Post: #26

Quote:I can't go to the college(s) I've wanted to go to since I was 5

What the fuck is up with this fetishization of individual colleges in the USA? Who on earth dreams of going to a specific college from age 5 onwards?

Imagine the ridicule if you said any of the following:

I can't go to the gym(s) I've wanted to go to since I was 5
I can't drive the car(s) I've wanted to drive since I was 5
I can't stay at hotel(s) I've wanted to stay at since I was 5
I can't wear the cloth(es) I've wanted to wear since I was 5



A college is an educational tool, nothing more. Stop turning it into a fetish.

Post: #27

Sometimes parent instill this in heir kids.

Post: #28

(04-02-2018 05:55 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:I can't go to the college(s) I've wanted to go to since I was 5

What the fuck is up with this fetishization of individual colleges in the USA? Who on earth dreams of going to a specific college from age 5 onwards?

Someone raised by the dumbest generation of narcissists the world has ever known, who see their kids as extensions of themselves and who see college as a brand their child must acquire in order for them to think of themselves as successful parents.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #29

Consider who this is coming from.

The dumb kid is white, ergo if he doesn't have a useless degree in some social justice bullshit then he'll never be taken seriously as a proper progressive.

Can you imagine turning up to one of those rallies and having to tell everyone that you're *gulp* blue collar?

Post: #30

(04-02-2018 02:19 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 01:00 AM)Kyon Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 12:52 PM)HornyRamone Wrote:  Hogg is insanely jealous of every man who displays masculinity, which is why he wants to ban self defense. First he aims to abolish the Second Amendment and then he'll go after gyms and martial arts classes because some kid somewhere stubbed a toe.

Guns aren't masculine. Guns are for the fearful. Guns won't protect you when your government chooses to kill you either. Guns are what you use to feel more powerful and in control, because in reality you are a tiny, insignificant man and you have control over absolutely nothing.

Ain't that the truth. People forget that it's not necessary to win against an army head-on. Over time you simply won't be able to control the country if too many people oppose you and are armed. That is why places like Afghanistan or Iraq can never be conquered unless you eradicate a huge portion of their people. But if you do that, then what would be the point of the US anyway? The US is valuable due to the hundreds of millions of productive people working tirelessly. If you kill them all, then it defeats the purpose. And controlling them by brutal force would also be prohibitive if they are too well-armed and combative.

The TV series Colony had a good view of this:





Even a technologically advanced force while being able to defeat the US could not control it's people. They regularly had to nuke entire states in the show, because a rebellious people as that would rather die than to live under tyranny.

But the globalists keep on trying - maybe they are willing to cull 90% of the population sometime down the line and that is why they need to take away the guns.

Post: #31

Fighting a conventional Geneva-Convention-abiding war against a country full of guerillas that don't follow the same rules is ultimately doomed to failure. It's incredibly costly in terms of manpower and resources, too costly even for USA. You could take shortcuts by being ruthless and murderous too, of course, but those would also net you just some short term gains before the whole thing began to collapse.

A war against a country full of fanatical guerillas could theoretically be won if you were ruthless enough - but "ruthless enough" doesn't mean something mild like "shoot all enemy combatants on spot"; it rather means "wage total war that includes mass ethnic cleaning in the form of concentration camps with gas chambers (oops) and death squads hunting the escapees / resistance, followed by scorched earth tactics and total destruction of property / soil". As Zel said above, this renders a country completely useless for anything other than resource mining and/or settlement by your own people - any sort of productive rule is absolutely out of the question.

Even then it would be a Pyrrhic victory, as guerillas and hostile populations could escape to a friendly country and keep attacking you from there (for example Vietcong in China or Taliban in Pakistan) - then the only logical course of action would be to invade and ethnically cleanse that country as well, eventually leading to you eventually becoming at war with the entire world - and in the age of IEDs, chemical weapons and ICBMs, we all know that this is a terrible idea.

The last time anything of that magnitude has been attempted was by Nazis in WW2 Poland / Russia / Yugoslavia, and even then it simply couldn't work. The area and population involved, the hostile forces arrayed against you, the sheer logistics of fighting the entire world at once - it just can't be done, no matter how powerful and technologically superior your country is.

That's why today's military doctrines must be defensive in nature, with the country's politicians being hellbent on not starting any wars in the first place. Anything else is folly.

Post: #32

(04-03-2018 07:53 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Fighting a conventional Geneva-Convention-abiding war against a country full of guerillas that don't follow the same rules is ultimately doomed to failure. It's incredibly costly in terms of manpower and resources, too costly even for USA. You could take shortcuts by being ruthless and murderous too, of course, but those would also net you just some short term gains before the whole thing began to collapse.

A war against a country full of fanatical guerillas could theoretically be won if you were ruthless enough - but "ruthless enough" doesn't mean something mild like "shoot all enemy combatants on spot"; it rather means "wage total war that includes mass ethnic cleaning in the form of concentration camps with gas chambers (oops) and death squads hunting the escapees / resistance, followed by scorched earth tactics and total destruction of property / soil". As Zel said above, this renders a country completely useless for anything other than resource mining and/or settlement by your own people - any sort of productive rule is absolutely out of the question.

Even then it would be a Pyrrhic victory, as guerillas and hostile populations could escape to a friendly country and keep attacking you from there (for example Vietcong in China or Taliban in Pakistan) - then the only logical course of action would be to invade and ethnically cleanse that country as well, eventually leading to you eventually becoming at war with the entire world - and in the age of IEDs, chemical weapons and ICBMs, we all know that this is a terrible idea.

Which is also why a much more profitable method is to let the country you see as a strategic concern destroy itself in a civil war, which you engender by building up false dichotomies and selectively backing one side with grievances and then the other. Only a chump tries to conquer his enemies, real strategists learn how to make an enemy destroy itself. Having failed at almost every other form of destruction of the world's greatest economic power in the last century, it appears this now will be the method by which the US's enemies triumph: the moment the US Balkanises into different states, its capacity to threaten any large, united player on the world stage vanishes. And that Balkanisation is coming, most likely along racial lines: California first, then Texas after that.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #33

I sometimes wonder, if Americans were robbed of a state or two would they take them back by force, even if it meant sending the demographic responsible packing for the border?

The means are undisputed but the will is the issue. I think that once it gets to that stage then liberal Americans are going to start getting literally lynched on the street and the whites of what remains of America will go hardcore nationalist overnight to a degree we are unfamiliar with in this day and age.

I think it will be the most bitter red pill imaginable to white Americans when all those amnestied latinos run off the remaining whites and functionally extend the borders of Mexico northward. Expectations that whites will simply draw a new border and "get over it" may be misplaced. A bloody reconquista is not out of the question.

Post: #34

Is David Hogg the dyke cunt with the hideous bald hair cut always crying on live TV. Anyway can't tell the difference. Not to down the tragedy but I can bet $10 these spoilt twats never even knew the victims gunned down. I wish these Cunts would try come and unarm my 2nd amendment right. It'd be a dead motherfucker coming soon.

Sheesh!

Post: #35

(04-04-2018 06:49 AM)Mr.WHORES Wrote:  Is David Hogg the dyke cunt with the hideous bald hair cut always crying on live TV. Anyway can't tell the difference. Not to down the tragedy but I can bet $10 these spoilt twats never even knew the victims gunned down. I wish these Cunts would try come and unarm my 2nd amendment right. It'd be a dead motherfucker coming soon.

Sheesh!

This isn't fair or accurate. The bald girl admitted to knowing the shooter. In fact, she said she used to treat him like shit every day.

Post: #36

It's a good bet that Hogg and Gonzalez never knew the gunned down victims, at least the student victims. Gonzales admits to bullying the shooter.

Parkland is a very large High school, and large High schools organize in cliques rather than forming communities. In my own high school, of a similar size but smaller than parkland, I didn't really know 2/3 of my own classmates, much less the students in the other grades.

Hogg and Gonzalez were Seniors, attending classes in an entirely different building than the freshman building that got shot up.

Parkland was further socially atomized between the mostly Mexican students taking ESL and the mostly Jewish students taking Advanced Placement (and the Holocaust class that got attacked). The two groups of students would have hardly interacted with each other.

Real victims don't usually start jump in front of cameras and start attention whoring.

Post: #37

(04-01-2018 04:38 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  He submitted this image multiple times to reddit. Can we really rule out he's not the shooter?

2/10 trigger discipline. WNB.

Post: #38

Wikipedia says the high school's enrollment was 3,158 in four grades a couple years ago. That is larger than at least 95% of the high schools in the country. The kids probably don't know more than 200 or 300 in the school. The seniors probably don't know many freshmen at all.

Post: #39

(04-02-2018 01:00 AM)Kyon Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 12:52 PM)HornyRamone Wrote:  Hogg is insanely jealous of every man who displays masculinity, which is why he wants to ban self defense. First he aims to abolish the Second Amendment and then he'll go after gyms and martial arts classes because some kid somewhere stubbed a toe.

Guns aren't masculine. Guns are for the fearful. Guns won't protect you when your government chooses to kill you either. Guns are what you use to feel more powerful and in control, because in reality you are a tiny, insignificant man and you have control over absolutely nothing.

And this is why we have the Second folks, to make sure we can protect the First from scum like you!