|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 07 2024 02:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:
This notion that companies do something wrong rather then the people making the decisions and acting upon those decisions is just mind boggling to me.
Companies don't decide to screw over people, people do. Imagine a shareholder meeting, Mr just got shot goes in and says "sorry guys, we aren't growing this year because people actually need this healthcare and denying it to them is immoral" what do you think happens? The shareholders go read a book about morality and then agree that the best thing to do is be nice to the patients? I reckon they would sack him and replace him with someone who would make them their money. People are acting like this asshole was the only asshole in the world, and that shooting him means Ghandi is going to go take his job.
I think it's more that being shot dead is a potential consequence for murderous CEOs and pretty much everyone but the CEO's are okay with that.
You think it was more Hochul or more McSilency (and the public reaction) that motivated Anthem to reverse course on their anesthesia policy recently?
Initially, the policy update went unnoticed, but that changed Wednesday after UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot killed in New York City. The killing sparked a wave of online vitriol about the U.S. health care system, and Anthem BCBS’s decision roared into the conversation.
A spokesperson for Anthem BCBS said in a statement: “There has been significant widespread misinformation about an update to our anesthesia policy. As a result, we have decided to not proceed with this policy change."
www.nbcnews.com
This is ideally a moment of crystallization of class struggle for people in the US and needs to be followed up on with some sort of organized mass demonstrations to demand healthcare. Unfortunately libs/Dems are practically useless (or worse) and class consciousness has been systematically destroyed among the masses.
|
On December 07 2024 02:17 oBlade wrote:
McDonalds continues to make more money than it costs to make hamburgers - even though some people are hungry, even if they can't buy a hamburger. Yet their CEO makes tens of millions - worth at least millions of hamburgers. Will any brave SCOTUS-grenade tossing revolutionary genius volunteer to take the mantle on this one? Not endorsing it but who would shed any tears I mean. Knowing McDonalds they'd probably just commemorate the killing by offering a limited edition Sad Meal.
Bolded - this is best effing description of McDonald food I've ever seen  . Remove space and trademark it.
|
On December 07 2024 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 02:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2024 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:
This notion that companies do something wrong rather then the people making the decisions and acting upon those decisions is just mind boggling to me.
Companies don't decide to screw over people, people do. Imagine a shareholder meeting, Mr just got shot goes in and says "sorry guys, we aren't growing this year because people actually need this healthcare and denying it to them is immoral" what do you think happens? The shareholders go read a book about morality and then agree that the best thing to do is be nice to the patients? I reckon they would sack him and replace him with someone who would make them their money. People are acting like this asshole was the only asshole in the world, and that shooting him means Ghandi is going to go take his job. I think it's more that being shot dead is a potential consequence for murderous CEOs and pretty much everyone but the CEO's are okay with that. You think it was more Hochul or more McSilency (and the public reaction) that motivated Anthem to reverse course on their anesthesia policy recently? Show nested quote +Initially, the policy update went unnoticed, but that changed Wednesday after UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot killed in New York City. The killing sparked a wave of online vitriol about the U.S. health care system, and Anthem BCBS’s decision roared into the conversation.
A spokesperson for Anthem BCBS said in a statement: “There has been significant widespread misinformation about an update to our anesthesia policy. As a result, we have decided to not proceed with this policy change." www.nbcnews.comThis is ideally a moment of crystallization of class struggle for people in the US and needs to be followed up on with some sort of organized mass demonstrations to demand healthcare. Unfortunately libs/Dems are practically useless (or worse) and class consciousness has been systematically destroyed among the masses.
Hey if this becomes that moment of crystallization then for sure I will celebrate.
I'm a bit too cynical to imagine that that's how it will go.
You're right about the Anthem change, I read about that the other day. If they go the next 12 months without implementing that I will eat my hat. This is a news cycle, what happens within it isn't necessarily instructive on what will happen when its over.
If this killing causes real change then it is worth it. If it is just an extra judicial killing of an asshole then I don't care either way.
|
On December 07 2024 02:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2024 02:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2024 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:
This notion that companies do something wrong rather then the people making the decisions and acting upon those decisions is just mind boggling to me.
Companies don't decide to screw over people, people do. Imagine a shareholder meeting, Mr just got shot goes in and says "sorry guys, we aren't growing this year because people actually need this healthcare and denying it to them is immoral" what do you think happens? The shareholders go read a book about morality and then agree that the best thing to do is be nice to the patients? I reckon they would sack him and replace him with someone who would make them their money. People are acting like this asshole was the only asshole in the world, and that shooting him means Ghandi is going to go take his job. The problem isn't capitalism, its not corporations, its people. We do this, not some invisible hand we have no power over. I fundamentally disagree with this. Its a great way of avoiding any serious reform in anything at all ever though. Its just individuals causing all our problems, get rid of the right individuals and everything will be just fine. Let's try some more examples: Its not the Catholic Church that's causing the problems with child abuse, its just individuals within the church. Its not the IDF murdering tons of women and children, its just individuals who work for the IDF. Can you see the problem? Sometimes there actually is an invisible hand guiding people's behaviour, and it is made of laws and regulations. I didn't say he, I said we. All of us.
Humanity is the problem, it has always been the problem.
|
On December 07 2024 02:17 oBlade wrote:
McDonalds continues to make more money than it costs to make hamburgers - even though some people are hungry, even if they can't buy a hamburger. Yet their CEO makes tens of millions - worth at least millions of hamburgers. Will any brave SCOTUS-grenade tossing revolutionary genius volunteer to take the mantle on this one? Not endorsing it but who would shed any tears I mean. Knowing McDonalds they'd probably just commemorate the killing by offering a limited edition Sad Meal.
profiting off labor and profiting off denying legitimate health care expenses (what it is literally your responsibility to provide,) are not the same thing.
if people starving literally to death went to buy happy meals from mcdonald’s because they're the only available food in the country, paid, and then got no food and starved to death i think people would rightfully be calling for consequences. to make your comparison a little more apt.
On December 07 2024 02:35 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 02:17 oBlade wrote:
McDonalds continues to make more money than it costs to make hamburgers - even though some people are hungry, even if they can't buy a hamburger. Yet their CEO makes tens of millions - worth at least millions of hamburgers. Will any brave SCOTUS-grenade tossing revolutionary genius volunteer to take the mantle on this one? Not endorsing it but who would shed any tears I mean. Knowing McDonalds they'd probably just commemorate the killing by offering a limited edition Sad Meal. Bolded - this is best effing description of McDonald food I've ever seen . Remove space and trademark it.
SadMeal was a good one though, for sure.
|
On December 07 2024 02:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 02:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2024 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2024 02:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2024 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:
This notion that companies do something wrong rather then the people making the decisions and acting upon those decisions is just mind boggling to me.
Companies don't decide to screw over people, people do. Imagine a shareholder meeting, Mr just got shot goes in and says "sorry guys, we aren't growing this year because people actually need this healthcare and denying it to them is immoral" what do you think happens? The shareholders go read a book about morality and then agree that the best thing to do is be nice to the patients? I reckon they would sack him and replace him with someone who would make them their money. People are acting like this asshole was the only asshole in the world, and that shooting him means Ghandi is going to go take his job. The problem isn't capitalism, its not corporations, its people. We do this, not some invisible hand we have no power over. I fundamentally disagree with this. Its a great way of avoiding any serious reform in anything at all ever though. Its just individuals causing all our problems, get rid of the right individuals and everything will be just fine. Let's try some more examples: Its not the Catholic Church that's causing the problems with child abuse, its just individuals within the church. Its not the IDF murdering tons of women and children, its just individuals who work for the IDF. Can you see the problem? Sometimes there actually is an invisible hand guiding people's behaviour, and it is made of laws and regulations. I didn't say he, I said we. All of us. Humanity is the problem, it has always been the problem.
Okay I misunderstood.
I don't know what to do with 'humanity is the problem' though. It doesn't really bode well for any solutions. Even if its true (I'm not entirely sure I agree) its a kinda useless bit of information to have.
edit: I realise this makes me sound like a dickhead, I don't want to sound mean I just couldn't think of another way to put it.
|
On December 07 2024 02:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2024 02:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2024 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:
This notion that companies do something wrong rather then the people making the decisions and acting upon those decisions is just mind boggling to me.
Companies don't decide to screw over people, people do. Imagine a shareholder meeting, Mr just got shot goes in and says "sorry guys, we aren't growing this year because people actually need this healthcare and denying it to them is immoral" what do you think happens? The shareholders go read a book about morality and then agree that the best thing to do is be nice to the patients? I reckon they would sack him and replace him with someone who would make them their money. People are acting like this asshole was the only asshole in the world, and that shooting him means Ghandi is going to go take his job. I think it's more that being shot dead is a potential consequence for murderous CEOs and pretty much everyone but the CEO's are okay with that. You think it was more Hochul or more McSilency (and the public reaction) that motivated Anthem to reverse course on their anesthesia policy recently? Initially, the policy update went unnoticed, but that changed Wednesday after UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot killed in New York City. The killing sparked a wave of online vitriol about the U.S. health care system, and Anthem BCBS’s decision roared into the conversation.
A spokesperson for Anthem BCBS said in a statement: “There has been significant widespread misinformation about an update to our anesthesia policy. As a result, we have decided to not proceed with this policy change." www.nbcnews.comThis is ideally a moment of crystallization of class struggle for people in the US and needs to be followed up on with some sort of organized mass demonstrations to demand healthcare. Unfortunately libs/Dems are practically useless (or worse) and class consciousness has been systematically destroyed among the masses. Hey if this becomes that moment of crystallization then for sure I will celebrate. I'm a bit too cynical to imagine that that's how it will go. You're right about the Anthem change, I read about that the other day. If they go the next 12 months without implementing that I will eat my hat. This is a news cycle, what happens within it isn't necessarily instructive on what will happen when its over. If this killing causes real change then it is worth it. If it is just an extra judicial killing of an asshole then I don't care either way.
If it will bring any changes, it will be "no gun" zones, or such .
|
On December 07 2024 02:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2024 02:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2024 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:
This notion that companies do something wrong rather then the people making the decisions and acting upon those decisions is just mind boggling to me.
Companies don't decide to screw over people, people do. Imagine a shareholder meeting, Mr just got shot goes in and says "sorry guys, we aren't growing this year because people actually need this healthcare and denying it to them is immoral" what do you think happens? The shareholders go read a book about morality and then agree that the best thing to do is be nice to the patients? I reckon they would sack him and replace him with someone who would make them their money. People are acting like this asshole was the only asshole in the world, and that shooting him means Ghandi is going to go take his job. I think it's more that being shot dead is a potential consequence for murderous CEOs and pretty much everyone but the CEO's are okay with that. You think it was more Hochul or more McSilency (and the public reaction) that motivated Anthem to reverse course on their anesthesia policy recently? Initially, the policy update went unnoticed, but that changed Wednesday after UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot killed in New York City. The killing sparked a wave of online vitriol about the U.S. health care system, and Anthem BCBS’s decision roared into the conversation.
A spokesperson for Anthem BCBS said in a statement: “There has been significant widespread misinformation about an update to our anesthesia policy. As a result, we have decided to not proceed with this policy change." www.nbcnews.comThis is ideally a moment of crystallization of class struggle for people in the US and needs to be followed up on with some sort of organized mass demonstrations to demand healthcare. Unfortunately libs/Dems are practically useless (or worse) and class consciousness has been systematically destroyed among the masses. Hey if this becomes that moment of crystallization then for sure I will celebrate. I'm a bit too cynical to imagine that that's how it will go. You're right about the Anthem change, I read about that the other day. If they go the next 12 months without implementing that I will eat my hat. This is a news cycle, what happens within it isn't necessarily instructive on what will happen when its over. If this killing causes real change then it is worth it. If it is just an extra judicial killing of an asshole then I don't care either way.
That's part of why Dems like Hochul trying to take credit for the Anthem thing and Dems like Walz mourning this scumbag can be seen not just as asinine, but maliciously manipulative (and terribly foreboding about the future of the Democrat party)
It feeds Dems mythical theory of change that credits the Hochuls of history instead of palpable fear wealthy and powerful people feel before they make any of the concessions they've made historically.
|
On December 07 2024 01:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 00:03 oBlade wrote:
Working at a health insurance company isn't the fucking Holocaust, whether you are German or Austrian or anything else. Coming up with more efficient ways to take medicine from sick people is a movie villain job description.
The monoclonal stuff is insanely expensive.
Cancer treatment still sucks. For most of them, the best you can do is delay the re-emergence. But we expect that some panacea be discovered.
I don‘t mean to defend that job as described by you but insurance fraud exists so it‘s necessary.
If they do their jobs too well, the ones at the receiving end might flip out though.
Does money do its job well nowadays ?
|
The question you need to ask is why is this stuff expensive? Its because big pharma, healthcare, medical device, insurance companies are raping the US.
These companies should be forced to open their books with full transparency. Insurance companies shouldnt even exist.
|
On December 07 2024 02:48 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 02:17 oBlade wrote:
McDonalds continues to make more money than it costs to make hamburgers - even though some people are hungry, even if they can't buy a hamburger. Yet their CEO makes tens of millions - worth at least millions of hamburgers. Will any brave SCOTUS-grenade tossing revolutionary genius volunteer to take the mantle on this one? Not endorsing it but who would shed any tears I mean. Knowing McDonalds they'd probably just commemorate the killing by offering a limited edition Sad Meal. profiting off labor and profiting off denying legitimate health care expenses (what it is literally your responsibility to provide,) are not the same thing. if people starving literally to death went to buy happy meals from mcdonald’s because they're the only available food in the country, paid, and then got no food and starved to death i think people would rightfully be calling for consequences. to make your comparison a little more apt.
1) McDonalds profit margin is 10 times higher than UNH.
2) If you really want to go this route, imagine if instead of buying all your food from McDonalds, you bought a McDonalds plan or coupon program that would cover most of the cost of the food to de-hunger you.
Some people would go in and order a McNugget, even when what they really need to not be hungry is a Big Mac, and they have to order a Big Mac anyway.
Some people would ask for a McFlurry even though they are full.
Some people are going to be hungry no matter what you do.
3) The reason things are expensive is because the world is full of stupid people, incompetent people, and classes of people looking after their own interests. Executing a CEO as a solution is equally the kind of stupid, incompetent thought that is not going to help anyone. It is a "consequence" which is met by a simple band-aid: the price of basic security for to-be-martyred CEOs is dwarfed by the amounts of money we're talking moving around in these markets meaning your "consequences" of execution are jack shit.
|
On December 07 2024 03:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 02:48 brian wrote:On December 07 2024 02:17 oBlade wrote:
McDonalds continues to make more money than it costs to make hamburgers - even though some people are hungry, even if they can't buy a hamburger. Yet their CEO makes tens of millions - worth at least millions of hamburgers. Will any brave SCOTUS-grenade tossing revolutionary genius volunteer to take the mantle on this one? Not endorsing it but who would shed any tears I mean. Knowing McDonalds they'd probably just commemorate the killing by offering a limited edition Sad Meal. profiting off labor and profiting off denying legitimate health care expenses (what it is literally your responsibility to provide,) are not the same thing. if people starving literally to death went to buy happy meals from mcdonald’s because they're the only available food in the country, paid, and then got no food and starved to death i think people would rightfully be calling for consequences. to make your comparison a little more apt. 1) McDonalds profit margin is 10 times higher than UNH. 2) If you really want to go this route, imagine if instead of buying all your food from McDonalds, you bought a McDonalds plan or coupon program that would cover most of the cost of the food to de-hunger you. Some people would go in and order a McNugget, even when what they really need to not be hungry is a Big Mac, and they have to order a Big Mac anyway. Some people would ask for a McFlurry even though they are full. Some people are going to be hungry no matter what you do. 3) The reason things are expensive is because the world is full of stupid people, incompetent people, and classes of people looking after their own interests. Executing a CEO as a solution is equally the kind of stupid, incompetent thought that is not going to help anyone. It is a "consequence" which is met by a simple band-aid: the price of basic security for to-be-martyred CEOs is dwarfed by the amounts of money we're talking moving around in these markets meaning your "consequences" of execution are jack shit.
margins? of course it is, you’re comparing health care to burger flipping. do you think them to be comparable?
gross profits between the two in the US are about even, but i mean who gives a shit? i didn’t want to go down this route, im not the person that tried to equate/provide an analogy for the failings of a for profit health care system to a fast food chain
i don’t think the cost of security is the right scope of your analysis there as far as consequences are concerned. the guy was murdered because he was perceived to view the world in terms of costs, so perhaps think a smidge outside that lens.
edit- i shouldn’t say he died because of it, my bad there. he didn’t die because of his views, but he was murdered because of them.
|
On December 07 2024 03:39 oBlade wrote:
Executing a CEO as a solution is equally the kind of stupid, incompetent thought that is not going to help anyone.
Citation from a scientific paper, please.
|
On December 07 2024 03:54 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 03:39 oBlade wrote:
Executing a CEO as a solution is equally the kind of stupid, incompetent thought that is not going to help anyone. Citation from a scientific paper, please.
Honestly this kind of assassinations have never had very good consequences. The left wing terrorist groups in italy, germany or South America, or further back the assassinations carried by anarchists during the XIXth century only strengthened their conservative foes.
You don’t build a better world by muttering people in the street, no matter how awful they are.
|
On December 07 2024 04:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 03:54 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2024 03:39 oBlade wrote:
Executing a CEO as a solution is equally the kind of stupid, incompetent thought that is not going to help anyone. Citation from a scientific paper, please. Honestly this kind of assassinations have never had very good consequences. The left wing terrorist groups in italy, germany or South America, or further back the assassinations carried by anarchists during the XIXth century only strengthened their conservative foes. You don’t build a better world by muttering people in the street, no matter how awful they are.
If I have the choice between either A) a chance of saving a few people from becoming the casualties of a murderous psychopath or B) no chance of saving anyone by letting the murderous psycho live, I want to see the person arguing we should definitely pick B because reasons.
In the meantime I'm glad a mass murderer is gone from the public eye. I consider this an act of self defense.
|
On December 07 2024 05:17 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 04:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 07 2024 03:54 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2024 03:39 oBlade wrote:
Executing a CEO as a solution is equally the kind of stupid, incompetent thought that is not going to help anyone. Citation from a scientific paper, please. Honestly this kind of assassinations have never had very good consequences. The left wing terrorist groups in italy, germany or South America, or further back the assassinations carried by anarchists during the XIXth century only strengthened their conservative foes. You don’t build a better world by muttering people in the street, no matter how awful they are. If I have the choice between either A) a chance of saving a few people from becoming the casualties of a murderous psychopath or B) no chance of saving anyone by letting the murderous psycho live, I want to see the person arguing we should definitely pick B because reasons. In the meantime I'm glad a mass murderer is gone from the public eye. I consider this an act of self defense.
You aren't making this choice, though, are you?
You pick B every single day that you aren't killing a murderous psychopath. There's plenty of them out there. Get killing my guy!
|
On December 07 2024 05:29 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 05:17 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2024 04:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 07 2024 03:54 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2024 03:39 oBlade wrote:
Executing a CEO as a solution is equally the kind of stupid, incompetent thought that is not going to help anyone. Citation from a scientific paper, please. Honestly this kind of assassinations have never had very good consequences. The left wing terrorist groups in italy, germany or South America, or further back the assassinations carried by anarchists during the XIXth century only strengthened their conservative foes. You don’t build a better world by muttering people in the street, no matter how awful they are. If I have the choice between either A) a chance of saving a few people from becoming the casualties of a murderous psychopath or B) no chance of saving anyone by letting the murderous psycho live, I want to see the person arguing we should definitely pick B because reasons. In the meantime I'm glad a mass murderer is gone from the public eye. I consider this an act of self defense. You aren't making this choice, though, are you? You pick B every single day that you aren't killing a murderous psychopath. There's plenty of them out there. Get killing my guy!
I'm not sure whether or not that's meant as a joke, but if I had to respond in earnest: I'm not a trained assassin.
|
On December 07 2024 05:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 05:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2024 05:17 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2024 04:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 07 2024 03:54 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2024 03:39 oBlade wrote:
Executing a CEO as a solution is equally the kind of stupid, incompetent thought that is not going to help anyone. Citation from a scientific paper, please. Honestly this kind of assassinations have never had very good consequences. The left wing terrorist groups in italy, germany or South America, or further back the assassinations carried by anarchists during the XIXth century only strengthened their conservative foes. You don’t build a better world by muttering people in the street, no matter how awful they are. If I have the choice between either A) a chance of saving a few people from becoming the casualties of a murderous psychopath or B) no chance of saving anyone by letting the murderous psycho live, I want to see the person arguing we should definitely pick B because reasons. In the meantime I'm glad a mass murderer is gone from the public eye. I consider this an act of self defense. You aren't making this choice, though, are you? You pick B every single day that you aren't killing a murderous psychopath. There's plenty of them out there. Get killing my guy! I'm not sure whether or not that's meant as a joke, but if I had to respond in earnest: I'm not a trained assassin.
Not a joke per se, just pointing out the rhetorical nature of the conversation.
|
On December 07 2024 05:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 05:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2024 05:17 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2024 04:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 07 2024 03:54 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2024 03:39 oBlade wrote:
Executing a CEO as a solution is equally the kind of stupid, incompetent thought that is not going to help anyone. Citation from a scientific paper, please. Honestly this kind of assassinations have never had very good consequences. The left wing terrorist groups in italy, germany or South America, or further back the assassinations carried by anarchists during the XIXth century only strengthened their conservative foes. You don’t build a better world by muttering people in the street, no matter how awful they are. If I have the choice between either A) a chance of saving a few people from becoming the casualties of a murderous psychopath or B) no chance of saving anyone by letting the murderous psycho live, I want to see the person arguing we should definitely pick B because reasons. In the meantime I'm glad a mass murderer is gone from the public eye. I consider this an act of self defense. You aren't making this choice, though, are you? You pick B every single day that you aren't killing a murderous psychopath. There's plenty of them out there. Get killing my guy! I'm not sure whether or not that's meant as a joke, but if I had to respond in earnest: I'm not a trained assassin.
That‘s exactly what a trained assassin would say.
|
United States43458 Posts
On December 07 2024 05:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2024 05:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2024 05:17 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2024 04:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 07 2024 03:54 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2024 03:39 oBlade wrote:
Executing a CEO as a solution is equally the kind of stupid, incompetent thought that is not going to help anyone. Citation from a scientific paper, please. Honestly this kind of assassinations have never had very good consequences. The left wing terrorist groups in italy, germany or South America, or further back the assassinations carried by anarchists during the XIXth century only strengthened their conservative foes. You don’t build a better world by muttering people in the street, no matter how awful they are. If I have the choice between either A) a chance of saving a few people from becoming the casualties of a murderous psychopath or B) no chance of saving anyone by letting the murderous psycho live, I want to see the person arguing we should definitely pick B because reasons. In the meantime I'm glad a mass murderer is gone from the public eye. I consider this an act of self defense. You aren't making this choice, though, are you? You pick B every single day that you aren't killing a murderous psychopath. There's plenty of them out there. Get killing my guy! I'm not sure whether or not that's meant as a joke, but if I had to respond in earnest: I'm not a trained assassin.
There’s still time. It’s never too late to follow your dreams. One day GH will be a revolutionary and you will be an assassin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
