How false is this statement ?

How false is this statement ?

Other urls found in this thread:

obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-subsidies/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Not at all.

History is just data. Data helps us make informed decisions.

>I burned my hand on the stove
>It's OK to put my hand on the stove a second time because history doesn't repeat

You really think people would support war if they actually lived through it and had their family and friends die before them?

Literally every war veteran I have died has either never talked about the wars they were in because of the shame or tell me war is evil.

For instance the UN is funding research into Roman era farming in Libya to see if similar methods can be used to bring farming to extreme environments today.

It implies people "know" history, rather than selecting and interpreting past events to serve their present and future agendas.

WWI was way more fucked up than the other, however

You assume that an interpretation is always made to further an agenda.

Godwins law but

Hitler was a war vet

>Roman republic
>rich get richer, poor gets poorer
>"why is it my responsibility to care about the poor?"
>riots ensue
>poor backs person that cares about them
>becomes empire

>Florentine republic
>rich get richer, poor gets poorer
>"why is it my responsibility to care about the poor?"
>riots ensue
>poor backs person that cares about them
>becomes Duchy

>America
>??????

A think a "most people" applies well here. All Quiet on the Western Front is what made me rethink how I look at war.

and even then the "most people" usually just applies to the foot soldiers

officers love getting people into wars wanting to be the next Patton/Napoleon/Alexander/etc

>America
>rich get richer, poor gets poorer
>"why is it my responsibility to care about the poor?"
>riots ensue
>poor back person that does not care about them
>...

There are plenty of dummies in the US. Maybe next time.

>implying Augustus or Caesar gave a shit about the plebs

Trump is mad and ingenious enough to leave the US a country of marble

Hillary Clinton had no interest in keeping jobs in America or preventing immigrants from taking low-skill labor jobs from American citizens. Probably Bernie would have been better for the poor but Trump was certainly better than Clinton.

But Augustus and Caesar had almost universal public support, whereas this election was one of the most divided for a while.
Trump also plans to cut Obamacare (or so he says), which is advantageous to a lot of poor people. And Hillary planned for job creation rather than retention judging by her comments on alternate energy and small business.

Completely false. History is nothing but repetition, the same people doing the same things for the same reasons.

Schopenhauer said history is like a kaleidoscope, where the same bits of colored glass are constantly rotated to produce different configurations from the same material.

>Osambocare
>good for the poor
Eat shit you fucking faggot.

t. poor person

give us another decade or so and we'll get it right.

A lot, not all.
t. Poor person using Obamacare

Trump advocated single payer healthcare pretty much until last august. Now Obamacare is literalky combining the worst aspects of public and private healthcare, it's TRASH and corporate slavery.

>obamacare
>good for the poor
My healthcare is going up by $1,000 next year and I can barely afford to eat now. Why is it good for me again?

A single player system would be good if implemented well, trouble is the implementation as well as the politicians who have big pharmacy in their pocket.
You are one in millions. It may not be good for you individually, but good for a society on the whole.

Can you explain to me why or how it works for some people?

"historians" are more ignorant of the ways of the world than african tribesmen with iqs of 52

obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-subsidies/

The subsidies can make Obamacare below $100 for a lot of people, me included. I pay around $79 for mine.

What people should learn about history is about the fact that actions though may be a good idea during the time it is implemented, hell maybe even the best idea, it will cause devastating consequences in the future

>why can't we just kill the bastards and end it?
because it makes people believe it's alright to simply kill anyone they don't like

>since we are so strong and no one will fuck with us why care about ethics?
because eventually due to either taxing of your people and finances or just random misfortune your army will lose one day then what are you going to do?

>why should I take care of this person, can't I just have my own money and be left alone?
if you want your state then you'll have to accept its population as kinsmen, otherwise they won't acknowledge the state as theirs (since it's only fucking with them) and they won't acknowledge you as kin when they break out against it

>why do I have to obey the law?
because if you don't and others don't your country will achieve third-world shithole status fairly quickly

these consequences will not happen immediately (in fact they will probably take care of the problem at hand immediately) but after generations happen these actions will be embraced as "tradition" and then all you will have is the consequences

>HAHA FUCK OTHER PEOPLE I GOT MINE
this is you cunt, man I'm glad I don't live in a retarded country like yours

Neat. Whats so special about Roman era farming techniques in comparison to modern ones?

>"""necessary connections''''