. He has worked his ass off for working class people for DECADES. He is not a hateful, selfish buffoon like Trump. He has worked with everyone on both sides, if they were honestly willing to improve anything for normal Americans. You can only think of the left as 'nut jobs', because that's the right-wing indoctrination inoculation against the truth. Try to show them wrong.
You didn't react to ANYTHING in that post. Don't you even notice?
Why do you think that a billionaire nepo-baby makes a better president
than a career politician? If a politician has a long career doesn't that mean
that their constituents keep voting for them? Is that bad, by definition?
At least they understand how to write laws and they have seen how it worked out.
Why would that be a negative thing? Would you say the same about a carpenter
or a truck driver? Why is it good to pick amateurs to organize the country?
You are only saying that, because your subconsciously noticing the horrible corruption in your country, and you're associating it with all politicians. The longer they stay, the worse they must be. There is NO REASON to it. A newcomer could easily be much worse. They could have lots of selfish reasons to go into politics. They often have a big company that is having problems with regulation or competition. When they have destroyed the regulation or the competition, they bugger off again, or go look for other deals to personally profit from. That's not what politicians should do. They shouldn't
be working to shape the country towards their own benefit, they should be working
FOR THE PEOPLE. They should solve YOUR problems, not their own problems.
You do ignore anything that you cannot argue against. When I can show you evidence, to justify my point, you just ignore that I'm right and move on to the next point. Then a few days later, you come back to the point I showed you are wrong on before. If you can show mt facts to be incorrect, or my argumentation to be fallacious, I will correct myself. It's just really rare that you are correct on a fact or on the logic leading to a conclusion.
If there are lots of people agreeing with you, that just means that it's an echo chamber, it doesn't mean that you are correct.
Kamalla harris would have been terriable for America. Being white single and male is already sin enough as it is in 2025, she would have made it worse.
As for breaking relations with most of our "friends" I will say this, i think most of our so called friends are fair weather friends or just bumming off of us.
Trump destroyed DEI, fired many black people with lots of experience
and replace them with stupid, drunk, racist white BOYS. That's DEI.
Yes, you think that, because Trump TOLD YOU. You don't have good reasons.
Meanwhile, your country has the highest GDP in the world and controls all new media, so it couldn't be all that bad. The fact that the American people are not feeling the wealth, is your own choice, you're all serving the wealthy.
That you have 200 military bases in the world, was to serve your own interests,
like stealing all the resources from poor people, that wasn't because other countries asked you to do that. The whole world is/was using the dollar, which made your country too big to fail. That also mostly serves your wealthy people, but all of that is your own fault. And you're now not correcting your fault, you're doubling and tripling down on it. Everything that Trump is doing or trying is worsening the problem.
Dei was designed to get a certain number of colors and races in spots in all positions. the problem was, some were not qualified for the jobs.but were there because they met other criteria .
All the problems you have with them are caused by your actions.
They are still suffering from inequality, because you didn't accept them as equal.
DEI was giving people more opportunities to show themselves qualified,
but people like you cannot handle it, when a black person gets the job
that you think you are entitled to. A small person then thinks that the other person wasn't even qualified. Just little white snowflakes.
About 90% of Trump's administration consists of dumb-ass amateurs.
No black person in any of those positions ever fucked-up like them.
Your MAGA culture just worships stupidity, there is no other explanation.
Qualifications are what matter to me. I had a white helper on the job that somehow graduated high school and couldn't read. I complained until I was blue in the face with no results because he was related to 1 of the boss's. Well, when i came back from a vacation trip, the helper was GONE. I was like ,Ah, nice, what finally happened. They found out he did not meet the qualifications of the job, 1 of which was reading and writing. nothing to do with color, it is about can they do the job well.
The other thing you are describing is nepotism. That's completely separate from what you are describing as some black preference. Management doesn't have an incentive to appoint people who are unqualified, unless it benefits their own family. One exception; when the person who seems unqualified is also much cheaper, that is also an incentive for management. They are not always picking quality over cost. If you need to promote someone with an already high paycheck, that is expensive. If they can get away with a kid with no experience, but who will work their ass off, that is cheap and maybe it will work out.
You are forgetting that. Do I have to explain that your principles might clash
with an employer's principles?
CAT might be better than Trump and Biden, but most people don't know her.
How about someone who everyone knows and respects?
MAGA is literally supporting to have some 'benevolent dictator' who is voted in and then never have elections again. If you don't trust presidents now, would you trust one that you can never vote out?
The idea of your Constitution was that the president is just some moderator,
to control the debate between the parties and to sign the end result, when the process was performed well. The term 'president' has Latin roots, prae- (meaning before) + sedere (meaning to sit), so "president" originally meant "the one who presides over a meeting or assembly.". It was not originally a title of great power, but rather someone who oversaw or chaired a gathering. However,your presidents have been attracting lots of power, mostly because Congress was to ineffective to make choices. Your Republicans have now completely turned it to a fucking mess, allowing Trump to do almost everything with emergency decrees and executive actions. The Supreme Court is setting some limits, but mostly they'll allow it, because they are by majority partisan conservatives, who don't care that The Founding Fathers
are rolling around in their graves at 10,000 rpm.
How about going back to a president who is just a chair person, with
elected representatives in Congress making laws and voting for them, and
a Supreme Court that is just checking whether the law is being followed?
It wasn't until Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that the Supreme Court ruled that limits on how much a candidate can spend of their own money on political donations (to prevent corruption) are unconstitutional, since spending is a form of free speech.
Presidents were already taking more power before 1925.
Below is a whole list. Why pick 1925?
Do you think everything was better in 1925?
How about the stupidity that caused the Great Depression?
Do you prefer to eliminate the corruption that suits your views?
Don't you like it that billionaires control your politics?
It has served your political agenda.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Andrew Jackson (actually before Lincoln, but foundational, 1829–1837)
Aggressively used the veto not just on constitutional grounds but as a policy tool.
Positioned himself as the direct representative of the people against Congress.
Set an early precedent for a more assertive presidency.
2. Abraham Lincoln (1861–1865)
Civil War emergency powers: suspension of habeas corpus, unilateral military spending, Emancipation Proclamation.
Established that presidents could stretch constitutional authority in crises.
3. Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909)
“Stewardship theory”: the president could do anything not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
Used executive orders aggressively to regulate corporations and protect natural resources.
Expanded U.S. global role (e.g., Panama Canal, “big stick” diplomacy) with little congressional input.
4. Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921)
Transformed the president into the legislative agenda-setter, giving the State of the Union as a personal speech.
During WWI, centralized wartime authority (propaganda, industry control).
Pushed the idea of the U.S. president as a world leader (League of Nations).
5. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945)
The biggest expansion of presidential power in U.S. history.
New Deal: unprecedented use of executive agencies to regulate the economy.
WWII: near-total centralization of foreign and military policy in the White House.
Broke the 2-term precedent (served 4 terms).
After him, Congress passed the 22nd Amendment (1951) to limit presidential terms.
6. Cold War Presidents (Truman → Reagan, 1945–1989)
Truman: asserted the power to commit U.S. troops abroad without a declaration of war (Korea).
National Security Act of 1947: created the CIA, NSC, DoD — permanent national security state under presidential control.
Nixon: pushed executive privilege and secrecy to extremes (though Watergate led Congress to claw back some power in the 1970s).
Reagan: expanded use of executive agreements and covert operations (Iran-Contra).
7. Post–Cold War to War on Terror (1990s–2000s)
Clinton: normalized executive policymaking through regulation when Congress was gridlocked.
George W. Bush: after 9/11, claimed sweeping “unitary executive” powers — indefinite detentions, surveillance, military action (Iraq & Afghanistan) with minimal congressional declarations.
Obama: expanded drone strike authority, unilateral action on immigration (DACA), and continued broad surveillance.
8. Recent Presidents (Trump & Biden)
Trump: declared a national emergency to redirect funds to build the border wall; pushed boundaries of executive orders; challenged congressional oversight.
Biden: heavy reliance on executive action for climate, student loans, and foreign affairs when Congress is gridlocked.
Trump is doing now almost everything with emergency powers and executive actions. Even his own Supreme Court justices are now getting to the end of their patience. He is also abusing his presidential immunity. Ordering to blow up a boat with 11 civilians, in international waters, is murder, even if they are smuggling drugs. The president doesn't have the power to order this. Both Congress and the Supreme Court should act now, because Trump is just testing the waters and moving the goalposts, to do the same to American citizens that he considers to be criminals.
Will you just take his word for it then? What am I asking...
[Our right-wing parties just let the owners of the greenhouses exploit cheap workers from Eastern Europe, but our left-wing parties are putting limits on that, making them pay decent wages, making them provide decent housing. My Socialist Party is now the only party actually proposing limits on work migration. The right-wing parties are shouting loud about migration, but they are only talking about refugees, a tiny minority of the immigrants who come asking for asylum. The PVV (our anti-immigration party) had at least some ideas for reducing labor migration too, but they formed a government with the VVD (right-wing corporate party) who wanted to keep the tax-benefits for expats and the BBB (right-wing farmer and agro-food industry lobby) who loves cheap workers for the business, so nothing happened to restrict work migration. And they are also stupid, so the proposals they did put into action don't actually help reducing any immigration issues. It's just hate on paper, but in practice they made the procedures harder and they were cutting funds of the immigration agency. The result is not saving money but creating a backlog in the process and deportations (to their own safe country, not a concentration camp in a dictatorship)]
Higher education and decent wages for all workers is a driving force behind automation of the grunt work. It benefits the economy as a whole, because it shifts it from a low-wage, labor-intensive economy, to a high-wage, high-tech economy. That serves it's people, because those jobs are not wearing out their body and they can afford a nicer life for their family, but it also serves the country, because those jobs can handle international competition. You don't need tariffs, if companies cannot outsource jobs to poor countries, because they don't have the technology and educated workforce for those jobs.
Your country did not invest in education and did not create the driver for innovation by raising the minimum wage, so you are now stuck with uneducated people doing jobs that can be easily outsourced or replaced by AI. Those uneducated people cannot invest in their own education, because they have to work harder and harder to make just enough money to survive. That's your ideas squeezing the life out of your own workforce and the innovation strength of your country.
Then you voted in a buffoon, who only makes it worse.
When they support the working class, he treats them like GARBAGE.
That should be enough for you to understand the problem.”
Again, I acknowledge that your are far more intelligent than I and I also concede, far more versed on politics relating to my country than I am. Specifically, who has Donald Trump as the President of the United States OR Donald Trump, as a “billionaire nepotism-baby” said about a poor person that has entered the political ring?
of the Netherlands. There was a fun LEGO® Art Exhibit too.
You're kidding right? He thinks poor people are waste.
You yourself think poor people are waste.
You think they are lazy moochers and a waste of money.
It's burned into your brain so deep, that you don't even notice.
And Trump is affirming that every time he speaks, without you even noticing.
"People given everything they need and more from the tax payers pockets and do nothing, have no reason to change their ways. no motivation, no desire to do better. Because they don't give a damn."
You think "burger flippers" should not be paid a living wage.
You think they are too lazy to better themselves. How should they do that?
Where should they get the money for school or investments,
while they work 60 hrs per week to afford a shitty apartment?
At best they get some on the job course for team-leader.
How many people are working some shit job, just to pay the bills?
Tell me, what do they need to do, "to do better"?
What if they have an IQ of 80? Never a living wage for that guy?
Your right-wing media is pissing on the poor on a daily basis too.
That's where you get your hate of poor people from, it's by example.
They are all millionaires and they think poor people are waste.
They are now even suggesting to just kill homeless people. Did you hear?
Do you remember saying that you don't have any money to spend on poor people
in other countries, as long as there are still homeless people in the US?
You're not the only one to say it either.
So, are you spending any money on helping the homeless now?
or the ones who are not interested to hear anything they don't agree with.
You are actually making me put my money where my mouth is. I love it!
Trump: “My entire life, I’ve watched politicians bragging about how poor they are, how they came from nothing, how poor their parents and grandparents were. And I said to myself, if they can stay so poor for so many generations, maybe this isn’t the kind of person we want to be electing to higher office. How smart can they be? They’re morons.”
Trump: “I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions, I just don’t want a poor person.”
[What is he saying? If you come from poor parents, you must be stupid, because
your parents are stupid for being poor, so you have 'stupid genes'. He is clearly arguing against your 'American dream'. I am doing that too, but in a different way.
I am saying the odds are stacked against a poor person making it big.]
Question: How smart do you need to be, to keep a fortune paying out for you indefinitely? How much work does it take?
My answer: You just pick the best people to handle it for you.
Of course you don't trust just one. Is that very difficult? A lot of work?
(One 'stable genius' hired Michael Cohen, to break the law for him.)
Don't you remember him scolding AOC like a million times for having been poor?
“The Green New Deal … done by a young bartender, 29 years old.”
“Instead of her constant complaining, Alexandria should go back home to Queens … and straighten out her filthy, disgusting, crime ridden streets, in the District she ‘represents,’ and which she never goes to anymore.”
[What is he saying? Go feed some soup to the homeless, instead of involving yourself in the big decisions that touch the lives of all Americans, of which half are at least struggling to make ends meet. You need to be rich to decide anything for them.]
“How dare ‘The Mouse’ tell us how to run the United States of America!”
It's not just him, your whole party shits on the poor. It's Republican culture.
I'm amazed how many poor people vote for a party that hates them
and doesn't want any of them even near positions of influence.
Did you never notice any of your politicians making a point out of AOC having worked in a restaurant? How about making a fuzz about her now spending good money on a hair-dresser or a dress? Or did you think: "Yeah, what was this poor Mexican girl thinking, when she got into politics. It's a job for rich white men, to decide where
our government spends all our money."?
Trump, other politicians and your media are directly arguing that she doesn't have a right to complain that poor people have it tough, because she was poor and got out. Do you agree with that idea? Who would be a better representative of poor people,
a previously poor person who has some money now or a born-rich person? (bella!)
Have you ever heard anyone on your side making a fuzz about some rich bitch spending money on her hair or clothes? It's acceptable for all your politicians who grew up in a wealthy family, isn't it? When do you hear the same about a politician who was born rich or had 3 businesses and millions in stocks, before they became
a politician?
only registered users can see external links
• self preservation
• consequences
only registered users can see external links
Aside from the above two things mentioned in the video, regardless of whether you agreed with Charlie Kirk OR WHOEVER for that matter, it is my opinion that he was a peaceful man that was killed for his beliefs. Why do people feel the need to be “dancing in the streets”? WHAT IS WRONG WITH HUMANITY?
--------------------------------------- added after 7 hours
Here’s another young college student mocking the assassination. How can anyone make light of what happened? Our society is so eff’d up!
only registered users can see external links
I had no idea they actually paid out.
So this is news to me that people were actually getting money.
only registered users can see external links
You think that a company that can advertise about doing exactly that,
would be allowed to never even pay a cent?
There are government agencies that investigate claims like that.
Well, maybe the agency that did that is destroyed by Trump now, so yes,
you can NOW assume that companies that make such claims are scamming you.
only registered users can see external links
Pretty smile, but must be a REAL wacko.
And the boyfriend must have had a HARD head.
only registered users can see external links
What the evidence shows:
Contemporary accounts: People close to him (like his secretaries and chefs) said that for much of his later life, especially during and after the late 1930s, he mostly avoided meat. His personal chef, Dione Lucas, mentioned he had a strong aversion to meat dishes and preferred things like mashed potatoes, vegetables, and soups.
Health reasons: Some historians think his diet was influenced more by chronic digestive issues and health concerns than by ethics. He had stomach problems and relied on a personal physician who put him on restrictive diets.
Inconsistencies: Earlier in his life, Hitler did eat meat (including sausages and liver dumplings, which he reportedly liked). There are also accounts suggesting he occasionally broke his vegetarian habits, eating meat broth or even ham.
Propaganda factor: The Nazis liked to portray Hitler as a disciplined, pure-living figure, which included highlighting his supposed vegetarianism, teetotalism, and non-smoking. This was part of building his cult of personality.
Bottom line:
Hitler was not a lifelong vegetarian. From the late 1930s onward, he seems to have mostly avoided meat, but it wasn’t consistent, and it was likely for health and image reasons rather than ethical ones.
Animal welfare under the Nazis:
1933 Animal Protection Law (Tierschutzgesetz): Shortly after the Nazis came to power, they passed one of the most progressive animal welfare laws of the time. It restricted vivisection (animal experiments), regulated hunting, banned boiling lobsters alive, and sought to limit animal suffering in slaughter.
Rhetoric: Hitler and other Nazi leaders sometimes spoke about compassion for animals. Hitler himself reportedly said he opposed hunting and vivisection. Hermann Göring even threatened to send people who violated vivisection rules to concentration camps (though this was more about projecting Nazi “morality” than consistent enforcement).
Reality check: In practice, the laws were inconsistently enforced. They served propaganda purposes — showing Germany as “humane” — while the same regime inflicted horrific cruelty and violence on humans.
Like the guy starts to say when the vid cuts off, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.
Hitler brought about several things that are common place today.
Al copones Cadillac later became the first presidential limo because it was bullet proof and was handy for the president to make the speech declaring war on japan for pearl harbor.
Can you give me an example of what Trump has delivered, that will be common place
in 80 years?
Listen; fascism HAS the ability to unite a country, it's after-all based on nationalism.
That will result in some creations that stand the test of time. That doesn't make the fascism OK, because it's based on DIVISION. How about UNIFICATION to actually make the world better? Hurting scapegoats does NOT solve problems.
Or do you think that the Jews were the problem and Germany improved itself
from blaming and then exterminating the Jews?
Solving the actual problems solves problems, without the VICTIMS.
Is this some 'far left lunacy' or can you at least see that?
only registered users can see external links
Can you imagine sitting on a toilet so long you have to have the seat removed from your body???and loose use of your legs because of itt?
I do think the guy was a bit stupid. why would you leave someone sitting on a shitter that long? even adults do stupid stuff and have to be reigned in once in a while.
Come to think of it, those 2 must not have had much of a sex life or he was off screwing someone else. can you imagine, " wheres your girlfriend?" sitting on the toilet, " for 2 years!????" yep, lets screw
--------------------------------------- added after 2 hours
cat? Help us out, 1 or 2 baths?
New Comment Go to top