Should USA's Dem Party be, disbanded, for occupying the Congress with a hoax impeachment & trial, Nov-Jan? Instead of COVID-19?

[WestCanMan]

On 4/1/2020 at 5:00 PM, Argus said:

Given the bloated orange idiot in charge ignored everything about the virus for months, your question seems pointedly silly. And even HE says he wouldn't have done anything different about the virus if the impeachment trial wasn't on.

No, it should immediately outlaw morons from running for official office.

Jan 31 he banned passengers who had been to China within 14 days from entering the US. That's 45 days before our PM did even one single thing.

We had no social distancing guidelines, no bans on travel, no anything at all that would indicate that we were trying to stop a pandemic from ravaging our coutry. People could get off a plane from China, walk through our crowded airports with no mask or gloves,  they didn't have to self-quarantine if they didn't want, they could ride the transit system all day if they wanted and then go eat at any restaurant in the country. Right up until March 19th. 

Can you tell me even one real action that our village idiot took prior to March 19th? He did make comments about how banning travel was racist and it didn't work, and he said that our risk was low, etc. Seems like our country, our whole economy is shut down now. So tell, me, was "Do absolutely nothing differently until March 19th" a winning strategy?

 

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, Tdot said:

 

Again...I regret to inform you sir, that your massive Misery and your nefarious Narcissism, have made you indefinitely ineligible to receive meaningful messages from me.

They asked me once to get information from a Russian. I said why would I want  a dose of syphilis....nah I prefer getting info from people with two eye brows. 

I get my timing from the greatest   Marxist, Groucho.

Edited April 3, 2020 by Rue

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, Rue said:

With friends like that y'all need to count on us ancient ones to remind you that bein cozy with Vladimir is just like  a bad case of hemmeroids. 

With friends like the Demmies? I'm not sure what friends you're talking about.

I'd trust Putin more than Trudeau, Biden, AOC, Omar, M Waters, Schiff or Pelosi. Those guys are only ahead of Khomeini, Ahmedinajad & the UN.

[Rue]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Jan 31 he banned passengers who had been to China within 14 days from entering the US. That's 45 days before our PM did even one single thing.

We had no social distancing guidelines, no bans on travel, no anything at all that would indicate that we were trying to stop a pandemic from ravaging our coutry. People could get off a plane from China, walk through our crowded airports with no mask or gloves,  they didn't have to self-quarantine if they didn't want, they could ride the transit system all day if they wanted and then go eat at any restaurant in the country. Right up until March 19th. 

Can you tell me even one real action that our village idiot took prior to March 19th? He did make comments about how banning travel was racist and it didn't work, and he said that our risk was low, etc. Seems like our country, our whole economy is shut down now. So tell, me, was "Do absolutely nothing differently until March 19th" a winning strategy?

 

It raises questions with many governments and their preparation. With the exception of South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, all governments were caught off guard.

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, Tdot said:

A dictatorship?! For banning a lawless, treacherous group?!!!

<yikes!> 

sounds like Pakistan or Assyria lol

There would be 1 party left in the US. When the party chose their own leader, that person would become President. There aren't enough Libertarians to fill a football stadium. 

[Rue]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

With friends like the Demmies? I'm not sure what friends you're talking about.

I'd trust Putin more than Trudeau, Biden, AOC, Omar, M Waters, Schiff or Pelosi. Those guys are only ahead of Khomeini, Ahmedinajad & the UN.

Then you are very naive about Putin...and equating Trudeau et al to those you have is extremist bullshit..  and should be no surprise it attracts Russian dung flies looking to hatch their eggs on this forum. 

[Scott Mayers]

8 minutes ago, Tdot said:

27 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I say that you are a propagandist seeking to present a false case  

According to this logic, all truth is propaganda. So please, provide evidence that somehow now 'the truth' is meaningless if someone can run up claiming that it is propaganda.  

How does this follow? If you are a "propagandist", how does this imply that what you have to say requires proving is false? 

The very nature of the anti-Democratic views you hold means you favor non-democratic means to invoke what is or is not 'true'. "Republics" are also potential dictatorships because the concept means that some people are more 'wiser' to lead over the masses who are assumed less intellectually able to run such a system. 

Before attempting to dislodge some positon of the Demcratic party as some whole, you need to establish how a 'democratic' position is less valid than a 'dictatorial' one that represents the purist form of 'republic' ("republic" means 'for the public', but not necessarily BY the public's support because it transfers this duty to a select subset of people presumed above the rest.)

Before establishing who IS lying, you need to provide a justification for how your own 'side' is impervious to lying when the very philosophy of yours REQUIRES selling and packaging ideas with a belief that it is alright to lie. For instance, the right-wing ideology believes in the Darwinian competition in economics. It believes that it is alright for one to FALSELY present an issue in order to PROFIT from it. 

If you can express HOW your philosophy is dependent on 'truth' over the democratic population's capacity to reason, then we might be able to get to the deeper issues of any particular cases you assert is fraudulent of the people as a whole.

[Tdot]

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There would be 1 party left in the US.

That's unfair of you, eh? To treat the USA's Independent & Green parties that way? 

[Rue]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There would be 1 party left in the US. When the party chose their own leader, that person would become President. There aren't enough Libertarians to fill a football stadium. 

Teaching democratic precepts to a Putinski. This is hilarious. Oh Canada we stand on guard for thee..true patriot love in all thy beavers command...

[Rue]

3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

How does this follow? If you are a "propagandist", how does this imply that what you have to say requires proving is false? 

The very nature of the anti-Democratic views you hold means you favor non-democratic means to invoke what is or is not 'true'. "Republics" are also potential dictatorships because the concept means that some people are more 'wiser' to lead over the masses who are assumed less intellectually able to run such a system. 

Before attempting to dislodge some positon of the Demcratic party as some whole, you need to establish how a 'democratic' position is less valid than a 'dictatorial' one that represents the purist form of 'republic' ("republic" means 'for the public', but not necessarily BY the public's support because it transfers this duty to a select subset of people presumed above the rest.)

Before establishing who IS lying, you need to provide a justification for how your own 'side' is impervious to lying when the very philosophy of yours REQUIRES selling and packaging ideas with a belief that it is alright to lie. For instance, the right-wing ideology believes in the Darwinian competition in economics. It believes that it is alright for one to FALSELY present an issue in order to PROFIT from it. 

If you can express HOW your philosophy is dependent on 'truth' over the democratic population's capacity to reason, then we might be able to get to the deeper issues of any particular cases you assert is fraudulent of the people as a whole.

Well said. I prefer just to moon him.

[Tdot]

19 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

How does this follow? If you are a "propagandist", how does this imply that what you have to say requires proving is false? 

The very nature of the anti-Democratic views you hold means you favor non-democratic means to invoke what is or is not 'true'. "Republics" are also potential dictatorships because the concept means that some people are more 'wiser' to lead over the masses who are assumed less intellectually able to run such a system. 

Before attempting to dislodge some positon of the Demcratic party as some whole, you need to establish how a 'democratic' position is less valid than a 'dictatorial' one that represents the purist form of 'republic' ("republic" means 'for the public', but not necessarily BY the public's support because it transfers this duty to a select subset of people presumed above the rest.)

Before establishing who IS lying, you need to provide a justification for how your own 'side' is impervious to lying when the very philosophy of yours REQUIRES selling and packaging ideas with a belief that it is alright to lie. For instance, the right-wing ideology believes in the Darwinian competition in economics. It believes that it is alright for one to FALSELY present an issue in order to PROFIT from it. 

If you can express HOW your philosophy is dependent on 'truth' over the democratic population's capacity to reason, then we might be able to get to the deeper issues of any particular cases you assert is fraudulent of the people as a whole.

Okay, I can respect that.  You claimed that I made a false case here, then you provided no evidence no proofs no nothing to validate your false claim ---therefore I thank you, for saving me the time of defining what you represent here.

[Tdot]

33 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

... Putin ...

Speaking of Russia ...

The Dem's treachery onto the USA's Democracy, allows them to praise Obama for his relations with a foreign enemy ---but then they try to impeach Trump when they feel he's doing the same thing as Obama did with that same foreign enemy:

 

 

[Scott Mayers]

Just now, Tdot said:

Okay, I can respect that.  You claimed that I made a false case here, then you provided no evidence no proofs no nothing to validate your false claim ---therefore I thank you, for saving me the time of defining what you represent here.

You need to first present why you are more credible. But when you assert something STRICTLY by one side (versus a particular issue unbiased to one's politics). The fact that you are siding strictly with the side that BELIEVES intrinsically in lying as a trivial occupational hazzard of breathing, then you are suspect to anything you say. 

Why should we have default faith in someone who believes in stealing as an occupation to tell us who else is or is not a 'thief', for instance? You'd have to accept the expected burden to prove why we should trust you on PRINCIPLE alone. Otherwise, your credibility is dubious.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

Then you are very naive about Putin...and equating Trudeau et al to those you have is extremist bullshit..  and should be no surprise it attracts Russian dung flies looking to hatch their eggs on this forum. 

Putin is like a shark or a snake. You know what you're getting. 

I can "trust" Putin in a way because I know that he will only do what works out best for his country in the long run. As long as his needs run parallel with ours he can be relied on in a limited way. Much like Stalin could be relied on to fight the Nazis, Putin can be counted to act a certain way.

Trudeau is the exact opposite. You could never count on him to do the right thing for Canadians at any point in time, but he's not up front about it. 

As an example, my ex had a couple friends I hated. One was a huge slut who never pretended to be anything but (I found out she had a threesome in her sauna while she was married, with 2 of her neighbours, just a total pig). The other pretended to be a Christian, but she was just as much of a whore. I never had to tell the first one off because there was no point, it was just like a joke with her. There was an understanding. I had to put the other one in her place right in front of her kid one day when I went to pick him up to bring him to his dad's place. She threatened to call the cops on me. It was epic. But it felt so good. I never felt bad about it for a single second of my life.

Trudeau is slut #2. The hypocrit/slut. You literally just want to puke when those two start pontificating. It's bizarre. 

[Rue]

14 minutes ago, Tdot said:

Okay, I can respect that.  You claimed that I made a false case here, then you provided no evidence no proofs no nothing to validate your false claim ---therefore I thank you, for saving me the time of defining what you represent here.

...Paul Henderson...Yvon Cournoyer...Phil Esposito...you want some more...theirs names are  etched all over your butt....

 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Rue

[Tdot]

38 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You need to first present why you are more credible.

 

This statement is not based in, logic, as it pretends I somehow made up the facts.  I didn't make up the facts, I only commented on them.

For example, if Biden is on video (recently) bragging about being corrupt in Ukraine ---how did you determine that it is my fault? How did you decide you should be mad, at me?----because Biden has basically disqualified himself from being a future president.

Edited April 3, 2020 by Tdot

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Putin is like a shark or a snake. You know what you're getting. 

I can "trust" Putin in a way because I know that he will only do what works out best for his country in the long run. As long as his needs run parallel with ours he can be relied on in a limited way. Much like Stalin could be relied on to fight the Nazis, Putin can be counted to act a certain way.

Trudeau is the exact opposite. You could never count on him to do the right thing for Canadians at any point in time, but he's not up front about it. 

As an example, my ex had a couple friends I hated. One was a huge slut who never pretended to be anything but (I found out she had a threesome in her sauna while she was married, with 2 of her neighbours, just a total pig). The other pretended to be a Christian, but she was just as much of a whore. I never had to tell the first one off because there was no point, it was just like a joke with her. There was an understanding. I had to put the other one in her place right in front of her kid one day when I went to pick him up to bring him to his dad's place. She threatened to call the cops on me. It was epic. But it felt so good. I never felt bad about it for a single second of my life.

Trudeau is slut #2. The hypocrit/slut. You literally just want to puke when those two start pontificating. It's bizarre. 

Slow down Wes. He is no traitor.  His motives are not treasonous or treacherous. I question his policies too but to call him a traitor is bullshit. He is motivated by genuine intent to do what he thinks is right. 

If I had a choice between him and Harper I choose Harper but please referring to him as a traitor or whore is extremist name 

NO I do not agree with much of what Trump does either  and I have equated his rhetoric with that of totalitarian dictators and loatyedchis dalliances with totalitarian dictators Erdogan, Putin,  and Kin Jung Mussolini but I give him the same benefit of doubt during this crisis as I do Trudeau.  

Putin? If you are at a place and time you equate Putin with being an ally of the US like Stalin was you need to shake your head man.

Stalin only became an ally when Hitler attacked Russia. He had no problem going into Poland with Nazis and committing crimes of inhumanity against Poles. He massacred millions of Ukrainians and other innocent Russians, Georgians, on and on. He was as evil as Hitler and never a genuine ally like Churchill, just an ally of convenience, and if you want to pretend you  do not know the difference then not much I can say.

Churchill never turned his back on Stalin and neither did Patton, Trump's hero.

Trump's dalliances with Putin, Erdogan, Kim Jung, make a mockery of what the US  fought against and defeated. 

What makes any country admirable is a willingness to put partisanship to the side and work together for the greater good during a time of crisis.

Look at how some fly flew in the window to lay eggs in the shit. That is all flinging it does.

 

 

 

[Tdot]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Jan 31 he banned passengers who had been to China within 14 days from entering the US...

 

This is a very forthright thing to say.  Your integrity is noteworthy here.

Edited April 3, 2020 by Tdot

[Rue]

16 minutes ago, Tdot said:

 

This statement is not based in, logic, as it pretends I somehow made up the facts.  I didn't make up the facts, I only commented on them.

For example, if Biden is on video (recently) bragging about being corrupt in Ukraine ---how did you determine that it is my fault? How did you decide you should be mad, at me?----because Biden has basically disqualified himself from being a future president.

You posited subjective opinions trying compose them as facts to incite anger and conflict between forum members. You fabricate the existence of a video and its contents. You engage in lame ass Russian rhetoric. 

The only unfortunate thing is Wes is so blinded by his hatred of Trudeau he can't see how you pose as Trump ally when you have asmuch contempt for Trump, all of the US and Canada as Wes claims he has for Trudeau. 

I defer to Mr. Mayer, I have grown truly bored with your cold war recycling project. Go penetrate some Northern air space.

[Scott Mayers]

32 minutes ago, Tdot said:

 

This statement is not based in, logic, as it pretends I somehow made up the facts.  I didn't make up the facts, I only commented on them.

For example, if Biden is on video (recently) bragging about being corrupt in Ukraine ---how did you determine that it is my fault? How did you decide you should be mad, at me?----because Biden has basically disqualified himself from being a future president.

You  need to establish that your logical position is not one that believes in pragmatic tactics to profit from in principle before you expect to be trusted by default. 

For your "example", this is not established as true simply for YOU saying it. But you are also still not recognizing that you lack credibility on principle of your extrreme advocacy of the alternative.

TEST of 'principle':

Quote

 

You learn that your neighbor has an artifact in his basement that is priceless even though he doesn't seem to know it. You decide to ask him if you could buy it for a dollar, knowing that it is worth $100,000. 

Is it alright to NOT tell your neighbor of this while knowing yourself of what he will lose for your deception? If you think that you aren't lying, what would you say if this neighbor asked you if you would pay for it what you think it is worth?

 

 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Scott Mayers

[Tdot]

20 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You  need to establish that your logical position is not one that believes in pragmatic tactics to profit from in principle before you expect to be trusted by default. 

For your "example", this is not established as true simply for YOU saying it. But you are also still not recognizing that you lack credibility on principle of your extrreme advocacy of the alternative.

TEST of 'principle':

 

Okay.

[bush_cheney2004]

25 minutes ago, Rue said:

Trump's dalliances with Putin, Erdogan, Kim Jung, make a mockery of what the US  fought against and defeated.

 

This is just more of the same partisan flinging....the U.S. has no alliances with Putin or Kim, but Erdogan is part of NATO, also allied with Canada.

You do not speak for what the US stands for....then or now.

Edited April 3, 2020 by bush_cheney2004

[Scott Mayers]

21 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

TEST of 'principle':

Quote

 

You learn that your neighbor has an artifact in his basement that is priceless even though he doesn't seem to know it. You decide to ask him if you could buy it for a dollar, knowing that it is worth $100,000. 

Is it alright to NOT tell your neighbor of this while knowing yourself of what he will lose for your deception? If you think that you aren't lying, what would you say if this neighbor asked you if you would pay for it what you think it is worth?

 

 

12 minutes ago, Tdot said:

Okay.

Okay what? Answer the challenge. You are only proving that you are trying to deceive by how you respond. I need to establish where you stand on what it is like to be 'honest' and 'fair'. What would you do in this example situation based upon your political philosophy?

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Rue said:

Slow down Wes. He is no traitor.  His motives are not treasonous or treacherous. I question his policies too but to call him a traitor is bullshit.

If I smuggled 25-30 terrorists into the country would that make me a traitor?

Why is it any better when he renames them "fighters" and just legalizes their war crimes? 

[Tdot]

9 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

...Answer the challenge...

No, it is time for you to answer the challenge.  

 

You made a deceitful remark, that I am presenting a false case ---so I challenged you to prove your claim.  You have continually refused to.

I am still waiting.  You can start here: