CouchPotato

No they don't. Poilievre sounds nothing like Trump. He is not very inflammatory and he usually uses facts and stats to back up things he says. I am sure sometimes he is a bit inflammatory, but then so was Trudeau. He just gets a pass on it. I can't help but notice that you often 'like' posts and posters who are anything but civil. Now that is your prerogative, of course, but it doesn't lend much credibility to what you say here.

Actually, I originally did say could care less, and then I was like "no that's not right" and I edited it quickly. So maybe he replied before I changed it. Not sure.

Well, as long as you think you are intelligent then.

I respectfully disagree. I do think that it is partially true in the sense that political people viewed him as being dangerous, but his movement was not political. Very often such people are more dangerous to powerful people than political people. He simply preached his message and people were free to agree or disagree. Charity was voluntary. He never lobbied for any particular policy. He never staged a protest. He did not lead any uprising. He didn't resist his own arrest and execution. He didn't belong to the zealots or any of the rebel groups of his day. But he welcomed one of the zealots as one of his disciples. He also welcomed a tax collector into his fold, and they were hated at the time. The one recorded incident we have him acting violently was over the fact that money changers were doing business at the Temple. A religious issue, not a political one.

I never said you did, but while we are talking about doing well unto others the left is really no better at this than anyone else. They hurl insults. They accuse people of racism over the most ridiculous things. And most conservatives are of the mind that what the left considers caring is often misguided or sometimes just disingenuous. So invoking Jesus' kindness as some kind of 'gotcha' really doesn't come across as intelligently as it does in your head.

Because you give more importance to the name of the group than what it really is. That is what the name is designed to do. Appeal to emotion. Your whole argument is based on emotional fallacy. You say that to denigrate BLM means you don't think black lives matter. Once again, I have to ask. Are you for real? I admit I am completely stumped.

Well, it's not about discrediting everything they stand for. I mean I really don't know all the personal beliefs of the people in BLM. I mean as a statement on it's own, I agree that black lives matter. But I can agree with that statement while denigrating the group BLM. I mean let's say some guy named James Reginald Penderghast starts a group called The Appreciation for Paraplegic Cleft Lipped Poverty Stricken Bullied Children Society. But then let's also suppose that James Reginald Penderghast is an admitted fascist and that the official manifesto of The Appreciation for Parapelegic Cleft-Lipped Poverty-Stricken Bullied Children Society is full of fascist ideology. Would it be ok to denigrate his group?

Oh, ok, fair enough, robosmith, I will change that for you. One can denigrate the group BLM and still believe that black or, more importantly, all lives matter. Sorry, for the misunderstanding.

It's so ironic that you are the one continuing to do just that.

Well, I don't think most people want that, but I do think that a lot of the leftist ideas will lead us there, even if they are well-intentioned. You know what they say about the road to hell. The left wing is a direction not a place. There's always a distant horizon beyond the next rise. You see how stupid statements like that are?

No one is arguing this. They just disagree with the left's vision of what it means to do well unto others. Since you brought up Jesus, I would point out that he refused the temptation of temporal power. In one instance, people tried to forcibly make him king and in the temptation in the wilderness he resisted Satan's offer to make him an earthly ruler. Imagine all the good things you could do if you have power, right? So Jesus' teachings about things like how we ought to treat our neighbor are appeals to the individual. No one was forced to follow Him. No one was forced to donate to the disciple's treasury. Compelled charity is not charity at all. The left will point out that Jesus did urge people to pay their tax to Caesar. But that doesn't mean he favored forced redistribution or any particular tax scheme. He favored people being lawful citizens within society and restricting political rebellion unless it comes between a man and his faith in God. During Jesus time it's not as if the Judeans were complaining about marxist redistribution. They were complaining about a very oppressive tax code the Romans had instated. They were taxed on just about everything. They had every reason to complain about it. But Jesus told them to pay it. Not because he agreed with a very oppressive tax code, but because he was not a political revolutionary.

Maybe. I would argue that people on the left enjoy identifying them this way even more, because they keep referring to relatively moderate conservatives these days as far right.

It's just as often a disingenuous attempt to rewrite history to support a certain view. So basically even Neanderthals knew it was despicable to falsely accuse others of racism. That's good to know. Doesn't say much for the left.

Possibly more moderate. I really don't know you well enough. I am not sure if I think most so-called right wingers are even very right-wing.

Well, yes, in a sense he did view all people as 'hopeless' without God. Jesus was not a humanist. He was a practicing Jew. To suggest he was humanist is modern revisionism. The Jews had a prophecy of a coming Messiah, and Jesus absolutely made clear claims that he was indeed the Messiah.

You mean that I perceive the fact that you are the single so-called left-leaning person in this thread who was able to say the lady was a loon. It's not some right-wing conditioning I have undergone. Leftists constantly accuse others of racism.

I have already explained this. Jesus would call out racism. But he would not call everything racism that leftists do. Jesus was merciful to sinners, but that doesn't mean he denied the reality of sin and that one should not do it.

Your photo here is not really analogous to what is happening here. I am not making any complex accusation here that requires one to be like The Beautiful Mind guy. I am saying people on the left accuse people of racism for the most ridiculous things. It's not as if I am not referring to some elaborate conspiracy here. This happens. It's happening in this very thread. Robosmith here is claiming that to oppose BLM means you don't think Black Lives Matter. This sort of thing happens all the time. In another thread just a while ago, I made a reference to the fact that a Liberal MP criticizing the convoy argued that "honk honk" means "Heil Hitler". Now, I am not accusing you personally of doing this. But you seem utterly ignorant of it or you choose to ignore it.

This is correct. You don't have to believe in Jesus to have an understand the spirit of his moral character. But that presumes that you have an accurate understanding of it. Leftists, and I am not referring specifically to you, like to use certain parts of Jesus teaching (and very often improperly) to promote liberal ideas. This gets us into a whole other argument though.

Yeah, I know you mentioned something in another thread about something you remember seeing 50 years ago. And assuming you weren't a small child at the time, that makes you over sixty. That's really something. Just wow.

I am sure Jesus would call out racism when He sees it, but I don't think he accuse people of racism improperly with the same frequency people on the left do for political gain.

Does robosmith really think this way? Does anyone know? Any input? I find it really hard to believe sometimes, but he is just so consistent I really can't tell.

No see that is what you are doing. You are appealing to emotional fallacy. That is why you get roped in by a name like Black Lives Matter and ignore the fact that they are a radical Marxist group. One does not have to promote the group Black Lives Matter in order to believe that black lives or all lives are important. Does this really have to be explained to you? I am legitimately curious.

Sounds like a really nefarious plot. Kudos to you for uncovering it.

Do I really have to explain this to you? Sometimes I am legitimately confused as to whether you believe all this stuff you say. I think, man he can't be for real, but then you are so consistent.