1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

The elites would care because they get their supplies from the same place. Do they have "contingencies and allies"? Care to provide evidence of such?

It "took decades" because the economy of the USSR didn't "fail", it just couldn't continue to support its unproductive satellite clients and itself. That isn't even a good comparison. We just have to cut off cities, not countries.

The Australian government is only doing what they are now because of the truckers strangling them. Literally no one here is saying to not be prepared, but everytime anyone mentions peaceful means, some dumbass comes in flapping their yap about how it won't work despite history proving them wrong.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's a piss poor argument. The only one who's "poorly educated" is you if you think Hong Kong's position is anything like ours.

  1. They are literally an island. Geographically isolated and fully dependent on mainland China for electricity, running water, etc.

  2. They represent only a miniscule portion of the total Chinese population, as such they lack the numbers to make any kind of impact with peaceful protests.

Neither of those things can be applied to citizens of the US. In fact, peaceful protest got every single tax that Great Britain passed against the colonists repealed. It was ONLY when British regulars were sent to confiscate arms at Lexington and Concord that overt violence became the way forward.

In pretty much every single instance of Communist insurgency, they always had the lion's share of the population (and thus resources) on their side and/or had the backing of a larger Communist ally (see North Korea and Vietnam).

Nevermind that this is the usual bullshit seen here. Retards tout the "peaceful protest doesn't work" line, but are nowhere to be seen actually practicing what they preach.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

Amazing how retards keep thinking this was some 4D chess move by the media to get people to stop saying "Fuck Joe Biden".

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +4 / -2

Yeah man, totally the same as an incredibly diffuse group of citizens who account for a far larger proportion of the population of the US than Hong Kong did of China, are located in the primary production areas of the US, AND have the monopoly of force incase such is needed?

Yeah, definitely the same thing as Hong Kong, an isolated city-state that produces no basic goods and is quite literally an island.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

I mean, there really isn't much opinion to be had. Ballistic tip/soft point/hollow point .223 rounds will not over-penetrate drywall as much as buckshot will. They have less mass and a shape more prone to deformation/fragmentation once they hit the intended target or go into a barrier.

The only advantage a shotgun has over a rifle in a defensive scenario is the greater degree of error in aim, and even then that is only an arguable advantage.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

Gotta know what's in said general direction too. If you can't properly identify your target, you probably shouldn't shoot at it, especially after just waking up. Once you squeeze that trigger, you have no control over how far that round goes.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pretty sure we didn't. Pretty sure we fought a war where we had taxes levied against us without any representation in the legislature (nominal or otherwise), had soldiers quartered in our houses against our will, had laws lebied against us that required us to only trade with England (all goods were exported to England first and then re-imported to other colonies), etc.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

Proper .223 rounds have less over-penetration than buckshot, at least when used on drywall.

http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html

5
Yawnz13 5 points ago +5 / -0

Maybe to a certain point, but if it keeps going, obviously the prices are going to outpace the money supply most people have.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

If someone is way ahead they’re inherently going to use future tense— they’re saying what will happen, not what has. Idiotic point.

Not idiotic. He's saying in the CURRENT article that the NEXT STEP for the Dems is to weaponize COVID-19 for ideological ends. They ALREADY HAVE, so him saying "THE NEXT STEP" is him being behind.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good to see you're still projecting.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

No shortcomings with English here. This is all on you.

They need to understand what it is and why it's filth.

Nothing remotely confusing about that.

0
Yawnz13 0 points ago +1 / -1

Which is why he's just now saying that their plan is to weaponize COVID? People who are "way ahead" don't use future tense.

0
Yawnz13 0 points ago +2 / -2

Not according to the article he isn't. Sure, he links to an article he put out almost a year ago, but nowhere does he make that assertion in the article itself. He simply refers to a "regulatory nightmare", which is a far cry from what we're seeing going on now.

3
Yawnz13 3 points ago +4 / -1

What they are planning to do is weaponize COVID-19 to attain ideological objectives.

I mean that sentence right there is about a year behind. They already HAVE weaponized COVID-19 to attain ideological objectives.

8
Yawnz13 8 points ago +16 / -8

What they are planning to do is weaponize COVID-19 to attain ideological objectives. This is why they hyped the fear within it for almost a year. Nothing within their plan requires the approval or consent of any representative body in Washington DC. COVID is the tool to “fundamentally change” the way the United States exists.

Sundance is about a year behind.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure it is. You even used it.

Get mad you didn't understand my original post, got called out, and are now assmad about it.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're the one bringing up grooming when no one else did. That's called projection.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why wouldn't I call it smut/filth then you drooling invalid?

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

Showing a kid smut and explaining it is something I do not condone.

There is no positivity that comes from that. Only opens pandoras box.

Where is anyone suggesting that? It's not hard:

Kid: "Dad, what is a 'transsexual'?"

Dad: "Son, it's someone who thinks they're a girl when their body has boy parts."

Kid: "Why would they do that?"

Dad: "Mental illness or attention son."

See? It's that easy. You're the only one here making ANY reference to showing kids porn you chilmo.

I dont feel like discussing it further, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that youre not grooming, but I dont agree w you and I guess we will have to let it be at that.

You were never "discussing it" to begin with. You made a dumbass extrapolation out of a VERY simple concept, got called out, and are now backpedalling over it by accusing me of wrongdoing.

view more: Next ›