Crime 11 people killed after shooting in Hanau, Germany. Suspect dead, left video & letter

[ObamaPhoneLady]

You know my posting history isnt some secret knowledge that you have access to. Anyone can see it. Ya I dont have good things to say about Zionism. I swear i think youre some old guy new to the Internet where you need to read things to your wife to make sure you didnt miss anything lol

Not at all. When someone gets as upset about something I say as you did, I like to run it by a third party to see if they think what I said was rude/confrontational/over the line etc.

In this case, it was none of those things.

Me using the word 'blowback' angered you because that's 'your word.'

That's the word you use to justify muslim terror attacks. It's worked well for you. It has allowed you to sit back and cheer on terror attacks that have killed innocent people because hey 'it's just blowback.'

Having it used 'against you' made you very mad because it forced you to confront the fact that at the end of the day, anyone can justify anything. Someone can even use the blowback argument to excuse this particular terror attack where muslims got killed.

 

[tramendous]

Not at all. When someone gets as upset about something I say as you did, I like to run it by a third party to see if they think what I said was rude/confrontational/over the line etc.

In this case, it was none of those things.

Me using the word 'blowback' angered you because that's 'your word.'

That's the word you use to justify muslim terror attacks. It's worked well for you. It has allowed you to sit back and cheer on terror attacks that have killed innocent people because hey 'it's just blowback.'

Having it used 'against you' made you very mad because it forced you to confront the fact that at the end of the day, anyone can justify anything. Someone can even use the blowback argument to excuse this particular terror attack where muslims got killed.

Lol at calling someone terrorist sympathizer not being "over the line". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that youre trolling and not actually this clueless.

PS blowback was not 'my word'. I just knew what it meant and you didn't.

 

[MVelsor]

You're out of your element here. NoDak is as unique as a snowflake. You can't pin him down (as much as he'd like that) with simple analysis like this.

Sigworthy.

 

[Supereem]

I do think the idea of Germany not getting any blame is a bit weird though. Had they not popped off trying to rule the world and then genocide an entire religion/ethnic group while passing off the world a second time things might be different.

agreed 100%.

 

[Broadcast]

The shooter was schizofrenic, not a Nazi. At least in Europe we don"t get guns like in America. When will they stop so many killings in the US?

 

[Stoic1]

At least in Europe we don"t get guns like in America. When will they stop so many killings in the US?

You worry about America? Worry about yourselves, bitten.

 

[Wet Blanket]

The middle east was fucked up a long time before the west got involved.

No it wasn't.

 

[Rational Poster]

Correct. In all seriousness, "straight white male" is not a pejorative term I've ever used in my life and most people just assume I am that by default anyway. It's rarely been advantageous to correct them tbh.



Uh, that means you are the sane one in a sea of crazy. I was actually laughing pretty hard over the "people like you" comment thrown your way yesterday, and then the other psychopath just came out of nowhere, stepped right in and started going batshit soup on you with the "gays destroy civilization" ranting. <45>



Nah, I'm so pro-euro/west that people sometimes mistake me for a white supremacist. Most of my dialogue with the far left is arguing with them over gender identity bullshit. I'm pretty openly 'transphobic' in the purest sense of the word; meaning I don't harbor any hatred or hostility but find the whole concept terrifying and diametrically opposed to what it's conflated with. There's even historical reasoning for feeling that way.

Dozens, with a handful on the overt extreme end. I'm not sure if they're all particularly cognizant of that, know what civil rights are and/or just apply them selectively. And yes, it's been the standard position of the GOP to stand against them every step of the way. It'd otherwise still be criminalized in at least 30% of the US. The Reagan Administration literally laughed and ignored an epidemic for years, Christians and other assorted righties still valorize it today.

"There's no hate like Christian love" is a joke though.

If gays don't destroy civilization then explain what happened to the Greeks.

 

[dragonsfly]

Since they're as bad as you say they are, let's piss them off with more far left shenanigans.

Shenanigans? This people are straight up dengerous and I saw them coming years ago. I even said they would seize the minority properties once they grow in strength in North America. Most of them come from the white community but the lower end of the white community who live in rural areas, countryside, villages and poor people with not much education or they can be classified as non-urban uneducated white rural, villagers or countryfolk. They will see this as an opportunity to seize property from the minority and make the defenceless minorities as legal target this is there ultimate goal

 

[Negator402]

Why not both?

Albanian SS! I would like if not for these dubs I wear with pride.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Well you offer up a solution I’m listening.

I personally think people overreact to terror attacks so I don't care to come up with some grand solution like mass deportation in response to them.

But if we are going to try to do something about it we should start by dealing with the social isolation and alienation that seems to plague a lot of these shooters. Of course the benefit would be much deeper than merely dealing with such individuals, there are millions of individuals who suffer from that in more subtle ways.

Nah you're good. Regardless how we've been getting shitty with each other.

My reasoning is two fold.
1) you're not trying to push your beliefs on others
2) the colonies have always been diverse and that works for me

My views are different when it comes to cultural homelands as you know. And that includes every place from the middle East, Europe to Africa. I believe there's value in keeping cultural differences intact globally. Keep in mind I'm not advocating trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube, but rather propose stopping global migration by lifting people up in their own homes.

Why is that wrong? I thought we were supposed to believe in the free marketplace of ideas and if so aren't Muslim entitled to compete in said marketplace of ideas? I don't proselytize myself because I grew up a generation that is quite cynical towards such efforts but I don't see it as wrong. Secular people are constantly trying to push their beliefs on Muslims and other religious people but the other way around is somehow wrong?

 

[TheGreatA]

Hitler was a big fan of Islam so I wouldn't blame his doctrine for these events. Just seems like the regular paranoid schizophrenic tinfoil hat nutjob with severe mommy issues to me.

Ol' Adolf believed that Germans would've been better off if Arabs conquered Europe.

He also shared similar sentiments about Jews with many Muslim leaders.

He claimed that one of his biggest mistakes was aligning with Mussolini, vilifying potential Muslim allies.

 

[MVelsor]

Aside from RP, I'm moving this to a different thread.

You guys must be bored. That post is a world class dumpster fire inside of a larger dumpster that svirk calls home. World class shit post.

If gays don't destroy civilization then explain what happened to the Greeks.

Yes but the Greek & Roman civilisations don't exist anymore, so when you say 'go and read what they got up to', that raises two question: who exactly was getting up to this stuff, and when exactly did it take place in the civilisation's lifespan? Was it during the decline? If so, that only backs up the argument that degeneracy ends up destroying a civilisation.

This argument is akin to looking at the excesses and perversions of the most decadent and lush people in the US today and arguing that it is how everyone should live.

Most people didn't live that way then and most people don't live that way now. There is a reason for that. Because it existed in the past doesn't justify it today.

My god you are ignorant , it was common for Greek men to fuck prepubescent boys , it was normal , it's just a fact as abhorrent as it is.

Read a fecking book once in awhile .

What do you mean by "this stuff"?

If it's in regards to pedophilia, most of that was actually pederasty, i.e. teenagers not prepubescents. If it's homosexuality in general - and I'm sure you draw a direct equivalence there - most notably Pindar and Theoxenus, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Pheidias and Pantarces, Pelopidas and Epaminondas, Alexander (The Great) and Hephaestion amongst others in terms of adult relationships.

Those are all actually Classical Peak Greece era figures albeit military/cultural elites as noted by @TheGreatA. The Hellenistic era is really more known for having widespread decadence but it eventually simply fell on account of a burgeoning and stronger Roman Republic; not a really an improvement on the sexual morality front. As an aside, Greece's biggest contributions were philosophy, mathematics and the arts; Romans had the superior hand in terms of civic administration, law and engineering.

 

[Rational Poster]

Aside from RP, I'm moving this to a different thread.






What do you mean by "this stuff"?

If it's in regards to pedophilia, most of that was actually pederasty, i.e. teenagers not prepubescents. If it's homosexuality in general - and I'm sure you draw a direct equivalence there - most notably Pindar and Theoxenus, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Pheidias and Pantarces, Pelopidas and Epaminondas, Alexander (The Great) and Hephaestion amongst others in terms of adult relationships.

Those are all actually Classical Peak Greece era figures albeit military/cultural elites as noted by @TheGreatA. The Hellenistic era is really more known for having widespread decadence but it eventually simply fell on account of a burgeoning and stronger Roman Republic; not a really an improvement on the sexual morality front. As an aside, Greece's biggest contributions were philosophy, mathematics and the arts; Romans had the superior hand in terms of civic administration, law and engineering.

but I want to play too.

 

[MVelsor]

but I want to play too.

Plutarch has argued that Alexander's love of males took an ethical approach, inspired by the teachings of his mentor, Aristotle. He gives several examples of Alexander's morality in this domain:

"When Philoxenus, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a youth in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the boy) to be sent over, he responded in a strict and disgusted manner: 'You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty (sexual) work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?'"[1]

Plutarch also wrote:

"When Philoxenus, the commander of his forces on the sea-board, wrote that there was with him a certain Theodorus of Tarentum, who had two youths of surpassing beauty to sell, and inquired whether Alexander would buy them, Alexander was incensed, and cried out many times to his friends, asking them what shameful thing Philoxenus had ever seen in him that he should spend his time in making such disgraceful proposals."[2]

<45>

 

[PubliusVentidius]

Aside from RP, I'm moving this to a different thread.






What do you mean by "this stuff"?

If it's in regards to pedophilia, most of that was actually pederasty, i.e. teenagers not prepubescents. If it's homosexuality in general - and I'm sure you draw a direct equivalence there - most notably Pindar and Theoxenus, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Pheidias and Pantarces, Pelopidas and Epaminondas, Alexander (The Great) and Hephaestion amongst others in terms of adult relationships.

Those are all actually Classical Peak Greece era figures albeit military/cultural elites as noted by @TheGreatA. The Hellenistic era is really more known for having widespread decadence but it eventually simply fell on account of a burgeoning and stronger Roman Republic; not a really an improvement on the sexual morality front. As an aside, Greece's biggest contributions were philosophy, mathematics and the arts; Romans had the superior hand in terms of civic administration, law and engineering.

The funny thing is that the only prolonged time where the romans had sane and competent emperors was when the emperors were gay and had no biological heirs so they would nominate their heirs based on meritocracy, Trajan(gay)>Hadrian(gayer)>Pius(not gay but he was obliged into adopting Marcus Aurelius as heir by Hadrian)>Marcus Aurelius (not gay and ruined everything by nominating his biological son as heir, Commodus, who turned out to be one of the biggest nutcases ever).

 

[TheGreatA]

The funny thing is that the only prolonged time where the romans had sane and competent emperors was when the emperors were gay and had no biological heirs so they would nominate their heirs based on meritocracy, Trajan(gay)>Hadrian(gayer)>Pius(not gay but still following the meritocratic approach)>Marcus Aurelius (not gay and ruined everything by nominating his biological son as heir, Commodus, who turned out to be one of the biggest nutcases ever).

Commodus was "fool's gold", to Aurelius he appeared to be a mirror image of himself, expect blessed with a level of physical virility that he himself never possessed, and had to compensate for with intellect. Commodus should've been the logical progression, a man gifted not only with his intelligence, but also physical abilities which made him worthy of Emperor.

Due to Commodus's uncommonly impressive physique and his brawling habits, the rumours arose that he was actually the son of a gladiator rather than Aurelius himself. He fell in love with himself and surrounded himself with sycophants, and went down as one of the biggest scumbags that Rome ever produced (and they produced quite many). A tragic twist of fate considering that Aurelius himself had lived such an exemplary life.

Roman historians noted that he was really just a dumb, brutish man, rather than a naturally psychopathic or cruel individual, and was easily misled by others. Even his biggest critics noted that he was a physically impressive human being, who paraded himself around as the reincarnation of Hercules.

Today we could just as well see him perform in the octagon, as in the gladiator stage.

 

[MVelsor]

The funny thing is that the only prolonged time where the romans had sane and competent emperors was when the emperors were gay and had no biological heirs so they would nominate their heirs based on meritocracy, Trajan(gay)>Hadrian(gayer)>Pius(not gay but still following the meritocratic approach)>Marcus Aurelius (not gay and ruined everything by nominating his biological son as heir, Commodus, who turned out to be one of the biggest nutcases ever).

Hadrian was the gayest motherfucker of the whole Greco-Roman lot IMO, dude had some seriously exquisite artistic tastes.

Hadrian (/ˈheɪdriən/; Latin: Publius Aelius Hadrianus Augustus; 24 January 76 – 10 July 138) was Roman emperor from 117 to 138. He was born Publius Aelius Hadrianus in Italica, Hispania Baetica, into a Roman Italo-Hispanic family that settled in Spain from the Italian city of Atri in Picenum. His father was of senatorial rank and was a first cousin of Emperor Trajan.

Hadrian encouraged military preparedness and discipline, and fostered, designed, or personally subsidised various civil and religious institutions and building projects. He preferred to invest in the development of stable, defensible borders and the unification of the empire's disparate peoples. He is known for building Hadrian's Wall, which marked the northern limit of Britannia.

He was an ardent admirer of Greece and sought to make Athens the cultural capital of the Empire, ordering the construction of many opulent temples there. His intense relationship with Greek youth Antinous and the latter's untimely death led Hadrian to establish a widespread cult late in his reign. Hadrian had an abiding and enthusiastic interest in art, architecture and public works. In Rome itself, he rebuilt the Pantheon and constructed the vast Temple of Venus and Roma. In Egypt, he may have rebuilt the Serapeum of Alexandria.

Hadrian has been described as the most versatile of all Roman emperors, who "adroitly concealed a mind envious, melancholy, hedonistic, and excessive with respect to his own ostentation; he simulated restraint, affability, clemency, and conversely disguised the ardor for fame with which he burned."

In 1503, Niccolò Machiavelli, though an avowed republican, esteemed Hadrian as an ideal princeps, one of Rome's Five Good Emperors. Friedrich Schiller called Hadrian "the Empire's first servant". Edward Gibbon admired his "vast and active genius" and considered Hadrian's era as part of the "happiest era of human history". In Ronald Syme's view, Hadrian "was a Führer, a Duce, a Caudillo".

 

[PubliusVentidius]

Commodus was "fool's gold", to Aurelius he appeared to be a mirror image of himself, expect blessed with a level of physical virility that he himself never possessed, and had to compensate for with intellect. Commodus should've been the logical progression, a man gifted not only with his intelligence, but also physical abilities which made him worthy of Emperor.

Due to Commodus's uncommonly impressive physique and his brawling habits, the rumours arose that he was actually the son of a gladiator rather than Aurelius himself. He fell in love with himself and surrounded himself with sycophants, and went down as one of the biggest scumbags that Rome ever produced (and they produced quite many). A tragic twist of fate considering that Aurelius himself had lived such an exemplary life.

Roman historians noted that he was really just a dumb, brutish man, rather than a naturally psychopathic or cruel individual, and was easily misled by others. Even his biggest critics noted that he was a physically impressive human being, who paraded himself around as the reincarnation of Hercules.

I think Marcus Aurelius either didn't realize that his son was a douche of the highest order or he was blinded by fatherly love, either way it was a big failure on his part to not recognize the hints, his son was like the complete negation of all his life's philosophy, I can't think of a more tragic parenting failure than that; I guess all the years he spent away from Rome at the front might have had something to do with it. But then again he was not in an easy spot anyway, nominating someone else as heir while having a biological heir might have triggered a civil war. As for the gladiator's son rumors I think they were mostly just silly rumors to explain away how incredibly different the two men were character-wise, going by the statues Commodus looked almost exactly like Marcus Aurelius, just with more bulging eyes.

 

[TheGreatA]

I think Marcus Aurelius either didn't realize that his son was a douche of the highest order or he was blinded by fatherly love, either way it was a big failure on his part to not recognize the hints, his son was like the complete negation of all his life's philosophy, I can't think of a more tragic parenting failure than that; I guess all the years he spent away from Rome at the front might have had something to do with it. But then again he was not in an easy spot anyway, nominating someone else as heir while having a biological heir might have triggered a civil war. As for the gladiator's son rumors I think they were mostly just silly rumors to explain away how incredibly different the two men were character-wise, going by the statues Commodus looked almost exactly like Marcus Aurelius, just with more bulging eyes.

I reckon, indeed, that he tried to avoid fracturing the Empire, as an Emperor appointing a successor other than his son would've likely inevitably led to a Civil War, as it did many times when there were several contenders for the throne.

At the end of the day though, it comes down to the foolishness of a system appointing a 18 year old as an all-powerful Emperor, just because of their birth. It was bound to go wrong, and it did many times.

In that sense, having gay emperors, who didn't have children, probably did serve the Romans better, as it allowed someone to ascend to the throne through more meritocratic means.