Page 28 of 45 FirstFirst ...
18
26
27
28
29
30
38
... LastLast
  1. #541
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    Winston Churchill has made mistakes. But a lot of your complaints has nothing to do with mistakes but the fact that Germany was industrially and manpower wise far more powerful than Britain. Against a superior enemy you will lose.



    This is still the man that kept Britain in the war despite knowing his position was all but hopeless. And this ultimately culminated in the destruction of Nazi Germany.
    Germany winning against the UK is... a fantasy nothing less. The Battle of Britain caused severe losses for the Luftwaffe, Germany could never really recover. The naval power of Germany was... well pretty much second rate. Italy fielded more, and arguably even better ships, which was more hindered by individual stupidity and faulty quality control. Germany was never in the position to invade the UK. Even more so, after the losses at Norway... 1 Heavy Cruiser down, 4 remaining. 2 Light cruisers down, 4 remaining, approximatly half the destroyer forces down.... And we still have the issue, that Germany had only 1, battleship, that could effectivly fight against british battleships and battlecruisers. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau could not with insufficient armament. You do not get naval supremacy, to be capable for invasion with 1 battleship, 2 "battlecruisers", 4 heavy cruisers, 4 Light cruiers, and some destroyers, against 11 battleships, 3 battlecruisers, 15 Heavy Cruisers 32 Light Cruisers, around 65 destroyers, and 4? if i remember correctly aicraft carrier. No naval supremacy.. no invasion. Insufficient submarine numbers to starve the UK..

    Even after Italy binding some forces in the Mediterranian... not enough.

  2. #542
    Banned Yadryonych's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Матушка Россия
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by josykay View Post
    Also, the famine of Bengal was heavily censored in concurrent british press, since it completely would have destroyed public image of the government and Churchill.
    You mean like that time when it became widely known in 1943 and Churchill stayed in office for 2 years an then got re eleced in 1951 for 4 more years? What a destruction.

    However, I'd respect if Bengali nation is willing to remove all the Churchill statues present in Bengal. Statue in Britain, though, is up to Britons to decide, good thing they have already said it's not going anywhere. Australians seem to be fine with theirs as well

  3. #543
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    What the fuck is your argument?!!!
    You are the one who went off on the tangent and said....

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Stopped here because I do not agree with this conclusion, being that the jobs lost were mostly lower paid jobs, while unemployment for higher tier jobs was quite low. Service type jobs and customer facing jobs were those that went.

    These people often do not have benefits, or substantial benefits. Many people within this tier forgo benefits because they can't actually afford even the partial payments required of them.
    We were talking about how the extra $600 a week was being compared only to salary and not salary and benefits.
    You discounted my argument and math.

    I went on to give math on how much difference the 600 really was once you factored in benefits.

    You then went on about insurance not being substantial which is ridiculous because any insurance product is substantial


    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post

    we are talking about people making 47k or less right? consider that these people have barely any money and people who made 25k were spending about 7k a year already on insurance and premiums do you think throwing in another bill helps?

    "hey they only had to pay 8k instead of a million"

    Does it matter when neither is feasible at the time?

    The overwhelming majority of jobs lost were shows in this lower bracket. My friend didn't have to pay 120k, just 12k! In the brackets we are talking about that is 12k on top so we are looking at 19k... on a 25kish salary...
    Paying off 8k vs paying off a million? that sure sounds, oh I don't know substantial?

    What are the odds of your friend paying off 12k over time vs having to pay 120k off over time? Would you say, oh I don't know....substantially higher odds against the 120k at that salary.

    [/QUOTE]

    as I said HAVING BENEFITS DOESN'T MATTER IT IS ABOUT HOW SUBSTANTIAL THOSE BENEFITS ARE many lower income people pay a huge amount for premiums and such, and then another huge amount if someone happens[/QUOTE]

    really no shit and how much "huger" is the amount if they have ZERO insurance.

    The whole discussion before you took this tangent was how the 600 dollars was also to pay for the employers portion of the health insurance premium the person was no longer going to receive. the 600 was not meant to just replace salary and give people bonuses.

    at the time my mom was making 31k a year and she was the only income as my father was disabled and was yet to be approved for disability or early Medicare. Again insurance might have cost her a substantial portion of her income. She might have owed 8k before insurance kicked in, but in the end my father did not end up with a MILLION FUCKING DOLLAR BILL he would not have been able to pay off thus losing his home, his car, his retirement (what little he had), etc etc etc

    Sure sounds fucking wonderfully substantial.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  4. #544
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    You mean like that time when it became widely known in 1943 and Churchill stayed in office for 2 years an then got re eleced in 1951 for 4 more years? What a destruction.

    However, I'd respect if Bengali nation is willing to remove all the Churchill statues present in Bengal. Statue in Britain, though, is up to Britons to decide, good thing they have already said it's not going anywhere. Australians seem to be fine with theirs as well
    That they are okay with honoring genocidal asshats is not really my problem.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    Alan Turing voted 21st. At least now we know what statue must to be topled by a goon swarm so that the idea of statues being toppled is a bad thing gets into your head
    Voting for racist genocidal asshat over one of the most important figures in WWII by huge margin, just brit things

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    Just like i said, they topple statues not because they actually have anything in mind, but because these are bad whitey.
    e
    And other paranoid jokes you can tell yourself.

  5. #545
    Quote Originally Posted by josykay View Post
    Germany winning against the UK is... a fantasy nothing less. The Battle of Britain caused severe losses for the Luftwaffe. Germany could never really recover.
    The Germans produced a total of 95 k airplanes during the war. They lost 2 k airplanes during the BOB with the RAF losing 1.1 K. A victory for the RAF but ultimately if Germany persisted Britain would have been defeated. In fact the Germans were so convinced that Britain was a spent force that they didn't even bother securing the British Isles before Barbarossa. And they were right however the American war machine that showed up after 1942 was anything but spend

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by CommunismWillWin View Post
    That they are okay with honoring genocidal asshats is not really my problem.
    A rather absurd notion coming from a communist.

  6. #546
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post

    A rather absurd notion coming from a communist.
    Ill gladly wait to see where I ever expressed any support for any genocidal twat.

  7. #547
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Is it? Because when my friend had surgery they covered 90%. She had to still pay 12k.
    Over a 100k seems substantial...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by CommunismWillWin View Post
    Ill gladly wait to see where I ever expressed any support for any genocidal twat.
    A communist, but claim that it’s not the bad part of communism? The confederates and supporters of genocidal twats, are doing the same. Because, they are not claiming to support genocidal parts either, just like you are.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  8. #548
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Over a 100k seems substantial...

    - - - Updated - - -



    A communist, but claim that it’s not the bad part of communism? The confederates and supporters of genocidal twats, are doing the same. Because, they are not claiming to support genocidal parts either, just like you are.
    If you still can't understand the difference between Marx's Anarcho-communism and Stalin's state communism, I really don't know what to say.
    But just a hint, the anarchists all got killed by Stalin.

  9. #549
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by CommunismWillWin View Post
    If you still can't understand the difference between Marx's Anarcho-communism and Stalin's state communism, I really don't know what to say.
    If you still can’t understand the great achievements of these men and think it’s all about slavery or tyranny, I really don’t know what to say.

    But just a hint, the anarchists all got killed by Stalin.
    Yeah, he also erected a lot of statues with the symbol in your avatar. Yet, I don’t see you demand those torn down. It’s like a double standard or something... he killed “anarchist” under the flag carrying the same symbol as your avatar.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  10. #550
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    You are the one who went off on the tangent and said....



    We were talking about how the extra $600 a week was being compared only to salary and not salary and benefits.
    You discounted my argument and math.

    I went on to give math on how much difference the 600 really was once you factored in benefits.

    You then went on about insurance not being substantial which is ridiculous because any insurance product is substantial




    Paying off 8k vs paying off a million? that sure sounds, oh I don't know substantial?

    What are the odds of your friend paying off 12k over time vs having to pay 120k off over time? Would you say, oh I don't know....substantially higher odds against the 120k at that salary.


    really no shit and how much "huger" is the amount if they have ZERO insurance.

    The whole discussion before you took this tangent was how the 600 dollars was also to pay for the employers portion of the health insurance premium the person was no longer going to receive. the 600 was not meant to just replace salary and give people bonuses.

    at the time my mom was making 31k a year and she was the only income as my father was disabled and was yet to be approved for disability or early Medicare. Again insurance might have cost her a substantial portion of her income. She might have owed 8k before insurance kicked in, but in the end my father did not end up with a MILLION FUCKING DOLLAR BILL he would not have been able to pay off thus losing his home, his car, his retirement (what little he had), etc etc etc

    Sure sounds fucking wonderfully substantial.
    The lack of work and usual size of households usually means the person qualified for Medicaid which is better than any benefit. Did you factor that

    Basing benefits purely on the most catastrophic outcome is folly.

  11. #551
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post



    Yeah, he also erected a lot of statues with the symbol in your avatar. Yet, I don’t see you demand those torn down. It’s like a double standard or something... he killed “anarchist” under the flag carrying the same symbol as your avatar.
    The same symbol used by anarcho-communism, so I could give less of a fuck about whether it hurts your little feelings.


    If you still can’t understand the great achievements of these men and think it’s all about slavery or tyranny, I really don’t know what to say.
    Oh, so that is what this is all about, you want to support Stalin.

    Yeah, stop dragging me into your little hero worshipping.
    [Infraction]
    Last edited by Rozz; 2020-06-26 at 02:57 PM. Reason: Minor Trolling

  12. #552
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by CommunismWillWin View Post
    The same symbol used by anarcho-communism, so I could give less of a fuck about whether it hurts your little feelings.
    @DKjaigen and @Yadryonych enjoy... a lesson in how to make your arguments. Feel free to copy and paste this, every time he bitches about statues.

    Edit: Also, nit pick, but funny none the less... “could give less of a fuck” doesn’t actually mean anything... It’s couldn’t... lol

    Oh, so that is what this is all about, you want to support Stalin.
    I’m a refugee from USSR... that symbol is one of oppression, not just for those who were oppressed and murdered under Stalin, but the same ones from Cuba and China. That symbol means forced labor camps, Holomodor and murder of opposition.

    You are now making the same exact argument as every single person defending statues, that you have been arguing with.

    Yeah, stop dragging me into your little hero worshipping.
    What? Compose your self and try again...
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-06-25 at 12:42 PM.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  13. #553
    Titan Grimbold21's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Azores, Portugal
    Posts
    11,834
    As I suggest on my earlier posts:

    Either we have one hell of a strategy set up there (and here) to undermine a worthy cause, or, indeed, there are people who are indiscriminately looking and damaging things because of their reductionist perspective.

  14. #554
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    As I suggest on my earlier posts:

    Either we have one hell of a strategy set up there (and here) to undermine a worthy cause, or, indeed, there are people who are indiscriminately looking and damaging things because of their reductionist perspective.
    The only thing this thread proves is that there are significant gaps in understanding history, regardless of the argument being made. Neither those that claim statues teach history nor those who demand their destruction, have a fucking clue what they are talking about. This thread is an indictment of education systems all over the word...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  15. #555
    ^^that, and we see people who aren't interested in neither convincing others of the validity of an argument, or convincing others they want you on their side.
    They're only interested in arguing just to fuck everyone.

  16. #556
    Legendary! Thekri's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    6,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    As I suggest on my earlier posts:

    Either we have one hell of a strategy set up there (and here) to undermine a worthy cause, or, indeed, there are people who are indiscriminately looking and damaging things because of their reductionist perspective.
    Pretty much. The entire debate consists primarily of people who do not understand history, and do not wish too, imposing their political, racial, and cultural identities onto past figures, and then having a fight about it. Neither side is interested in nuance or actual history, and went they want to yell about "History is important" what they mean is that their current identity is important, and they are coopting the past to support their current goals.

    Destroying stuff is not a productive approach. Understanding stuff is. I fully agree with some of these efforts, Confederate statues should not be on outdoor public display, however, that doesn't mean that smashing every historical statue you see is the right move. I don't even like destroying the most racist statues, I would prefer to preserve them in a different context, as an example of what institutional racism looks like.

    I am all for empathy and understanding the different perspectives. As I have posted here, I do understand the argument of those that want to preserve statues of controversial figures. I disagree with some examples, and agree with others. I also understand the point of view of people that just want them gone. But dialogue is not a goal for either side here. Many people seem to be using this as an excuse to break stuff that is important to the other side, just to see them get angry.

  17. #557
    Titan Grimbold21's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Azores, Portugal
    Posts
    11,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    The only thing this thread proves is that there are significant gaps in understanding history, regardless of the argument being made. Neither those that claim statues teach history nor those who demand their destruction, have a fucking clue what they are talking about. This thread is an indictment of education systems all over the word...
    True, to an extent.

    But I find it hard to myself to budge from the point that the... overthrowing side is ideologically fueled.

    Sure, History can be taught to be more about presenting a balanced overview, as opposed to be about all guts and glory. But we can't just reduce someone's character and actions to a single facet or moment of their lives because it happens to coincide with the thing that your movement is fighting agaisnt.

    I made the point on the 1st page, but I would wager that Churchill is celebrated widely because of his role during WWII. Now, what can be done is verify if history taught in his schools there can factor in the downsides and unfortunate events, and if so, teach them.

    Moreover, it's hard to not frame this indiscriminate toppling as anything but "look at that, it's a statue of a white figure, let's take it down". But I concede the risk that this may be a media driven misinterpretation.

  18. #558
    Legendary! Thekri's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    6,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    True, to an extent.

    But I find it hard to myself to budge from the point that the... overthrowing side is ideologically fueled.

    Sure, History can be taught to be more about presenting a balanced overview, as opposed to be about all guts and glory. But we can't just reduce someone's character and actions to a single facet or moment of their lives because it happens to coincide with the thing that your movement is fighting agaisnt.

    I made the point on the 1st page, but I would wager that Churchill is celebrated widely because of his role during WWII. Now, what can be done is verify if history taught in his schools there can factor in the downsides and unfortunate events, and if so, teach them.

    Moreover, it's hard to not frame this indiscriminate toppling as anything but "look at that, it's a statue of a white figure, let's take it down". But I concede the risk that this may be a media driven misinterpretation.
    Sort of agreed. Sort of.

    This is where nuance is important, and nuance is lacking in the conversation right now. My view is that we have to look exactly what part of the persons life is being celebrated or memorialized in that context. So although I have been extremely critical of Churchill for several pages now, I don't think his statues should be removed, because those statues are clearly memorializing his contributions as the emotional center of the British psyche during WWII. As such, context would be good, but I don't feel removal is warranted, even though I will continue to deride him as an immoral and ineffective leader.

    On the other hand, I feel confederate statues do need to be removed, because the primary cause for memorialization is their role in an armed revolt against the government, with the express and stated intention of preserving racial slavery. Just as I think Churchill's statues should stay, in spite of him being a terrible person, we need to remove Confederate Statues, even if they were personally good people (Which is EXTREMELY debatable, but I have no interest in quibbling over each individual). The cause itself is rotten. The reason the statues exist was wrong from its beginnings. This is also why I think we can defend having statues of Washington and Jefferson, who were both plantation owners, without being hypocritical. While their individual actions toward their slaves were not better or necessarily worse then various confederate generals, it is the cause that is different. People like Andrew Jackson are... I am open to debate on that one. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see him gone from public memorials.

    I do acknowledge my view on this is not necessarily the only correct one, but I do think any approach has to be nuanced, and not boil people down into "good" and "bad" categories. All humans are both.

  19. #559
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    The lack of work and usual size of households usually means the person qualified for Medicaid which is better than any benefit. Did you factor that


    sigh...

    private coverage..i only said it a half dozen times in every number I listed.

    24.7 percent of people in households with incomes below $25,000, the lowest income category, had private coverage in 2018
    47.9 percent of people in households with household income of $25,000 to $49,999, had private coverage in 2018.
    65.9 percent of people in households with household income of $50,00 to $74,999, had private coverage in 2018.

    I also said "a substantial amount of those people who are getting the 600 dollars had to replace the private coverage they had. This does not include public coverage (Medicaid) since most of that is cost free."


    Also thanks to the 600 dollars and your standard unemployment payments, the unemployed income generally in most states will be too high to qualify for Medicaid. You might still get some ACA subsidies though. You have to report every income change to both Medicaid and the ACA and your premiums and qualification can be impacted by the change.




    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Basing benefits purely on the most catastrophic outcome is folly.
    Ok what about an average outcomes.
    Pregnancy?
    Pay 8k or pay 30-50k depending on type of pregnancy.
    on top of that newborn care another oh 10k to shit ton more, depending on health and time of birth.

    or how about the 28-30 million people with diabetes

    People with diagnosed diabetes incur average medical expenditures of $16,752 per year
    So with insurance you pay out of pocket 8k. without 16k.
    seems substantial for low income workers right?

    I can keep going with things that are not so catastrophic if you want?
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  20. #560
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    sigh...

    private coverage..i only said it a half dozen times in every number I listed.

    24.7 percent of people in households with incomes below $25,000, the lowest income category, had private coverage in 2018
    47.9 percent of people in households with household income of $25,000 to $49,999, had private coverage in 2018.
    65.9 percent of people in households with household income of $50,00 to $74,999, had private coverage in 2018.

    I also said "a substantial amount of those people who are getting the 600 dollars had to replace the private coverage they had. This does not include public coverage (Medicaid) since most of that is cost free."


    Also thanks to the 600 dollars and your standard unemployment payments, the unemployed income generally in most states will be too high to qualify for Medicaid. You might still get some ACA subsidies though. You have to report every income change to both Medicaid and the ACA and your premiums and qualification can be impacted by the change.






    Ok what about an average outcomes.
    Pregnancy?
    Pay 8k or pay 30-50k depending on type of pregnancy.
    on top of that newborn care another oh 10k to shit ton more, depending on health and time of birth.

    or how about the 28-30 million people with diabetes

    People with diagnosed diabetes incur average medical expenditures of $16,752 per year
    So with insurance you pay out of pocket 8k. without 16k.
    seems substantial for low income workers right?

    I can keep going with things that are not so catastrophic if you want?
    You realise you should be adding an extra 7k on top of that right so you should be saying 15k for that pregnancy not 30-50k.

    Do you think insurance suddenly rids you of monthly premiums?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •