|
The EU is dead. It just doesn't know it yet.
|
|
|
|
The main difference between libertarians and left-liberals is that those on the left recognize some positive rights as integral to freedom, such as the "right to healthcare", while libertarians only recognize negative rights such as the "right to not be assaulted". Not being assaulted is a right. Healthcare is a RESOURCE. You can not have rights to a resource. You might have rights to access a resource, but you can't have rights to a resource. That would entitle you to other people's time and property. This is the primary reason I think most conservatives are opposed to "universal healthcare" or basically any healthcare system the government runs. No one wants people to suffer, but if you take a break from fantasy land for a moment, you will realize it is not logistically possible for EVERYONE to get even marginally decent healthcare. Perhaps some smaller 1st world nations could accomplish this sustainably IF they heavily restricted immigration. Anyways we could debate endlessly about healthcare. I just wanted to make the distinction between a right and a resource, because going around telling people it is a right is fundamentally wrong on many levels. |
|
|
|
Ok I'm done.
You make a claim without any kind of basis to support it and I'm the one who knows nothing.
There is nowhere in this whole freaking bill, written anything like "guilty until proven innocent".
There is nowhere in this whole freaking bill, writtent anything that can lead to such situation.
Either quote the sentence(s) that you see as responsible for such claim or stop blattering in the void.
And for me, I'm done. Sorry I wasted your time as you don't seem to have, even by the slightest, tried to read or think.
I posted a summary of the issues. I went over several specific hypothetical scenarios to illustrate why this is a problem. I referenced specific portions of the law supporting my statements within YOUR OWN SOURCE, and then even found a video of a woman breaking it down in digestible little spoon fed bites for you. Your childish demands to see specific language you think is the only way to validate my claims are irrelevant. Your inability to understand the source material is not my responsibility, especially when I have already explained in simple language why this is an issue. You seem to be of the view that if you simply declare I have not supported my argument, then it never happened. Your authority of course all hinging on your so called understanding of the law, which you have demonstrated already repeatedly to be lacking. |
|
|
|
Current section 276(2) of the Code bars an accused from presenting sexual activity evidence unless the evidence: is of specific instances of sexual activity; is relevant to an issue at trial; and has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice And nothing about being 'guilty until proven innocent' of course. Don't see how that's proving me wrong.... This is the part where your ignorance of the law matters. Lets start with the fact that this is the SUMMARY of the law. Meaning that is not the exact language of the law, that is this authors impression and review of it. Also if you had any clue about what you were reading, you would see you quoted the previous version of the standards that have just been modified, as described just below that. Basically you are cherry picking a legal document (lol) and on top of that the cherry you picked was actually a rock. You can't just take a small excerpt of it and ignore the rest. That is not how the law works. Every claim I made is supported within that text. Here is something a bit more your speed: https://youtu.be/r9Wx0w0VZfw?t=548 |
|
|
|
What is relevant are facts. What you THINK you understand is irrelevant. The FACT is that this will make innocent people suffer by making it more difficult to defend themselves from false accusations. It is a total debasement of foundational concepts of law.
Can you tell me, where in this quote is the number 4?
"2 + 2 = "
We can all see the equation.
Just because it hasn't been abused YET doesn't mean it will not lead to abuse or even other unintentional issues. The fact is you don't know a damned thing about law, and therefore have no comprehension of why this is a big problem. Hundreds of years of legal precedent are begin overturned here. That is a problem.
You haven't answered me at all. Where in your article does it state that now rape accusation will be "guilty until proven innocent"? This is YOUR claim: Because appart from your personnal attacks about me "not knowing a damned thing about law" I don't see any fact in your claim or post or answers. I have however answered your question already. Perhaps you should take the time to read the previous posts in the thread completely? BTW its not an article it is just a summary of the bill. Also, your lack of knowledge of law is quite relevant to the subject and is more than a simple personal attack. If you do not understand the overarching concepts which determine the outcome of these events, then how can you claim to know anything about the outcome? |
|
|
|
I see. So unless I can define American culture to your satisfaction, it
A lot of the people flooding into this country are from nations which are pro-socialist and pro-Communist. They flea the misery that these systems create, not understanding the cause, then come here and vote for entitlement programs and overburden public systems. You do this enough times and before you know it the USA is just like all those failing Communist/Socialist states.
This is just an example, as this could occur in many different ways. We can see this pattern play out on a smaller scale as people flea the more socialist policy heavy areas of the US such as California and Illinois bleeding residents to more conservative states like Texas and Tennessee. They then go there and keep voting for the same broken policies they had from where they left as they begin debasing those systems.
This is just one way I know it is happening, because America is a large place, and we deal with this issue internally between the states as well as internationally.
So you still haven't defined in any way what American culture is for you... hence I don't see how you magically know it's "breaking apart" as you say. Especially if there are already large differences inside your nation. So here you are, as predicted, after I have already defined in detail why culture is important and how I know it is changing, and this is you claiming it is irrelevant because I have not defined it to your satisfaction. Some how now I must meet some unspecified and ever changing metric of definition until you approve before you will acknowledge the argument. Wonderful so now you not only force words in my mouth but also claim I mean things I haven't written about. Native means being born somewhere so the term seems pretty much adequate when discussing birthright citizenship. Stop your paranoďa for a second and maybe you will find not everyone is yelling racist at you...
I didn't speak for you. Oh yes, its just paranoia now. Claiming racism certainly is not a documented pattern of behavior of the left! Also you didn't answer my question. What do you suppose are my motivations if you believe they are not racist? Violent rhetoric isn't advocating for violence but being violent in a discussion. If you don't understand that a discussion can be civil and another can be violent, you're either a saint always being civil in every situation or a crazy asshole always being violent in all situations. It is physically impossible for words to be violent. You use this language in a pathetic attempt to associate words with violent savagery. The fact you find my words offensive or disturbing is no ones fault BUT YOUR OWN. I have no power over you, you have COMPLETE CONTROL over these feelings, and whether you choose to read what I write or not. You comparing this to violence is nothing short of lying to try to manufacture the crime of upsetting your delicate sensibilities and your weak constitution. It's not mustering a few words, it's having to take your eyes and put them in front of the numerous sentences you decided to ignore while continuing the discussion. Making it extremely difficult to try to speak to you because when you're facing something you don't like, you just ignore it and continue your own agenda.
Poor you. I don't care what your bias opinion of me is. Argue specific facts. Then here is an idea:
You are ignoring facts that you don't like. And when you're really cornered and can't do more you just stop answering and continue on the next thread.
What facts exactly am I ignoring? Please do tell me EXACTLY. use quotes if possible. ACTUAL QUOTES not your bullshit lazy half quotes. BTW just because you can shit it out, doesn't mean every little thought you have is valid or a fact. Well shit, when you make a claim like that maybe you should provide some informations if the person you're discussing with doesn't know about it?
Doesn't it work like that? You say A and if I disagree with it you're supposed to provide some kind of evidence or at least logic?
Or maybe that when discussing with you, people are supposed to know what you talk about and if they don't you're the one being right without having to provide context or explanations?
It is fascinating to me that as you in the same breath accuse me of "ignoring facts" you then proceed to yourself ignore that I sourced a bill, a summary of that bill, a break down of hypothetical scenarios which could result from that bill, and even the origin of the legal precedent of presumption of innocence. I am working over time to ignore those facts aren't I? Unfortunately this is the result of Socialist and Communist indoctrination, a totally disabled ability for critical thought, and anytime you have too much cognitive dissonance just make everything upside down world and all your problems melt away! Right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, accuse your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of. Seriously? You ask "when was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event?" and I answer "I've seen them here but I don't know about all situations" and your answer is "yes you don't know shit"?
If you don't see a problem here I can't do anything for you.
I've stopped here. There is nothing to do about you if you don't see where the problem is. Yeah, I mean its not like you have access to Youtube where you could view footage of American demonstrations, protests, and rallies now is it? My answer is you don't know shit, because on this subject, you don't know shit. You have no problem acting like you do though. I would really want to discuss with you. But it seems like it's not possible. Here is exactly what has happened: Techshare Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left. m0gliE Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing. Techshare Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone! Which can be translated by: Techshare Makes a claim m0gliE I never have read or heard anything that support your claim Techshare Mocking m0gliE and not giving anything to support the claim How is it possible to discuss with you in those conditions? What you just did there is called using "anecdotal evidence". In short that means your personal experience is not statistically relevant. Just because you haven't seen it, or taken the time to learn about it doesn't mean it is not a fact. Just because you pretend I didn't support, explain, or source my argument doesn't magically make it true either. The post history shows otherwise. Why don't you try refuting those arguments instead of just claiming I didn't make or support them. P.S. Stop using lazy quotes so I don't have to fix your lazy bullshit every time you post to respond in a manner that is readable. |
|
|
|
Excuse me if I don't take your legal advice very seriously. What you understand is irrelevant. What is reality is this standard now forces the accused to prove their innocent in order to be able to defend their freedom. You think it is acceptable to set a standard where people can send others to prison on their word, and then be forced to prove your innocence in order to remain free? Kind of funny, "innocent until proven guilty" originated from the French as a concept. I guess this is just another case of you being ignorant about your own nation lol. I don't even know why I answer you as you don't read me... What I understand is irrelevant but what you understand is? In YOUR article, there is NEVER written that "What is reality is this standard now forces the accused to prove their innocent in order to be able to defend their freedom." It's as simple as that, you provide a source and state a claim, I go read the source and don't see this claim. I'm pretty aware that this concept is French and quite proud of it thank you. Fact is that you're stating it's no longer applicable and I don't see it in your source. I was merely being polite by saying "How I understand it" but I can be more direct if you wish: You make a claim. Where is it supported in your article? What is relevant are facts. What you THINK you understand is irrelevant. The FACT is that this will make innocent people suffer by making it more difficult to defend themselves from false accusations. It is a total debasement of foundational concepts of law. Can you tell me, where in this quote is the number 4? "2 + 2 = " We can all see the equation. Just because it hasn't been abused YET doesn't mean it will not lead to abuse or even other unintentional issues. The fact is you don't know a damned thing about law, and therefore have no comprehension of why this is a big problem. Hundreds of years of legal precedent are being overturned here. That is a problem. |
|
|
|
Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration.
Oh so we're not discussing birthright citizenship then?  We are, and this is not an argument. If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture.
Doesn't mean anything, can you define what makes the USA the USA? Can you define USA culture? If not, how can you see that "the fabric of what makes the USA the USA is breaking down"? I see. So unless I can define American culture to your satisfaction, it doesn't exist? DEFINITION OF CULTUREThis is the definition of culture. All those things effect the functioning of societies. You claiming these qualities are irrelevant is just asinine. A lot of the people flooding into this country are from nations which are pro-socialist and pro-Communist. They flea the misery that these systems create, not understanding the cause, then come here and vote for entitlement programs and overburden public systems. You do this enough times and before you know it the USA is just like all those failing Communist/Socialist states. This is just an example, as this could occur in many different ways. We can see this pattern play out on a smaller scale as people flea the more socialist policy heavy areas of the US such as California and Illinois bleeding residents to more conservative states like Texas and Tennessee. They then go there and keep voting for the same broken policies they had from where they left as they begin debasing those systems. This is just one way I know it is happening, because America is a large place, and we deal with this issue internally between the states as well as internationally. That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
What? The question of race or racism wasn't even mentionned in all my posts, what are you talking about? Oo "Native" has distinct racial connotations, and a common tactic of people advocating for open borders is to insinuate or outright accuse those they disagree with as racist. What do you attribute my motives to? Please explain how "rethoric" gets rid of some one else's ideas and speech. The left are the ones focused on telling everyone what they are and are not allowed to say. Some one else disagreeing with you is not equivalent to them silencing you.
Violent rhetoric and your heavy abilities to ignore facts you don't like and answering only to a small part of arguments make it easy for you to chase away any different idea from what you believe is right. You're not silencing anyone, you're simply exhausting anyone different from you, making them leave the place of discussion you occupy because you're not here to discuss. Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss. "Violent rhetoric" WTF does that even mean? Advocating for violence? When have I advocated for violence? Words are not violence. Ignoring what facts? Just claiming I am ignoring facts is not an argument. When I answer as one longer reply you cry that I "don't address everything", even though I do, but then when I reply to you, as you reply to me, breaking everything down point by point you complain about "small packets". You claiming I am not here to discuss does not magically make it a fact. What you experience could also be described as you running out of arguments to defend your position and giving up on defending it. Your ideas must not be very important if you can't muster a few words for its defense. I am not preventing you from speaking. If you don't like me "dominating the ground" then perhaps you should present some ideas worth a damn. You never know I might even agree with you. Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing. Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone! When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
Every France Insoumise meeting or demonstration of the past 2 years in France... But in USA I don't know of course. Yes. You do not know. That does not stop you from claiming authority on subjects you are only casually familiar with now does it? 10 years ago the left was actually closer to being the true definition of "liberal", in a dictionary sense. That is what the left used to mean, but the Overton Window has shifted SO FAR to the left, even left moderates are now being categorized as being on the right. This was always a Communist/Socialist ideal. It was not always a liberal ideal.
False and it's easy to prove. Simply take a look of the left political programs 20 years ago and the ones now, current political programs are SO MUCH MORE right sided. They're much more pacific and tolerant towards economic inequalities and wealth distribution. At least again in France. Current "extreme left" program is the program of the "normal left" 20/30 years ago. They seem extreme in our society because we only had right-wing politics for the last 40 years so we're more used to this politic now. Raising minimum wage seems like a communist action while it was just a normal thing to ask for 30 years ago. Again, we are talking about the US, so I don't know why you keep bringing up France. However I suspect if it is anything like it is happening here, what you are experiencing is a result of primarily 2 things. The leftist programs are failing, and negative results are stacking up, conservatives and nationalists all over the world, some times referred to as "the silent majority" are suddenly starting to call out the failure of the left in unison. They were always there, they were just giving the left a fair shot to try these new programs, and they failed horribly. Now as the adults come to take control of the situation and get everything functional again, the media simultaneously pushes a narrative of a sudden right wing supremacist nazi explosion out of nowhere world wide. Seriously nazis are everywhere. Since these are right wing nazi usurpers, it is therefor acceptable to ignore, deplatform, and dehumanize them. You are a victim of your television. Get rid of it. Is that so? Is that why they are trying to make it illegal to criticize immigration now in some European countries, because they are so done with it?
Don't know which country you're talking about... You're starting to sound similar to our French "extreme right" political party who are the most interviewed and the most on TV of all the French parties and are always saying that "the media are silencing us" xD HAHAH yeah criminalizing speech is hilarious isn't it? THE TOPIC US "TRUMP WANTS TO END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP" not m0gliE tells us about how it is in France. https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/criticism-of-immigration-will-be-banned-in-europe/Free speech is only a RIGHT in the USA. This is not some conspiracy theory, people go to prison in Europe for saying the wrong things and having the wrong opinions. We all know he is not talking about The Schengen Agreement, so lets not pretend this isn't about the 3rd world flooding in.
Similar, immegration laws are more and more harsh the years passing by. More and more countries are starting to put closed borders, redirecting immigrants, expulsing the ones already on the national ground... 30 years ago it was hard to arrive in a country but once the ground you were never deported, never ever. https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/le-nombre-d-expulsions-en-hausse-de-14-en-france_1974518.htmlDeportation are increasing every year so I don't see what you're talking about... The laws are getting more harsh in reaction to these reckless policies of open borders. Again you keep bringing up France. Perhaps you should start a thread about European immigration policy? As far as proof the "left is pushing for open borders", why it it that I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests?
You do realize that you're not reasonning logically right? "left is pushing for open borders" -> means left political parties and their supporters want to open border "I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests" -> the only ones pushing for open borders are at the left It was always the case and will always be the case. You can't see nationalists and fascists pushing for open borders the only ones you'll see will always be Communists and antifa xD What the fuck are you even trying to argue here? I literally can't even tell what your premise is, other than accusing me of being illogical without support. Letting the 3rd world flood in fits perfectly with Communist ideology considering the entire goal of Communism is to destroy nations to make way for more Communism in the resulting chaos.
Lol Letting millions of impoverished people flood into a nation is a good way to do that. Then you have plenty of poor people to vote for your entitlement programs that get paid for by magic some how or something.
Lol again Yes, your ignorance is hilarious. |
|
|
|
thats not true you must compare the lifestyle of russians poor under zarism and communism, and you will realise, it was much better under communism
Yes, things were much better under Communism I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?
Don't even know what you're talking about... There is no push toward "open borders" rather the contrary. More and more people both from left and right ask for closed borders, especially in free moving areas like EU. I don't know all programs of all political parties of all countries but in mine the left is heavily against current state of the EU and ask either for a huge change or a Frexit.
It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.
Again I don't know what you talk about. EU is a project of open borders that was heavily pushed forward something like 30 years ago and is heavily questioned only now... And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.
Irrelevant as you absolutely never proved in any way that "the left is pushing for open borders". Is that so? Is that why they are trying to make it illegal to criticize immigration now in some European countries, because they are so done with it? We all know he is not talking about The Schengen Agreement, so lets not pretend this isn't about the 3rd world flooding in. As far as proof the "left is pushing for open borders", why is it that I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests? Letting the 3rd world flood in fits perfectly with Communist ideology considering the entire goal of Communism is to destroy nations to make way for more Communism in the resulting chaos. Letting millions of impoverished people flood into a nation is a good way to do that. Then you have plenty of poor people to vote for your entitlement programs that get paid for by magic some how or something. |
|
|
|
I don't see the problem here, it seems far from "guilty until proved innocent" as you claim at least in the article you posted: Under the current law, a complainant’s private medical records are not admissible in trial unless the accused can prove that these records are vital to disproving the allegations. The Bill will expand the list of inadmissible records to include personal emails or communications and other personal records such as diaries or counselling advice. "Unless the accused can prove that these records are vital to disproving the allegations" How I understand it means that you can't ask for all the personal records without a good reason, this reason being that there is a proof of consent in it. Hence you no longer can ask for records to be able to prove that the "supposedly raped person" was a depraved someone who had a poor moral, heavily drinking and partying which would mean that she probably asked for it. If you have any kind of "let's do it" in the personnal records they are still perfectly admissible right? Well it's law so I might not interprete it right, especially as it's not a European law and AngloSaxon laws are quite different. Excuse me if I don't take your legal advice very seriously. What you understand is irrelevant. What is reality is this standard now forces the accused to prove they are innocent in order to be able to defend their freedom. You think it is acceptable to set a standard where people can send others to prison on their word, and then be forced to prove your innocence in order to remain free? Kind of funny, "innocent until proven guilty" originated from the French as a concept. I guess this is just another case of you being ignorant about your own nation lol. |
|
|
|
https://www.demelolaw.com/bill-c-51-proposed-changes-to-sexual-assault-law-in-canada/Does any one else see a problem with this? Is this not just guilty until proven innocent? Do people have any concept of the damage that will be done to innocent people in a blind quest to protect women at all costs? This just totally upends the standard of innocent until proven guilty and forced the accused to first prove they are innocent before being able to access evidence that might exonerate them. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/c51.htmlWell, not really. The rape provisions are really related to "she asked for it" type of defense, which is no defense if you ask me. It is like saying, I killed her because she was too old anyway. I guess you will have to walk into these dating situations with a well-written contract. The other provisions that they want to drop are kinda funny: Challenging someone to a duel (section 71); Advertising a reward for the return of stolen property “no questions asked” (section 143); Possessing, printing, distributing or publishing crime comics (paragraph 163(1)(b)); Publishing blasphemous libel(section 296); Fraudulently pretending to practice witchcraft (section 365); and, Issuing trading stamps (section 427). That is a pretty sad personal attack, not even an argument. You aren't refuting any of the information presented you are just making more accusations that it is justified because you think it was designed to do XYZ. The fact is it does these things regardless if you think it is justified to turn the state into an indiscriminate system of imprisonment of men for little more than the crime of being male. Rapists should go to prison. Imprisoning people is a serious act and requires an honest examination of all of the evidence in order to have an impartial hearing. This bill totally demolishes that and opens the door to rife abuse with false accusations, mistaken identities, and just general fuck ups. You keep pretending subjecting men to indiscriminate imprisonment and preventing them from presenting evidence to defend themselves is acceptable. Hopefully it is not you who ends up in a cage getting raped over a false accusation. Of course it always happens to some one else right? |
|
|
|
well whats capitalism then? a society where the bankers have money earning catte protecting them and privatise everything.
like a mobster state.
is that a better solution? it wasnt a success anywhere in fact it was only a success in the centre of it (west, usa, london)
regards
Just pointing out that the ideology you advocate for was created by and serves the people you claim to want to fight. Also capitalism doesn't HAVE to be those things. Even if Communism wasn't a sham to begin with, yes Capitalism is WAY better. |
|
|
|
For example, it is not legally possible to claim that a third party offered consent on another’s behalf or to assert that a failure to resist equates to consent. I definitely agree to this though there might be some greyzone area here - tbh didnt even knew it was possible. Regarding the rest im not sure, maybe someone can explain with some example case what the change would mean. That is kind of the problem. Law doesn't work too well in "grey zones". Law is a protocol or a code we operate by, which by definition requires it be predetermined, defined, and prerecorded available for all to review. There are lots of implications of this law I am not yet familiar with as I just now came across it, but from what I understand it would make it extremely difficult for innocent people to defend themselves from rape accusations, and could very well end up sending them to prison, where they are likely to be actually raped. One clear implication of this law, is say you ask a person to record a short video stating they consent to sexual activity, or you film sexual activity, even if it shows the parties are engaging in consensual activities, this can not be used as evidence to exonerate the accused without the permission of the accuser. This would apply even when the accused is already in possession of such evidence. This also would according to this language extend potentially for example, to hospital records documenting the lack of injury, or perhaps a rape kit which shows that the accused person's DNA does not match. There are tons of implications to this that are just totally ass-backwards and are going to turn into a nightmare VERY fast. |
|
|
|
In my sarcastic stupid imitation of the average Left poster I can answer your question.
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Corrected that for you. Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once. Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best. PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma. Natives first? What did you just get done watching "Gangs of New York" and get yourself all riled up and get yer shillelagh ready? Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration. If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture. That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact. Please explain how "rethoric" gets rid of some one else's ideas and speech. The left are the ones focused on telling everyone what they are and are not allowed to say. Some one else disagreeing with you is not equivalent to them silencing you. Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left. When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary. ....
Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it? It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization. And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see. 10 years ago the left was actually closer to being the true definition of "liberal", in a dictionary sense. That is what the left used to mean, but the Overton Window has shifted SO FAR to the left, even left moderates are now being categorized as being on the right. This was always a Communist/Socialist ideal. It was not always a liberal ideal. |
|
|
|
https://www.demelolaw.com/bill-c-51-proposed-changes-to-sexual-assault-law-in-canada/Does any one else see a problem with this? Is this not just guilty until proven innocent? Do people have any concept of the damage that will be done to innocent people in a blind quest to protect women at all costs? This just totally upends the standard of innocent until proven guilty and forces the accused to first prove they are innocent before being able to access evidence that might exonerate them.
|
|
|
|
wait till russians start becoming capitalists and are trying to install a central bank in every worlds community the find, like the americans did, world will get new epicenter of earthquakes comming from russia.
americans raised russians not to be communists, russians, took that lession serious, now they can imagine what they have created.
If a central bank is so capitalist, why is it one of the 10 planks of Communism? communists is when there is a central authority that forces the population into a central bank rule to achieve communist goals capitalism is when the entire society is constantly trying to basically scam/abuse outsiders as money earning cattle, and works on their behavior appearance to achieve that. both cases can have a "central bank" or even no central bank Uh huh. Because Communism never abuses people as money earning cattle or whatever else in that rambling runoff sentence you were trying to say. What if I told you your precious Communism was originally created as a concept and fostered into reality by Capitalist bankers as a means of controlled opposition, and you unknowingly work for them? Would you integrate this information into your personal ideology or would you ignore it knowing you could not possibly cope with such cognitive dissonance? my personal idoelogy is not to support any financial system that i dont controll, no matter what they tell me, thats an update from what i did as a child "trusting experts" jes the banksters are the capitalists and they use communism as a justification to be the capitalists in a communist society. You don't get it. Communism was a sham from day 1 and was literally created by bankers to take control of countries and strip them of resources. http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf |
|
|
|
wait till russians start becoming capitalists and are trying to install a central bank in every worlds community the find, like the americans did, world will get new epicenter of earthquakes comming from russia.
americans raised russians not to be communists, russians, took that lession serious, now they can imagine what they have created.
If a central bank is so capitalist, why is it one of the 10 planks of Communism? communists is when there is a central authority that forces the population into a central bank rule to achieve communist goals capitalism is when the entire society is constantly trying to basically scam/abuse outsiders as money earning cattle, and works on their behavior appearance to achieve that. both cases can have a "central bank" or even no central bank Uh huh. Because Communism never abuses people as money earning cattle or whatever else in that rambling runoff sentence you were trying to say. What if I told you your precious Communism was originally created as a concept and fostered into reality by Capitalist bankers as a means of controlled opposition, and you unknowingly work for them? Would you integrate this information into your personal ideology or would you ignore it knowing you could not possibly cope with such cognitive dissonance? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
