• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Leftist Discussion Thread

Since it is only used to invade foreign countries, why are taxpayers even tolerating the expense? How has it helped the average American? What good has the average tax payer seen from the last 50 years of US military operations?
The drunken ancestors those same rednecks fought off the British. They are not as helpless as one might think.Hitler's army was amped up on methamphetamine, and they were very powerful. Same with WWII Japan.
 
yoyr not really making sence now mate.
You say america should abolish it's military because it cost too much and say drugged up civilians could defend the country, then compare it with the hitlers army, hitler put everything into his army so it's kind of the oposite as to what you was originally on about.
 
OK, I will try to clarity.

1) America would still be safe from invasion if it abolished the military. That means eliminating a peace time, standing army. Keep enough people around that they would be able to train a civilian army in case of invasion. That could be done at a fraction of what it's costing tax payers now. If threatened, America could quickly raise an army.

2) I brought up Hitler's army to illustrate that people on drugs can still fight extremely well. In that case, they were only allowed to use certain drugs.

Most people probably already have access to drugs, and those who would be addicts if drugs were legalized probably already are. I don't think most people in the country would become addicts if they had access to free drugs. Part of it has to do with staying busy.

I agree with you that everybody should work, and most people want to work. Universal Basic Income would give people who hate their job time to train for something they are happier doing. It would be a safety net for the unemployed and unemployable.
 
no socko, America couldn't quickly raise an army. It's not the men that are so expensive it's the weapons and technology that creates these huge sums of money the military need. Lives are cheap, Apache gunships or or aircraft carriers are not.
Think you need to give your head wobble mate lol
Without all it's expensive weaponry America would be fucked in with modern warfare strategies.
When you think of invasion do you think of people jumping off ships and running up the beach being picked off by armed american civilians lol things have moved on a bit from that.
 
Why does America need the expensive hardware? The Afghan opium farmers armed with 19th carbines fought off 1) the British who tried to conquer them in the 19th century, 2) the Soviets int he 1980s, and 3) the Americans all thanks to guerrilla warfare. America is a huge country with vast empty areas that would be hard to hold in the eyes of any invader.

At any rate, all the hardware could be mothballed and stored for 20 years, the way it was up until WWII, and it would still be able to re-arm very quickly. Right now, the military has enough people and equipment to fight four separate foreign wars at the same time. What are the tax payers getting out of that?
Soso78 said:
no socko, America couldn't quickly raise an army. It's not the men that are so expensive it's the weapons and technology that creates these huge sums of money the military need. Lives are cheap, Apache gunships or or aircraft carriers are not.
Think you need to give your head wobble mate lol
Without all it's expensive weaponry America would be fucked in with modern warfare strategies.
When you think of invasion do you think of people jumping off ships and running up the beach being picked off by armed american civilians lol
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
All you need to do then is get America to go hide in caves and you be laughing.
 
Think about what an invader would face if it tried to occupy any part of the US. It's just too big, and any invader would always be surrounded by hostiles hiding in plain sight the way modern urban warfare is fought.

Lightly armed, untrained guerrilla armies have defeated much more powerful foes throughout the 20th century and into this one.

The situation you are picturing is a sneak attack. How would it even be possible to mobilize and move such a large invading army into the middle of America without detection?

My point is that America does not need a $600Billion standing army durign peace. If threatened, it could mobilize an army fast enough using existing military equipment and resources. Combine that with 100 million tweaker rednecks who are very patriotic and also who happen to be good marksmen because they spent their lives with personal military grade firearms, and the country is unconquerable.

You also forget the US has a real gun culture. Many armed civilians are former police and military. Also, to get gun permits and hunting licenses in many states, they are required to take firearms training classes.
 
Last edited:
I consider myself a leftist, maybe even an alt-leftist if there is such a thing. There are some things that I feel that the public must know about us left wing "radicals". We believe in true equality of the races, sexes, and believe in representation for all not the fake semblance of equality. That is something that I feel is important for our democracy.... in fact we feel that IS democracy. We do NOT want to take away any guns that you own. As long as you aren't running down the street wearing nothing but tinfoil hat and ranting about the chip in your head, then we feel there is no reason to care if you have a gun or not let alone "take them away". We actually feel that the only people who should be authorized to take away someone's guns are the proverbial men in the white coats and unless you have a reason to worry that they might show up and cart you off.... then you don't have to worry about that. To put it simply, if you aren't on the verge of being dragged off by guys in white coats, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to own a gun. We believe that everyone should be paid a decent wage, no matter what your job is. We want to ensure this by mandating that the rich who go home to extravagant mansions pay their workers a decent wage. We also believe that people who aren't able to secure employment due to disability or severe mental illness should be entitled to government compensation to prevent them from having to sleep outdoors. This is a relatively minor expense compared to the massive expenses to society incurred by supporting the lavish lifestyles of the rich. We DO NOT want to raise your taxes. If anything, we want to lower them, but we WILL raise your taxes if you make more than 250,000 dollars a year. To put it simply us left wing "radicals" are looking to make your lives better not worse. I also stand for the legalization of all drugs, not just cannabis. I genuinely believe that even if there were vials of crack for sale in the checkout line of the supermarket..... society wouldn't collapse. Why is that you may ask? Because most people wouldn't buy them, especially since they'd have the rather intimidating "not for human consumption", "harmful if ingested" labels on them. This would likely make drug addiction less common not more. I think that all drugs should be legalized, regardless of their negative health effects.... as it is one's decision to determine what to put in their body. If I felt like it (not that I ever would), I could legally drive to the supermarket to buy vodka chug a couple liters of it and keel over and die in my room. Yet I have to break the law in order to peacefully and harmlessly smoke a single joint (something that no human being has overdosed on in the course of human history, even if you smoked a third of your body weight in weed you wouldn't die! Even water is more toxic according to some sources.) If you notice that my post appears as a wall of text, this is difficult to avoid because of the browser that I use as a result of governmental overreach (unwarranted NSA surveillance authorized by ex-"president" Bush) and the outlawing of drugs. I use the Tor browser for privacy reasons not just for forums where I admit to my drug use but due to the fact that Republicans and government insiders seem quite fond of "gathering data" on people that is used for the "secret databases of every citizen", but the unfortunate side effect of this browser is that it's impossible to separate paragraphs without enabling scripts and cookies. So, us leftists aren't pro government, we're certainly no fans of the establishment. We believe in humanity rather than rule of the rich, that's the essence of our philosophy.
 
Last edited:
no I think it's disgusting that one man can be homeless and another can be a billionaire.
I see on TV how rich people waste money on such pointless things when that money could have changed someones life or even saved someone's life.

Ive been thinking about it and I think mh mindset is just a product of being fucked over by the system my whole life.
I was born poor and struggled with drugs and crime from a young age, it's been hard to get to where I am now (still not well off but running my own business,out of debt and earning an ok wage)
and and I'm proud of what I've achieved.
I hate the thought of having to work so hard and some of that money paying the wrong people.
I also hate the thought of cunts like trump with more money than they need when others have literally nothing.

The obvious problem is that the ones with the money are the ones with the power so nothing will change.
 
I don't hate the poor or the rich. That's too much of a sweeping statement, I judge everyone on their merits.

It's the leaches I hate.

For you to say I hate the poor means you either haven't understood what ive been saying or you try twist things to make me look bad.
 
Soso78 said:
I don't hate the poor or the rich. That's too much of a sweeping statement, I judge everyone on their merits. It's the leaches I hate.
Click to expand...
While I certainly agree that it's important to judge everyone on their merits, the rich by nature tend to be more of the "leeches" that the poor because they are making their fortunes off someone else's back. However, there are many members of the rich that are charitable, such as Bill Gates, but there are many more wealthy people who simply horde money and use it to make more money off the backs of others.
 
Ryan01 said:
Gutless antifa at it again

20krk1l.jpg
Click to expand...

I saw that... Interesting I mainly see it in "white supremacist" websites (or, certain people on Facebook, or Youtube), just like the extreme disparity of black on white crime in comparison to white on black isn't reported except by outlets that would be branded "racist" because it's easier to deal with than reality.

And here it is. The left pushes everyone with concerns that direction, and in that direction is about the only direction we find these truths. Keep pushing people, assholes.

consumer said:
Soso dont you think your hatred should be aimed at the rich and powerful rather than the poor?
Click to expand...

I find the word hatred unhelpful (I don't think "hate" exists, and relying on the word to describe something or someone promotes darkness-- not to mention it's lazy).
 
Last edited:
Please do not associate the left with antifa. I'm left and I deplore their tactics and targets.

Its easier to combat extreme views and behaviours..

At the same time, not all on the right are militant Nazi's.

edit: what exactly is happening in those images?
 
Last edited:
Antifa is a loose-knit collective of anti-fascists.
Not a group or anything - more of an ideology, and one which is broadly misunderstood (especially in the USA as of now)

I believe those photos depict some "patriots" (lol) that done got pepper-sprayed.
Anyone see the pics of the Trumper that wet his pants in Berkeley?
(Not gloatin' or approvin' - just askin')

The thing about "the left" is that it comprises a very broad degree of beliefs.
Aome i agree with, some i have absolutely no time for.
Nobody speaks for "the left" :)
 
Soso78 said:
sorry my mistake.
I thought you ment I said no one deserves benefits.
Obviously people need help sometimes but the system we got at the minute doesn't work and lack of money is a big part of it.

Where would all this money come from for all the lazy cunts to buy drugs?
Do you think more people would find that option more apealing and it would lead to less people bothering to work?
Click to expand...

The system we have is expensive to administer, and can easily punish people for working.

UBI would have a lot less overhead and individuals would never find themselves in a position where they'd have to avoid earning more in order to keep their benefits.

We'd have some slackers, but we've always had slackers. We'd also have some people who would use the opportunity to improve their contribution to society - perhaps stay home and take care of young children, or go back to school, or launch their own business.

It's an idea worth exploring, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top