Total posts: 4,222
-->
@ILikePie5
please show me where he said this.
lol you are just desperate aren't you? The quote from that article is: “Now we have over 120 million dead from COVID,” Biden continued before correcting himself to say “120,000,” which was not captured by the pool cameraman.
So he said the wrong thing by mistake and immediately corrected himself to say the correct thing. That is not even remotely the same as trump's many, many lies.
That’s not how it works lol. If you’re banning someone for misinformation then you have to ban everyone for misinformation, otherwise it’s selective bias lol. Anyways you agreed that Joe Biden should be banned if he spreads misinformation.
I said if they are knowingly spreading information. Saying the wrong number then immediately correcting yourself is obviously not intentionally spreading misinformation.
If I show you one example of Biden spreading false information, will you agree he should be banned? Same thing with Bernie. Same thing with every Democrat? Because unless you’re telling me Democrats aren’t lying as well, your position is moot.
there is a big difference between saying something and being incorrect, and lying / misleading. All politicians say things on camera and get fact checked and turn out to be wrong. Trump says things that are incorrect, gets fact checked, then continues to repeat the lie. He isn't just saying things that are wrong, he is continuing to do it even after being told he is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i ahve many times on this thread
not that i've ever seen. Although i didn't check every message. All I ever saw was a map showing that southern states have lots of cases. But, as I said before, that is absolutely not evidence of a correlation between the 2 things.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re just proving my point. Joe Biden said millions of people are dying to Covid in America? Should he be banned from Twitter?
please show me where he said this.
If Trump is banned for lying then Joe Biden should be too. It’s only logical
If Joe Biden is intentionally spreading misinformation, then sure, ban him too. You haven't provided any evidence he did this though. Also, Trump lies constantly, like multiple times per day. Trump has probably lied more than every single tweet Biden has ever sent. So comparing the 2 is a little bit off.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
by choosing those categories...
so you think by providing popular categories to help people find content that is somehow them blocking or hiding content? People can search whatever they want. Twitter is just providing some popular options.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yup we should ban Joe Biden from Twitter. Definitely .
this is just getting sad. Trump lies on twitter daily, but it is Joe Biden that needs to be banned? This level of delusion is sad.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
there expolore section is filled with small events that they picked
I don't use twitter much, but a quick search tells me that just shows you categories to help you find the content you are looking for (Ex Super Bowl, sports, fun and news). So how exactly is that twitter choosing content?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
there is an incredilbre amount of evidence
and yet you don't have any. funny how that works....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
due to high temps
lol no. There is no evidence that temperature has anything to do with the spreading of the virus. The only way I could see that it would was if it made people do things that were unsafe, like say crowding onto beaches.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
When they choose what is read, they are publishing content. Which they are free to do like the WAPO...just not under Section 230.
how are they choosing what is read?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
austrialia is till in lockdown
no. the lockdowns eased. But now they have had flare ups in 2 cities so those cities have returned to lockdown. austrialia is not in lockdown, 2 cities in Australia are.
And again, no one ever claimed that the lockdowns would magically make the virus disappear. There will be 2nd and 3rd waves. Although it doesn't look like there will be in the US because it's not looking like the 1st wave will ever actually be gotten under control.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nick Sandman can sue the left-wing radical propaganda rag Washington Post for millions of dollars, but he cannot sue Twitter for spewing the exact same misinformation.
The Washington post is actually writing content. They are responsible for the things they write. Twitter does not write content. They are just a platform where content is read.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
they pick the hastags to show....the algorithim is just to SHOW how many hastags they are to the twitter staffsame with youtube
Where is your evidence for this? You seem to just be spewing conspiracy theory nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
yes but there is a second spike NOW!
yes. once lockdowns ease then cases can go back up. What is your point? The purpose of the lock down is not to guarantee that cases will never go up again. Nothing can do that other than a vaccine.
The purpose of the lockdown is to get cases under control. Which it did. And presumably will do again.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
yes they do pick the trends on twitter....common knowledge
common knowledge among right wing conspiracy theorists maybe. But they also probably think that Obama wanted death panels and lots of other ridiculous nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He wants to criminalize abuses of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_ActThat's something that should be repealed asap if you give a fuck about free speech.
I do care about free speech. But I also care that we try to control obscene or misleading content. That law appears to give platforms the ability to censor content that is obscene or lies. Twitter should have the ability to censor content on their platform that is obscene or intentionally misleading. IE, they should be able to ban pornography. They should be able to ban content that is intentionally lies or demonstrably false in an attempt to mislead or misinform people.
I agree the bar for what is obscene or misleading speech should be high. But if someone says a million people are dying per day of covid, that is obviously false and misleading. There is no reason we should allow people to spread that.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
they dont have an algoritim for the tredning hastags, they choose it based on sheer numbers but they can choose which tags they want to add and which they dont
no, it is determined by an algorithm. It calculates how many times things have been posted and in what time frame. Things that are posted alot in a short time frame are then "trending", things with low numbers of posts or spread over a longer time are not.
They are not manually choosing what is trending.
i know a lot about technology, social media platforms pick the trends
no they don't.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
war is peacefreedom is slaveryignorance is strengtheasy.
Well considering trump wants to criminalize free speech and is sending armed thugs to attack protesters and his supporters cheer it on, that quote is alot closer to reality than I would like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
so it didnt work
no, it did exactly what it was supposed to. It got their cases under control. What about that confuses you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
yes but it didnt work
It did work. They got their cases under control. The cases have started to go back up when they stopped doing it.
The US never got it's cases under control. They were still increasing when the "lockdowns" (I use the quotes because there were never effective lockdowns in lots of places) started being lifted. This, coupled with the fact that no significant efforts were made to improve testing or contact tracing, is why America is now the epicenter of the virus in the world.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
jesus he is so full shit. It would take so long to point out all the bullshit he is spreading in this clip.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
nope thats now it works, they pick and choose what is trending
no, an algorithm does. I'm not sure you have a real grasp on how technology works.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's illegal to censor content while getting Congressional protections for being a public platform.You're not even close to the truth with this thread.
lol it is the trending system. That is not censoring anything. It is simply highlighting stuff that is popular.
this has nothing to do with what trump tweeted about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
austrailia is por lockdown and is now seeing a spikeso tell me, was it really because of the easing of lockdown??
yes. no one has ever claimed that lockdowns would wipe out the virus. The point is to keep it manageable while the tools to control it are put in place. (rapid testing, contact tracing, building up medical supplies etc).
America kind of did a lock down. Although in lots of places it was so weak it didn't really do anything. Then the states tried to reopen while cases were still increasing. And when you re-open when cases are still rampant, you get a surge. Which is exactly what happened in places like Florida, Texas and Arizona where they didn't really take the pandemic seriously.
But then they didn't do the rest of it. Testing is an absolute mess. It can take a week to get results which makes the results worthless because you have already spread it. There are still critical shortages of supplies. There is basically no contract tracing.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it is illegal to get government funding and then violate the first amendment
lol the trending is just an algorithm that detects how many times things are being posted. Trump is basically complaining that stories people post about are bad for him. But that isn't Twitter's fault. It's his fault that he does so much shit that people hate. And he thinks that people sharing their loathing of him should be illegal. That is north korea kind of politics.
Created:
Here is a recent tweet from Trump. He thinks it is a crime for negative stories about him to trend on twitter. He really cannot understand just how unpopular he is. He thinks it must be a big conspiracy to try to make him look bad, when the reality is he just looks really bad and so people respond to what a asshole he is.
Having a president saying that free speech should be illegal is rather disturbing though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
OK. So going back to how you would have "ended the conflict by solving the underlying problems ",
The underlying problems were the imperialism of Europe. I'm not entirely certain what the best path to defuse that tension would be. But trying to cripple Germany was obviously not going to work. It was only going to make them come back angrier.
How would you have kept the Muslim Ottomans/Turks involvement out of this war which was one of those "underlying problems" that you mention?
The Ottomans were not one of the underlying problems. They were the "sick old man" of Europe. They got involved because they had an alliance with the Germans. I really don't know why you keep bringing them up. They were a relatively minor player in the war that had nothing to do with the war starting. Why do you think they are important to this discussion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have asked you ; So how would you have kept the Muslim Ottomans/Turks out of this war which was one of those "underlying problems" that you mention, to begin with? I asked this because The Muslim Ottoman Empire came into World War I as one of the Central Powers and were the cause of RUSSIA joining the war.
lol you clearly do not know very much about WW 1. The ottomans joined the war 3 months after Germany had declared war on Russia. And Germany declared war on Russia because they wouldn't stop mobilizing in response to Austria attacking Serbia.
The Ottomans were not involved in the start of the war. They got involved because they signed an alliance with Germany.
And now you seems to be crying that I am questioning you on your own statement concerning addressing "the underlying problems that led to the war" and that I have "switched topics" !!!.
Since your comments don't make sense, I thought you had changed topic. But I now see you simply don't know what you are talking about since you seemed to think the Ottomans were involved in starting the war.
"The underlying problems" that YOU say you would have tried to solve has to include the Muslim Ottoman problem that provoked Russia into the the war.
again, no. The Russians mobilized to protect Serbia from Austria. The Germans declared war on Russia when they wouldn't stop their mobilization. The start of the war has nothing to do with the ottomans.
So can you manage an answer or do you wish to sweep the problem of the Ottoman Muslims part in the conflict under the carpet and pretend that I never asked it in the first place? Keeping in mind that this Muslim Empire was one of the Central Powers in the war before Russia.
What? I have already told you they joined the war 3 months after Russia, France, Austria and Germany were at war. So how exactly were they in the war before Russia?
Russia replied by declaring war on 1 November 1914 and Russia's allies, Britain and France, then declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 5 November 1914.
this is Russia declaring war on the Ottomans, not Russia declaring war on Germany. They had been at war with Germany and Austria for 3 months already by this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If they ignored it, they should’ve backed off lol. They chose to support the Austrians anyways.
When the Kaiser realized the Austrians had ignored Germany's advice, he pushed for the Austrians to accept the Serbian's response.
Well ya, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying even if Austria attacked earlier, the Russians would’ve come to the defense of Serbia.
Why? If the Austrians had attacked right away, it would have been seen internationally as Austria defending itself against serbian aggression. The French would have stayed out and the Russians would have had no chance of beating Austria/Germany. So Russia would have stayed out too.
If the Germans kept their mouth shut and sued for peace then the Austrians never would’ve declared war on Serbia. The only reason the Austrians attacked was because of the blank check provided by the Kaiser.
The Kaiser did try to get the Austrians to accept the Serbian response to the Austrian demands. They also tried to get the Russians to stop mobilizing since the Russian mobilization meant Germany had to attack. The Austrians wanted war and the Russians wouldn't stop their mobilization. That left germany with no choice but to attack.
So the Germans didn’t ensue for peace lol. It doesn’t matter what the Kaiser wanted. Germany still as a nation rejected the peace.
The leader of germany wanted peace. He pressured the austrians to make peace. He pressured the Russians to stop mobilizing so that Germany wouldn't have to go to war. Both the Austrians and the Russians ignored him.
You misunderstand the nature of the alliance between Russia and France. France wouldn’t have come in unless the Germans did. The Russians didn’t need the French helping them if the Germans stayed out of it lol.
I have not mistaken that. You have mistaken the Alliance between Germany and Austria. When Austria attacked Serbia and if Russia responded, then Germany was required by their treaty to defend Austria against Russia. The Alliance between France and Russia would then require France to defend Russia against Germany. So germany would not be able to stay out if russia intervened.
Without Germany in the mixture, the war would’ve solely involved the Russians, Serbs, and Austrians, and in this scenario the Austrians would’ve lost and they knew it. If Germany had rejected Austrian demand then WWI wouldn’t have happened.
This doesn't make sense. The germans were required by treaty to defend Austria against the russians.
Nope, the Russians would’ve come to their aid anyways. The Russians didn’t want conflict with Germany. They didn’t want conflict with the Austrians. If the Austrians has attacked, the Russians would’ve come, that’s practically certain since they had been supporting the Serbs since the beginning of the 20th century.
The russians had backed down to germany multiple times. There is no reason to think they wouldn't have done so again if they thought France wasn't going to back them up. Russia would have been annihilated by Germany.
They only declared war because of the unconditional support by the Germans lol.
You are straight up admitting it is Austria's fault. The Austrians declared war and triggered WW1. The Germans did what allies are supposed to do, they helped to defend their ally. They phrased their support badly, but the Austrians triggered the war. It is really straight forward. I'm not sure why you keep pretending like is it somehow Germany's fault that the Austrians wanted a war with Russia.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
So the person can’t read POLICE? Ok.
they can, but the thugs didn't identify themselves when asked. They never said they were police. They never said what department they were with. They never said why they were grabbing him. They never said if he was under arrest, or for what reason. They simply jumped out of a rental van and grabbed a man off the street. that is kidnapping.
Maybe you want to do a Control+F of the entire ruling to find where the court said that.
they said that the charges against them didn't have to be substantially the same as the the charge the officer said while arresting them. I don't see anything that says they don't have to say why they are being arrested. If you think it is something else, please provide evidence.
They were federal agents. Anyone can write police on a vest and if they impersonate a federal officer it’s a federal felony.
exactly, which is why police should identify themselves.
And even if they did your point makes no sense. Anyone can write police on their vest. Anyone can create a false identify too. What’s your point?
That police should identify themselves. They should tell someone if they are arresting them, and if so why. They should not be permitted to snatch people off the street with no one knowing who they are, what branch of government they belong to, or why they are snatching people. That is some gestapo bullshit. If you are ok with secret police grabbing people off the street with no warning, no explanation and no one knowing who they are or why they are taking people, then you are saying you are ok with the government ruling through fear and coercion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I would love to see this evidence. Probably released by the Serbs anyways. It’s no mystery they endorsed the Black Hand and funded it. It’s what I’d do, if I were them.
The black hand was funded by the Serbians and had lots of connections to the Serbian government. However they were not directly agents of the Serbian government. So it is very difficult for anyone to say how much information they had about the assassination.
That’s not what a blank check means lol. It’s unconditional support.
yes, they did not phrase it well. They essentially said "we will support you", but told them that they should attack right now. The Austrians chose to ignore what the germans told them, the end result was they conciously triggered a war with Russia. Germany then tried to avert that war with Russia (the Czar and Kaiser were cousins), but were not able to.
The Russians would’ve protected the Serbs no matter what because of their political and religious interests. Time was not an issue.
This is not true. If the Russians thought they were going to have to fight the Austrians/Germans without French and British support, they wouldn't have done it. They weren't ready for a war. However they proceeded as they were confident the French would support them.
The French and Russians were military allies with regards to Germany and Germany alone. Any aggression by the Germans would be met with retaliation from the French and Russians. Same thing with the British. Without German involvement, the war would’ve never happened. There’s no aggressor dilemma because of the alliances already present. The same events would’ve occurred if the July Crisis didn’t happen.
But you have also hit on the problem. The Germans were allies of the Austrians, The russians chose to guarentee the Serbians. The French were allied with Russia against the Germans. So the pieces were in place for everyone to get sucked in. Which is exactly why the Austrians are at fault for knowingly triggering that chain of events. They knew they were starting a war with russia. They knew the Germans would help them. They knew the French and british would jump in to help the russians against the Germans. So the Austrians knowingly triggered the war.
Without German involvement, the Russians wouldn’t have mobilized against them. Russian mobilization was solely in support of Serbia until Austria-Hungary decided to seek help from the Germans and later declared war along with the Germans, which opened up the mobilization on the Western Front
You have hit the nail on the head (although you seem to have missed it). The moment the Russians mobilized there were 2 options. Either the Russians stopped the mobilization, or Germany had to attack. The German plan for fighting the war depended on them mobilizing faster than the Russians. So if the Russians were allowed to continue mobilizing while the Germans didn't, then Germany was doomed. When the russians started mobilizing and wouldn't stop, the Germany had to declare war.
Cause the Allies won and Central Powers lost? The victor decides the conditions of surrender, not the loser.
True, but in this case the victors chose conditions that were guaranteed to cause the next war. The war indemnity was impossibly high and they knew it. That was the point. They wanted to bankrupt the germans and cripple them so they wouldn't be a threat. But all they were doing was ensuring the Germans would have to start another war to end the conditions the allies were creating.
The French were neutral with regards to Russia and Austria until the Germans declared war on Russia. Because of the military alliance they were forced to mobilize.
Again, this is my point. The german strategy for winning the war required them to mobilize faster than the French or the Russians. That was the only way they could win. So when the russians mobilized against Austria and refused to reverse this the Germans had to attack or they would be destroyed.
The last peace efforts were denied by the Germans lol, where’d you get that info from? And no, Germany is to blame.
Kaiser Wilhelm wanted to stop the war, and gave instructions to that effect. He was undermined by his own people as well as the Austrians.
On 26 July, after reading Serbia's reply, (kaiser) Wilhelm commented, "But that eliminates any reason for war"[132] or "every cause for war falls to the ground".[133] Wilhelm noted that Serbia had made "a capitulation of the most humiliating kind",[133] that "the few reservations [that] Serbia has made with respect to certain points can in my opinion surely be cleared up by negotiation"
Bethmann Hollweg sabotaged Wilhelm's proposal by instructing von Tschirschky to not restrain Austria.[note 21] In passing on Wilhelm's message, Bethmann Hollweg excluded the parts wherein the Emperor told the Austrians not to go to war.[136] Jagow told his diplomats to disregard Wilhelm's peace offer, and continue to press for war.
Without their support the Austrians wouldn’t have done anything plain and simple. Even if they attacked Serbia immediately the Russians would’ve pledged their support as they had been doing so since the beginning of the 20th century.
Russia had backed down in problems with Germany on more than 1 occasion in recent History. If they thought that the French wouldn't support them, they likely would have done so again. They could not have won a war against Austria and Germany without the French. And if the french felt the war was justified because of the murder of the arch-duke, they could have been convinced to stay out. But once the Serbians agreed to main points of the Austrian demands, then the Austrians lost the moral high ground. The Serbians had already capitulated and therefore the Austrians were the aggressors when they attacked.
If the Austrians had done as the Germans said and attacked right away, WW 2 would not have been triggered. It would have been another local confict in the Balkans.
But that is really besides the point. The Austrians are the ones who picked a fight with Russia knowing it would kick off a massive war. The germans did not. The kaiser didn't want the war.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m pretty sure the person being arrested knows they’re being arrested.
why would you think that? There is footage of unmarked men grabbing a guy and shoving him into a van without saying a word. They gave no indication why they were grabbing him or if they were even affiliated with the police, let alone who precisely they were.
and no, the police don’t have to tell you why you’re being arrested according to Devenpeck v. Alford.
Did you read about that? It took me like 2 minutes to see that you didn't. That case was to decide: Is an arrest lawful under the Fourth Amendment when the criminal offense for which there is probable cause to arrest is not "closely related" to the offense stated by the arresting officer at the time of arrest?
This case did not say a police officer doesn't have to tell you why you are being arrested. It says that if the cause to arrest given by the office is not closely related to the probable cause, that this is still lawful.
They aren’t unmarked. They literally have POLICE written on them lol. I challenge you to show me a video where a federal officer arrested someone where POLICE wasn’t written.
that is absolutely still "unmarked". Anyone can write police on a vest. They had no marking of what organization they were with or who they were. And the fact is that they were not police, they were border guards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Gavrilo Princip was associates by the Black Hand Serbian organization that included members of the Serbian military and was financed by high ranking officials on the Serbian Government. He was a Bosnian by nationality but a Serb in terms of ethnicity.
He was a citizen of the Austrian Hungarian Empire and wanted freedom for his people. He was associated with the Black Hand. The Black Hand had significant ties to the Serbian government and military. However it is unclear if the Serbian government knew of or ordered the assassination. And there is evidence that when they discovered it, they ordered it stopped.
Not really. Before declaring war on Serbia, Austria Hungary sought support from the Germans. Kaiser Wilhelm II sent an assurance to them which is known now as the “blank check.” Without this support Austria Hungary would’ve never declared war for the fear of Russia.
The german "blank cheque" was intended to be used immediately. IE the germans told the Austrians if they were going to attack to do it immediately because then the allies would sympathize with the Austrians as the wronged party. But the Austrians didn't do this. They delayed and then sent their demands, many of which the Serbians agreed to. By doing this, the Austrians made themselves look like the aggressors since the Serbians were agreeing to many of their terms. When the Austrians attacked anyway, the russians and the French/British saw the Austrians as the aggressors and intervened. Basically, the Austrians seriously fucked up by sending a list of demands they knew the Serbians would never accept.
The Schlieffen Plan was designed to subjugate the French via Belgium prior to Russian mobilization in the East as to prevent conflict on two fronts.
Correct. They knew they couldn't win a war fighting on 2 fronts. So the Schlieffen plan said that if Russia or France mobilized, then germany HAD to mobilize and attack immediately in order to overwhelm one of their enemies before the other could fully mobilize. So once the Russians and French began mobilizing, they left germany no choice but to attack. They had no other way to win the war.
The Germans caused the most damage to Allied assets and also contributed the largest amount of assets among the Central Powers.
OK. but the allies also caused massive ammounts of damage. Why would you think Germany has to pay an insanely high indemnity (that was literally impossible to pay back) for a war they didn't start.
Austria Hungary was forced to dissolve into two sovereign nations as well as punishment, but without the Germans giving the blank check, nothing would’ve likely happened.
And if the french had declared themselves neutral in the war between Austria and russia, it likely would have been a local war. And if the Russians hadn't promised to unconditionally back serbia just before they responded to the demands, war might have been averted. If the Austrians had attacked as the Germans told them to, it is likely it would have been a quick local war between Austria and Serbia with little loss of life. If the Russians had agreed to the last minute peace efforts made by the Germans, war could have been averted. There are countless ways this war could have been averted. Placing blame at the feet of Germany just because they promised to support the ally they were required to support, is ridiculous.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
These events have really highlighted what liars people on the right are. I've listened to these idiots for years say how they are worried about government overreach and that they need their guns to protect them from government overreach. Then when that government overreach comes, they simply do not give a shit. They don't care about the federal government sending unmarked thugs into the streets to grab people without warning and for no reason just because the man ordering it happens to be a republican.
This is exactly what the right pretends they are preparing to resist, but now that it's hear, they cheer it on.
This is exactly what the right pretends they are preparing to resist, but now that it's hear, they cheer it on.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't get to arbitrarily decide to resist arrest at the time of an arrest. If you want to resist the police, do it in a courtroom after they do whatever they do to you
part of the process of being arrested is the police telling you that you are under arrest and for what reason. If unmarked thugs jump out of a rental van and grab you without announcing themselves as police, without telling you what you are being arrested for, or even telling you that you are being arrested, then you have not been arrested. You have kidnapped. That is some of what trump's thugs have been doing.
Your odds of surviving a police encounter goes up dramatically if you do not resist, as well as your chances of getting justice in a courtroom after if the police were to actually abuse you.
but if the people grabbing you won't tell you they are police, or that you are under arrest, then your odds of survival go down dramatically by allowing yourself to be kidnapped by people who may or may not be secret police.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm totally fine living in a sovereign nation of laws no matter how many times I am called weird funny-sounding names.
OK, but if unmarked government thugs can just rent a van and grab you off the street without having to tell you who they are, what you are charged with, or even that you are being arrested, then you do not live in a nation of laws. You live in an authoritarian regime that can grab you off the street for literally no reason at all. That is the opposite of a nation of laws. That is what trump is bringing to american cities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So how would you have kept the Muslim Ottomans/Turks out of this war which was an underlying problem to begin with .
have you switched topics? We were discussing whether the germans were responsible for starting the war. Your question has nothing to do with that. The ottoman empire was destroyed after WW1, so it has nothing to do with WW 2. And it wasn't really involved in starting WW 1 either. It got involved in the war, but it wasn't really involved in the start of it.
The Muslim Ottoman Empire came into World War I as one of the Central Powers. The Muslim Ottoman Empire entered the war by carrying out a surprise attack on Russia's Black Sea coast on 29 October 1914, with Russia responding by declaring war on 5 November 1914.
yes, they were in alliances just like the rest of Europe. They got involved the same way everyone else did. But they didn't really have anything to do with starting the war, so I have no idea why you are bringing them up. That attack and subsequent declaration of war on the russians was like 3 months after the Austrians started the war. The Austrians declared war on Serbia on july 28th which kicked off the start of the war.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, how dare Trump not abide by the charter of free sovereigns.
So you are totally fine with tyrannical control by the government as long as they are republicans, but if a democrat tries to give people healthcare, that is somehow tyranny that must be fought? Man republicans are fucked up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And you call yourself History Buff!? I notice you kept the Islamic Ottoman Empire out of the equation
In what way should they be in the equation for the start of the war?
as you have the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand—heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
I have not left that out. that is part of what I meant by the Austrians and the Russians starting the war. In short
- The arch duke was assassinated by citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that wanted to succeed from the Empire
- The empire chose to blame Serbia (which may have been involved) they gave them a list of demands that were obviously unacceptable
- The Serbians gave in to alot of the demands, but refused the unacceptable parts.
- The Russians guaranteed the Serbians
- The Austrians decided that they wanted to attack Serbia
- Once the Russians mobilized their army to defend serbia, Germany had no choice be to declare war (due to the schlieffen plan and the nature of military mobilization in the 20th century)
So the Austrians are mostly to blame for the start of the war for their ridiculous demands on Serbia, which they knew would trigger a war with Russia. Once Russia started mobilizing for that war with Austria, Germany had no choice but to get involved due to their alliances and the requirements of the schlieffen plan (their plan for winning the war).
So Germany was certainly involved in the start of the war, but they didn't start it. The Austrians and the Russians did.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
thank trump for doubling down on law and order!
spoken like a true fascist. Thank the glorious leader for attacking and destroying his enemies!! Thank him for removing our rights and enriching himself!!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
WW2 was a response to the crippling and heavy handed way the allies ended WW1.LOL , "heavy handed " ? You are hilarious at times.How would you have ended it?
By trying to solve the underlying problems that led to the war. WW 1 started because of a complex series of alliances coupled with imperialism. The Austrians and the Russians actually started the war. But the allies decided that germany needed to be completely crushed because of it. They levied massive reparations that were literally impossible to pay. They banned Germany from having a military. They forced them to cede land to france that had alot of germans living there.
These 3 conditions guaranteed war. They couldn't possibly pay the reparations, nor should they have had to since they didn't start the war. They would obviously never have accepted giving up their military, it was a ridiculous demand. And forcing them to give up land to france and demilitarize the Rhineland gave the germans a very specific and logical reason to militarize against france and britain.
The allies designed a treaty that was guaranteed to start another war. Germany is certainly not blameless is WW 2 or how it shook out. But a 2nd war between Germany and France was definitely going to happen after the Versailles treaty.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
one coutnry also didnt experience thousands of protests with hundreds of thousands of people
ok, but that's the government's fault too. If there wasn't a massive issue that needed protesting, there wouldn't be protesters. And trump refuses to do anything about the issue they are protesting. In fact he is doubling down on it by ordering the police to attack people who are protesting police brutality.
But again, the spikes in cases are primary from the botched republican response to the virus. Letting Spring break go on as normal with all the bars, trying to reopen way too soon, refusing to institute mask orders etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That is probably because according to special education school teacher (who cannot spell), he was doing it wrong:
why are you still talking about this? One idiot did something dumb. He has been arrested. No one seems to have been harmed. He was no one of any significance. He has no official connection with anyone of any significance.
Why are you still going on about this weird incident? This incident has absolutely no impact on on anyone or anything outside of the people directly involved. It is not worth discussing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
those things were all bad, right?
the world war? sure, obviously that was bad. But you are attempting to blame Germany for it when the allies made it inevitable by attempting to crush Germany in the treaty of Versailles.
Communism? no. There is nothing wrong with communism. Unfortunately there is something wrong with people, so trying to implement it doesn't work.
The protestant reformation? no. The reformers wanted to reform the excess and corruption of the catholic church. They had the pope claiming that he could never be wrong, and also claiming that he could sell people a ticket to heaven. It lead to alot of violence and death, but largely because the pope tried desperately to crush anyone who dared to challenge his corruption.
The fall of rome? Depends on your point of view I guess. Rome had been stagnating for quite some time. They were struggling with all kinds of problems, many of them of their own making. Their fall led to new states. Whether that is good or bad is a fairly open question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it was a joke...
true, but even jokes will tell people something about your internal thought process. when you tried to think of examples of "bad things" you think of people fighting against oppression. That does say something about you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Luckily he doesn't have to send them far since the "peaceful protestors" come to the "thugs" armed to the teeth ready for a fight.
imagine that. when the government sends out armed thugs to shoot at you and beat you, you start bringing things to defend yourself. My god, those monsters!! don't they know good citizens simply let the police shoot them?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's exactly how you put down violent armed revolts. Lincoln did it.
lincoln fought a civil war. Trump is having protesters shot. Can you really not see the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which is why controlling shitty people with financial incentives works better than the barrel of a gun.
no one is advocating for controlling people by the barrel of a gun. Except for trump of course. He is sending out thugs to shoot and attack protesters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
well that's just plain hypocrisy isn't it?why should all cops be held responsible for the actions of the racist ones?
How so? Police are hired, trained and answerable to a central power and authority. If police break the law and abuse their power, there is a clear chain of command that is supposed to report and punish that.
Protesters, by their nature, are not hired, trained or answerable to anyone. No one knows exactly who is protesting. They didn't go through training for how to handle police shooting at them.
Bottom line, police are public servants who are supposed to protect and serve the people. If they fail to do that, they need to answer for it.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the fact is that you overwhelm the enemy, the enemy is the anti police demonstrations, they did a great job overhweling them before future damage
you realize you are describing the kind of repression that characterizes dictatorships right? Anyone who dares challenge the state deserves to be attacked or killed. That is basically what you are arguing. That is completely antithetical to american ideals.
Also, incidentally, you are describing serious crimes. IE that guy might do something wrong, so I am going to shoot him in the head. That is a serious crime. And you are attempting to defend it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ww2
WW2 was a response to the crippling and heavy handed way the allies ended WW1. They made WW2 inevitable.
communism
there is nothing inherrently wrong with communism. If it could be implemented correctly it would be a fantastic system. The problem is that humans are shitty and will ruin anything.
protestant reformation
this was a response to the corruption and abuse of the catholic church. I'm starting to see a theme in your objections. You see the people who fight against corruption and oppression as the problem. Not that people doing the corruption and the oppression.
fall of rome
Rome fell because of alot of factors. One of those was external attack. But primarily, it was their own mismanagement of their empire, political infighting and plague.
Created: