WestCanMan
-
Posts
18,324 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
87
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WestCanMan
-
-
21 hours ago, Rue said:
I respectfully disagree with the last paragraph and strongly agree with the first two. I would contend he has used couched words to rally bigots. He uses the exact tactic of Hitler and that is defining scapegoats and calling on people to vote based on a shared hatred of those scapegoats. That is clear, it's open, and he's been called out on it by Republicans like Mitt Romney in the US but unfortunately not enough of them. I believe Trump is a hateful man using rhetoric to incite rage. To ignore that in his speeches is pointless. You think a man who says barbed wire is a wonderful thing when seen going up and used properly is not using terms Jewish people recoil from ? What next a speech on how to use cyanide responsibly?
Trump is inciting hatred to get voters out. He does not appeal with positive visions. He uses negative fear mongering. His sole platform is to hate immigrants and blame crime and anything bad on immigrants, Democrats, the press, China, Canadian dairy farmers, and whoever else is the target of the day on his Twitter. He is a classic hate monger.
That said I find no difference between him and trendy leftists. They use the same tactics and stereotyping. He is not a positive role model. He is to politics what crude porn is to film making.
I never heard the comment about the barbed wire, that must be new.
I would never call Trump classy, a role model, or a thoughtful speaker, but I don’t think he’s a “dog whistler” either. Again, subtlety isn’t his thing.
Dems are the all-time champions of using fear mongering and sowing division to get votes.
CNN and the Dems started all this with the Trayvon Martin thing and the Michael Brown thing. CNN saw the gobs of money that they coukd make, the Dems saw the sharp division it created between them and the Republicans. They both saw it as a tool to get the Dems elected. They thought that extreme polarization would provide enough smoke to fool voters into just believing everything they say but luckily for the world, enough Americans saw through it last time at the polls.
Right now CNN and the Dems are both doing everything they can to cash in on these dead people in Pittsburgh. It’s utterly pathetic and disgusting to see them scramble to label Trump anti-Semitic, in the face of all logic, just for their own cause.
Trump always takes the bait and swings back. He’s a bit overreactive, but right now the entire world is behaving like there’s an overreactive US president.
-
21 hours ago, Rue said:
I respectfully disagree with the last paragraph and strongly agree with the first two. I would contend he has used couched words to rally bigots. He uses the exact tactic of Hitler and that is defining scapegoats and calling on people to vote based on a shared hatred of those scapegoats. That is clear, it's open, and he's been called out on it by Republicans like Mitt Romney in the US but unfortunately not enough of them. I believe Trump is a hateful man using rhetoric to incite rage. To ignore that in his speeches is pointless. You think a man who says barbed wire is a wonderful thing when seen going up and used properly is not using terms Jewish people recoil from ? What next a speech on how to use cyanide responsibly?
Trump is inciting hatred to get voters out. He does not appeal with positive visions. He uses negative fear mongering. His sole platform is to hate immigrants and blame crime and anything bad on immigrants, Democrats, the press, China, Canadian dairy farmers, and whoever else is the target of the day on his Twitter. He is a classic hate monger.
That said I find no difference between him and trendy leftists. They use the same tactics and stereotyping. He is not a positive role model. He is to politics what crude porn is to film making.
I never heard the comment about the barbed wire, that must be new.
I would never call Trump classy, a role model, or a thoughtful speaker, but I don’t think he’s a “dog whistler” either. Again, subtlety isn’t his thing.
Dems are the all-time champions of using fear mongering and sowing division to get votes.
CNN and the Dems started all this with the Trayvon Martin thing and the Michael Brown thing. CNN saw the gobs of money that they coukd make, the Dems saw the sharp division it created between them and the Republicans. They both saw it as a tool to get the Dems elected. They thought that extreme polarization would provide enough smoke to fool voters into just believing everything they say but luckily for the world, enough Americans saw through it last time at the polls.
Right now CNN and the Dems are both doing everything they can to cash in on these dead people in Pittsburgh. It’s utterly pathetic and disgusting to see them scramble to label Trump anti-Semitic, in the face of all logic, just for their own cause.
Trump always takes the bait and swings back. He’s a bit overreactive, but right now the entire world is behaving like there’s an overreactive US president.
-
23 minutes ago, eyeball said:
No, you're deliberately confusing and equating criticism for Israel with antisemitism.
The ridiculous assertion you made in your OP is valid? That Justin Trudeau bears responsibility for the incident in Pittsburgh because he made hate speech against Jews legal?
I don't recall an overabundance of people holding Obama's feet to the fire when he was killing Muslims with drones do you?
Well Democrats aren't exactly lefties but in any case what's being blamed is an overheated political climate that Trump is merely adding fuel too. Trump is just the latest symptom of a disease that has been festering for almost a couple of decades now.
No, he unifies people by fanning the political fury they're in.
Critism against Jews/Israel that’s inaccurate with a hateful bias is anti Semitic.
Trudeau made hate speech against Jews not just legal, but he normalized it by refusing to denounce a call for genocide against them.
Obama wasn’t killing “muslims”, he was killing terrorists. I thought that there was supposed to be a very big difference?
Trump isn’t ramping up any racist rhetoric, that’s CNN. All they talk about is race. It’s sickening. Trump is pro-American. That shouldn’t be surprising for a US President, but it’s a dramatic turnaround from the last administration where the First Lady was on record saying “for the second time in my adult life I was proud to be an American.”
-
21 hours ago, eyeball said:
All he's means is that lefties are responsible. The tepid response to the OP from other right wingers only underscore the reluctance to assign any blame to right wing insensibilities at all.
Lefties openly talk about genocide and violence against Jews. Lefty news, like CNN, doesn't speak out against it. So according to lefties, it's a valid discussion. Lefty news will never even hold Obama's feet to the fire for secretly associating with people like Farrakhan who openly discuss "reasons for hating, fearing or killing Jews".
Then after all the division that Democrats have sown over the past 4 years, lefties blame this killing spree on Trump, based on their unsubstantiated and stupid beliefs.
Everyone who knows anything about Trump knows that he supports Israel (Jewish) and that his son-in-law and grandkids are Jews. He's never said a bad word about Jews, he doesn't sow division within the country.
-
1
-
-
There were 99 non-islamic terror attacks, but not all of them were white. The beltway attacks (17) and the 7 police in 2016 and the earlier 4 for sure. So at least 28 non-whites. Maybe more. I'll just say 28 total for the sake of argument.
So the amended list is:
3,097 + 28 = 3,125 to
99 - 28 = 71.
3,125 non-whites to 71 whites. Just so this doesn't go off-track, let's just remember that I wasn't the one who turned this into discussion about race. It's entirely stupid.
-
7 hours ago, Wilber said:
Mostly due to one incident, Orlando.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States
Since the year 2,000, major islamic terrorist attacks include but are not limited to:
- Fort Hood (13),
- Boston (5),
- San Bernadino (14),
- the New York truck attack (8),
- Chatanooga (5),
- Beltway sniper attacks (17) for starters.
That's 62 dead right there. (MUSLIM 62)
101 if you include Pulse (49). (MUSLIM 49)
That's not counting 2,977 from the WTC. (MUSLIM 2,977)
Aside from the aforementioned attacks, there were 57 people killed in what were confirmed terrorist attacks. Of the other 57 killed:
- 38 of them were by by "white men" who you might consider "right wing". (RIGHT 38)
- 3 were unsolved (unknown)
- 9 of the 58 were by muslims (MUSLIM 9)
- 4 of them were by a black man killing police officers. (LEFT 4)
- I'm not sure what the other 3 were, I'm not bothering to go down the list again. (idgaf)
This list doesn't include the 5 policemen who were murdered by the Obama-era BLM attack in Dallas. There were 2 more Killed by BLM in NYC around the same time, plus a spate of police murders in Obama's presidency, several of which would qualify as terrorism as well. I'm going to include those 7 because they are confirmed BLM violence.
The wiki list doesn't include the Vegas attack that killed approximately 50 people, which would easily be attributed to leftists as well, seeing as it targeted people who were majority white Republican/NRA types. That's going on the lib list as well. Not sure why so may lefty type terrorist attacks aren't included on wiki's list, but I'm counting them all.
So here are 57 attacks blamed squarely on leftists. I'm adding the 4 killed by the black man from the prior list. (LEFT 57)
Here's my tally. Feel free to do your own, using whatever list you want, but there's not much room to argue with wiki or with the 57 murders I added that are well-known and which easily qualify as leftist terrorist attacks.
Since 2,000
White, "Right Wing" terrorism: 38
Leftists Terrorism: 4 + 57 = 61
Muslim Terrorism: 62 + 49 + 2,977 + 9 = 3,097
I guess the whole "dangerous right-wing terrorists" theory is complete BS. You can add the Jews who were just killed in Pennsylvania to the "RWR" list if you want. Not much difference. They're still lagging way behind.
-
1 hour ago, Wilber said:
Fact is, right wing or not, since 9/11 white men have been responsible for the majority of deaths due to terrorist acts in the US.
Makes sense I guess, since it's the majority of men.
It's also worth noting that the adult muslim men who account for less than 1% of the population are a very close second.
-
1 hour ago, Wilber said:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of what you say. If you are in a service industry in particular, your personal image is the company's image. Freedom of speech only protects you from government restricting your speech. If it were otherwise, Kaepernick would be playing and his lawsuit against the NFL would be a slam dunk. Amazing how many can't get that through their thick sculls.
I agree 100%. I'm perfectly aware that Kaepernick shouldn't be allowed to protest at his place of work, but his supporters aren't.
-
On 10/29/2018 at 9:53 AM, dialamah said:
In the US and Canada, most terrorism is from right-wing extremists. In the world generally, most terrorism is from religious extremists, especially Islam.
I worry about terrorism; I don't worry about right wingers generally or Muslims generally, or religious people in general.
That “right wing terrorism” stat going around is bogus. People choose what fits within their personal/political viewpoint of what terrorism is and then go from there with a biased scoresheet that doesn’t factor in the seriousness of the attack.
For example, when guy yells at a bunch of people in a synagogue that shouldn’t count as “1” just the same as when a guy yells islamic profanity and blows up kids outside an Arianna Grande concert counts as “1”.
If you think of all the things that we would call actual terrorist attacks, where a person or persons are killed, it’s almost all islamic or left wing.
Van attacks, bomb attacks, ak-47 attacks and even the attack on the country music fans in vegas (attack on a group that would certainly be characterized as majority Republican/NRA supporters - people on the “right wing”). What else that has happened in North America compared to that list?
-
On 10/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, betsy said:
Lol......Heck, his boss must also be certifiable!
Don't you find that odd????
This woman will gladly sic this guy to deliver pizza to blacks, Jews and gays......knowing how he feels about these people! She'd willingly take the risk endangering her own clientele!
She'd rather have a a DANGEROUS TICKING TIME BOMB of a lunatic driver - because, "good drivers are hard to find!"
Get outa here! She must be looney too!
or......
The pro-Kaepernick here crowd here would have a huge beef with him not being able to park that van wherever he wants. After all, political viewpoints and serious threats against high profile politicians are sacrosanct under freedom of speech laws, right? Even in the workplace.
-
On 10/29/2018 at 7:17 PM, bcsapper said:
Trump is not like Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan or Pierre Trudeau. None of them were mindless, moronic poltroons.
Trudeau senior was more arrogant than Trump, and that's hard to do. He was a leader for sure, but he was just taking the country in the wrong direction.
-
CNN stooges, listen up.
1) They say that "there's dog-whistling going on" - that's another way of saying "We don't even have a little bit of proof of what we are telling you. We're just taking the smallest things imaginable and blowing them way out of proportion."
2) They say "Trump colluded with the Russians" over and over again for 2 years, and to this second there's not even one single solitary shred of proof of that, whatsoever. Do you hold them even slightly accountable for the truth?
3) Now they say he's an anti-Semite when he's literally surrounded by Jews, inside his family and out. On CNN they don't even talk about serious anti-Semitic vitriol coming from leaders within the Democrat community who are cozy with Keith Ellison and Barack Obama, but they reference Trump somehow dog-whistling? You gobble that up like a hungry bulldog slobbering up some warm barf?
4) Most of their "juicy dirt" on trump comes from "anonymous sources". No one is "on the record" saying anything troubling. But it's TOTALLY NEWSWORTHY to you guys.
5) On CNN they say he constantly lies, then they reference "crowd size" and "rain during his inauguration speech"..... Is that seriously what they back that up with? Trump has a laundry list of election promises that he's living up to. Those are "his promises" of record.
6) There are prominent Dems going around saying "don't be civil", "get in their faces", "they're hurting our children", "tell them they're not welcome", and they call severed heads & threats of bombing the whitehouse or killing the President "free speech" (it meets the dictionary definition of sedition), and then they go apoplectic when people refer to the angry mobs of people (the very ones that they themselves whipped into a frenzy.....) "mobs". After all that, when Republicans get shot, they blame gun control. Republicans get ribs broken in a blindside attack, not even newsworthy. Trump's family gets white podwer hoaxed, no big d. All of a sudden there's a Dem bomb threat and it's "FREAKOUT TIME!!!!!!!!" They say "Their rhetoric is way out of control!!!!!!!!!!!! It's causing issues!". I call it hypocrisy of the highest order, you guys say "Yummmm, more warm barf."
So basically you value unsubstantiated/wild/ridiculous accusations, anonymous sources, people who incite mob activity, liars and hypocrites?
Honestly, just sit back for a second and think about how many times you got hoodwinked by major stories like Russian collusion or the legend of the Caerbannock Kavanaugh, but you never for a second thought about how that affected the credibility of your vaunted " news sources". They're the same people who casually tell you that that top-level FBI firings aren't a news story.
The guy on this site who said that "Trump's a liar - it actually rained during his inauguration speech" because his news sources told him so, but refused to watch the video of it not raining, is like the poster boy for Demmies. What a crowd. It's so hard to believe that in this day and age, with information so readily available, people with the ability to read and write would keep getting their news from a source with a track record of doing nothing but lying about or everything. It would be one thing if their lies even made sense, but when they turn a terrorist truck rampage into a gun control issue, I actually have to admire their mind-control abilities and feel a bit sorry for you.
-
3 hours ago, Jimwd said:
Trump conducting rallies where mobs chant hate speech in lockstep.
Trump praises assault and body slamming a reporter.
In 2017, anti-Semitic incidents (including physical assaults, vandalism, and attacks on Jewish institutions) surged nearly 60% over the previous year, according to an ADL audit, the largest single-year increase on record, and the second-highest number reported since the ADL started tracking anti-Semitic incidents in 1979.
Nationalism is back
1933 Germany
Here's the breakdown for you, in case you missed everything since 2015.
The USA was extremely divided in 2015 and 2016. There were riots, lootings and wide scale arson in several major cities for months at a time. Hatred of the police was rampant, and race was at the forefront of every single conversation. The President at the time didn't say anything at all to stem the tide.
FFWD to 2017: Only a complete idiot would believe that the division in the USA got worse after the inauguration. I don't recall any buildings on fire since Trump was elected, aside from the ones lit up by the fascist demmies of Berkeley when they protested against free (and non-hate) speech.
FFWD to 2018: Some people were killed in a Synagogue. CNN needed to turn it into a Trump hatefest before the 2018 mid-term elections, like they do with every story, including the weather of all things. So they just went out and told their moronic viewers that Trump is an Anti-Semite and that caused the killings.
Here are some facts for you: Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is a Jew. Trump's daughter got married in a Jewish ceremony, and his grandkids are Jews. Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump are allied far more tightly than Trump and Trudeau are. Do these facts allow much room for the anti-Semitic theory?
What "facts" does CNN present indicating that Trump is an anti-Semite? (insert crickets sound-effect here.....)
Re: your anti-Semitic violence stat: Did CNN call Obama an anti-Semite In 2017 when pictures came out of him smiling with America's foremost anti-Semite - Louis Farrakhan? The USA allowed tens of thousands of Syrian migrants in 2016. Then there was a spike in anti-Semitic violence right after those two things and you assume that it's Trump's fault? Go fish.
2018 North America. Figure it out.
-
4 hours ago, Don Jonas said:
Is this post supposed to be ironic?
It's good that you're asking questions.
-
I do value free speech guys and gals, but honestly, I still think that there has to be a serious response to blatantly evil haters within our society. There’s no shortage of people dumb enough to get sucked in by hatred and especially by fear mongering.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Argus said:
Antisemitism is strong in Russia, with very little freedom of speech there. It was strong in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries in eastern Europe with NO freedom of speech. It is WEAKEST in the United States and Canada, which have pretty much the MOST freedom of speech.
Go sit down before you read this Argus. I just clicked like on one of your posts. You might want to take two Aspirin and call your doctor if you’re feeling cardiac-ish.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, turningrite said:
I think your criticism of free speech is far too broad to be reasonable. Antisemitism and racism existed long before the modern era of mass communications. They are manifestations of often deeply ingrained cultural prejudices rather than amounting to legal, political or technological inventions. There's a valid argument to be made that mass communications have undermined rather than exacerbated these cultural prejudices. Indeed, in those societies where free speech is heavily restricted prejudicial attitudes and values are likely far more prevalent. Free speech is too fundamentally necessary to the survival of democracy to be broadly blamed for society's problems. Personally, I'd rather have the real bigots out in the open so we can know and understand what they're saying than force them to operate in secret as much of their belief structure is grounded in victim identity and ideology. If they're suppressed, won't it just validate and exacerbate their sense of victimization?
You make a good point. It’s places like Iran, where freedom of speech is more like “freedom to get killed for opening your mouth”, that are the real dumpster fires on this planet.
It’s good that people like Farrakhan, Elias Hazineh and chucklehead Huda show the world just how low their culture can get, but it’s also too bad that they don’t get properly “outed” in the msm.
-
7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Doesn't matter....U.S. courts would find that the protected free speech of non-violent citizens cannot be infringed because of violent acts by criminals. I'm OK with that...the ACLU is OK with that...and the U.S. Supreme Court is OK with that.
Far more Americans are shot dead in Chicago each year and it has nothing to do with free speech....gun rights are still upheld as well.
No arguing that I guess.
-
1 hour ago, turningrite said:
Whoa there! Before you get carried away with yourself, let me point out that I raised access to guns as a counterpoint to the bizarre notion that free speech is at the root of atrocities like the Pittsburgh shooting. Free speech, like democracy, is a double-edged sword. Free speech in fact is the oxygen that sustains democracy. Adherents on both extremes of the ideological spectrum equally dislike the actual notion of free speech and would if their side obtained power seek to suppress it. To blame free speech for the Pittsburgh shooting is akin to blaming democracy for the acts of demagogues who are elected to power - and there have been many legitimately elected demagogues in modern history. You shouldn't throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater.
Let me reiterate: FREE SPEECH IS AT THE ROOT OF THESE MURDERS. You can try to make the argument that you still need free speech even though it got those people killed, but would you make the same argument if your mom was laying in a pool of blood in the place she got married, just because she frequented that place? Would you be ok with Farrakhan preaching hate against her?
FYI it wouldn’t matter how many guns there were if people weren’t inciting, normalizing, glorifying, ignoring and endorsing hatred against “Jews, Zionists, Israelis”, and fear mongering about “their nefarious Jewwie plots”, or just passing all that off as free speech. News channels like CNN etc that turn a blind eye to Farrakhan’s rotten mouth, and give people like Obama and Clinton a free pass for being chummy with that piece of slime, are as guilty as he is. Can you imagine Trump standing at Senator Byrd’s funeral beside a Grand Wizard of the KKK and his beloved Hillary Clinton? They’d be in their glory at CNN. You can bet your life that they wouldn’t turn a blind eye.
It’s friggin unbelievable that CNN is feeding their moronic viewers the line that “evil” Trump’s speech is responsible for this and ignoring Farrakhan and his buddies Bill and Barack. The only thing dumber than a CNN viewer is CNN viewers, plural.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Wilber said:
My guess is that I have spent more time in the US southwest than Trump and the Hispanics I have come across on a daily basis are anything but the type Trump goes on about. Nice people who aren’t afraid of work are the people I see.
I have no doubts about that. Almost all of the people that you see walking around day to day basis are just awesome, as long as you stick to the nicer places. The exact same can be said for born an' bred 'Muricans.
The problems are: 1) the drugs and the actual serious criminals crossing the border and 2) the actual economic problems with unchecked immigration. They already regret taking in so many immigrants in Germany and eastern Canada. It's not easy to just provide decent housing for thousands of people, and you can't build it faster than you can build the supporting infrastructure.
Trump is basically right about immigration, he just doesn't speak properly at times. Angela Merkel and Trudeau were dead wrong. If the nation can afford immigration, and there is a need for it, it should be done through proper, legal channels.
-
39 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Clearly. If you call CBC fake news and regularly post articles from Breitbart/Alex Jones/Foxnews then there's absolutely no doubt about it. You might as well be quoting Alfred E. Newman.
There you go again with another insipid and dishonest post. I've made my case against the CBC, and I've never quoted Breitbart or Alex Jones. You've still never made a single valid claim against Fox News so once again your post is completely without merit or integrity.
-
1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Could be, but nevertheless so called "hate speech" is protected expression in the United States, much more so than in Canada.
Hates crimes, threats, and actions are an entirely different matter and subject to arrest & prosecution.
The U.S (and Canada) have violent hate crimes irrespective of hate speech. Historically, government policies and actions are probably far more responsible for systemic "incidents" than the content of individual's hate speech.
I think the US needs to tighten up on what's allowed and what's not. I don't think anyone's idea of free speech is "let's commit genocide". And our Canadian laws are useless if they're not used.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, turningrite said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this? Because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most forms of free speech are accorded greater protection in the U.S. than is the case in Canada, where the delineation of acceptable speech is much more circumscribed. The Charter doesn't rescue us from this deficiency. As for hate crime laws, it's my understanding that these are more generally applicable and easily triggered in Canada than in the U.S., where in most cases an actual violent crime committed with hateful intent must apply in order to trigger a hate crime prosecution. I believe the bar for triggering hate crime charges, particularly in relation to what is perceived as hate speech, is lower in Canada. Personally, I don't believe the attack in Pittsburgh had/has anything to do with free speech. Easy access to guns, especially in the U.S., as well the hyper-sensitized and identity-focused social tribalism that increasingly characterizes Western societies appear to play bigger roles in such incidents.
I should have cited some links. Do you really need any links on Louis Farkhead in the States or do you know what he's all about?
Here are a couple of Canadian hate speech types. These aren't private comments either, they were entirely public speeches made to adoring crowds:
QuoteChucklehead Shafiq Huda at a hate rally called "Al Quds Day" in Ontario: https://www.bnaibrith.ca/sheikh_calls_for_eradication_of_israelis_at_toronto_al_quds_day_rally
Elias Hezineh, Elias Hazineh*, President of the Mississauga–Erindale Federal Liberal Riding Association: https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-hate-crime-charges-for-canadian-palestinian/
It's worth noting that our idiot PM, who loves nothin better than a good ol' fashioned virtue-signalling session, refused to comment on the blatant hate speech made within 100 miles of our HoP.
Of course the attack wasn't covered under "free speech" laws, but the idea of committing the attack was embraced and made popular by these kinds of people.
Liberals keep trying to derail serious conversations about terrorism by turning them into "access to guns" discussions. Do you think that we will ever rid the world of guns? Even if we did we can't get rid of rental vans or knives, and you know damn well that some of the most successful islamic terrorist attacks have been committed with those things - and they can't be banned. We can't stop people from making IEDS either, like the one that was used to kill kids at an Araianna Grande concert. If you want an "access to guns" thread, start one. This isn't it. You're entirely off-topic.
-
1
-
-
On 10/28/2018 at 1:35 AM, Altai said:
I can understand that. This is human nature. Human is prone to laziness and comfort congenitally. They dont like to think in detailed way, they like to think straight. Less people care to investigate about details, less people care to collect information and create logical conclusions. You and many other people are happy with sucking their apple candy. This is why democracy is a big nonsense. Your straight thoughts may not be the logical one all the time.
I remember a speaker was asking people on the street "If a tap filling a pool in 1 hour, how many hours two tap would fill it ?" and people in general was responding "Two hours".
You are one of these "two hour" guys.
Just because I don't subscribe to your drivel doesn't mean I can't do simple math Altai. A reasonable person would assume quite the opposite.
You're the one who can't answer a simple question; "Can you name some places where non-democratic forms of government serve the citizens better than an average democracy"?
I don't care whether you feel like democracy lives up to your expectations. That's not what I asked you.
There's an obvious difference between having someone like Harper or Scheer running your country or a complete idiot like Justin Trudeau, and you're being completely disingenuous if you disagree with that statement.
Terrorist Attack in Pittsburgh
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
And who do you see making accurate criticism against Israel? It sure as hell isn’t you. You fail to acknowledge that they’re up to their eyeballs in terrorists.
Trudeau’s actions made hate speech ok. Peachy keen. Alllllllright. No big d. Get it? A leader in a religious community cane out and called fir genocide against another religion and Trudeau officially shrugged it off. That’s a huge problem. You’d care about it if it happened to muslims. It didn’t. You don’t.
Semantics? You’re busy defending calls for genocide and you’re trying to get me on semantics? Get a grip.