"Jews don't belong in American society."

Imagine a sitting member of Congress tweeting that. You can't. Thankfully, it'd never happen. And *if* it did, it'd be the end of their career and the biggest story in America.

But Ogles can say this about Muslims without any censure.

War debts are neither good nor bad, they're a neutral thing.

In a vague hypothetical sense? Only in a very specific way: a revolution from within led by the leftist opposition. At the hands of the US and Israel? Absolutely fucking NEVER.

Lend Lease was only a minor factor in the war, fool. It didn't even really kick in in the East until mid 1943, and by then it was extraneous. The war in Europe was won by the Red Army breaking the Third Reich over its knee, and each of its most decisive victories it won on its own.

I'm anti China you fucking dunce. Do you not understand what the Sino-Soviet Split was, or that the divide still remains to this day?

You can't possibly be serious...

Lmao I'm no friend to the Chinese system. I fall firmly on the Soviet side of that divide. But you're right about one thing, I'm no friend to the United States either and would gladly watch it fall for good. Not because I don't know how the system works, but because I do, and hate what I've seen.

We became the world standard under the implicit threat of violence. Because we're the head of a massive global empire maintained through brutality and slaughter.

Also I swear to God, that sounds an awful lot like like a defense of war profiteering, and it better fucking NOT be.

I mean I did figure out how the economy works, and that's why I want to tear it down. I dunno if you've noticed, but I'm not a supporter of capitalism, market economics, or the profit motive.

Fundamentally inflation is the natural state of currency under a market economy, it actively takes outside interference to push it in another direction. Here I gave two cases where opposite approaches to the money supply both still resulted in inflation, ergo neither can actually prevent it.

Of course without such a thing there's no more particular point in money either since money exists to facilitate that very process of profiteering.

I should also point out that a restricted money supply doesn't stop inflation either, instead it causes it through supply shock.

In theory you'd be right, only problem is that you ignore the actual cause of inflation, which is profiteering. Because of the profit motive, money being more available gives an incentive to raise prices in order to cash in on that availability. If you removed that aspect, inflation would go away.

I know exactly what inflation is. Government spending does not cause inflation, despite what many libertarian fools think.

Nixon was president during the early 70s, dude. Come on now.

Yes, because the US has a history of targeting first responders in exactly this fashion. I should hope you remember the Chelsea Manning leaks, which were about an instance of exactly this tactic during the Iraq War.

No, I just understand the concept of the Greater Israel plan and the nature of American imperialism. We KNOW what their end goal is because we've seen it before in the likes of Iraq and Libya.

Nope. If they were intending to draw in and kill anyone, it'd be the rescue workers. That's the actual motivation of the double tap concept. In no way was this a military target, even indirectly. The killing of children and of rescue workers was itself the goal.

No they don't. They want Iran to turn into a failed state, another Iraq, so that there's no chance whatsoever of a unified Iran standing in the way of their imperial expansion.

Don't kid yourself, they targeted the school on purpose. We've seen that time and time again, in Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. Both countries are utterly shameless about their intentional targeting of civilians, it's part and parcel to their strategy.

Then like, they were a hardline nationalist movement that still used Soviet iconography? I really don't understand that one.

Nope. This was a terror bombing, pure and simple.

Fuckin good, if you're not actively rooting for our SWIFT and DECISIVE defeat in this war you really need to straighten out your priorities.

PFFT, no they don't! Neither of them, nor do most of the Democrats, have ANY concern for the best interests of the people, because if they did they wouldn't be actively kneeling before the wealthy elite. But they do, and so they will always serve that group over any of us.

What's even the point of winning if you don't then fix or even lessen the problem? At that point you just kick the can down the road and then lose the next election to the right again, as we saw.

There's a reason why fascists have never been defeated by losing an election, or by the liberal process in general. As that one Bismarck quote would put it: The great questions of the time are to be decided not by speeches and majority decisions, but through blood and iron.

It doesn't matter, actually winning the election still wouldn't have fixed the fascism problem and we'd still be staring down the barrel of an increasingly militant and radicalized far right movement for every election in perpetuity. And that's if they still care about elections, not a guarantee.

But his vote goes marching on!

I mean you could just, like, not do that?

After all the US hasn't used the gold standard domestically since the Great Depression, so the actual spending on the domestic front wouldn't have actually messed with the gold supply. That notion is silly.

That's not what happened at all. While the US initially kept up a facsimile of the gold standard in the immediate postwar era, the thing that put an end to that was supply shock in the early 70s rather than some kinda overspending situation. US domestic spending would have zero effect on gold stores