This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ
Pages: 1 ... 170171172 173174 ... 256
5131
« on: April 22, 2015, 01:36:09 AM »
Where are you interested in going, if you're not sticking around?
Germany. I'm moving there next year for University, and hopefully I will be able to continue living there after that. It'd only be a concern financially since I'm an EU citizen.
[insert joke about Greek citizen owing money to a German institution here]
5132
« on: April 22, 2015, 01:33:33 AM »
It all depends on the who the dictator is really... If it's someone like Tito, then sure, I could deal with an authoritarian government. If it's someone like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mugabe, or Qaddafi, then fuck no.
Please tell me you do not genuinely believe the "Tito was a gud boy he dindo nuffin" myth
He wasn't perfect, but at least wasn't a complete fuckhead like most of the other dictators this world has seen.
Tito was a pretty big fuckhead. Maybe not Pol Pot tier, but he was certainly not good guy.
5133
« on: April 22, 2015, 01:29:00 AM »
It sounds like your family is spread pretty far out internationally. Is this why you seem to be so much more interested in foreign policy and international politics than anyone else here?
Yeah, pretty much. All I have in the US is my immediate family (and my dad's family), but I'm not even remotely close to my dad's family. So I have absolutely zero reason or incentive to stay here whatsoever.
Where are you interested in going, if you're not sticking around?
5134
« on: April 22, 2015, 01:21:59 AM »
It sounds like your family is spread pretty far out internationally. Is this why you seem to be so much more interested in foreign policy and international politics than anyone else here?
5135
« on: April 22, 2015, 01:11:54 AM »
So how does your close family feel about the whole thing? Is it like the Lost Cause mindset here in the American South? Is there an attitude of acceptance? Are any of them indifferent?
Do they still identify as Rhodesians, or have they mostly assimilated into the cultures of their new countries? Do you identify with it at all?
5136
« on: April 22, 2015, 01:03:19 AM »
How do you feel about white nationalist movements within African countries, like that Boer independence movement, I forget the name? Do you think there a place for Europeans as a minority in Africa, or is their presence illegitimate? Within Zimbabwe specifically?
5137
« on: April 22, 2015, 12:50:15 AM »
I feel like I have a decent understanding of the way race played into official policy in Rhodesia. While discriminatory, some policies seemed like they were intended more to keep the uneducated out of power, rather than overtly suppress the natives. It just so happened that all of the uneducated people were natives.
Would you say that this is true of white Rhodesians culturally, in your experience? Or is there genuine racism? Overt or otherwise?
It was more covert racism. They made all of those laws which sound equal on paper, knowing that the laws would affect the native Africans extremely disproportionately. And also, Africans weren't allowed to vote in elections until very late in the war. So the Government was definitely Apartheid. Though it was less obvious of an Apartheid system than South Africa's at first glance.
Hell, Ian Smith (the PM of Rhodesia, to those who don't know him) even said himself that he didn't believe that Africans should rule the country.
Between the old government, Muzorewa's time as PM, and Mugabe's, which do you consider the most legitimate?
Well, Mugabe's Government obviously is the most legitimate since he never had to deal with an insurgency against his rule, has international legitimacy, and has membership of many IGOs. But Mugabe's also a fuckhead who deserves to burn in hell, so I'd rather wish that Ian Smith be in power since he actually ran the country fairly well (minus the war). But the war began started before Rhodesia even declared independence.
Do you feel like Rhodesia could have peacefully transitioned into a non-apartheid state reasonably soon without going to shit like it has under Mugabe? Do you feel that Zimbabwe's failures can be attributed to Mugabe's regime specifically or is there more at play?
5138
« on: April 22, 2015, 12:41:03 AM »
I feel like I have a decent understanding of the way race played into official policy in Rhodesia. While discriminatory, some policies seemed like they were intended more to keep the uneducated out of power, rather than overtly suppress the natives. It just so happened that all of the uneducated people were natives.
Would you say that this is true of white Rhodesians culturally, in your experience? Or is there genuine racism? Overt or otherwise?
It was more covert racism. They made all of those laws which sound equal on paper, knowing that the laws would affect the native Africans extremely disproportionately. And also, Africans weren't allowed to vote in elections until very late in the war. So the Government was definitely Apartheid. Though it was less obvious of an Apartheid system than South Africa's at first glance.
Hell, Ian Smith (the PM of Rhodesia, to those who don't know him) even said himself that he didn't believe that Africans should rule the country.
Between the old government, Muzorewa's time as PM, and Mugabe's, which do you consider the most legitimate?
5139
« on: April 22, 2015, 12:28:24 AM »
I feel like I have a decent understanding of the way race played into official policy in Rhodesia. While discriminatory, some policies seemed like they were intended more to keep the uneducated out of power, rather than overtly suppress the natives. It just so happened that all of the uneducated people were natives.
Would you say that this is true of white Rhodesians culturally, in your experience? Or is there genuine racism? Overt or otherwise?
5140
« on: April 22, 2015, 12:20:59 AM »
Do your parents have those cool-ass White African accents?
5141
« on: April 22, 2015, 12:01:12 AM »
I'd like to remind you, though, that your life is meaningless with or without these social systems. When you die you're dead. When your friends die, they're dead too. The Earth itslef is going to die, someday. We, as a species, will die. And when that happens, all of our statues, books, films, buildings, everything will have been for nothing. Humn achievement is fleeting. Rather than trying to build monuments in sand, would you not rather try to live a dignified and personally satisfying life while you can?
i was wondering if you'd address this. im an existentialist. because we do not have any inherent purpose for living beyond survival and reproduction, we are free to carve our own meaning into the world. i choose to live for the pursuit of epicurean pleasure. someone like me could find great happiness in a free for all. in fact, i would ideally prefer it. but it cant last in anything except an isolated system. you have to know this. even members of the lesser animal kingdom form informal governments. it's the natural way. we'd have to achieve transhumanism in order to transcend our instincts.
Members of the animal kingdom also reproduce by rape and murder the offpsring of competitors. We, as humans, are lucky enough to be self-aware and conscious of our actions, as well as the effects of our actions on other, equally sentient humans. We are not the same as wolves, we are not the same as ducks, or sharks, or goats, or chimpanzees. Do some of the same rules apply? Yes. Because of the scarcity of resources, we will always compete for access to them. That said, I should hope we are aware enough to know not to use violence to reach those resources, and to shun and retaliate against those who do.
So I don't think humans need a violent hierarchy to survive like some animals do. We're past that point. We know better. We can and do cooperate on certain things because we know we should, not because we're beaten into it. I believe violence begets violence, and coercion begets coercion, so by institutionalizing coercion we are enabling it.
these ideals are admirable, but ultimately, not everyone sees things like this. most people dont understand these things. most people dont care. how do you propose that we beat these values into the greater bulk of humanity?
I don't propose beating anything into anyone. That would be hypocritical. I choose to live and let live. I'll do my best to be a good guy with good values, and avoid coercion at all costs. I'll talk about it and explain my ideas to people, so they can spread, but I don't want to be forceful about it or bully anybody. And I think that's how these ideals spread. If people see that liberty-seekers are good people living consistently with their values, it becomes more appealing.
5142
« on: April 21, 2015, 11:54:51 PM »
It all depends on the who the dictator is really... If it's someone like Tito, then sure, I could deal with an authoritarian government. If it's someone like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mugabe, or Qaddafi, then fuck no.
Ah....
Some of my family lives under Mugabe right now. And he's the reason I'm not living in Africa. <___<
You've got Rhodesian family? Any interesting stories? Rhodesian/Zimbabwean history is fascinating to me.
Yeah, my family's from Rhodesia. And I had several relatives who were in the Rhodesian Government, including Ian Smith himself. So, obviously we all had to leave once it became clear that the Government would lose the war as the terrorists committed a lot of reprisals. We kind of split all over the world. Most of us went to Europe or South Africa, but my mom's immediate family could only get into the US (Canada would have let them in, but they didn't want cold weather), so now I'm kind of stuck here for the time being separated from the rest of my family.
And I have several interesting stories about it, yes.
Would you be interested in making a thread about it? I eat this stuff up.
5143
« on: April 21, 2015, 11:51:21 PM »
I'd like to remind you, though, that your life is meaningless with or without these social systems. When you die you're dead. When your friends die, they're dead too. The Earth itslef is going to die, someday. We, as a species, will die. And when that happens, all of our statues, books, films, buildings, everything will have been for nothing. Humn achievement is fleeting. Rather than trying to build monuments in sand, would you not rather try to live a dignified and personally satisfying life while you can?
i was wondering if you'd address this. im an existentialist. because we do not have any inherent purpose for living beyond survival and reproduction, we are free to carve our own meaning into the world. i choose to live for the pursuit of epicurean pleasure. someone like me could find great happiness in a free for all. in fact, i would ideally prefer it. but it cant last in anything except an isolated system. you have to know this. even members of the lesser animal kingdom form informal governments. it's the natural way. we'd have to achieve transhumanism in order to transcend our instincts.
Members of the animal kingdom also reproduce by rape and murder the offpsring of competitors. We, as humans, are lucky enough to be self-aware and conscious of our actions, as well as the effects of our actions on other, equally sentient humans. We are not the same as wolves, we are not the same as ducks, or sharks, or goats, or chimpanzees. Do some of the same rules apply? Yes. Because of the scarcity of resources, we will always compete for access to them. That said, I should hope we are aware enough to know not to use violence to reach those resources, and to shun and retaliate against those who do. So I don't think humans need a violent hierarchy to survive like some animals do. We're past that point. We know better. We can and do cooperate on certain things because we know we should, not because we're beaten into it. I believe violence begets violence, and coercion begets coercion, so by institutionalizing coercion we are enabling it.
5144
« on: April 21, 2015, 11:35:36 PM »
It all depends on the who the dictator is really... If it's someone like Tito, then sure, I could deal with an authoritarian government. If it's someone like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mugabe, or Qaddafi, then fuck no.
Ah....
Some of my family lives under Mugabe right now. And he's the reason I'm not living in Africa. <___<
You've got Rhodesian family? Any interesting stories? Rhodesian/Zimbabwean history is fascinating to me.
5145
« on: April 21, 2015, 11:31:38 PM »
It all depends on the who the dictator is really... If it's someone like Tito, then sure, I could deal with an authoritarian government. If it's someone like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mugabe, or Qaddafi, then fuck no.
Please tell me you do not genuinely believe the "Tito was a gud boy he dindo nuffin" myth
5146
« on: April 21, 2015, 11:20:21 PM »
You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating any commune. Collectivism is stupid. I'm advocating individual freedom. If you want to go start a hippie commune fine, as long as everyone involved is choosing to be involved I couldn't care less.
Now, as for the practicality of individual liberty?
I believe competition is the most efficient process for advancement and improvement. People are more creative and work harder when they're doing things they actually want to be doing. People will spend more and invest more when there is no mob with a flag taking a portion of their earnings every month. The state can provide no service that private entities cannot provide more efficiently and with more options.
Although I will admit I'm not as well-versed as I should be in the consequentialist arguments for liberty because I'm not a consequentialist. I approach it from a moral perspective. that is just as impractical. a free-for-all cant exist. we will inevitably form social systems. ideally, yes, this works. in practice, it is quite literally impossible.
I'd love to see an example of an actual attempt at a free society failing. There's no such thing as a free-for-all because there are rules and standards for human interaction. They don't need to be enforced violently because they enforce themselves through boycott. These are the very things that make anarchy ideal. If greed and violence are so prevalent, if humans are so inherently flawed, why the fuck are we giving them power and authority? We're enabling this violence and greed. I'm for the elimination of power. because its better to put our welfare in the hands of a government.[/quote]Why is it better to put your welfare in somebody else's hands? You genuinely think somebody knows what's good for you better than you do? Fine, let him make all of your decisions, I don't care. But if either of you try to force that on somebody else, you're in the wrong. a free for all is the ultimate enabler of violence and greed on a very personal level. but again, it's quite literally impossible, so this is a moot point. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Do you just picture the Fallout universe every time you imagine being able to make your own decisions? That paragraph was a fucking mess. I'll address it, but it's stupid.
Suffering is relative. I might say that I'm suffering because I've got a stomach ache, or because I'm being tied up and whipped every day in between being forced to till fields for no pay. You're right about that.
But the rest of it is incoherent bullshit. What the fuck do you mean we can only live through collective, unfeeling groups? What are you, Geth? No. Any society, group, collective, commune or whatever is made up of individuals. All individuals have their own minds, feelings, and perceptions. Everyone on this planet has conflicting goals, needs, and desires. You may share some. You may share most. But we all differ on some level, this is natural and inescapable. Competition is the name of the game, and pretending that we can all unite to do what's "best for all of us" is ridiculous, because there is no greater good, and there never will be.
i didnt say that we can only live through groups, i said that we live on through them. theres a difference. if we dont have souls, then there is no inherent purpose to our lives other than survival and reproduction. thats a terrible reality. fortunately, sentient beings have this lovely tendency to form social systems, and culture/art is born from that. culture and art are the lasting legacies of individuals, and they are born from the realities of the social systems in which these individuals live. without social systems, we lose these things.. at least in the form we know.
Okay, that's cool, you have your little social system. I might even join. It sounds fun. The fun stops, however, when you use violence or threaten it in order to propagate your system. You can have a culture without imprisoning or killing those who choose not to participate in some or all aspects of it. I'd like to remind you, though, that your life is meaningless with or without these social systems. When you die you're dead. When your friends die, they're dead too. The Earth itslef is going to die, someday. We, as a species, will die. And when that happens, all of our statues, books, films, buildings, everything will have been for nothing. Humn achievement is fleeting. Rather than trying to build monuments in sand, would you not rather try to live a dignified and personally satisfying life while you can?
5147
« on: April 21, 2015, 10:46:07 PM »
please address the practicality of a peaceful worldwide commune. You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating any commune. Collectivism is stupid. I'm advocating individual freedom. If you want to go start a hippie commune fine, as long as everyone involved is choosing to be involved I couldn't care less. Now, as for the practicality of individual liberty? I believe competition is the most efficient process for advancement and improvement. People are more creative and work harder when they're doing things they actually want to be doing. People will spend more and invest more when there is no mob with a flag taking a portion of their earnings every month. The state can provide no service that private entities cannot provide more efficiently and with more options. Although I will admit I'm not as well-versed as I should be in the consequentialist arguments for liberty because I'm not a consequentialist. I approach it from a moral perspective. "examples please" human greed and bloodlust.
you're projecting. try not to do that. i never said the collective solved our problems. i said that greed and violence make the problems with the social contract worse. these are the very same things that make anarchy impossible. These are the very things that make anarchy ideal. If greed and violence are so prevalent, if humans are so inherently flawed, why the fuck are we giving them power and authority? We're enabling this violence and greed. I'm for the elimination of power. and for fucks sake. you just addressed the fact that i have ideals. i presented my ideals to you, and you just write me off with a buzzword. lovely. im glad you're allowed in serious with this sort of mindset.
That paragraph was a fucking mess. I'll address it, but it's stupid. Suffering is relative. I might say that I'm suffering because I've got a stomach ache, or because I'm being tied up and whipped every day in between being forced to till fields for no pay. You're right about that. But the rest of it is incoherent bullshit. What the fuck do you mean we can only live through collective, unfeeling groups? What are you, Geth? No. Any society, group, collective, commune or whatever is made up of individuals. All individuals have their own minds, feelings, and perceptions. Everyone on this planet has conflicting goals, needs, and desires. You may share some. You may share most. But we all differ on some level, this is natural and inescapable. Competition is the name of the game, and pretending that we can all unite to do what's "best for all of us" is ridiculous, because there is no greater good, and there never will be. However, I don't have any problem if you get a group together to work for your collective good, as long as you are all making your own decisions and not applying or threatening force to reach that good. You'll inevitably reach the point at which your interests diverge, but go right ahead. Just don't try to force me into it.
5148
« on: April 21, 2015, 10:15:43 PM »
idealism on this scale is impractical. you know this. I don't though. you cant just magically make the world a peaceful commune. I can't on my own. the very same problems that make peaceful anarchism impossible permeate government and ruin it. Examples please. coercion may be morally wrong, but theoretically, the applied ethics defend the social contract. human greed and bloodlust are what exacerbate the inherent moral problems with government.; consequentialist pls go. The collective has not solved the problems of greed or violence, it's only made it possible to enact violence on a global scale. Don't fucking prescribe the problem as a cure for itself. the reality is that we will suffer. day in and day out. that is the only true, applied reality of our existence. when we form communities and cultures, we form a new identity, a separate entity that cannot feel our individual pain. i think that makes it all worth it. we can only live on through the social systems that we erect. they arent perfect. they never will be. but thats ok. we can work to improve them. we WILL work to improve them.
Don't cut yourself on that edge.
5149
« on: April 21, 2015, 09:57:13 PM »
Authoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.
The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.
There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.
i would love to hear about your alternative.
I'm happy to share it.
You're free to make your own decisions and keep your own property, as am I, and everyone else. I don't pretend to have any right to tell you what to do with your life or property, neither do you pretend to have the right to tell me what to do, because we don't. I do not presume to know what's best for you, you do not presume to know what's best for me, because we don't. If you'd like something of mine, I may consider giving it to you for some kind of compensation, or for free if I feel like it, and vice versa. We can choose to work together on a project, or choose to never speak to one another, or be best friends, or casual acquaintances.
Sound alright to you?
sounds like a world we dont or ever will live in. its an ideal. ideals and reality dont mix.
Don't? Sadly this is true, we live in the world of the nation-state right now. In the future, though, there may be hope. Ideal? Yes. But this "Hurr ideals aren't reality dudeharden up life is tough hur dee hurr durr" shit is retarded. Go be a ruthless dictator then if you think there is no place for morality in this world. Don't pretend you don't have ideals yourself. You do.
5150
« on: April 21, 2015, 09:47:07 PM »
Authoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.
The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.
There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.
i would love to hear about your alternative.
I'm happy to share it. You're free to make your own decisions and keep your own property, as am I, and everyone else. I don't pretend to have any right to tell you what to do with your life or property, neither do you pretend to have the right to tell me what to do, because we don't. I do not presume to know what's best for you, you do not presume to know what's best for me, because we don't. If you'd like something of mine, I may consider giving it to you for some kind of compensation, or for free if I feel like it, and vice versa. We can choose to work together on a project, or choose to never speak to one another, or be best friends, or casual acquaintances. Sound alright to you?
5151
« on: April 21, 2015, 09:38:42 PM »
Authoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.
The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.
There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.
So I see you're firmly a member of Rousseau's school of thought then. >__>
I have no idea who that is
edit: oh, social contract guy
And Rousseau is a fucking retard.
I agree. The notion of general will is really stupid.
5152
« on: April 21, 2015, 09:14:52 PM »
Authoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.
The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.
There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.
So I see you're firmly a member of Rousseau's school of thought then. >__>
I have no idea who that is edit: oh, social contract guy
5153
« on: April 21, 2015, 09:09:38 PM »
Authoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.
The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.
There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.
5154
« on: April 21, 2015, 08:46:18 PM »
National self-determination is a fucking stupid notion, as is self-determination on any level but individual.
5155
« on: April 21, 2015, 08:43:30 PM »
Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchant, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy.
5156
« on: April 21, 2015, 10:28:52 AM »
The solution is obviously forceful redistribution of wealth.
Imprison all who resist!
5157
« on: April 21, 2015, 10:25:38 AM »
Anybody else see what I'm seeing? Wanna discuss it?
5159
« on: April 21, 2015, 09:45:15 AM »
Pay your debts, gyro eating degenerate
5160
« on: April 18, 2015, 02:45:55 AM »
Thanks for reminding me how retarded American politics are. Not that UK politics aren't stupid, but they're lightyears ahead of American politics.
LOL
>Republicans constantly accusing Obama of not loving America because he's not a hawk
Yeah. They are extremely retarded.
Hell, the Republicans even having any seats makes American politics retarded.
>Obama
>not a hawk
Libya was the only thing remotely hawkish he did, and that was because most of the world was already doing it. Are you fucking stupid?
>escalated the war in Afghanistan, adding tens of thousands of troops at a cost of many billions of dollars. >committed American forces to a war in Libya, though he had neither approval from Congress nor reason to think events there threatened national security. >ordered 250 drone strikes that killed at least 1,400 people in Pakistan. >ordered the raid into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden. >ordered the killings of multiple American citizens living abroad. >expanded the definition of the War on Terrorism and asserted his worldwide power to indefinitely detain anyone he deems a terrorist. >expanded drone attacks into Somalia. >ordered a raid on pirates in Somalia. >deployed military squads to fight the drug war in Latin America. >expanded the drone war in Yemen, going so far as to give the CIA permission to kill people even when it doesn't know their identities so long as they're suspected of ties to terrorism. no way man obama is a true progressive lol smoke weed everyday I fucking love california and starbucks god bless hillary clinton and god bless democratic socialism
Pages: 1 ... 170171172 173174 ... 256
|
Show Posts