Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#90
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.Be honest!! 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
Why is it people try to tie EVERYTHING to racism?
Are we going to have to change the color of BLACK PAINT to something "less offensive?
It mean it is is "Negro" in other languages.
The dark skys have always been referred to as "black skys"> Are we going to have to change that to?
When do people with some common sense stand up and say enough is a fucking nough and put the brakes on this BULLSHIT?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Step 1: Find box.
Preferably not box Mama use for Mama special new toys Mama buy after Diabeto leave again to jail. Mongo sniff biggest one Mongo think it smell like turtle cage. Mama put all on dresser cos Mongo rip box. Mongo no tell Mama Mongo used biggest one. Mongo think this why now have ass cancer.
Step 2: Put Mongos dick in box.
If box 2 small Mongo smash it like bag of bread til it fit. Mongo legendary for Mongo retard strength. Mongo problem solver. Mongo pull trailer hitch after Mama Nissan Rouge transmission brake.
Step 3: Present box with confidence of man who comments sexy on pictures of Mama friend Lix.Let the lady her open box. No tell surprised like last time. Mongo forget ladies like Lyuba no lie hearing Mongo tell. Lying scarred think amigo sound like gorilla beating cage.
That how Mongo do holiday romance.
Sounds like pure “romance in a box” to me!
Good, over the moon that this happened! These, for the lack of a better term, numb nuts content creators are being held accountable for the crap they upload on the internet!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I bet poor old Ben Franklin is spinning in his grave
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 12 hours
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
There are lots of these accounts that pose as American MAGA,
which now are turning out to be located in countries that do not
hold democracy in high regard, to put it mildly. Isn't that strange?
only registered users can see external links
McGovern was Chief Creative Officer / Design Director, responsible for:
- Vehicle aesthetics (exterior & interior design)
- Brand identity (logos, marketing visuals, and overall “look & feel”)
- Concepts and styling of new models
McGovern did NOT decide the powertrain or corporate product strategy,
e.g., whether Jaguar becomes fully electric. That is the role of:
- CEO & Board (corporate strategy)
- Chief Product & Technology Officers (engineering, EV adoption)
- Marketing & Finance teams (market positioning, budget, risk)
He was responsible for the shift of Jaguar’s image away from its older, traditional base (classic luxury/“old British car” buyers) and instead reach a younger, more global, possibly more fashion- or lifestyle-oriented clientele: “a newer, international elite,” as some branding experts put it. There is nothing 'woke' or 'progressive' about that. The change felt too abrupt, too radical, and too detached from what made Jaguar; engineering pedigree, British heritage, the “soul” of classic carmaking.
Did this upset old conservative elites? Sure, but that doesn't make it 'woke'.
The heads of the company decided to make Jaguar 100% electric.
This designer probably thought that the customer base of Jaguar, didn't fit that strategy, so he tried to appeal to a younger customer base. I don't think he was wrong, but I am willing to agree with Jaguar that this is a big risk. The people who have the money to buy Jaguars tend to be 'older', affluent, conservative-taste luxury buyers. You can convince them to drive electric, but if you combine that with Avant-garde fashion, the old clientele will leave.
There is NOTHING 'woke' about trying to cater to the nouveau riche.
only registered users can see external links
A good actor can spot a bad one easily.
only registered users can see external links
The Economy could prosper and the people not because of high labor prices
If a large number of people in any country ,US included, are on income plans claiming mental illness, that financial burden drags down a country. You don't fix mental, it is a drain.
You find something those people can do to earn a wage if it is something as simple as sweeping floors
With benefits, it's the people who prosper, without it's the wealthy.
Your country is for 70% dependent on internal consumption.
It's not the wealthy who create a healthy economy, it's the people.
If the people have money to spend, the economy prospers.
The only escape from that economic principle is trade, but Trump created tariffs.
You said you don't care about trade, but if you want your economy to do well,
you need Americans to buy your products. Lowering wages is a downward spiral.
Your billionaires cannot spend your economy healthy.
Maybe you should think about people not spending money on useless expenses
to directly pay the wealthy, without creating economic activity. For instance, high rent
for buildings that have existed for decades. That's just a clear handout to the owners
of the buildings, that creates almost no economic activity. Another is health insurance.
It only takes a lot of money from everyone, to transfer money to the wealthy, without creating health benefits for the people. It damages the economy, because it reduces people's spending power, without creating much economic activity. They are leaches.
What's the cause of the high number of mental illness cases in your country?
I think that it's the individualism, and the anti-rationality movement.
/ˌindəˈvij(ə
noun
noun: individualism
1.
the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
"a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth"
h
Similar:
independence
self-direction
self-reliance
freethinking
free thought
originality
unconventionality
eccentricity
libertarianism
self-centered feeling or conduct; egoism.
2.
a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
"encouragement has been given to individualism, free enterprise, and the pursuit of profit"
So you are saying our mental illness is caused by freedom?
Let me paste this again so you won't miss it
"individualism
1.
the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
"a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth"
h
Similar:
independence
self-direction
self-reliance
freethinking
free thought
originality
unconventionality
eccentricity
libertarianism
In other words you think everyone should follow the leader,not think for themselves and just be a drone and they will be Your definition of mentally healthy??
you know better than that!
In that sense, it means the opposite of solidarity. It means you're on your own,
no communities of people helping each other in a time of need.
It is sold as freedom, but it actually strips the thing that made humanity prosper.
Yes, it is creating mental illness, to push people apart, like your movement is doing.
I am personally very much an individualist. I don't do anything just because it's what society expects of me. The term for that is "nonconformist individualism".
I am very much an autonomy-focused individualist. I value:
- Personal freedom of thought
- The right to choose your life path
- Not being pressured into traditional roles
- Authentic self-direction
This aligns with:
- Existentialist individualism (Sartre, de Beauvoir)
- Left libertarian / anarchist individualism
- Liberal humanism
- “Self-direction” in modern psychology
However, I am also a socialist, which means that I am definately NOT:
1) Atomistic individualist
- The belief that people are essentially separate, self-contained units
- Downplays interdependence
- Treats community as optional or irrelevant
- Often assumes social obligations = loss of freedom
This is the type many socialists (and sociologists) criticize.
2) Egoistic or competitive individualist
- Prioritizes self-interest above all
- Views society as a competition of individuals
- Measures success by outcompeting others
- Favors inequality as a natural outcome
This is incompatible with socialist values.
3) “Rugged” individualist
- “Everyone should fend for themselves”
- Distrust of social welfare, solidarity, public services
- Resistance to collective safety nets
- Often tied to neoliberal or libertarian-conservative ideology
This is the main type of individualism that I reject.
4) Market individualist
- Defines freedom mainly as consumer choice
- Sees society through a market lens
- Frames people primarily as economic actors
- Accepts or encourages large inequalities as a result of market outcomes
Definitely at odds with democratic socialism.
Is this all you had to say about that?
I was talking economics mostly. Got anything to say about that?
I am sorry, you are not 100% wrong but you sure aren't 100% right either. You have been indoctrinated to believe you have to depend on others to meet the simplest most basic needs in life. So sad really,I honestly can't even visualize your motivation to get out of bed in the morning.
Why would you think that?
How about the "I take care of my village" attitude?
To be indoctrinated, there needs to be someone doing the indoctrination.
There is none, it's 24/7 celebration of capitalism here too.
I cannot turn on the TV or radio, without being fed right-wing lies.
I recognize it, because I can think for myself, that's what happened to me.
I see what is happening, and I understand how to recognize causes.
There are simple facts that you cannot deny. Housing was mostly done by the government before, when most people could easily afford to rent, and a mechanic could buy a house. Then housing was left to 'the market', making investors wealthy, and now only couples with two highly paid jobs can afford to buy a house. Owning a house is the strongest wealth-building tool in capitalism, but the number of people who can afford it has gone done a lot and keeps going down. That's hard evidence for right-wing policies fucking the average person over. Why don't you understand?
I actually have a good reason to get out of bed, because my job is worthwhile and it pays well. Do you know how many Americans hate their jobs? They work and work and work, and they still don't make enough money to pay for a $500 emergency.
Do you think that is good motivation to get out of bed?
Everything is backwards with you, because YOU consume propaganda 24/7.
You are sharing it here. It's all designed to divide people, blame each other,
for why you're all working like slaves for peanuts, so you don't notice that
the wealthy are taking all your money.
How do you tell someone who is getting scammed that they're getting scammed?
What needs to happen to you, to make the blinders drop from your eyes?
No where is it in stone that life is easy,cheap or fair.
But if you want a future, no better time to learn how to work for it than when you are young and impressionable. The struggle ends 1, when you retire from a reputable company and have a good check coming in each month,or 2, when you die.
No where is it in stone life is fair,easy or cheap
Another thing, retirement is not the end of the struggle. You are looking at the income part only. Life is much, much, more than that.
If you waste your entire check living above your means,no you won't get there
Also, what happens with people like you and my ex? Both of you got injured. Are you a dumb f…k because you got hurt? And what happens if the retirement fund goes insolvent and your pension stops?
Like what? Work 100 hrs/week?
I just told you that a mechanic could afford a house, on 40 hrs/week, when I was young. I'm talking about my father, who first bought an apartment and then a pretty big family home, only a few years later. Interest on mortgages was around 10% back then, and you had to pay a significant sum from your pocket.
My father was the family provider and my mom was a stay at home mom.
Buying a house like my father bought, today, takes TWO people, both with higher educations, and good steady jobs, to afford. A mechanic cannot even afford to RENT on their own anymore.
Do we all need to be managers or lawyers now? Are mechanics still allowed
to live a decent life? Or do they all need to work 100 hrs/week?
You're also not consistent; when we talk about education becoming unaffordable, you are saying that people don't need it, they should just be a tradesperson.
And now you are telling people to work and study hard to get good grades to get a scholarship to help pay the cost of college. Where are those scholarships coming from? Can everyone get them? This is obviously not a solution for everyone.
Even if everyone is working and studying the hardest that is humanly possible,
then scholarships are STILL going to the few smartest people.
Why do people need to do all this "finding ways to make more money",
when they didn't need to do that before?
That 500,000 dollar house was 230,000 dollar, not even 2 decades ago.
Wages didn't go up that fast, so what happened?
Why did life get less "fair,easy or cheap" in only 20 years?
You keep giving nonsense reactions, to obvious problems. Be more honest.
I will pm the rest,
You're still not addressing the fact that tradespeople could afford to buy a home and support a family on one income. More people are working than in that time, but people are less well off, even if couples are both working. That's just a fact.
This is not just bad for tradespeople, it's bad for the whole country.
Didn't you say that you wanted America to make stuff again?
To make stuff, you need people to want to be tradespeople,
instead of everyone picking educations to be managers and lawyers.
If you want America to split itself off from the rest of the world,
and you want to close the borders to trade, you need to create
a strong internal economy. You cannot do that with poor people.
America was at it's strongest when the middle class was booming
and you had high taxes on the wealthy, which paid for big investments.
Now your middle class is suffering and your country is losing its place
in the world. The ideas that you support are clearly the cause of this,
but you keep supporting those failed ideas. The US is crumbling.
There is nothing MAGA about it, when Trump is clearly destroying America.
Trump is clearly "winning" too much, and he IS destroying your country.
I don't know how to translate this money to Us dollars
only registered users can see external links
That's $53,918.27/year, $25.68/hour. Google can easily convert it for you.
Just ask "€22 in dollar" and it tells you.
There are of course many types of mechanic, at different levels of education.
At $53,918.27/year, the mechanic could get a mortgage between $215,656 and $269,570. There are still some houses in some areas of my country for sale at that price, but the house of my parents is 3 times the value.
only registered users can see external links
If you work for 10 years and make $1,000,000, you pay $300,000–$400,000 in taxes.
Who thinks it is fair to get taxed for working, but not for just getting it?
Could it be organized more fairly?
I know Anannas thinks when family dies all their money and stuff goes to the state to be dispersed among those that did nothing for it.
What people miss is if a person looses a parent or loved 1, that money is not free, it cost them their father ,mother or etc. Taxes were already paid.
Land and material things, taxes and fees have been paid for length of time of ownership.
Why is worked taxed so high and inheritance so low?
The answer is NOT "because the parents already paid their taxes".
We can fix that and tax working LESS and tax having lost of money MORE
and tax generational transfer of money MORE.
Why is EARNING money taxed so much more, than HAVING money
and just GETTING money that you haven't EARNED yourself?
You're only focusing on the parents, not on the kids.
Didn't I ask: "Could it be organized more fairly?"?
Why is it fair that some people don't have to work, because their parents are rich
and some people have almost no chances to make it, no matter how hard they work,
because their parents are poor? Is that fair?
Why is winning the birth lottery rewarded and working punished?
phart, lay off on this one, let quint answer.
You already answered for me, don't answer for him too.
just because you don't want your family to be better off than you when you pass away doesn't mean others don't love and care for their kids.
it is simple jealousy from those who parents were drunken hippies and didn't leave them anything that complain.
Generational wealth transfer is the cause of the problems, NOT the solution.
People's kids WILL be poorer than them, because politics favors the wealthy.
You should want those kids to be ABLE to make a life for themselves.
My father bought his first apartment at age 25. How old does the current generation need to be, before their parents die and leave them some money, to finally be able
to buy a house?
Houses are scarce goods, they are either owned by the people who live in them
or they are owned by the wealthy who ask top dollar for them, to become more wealthy and buy up more houses. It's our generation that can still make a choice to have people own their own homes, and prevent that the wealthy own everything.
Remember your side being outraged about the phrase "you will own nothing and be happy"? This was a prediction made by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in a 2016, and your side is turning it into a reality. TAX THE RICH, or be happy owning NOTHING.
New Comment Go to top