#1
Post rating: ~
Leftists like to argue that the native american population was hundreds of millions of people.

However this contradicts their malthusian claims that Native Americans were supregreen orgo sustainable whatever and the world can only support a low density.

Leftists can't even coordinate their bullshit across arguments.
#2
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
thats weird, i always heard that there were only ten little indians
#3
Post rating: ~
whatever liberals, here you go. fantasize about how nazi germany's jobs program and expansion of social spending was an example of how capitalist hitler was.

#4
political car tune
Post rating: ~
hmm good point perhaps post them here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=1
#5
Post rating: ~
libelousslander I want to hear their logic (without paying $5). How do reconcile "the Americas had millions of natives at a sustainable standard of living without Western technology" with "there are no resources and we're all going to die"?

Utopian socialism clashes with liberal ecology!

Edited by Lucille ()

#6
Post rating: ~
don't the "hundreds of millions" estimates include both north and south america? I don't think that sounds too far fetched.

i'm not sure how "it could support one hundred million" necessarily contradicts "it can't support one billion" though. especially when the resource arguments are about the immense consumption and high living standards.

we need more transition towns already
#7
Post rating: ~
100 million is huge in a preindustrial society. In reality it was much less.
#8
Post rating: ~
i dunno. the south american people had pretty developed cities, large empires, yeah? they probably had the capacity to support a pretty big population. It's not like those guys were all roaming nomads or something.
#9
political car tune
Post rating: ~

Lucille posted:

libelousslander I want to hear their logic (without paying $5). How do reconcile "the Americas had millions of natives at a sustainable standard of living without Western technology" with "there are no resources and we're all going to die"?

Utopian socialism clashes with liberal ecology!

just pay the thing seriously you'd love GBS (don't go into D&D, you'll get probated for EvilWeasel not comprehending what you wrote)

#10
Post rating: ~
But those were slave societies not ecohippy green rainbows.
#11
Post rating: ~
I have no job and no credit card. I could beg my parents but I don't think they'd like it.
#12
political car tune
Post rating: +

Lucille posted:

I have no job and no credit card. I could beg my parents but I don't think they'd like it.

You could probably use Vilerat's account, he's not using it

#13
Post rating: ~
would i get banned for requesting a permaban on viletat's account, i thought it was tradition to permaban permadead users
#14
Post rating: ~

Gurimbom wrote:
AndrisBirkmanis wrote:
hard-line Stalinists.

That would be so hilarious to see. I would love to see 'geeky' people holding such an aggressive ideology in real life. I'm eager to know what motivates them to think the way they do.



Well, officially, stalinism per se is not more aggressive than any other full-blown statism.
Its main traits are rapid industrialization, a centralized state, collectivization of agriculture. Oh, and socialism in one country (as opposed to export of ideology - *cough* democracy *cough*).

As soon as a person has bought the goals, he proceeds to defend the means - if rapid industrialization is good, then doing it by force is only necessary, because people are either stupid or agents of imperialism or both.

#15
political car tune
Post rating: ~
mustang I hope you don't actually take the time to actually type out your posts. If you aren't copy/pasting from offsite than I'm sorry about your time-sink I guess? There are plenty of conservative reactionary sources to pull from.