The Only Patriotic Choice for President

[Deluge]

14 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Dude when all you have is , I know you are but what am I, aka, the rubber, glue defense.

Just quit

Just chill with the Marxian love, comrade. We on the Right just don't give a shit.  

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

Just chill with the Marxian love, comrade. We on the Right just don't give a shit.  

You're just sad

[Deluge]

10 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Well since you're the one that brought up Marxism,

In a negative way.

It was YOU who charged over to me under the Marxian flag.  

2 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

You're just sad

And you are attracted to Marxist doctrine. 

[SkyHigh]

4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Just chill with the Marxian love, comrade. We on the Right just don't give a shit.  

The funniest part is that we both know (though you'll never admit it) that you will, and have depended on government safety nets (welfare, old age, etc..) to meet your basic needs more then I ever will.

4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

In a negative way.

It was YOU who charged over to me under the Marxian flag.  

And you are attracted to Marxist doctrine. 

All you have is dishonesty, pathetic 

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

The funniest part is that we both know (though you'll never admit it) that you will, and have depended on government safety nets (welfare, old age, etc..) to meet your basic needs more then I ever will.

All you have is dishonesty, pathetic 

Now you're grasping at straws. Talk about pathetic. lol

I'm sorry, comrade, but a true conservative wouldn't get triggered by another conservative who is trashing Marxism. lol

[Nationalist]

52 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Are you saying that the health care systems in the states are comparable to those in Canada ?

I just checked and 54% of Americans get employment based health care. So at least half of Americans can't leave their jobs if themselves or their family has any kind of health issues, not to mention some that couldn't even make lateral moves to other businesses if any of those health issues involve pre existing conditions, and honestly I feel you've not addressed my point.

I agree our government bureaucracy is bloated and the unions have way to much power, so that's not a point of contention between us at all 

I don't think freedom is an objective word but if you provide me with your  definition, I'm fine with using that as our working definition going forward 

I'm not a fan of Justin either, so we can agree on that as well, therefore using current liberals (and their policies) as some sort of counter point to any subjects I may bring up (well presented or if I need to clarify better) is really just a waste of time for both of us 

I'm not partisan, so I don't care about what any political party platform is, I evaluate each specific issue independently based on how I feel it will effect me and society as a hole

FREEDOM:

The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance

 

[SkyHigh]

16 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Now you're grasping at straws. Talk about pathetic. lol

I'm sorry, comrade, but a true conservative wouldn't get triggered by another conservative who is trashing Marxism. lol

Triggered? Please 

No straws other than the ones you had to use to insolate your fridge box home 

Not a conservative either 

You weren't trashing Marxism because you don't understand Marxism, you were just throwing around some word that the ignorant people you support use because your side (and by that I mean the extremist Trump sycophants) that represent true conservatism about as well as the westboro baptist church represents the teachings of Jesus 

Sad little incel

 

[SkyHigh]

27 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

FREEDOM:

The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance

 

You don't find that definition ambiguous and open to interpretation ?

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

You don't find that definition ambiguous and open to interpretation ?

Not really.

Look...I don't take you for a fool, so I assume you realize absolute anarchistic freedom is beyond human capabilities. But while social services may provide some freedoms, they are also an imposition. Thus they are not a "freedom" per sae.

Freedom comes with responsibility because, as one has more freedom, one also must acknowledge the potential for failure or anti-social behavior. 

But your premise was that Canada has more freedoms than the USA and I just don't see it.

[Deluge]

15 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Triggered? Please 

You can't deny it, comrade. Just admit that you're a closet Marxist. There's no harm in telling the truth.  

[impartialobserver]

last thing about Marxism. Lenin knew that Marx's ideas and theories were predicated on a gradual evolution where the proletariat rises up, negotiates, rises up again, and so on. He knew that imposing it with an iron fist was not what Marx had in mind. Marx's ideas were not political.. he (wrongfully) thought that labor would over time not be content with being treated poorly and would demand change. So saying that Lenin and Stalin were Marxists is simply not true. They were brutal autocrats who used Marx's ideas to justify their terrible ways. 

Marx's entire philosophy was based on Western Europe in the 1850's. Being that he never went to North America.. he had no idea that technology was fast approaching. 

Edited October 9, 2024 by impartialobserver

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

I completely agree that invoking personal experience as apposed to education etc.. is not the correct way to engage in political discourse, but I don't think that's what I did.

I spoke of my personal story, only with the intention to explain my struggles to properly express myself in the written form and to clarify that if something comes out the wrong way that it will most likely be because of form and not function.

I am still confused as to how anything I said could be construed as hackery (I'm not saying it wasn't, just that if it was, it was unintentional) so would you please tell me specifically what I did say (or how I said it) that gave you that impression.

I think we have started to develop something resembling a respectful conversation, so if you can just answer my last question. You can pick the next topic for discussion.

It really does come across that way even if it wasn't your intent.  That's one of the problem with a common meme whether you use intentionally or not,  it tends to come with a bunch of other assumptions given it's uses over the years.

And the problem is a lot of the times with that kind of thing the message other people pick up is "i'm better and more qualified than you to have an opinion because my life experience matters and yours is lesser."

Now - i know full well that probably wasn't the message you were sending but again because it's so common in the stereotype it tends to read that way. 

You obviously intended to list out some specifics about your upbringing to give clarity into where your opinoin is coming from but it winds up sounding a little pretentious when it's in that structure. 

A suggestion to avoid that might be to skip a lot on the details and just say something simple like 

Based on my personal experiences i believe....  That says you have relevant experience without making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be

or  

I know a little about this from my own experiences and i would say... Which again says you're not just talking out of your ass but you're not claiming to be a final authority 

or even

Maybe your experience is different but based on what i've experienced...  which reallly says you're not claiming your experiences are definitively superior, you're open to other opinions but you do feel you have a relevant right to yours. 

It's just when you go on a long time about "experience qualifications" it tends to say your message is "you can't possibly be as good as me at this topic because i'm superior and can discount your opinion" 

 

 

[SkyHigh]

On 10/9/2024 at 1:32 PM, CdnFox said:

It really does come across that way even if it wasn't your intent.  That's one of the problem with a common meme whether you use intentionally or not,  it tends to come with a bunch of other assumptions given it's uses over the years.

And the problem is a lot of the times with that kind of thing the message other people pick up is "i'm better and more qualified than you to have an opinion because my life experience matters and yours is lesser."

Now - i know full well that probably wasn't the message you were sending but again because it's so common in the stereotype it tends to read that way. 

You obviously intended to list out some specifics about your upbringing to give clarity into where your opinoin is coming from but it winds up sounding a little pretentious when it's in that structure. 

A suggestion to avoid that might be to skip a lot on the details and just say something simple like 

Based on my personal experiences i believe....  That says you have relevant experience without making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be

or  

I know a little about this from my own experiences and i would say... Which again says you're not just talking out of your ass but you're not claiming to be a final authority 

or even

Maybe your experience is different but based on what i've experienced...  which reallly says you're not claiming your experiences are definitively superior, you're open to other opinions but you do feel you have a relevant right to yours. 

It's just when you go on a long time about "experience qualifications" it tends to say your message is "you can't possibly be as good as me at this topic because i'm superior and can discount your opinion" 

 

 

Honestly, I still fail to see how my personal experiences and opinions as they relate to my short comings (writing ability) and my thoughts on why many people that lack exposure to other cultures (French québécois was my example) are more likely to be xenophobic, could be construed as partisan but as we have already agreed this is probably not the most substantial issue we could be discussing, let's move on 

So, in the interest of continuing this newfound civility between us, I invite you to select any topic you feel best represents your political philosophy and we shall discuss.

EDIT: I will endeavor to do my best to refrain from using personal experience if you can commit to using the principal of charity whilst reading my attempts to express myself in a medium in which I admittedly am weak . Deal?

Edited October 14, 2024 by SkyHigh

[SkyHigh]

On 10/9/2024 at 11:26 AM, Nationalist said:

Not really.

Look...I don't take you for a fool, so I assume you realize absolute anarchistic freedom is beyond human capabilities. But while social services may provide some freedoms, they are also an imposition. Thus they are not a "freedom" per sae.

Freedom comes with responsibility because, as one has more freedom, one also must acknowledge the potential for failure or anti-social behavior. 

But your premise was that Canada has more freedoms than the USA and I just don't see it.

Of course I agree that "anarchistic freedom" is unattainable but I also assume that you agree that some restrictions on freedom are also necessary for a functioning society. As the saying goes "my freedom to swing my arms ends millimeters from your nose".

I've mentioned the financial freedoms that our system promotes that the US system categorically doesn't offer. I used this topic as a jumping off point specifically as this came directly from a study produces by the Fraser institute and the heritage foundation two clearly conservative outlets one Canadian one American, so your side (again I have no side, other than maybe that of supporting my nation) agrees with me at least on this point.

So other than property rights (an issue you'd agree is more complex than simply saying Canadians have none) and guns which is something that is really a non-issue for a strong majority of Canadians and also comes with many, many downsides (see mass shootings, accidental shootings (leading cause of death in children) and suicide) personally I've never needed or wanted a gun and I grew up in arguably some of the toughest parts of this country.

So specifically what freedoms that do exist in the US do you feel don't in Canada?

Edited October 14, 2024 by SkyHigh

[SkyHigh]

On 10/9/2024 at 11:29 AM, Deluge said:

You can't deny it, comrade. Just admit that you're a closet Marxist. There's no harm in telling the truth.  

As much of a Marxist as Kamala, so not at all 

You really are a sad little impotent man

[Deluge]

4 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

As much of a Marxist as Kamala, so not at all 

You really are a sad little impotent man

No, the signs are there. 

Look at the following. 

Kamala Harris praised the 'brilliance' and impact of the Black Lives Matter organization, deeming them necessary,^[218] which led some on social media to slam her as insane. Harris said,

"I always am going to interpret these protests as an essential component of evolution in our country."

 

The Chaldean Catholic Cathedral in El Cajon, California was defaced with swastikas, Biden 2020, upside down crosses and BLM imagery.^[219]

Harris never condemned the violence at rallies held in the organization's name in cities across the country, nor the shooting of two police officers in Louisville. Critics slammed her support for the organization whose co-founder described herself as a 'trained Marxist' in 2015. Many suggested she was supporting riots, violence, and intimidation. GOP operative Arthur Schwartz posted a clip of her interview with the comment"

"Unmoved by the violence in our streets, in the brutal attacks on our police officers, Kamala Harris says the protests are 'essential' for our 'evolution' as a country."

Others on Twitter slammed Harris as 'insane' and said she should ask the business owners whose shops have been destroyed if they feel 'evolved'. Daniel Babinski tweeted,

"I'd like to publicly thank Kamala Harris for telling Americans that the protests, aka riots, need to continue and hold her personally responsible for the violence and the medical bills, and yes, the deaths, too....I lay this at the feet of Congressional Democrats.

Robby Starbuck tweeted,

"Voters should remember her comments when you see cities on fire and people attacked."

[Michael Hardner]

Harris condemns BLM violence...

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/kamala-harris-condemns-looting-violence-in-wake-of-police-shooting-idUSKBN25N34D/

 

This forum used to demand that people support claims with links.

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

No, the signs are there. 

Look at the following. 

Kamala Harris praised the 'brilliance' and impact of the Black Lives Matter organization, deeming them necessary,^[218] which led some on social media to slam her as insane. Harris said,

"I always am going to interpret these protests as an essential component of evolution in our country."

 

The Chaldean Catholic Cathedral in El Cajon, California was defaced with swastikas, Biden 2020, upside down crosses and BLM imagery.^[219]

Harris never condemned the violence at rallies held in the organization's name in cities across the country, nor the shooting of two police officers in Louisville. Critics slammed her support for the organization whose co-founder described herself as a 'trained Marxist' in 2015. Many suggested she was supporting riots, violence, and intimidation. GOP operative Arthur Schwartz posted a clip of her interview with the comment"

"Unmoved by the violence in our streets, in the brutal attacks on our police officers, Kamala Harris says the protests are 'essential' for our 'evolution' as a country."

Others on Twitter slammed Harris as 'insane' and said she should ask the business owners whose shops have been destroyed if they feel 'evolved'. Daniel Babinski tweeted,

"I'd like to publicly thank Kamala Harris for telling Americans that the protests, aka riots, need to continue and hold her personally responsible for the violence and the medical bills, and yes, the deaths, too....I lay this at the feet of Congressional Democrats.

Robby Starbuck tweeted,

"Voters should remember her comments when you see cities on fire and people attacked."

Again you just prove your lack of understanding of the words you throw around so freely.

Even if I grant your premise (which of course any reasonable person wouldn't) 

Black lives matter is not a labor movement, therefore nothing to do with Marxism (a political philosophy I still don't agree with). Seriously read some Marx you may come off like you're not a raving lunatic completely detached from reality (well at least on this issue)

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Harris condemns BLM violence...

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/kamala-harris-condemns-looting-violence-in-wake-of-police-shooting-idUSKBN25N34D/

 

This forum used to demand that people support claims with links.

I guess that was before I came here

[Deluge]

Just now, SkyHigh said:

Again you just prove your lack of understanding of the words you throw around so freely.

Even if I grant your premise (which of course any reasonable person wouldn't) 

Black lives matter is not a labor movement, therefore nothing to do with Marxism (a political philosophy I still don't agree with). Seriously read some Marx you may come off like you're not a raving lunatic completely detached from reality (well at least on this issue)

Dude, your understanding of marxism is nothing short of full blown admiration. I've never seen a "non-marxist" be so adamant about its definition. 

I've already lined out the basic premise, but that's not enough for you. You need me to not only see it as you see it, but you want me to revere it.

How can you not be a f*cking marxist? Tell me. lol

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

 

I guess that was before I came here

For many years we had a moderator who was very strict about insults, to the point where chuds did not feel comfortable here. 

I was part of the volunteer moderating team. The quality of the board was better then.

I have been here for over 20 years. My participation probably predates the birth of many of said chuds.

[SkyHigh]

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Dude, your understanding of marxism is nothing short of full blown admiration. I've never seen a "non-marxist" be so adamant about its definition. 

I've already lined out the basic premise, but that's not enough for you. You need me to not only see it as you see it, but you want me to revere it.

How can you not be a f*cking marxist? Tell me. lol

Sad

[SkyHigh]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

For many years we had a moderator who was very strict about insults, to the point where chuds did not feel comfortable here. 

I was part of the volunteer moderating team. The quality of the board was better then.

I have been here for over 20 years. My participation probably predates the birth of many of said chuds.

When I got here I would  go as far as to say there was a clear conservative bias in the moderation(but at least there was moderation), lately though even that has seemed to disappear and is now basically a free for all

[Deluge]

5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Sad

I have ZERO respect for marxism. I have ZERO respect for socialism or communism or any other ism that fits into that godforsaken category. If it's not about freedom and the American way (the traditional American way), then it's not for me, and it's not worth my time.

Get the basics on an opposing point of view and then lock and load. that's all I need.  

[Deluge]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Harris condemns BLM violence...

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/kamala-harris-condemns-looting-violence-in-wake-of-police-shooting-idUSKBN25N34D/

 

This forum used to demand that people support claims with links.

From one side of her mouth to the other. 

The TRUTH is, Kamelface Harris very much condones BLM violence, as evidenced in previous remarks she's made. 

Edited October 14, 2024 by Deluge

[SkyHigh]

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I have ZERO respect for marxism. I have ZERO respect for socialism or communism or any other ism that fits into that godforsaken category. If it's not about freedom and the American way (the traditional American way), then it's not for me, and it's not worth my time.

Get the basics on an opposing point of view and then lock and load. that's all I need.  

Again I agree you nimrod 

Problem is the Democrats are none of those things and by going off half cocked (because you're impotent) about nonsense, you're not addressing the actual problems with their actual policies and platform

Now of course this is mainly because you're not at all a logically thinking, reasonable minded person. You are someone that wouldn't be able to put together a sound argument for anything even if It slapped you in the face then I wrote it down for you. You're just sad