Total posts: 4,140
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Tell us poor peasants: what makes you so great? We await your answer in anxious anticipation.
Does pineapple belong on pizza? There is a correct answer, and we will strip away your title if you answer incorrectly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I haven't seen that movie either. I read history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm not a big movie guy. I watch my fair share of movies, but there are a lot of popular movies that I haven't seen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't know; I've never seen any of those.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Casablanca, Ben-Hur, White Christmas, The Great Escape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
That's true, but it doesn't fit in a vaguely funny one-liner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The greatest movie is the one that makes the most money, of course!
Created:
Posted in:
Disclaimer: This is purely for entertainment. It is not intended to parody any specific person, nor is it intended to be an accurate representation of the environmental movement. I am entirely aware that no one actually thinks like this (I hope, anyway). This is completely satirical. I do not believe any of this, nor does any of this reflect my viewpoints in any way.
Environmental Wacko Predictions returns after a week off to thank the random, uncaring universe that we have so many horrible things to be outraged about.
Running Record: 10-16.
This week: 0-1.
Sunday
Panthers vs. Falcons.
This is clearly a tough choice. Both are carnivores, so that cancels out. Panthers are black, but falcons are Animals of Color (AOC) as well. Panthers are endangered, which is a clear advantage. Furthermore, falcons are birds. Since windmills and solar panels kill birds, we can't allow them to get in the way of saving the planet.
Panthers: 28. Falcons: 14.
Ravens vs. Bills.
Bill Cody was an inhuman monster. He ran a traveling circus. Triggered! Ravens, on the other hand, eat the flesh of dead things. This is a clear example of recycling.
Ravens: 31. Bills: 17.
Bengals vs. Browns.
A close competitions. Bengals are endangered, so they would be the natural choice. Browns, on the other hand, are brown. Donald Trump hates everything brown, especially if it's undocumented migrants from Mexico. If he hates it, we love it.
Bengals: 10. Browns: 13.
Redskins vs. Packers.
Meat packers. MEAT *clap* PACKERS. I. Can't, Even. But if that gets your outrage going, just look at the other team. Redskins. That is so politically incorrect. It's cultural appropriation. It's cultural degradation. It literally erases their humanity. Even meat-eaters are better than that.
Redskins: 3. Packers: 7.
Lions vs. Vikings.
This isn't close. A beautiful endangered species against misogynist, racist, sexist, bigoted white men (but I repeat myself)? Shutout time.
Lions: 21. Vikings: 0.
49ers vs. Saints.
White Christian males vs. white Christian males. Some may bring up Mother Teresa, but pro-life women aren't real women. At least the 49ers were just greedy capitalists and didn't try to control women's bodies.
49ers: 17. Saints: 7.
Dolphins vs. Jets.
Cute, innocent marine mammals that are victims of climate change against the direct agents of climate change. Remember that just as people don't kill people, guns do, so people don't cause climate change: jets do.
Dolphins: 49. Jets: 21.
Colts vs. Buccaneers.
The slaves of humanity against the enemies of their masters? Weird. Buccaneers like going after greedy capitalists, which is definitely good. Colts serve humanity, which is bad. However, colts aren't human, and buccaneers are. Buccaneers, however, seek to stop global warming by contributing to depopulation. We'll have to give them the edge in this game.
Colts: 21. Buccaneers: 27.
Broncos vs. Texans.
Texans are villainous white slavemasters, but broncos are beautiful animals. They buck against humanity and refuse to submit. Way to go, broncos!
Broncos: 35. Texans: 20.
Chargers vs. Jaguars.
Charging electric cars is great, but jaguars are an endangered species. Which is better for the environment? At first, chargers look like the better option because they are a great way to combat climate change. However, jaguars do their part by eating other animals, which removes their ability to leave a carbon imprint. But at the end of the day, jaguars are alive. Chargers are man-made.
Chargers: 42. Jaguars: 45.
Titans vs. Raiders.
The titans practiced bestiality, which is despicable animal abuse. However, raiders steal and loot, just like Black Lives Matter. You just can't go wrong with that.
Titans: 10. Raiders: 23.
Chiefs vs. Patriots.
Innocent Indians against their heartless murderers! Indigenous peoples against mass genocide! Thanksgiving is racist! Patriots are racist! Bigoted, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist white men are racist! BlafudnifouldanvishnuisbetterthanjesusaghblaggerwihyouqwngaDDDIIIIIEEEEE RRRAACCCISSSTTTTSS!!!!!!!
Chiefs: 287. Patriots: 0.
Steelers vs. Cardinals.
To the uninitiated, this looks easy. Cardinals are innocent birds, and steel destroys the environment. Wrong! Steel is used to build windmills, and windmills save the environment and cut those worthless birds into itty bitty pieces. Take that, Arizona!
Steelers: 30. Cardinals: 14.
Seahawks vs. Rams.
This is undeniably a heart-rending choice. Choosing between these glorious animals hits me, like, right in the feels. But ultimately, rams, with their independent lives up in the mountains, their ruggedness, their will to survive in the harshest of conditions, symbolize the worst of all nations: America. It hurts just to say that name.
Seahawks: 35. Rams: 31.
Monday
Giants vs. Eagles.
The symbol of America against oversized humans with an oversized carbon imprint? Weird AND offensive. At least giants don't really exist, so they can't hurt the environment. However, they are also a part of traditional fiction that perpetuates sexist and racist stereotypes and was recorded by dead white men called the brothers Grimm, who were German, which was the country of NAZIS.
Giants: 21. Eagles: 35.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
All I did was read your comment, and that song is immediately stuck in my head. Good thing I like it. Feliz Navidad, Feliz Navidad.
Created:
Posted in:
Theocracy - A Very Metal Christmas playlist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
By the way, what's a d20 die? What numbers are on it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
This looks fun, but sadly I won't be able to join. RPG could be the next new thing on DART, though. It's an excellent idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
America first is the policy of non-aggression by not intervening in the first place.
I'm aware of that, but inaction is just as capable of being ethnocentric as action.
The fact that you can't see that the interventionalist missiles in Turkey started the Cuban Missle Crisis and the removal of them ended the Missle Crisis speaks volumes of your cultural bias.
I don't deny being biased. To deny having biases is illogical. Humans are naturally biased toward their own opinions, families, countries, and other groups to which they belong or desire to join. In this instance, however, it is not bias that motivates me. It is a fact that, while the missiles in Turkey were a cause, they were not the only cause, nor were they the direct cause. I linked a source supporting this. I could point you to many others. Where is yours?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Simply because ethnocentrism could be used to justify it does not automatically mean it is ethnocentric. Racism could be a reason for firing someone. That doesn't mean that firing someone is necessarily racist. Also, the other side was the perpetuation and expansion of communism. It's not like the Cold Way was a misunderstanding that could have been solved by seeing the other side.Because ethnocentrism justifies the exact same action (placing missiles near another country) by refusing to see the other side.
Ethnocentrism should never be the justification for world police policies. That is how you create long term problems.
I agree, but couldn't that be used against the quasi-isolationist America First ideas you're suggesting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm saying ignoring the actions of world police policies to give other nations cause to harm Amerca should not be obfuscated or ignored.
I thought you were saying that we didn't need NATO. Regardless, I don't deny that police actions can provoke other nations. However, I don't think that the lives saved by police actions should be ignored either.
America had ZERO BUSINESS and no justification other than an obligation for being a "world police force" for installing American Missles in Turkey.
That's not true. The USSR was a direct threat to the US. It was in our interests to have missiles in position to deter them. Also, we were allies with Turkey and many other European countries, and it is in our interests to honor alliances (but not without exceptions. They need to kick Turkey out of NATO).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The missiles in Cuba were the direct provocation, although, after looking it up, I did find that you are partly right, though not entirely. There were several factors that led Russia to put the missiles in Cuba, including the missiles in Turkey, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and the construction of the Berlin Wall.
Regardless of that, how is saying that the missiles in Cuba were the provocation in any way ethnocentric?
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
I know, but I don't know that I'll have any more time a few months from now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
NATO also almost helped start WW III by giving Russia Casus Belli during the Cuban Missle Crisis.
That's not what happened. The missiles in Cuba were the provocation. The missiles removed from NATO countries (I think Turkey) were the bargaining piece used as an exchange to get nukes out of Cuba.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It is true. There is still a need for NATO. Read the article.Even if that was true, the fact that this happened means there is no more need for NATO.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
I don't have time to mod a game right now.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
If I had to choose one or the other, I would pick a game where most or all players have a role. If I didn't have to choose one, I would pick both with games in the middle as well. I think variety is good. If I were to mod a game, I would make it balanced with normal roles, but also throw in one or two weird or obscure roles as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the Fire Department was effective as NATO in protecting American interests, I would most certainly disband them.
NATO was instrumental in the collapse of the USSR. Its existence has led to over 70 years of peace in Europe. It has been incredibly successful. Read this article. It can explain things better than I can. Foreign policy is not my forte.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
NATO isn't meant to deal with the Middle East and Ukraine isn't a NATO member, although it probably should be. Yes, NATO has sometimes failed. That does not debunk its utility. Russia is still kept at bay.The recent Syrian example and less recently, the inaction of NATO on behalf of Ukraine debunks this projection of NATO's benefits to America or Europe.
Germany pays Russia more money right now for fossil fuels than it pays to NATO...
Germany has some serious issues, and I'm not saying NATO or its members are perfect. However, NATO is definitely better than no NATO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even if you don't see that world police policies lead to serious long term problems, you have to admit that today NATO is a huge financial liability for America right now
I do admit that several of the NATO members aren't paying as much as they should so the US has to pay more than its fair share, but NATO is worth it.
and has enabled EU countries from taking much needed local responsibility in places like Syria.We can't even get them to take responsibility of the captured ISIS nationals!
That is a problem, but NATO isn't meant to deal with the Middle East, although it would be nice if its members did more to help.
That's some serious EU impotency and irresponsibility NATO has enabled. That's what I mean by atrophy.
Yes, it has allowed other NATO counties to atrophy their militaries (The stupid spellchecker thinks that isn't a word), but it is better than letting them get overrun by Russia. I'm not saying that NATO or police actions are perfect. I'm just saying that NATO is worth the problems it brings and that police actions are frequently useful and necessary. I think we should put "America First," but that we should never allow it to become "America Only." It is a good thing for America to put pressure on dictatorships and conquerors, like what FDR did with the sanctions on Japan. It is a good thing to get involved in wars if we can save lives and bring freedom by doing so. That doesn't mean that sanctions or intervention will always be successful or that we'll never make mistakes, but it does mean that we shouldn't isolate ourselves because we cling too tightly to a slogan.
What's also glaring with the manchild in the basement metaphor is that these policed countries don't want us there and don't want America telling them what their responsibilities are and what they ought to do, but will gladly take our money.
That's an inaccurate generalization. Eastern European countries, Germany, and South Korea definitely want us there.
These 1 sided alliances are not making life better for Americans.
They do, but they're like a fire department. It would be easy for us to look around and say that the fire department doesn't make our lives any better. But if we got rid of the fire department, what would we do when our houses started burning? Like a fire department, defensive alliances like NATO don't appear to do us any good when there are no major wars to fight. But when a war starts, it's easy to see how they help us. Most of the time, NATO doesn't do anything for Americans but add to their taxes. However, the ability of NATO to win and, even more importantly, to deter wars definitely makes our lives better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're right; I should be more patient.How about you chill your fatfingers and wait a bit before the kneejerks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even if they're not contributing as much as they should, they are nevertheless contributing. If I remember correctly, there are 26 other countries in NATO. Even though not all of them spend as much on their military as they agreed to, it nevertheless adds up to the strongest alliance the world has ever seen. Leaving NATO simply because not all of the members are meeting their spending requirements would be a horrible mistake. Russia, even in its weakened state, is still a threat.NATO is funded mostly by America, creating a bunch of weak EU nations unable to defend themselves from any invasion, or handle local conflicts like Syria. It's time to kick the EU out of the basement.
We should never have been there in the 1st place.
I don't mean to be rude, but this is utterly absurd. NATO was a necessity to thwart the USSR. Without an alliance, Russia would have overrun even more countries, we could very well be living in a post-WWIII world.
As in every world police action the USA takes, USA claims precisely zero of the territory while another actor claims the unpoliced parts. The policed section falls into atrophy over time, since it's not a territory of the USA.
1. It doesn't happen every single time. In both WWII and the Korean War, the results were the exact opposite of what you describe.
2. How are the results of withdrawing from a police action evidence that we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place? Take a look at Afghanistan. When our military first went there, it had been overrun by the Taliban. Ever since the military has been there, the Taliban has never had that level of dominance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Please just make new posts instead of going back and editing your old ones to include more arguments, or just don't post until you have all your arguments typed out. It's making this conversation hard to follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok. It wasn't clear what you were referring to with the date.Lend-Lease and Military Aid to the Allies in the Early Years of World War II. During World War II, the United States began to provide significant military supplies and other assistance to the Allies in September 1940.
Without lend-lease, UK would have probably surrendered near 1941.
They probably would have lasted longer than that, but if there was no lend-lease, they probably wouldn't have lasted until 1945, so you are right that they would have quit before '45.
Trump right now is blasting the failure of 80 years of EU world police.
I thought your objection was to America being the world's police. In any case, since when has the EU tried to be the world's police? I still don't see your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't see your edit in the last post.
Right now, Macron is DEMANDING THAT AMERICA police Syria, and Trump is refusing. France is STILL the metaphorical Helen of Troy.
I don't see your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
1. America entered the war in 1941, not 1940. 1940 was the year Germany invaded France.
2. Posting "lol", linking a picture, and restating your assertions proves nothing. America's entry into WWII changed which countries had power internationally from the old European powers of England, France, and Germany to the US and USSR. America brought down Japan as the main power in the East and became the main power in the East itself.
Do you have any serious arguments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I dont believe that any alternate scenarios involeving WW2 would have changed, ---to any great degree--- , where humanity finds itself today.And I dont know if there would have been more or less suffering with alternative scenarios. My guess is there would have been more suffering if USSR had conqured all of Europe and or if Germany had also conquread all of USSR.
I agree that there would have been more suffering if the USSR or Germany had won, but these two statements seem contradictory. Had Germany won or the USSR won the war without the US, humanity would be in a different place, and there would have been more suffering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Irrespective the possible alternative scenarios surrounding WW2, that have been listed, would any of them resulted in less humans sufferreing?
Sure, but only because of information we know from hindsight. There would also have been many situations that would have had far more suffering.
Would any of them resulted in less hydrogen bombs on Earth today?
I don't know. I also don't know what point you're trying to make.
Less people, that did no incur less human suffering?
I don't know. Why would you want less people? And if you don't want less people, why ask the question?
Less PVC poluttion?Less global warming?Less nuclear power plants and all of the associated nuclear wastes being stored on Earth?So basically, would humanity moved forward using the smart minds over there brawny brains and have a less scary future outlook ahdead?Would we still primarily a patriarchal ruled humanity?Would women be less or more respected as equal co-partners humanities evolving?
What do any of these questions have to do with WWII? I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
FDR didn't know exactly what he was getting into. Neither he nor anyone in the military really expected or prepared for an attack from Japan. And as I said earlier, not placing those sanctions on Japan or freezing their assets would have made us complicit in their acts of barbarism. Why is that a good thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol no there wouldn't be a 3rd world war because America first would never allow it.
The alternative to war would be to allow the USSR to conquer all of Germany rather than just half of it and quite possibly take France and Italy as well. Most of Europe would have been under communist rule. Hundreds of thousands or millions would starve, and tens of millions more would be impoverished and subjugated.
And Russia wouldn't have had as nearly as much success without USA lend/lease...Hitler would have been far more capable of meeting the Russians in battle.
That's true, but Russia probably would have won anyway. Even if they lost, the alternative - Nazi Germany - would be just as bad.
America first would also have meant an early peace with UK,
Depends what you mean by early. The UK had the resolve to fight on for several years, although they probably would have made peace in '44 or '45.
America being the world police creating power vacuums was a bad idea in 1940 and it's still a bad idea today.
We did not create a power vacuum in 1941. We filled it ourselves. Since then, we have had 70 years that have been, relatively speaking, extraordinarily peaceful. Europe has had no major wars in that time. Becoming the leading nation in NATO has made both America and Europe safer than ever. While we have created power vacuums in some places, overall it has led to peace, economic growth, and the expansion of freedom and democracy. Why do you think that America being the "world police" is a bad idea? Do you have any reasons for it other than "America First"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Brave web browser, and I make my posts in the website text boxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Yeah, this br thing is strange, I don't think it's on my side though, I am waiting for the update to the editor that we use, I think they are resolving that issue, so there is so much I can do at the moment :/
+1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, but there would very probably have been a third world war. Korea and Vietnam, however, would be occupied by a vicious and rather racist Japanese Empire. However, this assumes that Germany and Japan would actually have won. Had we stayed out of it, the USSR would have inevitably crushed Germany, so the Cold War would have been even worse due to a far more powerful Russia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If it's not a bug, why would it happen at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
1. I didn't phrase it well, but my point was that the Cold War would have quickly turned into WWIII.
2. While the GDP used for war would not have been wasted in this scenario, there would also have been no post-war economic domination. Also, the industrial base expanded greatly during the war.
3. Why on earth would we want favored trading status with a country that perpetrated the Holocaust or a country that let its military commit barbaric acts, most infamously when they massacred a few hundred thousand people in Nanking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's true, but I fail to see what it has to do with anything.
Created:
Posted in:
Got it. I just left an empty line between my quote and my text. It doesn't always work, but it did there.
Created:
Posted in:
<br>I've seen it on a few of my posts. Let me see if I can force it to appear.
Test
Created: