I am secretly a truck
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting 2j1py
posted
Total Posts
57,527
Yeah, I think only one muzzy has driven a truck into a crowd over here.Foxtrot wrote: 2l233p
these guys dont live in europe so their chances of getting hit by a truck are relatively lowAurani wrote: k3n52
I'm sad none of you mongrels have yet been fucking hit by a truck. Wishes sometimes just don't come true, it seems.
Neither of them are any good, but at least Le Pen ed Serbia, unlike that assfag Macron. Macron winning is a tragic loss for , with them being once again spineless shithats.Mahogany wrote: 4pak
Our state's relationship with the church is fucked up
Macron won, beating out Le Pen. Thank you, french people, for being smart about this.
do you actually think le pen winning would be preferableAurani wrote: k3n52
Neither of them are any good, but at least Le Pen ed Serbia, unlike that assfag Macron. Macron winning is a tragic loss for , with them being once against spineless shithats.
seriously now
so you actually don't care about what happens, you just want an excuse to be a hateful personFuZ wrote: 6f1pt
not like i care that he was elected, it will not affect me since im a neet
gotcha
just shut up man, you have no idea what he will actually do to the country, people will literally kill themselves at work with the new "work law", he will push new laws like a dictator without referendum, he wants a millitary intervention in Syrie while having borders wide open (hello isis)Mahogany wrote: 4pak
do you actually think le pen winning would be preferableAurani wrote: k3n52
Neither of them are any good, but at least Le Pen ed Serbia, unlike that assfag Macron. Macron winning is a tragic loss for , with them being once against spineless shithats.
seriously now
so you actually don't care about what happens, you just want an excuse to be a hateful personFuZ wrote: 6f1pt
not like i care that he was elected, it will not affect me since im a neet
gotcha
he just doesnt care about the people, he's at merkel's feet
le pen is social, macron is antisocial, and as hard as it can be for you negative IQ that only thinks about HURR DURR RACISM, it's the truth
Oh yeah, but he's not le pen.GladiOol wrote: 6o3k6y
But Macron is a capitalist-loving, (((globalist cuck))). He's like the embodiment of what /r/latestagecapitalism should hate.
It might suck, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it wasn't the best choice between the two.
Then your country should have voted in better politicians, lmaoFuZ wrote: 6f1pt
just shut up man, you have no idea what he will actually do to the country, people will literally kill themselves at work with the new "work law", he will push new laws like a dictator without referendum, he wants a millitary intervention in Syrie while having borders wide open (hello isis)
Between the two, he's by far the better choice
You're the one convincing yourself it's about racism here pal, I said nothing about itFuZ wrote: 6f1pt
le pen is social, macron is antisocial, as hard as it can be for you negative IQ that only thinks about HURR DURR RACISM, it's the truth
marine le pen is not racist, you have no idea what youre talking aboutMahogany wrote: 4pak
Oh yeah, but he's not le pen.GladiOol wrote: 6o3k6y
But Macron is a capitalist-loving, (((globalist cuck))). He's like the embodiment of what /r/latestagecapitalism should hate.
It might suck, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it wasn't the best choice between the two.
Then your country should have voted in better politicians, lmaoFuZ wrote: 6f1pt
just shut up man, you have no idea what he will actually do to the country, people will literally kill themselves at work with the new "work law", he will push new laws like a dictator without referendum, he wants a millitary intervention in Syrie while having borders wide open (hello isis)
Between the two, he's by far the better choice
You're the one convincing yourself it's about racism here pal, I said nothing about itFuZ wrote: 6f1pt
le pen is social, macron is antisocial, as hard as it can be for you negative IQ that only thinks about HURR DURR RACISM, it's the truth
Le Pen is pretty much what needs right now. It's not something deserves, but it is what needs, unless you're up for turning into an even bigger shithole of kebabs and economically degrading into a third-rate country. May I remind you that has the potential to be the leading European country, yet is currently far behind both AND Britain, with India almost having caught up with it and even BRAZIL threatening to by it. It's only a matter of time before that happens, and reelecting same retards again and again isn't gonna help much.
i like how you have literally no arguments every times i try to debate with youMahogany wrote: 4pak
That's all you have to say about this?
marine le pen will never get elected because of her family name, people dislike her fatherAurani wrote: k3n52
Le Pen is pretty much what needs right now. It's not something deserves, but it is what needs, unless you're up for turning into an even bigger shithole of kebabs and economically degrading into a third-rate country. May I remind you that has the potential to be the leading European country, yet is currently far behind both AND Britain, with India almost having caught up with it and even BRAZIL threatening to by it. It's only a matter of time before that happens, and reelecting same retards again and again isn't gonna help much.
is doing fine, I'm not quite sure what you're on about. Then again, you've pretty much outright stated you just hate muslims, so I'm not sure what else there is to say.Aurani wrote: k3n52
Le Pen is pretty much what needs right now. It's not something deserves, but it is what needs, unless you're up for turning into an even bigger shithole of kebabs and economically degrading into a third-rate country.
ITT: TearsFuZ wrote: 6f1pt
i like how you have literally no arguments every times i try to debate with you
yes, over 15% people living under poverty line is fine, okMahogany wrote: 4pak
is doing fineAurani wrote: k3n52
Le Pen is pretty much what needs right now. It's not something deserves, but it is what needs, unless you're up for turning into an even bigger shithole of kebabs and economically degrading into a third-rate country.
Muslims have nothing to do with the state of 's economy. If you blatantly ignore the historical evidence where has shown that it has the capability to completely and utterly smash both and Britain economically time and time again, then claim that today's is anything short of pathetic, we have nothing to discuss.
The country's unemployment almost reached 9 or 10 percent at one point (I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but it should be around that number), with exports having taken quite a fucking beating in the past few years, imports having gone up all while her neighbours continued advancing.
Today's is a stagnant cesspool of rotten and corrupted individuals who need to be removed, as they're driving the country into ruin.
If we began talking about kebabs here, there would be even more fucking reason to vote for Le Pen instead of that mongrel.
The country's unemployment almost reached 9 or 10 percent at one point (I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but it should be around that number), with exports having taken quite a fucking beating in the past few years, imports having gone up all while her neighbours continued advancing.
Today's is a stagnant cesspool of rotten and corrupted individuals who need to be removed, as they're driving the country into ruin.
If we began talking about kebabs here, there would be even more fucking reason to vote for Le Pen instead of that mongrel.
If people like you stopped existing, there'd be no shit to spread, fam. Stop blaming me when you're the source of the problem.FuZ wrote: 6f1pt
i'm just trying to stop you from spreading shit about my country
You're saying this while ing Le Pen, someone who actively encouraged outside parties to hack her opponentAurani wrote: k3n52
Today's is a stagnant cesspool of rotten and corrupted individuals who need to be removed, as they're driving the country into ruin.
ok
fuck off with those parenthesesGladiOol wrote: 6o3k6y
But Macron is a capitalist-loving, (((globalist cuck))). He's like the embodiment of what /r/latestagecapitalism should hate.
and even then, it's pretty much history repeating itself from 2002's "vote for the crook, not the fascist", except much more worrying
EDIT: memes
e d g y 👌Mahogany wrote: 4pak
If people like you stopped existing, there'd be no shit to spread, fam. Stop blaming me when you're the source of the problem.FuZ wrote: 6f1pt
i'm just trying to stop you from spreading shit about my country
i know what i'm talking about, you dont, proof is you have no arguments
Caradine
why i'm worthless i did nothing bad to you.Mahogany wrote: 4pak
NEET, someone who is literally completely worthless to society.
kai99 wrote: 6o576w
mm i cant feel my butt.
Me too it keeps digging into the chair and going numb, then I put feet under butt and they go numb too, then I sit normally and butt numb again.
I guess my stance on this stuff can be said along the lines of: I'd rather have a corrupt businessman who knows how to do politics instead of a corrupt screeching idiot who appeals to the lowest common denominator.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
Hello Rothschild crony.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
Bye bye populist
Seriously, I don't understand how people can be in favour of populist politicans unless they ACTUALLY buy into the shit that they're saying (i.e. they're falling for lies). Which a lot of people evidently do, but I have a pretty fucking low opinion of "people in general" nowadays, so their rising (peaked?) popularity doesn't mean anything important to me.
Le Pen has good immigration policy and she wants to get out of the EU, but she has a bad protectionist economic policy. Macron has better economic policy and free trade, but is a globalist and has a bad immigration policy. I'd rather have someone who doesn't know what they're doing but has good intentions have power over an elite establishment figure who is professional at fucking people over. And leaving the EU, or immigration which will permanently affect a countries demographics will have a lot longer lasting consequences than an import tariff. Such immigration policy will also place the French people at more immediate risk of terrorist attacks and place more strain on the country's welfare and housing.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
I guess my stance on this stuff can be said along the lines of: I'd rather have a corrupt businessman who knows how to do politics instead of a corrupt screeching idiot who appeals to the lowest common denominator.
Seriously, I don't understand how people can be in favour of populist politicans unless they ACTUALLY buy into the shit that they're saying (i.e. they're falling for lies). Which a lot of people evidently do, but I have a pretty fucking low opinion of "people in general" nowadays, so their rising (peaked?) popularity doesn't mean anything important to me.
Stephen Fry blasphemy probe dropped after gardaí fail to find 'substantial number of outraged people'
I love my country. That last bit is just the best
I love my country. That last bit is just the best
my uncle joe saw anti-overfishing regulations get set in place by law one time so that sort of deflates your argument that you can privately protect the environment (which largely takes place on gov't-owned land)B1rd wrote: 4w393k
I was just at a private conservation ground that gets about 1.6 million dollars of income from private donors from this state alone. Sort of deflates the argument that it's impossible to protect the environment without the government.
Wow did the government really set rules about what you can do on its land? Obviously if that land were privately owned the owners would let anyone come and fish until there was nothing left, because people don't care about their property or its value (only the government does).DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
my uncle joe saw anti-overfishing regulations get set in place by law one time so that sort of deflates your argument that you can privately protect the environment (which largely takes place on gov't-owned land)
I beleive that generally individuals use their property better and more efficiently than the government does.
You probably don't like waiting two hours in congested traffick either, but due to the economic calculation problem, it's impossible for central planners to allocate resources as efficiently as in a market pricing system, thus the supply of road infastrsucture doesn't meet up with demand. Paying for tolls isn't much of a problem in our current day, it can be done electronically, by a specific licence, payed by the property owners etc.
In other news, our "Liberal" party has finally dropped any pretense of austerity and launched a massive spending and taxing campaign, but it's OK because it's "good debt".
You probably don't like waiting two hours in congested traffick either, but due to the economic calculation problem, it's impossible for central planners to allocate resources as efficiently as in a market pricing system, thus the supply of road infastrsucture doesn't meet up with demand. Paying for tolls isn't much of a problem in our current day, it can be done electronically, by a specific licence, payed by the property owners etc.
In other news, our "Liberal" party has finally dropped any pretense of austerity and launched a massive spending and taxing campaign, but it's OK because it's "good debt".
I just think you put far too much faith in private ownership to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than government ownership. In some ways it can be better, in some ways worse, most people understand and agree with that concept. Where do you get the idea that privatised ownership of resources would be so *significantly* better?
Would you also a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?
Would you also a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?
Endaris wrote: 6j5f7
How can we improve capitalism without exposing ourselves as filthy leftists?
Argumentum ad populum.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
I just think you put far too much faith in private ownership to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than government ownership. In some ways it can be better, in some ways worse, most people understand and agree with that concept. Where do you get the idea that privatised ownership of resources would be so *significantly* better?
Would you also a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?
The police force is one of the things that could most benefit from privitisation. Private security and police are generally cheaper, more effective, and less prone to police brutality. This is because they are subject to competition, thus companies are strongly incentivies to provide the best product so they get the contracts, and employees are strongly incentivised to provide quality labour so they get promoted and don't get fired. This is in contrast to public police which are pretty much guarenteed income no matter how poor or ineffectual at driving down crime they are, and police officers can get away with anything short of bloody murder with the only consequnce being a short time on payed leave or a switch to an anministrative role.
some entities definitely shouldn't be run to turn a profit, such as a prison system.
Prison is a place where money should be invested for resocialization programs, pertaining to education and trades.
Does a private company have an interest in providing opportunities to prisoners to kickstart a better life for them? Clearly they don't, because its not as profitable as say.. to just make a deal with a company from the outside and let people work for below min wage in prison - without any focus on improving their situation.
But is that really to the best of society?
Prison is a place where money should be invested for resocialization programs, pertaining to education and trades.
Does a private company have an interest in providing opportunities to prisoners to kickstart a better life for them? Clearly they don't, because its not as profitable as say.. to just make a deal with a company from the outside and let people work for below min wage in prison - without any focus on improving their situation.
But is that really to the best of society?
Nevermind the fact that actually reforming these prisoners would actively damage their income. It's in their best interest to have as many prisoners as possible, so you bet they're going to do all they can to keep prisoners from reintegration into society, and try all they can to keep them locked up as long as possible.Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27
Clearly they don't, because its not as profitable as say.. to just make a deal with a company from the outside and let people work for below min wage in prison - without any focus on improving their situation.
Only you would link this in response to "Most people can see that there are pros and cons" lolB1rd wrote: 4w393k
Argumentum ad populum.
also, Mahogany's point is interesting, considering that prisoner slavery is legal in the US, which has a notoriously awful prison system/high re-offender rates. Prisons in some European companies are "luxurious", and guess what, they end up reforming people a lot better.
But those just wouldn't be profitable, now, would they? Sure, they benefit society overall, but there's no way a private prison would shell out all that money to improve people's well-being if they didn't have to. This is the core reasoning behind "Private doesn't necessarily mean good"- profitability isn't necessarily maximum benefit for society overall, far from it, and generally leads to massive inequality until things escalate to the point where the rich are overthrown in revolution.
Same applies for when states misuse their power in general. Privatization offers no more protection from this. "Competition exists therefore the system will become perfect in order to survive" isn't a valid argument when competition can't necessarily exist for everything.
A private police force would be fucking retarded for a few reasons, namely the fact that you could just pay them as much as they wanted and get off of any crime scot-free. Especially true for large businesses that commit crimes on massive scale. They already do to some extent, but privatization of the police would essentially mean that instead of having a police force, you'd just end up with a bunch of henchmen of whichever corporations are the richest. How could you see that coming when you made your initial argument?
I think I'm gonna be sickDaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
okay I'm definitely gonna be sickZain Sugieres wrote: 2n3vj
How about we talk about Ajit Pai and the net neutrality stuff in the US right now
Your morbid attachment to B1rd is hilariousMahogany wrote: 4pak
B1rd has said in the past that he would absolutely having everything, including Police and Fire Departments, being privately owned.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
Would you also a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?
He's been ignoring you for months you just keep mentioning him in 3/4 of the posts you make here
Deleted_6709840
Having the military privately owned without a government backed military would be a disaster.Mahogany wrote: 4pak
B1rd has said in the past that he would absolutely having everything, including Police and Fire Departments, being privately owned.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
Would you also a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?
I love these. The recurring taco truck is honestly the best.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzbusRK ... .be&t=6m2s
America vs Scandinavia isn't a good example of Capitalism vs Socialism as it's made out to be. Scandinavian countries have far less crime, a homogenous white population. Nationalise the prisons if you want, but try implementing the same policies and the same level of funding per prisoner and you're gonna be in for a rough time, probably bankrupt the nation.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
Only you would link this in response to "Most people can see that there are pros and cons" lol
also, Mahogany's point is interesting, considering that prisoner slavery is legal in the US, which has a notoriously awful prison system/high re-offender rates. Prisons in some European companies are "luxurious", and guess what, they end up reforming people a lot better.
But those just wouldn't be profitable, now, would they? Sure, they benefit society overall, but there's no way a private prison would shell out all that money to improve people's well-being if they didn't have to. This is the core reasoning behind "Private doesn't necessarily mean good"- profitability isn't necessarily maximum benefit for society overall, far from it, and generally leads to massive inequality until things escalate to the point where the rich are overthrown in revolution.
Same applies for when states misuse their power in general. Privatization offers no more protection from this. "Competition exists therefore the system will become perfect in order to survive" isn't a valid argument when competition can't necessarily exist for everything.
A private police force would be fucking retarded for a few reasons, namely the fact that you could just pay them as much as they wanted and get off of any crime scot-free. Especially true for large businesses that commit crimes on massive scale. They already do to some extent, but privatization of the police would essentially mean that instead of having a police force, you'd just end up with a bunch of henchmen of whichever corporations are the richest. How could you see that coming when you made your initial argument?
Who do you think funds the prisons in America? The taxpayers via the government. It's not a free market system at all, its just another example of the unholy matrimony of big government and corporate interests. The government makes a whole load of laws to put innocent people in jail, the jail benefits and receives funding increases for the extra prisoners, and in turn the prisons fund the campaigns of the politicians. The "war on drugs" is the best example of these policies to increase prison populations, over 50% of prisoners are in there because of drug-related offenses. 86% of prisoners are in there because of victimless crimes. That's 86% of prisoners who are in jail to pad the pockets of a few select people. It's nothing to do with any fundamental flaws of Capitalism, it's all to do with the fundamental flaws of the state and the perverse incentives offered to the private sector by the state. America suffers these problems more than these small European countries because it's bigger and more centralised.
And who are you to say in what ways the private sector can make profit? If you could do that you should be a billionaire by now. If the ones who were directly funding the prisons were the ones who had a vested interest in their effectiveness, the community, then the prisons in turn would respond to that incentive by trying to provide the best reformation rates at the lowest prices. In fact, I doubt that locking people in a cage for years in the most effective means of deterring undesirable behaviour, I think prisons should be relegated to incarcerating people who post a real physical threat to people, like murderers and rapists. Voluntary economic penalties and ostracisation are likely better and cheaper deterrents.
Saying that the unregulated free market leads to inequality and revolution is nothing but a socialist fantasy. If you look at the French revolution, it was caused by the decadent aristocracy, nothing to do with the free market. The free market based on private property rights and Capitalism has been the single greatest thing to improve the human condition. Socialist are just hangers on from intellectuals of the industrial revolution when certain things did create inequality, and when there was a very low GDP per capita, but since then the progress of industry has made it so even the "poor" in the West live like kings compared to a few centuries ago. The free market did that, not government, not socialism; the way to improve the lot of the poor is the innovate production and increase wealth for everyone. Socialist policies are nothing but economic populism and decrease the net wealth for everyone, however they are implemented because the overwhelming majority of people are short sighted and don't know economics, they don't vote for the best long-term policies, they vote for their own short-term gain.
And socialism isn't just bad for the economy, it's one of the greatest threats to freedom and liberty. Nothing else has caused as much death and tragedy in the recent era as the idealism of socialism. The fact is that economic freedom and personal freedom are intrinsically related. The state claws its way to power under the pretense of benevolence. Trust the Left to overlook the ones with the guns and the armies and demonise the people trying to sell you iphones and burgers.
Not that wealth distribution is inherently bad, but it should be voluntary. Using coercion to steal someone's money is not moral, and the ends don't justify the means.
Now I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, but no the "the corporations will take power" argument is not something new. It's nothing but an knee-jerk reaction without any actual real consideration. If a corporation can lose millions of dollars from one video of security dragging a man out of a plane, then having henchmen beating people up is going to definitely be bad publicity. Corporations are not self-sufficient entities, they rely on voluntary trades from millions of people. People will not trade with entities trying to kill them. There is plenty of competition on the free market to make any company, private police or whatever, extremely conscious of public image. Even if some corporations did try and take power like this, and let's say that there were no economic consequences somehow, they still wouldn't have the manpower or resources to take on the whole of the rest of society, who have their own private security and their own guns. Private citizens are as much, or larger, a consumer of security than big business, from the security company's point of view it makes no sense to marginalise your biggest consumer base. Violent conflict is extremely unprofitable and almost certainly ruinous, there is no logical reason to assume that just because of privatisation of the police that corporations would engage in such an activity.
This is what a privatised police force would look like: