Click 'Prefs' on the top bar of the site, then go to the account and privacy tab and scroll down then check enable NSFW.

I'm not well versed on that. In my personal opinion, the UK split up that piece of land fairly, giving Israel a small sliver and Jordan a large chunk. And in my opinion, I think that the Palestinians are being greedy trying to take more from Israel. I think they should move to Jordan/ another country, or stay in Israel and not complain.

There are people in Poland who live in an area that used to be mostly German. You don't see them shooting rockets at the Polish government trying to get them to make it German again. I see Israel as having the moral high ground because they've given back all the lands they've taken (almost all) whereas if the Islamic countries took over Israel there's no way in hell they'd give the land back. The USA sees this and helps the Isralis out so they don't get annihilated.

All in my opinion.

i take offence with your assertion that the reason there are people in poverty is capitalism. capitalism is pulling people OUT of poverty. when done correctly capitalism makes it so everyone earns more money across the board. as far as economic systems are concerned there simply has not been an alternative to free markets that produces so much wealth across so many aspects of society, from the poor to the rich everyone makes more (admittedly the rich have and gain more wealth but that is acceptable as long as standards of living for the poor are improved along with the wealth generated).

You cannot look me in the eye (or whatever variant you would do over the internet) and say that Capitalism helps the poor better than Socialism. Socialism's whole standpoint is to help the poor, while Capitalism's whole standpoint is to help the skilled. I never said that Capitalism is a bad system, but it leads to people getting left in the dust.

i will agree that ethically, the ideal of socialism is superior but the problem is that socialism has failed to improve the poor's condition in every instance where it has been instituted. sure it sounds nice, but really it doesn't make anyone better off. socialism makes income equal but the reality is that it makes everyone equally poor as well. socialism fundamentally can not produce as much wealth as capitalism and when wealth stagnates everyone gets poorer. income inequality is acceptable as long as one condition is met:
1. the poor do not get poorer
the way it is in the us absolute income, adjusted for inflation, has increased in every economic level every year. i'm fine with someone making more money than anyone could ever dream of as long as his ultra poor counterpart also does better every year.
socialism has great intentions, but we can't forget that many times the road to hell is paved with them.

I didn't mean what the USSR had implemented. I meant modern day Socialism used by Scandinavian countries for one, and varying degrees of it are used in virtually every economy on earth.

scandanavian "socialism" only works because of the very low level of market interference that those countries have. the only way they fund those extensive social welfare programs is by allowing the markets to produce wealth as markets are wont to do. high taxes are only paid because the free market makes it so many people can pay them and still survive. you also have to take into account that the scandanavian countries also have MUCH smaller populations than major capitalist countries like the us and even then their per capita gdp is lower than the us. you can hold that region up as an example of how well socialism works but the reality is that they simply aren't socialists by any stretch of the imagination, excluding the social programs which, again, are only functioning because of how well the market works.

Also I'm loving that somebody made a new account just to thumb me down.

What I'm getting out of this is that you're saying socalism doesn't work except where it works. Scandinavian countries have higher per capita GDPs than the USA. Actually one of the very few places that do. I'm not touting Socialism as some high and mighty religion, but I'm saying it can work, and where it does work the poor are much better off.

the problem is that scandanavian countries don't practice socialism, in fact its the opposite. they have some of the freest markets in the world. i'm not saying that public welfare programs are bad, just that where true socialism (government control over business) is concerned, it always ends badly for all parties involved. social welfare is fine as long as you don't put undue burdens on the private sector. also i want to make clear that i am not advocating complete market noninterference. there has to be some regulation to make it fair but that can be done without the government having to take control and overtax businesses. also i did not thumb you down.

I was just saying that somebody had made a new account to thumb me down. Not saying you did. Also I'm not trying to argue in favor of socialism. The socialist stance of public welfare programs leads to the income gap being less than in capitalist countries. That's all I'm trying to say.

and i agree that that is true. what i'm trying to say is that income gaps aren't inherently evil.

I don't think they are either. They give people something to strive for.

cool. then what's the issue here? i dont understand why we've been going in circles like this.

That was what I've been trying to say. The first guy said Germany has less of an income gap and I said that's because they're socialist and the USA is Capitalist in nature.

ok, i was just mad because you said capitalism is why there are americans in poverty not that capitalism is why there is an income gap. those two statements don't mean the same thing

i loved watching you two argue so nicely with each other. have a good day

Because I didn't feel like typing shit out because it wasn't one of my major points.

fine then. i guess its over then. good luck with whatever the fuck else you do later

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

www.funnyjunk.com/flags/
Go there, and search for his username via Ctrl-f
Basically he was spamming this one picture of a firehydrant with a cape

It's with 1 e. But I'll copy his answer from below:
"as world war 2 went south for the germans, a lot of them fled to south america [especially argentina, but also brazil] and there they were safe, unable to be prosecuted for their crimes.

ps. for all your world war 2 needs, there's an explain for that! his name is wwiiexplain.
for broader historical questions, call historiexplain"

I'm not actually too sure about that. Because, the regular German soldiers were sent back to live there lives with no punishment because they were fighting for their country. The SS leaders and high ranking members of the Nazi party were tried and hanged for their crimes.
Unless that's what you meant.

their*
dammit.

XDDDDDD LE XD SOH FAHNNY OMG LOLOLOL XDDDDDDD

Do what you must, I'm rank #197 in comments, I already won.

Nearly all of the icelandic people I know have their last name as: Fathers name + son/dóttir. But I have seen sometimes: Mothers name + son/dóttir but that's most of the time after a divorce or a name change.

That's because kids didn't pay attention to the episodes message, because they only just learned about how gingers have no souls.
If you really payed attention to the ginger episode, you'd noticed that the focus was cartman being turned into a ginger and how quickly he created an uprising to kill all the people who look down upon him, until he finds out he's not really a ginger. Making fun of how it's not the groups fault, but rather one ignorant jackass who puts shit in people's heads for his own benefit.

No the kids bullied you not south park

No, that was because the other children could sense your lack of a soul.

I am sorry I do not have the sauce

Yes and yes.

And by that I mean Archer and yes

And by that I mean Archer, yes and yes. I think I should go now.

hahaha blessaður sölvi, hvað segist frá danaveldi?

Það er fínt hérna sko. það er allt svo öðruvísi en á íslandi.