It is actually obvious. The red ones go faster, thus they get more tickets.

What does being totalitarian have to do with anything?
In the USSR there was no airport security at all and airplanes could be boarded almost like trains until several hijackings happened in the 1970ies. In fact, il-86 design allowed the passengers to bring their luggage with them.

Well, on the other hand USSR had Pepsi.

There distinction you are trying to make, idiot, is without difference. When you switch an argument from the topic being argued to the person doing the arguing â" whether it is name-calling or discussing his hygiene â" it is an argumentum ad hominem â" a fallacy.

Nope. I didn't say that your argumentation is wrong because you are an idiot - that would be ad hominem - I have called you an idiot because of your stupid arguments: which basically consist of "kill the evil commies" and "military fuck yeah".

If you are from Europe, then Obama is "yours" even more â" whereas his popularity in the US in 2008 barely exceeded the 50% necessary for being elected, he was and remains more popular in the corrupt continent (80+%). For all I care, you can have him any day of the week â" the sooner the better. Just be sure to take Joe Biden with him.

"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire.
Your cult of personality is also meaningless to me and
your country is in fact more corrupt than mine.

Yeah, nothing like a strong leader for those unwashed sand-niggers, is there? Some peoples may have a democratic government, but certain untermensch just need a strong hand, right?

It is quite hypocritical to accuse me of logical fallacies and yourself using
#1: a strawman argument here and another strawman argument in the next paragraph

And no, Iraq is democratic in name only and a good part of the rebels in Syria were indeed islamist crazies. Your government has funded and armed a civil war and for what? And I don't care, whether it was Obama or Bush, from over here I cannot see any real difference.

Sure. And Palestine would've been a united and calm, if America had not given Israel any support. And China would've unified into a calm Confucian existence long ago, had the US not defended Taiwan. And Germany too would've united much earlier â" under Eric Honecker (or even Ulbricht), of course. Wouldn't such have been a better world? If only the US war-mongers didn't resist Communism, huh?..

Ah, the loggical fallacy #2: non sequitur
First, Israel is very well able to defend themselves, they have a thriving military industry. Second, if Merkins, Brits and the French hadn't decided to start a pissing contest with the Soviets, Germany would have been reunited in the 1950ies and neutral just as Austria is. And after Stalin died, it would have been even better.

But no, the pissing contest must go on, damn the costs.

No, you dimwit. If you can't read English, stay out of English arguments. I challenged you to explain, how the things would've been better in the North Korea, if the South Korea's regime was kinder and gentler.

My English is good enough. And I speak three other languages, by the way. And you fail reading comprehension. I have very explained whereto a war leads. A better government in South Korea would have avoided the civil war. In fact, without Syngman Ree's action there would not have been North Korea in first place, it was created as the reaction to his actions. And without the previous mentioned pissing contest there would have been one single Korea, as planned at the Yalta conference.

Rising and sleeping under the blanket of the very freedom we provide, you are questioning the manner in which we provide it... Chicken.

Yes, I do question it. Your military doesn't provide freedom, it only pushes everyone involved in stupid ventures, mafia style: "It is nice freedom you have there. Would be a shame if something happened to it." For all I care, Germany should have quit NATO decades ago. Or even better, never have participated in it.

Here:

https://www.facebook.com/bochk...

This was not an "ad hominem". This was an insult. Don't you know the difference?

And now I am going to call you an idiot (another insult, by the way) for assuming that Obama would be somehow mine, even though I am from Germany, never been to USA and not planning to go to.

The current mess in Iraq has been caused by toppling Saddam Hussein. And then by arming the crazies who were rebelling against Assad. Like I said, chickenhawks like you.

You are seriously calling the Southern regime back then "kindler gentler"? Never heard of the Jeju massacre? Like already mentioned, up till the 1970ies South Korea was a hellhole worse than North Korea - and this is an impressive achievment. Syngman Rhee was an evil bastard and probably murdered more people than Kim Il Sung.

Without American intervention a way less radical government for an united Korea would be quite possible, more akin to former Yugoslavia. Only the war helped the real crazies remain in power.

GP is a chickenhawk. People like him are the reason for the current mess in Iraq. Besides, the mess in Korea was American's fault in first place - they have supported a bloody dictator for the sole reason of being an anticommunist. It was so bad that up to the 1970ies North Korea had higher standard of living. Without that meddling things could have been way better.

If Ukraine was a nuclear power, Ukraine would have sold all the nukes years ago just as they have sold 90% of their normal military hardware. Who knows where they would have landed.

Besides, as silly as the current Ukrainian government is (their minister of defence has actually recently claimed that Russia nuked Ukrainian forces in Donetsk), even they would use them in the current conflict.

Different countries use differet airbag designs.
US standards are calculated for unbuckled imbeciles, European standards are calculated for buckled people, so EU airbags are way softer.

The Germans did the math indeed.
You know what this sign means? It means a speed limit of 7 kph.

Stop spreading lies.

http://www.energycomment.de/wp...

These "record amounts" of yours amount to half of what was burned in 1990 and in fact the amount of brown coal burned has been basically more or less the same since 1996.

As one can clearly see from the graph, nuclear power has been displaced by renewables and only by them. Fossil fuels use either remains stable or goes down in the case of oil.

It probably very much depends on where one used to live. I can imagine that, for example, Romania was such a shithole back then. USSR in the 80ies was not so bad, assuming one lived in one of the bigger cities.

Your second sentence already shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. The rest of your rant just makes it even more clear.

or do you think it would've been dragged back towards Russia

Unlikely. The quarrel between Russia and Poland goes back to the 16th century.

Thanks for correcting me