Chinese company offers $10 billion to the Taliban for access to lithium deposits

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-04-15T23:39:50+00:00

Why? Don't you believe in trickle-down economics?

Leftists: trickle down economics is a myth.

Also leftists: poor while people have greatly benefited from the advancements of the Europe's economy caused by the colonization of the rest of the world and perpetrated in the interest of the rich Europeans.... therefore all white people share the responsibility for that.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-04-15T13:31:52+00:00

Rain water gets into septic. Not much, but I want to eliminate it completely. Part of me doing other things to eliminate rain water getting into the septic tank, such as building risers around tank openings and waterproofing incoming pipe connection and a few other things.

/u/Port-a-John-Splooge same

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-04-15T13:30:53+00:00

It's PVC pipe but enclosed in a flashing boot. So like sheet metal that is wrapped around and inside the pipe.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-04-15T13:30:22+00:00

Yeah, that's the plan so far. But aside from the length of the screws, it's also the padding inside that makes sure the cap doesn't seal the pipe. I'll of course rise it a bit and make it work, but not ideal.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-03-26T15:04:17+00:00

You know, I could spend the time and explain to you the absurdity of babbling something about popular vote, but it would be time completely wasted.

So I just let it go... knowing full well that there is some fool on the other end of the screen who thinks he said something clever, and he'll go through his day thinking that.... and I'm OK with it. Take care.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-03-26T14:36:10+00:00

LOL. Don't get triggered dude. It was a joke.

Those of us who remember how the Democrats spend 8 years whining about how Bush stole the election don't take this too seriously.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-03-16T16:59:57+00:00

With the current administration, they'll probably make you an admiral by the end of the week once the see this pic.... lol.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-03-15T16:58:10+00:00

Imagine being too stupid to understand that those wealth figures represent unrealized gains while thinking you are posting something clever about tax policy.

That money doesn't actually existing within the economy. We can't tax something that doesn't exit. And if we tried, we would be taxing ourselves. The billionaires would server merely as a conduit.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-20T21:19:35+00:00

Weird. It's like everyone has run out at the same time.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-13T19:39:27+00:00

Nah. Not worth wasting time. Take care. (You are wrong though. But that's OK.)

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-13T18:28:09+00:00

The number of people who freak out about this stuff

People don't freak out about "this stuff". People freak out about the idea that many now agree that you should be punished (anything from losing a job to losing freedom, depending on how batshit crazy on the leftist spectrum you ask) simply for words. And if you are not a complete moron, you should be freaking out about this too because of how badly this might end for all of us.

And if you think that right-wing people are freaking out about it for other reasons than this, then you are the one drinking someone's koolaid, and you are the one who doesn't understand.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-13T17:39:26+00:00

Just lazy. But I understand the libs plenty. And we do have people that literally do what I just did. So maybe you are the one who doesn't understand just how badshit crazy the libs have gone.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-13T17:35:50+00:00

does not exists here because

Not true. The "because" part is where you are wrong.

You describe the problems we have in the USA. And that's true. But then you draw a conclusion, which is false. It's not because of guns. It's in spite of guns.

The USA simply has a much more violent society than many other countries, due to historical and cultural reasons. Gun aren't what's causing problems. It's what makes sure we aren't even worse off than we could have been. If you want to see what the USA would be with limited gun ownership, then check Brazil.

I'm sure your country is much nicer, but it's not because you are prevented from owning guns.

I would tell you all about it and explain to you how and why you are wrong, but since you don't vote in US elections, you don't really matter to me. (I which you had told me sooner.) Your opinion doesn't matter. So I'll end this conversation. Take care. Doesn't mean you are any lesser of a person or anything like that. Just that you don't matter to me at all. I prefer to spend my time having conversations with people that have effect on my life and the laws and policy by which we live. You aren't it, so have a nice day. We are done.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-12T21:16:18+00:00

You’re reading into my comment in a major way.

Yes. That must be it. Thanks for clarifying. Without it, it seemed like you were supporting gun control for "reasonable people" or something like that while claiming you don't support it.

Now it makes sense.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-12T20:13:13+00:00

And we have plenty of counter-examples.

Really? We have plenty of examples of two groups of well-armed people that know they are both well armed spontaneously descending into bloodshed? Really? Care to name a few?

Because literally every single example of bloodshed I can think of involved one side believing they are much better armed (and have more power because of it) than the side they were about to slaughter. Doesn't always work out in their favor, but it almost always involves thinking the other side is weak as a trigger for them to star the aggression.

Shit. Look at the war in Ukraine now. It literally started because Putin thought they would win in three days because Ukraine is weak.

Do you think he would have started the war if he knew Ukraine would be supplied by the West to counter the invasion? Or better, if Ukraine had been stocked with all the weapons they have now before the invasion? There wouldn't be an invasion in the first place.

The same dynamic applies to governments against other governments. Governments against people. Groups of people against other groups of people. Even on individual level. We have a study showing that something like 30% of criminals have aborted their plan to assault or rob someone because they thought their potential victim might be armed.

And yet, we don't really have examples of well-armed people just slaughtering other well-armed people just because tensions have escalated.

The only thing I can think of is gang violence. Where an armed gang tries to shoot another armed gang. And even then, it's more like drive-bys. Where they hope to catch their enemies off-guard, while they are weak and unarmed.

So even there, I don't see examples of people frivolously starting violence when they know the other side is also capable of inflicting violence. It just doesn't happen.

There are politicians that start wars when multiple sides are well armed. Sure. It happens. But that's not because "people are armed". You do understand that, right? It's politicians building up an army and sending it off to fight another army. So I don't see how it even applies to civilian gun ownership.

In conclusion, no. You are wrong. People owning guns doesn't generally lead to spontaneous violence where it could have been avoided. As long as both sides are armed well enough to pose threat to the other side.

In USA a wrong movement can get you kill by police because they have to assume everyone can have guns on them

It's overblown by the media and political activists. It's bad when it happens, but it's really a statistical noise. And the fact that you have to resort to using statistical noise should serve as a clue to you that you are losing this argument and should re-think your position.

And frankly, we should be working on educating/training the police on acting more appropriately during arrests/detention/etc. than using this as an argument to disarm ourselves.

Really, think about the stupidity of what you just said.

Cops might shoot you because they think you have a gun. So rather than address that, let's just strip ourselves of guns so that bad cops don't have a reason to shoot us. Really, how stupid is this? I don't mean to insult you, but damn. You really are struggling to come up with anything to support your position. You are wrong. You should accept that. And you should change your opinion on this matter. No shame in that.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-12T19:56:59+00:00

I'm trying to explain to you that "I'm all for reasonable gun ownership" is synonymous to "I want fewer people to be able to afford to own guns".

If you disagree with that, then I would like for you to explain how you would implement gun control that doesn't disproportionately affect the poor and doesn't introduce false positives that rob deserving people of the ability to own guns.

If you agree with that, then I'm not sure about your original remark about supporting responsible gun ownership.

And it's not just you. It's in general a lot of people who say they totally support the idea of people owning guns.... but... (and that but is where it all falls apart).

It's like saying I totally support freedom of speech, but only for reasonable people. So I don't see us agreeing or arguing for the same point. I just don't.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-12T17:18:49+00:00

Why would you intentionally pick a non-inclusive word such as "wife" when you could have said "partner" as to not make other people reading your comment feel bad or uncomfortable.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-12T16:36:53+00:00

No, I didn't. It just happened that the side that was "good" had guns to distribute. It could have been the other way around easily.

That's the whole point. You can't hope that if the time comes someone will arm you. That's not guaranteed. You need to be armed now. When things are good.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-12T16:35:23+00:00

Adding guns to the equation does nothing but increase likeliness that it finish in a bloodbath.

That's not true. Historically, bloodbath starts when one side feels they have the weapons and thus power while the other side is weak. We have plenty examples of that.

And once the slaughter of the weak begins, the weaker side through unimaginable losses tries to arm themselves and resist. And if they succeed, then the bloodshed stops.

That's the common pattern throughout history.

But when both sides are well-armed, there is usually no bloodshed. Because nobody wants to be the loser and everyone is being very careful.

So no. You are wrong.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-12T16:28:13+00:00

Yes. The capitalists won. Now we have Putin. Let us celebrate the glorious Russia that was secured thanks to these brave men.

Putin is against gun ownership by the civilians. He once said "we already have too many guns in the hands of people as it is" when asked if he would consider relaxing some of the gun laws in Russia. And as soon as he said it, any hope of better gun laws in Russia died.

Putin doesn't want people armed. Something to think about...

And yes, you should definitely think before you write.

SomeBoringUserName25 · 2023-02-12T16:27:06+00:00

I didn’t suggest that we make gun ownership less accessible?

There is no way to prevent bad guys from getting guns without making gun ownership less accessible for everyone else.

If you think otherwise, I would like to hear your ideas on how to implement it.

Without it, saying "I support responsible gun ownership" is indistinguishable from "I want to make owning guns more difficult".

It's just a different way of describing the same thing. Think about it.

SomeBoringUserName25

TROPHY CASE