Trudeau test drives his smear campaign

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Well I see these things on a continuum:

1.  I don't like Islam/Muslims because they are (backward, misogynistic, violent, ignorant, opportunistic, lazy, unemployable) and should not be part of Western countries unless they can prove they are none of the above.

2.  Islam/Muslims are a threat to Westerners and Western culture and only idiots think they aren't.  I have to tell everybody about the threat they pose.

3.  I have to do something about Islam/Muslims because they are a threat to Westerners and our leaders don't care and even people who recognize their threat are too scared to do anything.

4.  Takes action, whether its yelling at a woman in niqab, tearing off her hijab or shooting people at prayer.

The actors at each stage may be different, but they all validate each other in this process.

I get that you think people like  DoP are irrelevant in the process that leads people like Bissonnette to action.  Don't really care, I'm gonna call it how I see it.  You can get butthurt and defensive on DoP's behalf all you want.

Prejudice is back and it's OK again.

[Argus]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Prejudice is back and it's OK again.

When did prejudice ever go away?

In any event, prejudice literally means to 'pre judge' someone. I'm not pre-judging Muslims. I'm judging them. And finding them wanting, according to my western liberal standards.

I fully understand and appreciate that my general feeling of disapproval towards the Muslim world cannot be attributed to any individual Muslim until they demonstrate it should be.

But don't tell me I can't judge the Islamic world by its statements and behaviour because that's 'prejudice'.

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

 

2.  Islam/Muslims are a threat to Westerners and Western culture and only idiots think they aren't.  I have to tell everybody about the threat they pose.

 

How do you know he tells "everyone" about the threat they pose?  I see someone posting their own valid observations and opinions, always backed up by relevant cites, on a forum designed to discuss such matters, and on the appropriate topics.  Do you know him outside this discussion forum? On what are you basing your accusation that he is telling "everyone" about the Muslim threat?  (Newsflash - there are many people in the world - especially Muslims themselves who are calling for reforms in Islam and raising alarms about Islam, saying the same things Dog is saying.  You likely don't know this, as you don't care to read anything disparaging to Islam, but he is saying exactly the same things as ones like Tarek Fatah and Hirsi Ali.  Do you also feel they are the ones responsible for Islamophobia and inciting hatred against Muslims, or is it just Dog?  Why or why not?)

 

Given the fact that (from Rue's links on the other thread) More than 95 percent of all suicide bombing attacks conducted worldwide are carried out by Muslim extremists and the large number of Muslims in the world who agree even partially to terrorism being used to further their religious and political agenda, shouldn't somebody be sounding the alarm?

Quote

 

I get that you think people like  DoP are irrelevant in the process that leads people like Bissonnette to action.  Don't really care, I'm gonna call it how I see it.  You can get butthurt and defensive on DoP's behalf all you want.

 

 

 

I get that you think Islam bears no responsibility for it's own actions in the process that leads Muslims themselves to terrorism.  Don't really care, I'm gonna call it how I see it.  You can whitewash and cover up and excuse and blame others and be all butthurt and defensive on behalf of terrorists all you want.

I concur with Rue's comment to you on the other thread:

Quote

Give some of us credit to know that not all terrorists are Muslim when we present the above stats and we will not use it to hate Muslims. Please.  I know you may not think so with some people on this board. I get that but don't give in to that anymore than I will believe terrorism is rational. Stand your ground as to using stats to justify hate but don't be afraid of the stats either.

If you spent even just a little of your outrage on what Islam itself is producing in its adherents, instead of  trying desperately to sanitize everything Islam does,  you might come off as a bit more rational.  As you admitted yourself - you are known for being a caustic-tongued person.  I think it's odd that  your caustic tongue is never.....and I mean NEVER......aimed at Islamic extremists.

I think it's odd that you reserve all your vitriol for an anonymous person giving their opinion on a forum designed for discussion of such topics but rarely can say more than "Yes, I agree that Islam needs some reforms BUT what about Christianity?  What about white people? What about Dog and Goddess -- THEY are the really, truly evil people!"   If how people use their words is so important to you, why not curb your own caustic tongue?  How do you know that you're not inciting someone on this board to take action against Dog or Argus or I?  Maybe someone reads your accusation that Dog is exactly like Bissonette and decides you're right and  decides to take him out before he kills somebody because Dialamah believes he is violent Muslim-killer.

I agree with you - words are important.  But guess what, Dia?  YOUR words are important too.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Goddess

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

1. When did prejudice ever go away?

2. In any event, prejudice literally means to 'pre judge' someone. I'm not pre-judging Muslims. I'm judging them.  

3. cannot be attributed to any individual Muslim until they demonstrate it should be.'.

1. It's back in that people can profess it openly again.

2. Judging groups in that way entails that you are pre judging individuals.

3. So rather than explaining to D why her statements reflect bigotry, you come after me for telling you to not judge the group... When I didn't even post to you.  This is the marketplace of ideas, where bigotry is supposed to not thrive... Nice.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Well I see these things on a continuum:

2.  Islam/Muslims are a threat to Westerners and Western culture and only idiots think they aren't.  I have to tell everybody about the threat they pose.

That’s the closest to the truth imo but still not accurate. Here’s my summary:

Humans are humans and have their own tendencies but Islam is an extremely negative behaviour modifier which empowers slavers, misogynists, and other undesirables. It always has been. That’s why the actions of a devout Buddhist and a devout Muslim are nothing alike. 

 

 

Thats it in a nutshell.

If you don't know the reasons that’s your own problem. I’m not going to post links for you or spell it all out for you. Read up, and think. Don’t just regurgitate kindergarten talking points or Dem/Lib platitudes. 

[Argus]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's back in that people can profess it openly again.

I'm not sure just what fairyland you've been living in but aside from the intelligentsia (media, politicians, union leadership, academics) few people have had much problem telling others what they think of people.

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Judging groups in that way entails that you are pre judging individuals.

No, it involves judging the group as a whole.

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. So rather than explaining to D why her statements reflect bigotry

I didn't say her statements reflect bigotry.

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

you come after me for telling you to not judge the group...

I came after you?

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

When I didn't even post to you. 

I keep trying to explain to you what discussion forums are all about and yet you still don't seem to grasp that you're not having a private discussion with someone. I will reply to anything and anyone I damned well want to reply to. If you want a one on one with someone go to messaging.

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is the marketplace of ideas, where bigotry is supposed to not thrive... Nice.

Still don't know what point you think you're trying to make. Do you?

[Jacques D.]

Weird. Smear campaign? Trudeau? Who has seen that uber right-wing conservative ad showing Trudeau next to Trump and pretending they are alike, fault-wise? Nothing in the coming campaign, by any party, try as they might, could come up with a bigger smear than showing Trudeau next to that crotch-grabbing gross, uncouth traitor and ignoramus Donald J. Trump. 

[Jacques D.]

 

 

 

Just now, Jacques D. said:

Weird. Smear campaign? Trudeau? Who has seen that uber right-wing conservative ad showing Trudeau next to Trump and pretending they are alike, fault-wise? Nothing in the coming campaign, by any party, try as they might, could come up with a bigger smear than showing Trudeau next to that crotch-grabbing gross, uncouth traitor and ignoramus Donald J. Trump. 

And this smear from a party that is a carbon copy of the far-right Republican party and whose leader, Scheer, he the friend of the NRA and member of "Rebel" applies who could be a Trump clone if only he was just a tad dumber.

[bush_cheney2004]

Trudeau continues to smear himself with incompetence on both domestic and foreign policy "files".

Any comparisons to Trump by any political party in Canada is an act of desperation and acknowledgement of Trump's dominance of their collective psyche.

Canadian media even invented a new word to label his dominance...."Trumpian".

[Michael Hardner]

14 hours ago, Argus said:

I didn't say her statements reflect bigotry

Exactly my point.  "I don't like Muslims" is not a comment on the religion, the group - it's an expression of prejudice.  Polite society came to understand the logical and social problems behind prejudice so it started to move into the background.  Now it's back, along with a lot of unpalatable and outright racist ideas.  

When people move to remove such dialogue from social platforms, we're told that banning them will make it worse and that these ideas should be allowed to die in the marketplace of ideas.  Except conservatives refuse to criticize their own kind.  I used to admire conservatives because of their objectivity and their strong moral tradition but in the face of so-called PC culture they went from careful critics of overreaching social policy to adopting aggressive, arrogant and morally repugnant stances.  It's a shame.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Exactly my point.  "I don't like Muslims" is not a comment on the religion, the group - it's an expression of prejudice.

But I've never said "I don't like Muslims". I don't like Islam, for very clear and, I think, well-articulated reasons related to its bigoted, backward doctrine and violence towards all other religions. I don't like the Muslim world because it's a badly run hodgepodge of shitholes run by autocrats and filled with religious bigotry and violence. I think that the people who grow up under that religion and in those countries make poor immigrants, not only for demonstrated economic reasons but because they are less likely to adapt and assimilate. 

Those are opinions formed of facts and judgement.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

  Polite society came to understand the logical and social problems behind prejudice so it started to move into the background. 

It's good to remove prejudice. It's bad when you confuse prejudice with judgement, which is something the Left does routinely.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

When people move to remove such dialogue from social platforms, we're told that banning them will make it worse and that these ideas should be allowed to die in the marketplace of ideas.  Except conservatives refuse to criticize their own kind. 

They do? Just what conservative do you believe I ought to be criticizing and aren't?  Surely you don't consider Taxme a conservative?
I put him into my ignore file because it became apparent I could not properly reply to him in this forum without being suspended.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I used to admire conservatives because of their objectivity and their strong moral tradition but in the face of so-called PC culture they went from careful critics of overreaching social policy to adopting aggressive, arrogant and morally repugnant stances.  It's a shame.

What aggressive, arrogant and morally repugnant stances? Give us examples. Do you think the belief Canada is a nation with its own culture and values and that this ought to be cherished and protected is a morally repugnant stance? Because I get the idea from your posts that you couldn't care less. That if we could get a million or two million or five million newcomers a year and settle them you'd be perfectly content, and not have a single care for any tradition or value or cultural artifact which got washed away.

[GostHacked]

21 hours ago, Goddess said:

I get that you think Islam bears no responsibility for it's own actions in the process that leads Muslims themselves to terrorism.  Don't really care, I'm gonna call it how I see it.  You can whitewash and cover up and excuse and blame others and be all butthurt and defensive on behalf of terrorists all you want.

 

How do you explain the fact that there are western nations supporting Islamic terrorism by supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia and then helping them invade and attack other nations, creating more Islamic terrorism?  Those nations are complicit in creating more Islamic terrorism. Canada is on that list of nations. Selling them military trucks seems like a good idea, but we now know what they are being used for. To attack other nations like Yemen and Syria.

[Shady]

5 hours ago, GostHacked said:

How do you explain the fact that there are western nations supporting Islamic terrorism by supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia and then helping them invade and attack other nations, creating more Islamic terrorism?  Those nations are complicit in creating more Islamic terrorism. Canada is on that list of nations. Selling them military trucks seems like a good idea, but we now know what they are being used for. To attack other nations like Yemen and Syria.

Who is Saudis Arabia invading?  Yemen and Syria have been bastions of terrorism for decades.  Particularly Yemen.  I’m not in favour of invading those countries. Especially Syria.  But countries in the region have a right to defend themselves from action coming out of the counties like Yemen.  I don’t believe Saudi Arabia has any intention of conquering and occupying either of those problem countries though.  Regardless, Russia and China and Iran sell them much more than just trucks.  Perhaps you’ll denounce them at some point in this forum.  I’m just hoping to be alive when and if that ever happens.

[Army Guy]

On 5/3/2019 at 7:16 PM, Jacques D. said:

Weird. Smear campaign? Trudeau? Who has seen that uber right-wing conservative ad showing Trudeau next to Trump and pretending they are alike, fault-wise? Nothing in the coming campaign, by any party, try as they might, could come up with a bigger smear than showing Trudeau next to that crotch-grabbing gross, uncouth traitor and ignoramus Donald J. Trump. 

 

On 5/3/2019 at 7:18 PM, Jacques D. said:

And this smear from a party that is a carbon copy of the far-right Republican party and whose leader, Scheer, he the friend of the NRA and member of "Rebel" applies who could be a Trump clone if only he was just a tad dumber.

Justin really does not need a smear campaign, his actions speak for themselves really. Canadians are starting to wake up, to Justins leadership, which is based on one huge lie,  …. You can't blame that on Scheer… Thats all on Justin....of course that is the liberal way , to blame their mistakes on others, How many times have we heard him stand up and compare his governments actions to that of Harpers....

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

1. But I've never said "I don't like Muslims". 

2. They do? Just what conservative do you believe I ought to be criticizing and aren't?  Surely you don't consider Taxme a conservative?

3. What aggressive, arrogant and morally repugnant stances? Give us examples.  

1. You're forgetting that you jumped in on a discussion I was having with someone else who DID say that.

2. See 1.

3. I hear a lot of whinging about 'freedom of speech' when we hear about Faith Goldy and such being booted off social media.  The idea that the white race is systematically being threatened is repugnant and baseless.  The Sun published false reports that refugees were slaughtering goats in their hotel rooms.  When they were denounced by the Press Council, they laughed it off.  I'm sad that we have to rely on Facebook and Twitter to boot Goldy and Alex Jones but if people like you spent 1/10 of the effort you spend posting to me on bad posters from your side of the fence we would actually have some faith in the marketplace of ideas.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You're forgetting that you jumped in on a discussion I was having with someone else who DID say that.

Uhm, no, I didn't. You replied to dialamah who was saying that as a shall we be kind and call it 'paraphrasing' of what she believed Goddess had said, but didn't.

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. See 1.

Yes. You're wrong.

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I hear a lot of whinging about 'freedom of speech' when we hear about Faith Goldy and such being booted off social media.  The idea that the white race is systematically being threatened is repugnant and baseless. 

There are a very few wack jobs who believe there is a conspiracy to that end. I'd hardly consider that something to worry yourself over.

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Sun published false reports that refugees were slaughtering goats in their hotel rooms.  When they were denounced by the Press Council, they laughed it off.

A tabloid made an error? Shocking. So? This is the first time that's ever happened?

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

  I'm sad that we have to rely on Facebook and Twitter to boot Goldy and Alex Jones but if people like you spent 1/10 of the effort you spend posting to me on bad posters from your side of the fence we would actually have some faith in the marketplace of ideas.

Why the F*ck would I even discuss a wack job like Alex Jones, much less feverishly watch all the dreck he pumps out in order to denounce it as the crazy people of the Left do? He's a clown to be laughed at.  He is not even remotely on my radar except when the crazy people of the Left start howling about some stupid thing he's said. Why you get so freaked out about stuff like this is beyond me. It seems that people on your side of the fence have lost all sense of proportion and priority and spend all their time searching for nonentities saying something outrageous so you can be outraged by it. And if you don't find it then you simply invent it.

"Look, that person said that a woman with a penis isn't a woman! Aaagghh! The horror! The horror! Attack! Drive them from our midst!"

"Wait! That person disrespected the Koran! Agggghhh!"

"Worse! This one wrote an academic paper which vaguely aligns with thoughts I don't like! Fire them! Fire them! Banish them from out society!!"

Nor is it my job to 'police' anyone. Unlike yourself I do not believe it's my noble duty to protect people from being offended by the bleating of asses. I'm here for entertainment purposes and to discuss issues which concern me. Sorry, but I'm not going to ignore those issues and side with the people who demonize me over them in order to attack stuff of little importance to me or anyone rational. You people who freak out because someone says something you don't like need to grow the hell up.

 

[GostHacked]

14 hours ago, Shady said:

Who is Saudis Arabia invading?  Yemen and Syria have been bastions of terrorism for decades.  Particularly Yemen.  I’m not in favour of invading those countries. Especially Syria.  But countries in the region have a right to defend themselves from action coming out of the counties like Yemen.  I don’t believe Saudi Arabia has any intention of conquering and occupying either of those problem countries though.  Regardless, Russia and China and Iran sell them much more than just trucks.  Perhaps you’ll denounce them at some point in this forum.  I’m just hoping to be alive when and if that ever happens.

Well if that does happen and I am aware of it , then I can denounce it. But since I am more likely to hear about how Saudi Arabia has used military equipment to attack Yemen that Canada sold them. I don't think there is anything I can do or say against China, but I can sure take our own government to task.

Someone has to start taking the high road, but everyone seems to be more willing to get more into the dirt.

Now with regards to Iran China and Russia, it's an excuse. One of the biggest blunders was giving arms to Saudis to fight the Soviets, but then that turned into the WTC being turned to dust. Blowback is real. And we need to be very careful of who we deal with as there is very little to no level of trust from quite a few nations. We have also sent a lot of soldiers overseas that never returned, and many more who returned with serious mental health and physical health issues. Anyways..

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/body-slams-saudi-arabia-deadly-yemen-attacks-181012070436049.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/27/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-war-tactics-yemen-humanitarian-crisis.html

Interesting map of the attacks in Yemen by Saudi Arabia.

I guess this is getting off the topic, but Trudeau has acted like a complete wuss in that whole diplomatic affair with Saudi Arabia, and that concerns me oh how he can deal with anyone else on the global stage. How he carries himself on the global stage is gotta be an embarrassment. His whole presentation is like a but-hurt sjw pretty boy who can't seem to talk in anything other than a hyperventilating condescending voice. And that's no smear, that's how he actually is.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

1. Uhm, no, I didn't. You replied to dialamah who was saying that as a shall we be kind and call it 'paraphrasing' of what she believed Goddess had said, but didn't.

2. There are a very few wack jobs who believe there is a conspiracy to that end. I'd hardly consider that something to worry yourself over.

3. A tabloid made an error? Shocking. So? This is the first time that's ever happened?

4. Why you get so freaked out about stuff like this is beyond me. It seems that people on your side of the fence have lost all sense of proportion and priority and spend all their time searching for nonentities saying something outrageous so you can be outraged by it. And if you don't find it then you simply invent it.

5. "Look, that person said that a woman with a penis isn't a woman! Aaagghh! The horror! The horror! Attack! Drive them from our midst!"

6. "Wait! That person disrespected the Koran! Agggghhh!"

7. "Worse! This one wrote an academic paper which vaguely aligns with thoughts I don't like! Fire them! Fire them! Banish them from out society!!"

8. Nor is it my job to 'police' anyone.

9. I'm here for entertainment purposes and to discuss issues which concern me.

 

 

1. I get the two of them confused ... 

2. Then why not shut them up ?  Are you worried about the few whack jobs preaching that the infidels are evil ?  I'll bet you are.

3. Good to know that you view the Sun as a lesser paper.  I will actually downgrade my assessment of them based on your point here.

4. I say the same thing about people who are always running around shreiking "Sharia Law is coming !".  I, however, will acknowledge your right to assess marginal threats as needing attention.  It's actually an amazing parallel that the alt-right and Islamist threats are ignored by left and right.  But I have come around to see that (so-called) Islamist threats to need to be addressed and deserve 'special attention'.  Why can't you say the same about the Russian-supported alt right trolls ?

5. 6. ? 

7. And with 7 you are again repeating the LIE that I want to ban ideas that I don't agree with.  You usually start to wet yourself with those kind of lies near the end of the post, when you run out of ideas.  Why don't you stuff your lies instead of repeating them over and over again.  I show you a basic amount of respect and you constantly say that I want to ban ideas because I don't agree with them.  It really makes me regret taking your posts seriously.

8. According to the 'marketplace of ideas' theory - bad ideas are shouted down and policed by the general population.  The reason I'm taking a harder line against hate speech is because soft-right types are not saying anything.  It actually is your job to be a conscientious and positive contributor to your community, in my view, or at least to post honestly to serve your reputation.   Otherwise, what's this about 'immigration is bad for Canada' ?  Why are you posting if it's not your job to make assessments of ideas and call out ideas that are harmful.

9. Ok, well you basically just said your ideas are horseshit and nobody should pay attention to them other than you, which I agree with.

 

 

 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Then why not shut them up ? 

Because if we give out the right to shut them up the mob will turn on me next. There are all kinds of people out there who want to shut down any and all voices which oppose, even marginally, progressive social and economic views. Given these are EXACTLY the people demanding we shut down the far right I'm not okay with that. I don't get to draw a line and then have the mob from the Left say that's okay and they'll never demand further censorship. Mobs don't work that way. As soon as someone ten points on the right is silenced they'll be baying for the silencing of someone 9 points to the right, then 8, then 7. Eventually they'll be baying for the likes of you to be silenced too, you know. You're not extreme enough for them.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. I say the same thing about people who are always running around shreiking "Sharia Law is coming !". 

There are very few of those. So enjoy yourself.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I, however, will acknowledge your right to assess marginal threats as needing attention. 

I don't believe I've ever worried much over Sharia being implemented in the near future. My worry is over cultural destruction by baying religious extremists - which includes the far Left, by the way. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's actually an amazing parallel that the alt-right and Islamist threats are ignored by left and right. 

No, the amazing parallel is that the Left completely ignores Islamist threats while freaking out about the alt-right, despite the latter being nearly invisible except on a few internet forums. Even the security report some of you were taking such thrill from about the supposed danger of the alt-right in Canada actually said they really weren't any danger.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But I have come around to see that (so-called) Islamist threats to need to be addressed and deserve 'special attention'.  Why can't you say the same about the Russian-supported alt right trolls ?

I'm pretty sure I have been calling for the Russian/Chinese internet, hacking and troll threat to be addressed for years. I'm the guy who says Russia is an enemy and a threat to us, remember?

But that differs from some idiots making racist noises on the internet. They're not all Russian trolls.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. And with 7 you are again repeating the LIE that I want to ban ideas that I don't agree with.

That example was speaking to the collective Left, not you in particular, but you clearly DO want to ban ideas you don't agree with - not ALL such voices - but some particular voices you don't agree with.  You will allow some voices of opposition, as long as they are not too 'dangerous' in your mind.

Mighty white of you.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

. According to the 'marketplace of ideas' theory - bad ideas are shouted down and policed by the general population. 

They mostly are. I sometimes post in just about the most right wing Canadian group on Reddit. Such stupid ideas occasionally are posted, and for the most part, are voted down or mocked. They rarely gain traction, even in that group. I have never seen an antisemitic topic there, or racist language. Lots of anti-immigration talk, mind you, but it's hardly a place a 'white supremacist' would be able to comfortably express their views. and that is the most far right Canadian group on reddit. The other Canadian groups all veer strongly to the Left (which is why I sometimes post in that one).

Your belief, then, that there is masses and masses of horrifyingly racist and white supremacist stuff out there you need to somehow put a stop to is a product of your own feverish, terrified imagination.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The reason I'm taking a harder line against hate speech is because soft-right types are not saying anything.

Maybe if the Left didn't have such a strident tendency to describe what soft-right types say as hate speech too,  we might take the time and bother to say something.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 It actually is your job to be a conscientious and positive contributor to your community, in my view, or at least to post honestly to serve your reputation. 

Which I do. But I'm not going to join you in your witch hunt for words that I don't like. I don't like a lot of words. And you know what, some of the words I don't like, you're perfectly content with. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Otherwise, what's this about 'immigration is bad for Canada' ?  Why are you posting if it's not your job to make assessments of ideas and call out ideas that are harmful.

You think I should be calling out ALL ideas on every subject that I don't like? That sounds like a lot of work. If I see something being said that's stupid I generally do reply. But like Charles, I don't read everything here, not even on the topics I post to.  What you fail to understand is that something which outrages you due to your ideological views does not similarly outrage me. I might disagree with it, but it isn't something that has me running around in circles with my arms in the air screaming in horror. I'm not into policing people's words just because they offend others. And my outrage doesn't have the same hair trigger as yours. Nazis don't outrage me. They don't even bother me much. I know there are very few of them. I'll happily mock and ridicule them if I'm allowed, but that's frowned on here, plus they're boring, so I generally put them in the ignore file.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

9. Ok, well you basically just said your ideas are horseshit and nobody should pay attention to them other than you, which I agree with.

Jesus God, but you're a sulky man these days. I say I'm here for entertainment and  to discuss issues that concern me and you get sullen and say my ideas are all horseshit then and nobody should pay attention.  WTF? Are you here for some other reason? Are you on a mission to save the world, like the other social justice warriors you seen to be morphing into?

As I said in the last post, you need to grow the hell up and stop going bug-eyed crazy over little shit.

 

[Argus]

[marcus]

On 4/13/2019 at 5:21 PM, Argus said:

And you can see how it's fueled paranoia from the weak minds of the Left, who suddenly think white supremacists are under every bed and getting ready to take over the country.

Is this paranoia as strong as the paranoia that Islam/Sharia is taking over Canada with the help of Trudeau? 

Perhaps you can ask scribblett, taxme, et al about that.

[marcus]

On 5/3/2019 at 1:09 PM, Goddess said:

Given the fact that (from Rue's links on the other thread) More than 95 percent of all suicide bombing attacks conducted worldwide are carried out by Muslim extremists

Do you think these degenerates who blow themselves up would blow themselves up if they had a plane that dropped bombs instead?

What percentage of Americans backed the Iraq war, when it was first started do you think? A war that killed thousands and thousands of innocent people by American bombs.

[Goddess]

7 hours ago, marcus said:

Do you think these degenerates who blow themselves up would blow themselves up if they had a plane that dropped bombs instead?

Yes, they would.  Martyrdom is the ultimate golden ticket for them.  Martyrs are their heroes.

[WestCanMan]

On 5/3/2019 at 3:16 PM, Jacques D. said:

Weird. Smear campaign? Trudeau? Who has seen that uber right-wing conservative ad showing Trudeau next to Trump and pretending they are alike, fault-wise? Nothing in the coming campaign, by any party, try as they might, could come up with a bigger smear than showing Trudeau next to that crotch-grabbing gross, uncouth traitor and ignoramus Donald J. Trump. 

Are you kidding Jacques? I know that insulting Trump is cool but stick to the truth and keep things in proportion.

If crotch-grabbing was one of Trudeau's main flaws (and he has been credibly accused of grabbing) we'd be laughing. It turns out that giving away huge gobs of money and loving terrorists are two of Trudeau's main faults. 

How do you call Trump a traitor? Is he paying off terrorists and pandering to them like Trudeau is? Is he giving American money away for no apparent reason? Allowing terrorists to come back to the US to walk free? Decimating the US gas and oil industry on multiple fronts while allowing foreign oil into the country with no problems whatsoever? Does Trump constantly denigrate everyday Americans? Is Trump thwarting the democratic process in the US like Trudeau is doing in Canada (if you recall Trump's administration just spent two years jumping through hoops re: the collusion hoax, Trudeau just leaned on his AG and then fired her to get his own way)?

Your opinions are coming out on the wrong side of history J. 

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yes, they would.  Martyrdom is the ultimate golden ticket for them.  Martyrs are their heroes.

I suspect that if they did have access to planes and bombs, they'd use them.  They might even adjust the definition of martyr to encompass those who kill infidels and not just those who die.  Kind of how they've adjusted the meaning of jihad to mean offensive war against others, and not an internal struggle, or defensive war.