What is wrong with today's Conservatives?

[myata]

Just now, Perspektiv said:

You don't.

No you will not lie your way out here. This is not about the victim, but the thug, aggressive, brutal and murderous. Do you stand up and force them to stop, or against helping the victim, so that you may become the next one?

All of this is already known, no new insights only about you. So, which one?

[Perspektiv]

1 minute ago, myata said:

All the bloody Russia propaganda points. 

What about the US propaganda points?

War is all propaganda. Notice how Ukraine losses are seldom reported in the west?

Facing a bully? Thats propaganda. 

Winning the war? Ukraine knows it will not, but needs you sold on it being able to, to secure government funding.

Russian aggression is for no reason.

All talking points. 

[Perspektiv]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Do you stand up and force them to stop

You don't force Russia to stop. 

You arm yourself to the teeth, to deter them seeing you as prey.

Ukraine didn't stand a chance without US help. That right there tells you that in the long game, the tide would favor Russia. 

Ukraine could have only detered this, by having weapons that rival Russia's.

Otherwise, the only solution to me, would be diplomatic ones. 

Not adding fuel to fire, like they did with their tough talk against Putin.

Zelensky doesn't sound as confident now. He knows he messed up but needs to hold appearances of strength, when he knows his men are getting slaughtered. There will be no major offensives.

Their weapons aren't to gain land, they are merely to buy time. Survival.

If this is the crushing defeat Russia must face, you need to accept you are using propaganda and talking points. 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

You don't force Russia to stop.

So that has to be your honest answer. OK. Everything you say was done before, you can't tell anything new. France and Great Britain had many arms and thought it would deter. But the bully thought differently. Are you speaking, and thinking for him, the modern Hitler now? You don't force Hitler to stop. You don't stand up to modern Hitlers. Why couldn't you just say that? Why so many useless words while it's so easy to see where you're standing, and going?

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, myata said:

France and Great Britain had many arms and thought it would deter.

Nothing like their nuclear arsenal now.

France and England have enough nukes to wipe Russia from the map, as do the US. 

Attacking either, would be suicide. Precisely why Putin hasn't dared to.

War is calculated aggression.

Ukraine was a soft target. 

Taiwan is a target protected by its environment. IE mountainous terrain, surrounded by water. Not only this, they have advanced weaponry.

They would be a tough target to take out. Especially so, since the US has interests there, so potentially would join the fight.

There is a reason China would rather take it by political means than military.

1 hour ago, myata said:

You don't force Hitler to stop.

But you bring him crushing and humiliating defeat and they humble themselves by cowering their way out.

There will be no such crushing defeat at the hands of Ukraine.

So trying to play the long game favors Russia, as stated.

The only way out of this conflict for Ukraine, is via dialogue.

Meaning negotiation, and putting in measures to prevent a repeat.

Useless words, are ones pointing to a Ukraine victory.

[myata]

55 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

There will be no such crushing defeat at the hands of Ukraine.

You mean you won't do that is necessary for it? That means, you would help making it happen. And that means helping Hitler of our time. How else can one read that: with objectivity, honesty and the right mind?

57 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The only way out of this conflict for Ukraine, is via dialogue.

No, there's no point going any further. You just said there can be no negotiations with Hitler and back again. Brain dead muzak, the reality does not exist. Sure. But that was your choice, remember. Nobody made you.

[myata]

Here's what happening here: it's a contradiction between some notions of the right and decency you still have and the dogma that you cannot disobey (but chose yourself entirely voluntarily out of free will). The former tells you that you have to stand up to an aggressive, brutal bully: you know there are no other ways, really. But the buffoon dogma tells you that you cannot support those who dare to stand up. A contradiction. Cannot be reconciled by any number of deceitful and misleading words you're trying to pile. No you can't have it both ways: you stand up to a thug; or you cower to him. No other verbal ways. Simple, no?

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, myata said:

You mean you won't do that is necessary for it?

Like what, continue to fight a futile conflict to teach a lesson to someone who clearly isn't learning with his progress on the battlefield?

2 hours ago, myata said:

And that means helping Hitler of our time

Anyone buying from Russia, is helping Russia.

Canada still buys from Russia. The US still buys from Russia.

Ripping that bandaid off, is how you hurt them, but the pain is twofold. Politicians need votes.

Tough talking politicians are just that. 

2 hours ago, myata said:

No, there's no point going any further.

You can negotiate a ceasefire. There is no trusting that he won't attack again, so you would need to defend yourself.

There needs to be measures in place to ensure he respects the signed documents, and I don't see how this can be done without NATO or the US physically assisting with things.

 

 

 

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Prove it. 

You're otherwise trolling because you're angry about me being able to speak positively about the man.

Prove what?

[myata]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

There is no trusting that he won't attack again, so you would need to defend yourself.

You stop fighting to defend yourself to defend yourself? This is just abracadabra, nonsense. You're going in circles only because the dogma does not let you admit the obvious, 100% solid and established fact: you have to stand up to Hitlers. There's no other way to remain who you are, and free.

[I am Groot]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't believe this. I have a lot of working class friends, if I can assume your meaning, and none of them possess clearly considered racial theories, let alone would speak them, let alone would video themselves talking about them.

I doubt more than a handful of people in that crowd had any either. But you know very well it attracted a bunch of malcontents as it headed east, people who were angry at not just government policy but everything about government. Most of them were just blue-collar dudes. And hasn't it been your enunciated belief that you can't judge all members of a group by the actions of a few?

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Ok, if you think so, but people could reasonably call someone a racist for doing that.

Only if they don't speak English well enough to know what the word 'racist' means.

Islam is not a race. Islam is a list of moral and legal requirements the faithful must obey that were literally written in medieval times and have never changed. Of course they can be insulted, mocked and ridiculed. A dog touches you and you need to undergo a ritual bath? WTH? You can beat your wife but keep the stick small and don't hit her face? Huh? Don't ever make friends with anyone not a Muslim, but you can pretend to as part of Islam's plan to take over. Seriously? And let's not even get into cutting the hands off thieves, stoning adulterers or executing apostates. All religions have ridiculous things in them but as Sam Harris has said the others have modernized considerably and figured out how to reconcile the more barbaric and 1diotic things in their holy books with modern times. Islam never has. 

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Of course.

If we hadn't been able to start questioning the wisdom of the priests and what they preached, if we hadn't seen centuries of jokes, mockery and then outright open disagreement with the Catholic Church we wouldn't have Western society. It led to the Reformation, and the rise of science and technology, and pulled us into a more secular society.

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. The big problem was that their list of demands was looney tunes, and showed that they weren't able to be reasonable.

Mostly agree. As I said, all sorts of people tagged along and the leadership was never set, nor their demands so it all became a grab bag of angry nonsense. I was not a supporter and wanted them out after a single day. That they were allowed to stay as long as they were was symbolic of weak leadership among police and politicians at all levels. The Ottawa Police Chief, the Ottawa police services board, and the mayor were all gone soon after.

[I am Groot]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I don't think he cared one way or another. They did very little. Now they're saying they prefer biden.

And whether he liked them or not there's about a million miles difference between that and showing he's some master strategist working on behalf of putin and russia in a secret alliance.  Yeash.

NO ONE has ever accused Trump of being a master strategist at anything whatsoever. But is he afraid of Putin? Clearly. It shows in how he's never, ever even slightly insulted the man, but has insulted just about every other world leader, not to mention every congressional and senate leader, every governor and every celebrity.

It shows in how he acted when around him, like a child trying to please daddy, or afraid of daddy's disapproval. Even when this was not politically wise, when it caused consternation among Republicans, never mind the public at large. Trump's history is he does nothing whatever except for personal advantage. Why would he act like that around Putin otherwise?

Edited February 21 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

That would be nuclear warfare if so.

Ukraine war should have never happened.

The US respects China's position on Taiwan. China also has a military powerful enough to inflict heavy handed damage to the US, and totally destroy Taiwan or grind their economy to a halt, in toying with them regarding their power.

China is the epitome of a bully. Where is the US denouncing this? 

The US has been busy building up its bases around China, esp in northern Philipines and Okinawa in preparation for interceding if the Chinese attack Taiwan. They've made it clear to China that they will do so, not just by words but by actions.

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

It doesn't respect Russia, and as a result for this had Ukraine talking far too confidently thinking they would get heavy handed backup from the US.

The US was never going to confront Russia directly over Ukraine. Unlike with China and Taiwan, Russian occupation of Ukraine doesn't directly impact or threaten the US. The helped arm and train the Ukrainian military, though, which made an obvious difference. 

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Ukraine is paying a heavy price for this "standing up to a bully", which is nothing more than the US goal of defeating Russia via proxy war.

Standing up to the bully how? They weren't doing anything to provoke the bully in the first place.

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You don't force Russia to stop. 

You arm yourself to the teeth, to deter them seeing you as prey.

Ukraine didn't stand a chance without US help. That right there tells you that in the long game, the tide would favor Russia. 

Ukraine could have only detered this, by having weapons that rival Russia's.

No. You can deter an enemy by making it too costly to make you worth attacking. This is why Switzerland sat out WW2. Could the Germans have taken them? Sure. But the cost wouldn't have been worth the price. Russia and most of the rest of the world thought it'd all be over in a weekend. The US offered Zelensky a plane ride out the next day because they figured it would be all over in no time. If the Russians had had any idea what this would cost they never would have invaded in the first place.

Edited February 21 by I am Groot

[Perspektiv]

46 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Prove what?

Exactly. No proof.

33 minutes ago, myata said:

you have to stand up to Hitlers.

You can stand up all you want. You must have the firepower and bark to back them down, or that tough talk or "standing up" will be futile. 

China bullied Taiwan, launching missiles surrounding their country, essentially showing the world how effortlessly that they could grind this economy to a halt without killing a soul. 

They bully others within their borders in the ocean to assert themselves and their influence. The US at times have talked tough, but countries like the Philippines who started sharpening their rhetoric, understand the US would not be willing to start a global conflict over this, so would be on their own.

Something Ukraine didn't calculate when talking tough to Russia.

How do you stand up to a bully like this? 

The reality, is you don't. Strategic ambiguity is to avoid angering China.

The US is incredibly calculated as to who they stand up to, and who they give virtual free range to.

Russia has nothing to do with protecting someone being bullied. 

Sanctions don't do a thing. Its just a way of socially shaming someone on a global and political scale.

If you actually look at the paperwork, Putin himself is largely unscathed.

People pouring money into his country, are untouched.

You're believing what you're told.

This war is a proxy and an opportunistic attempt to attempt to destroy Putin.

Putin has an army the US could defeat. Nukes they could likely not.

Russia knows the US wouldn't dare such a move, so they move with nobody other than the mere pushback they receive from Ukraine to stop them.

They are essentially moving like people unafraid of the consequences they are facing.

You feeling this is crushing them is propaganda at best.

Why you think the west profusely shows Russian deaths and tread lightly on Ukrainian one's?

You are a politican and need to sell your cause, for support.

Whoever has the best PR likely will get most support.

You go to war for your own interests. Not to help others.

[myata]

17 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Trump's history is he does nothing whatever except for personal advantage. Why would he act like that around Putin otherwise?

Makes me just as curious: can it be that pure, innocent lo.. OK, affinity. Of has to be there something more to it, real and physical?

[I am Groot]

11 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Exactly. No proof.

Of what, you loon?

[I am Groot]

11 minutes ago, myata said:

Makes me just as curious: can it be that pure, innocent lo.. OK, affinity. Of has to be there something more to it, real and physical?

He doesn't respect short men. Putin is short and by all rights Trump ought to have been heard or recorded mocking him at one point or another. But nothing. I'm sure Putin has dirt on him. As I've said before, Trump spent decades as a crooked real estate guy. And in the end he was broke - according to himself. And according to Don Jr it was the Russians that saved their company. How? By investing/lending money, of course. And how much of it came from shady sources? How much was sanctions-busting or money-laundering? Trump wouldn't have thought twice about doing that if he thought he'd get away with it.

[Moonbox]

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Putin is much worse than Trudeau, but they're both power-hungry and controlling narcissists who punish dissent and don't respect democracy.  They lie constantly and don't want to be held accountable for anything.  People who generally support either of them are crappy people in my estimation.

People who draw comparisons between Trudeau and Putin are being lazy thinkers, in my estimation.  Acknowledging that Putin is "much worse" is a pretty flimsy qualification whilst trying to say they're similar.  

"Yeah, like, Putin's critics all fall out of balconies, get shot on the streets, die of nerve agent and radioactive poisons, or their plans hit the ground prematurely, but Justin Trudeau demoted JWR from her cabinet position!"

Oooof.  

 

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

People who draw comparisons between Trudeau and Putin are being lazy thinkers, in my estimation.  Acknowledging that Putin is "much worse" is a pretty flimsy qualification whilst trying to say they're similar.  

"Yeah, like, Putin's critics all fall out of balconies, get shot on the streets, die of nerve agent and radioactive poisons, or their plans hit the ground prematurely, but Justin Trudeau demoted JWR from her cabinet position!"

Oooof.  

 

They have similarities and differences, which I outlined.  What is the problem in understanding that exactly?  Trudeau doesn't commit violence against political opponents.  He is a corrupt bully who punishes dissent.

Trudeau unethically pressured the AG to get a corporation in the city of his riding off the hook legally, and when she wouldn't do it he punished her with demotion and replaced her, then when she blew the whistle he spearheaded the effort to get her kicked out of the party, then lied about it.  Are the Russian oligarchs treated much differently?

[Moonbox]

18 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

They have similarities and differences, which I outlined.  What is the problem in understanding that exactly?  Trudeau doesn't commit violence against political opponents.  He is a corrupt bully who punishes dissent.

Labradoodles and Komodo Dragons also have similarities and differences which can be outlined.  The reason nobody compares them is because it's absurd.  The same is true for comparing Trudeau and Putin, but lazy thinking and emotional bias can make this an appealing crutch.  

46 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Trudeau unethically pressured the AG to get a corporation in the city of his riding off the hook legally, and when she wouldn't do it he punished her with demotion and replaced her, then when she blew the whistle he spearheaded the effort to get her kicked out of the party, then lied about it.  Are the Russian oligarchs treated much differently?

Uh, yes?  They get assassinated.  

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, myata said:

How do they get to it? What's the benefit, in mindless jumping and cheering?

Shits and giggles. Like a bunch of kids gathering around a school yard fight. That's it. It's no deeper or mystifying than that.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

1. I doubt more than a handful of people in that crowd had any either.
2. But you know very well it attracted a bunch of malcontents as it headed east, people who were angry at not just government policy but everything about government.
3. Most of them were just blue-collar dudes.
4. And hasn't it been your enunciated belief that you can't judge all members of a group by the actions of a few?
5a. Only if they don't speak English well enough to know what the word 'racist' means.

5b. Islam is not a race. Islam is a list of moral and legal requirements the faithful must obey that were literally written in medieval times and have never changed. Of course they can be insulted, mocked and ridiculed. A dog touches you and you need to undergo a ritual bath? WTH? You can beat your wife but keep the stick small and don't hit her face? Huh? Don't ever make friends with anyone not a Muslim, but you can pretend to as part of Islam's plan to take over. Seriously? And let's not even get into cutting the hands off thieves, stoning adulterers or executing apostates. All religions have ridiculous things in them but as Sam Harris has said the others have modernized considerably and figured out how to reconcile the more barbaric and 1diotic things in their holy books with modern times. Islam never has. 

6. If we hadn't been able to start questioning the wisdom of the priests and what they preached, if we hadn't seen centuries of jokes, mockery and then outright open disagreement with the Catholic Church we wouldn't have Western society. It led to the Reformation, and the rise of science and technology, and pulled us into a more secular society.

7. Mostly agree. As I said, all sorts of people tagged along and the leadership was never set, nor their demands so it all became a grab bag of angry nonsense. I was not a supporter and wanted them out after a single day. That they were allowed to stay as long as they were was symbolic of weak leadership among police and politicians at all levels. The Ottawa Police Chief, the Ottawa police services board, and the mayor were all gone soon after.

1. Me too. 
2. Yes, most certainly I agree with this.
3. Arguable.  Firstly, "dudes"... a lot of them were women.  As for 'blue collar', who's to say ?  From the friends of mine - yes friends, not acquaintences - that went, they were Native, Jewish, white, and non-politically-aligned... either unfamiliar with politics as convention or conspiracy-minded... but all were working people who got a paycheck or ran their own home based businesses.
4. Of course I believe this.  This is why I was with the majority of Canadians who simultaneously empathized with the convoy but did not support their cause.
5a. I didn't say whether it would be accurate, I said it would be reasonable to use that word to describe them.  Reasonable ie. arguable.  And aren't you the guy who calls people "groomers" ie. "child molestors" if they teach sex-ed or some shit ?  Far be it for you to push your glasses down your nose and start lecturing people on word usage my friend.  It would be "reasonable" to call the leadership racist based on Pat King and the others who have made questionable statements.  I wouldn't say that it's "reasonable" to call everybody who attended the protest racist or to call the protest racist... Trudeau himself was ambiguous in what he was saying on that, also being sneaky as to say it in French to a French audience...
5b. Fine.  Based on our previous agreement on who gets to define truth for the other... my take on this is that you hate Muslims... Fine... But your dirty little side-rant is not germane to how Conservatives relate to the convoy which is what we're talking about IMO.  
6. Well... not sure whether to keep ridiculing you or keep going with this but I doubt jokes about protestants had as much to do with the Reformation as Guttenberg, Martin Luther, Henry VIII.  And while I think 'denigration' is wrong, I think 'criticism' is absolutely ok.  So, not sure if you're looking to trip me up on some inconsistency there but that's where I stand on it.
7. I agree with your characterization here.

[myata]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's no deeper or mystifying than that.

To a complete loss of intelligence and conscience? That happens to the kids, allright.

[I am Groot]

On 2/21/2024 at 1:18 PM, Michael Hardner said:

3. Arguable.  Firstly, "dudes"... a lot of them were women.  As for 'blue collar', who's to say ?  From the friends of mine - yes friends, not acquaintences - that went, they were Native, Jewish, white, and non-politically-aligned... either unfamiliar with politics as convention or conspiracy-minded... but all were working people who got a paycheck or ran their own home based businesses.

I don't think we really have a point of contention here. They weren't a bunch of Nazis and racists.

On 2/21/2024 at 1:18 PM, Michael Hardner said:

5a. I didn't say whether it would be accurate, I said it would be reasonable to use that word to describe them.  Reasonable ie. arguable. 

You can 'argue' almost anything. That doesn't mean trying to depict them as a bunch of terrible people, as the government most certainly did was in any way fair.

On 2/21/2024 at 1:18 PM, Michael Hardner said:

And aren't you the guy who calls people "groomers" ie. "child molestors" if they teach sex-ed or some shit ? 

I don't believe I've ever used that word. I'm fully in favour of sex ed. I'm not, however, in favor of teaching nine year olds that they're not actually the gender they thought they were, or that they could switch at any time, or the rest of that nonsensical anti-biology, anti-science, anti-reality screed the progressives are insisting on today.

On 2/21/2024 at 1:18 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Far be it for you to push your glasses down your nose and start lecturing people on word usage my friend.  It would be "reasonable" to call the leadership racist based on Pat King and the others who have made questionable statements.

Saying something against Islam is not racism. And I'd have to see the words spoken by the 'leadership', which was an amorphous, changing group. As of now I don't consider it reasonable.

On 2/21/2024 at 1:18 PM, Michael Hardner said:

5b. Fine.  Based on our previous agreement on who gets to define truth for the other... my take on this is that you hate Muslims... Fine...

I actively disapprove of Islam as a vicious, heartless, violent religion and I think anyone who embraces it and follows its dictates in this day and age has something seriously wrong with them. I think those women walking around covered in bedsheets are nut jobs and I don't want them in my country. Or at any rate, I certainly don't want more of them.

I think the Amish, Mennonites and Hasidics are crazy too, as are the more extreme Christians. But none of them are any particular danger to me or mine, now or in the future. They mind their business and are productive and law abiding. Muslims... not so much.

Call me judgemental. Call me a snob. I call myself a realist. 

 

On 2/21/2024 at 1:18 PM, Michael Hardner said:

But your dirty little side-rant is not germane to how Conservatives relate to the convoy which is what we're talking about IMO.  

You mentioned saying something bad about Islam as justification for Pat King being a racist. I disagreed and then explained myself further. I've frankly found your hostility to those who disapprove of/dislike Islam to be somewhat baffling, as its followers stand for everything you hate, and hate everything you stand for.