Hierarchy of Evil

WuWei · 2024-06-25T18:09:45.309Z

That’s worse than ethnic cleansing?

They were very efficient waging the war. Until they lost.

FreeAndClear · 2024-06-25T18:16:42.608Z

WuWei:

That’s worse than ethnic cleansing?

They were very efficient waging the war. Until they lost.

They were very efficient at waging war until 1943. That’s not when they lost.

I wasn’t making a comparison. I said there was a lot more to it.

TheRedComet · 2024-06-25T18:23:20.107Z

They were never very good at the less sexy side of war. Supply and logistics. A good book I read dedicated like five chapters to it. German logistics weren’t awful considering the circumstances early in the war but they made very key mistakes and should have known better.

They went to Moscow in the winter of 1941 with a huge shortage of winter jackets and gloves. Something that Napoleon could have told them would turn out really bad. And it turned it out really bad for them. They were losing more guys to frostbite in winter of 41 than they were to combat. Matter of fact German soldiers had to learn not to immediately plug the first guy they saw wearing a Russian jacket or a Russian Ushanka hat. Both became huge prizes for Wehrmacht soldiers and they made it a point to strip them off of dead Soviets when they saw them. Which sort of confused the firing lines sometimes because they looked like Soviets wearing that stuff.

Guilds · 2024-06-25T18:28:41.291Z

Optrader:

The only fantasy here is that Libs believe themselves to be modern day Robin Hoods. The truth is Lib policies never diminish the wealth of the rich, nor help the plight of the poor. That’s basically because Libs are are nothing but ignoramuses who never seem to understand that confiscation and redistribution (aka socialism) does not create prosperity in a society. And the reason you can’t understand why anyone resists this stupidity is because Libs never seem to confiscate and redistribute their own money. It’s always everybody else’s money they’re so generous with…

Yet…liberal (keynesian) economics were in place when the middle class did its best…(1945-1981 (of course there were other factors as well) There were not massive wealth gained during that time…a lot of people doing well…but not morbidly rich like we have today.

Not enforcing the Sherman act, deregulating the banking systems (which blew up in the late 80’s and then 2007), trashing unions, allowing monopolies to grow, legalizing stock buybacks…and more…all contributed to the current situation. Trickle down, and deregulation…work well…for the ultra rich.

tnt · 2024-06-25T18:31:25.030Z

WuWei:

Greed-they think it’s acceptable.

Nothing about ‘greed’ required acceptance.

WuWei:

You think people steal because they’re poor?

Sometimes, sure.

Optrader · 2024-06-25T18:53:51.842Z

WuWei:

I think they want to feel better about themselves, but are too selfish to do it by themselves.

It would make me loathe myself, but introspection is not a trait found in Libs.

PurpnGold · 2024-06-25T18:58:14.577Z

WuWei:

Who would you rather have as neighbors, racists or:
Thieves?
Drug dealers?
Child molesters?

Still trying to make racism seem “good” huh?

Optrader · 2024-06-25T19:13:39.347Z

Guilds:

Optrader:

The only fantasy here is that Libs believe themselves to be modern day Robin Hoods. The truth is Lib policies never diminish the wealth of the rich, nor help the plight of the poor. That’s basically because Libs are are nothing but ignoramuses who never seem to understand that confiscation and redistribution (aka socialism) does not create prosperity in a society. And the reason you can’t understand why anyone resists this stupidity is because Libs never seem to confiscate and redistribute their own money. It’s always everybody else’s money they’re so generous with…

Yet…liberal (keynesian) economics were in place when the middle class did its best…(1945-1981 (of course there were other factors as well) There were not massive wealth gained during that time…a lot of people doing well…but not morbidly rich like we have today.

Not enforcing the Sherman act, deregulating the banking systems (which blew up in the late 80’s and then 2007), trashing unions, allowing monopolies to grow, legalizing stock buybacks…and more…all contributed to the current situation. Trickle down, and deregulation…work well…for the ultra rich.

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here. The problem is the government is filled with, and controlled by ultra rich people. Rich people, despite what they say, are NEVER going to pass ( or certainly obey) laws that diminish their wealth and power. How can more of the problem be the solution to the problem? It isn’t as much a Democrat vs. Republican thing, it’s a human nature thing. " Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

This is why I bash Libs so much. Otherwise intelligent people believe that government is going to solve problems when government is comprised of people with the same selfish nature as everyone else, yet for some reason you place such faith in their benevolence and wisdom. To make matters worse, every social problem the government tries to solve with one program or another gets worse. Seriously, how can you believe any politician, or group of politicians, whose personal lives are dysfunctional or immoral in one way or another, solve the problems for other people’s families or society as a whole?

This doesn’t work for social problems and it doesn’t work for financial problems. Less government is better. Let the government stick to the things the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to limit them to in the Constitution. Everything else they can get the hell out of, but it suits their purpose to have us squabbling against each other rather than paying attention to what they’re doing…

tnt · 2024-06-25T19:28:59.175Z

Optrader:

Less government is better.

Which was better for a majority of Americans - the Gilded age or the 50s-70s?

Which had more government, which had less?

conan · 2024-06-25T19:29:17.339Z

Guilds:

economics were in place when the middle class did its best…(1945-1981 (of course there were other factors as well)

What were those?

TheRedComet · 2024-06-25T20:33:17.663Z

A racist is the best option out of that lot.

It’s not that I hate drug dealers or anything, but they have a habit of attracting unwanted attention from the police. And that can rub off on their neighbors.

Child molesters deserve the guillotine. So absolutely not.

A thief is liable to rob me.

Most racists, in my experience, keep to themselves and generally don’t bring up race unless you bring it up to them first.

Guilds · 2024-06-25T20:35:13.911Z

Optrader:

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here. The problem is the government is filled with, and controlled by ultra rich people. Rich people, despite what they say, are NEVER going to pass ( or certainly obey) laws that diminish their wealth and power. How can more of the problem be the solution to the problem? It isn’t as much a Democrat vs. Republican thing, it’s a human nature thing.

I disagree…There are certainly bought and paid for pols on both sides, but there is a faction trying to break the grip of the influence of money.

Multiple bills have been introduced…but they do not get very far…We the people need to push for this kind of reform…there are some democrats that have tried…I would hope some R’s would be on board to do something about it…but i cannot find any. i have seen them block legislation that has been introduced. The progressive caucus seems to be the main one that tried to reel in dark money.

If some conservative caucus tried to do this…they would probably get some Dems to sign on.

Guilds · 2024-06-25T20:38:21.882Z

conan:

What were those?

You snipped the answer to your question.

keynesian economics vs Milton Friedman economics…that is where we are, and have been for 40 years

biggestal99 · 2024-06-25T20:40:29.414Z

PurpnGold:

Still trying to make racism seem “good” huh?

i would rather live in a city like Dover, where the crime rate is low and people pretty much get along with each other.

it aint perfect by any means but methinks it beats zinc, Arkansas by a whole lot.

Allan

WuWei · 2024-06-25T21:05:08.667Z

Don’t covet.

WuWei · 2024-06-25T21:05:39.496Z

Might want to do some research.

WuWei · 2024-06-25T21:06:08.982Z

PurpnGold:

WuWei:

Who would you rather have as neighbors, racists or:
Thieves?
Drug dealers?
Child molesters?

Still trying to make racism seem “good” huh?

You didn’t answer the question.

WuWei · 2024-06-25T21:09:04.357Z

TheRedComet:

A racist is the best option out of that lot.

It’s not that I hate drug dealers or anything, but they have a habit of attracting unwanted attention from the police. And that can rub off on their neighbors.

Child molesters deserve the guillotine. So absolutely not.

A thief is liable to rob me.

Most racists, in my experience, keep to themselves and generally don’t bring up race unless you bring it up to them first.

Drug dealers sell to kids.

TheRedComet · 2024-06-25T21:22:39.003Z

Some of them do. Some of them are a little more honorable. But they all attract the police. And that’s ■■■■ I don’t want around me.

Depends on who you buy from. Back in my day, I bought from both kinds of guys. But I noticed that a lot of it is race based. Black drug dealers would sell anything to anyone. I got offered a hooker from a drug dealer once. And they always tried to pawn hot glocks off on you. But white drug dealers usually sold to very select clientele. That’s my theory on why more black dealers go to prison versus white dealers. Black dealers would sell to anyone without really checking them out. Whereas white dealers were far more selective.

e7alr · 2024-06-26T01:31:01.888Z

That is monopolism, not capitalism.