Moonbox
-
Posts
9,052 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:
That's true but that was still with the support of the people against the commies who were also using violence repression and intimidation. And he Ended democracy with the support of the people as well. Not ALL the people but a very large hunk.
No. He didn't end democracy with support of the people. He mobilized a deluded, angry "hunk" of the population into a band of thugs, and he terrorized and intimidated his opposition into submission.
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:If the people don't want it then democracy has a pretty minimal impact. Germany got rid of a monarchy in favour of democracy only to vote a monarch right back in essentially.
Also no. Germany's monarchy was forcibly dismantled by the Allies, along with crippling reparations. They weren't just forced into democracy, they were also forced into hopeless poverty.
3 hours ago, CdnFox said:When you get right down to it democracy is the will of the people and if the people want what is a theocracy that's what's going to happen.
The Iranians chose secular democracy in the early 50's. The US and Britain helped overthrow that and reinstall the Shah, who ran a repressive police state for ~20 years before the revolution that ushered in what turned out to be an equally repressive or worse regime. I think you're underestimating the resentment but also fear that goes along with that.
-
3 hours ago, User said:
You are the one who keeps pushing the "nothing" to do with it line,
and that you're still hung up on, unable to move past lame petty semantics, that have already been clarified.
3 hours ago, User said:it is an absolutist extreme position that if I agree to... would be silly and absurd,
That was your hint, genius. If the claim is that silly and absurd, why would you settle on the most absolute and literal, but least reasonable interpretation, rather than the less literal, far more reasonable one?
Failing to recognize that isn't a big deal. What's lame is that you didn't just assume the dumbest meaning behind the words, you insisted on them, argued them for 3 pages, accused people of lying, and refused any attempts to clarify.
That's what you call good faith debate? Ookay. 🙄
3 hours ago, User said:The fact that you refuse to answer anything regarding Pelosi, BLM, etc... only shows how you are being a two faced lying hypocrite here.
You are not arguing in good faith when you are here trying to blame Trump for January 6th and refuse to do the same for how Democrats like Pelosi contributed to the BLM violence.No, this is just you projecting your tribal assumptions on me. Nancy and Hilary caused the BLM riots. Al Gore and the Democrats never conceded to Bush. Now what? 😑
-
7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Did you know why hitler had such an easy time suspending democracy in Germany? It was a new idea and a very large hunk of the population didn't like it, they preferred the old monarchy. There are numerous examples where people have rejected democracy and prefer a more authoritarian state.
It's less about preferring a more authoritarian state, and more about lacking the legal and democratic institutions that could safeguard against it. Hitler "won" an election in 1933, supported by a massive campaign of violence, repression and intimidation, along with the jailing of political enemies. Prussia alone had 50,000 SS or militia members 'monitoring' the polls.
There are always going to be people who are dumb and cynical enough to support/enable dictatorship. If that dictatorship can deliver results, they may even end up with wide popular support...but only until the music stops. It's when things aren't going great that folks start to rethink their choices, and by then it's too late.
Regardless, Iran already attempted secular democracy back in the early 50's...until US and British intelligence organized/facilitated a coup to restore the Shah.
-
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:
Awww look - it's not just me, NOBODY believes you
And even your phraseology gives you a way. I'm sure that you didn't vote for Justin, he wasn't on your ballot.
I believe him. You're just too dumb, and too uneducated to think outside your lazy, tribal heuristics. Every that disagrees with your clueless bullshitting is a Trudeau-loving lefty.
It doesn't matter how many times you agree with the criticism for Trudeau, or even that you agree he's the worst PM Canada's ever had. In Canfux clownworld, you're still a Justin-lover if you're not on board with his Poilievre-fluffing. 🤡🤡
-
1
-
-
On 6/17/2024 at 12:00 PM, User said:
My bad, I was not quite onto your little troll job yet. I am now.
Of course you were. You were the example I was following. Maybe you realize now how irritating and pointless it is. Maybe not. That's up to you! 🫡
-
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:
Their population is almost 90 million. That's a tiny fraction of their population. Hell almost 20,000 were arrested during the blm riots of 2021 in the states. Strangely the blacks haven't taken over.
Big difference between protesting in Iran, and protesting in the USA. The former killed over 500 and blinded hundreds more. The latter had...what...25 people die? How many were killed by police?
But sure, people love living in repressive dictatorships where they can go to jail for not dressing properly. North Koreans love Supreme Leader as well. Leader is wise. Leader is benevolent.
-
17 hours ago, User said:
It was. I wrote quite a bit, even honestly conceding what I have always thought about Trump's stupidity... and this is the best you are willing to do in response?
What you wrote was mealy-mouthed. I said it appears you deny Trump's culpability in the riot, and asked you to clarify. It was a simple question, with an affirmative or negative answer. Your response was more dissembling and word-games:
22 hours ago, User said:where did I say nothing to do with it?
22 hours ago, User said:he had something to do with it, but no, he did not incite a riot in any illegal sense of the word.
22 hours ago, User said:he did not cause, plan for, promote, etc... the violence that day.
What am I to make of this? He had not-nothing to do with it, apparently, but he did not incite a riot in any illegal sense of the word? 🙄
When you follow that up with a bunch of gratuitous projection and goofy whataboutism (whatabout BLM? whatabout Al Gore? whatabout, Hilary, Nancy Pelosi etc...), and in the same post accuse me of bias, I abandoned any notion that you were debating seriously and/or in good faith.
-
18 hours ago, CdnFox said:
LOL - You are dumber than a stump if you think posting one picture of a tiny demonstration means that somehow the people would vote in a gov't that would oppose hamas or support israel
You are dumber than a stump. Period.
The pictures were meant to remind you (more likely inform you in the first place, lol) of the large scale protests after Mahsa Amini's death in prison...for not dressing the way Supreme Leader likes. In the ensuing demonstrations, hundreds were killed by Iranian security forces and ~20,000 imprisoned. According to you, however, they seem to like their religious leaders. 🙄
-
1 minute ago, User said:
Appears to deny.
So, where did I say nothing to do with it?
I asked you to clarify, and this is the best you're willing to do?
3 minutes ago, User said:Trump clearly planned for and organized the peaceful protest that day... he had something to do with it, but no, he did not incite a riot in any illegal sense of the word.
He had "something" to do with it?
He did not incite in "any illegal sense of the word"?
If this sort of marble-mouthed nothing-speak is the debating standard you're going to stick to, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post.
-
13 minutes ago, User said:
Who is the "they" you think you are talking about here because you just shared a picture of folks in LA protesting?
Whoops. That was the first picture I came up with. Is this better?
-
3 hours ago, User said:
The only thing proving to be obnoxious is you.
NO YOU?
3 hours ago, User said:You lied repeatedly in one thread and instead of having enough integrity to own up to that you are going to be obnoxious yourself in other threads trying to troll me now.
No, you dissembled and played semantic word games, you're doing it again here, and I'm not the only one pointing it out. 🙄
-
3 hours ago, User said:
This argument differs entirely from your saying "nothing" and defending it as if he did nothing and your further lying to defend it literally.
No, it doesn't. Your various arguments collapse in on themselves as soon as you can't hide behind your strictly literal semantics. Here's another example:
3 hours ago, User said:Nothing to do with the riot? When was this the argument, when did I say this?
Everything you've said on this thread appears to deny Trump's culpability for the riot. If that's not the case, here's your opportunity to clarify. Otherwise, this is yet another example of deflection via petty semantics.
3 hours ago, User said:Even in your analogy... even if someone did start a bar brawl... once a mindless fight breaks out, they certainly don't have much ability to stop it.
Since he instigated it in the first place, then it's absurd to assume that his feeble and transparent token of de-escalation was sincere or intended to have any effect.
When Trump was told Mike Pence had been evacuated, he apparently said, "So what?" and instead of asking the mob to calm down, he went on another tirade about how Pence lacked courage. This was 15 minutes before the heroic Gandhi-esqued tweet you keep talking about.
As I've said (and you keep ignoring), his staff, his party members and even his family members begged him for hours to tell the rioters to stop and go home, and he refused.
3 hours ago, User said:Which after the fact?
He condemned what happened after the fact when he conceded to Biden.
4:17, January 6th.
His concession to Biden was an acknowledgement that he wasn't going to be allowed to stay president. He's never given up on his lies about the election being stolen, has claimed he'll pardon most of the rioters convicted, and even claimed that they're patriots.
So...yeah...he totally condemned them.
3 hours ago, User said:He certainly did try to stop it. You yourself lied trying to claim he had that power to stop it too, when he released the video.
He did not try to stop it, as I've explained above. Any suggestion otherwise is a joke, along with your BLM whataboutism.
-
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:
They DO seem to like their religious leaders and you're assuming that they woudln't elect a gov't based on that and woudlnt' care about hamas.
Yes, they definitely love the Ayatollah. Supreme Religious leader provides for and loves all of his people, and makes sure they have every comfort they deserve.
🤣
-
12 minutes ago, User said:
My words are just fine.
He said:
"Ukraine can masterfully defend itself, and hats off to its resilience in doing so. Speaks volumes of their grit and character."
No, they're not.
Masterfully is not the same thing as successfully. One is a matter of skill, the other is a matter of outcome. You can masterfully defend yourself from 10 attackers and still get your ass beaten. That's the point that Perspektiv is making.
He's not contradicting himself, though I agree his conclusion is wrong and based on a long list of faulty assumptions and fallacies.
-
Just now, User said:
Oh, how cute. I see what you are doing now.
Highlighting how obnoxiously pedantic you are? Yep! 🫡
1 minute ago, User said:This would be a good thing for Democrats too, because you can be sure Republicans are going to use this lawfare moving forward too.
You say this as if they weren't already doing it, and didn't start 8 years ago.
The only difference is that the legal system operates on objective reasoning and provable fact, and Donald's shameless and compulsive lying faceplant in that arena.
-
9 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Absolutely.
Why wouldn't it be?
Because the Iranian general population already hates Hamas and doesn't support them. Defunding Hamas/Hezbollah/Houthis has been part of the protest movement from 2022 onward. The Iranians go without proper water/electricity because their theocratic dictatorship prioritizes destabilizing the region over looking after its citizens.
-
1 hour ago, User said:
You claim they can't be beaten on the ground and then congratulate Ukraine for beating them on the ground.
That's not what he said. He praised their resilience, grit and character.
I don't disagree with any of your points, but you should choose your words more carefully. 😐
-
16 minutes ago, User said:
You did not ask who the law would currently affect. It would be best if you chose your words better.
What does it matter? The point was clear, so I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing with this sort of pedantic word-mongering. It would be best if you chose your lines of reasoning better. This one's a loser.
-
1 hour ago, User said:
Every step of the way, you had every chance to admit you were wrong or exaggerating, but instead, you proved how far you were willing to go to lie.
The only exaggeration here is the comically elevated importance you place on an insincere, perfunctory tweet made by that fat orange baboon long after chaos and violence erupted.
It's the equivalent of whispering, "Guys, please stay calm" after a bar brawl you've instigated erupts, while you fade into the background watching it unfold, bottles smashing everywhere.
1 hour ago, User said:You are trying to have it both ways... you sit here saying he had the power to rile the mob up with his tweets, but then he didn't have the power to calm them down with his tweets.
I'm saying he spent two months riling up his retards, who he collected on January 6th and then sent off to the Capitol shouting "Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!"
He then tried to join them, even attempting to grab the steering wheel of his car away from his Secret Service detail when they refused to let him.
Rather than condemn the Jan 6 rioters, he praised and lauded them after the fact.
In what clownworld do you figure he had nothing to do with the riot, or that he was trying to stop it?
-
Michael Yeadon hasn't worked for Pfizer for 13 years, never worked with vaccines and was an asthma and allergy researcher. 🤣
What a dumb f**king OP.
-
On 6/15/2024 at 2:21 PM, CdnFox said:
That is rediculous. When they do run the country they'll know anyway, but in the meantime their job is to hold those who do run the country to account.
You're holding the government to account by not even knowing what you're holding them to account for?
It's like you're auditioning to be Pierre Poilievre's fluffer or something. 🤣
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, User said:
It is really pathetic how you are acting here.
I'm throwing your buffoonish nitpicking back in your face. It is pathetic. If you figure your winning argument is that Trump didn't literally say nothing, then sure, I'll concede that brilliant point to you. 🤣
A casual tweet saying "be peaceful" somehow balances out the fact that Trump whipped the mob up in the first place, threw gas on the fire with further deranged rhetoric as it unfolded, and sat around watching it on TV for hours while law enforcement, republican colleagues and even his family begged him to put a stop to it. Maybe in alternate reality that makes sense...
-
1 hour ago, User said:
Well, what you are doing is undoubtedly useless and just furthers what a liar you are being here.
So you don't actually want to debate anything meaningful here. You just want to be a petty word-monger, and (according to those standards) you've proven yourself a liar anyways.
🙄
-
2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:
Do you have a source to validate your claim that North Korea produces more ammunition shells that the USA and all Western countries combined, or are you going to dodge the question, as per usual?
As we all know, Great Leader has uncovered and mastered mystical esoteric knowledge, which has allowed the his
hilariously poorglorious and heroic industrial base to out produce Europe and North America.-
1
-
Pro-Hamas Rallies in Canada
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "wide support". I'd consider the fact that he never won even 40% of the vote until he imprisoned/murdered the opposition and began "monitoring" the polling stations with tens of thousands of thugs to question that, but I guess we can just agree that there was obviously "enough" support for him to do that.
The Treaty of Versailles and the crippling reparations had nothing to do with the anger and hopelessness of the German people in the early 30's? Really!?
What do you figure you'd need to "see" to lead you to the opposite conclusion? Remember the censorship and brutal repression within Iran?