Trump proposes to ban "communists" and "marxists" from entering the USA. - Politics Discussion

[–] B1cKsurN (17829) 2 years ago

Good idea, I agree...communists are already authoritarian assholes, create nothing for society, and only destroy it.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So you are outright openly against freedom of expression

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17829) 2 years ago

No, just commies. Communism is an incompatible political system that is antithetical to American Values.

Banning such ideologies from American Soil is enshrined in the American Constitution.

We just currently do not enforce it.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>No, just commies. Communism is an incompatible political system that is antithetical to American Values.

That's still restricting freedom of expression. Theocracy is against US values. Nazism is against US values. Many things are against the US ethos, but legal to express because the USA has a very strong tradition of free expression. Communism isn’t some immutable quality of someone, it’s just ideas and speech. Can you outlaw an idea and still have free speech?

>Banning such ideologies from American Soil is enshrined in the American Constitution.

Evidence please.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17829) 2 years ago

That's still restricting freedom of expression.

Then tell the commies to keep their toxic bullshit to themselves and leave others alone.

Evidence please.

Read the Constitution.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Then tell the commies to keep their toxic bullshit to themselves and leave others alone.

The point of freedom of expression is that they don't have to. They have the same free speech rights as you.

And in what way are they imposing on others, exactly?

>Read the Constitution.

Show me where it says in the constitution that specific speech may be restricted.

Nazism isn't even illegal in the US to speak.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17829) 2 years ago

Blah blah blah... I'm done caring about your Europinion.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So I'll just conclude you want to oppress other people, fascist

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Liberal commies have been working overtime to silence the opposition for years. Tough shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

"Liberal commies" is a literal oxymoron.

Are you thus suggesting you endorse the fascism endorsed by Donald Trump here?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Uh no, it isn't. That's because neo-liberals are not liberals at all. They're authoritarian leftists.

The only fascists in this country are democrats. You can accuse Trump and his supporters of this all day long but it won't make it any less of a lie.

You're either intentionally obtuse or way too ignorant of the subject to comment on it. Stick to your side of the pond.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Uh no, it isn't. That's because neo-liberals are not liberals at all. They're authoritarian leftists.

That is not remotely the definition of neoliberalism. You appear to know nothing about the political axis.

>The only fascists in this country are democrats. You can accuse Trump and his supporters of this all day long but it won't make it any less of a lie.

Trump literally wants to pass a law to "deal with" domestic communists and "marxists". He is a fascist

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

You are literally too dumb to argue with. Still.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Says the guy who doesn't know what Neoliberalism is:

"Neoliberalism, also neo-liberalism, is a term used to signify the late-20th century political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism after it fell into decline following the Second World War. A prominent factor in the rise of conservative and right-libertarian organizations, political parties, and think tanks, and predominantly advocated by them, it is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society."

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

It's hard to be taken seriously when we refer to them as commies, which is what they really are. They are not liberal or progressive.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

How on earth are free market capitalists communists?

What the fuck are you on about? You think Ronald Reagan is a fucking communist?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Because the modern day American democrat is not a liberal at all but something else entirely. Dummy.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

That still does not change what "neoliberalism" actually refers to. Your problems with contemporary Democrats aren't relevant to that actual political philosophy.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

No shit, Sherlock.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Right, but originally you said:

"That's because neo-liberals are not liberals at all. They're authoritarian leftists."

Implying you were referring to neoliberalism generally.

----

In any case, whatever Democrats are now, they aren't communists

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

In any case, whatever Democrats are now, they aren't communists

They are communists 2.0 ___________ aka 21st century communists.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What you assert without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

You mean like being labeled a racist without evidence, strictly because you disagree with leftist ideology???

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

When did I call you a racist?

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2233) 2 years ago

I openly challenge you to go to Red Square in Moscow and use your freedom of expression to declare your opinions on the Ukraine war.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What does this have to do with anything?

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2233) 2 years ago

Your obvious love of communism

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What does modern Russia have to do with communism?

And where did I express any love of communism?

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2233) 2 years ago

>What does modern Russia have to do with communism?

I guess you haven't been following the news recently.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

....Yes I have.

Modern Russia isn't communist

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2233) 2 years ago

It's not exactly a beacon of free speech though is it? Try reading a bit about Russian history. Either you were %100 behind the revolution or you were considered a traitor and killed.

Should Vladimir Kara-Murza been imprisoned? What if he was the same and said the same about Biden?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>It's not exactly a beacon of free speech though is it?

When did I say it was? What does Russia being authoritarian have to do with anything?

>Should Vladimir Kara-Murza been imprisoned? What if he was the same and said the same about Biden?

When did I defend Russia at all, anywhere, at any point?

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2233) 2 years ago

You are for free speech, which by definition cannot censor speaking out in favor of communism. Except that communism is against free speech. You can't see the problem here.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You are for free speech, which by definition cannot censor speaking out in favor of communism.

Right.

>Except that communism is against free speech. You can't see the problem here.

Russia isn't communist, so still not sure of the relevancy of that example. And no. There's no contradiction. Democratic states have always allowed people to be hypocrites and use free speech to speak against free speech. The restrictions come in for incitement to violence.

Ironically, your take on free speech here is very unamerican.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2233) 2 years ago

Well the good news is that 50% of the people involved in this thread know what they're talking about. Let's be positive and get the remaining 50% involved as well (that's you)
If you can't accept that Russia is communist then that's your burden, but you want to allow people to speak out in favor of communism, n, which if it becomes popular would result in revolution and the opposition of free speech. Do you know what a book is?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Well the good news is that 50% of the people involved in this thread know what they're talking about.

One user in here tried to tell me that neoliberalism is a far-left ideology.

>If you can't accept that Russia is communist then that's your burden

...How is Russia communist? The USSR collapsed. They're authoritarian, but they're not communist.

>but you want to allow people to speak out in favor of communism, n, which if it becomes popular would result in revolution and the opposition of free speech.

Yes, because freedom of speech matters. You speak of the threat towards freedom of speech whilst proposing the end of it in the first place.

Are you telling me you're in favour of banning all public support for communist-adjacent ideologies? Do you equally reject Christian preachers preaching dominionism?

So you outright openly reject freedom of speech?

reply

[–] Satan2016 (26200) 2 years ago

You must be Elon Musk! Defending Communism is worse that defending the NAZI regime.
Why don't you dig up some lies by Alex Jones and shout them out in public to the relations of the victims.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

Here is another reason they should be banned:

Using somebody's wrong pronouns is about to become a felony in Michigan punishable by 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

This is in addition to using words that cause somebody to "feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened"

HB 4474 has already passed the state House of Reps

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1674497096370597888

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

This has nothing to do with communism, and in addition, the shittiness of this bill doesn't justify persecuting other people.

So much for "freedom of speech"

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

The point of freedom of expression is that they don't have to. They have the same free speech rights as you.

Not according to Bill HB 4474, freedom of speech for them but not for us, the hypocrisy eh.

And in what way are they imposing on others, exactly?

Bill HB 4474

Show me where specific speech may be restricted

Bill HB 4474

This has nothing to do with communism

Keyword search: Transgender Marxism

doesn't justify persecuting other people

It justifies banning them from our country.

So much for "freedom of speech"

It is a violation of "our" first amendment rights.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Not according to Bill HB 4474, freedom of speech for them but not for us, the hypocrisy eh.

I must've missed where I defended that bill.

>Bill HB 4474

That's not communists.

>Bill HB 4474

You took completely out of context what I said. I asked: "Show me where it says in the constitution that specific speech may be restricted."

>Keyword search: Transgender Marxism

This isn't a meaningful thing. This is just some shit you made up. The Bill HB 4474 has nothing to do with marxism.

>It justifies banning them from our country.

Trump also spoke of passing a "new law" to deal with communists within the USA.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

It has everything to do with it, apparently, you don’t know how to do a keyword search.

Oh, I also forgot that you don’t know what Communism is since you still believe that it only has something to do with the cold war.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>It has everything to do with it, apparently, you don’t know how to do a keyword search.

Are trying to shill me a book, or something? Provide evidence that the Michigan HoR are "transgender marxists" please.

>Oh, I also forgot that you don’t know what Communism is since you still believe that it only has something to do with the cold war.

I've said no such thing. Ever.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

I see that you deliberately quoted the wrong keyword, as usual you are too obtuse to understand anything.

BTW, I didn’t take anything out of context, I know you were asking him “where in the Constitution”, but since that bill is “unconstitutional”, I referenced it anyway.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>I see that you deliberately quoted the wrong keyword, as usual you are too obtuse to understand anything.

You said the keyword was "transgender marxism".

>BTW, I didn’t take anything out of context, I know you were asking him “where in the Constitution”, but since that bill is “unconstitutional”, I referenced it anyway.

Then it'll be struck down. Not sure what any of this has to do with Trump threatening to persecute communists

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

I didn't expect you to understand any of it, which is why I responded to B1cKsurN about that bill instead of the OP.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I understand everything, and you're just being evasive.

This thread is about Trump threatening to persecute communists, "globalists" and atheists.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2233) 2 years ago

Wait, so if my chosen pronoun is "Trump for President" I can get libtards sent to prison for refusing to address me properly?

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17829) 2 years ago

This is the complete stripping of basic human rights. Forcing someone to change their speech to accommodate you is fucking narcissism.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So is suggesting that laws should be passed to deal with all "communists" and "marxists" in the USA, fascist

reply

[–] Satan2016 (26200) 2 years ago

Commies should be commited to asylums for the criminally insane.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So you are an anti-american fascist who hates free speech

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2637) 2 years ago

So is he just remixing his greatest hits from the 2016 campaign?

Next, is he gonna propose we build a moat on the northern boarder and Canada is going to pay for it.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

The border with Canada is not typically uncontrolled, with people flooding the US from 3rd world shit holes.

As far as making Mexico pay for the wall, there are hordes of you dumbasses who still don't get what that meant. Illegal immigration costs the US $116billion annually and those are old numbers. Eliminating that expense, effectively puts it on Mexico, the shithole people are coming from. That's what it means, idiot.

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2637) 2 years ago

Lol sure buddy! You Trump cultist are delusional as fuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc7h6WOOh7M&ab_channel=WashingtonPost

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Sorry the facts don't jibe with your fantasies.

reply

[–] Kazak (2199) 2 years ago

Marxists? 🤣🤦🏻‍♂️

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (18430) 2 years ago

But what about the mutants he mentioned a week ago?

reply

[–] Yatzo (2175) 2 years ago

“Marxists” Wtf?
Do they have any distinguishing characteristics?

reply

[–] Satan2016 (26200) 2 years ago

Look in the mirror! They hang around universities quoting intellectual morons.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Start with banning the ones we have now. Sorry but I have no patience of charity for those actively working to destroy America. So shove your rhetoric where the sun don't shine.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7753) 2 years ago

You should be the first one on the boat!

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

More projection/delusional nonsense. Sorry fuckstick, I believe in the Constitution.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

No you don't. You want to "ban communists in the USA". that's literally in direct opposition to freedom of speech. You literally reject the first-amendment.

You are literally are an anti-american fascist

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

So basically, you implied that we should not ban the communists in the USA that are trying to impose a speech-suppressing bill such as HB 4474 because it is in direct opposition to freedom of speech and therefore, that makes us “the anti-american fascist”. lmao

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

The state legislature of Michigan aren't communists, and you've failed to back this claim up.

And it doesn't matter what they do. It doesn't justify persecuting all communists or anyone else.

Fascist

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

More clear evidence of your love for communism.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

How do you work that out?

reply

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

"Fascist"

By your logic, the U.S. should accept those with Fascist and Nazism beliefs. After all, "freedom of speech".

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I think the US shouldn't persecute fascists and nazis, yes. As they do not now. Trump was not just talking about immigrants, but also people already in the US. Suggesting a new law.

reply

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

I haven't seen it, but I would suggest a new law affecting education. All this stems from some commie teacher or professor extoling the virtues of communism/socialism, instead of focusing on the negatives. For one, it's been a failure or totalitarian government everywhere it's been tried.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

And what would the specifics of this law be, precisely?

reply

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

I just said. They can teach how it's a bad system.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What specifically? Just communism? Socialism? Social Democracy?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Deport enemies of the state, absolutely.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

And not let any of them move here in the first place.
But yes, once we know of them, send them home.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Where would Communists who are American citizens be deported to?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

China, for rehab.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Except they're not Chinese citizens, and China can just say "no". What then?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

This is what I mean when I say that you are too dumb to argue with.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What, because I question your fascist tendencies and desire to silence and oppress political opponents?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

No, because you have no sense of humor, in addition to being dumb.

Unlike you fascists, we actually believe in freedom for all, even those we disagree with.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Unlike you fascists, we actually believe in freedom for all, even those we disagree with.

Trump is literally suggesting to come up with a "new law" to target "communists" and "marxists" born in the USA. Do you disagree with that?

Whose freedom do I want to remove?

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

because I question your fascist tendencies and desire to silence and oppress political opponents?

You mean like those that are pushing and supporting “Bill HB 4474”?
Take a moment and think how ass-backwards you are.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Did I express support for them?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Depends how recently they became Amercian citizens.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Born in the USA

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Those commies can't be deported. We have to live with them. Unfortunately.

But all the ones that pledged alliance to this country and loyalty to their fellow citizens, while being vile commies, yeah, should almost certainly be deported.

They were cleary lying when they took the oath.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Those commies can't be deported. We have to live with them. Unfortunately.

Trump proposed a "new law" to deal with them.

>But all the ones that pledged alliance to this country and loyalty to their fellow citizens, while being vile commies, yeah, should almost certainly be deported.

So apparently you don't think people in the US should have the right to freedom of assembly.

Also please define where "communism" begins and ends, according to you.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Trump said that? Or did someone tell you he "MEANT" that?

2. I think that COMMUNISTS, almost by definition are hostile to America and everything we stand for. Thus, any communists that swore alliance to this country was almost certainly LYING, which is moral and legal cause to deport their America hating asses.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. "He also said there needs to be a “new law” to address communists and Marxists who grew up in America, but didn’t elaborate on what it would include.

2. So are theocrats, fascists. So are lots of people with weird beliefs. The whole point about freedom of expression is that it allows people with unpopular beliefs to express their positions.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Soo, GREW UP HERE, and someone told you he "meant" "born here"? Got it. Thanks.

2. There is nothing about "freedom of speech" that means we have to welcome people into our nation, that believe evil stupid shit, like communism. American citizens have the right to have unpopular beliefs and to express them. Foriegners who believe, for example that the rich should be sent to lined up against a wall and murdered by the MILLIONS, I want to be sent home, immeditately.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. You think it might be moral if Trump specifically meant someone who came here at the age of 5 being deported at the age of 33? Also "grew up here" does not preclude "being born here". You are reaching.

2. Except in this case we're not talking specifically about that. We're also talking about people who have been here, potentially, since childhood - or even people who were born here.

Also please define the scope of "communism" please. He also said "socialists" should be blocked too.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

please define the scope of "communism"

That would be pointless and futile to someone that:

1. Denies that China is communist.
2. Does not know what Communism and Marxism is.
3. Does not know the difference between a lie and the truth.
4. Insists on believing Fake News/Mis/Dis/Mal information from leftist Biased sources.
5. As a European leftist, you are far too radicalized/brainwashed to reason with.
6. You are so far left that there is no point of reference for “center” or “right”; "left" is all there is for you.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I meant from his perspective. I wasn't asking him to convince me.

1. China is, at best, a post-communist nation. I've given you tons of literature on this.
2. Provide evidence for this claim.
3. See above.
4. What "fake news" is this?
5. So why are you replying to me?
6. How am I "so far left"? What beliefs of mine make me that?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Nope, I'm talking about what he actually SAID. You are the one trying to "reach" to hold him resposible for a policy statement that someone told you he "meant". YOU are teh one "reaching.

NOte that even though your post was structured as a counter point, it actually was just NOT TRUE.

2. Do we as Americans have the right to decide who to allow to join our nation?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I would regard suggesting "new laws" for already integrated immigrants who have been here for decades pretty authoritarian in itself.

2. Yes, in the way that North Korea can - but it doesn't stop people being able to scrutinise it.

3. Please define the scope of "communism" please. He also said "socialists" should be blocked too. Define where socialism begins and ends please.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

I posted a list here a while back and you denied and rejected them.

The Democrats and RINOs have already achieved several of those goals.

The American 'Democratic' Party's 45 goals to destroy the United States:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/naked-communist45-goals-destroy-united-states-america-waghelstein-1c

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/naked-communist45-goals-destroy-united-states-america-waghelstein-1c

Conspiracy theory garbage. And you've provided no evidence that these are the goals of the Democratic party, nor that they are communist. Progressivism is not Communism.

You also never answered my question about why the USSR was anti-homosexuality. If being pro-LGBT is inherently communist, then why are both the USSR and China historically anti-LGBT in policy?

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

Progressives = Regressive
https://www.jns.org/progressives-are-regressive/

Once again: Several of those goals have already been achieved.

You didn’t ask me such questions, but nevertheless, see the following:
Goals 25 and 26.

The goal of socialism is communism:

https://time.com/5422714/what-is-democratic-socialism/

https://www.newstribune.com/news/2018/mar/13/your-opinion-democrat-communist-beliefs-too-simila/

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Progressives = Regressive
https://www.jns.org/progressives-are-regressive/

That's nice. But not relevant to my point. Progressivism, whether or not you think it is regressive is not Communism.

This is a pretty basic opinion piece that misrepresents communism and progressivism.

>The goal of socialism is communism:

No reason to believe this.

And your first article literally outlines how democratic socialism is dissimilar from communism.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You didn’t ask me such questions, but nevertheless, see the following:
Goals 25 and 26.

>25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV. [Note: This is the Gramscian agenda of the "long march through the institutions" spelled out explicitly: gradual takeover of the "means of communication" and then using those vehicles to debauch the culture and weaken the will of the individual to resist.]

What, are you a fucking prude? Do you believe in mass media censorship?

>26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy." [Note: Today those few who still have the courage to advocate public morality are denounced and viciously attacked. Most Americans are entirely unwitting regarding the motives behind this agenda.]

You do realise that the USSR criminalised homosexuality, right?

Explain why this is.

And what does this have to do with communism?

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

You conveniently missed the following header from that link:

"Key progressive policies actually embody Marxist, Socialist, Communist, authoritarian, atheist and anarchist ideas that have consistently failed wherever they have been tried."

“media censorship?”
Dumbass, that is what the left has been doing.

Socialism and communism have differences and similarities, but the eventual goal of socialism is communism. (The past 100+ years have proven that).

Btw, this is not 1:1 communism with USSR. Communism is a foundation with variations that derive and are rooted from Marxism–Leninism.

Once again you have proven that evidence, proof, and citations are irrelevant so you reject and deny them.

You should stop asking or requesting others for evidence or opinions since it is pointless and futile.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>"Key progressive policies actually embody Marxist, Socialist, Communist, authoritarian, atheist and anarchist ideas that have consistently failed wherever they have been tried."

No they don't. "Defunding the police" (which is a poor, yet misrepresented slogan) is not innately communist, authoritarian, atheist (????).

What does national healthcare have to do with atheism?

What does vaccine regulation and research have to do with any of those buzzwords?

You do realise that authoritarian communist regimes such as the USSR would have very different ideas regarding police funding to anarchists, right?

Every country has taxes, and many countries have progressive taxation. What does this have to do with communism, or atheism? Or even anarchism for goodness sake?

What does climate change have to do with any political ideology?

---

Hell, what does any of the points in that article have to do with atheism? It's literally taking out a bunch of contemporary US leftist positions, that not all leftists in the US necessarily agree with and just saying "See, this is all communistic, atheistic, socialistic, anarchist".

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You should stop asking or requesting others for evidence or opinions since it is pointless and futile.

I want to know why, according to you, the USSR was homophobic and had anti-LGBT legislation. You keep suggesting that social progressivism is somehow innately communistic, yet every single communist regime that has ever existed (except Cuba - and only relatively recently) has been overtly and or implicitly anti-LGBT.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Dumbass, that is what the left has been doing.

Point #25

"Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV."

You literally complained about "obscenity" and "pornography" in media. Define "obscenity". Are you suggesting that this is wrong? Should the government have never allowed this?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. That's nice. It's not of course. If naturalized American citizens are clearly being anti-american it is reasonable to discussion policy options to deal with it. You saying "authoritarian" is meaningless static.

2. So you support the idea in priniciple that we can NOT invite people to joint our nation. Good. Clearly considering the blood soaked history of tyranny that communism has had, not wanting any of them makes complete sense.

3. Why?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. It's blatantly authoritarian. You would almost certainly throw your toys of the pram if Biden suggested dealing with "reactionaries" or "fascists" or "evangelicals". But authoritarianism is obviously perfectly fine when targeted at people you don't like. Fascist.

2. No, I said USA would have the literal right to do it - but it doesn't make it right.

3. Because Trump also said "socialists". You do realise that not all Communists are revolutionary, right? Especially not socialists - like democratic socialists.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. It was a mistake to accept people into the American community that are actively hostile to our community. Communism is a radical, totalitarian, genocidal ideology. We don't want any more of that in our future cultural fusion than we already will have due to AMERICAN commies.

2. Why is it wrong?

3. Got it. Instead of BEING the murderous revolutionaries rioting in our streets burning down our cities and kililng our people, they wll just be the ones ordering the cops to stand down and talking on the tv screens how the revolutionaries are "mostly peaceful".

Yeah, we got enough of that kind too. No thanks.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. So you are, 100% an authoritarian.

2. Political or social tests for tourism or immigration tend to be wrong. I would accept if they were CPC party members, or people with literal history in ISIS or associated islamic extremist organisations. Do you also extend your position to known fascists and theocrats?

3. That's not what I asked you. Define "socialism" please. Where does it begin and end? What should happen to socialists already in the USA?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Being anti-communists is not authoritarian. That you feel it is, is a you problem.

2. We have ALWAYS expected immigrants to assimilate into our political traditions. That is our right and it is not wrong to expect that, nor to take actions if it is NOT happening, as is teh case with commies today.

3. And I asked you why do you want a definition. You don't care because you support letting all of them in. I don't care because I don't want any of them in. SO the details are moot.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. It is if you want to remove people's rights for it.

2. Do you hold the same position for fascists? What would this test even looked like?

3. Because I want to see how broad it goes. Should social democrats or democratic socialists be barred from the USA? Are they "anti-american"?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. You think citizens of other nations have a right to come here? Well, you are incorrect, tehy do not. And you already admitted that.

2. Sure, if we had a problem with a lot of facsists trying to immigration, especially if we had a strong fascist movement like we have a strong marxist movement it would be fine to ban any more likely supporters from immigrating.

3. Good question. I vote YES. You, I assume vote no. Hopefully my side wins the next election and we get some PRO-AMERICAN national policy.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. What a country has a /right/ to do doesn't mean it is the /right thing/ to do.

2. Who are all these communists allegedly trying to get into the USA?

3. So you basically think all Europeans should be banned from entering the USA since social democracy is the norm here. How would you even test for 'social democratic' views? And how are they supposedly 'anti-american'? What should happen to American social democrats and democratic socialists?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1, Ive discussed why commies are bad to have here, you have not explained why you think they are GOOD to have.

2. Actually, i was thinking more about the ones we see here already, ie recent immigrants who are clearly commie bastards.

3. Personally I think we should have a ban on ALL immigration other than for spouses for quite some time.

4. American lefties? They should be fought at every opportunity.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. It's not about 'good' or 'bad' - I do not think people should be persecuted based on their political positions.

2. And who are they?

3. Uh-huh

4. Meaning what exactly?

How would you even test for 'social democratic' views? And how are they supposedly 'anti-american'? What should happen to American social democrats and democratic socialists?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Not being invited to join out country, is not persectution. And btw, I think poeple should judged when they support a genocidal and oppressive ideology, like commies.

2. I don't know them personally, by name. That seems a silly question. You oppose me on the principle of the thing, putting a name or two as examples, is that helpful?

3. Yep. We are overfull. We are not assimilating them, they are assimilating US.

4. It's a general statement. FOr one example, VOTE TRUMP and get rid of Biden and his administration. (desantis would also be acceptable)

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Targeting people already here is - especially when you're vague about what constitutes communism. And what genocidal ideologies do communists support?

2. Not individuals. Who are the groups you are referring to? Surely if there's a recent surge of specifically communist immigrants, you can show this in some way.

I'll ask AGAIN: How would you even test for 'social democratic' views? And how are they supposedly 'anti-american'? What should happen to American social democrats and democratic socialists?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Why do you think it is morally wrong to deport commies?

2. I'm thinking any members of any of the anfifa or blm groups, any members of open border groups, any members of any other clearly communistis groups. Deport them all.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I don't think people should be deported based on their political opinions. Maybe for CPC membership or something, but not just for how they think.

2. These aren't necessarily recent immigrants at all. Many are born in the USA. Also, not all of them are communist.

I'll ask AGAIN: How would you even test for 'social democratic' views? And how are they supposedly 'anti-american'? What should happen to American social democrats and democratic socialists?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Yeah, I got that. EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING.

2. ANtifa, blm are marxist. Open border is inherently anti-American, and probably marxist.

Deport them.

3 Why do you care? That is not why you oppose it.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I believe in freedom of conscience. It's that simple.

2. Where is your evidence that open borders are marxist? And how is it anti-american?

Also, What should happen to people BORN IN THE USA who are sympathetic to antifa and BLM? There's no evidence that their numbers are buffered by immigrants much.

3. Yes it is. Or it's one of the reasons. Answer my questions.

I'll ask AGAIN: How would you even test for 'social democratic' views? And how are they supposedly 'anti-american'? What should happen to American social democrats and democratic socialists?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. That doesn't explain why it is wrong of US to not want them here.

2. Person experience with lefties that support the policy. Their arguments are almost always heavily based on anti-Americanism.

3. Bullshit. If I came up with an easy test, that would not make you ONE IOTA more likely to support the policy.

4. Why do you ask such stupid questions?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Because my principles don't change based on the country. I am pro secular democracy everywhere.

2. Correlation is not causation. There are lots of people that are open-borders that are not anti-USA. Also what does it have to do with marxism?

3. No, it wouldn't. But I'm asking it anyway:

4. It's not a stupid question at all. How do you test to see if someone is pro-social democratic? What should happen to social democrats who were born and raised in the USA?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Commies don't make democracies, they make totaliarian hellholes and mass graves.

2. Do you support open borders?

3. Thus, it is NOT one of the reasons you oppose it. Which was my point.

4. What is the opint of that question?

5. What should happen to them? THey should be ashamed.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Right - that's irrelevant to my support for civil liberties.

2. No. How is open-borders inherently marxist?

3. I never said it was. I was asking you a follow-up question.

4. To see how authoritarian you are.

5. I meant by law. What should happen to them?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. lol. sure it is.

2. It is inherently anti-american.

3. So, it's a moot question. Why ask it?

4. Dude. YOu're an asshole. Being anti-communists is not authoritarian. It is stupid to claim it is.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Another loaded question. I am not "afraid" of anything.

Do you just assume anyone who doesn't want to persecute communists, is a communist?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Not allowing them to immigrate here, is not persecution. That you call it that, strongly implies that you do not think that Americans have the right to decide who comes to join our community.

Which contradicts your earlier admission that we do.

So, which is it?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Not allowing them to immigrate here, is not persecution. That you call it that, strongly implies that you do not think that Americans have the right to decide who comes to join our community.

What an absurd line of reasoning. I disagree with US gun laws, but that doesn't mean I don't think Americans don't have the right to have specific gun laws. Or abortion laws.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Words like "persecute" only make sense, if your position is that Americans are PERSECUTING the commies, when we say that they can't move here.

For that to make any sense, you are operating from hte unstated premise that they have some RIGHT to come here, that our not letting them come, is thus violating.

Your arguments, your words, all show that you are talking shit, to avoid sharing with US, your real reasons for wanting the commies to be allowed in.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>For that to make any sense, you are operating from hte unstated premise that they have some RIGHT to come here, that our not letting them come, is thus violating.

Yes. I do believe the US has the right, as in the power, to pass repressive laws. Just as my country does. Our hate speech laws are somewhat repressive and unjustified. The Online Safety Bill (aside from being unworkable) is pretty authoritarian.

>Your arguments, your words, all show that you are talking shit, to avoid sharing with US, your real reasons for wanting the commies to be allowed in.

And what are these "real reasons"? Or do you just throw around outrageous, baseless and bigoted accusations as a norm? According to this forum, if you're not a socially reactionary MAGA conservative then you're obviously a far-left stalinist.

I don't think the US should reject anyone because they're communist, or liberal, or conservative, or catholic, or muslim, or jew, or atheist.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

I made a point about how your argument contradicts your own addmission that we have the right to decide who comes.

Nothing in your post addresses that contradiction.

As to your real reasons, Asking me what your reasons are, is fucking retarded.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

There's no contradiction. Just your inability to understand the concept of rights.

>As to your real reasons, Asking me what your reasons are, is fucking retarded.

You're suggesting I have some secret motives. Go on. Tell me what they supposedly are.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

If we have the right to not let them in, then not lettting them in, is not persecution.

Why do you want me to speculate on your reasons? What value would that have?

You could just tell us the truth.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>If we have the right to not let them in, then not lettting them in, is not persecution.

"Right" as in you can literally pass laws in this context. My country has the right, as in parliamentary sovereignty to pass bills that indirectly persecute groups - but it's still persecution.

>Why do you want me to speculate on your reasons? What value would that have?

You've constantly tried to goad me into revealing my "true reasons", whatever they are. But you refuse to elaborate on whatever suspicions you have.

>You could just tell us the truth.

I already have.

But I'm of a mind now to completely brickwall you until you answer my question about how social democrats are supposedly 'anti-american'.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Skavau, I want to be clear about something.

I do NOT want you to come to America and live in my house with me and my family.

AM I PERSECUTING YOU?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>I do NOT want you to come to America and live in my house with me and my family.

Going to the USA =/= Going to the USA, specifically to live in your house.

Quite different. Immigration rights have nothing whatsoever to do with personally living in your property

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

IMMIGRATION RIGHTS? What rights are you thinking of ?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

But I'm of a mind now to completely brickwall you until you answer my question about how social democrats are supposedly 'anti-american'.

I'm enforcing this now.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

I think I already answered this but sure.

"moderates" talk shit about being "moderate" but will almost always stand wiht hte radicals when they do radical shit.

Like the mainstream dems who with varying degrees of openness, supported the blm and antifa riots during teh Trump years,

"mostly peaceful" my ass.

The radicals are anti-American, and the moderates talk shit, but when it counts, get support The Party Line, siding with their fellow lefties against America.

Now, what immigration rights were you thinking of?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>"moderates" talk shit about being "moderate" but will almost always stand wiht hte radicals when they do radical shit.

What are you getting at here? That social democrats, despite saying that they're moderate, actually aren't? What does this observation have to do with social democrats from UK, or France, or Germany? How would they be anti-american?

How do you determine who is a true or fake moderate, precisely?

>The radicals are anti-American, and the moderates talk shit, but when it counts, get support The Party Line, siding with their fellow lefties against America.

So by "support the party line" do you simply mean "vote democrat"? And what does it mean to "side against America" here?

>Now, what immigration rights were you thinking of?

I don't think the US (or any country) should reject anyone because they're communist, or liberal, or conservative, or catholic, or muslim, or jew, or atheist. I regard a nation that sets political tests for eligibility to entry as backsliding down a dangerous path. "Immigration rights" in this context was the wrong word.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Dude you are such a tool.

NOte how I made a point, and expanded to explain it, and you, CUT the portion where I gave an example off the behavior, to ask me what I meant.

That's, at best, dumb.

This country has serious poliitcal problems. Inviting in hard core lefties to worsen it, is nto to our benefit. It makes sense to ban them. The commies in question have NO right to come here, so our deciding to not invite them in, is morally, and legally fine.

Nothing you have said, gives any explanation as to why that is not the case.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>NOte how I made a point, and expanded to explain it, and you, CUT the portion where I gave an example off the behavior, to ask me what I meant.

Social democrats in europe and elsewhere, who would be the ones trying to enter USA have no major context or association with BLM or Antifa. You have said, essentially, that you do not believe that self-described social democrats are moderate and are lying. How would you determine if a moderate, who says they are a moderate is truly a "moderate" by your reasoning?

>This country has serious poliitcal problems. Inviting in hard core lefties to worsen it, is nto to our benefit. It makes sense to ban them. The commies in question have NO right to come here, so our deciding to not invite them in, is morally, and legally fine.

Inviting them is a specific, pro-active action. Not banning them outright is not an invitation. And leftism =/= communism. They are not inherently the same things at all. There are plenty of "hardcore lefties" that are not communist. Social democrats aren't even "hardcore lefties".

No reason to believe that the US problems are uniquely the fault of "hardcore leftists". Your presupposition is unargued for.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Clearly, by NOT doing the behavior I described. D'uh.

2. I'm sure when the hard core lefties were rioting and killing people that the subtle distinctions between commies and social dems, was REAL IMPORTANT to their victims.

3. The left has gone bat shit crazy. They are the problem.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. And people entering the USA as social democrats wouldn't have done so. So presumably you now support the right of self-described social democrats to enter?

2. Do you think all social democrats in the USA have participated in this?

3. No reason to believe this. Or at least, no reason to believe that political polarisation is one-way.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. LOL. Incoming lefties assimilate with homegrown lefties. Seen it for decades.

2. Dude. DON'T pretend to be too stupid to understand how groups work.

3. lol. LEFTIES in this country are flipping out over the 1/6 riot, while ignoring the hundreds of lefty riots. It is one way. Your denial is irrational.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. So you think every single social democrat from Europe will immediately... what? Openly support BLM and Antifa? And are you saying here that on this basis, all social democrats from Europe and elsewhere should be denied entry to the USA?

2. No, you implied baselessly that all social democrats in the USA openly support Antifa and BLM.

3. Yep, far-right populism in the USA just outright doesn't exist.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/pushed-extremes-domestic-terrorism-amid-polarization-and-protest

https://www.cfr.org/blog/violent-far-right-terrorist-threat-american-law-enforcement

I am not bound by your blatant partisan hackery.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

lol, they are all lefties, such as antifa/blm and other corporate sponsored/fed operatives in disguise.

How many times must someone tell you that anyone can play dress up.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

[citation needed]

Just because you claim things, doesn't make them true.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

Just because someone plays dress up and pretends, doesn’t make it true.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. NOted. Standard lefty pretense of not understanding how groups work. BORING.

2. Nope. i was clearly discussing them as a group. You pretense of not being able to understand that, is your brain trying to defend a position that it knows is bs.

3. ONE right leaning riot, HUNDREDS of lefty riots. Wake up sunshine.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. What does a social democrat in the Uk have to do with someone in ANTIFA? Support for social democracy is normal in the UK. According to you almost every British person is 'anti-american'. Do you stand by that?

3. You think there's literally been only one right-wing public incident of extremism, terrorism or riots? You clearly did not click on the links I gave.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. I already explained my reasoning. I also note you dropped the point you JUST made where you pretended to not understand that laws and polices are made to deal with GROUPS, not individual exceptions. You really are just a shit talker.

3. I specifically compared RIOTS. Of course if you expand the discussion by adding TWO WHOLE CATEGORIES, that number changes. YOu really are just a shit talker.

4. This level of dishonesty, more and more, I'm thinkiing you are a commie yourself, and just talking shit, because that is what commies do.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. "Social democracy" is not really a concrete concept. People's level of endorsement of social democratic ideals will vary. There are many different types of 'social democracy'. Can you tell me, based on the actual understood *values* of social democracy - what is 'anti-american' about being a social democrat?

3. So why would only riots, specifically, matter as a way to compare anti-social behaviour from the far-right?

4. I have repeatedly said that I am not a communist, but it seems that you just argue that literally anyone who argues for the rights of communists to express their values is inherently a communist.

I've also said on a number of occasions that I would object to a hypothetical ban for "national conservatives" coming into the USA. Does that mean I am therefore a national conservative?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. I already covered that. YOu are just asking stupid questions to cloud the issue, ie why you really want commies to enter the US. You are a shit talker.

3. Politically motivated riots are a clear sign of political extremism. Which we were just talking about. YOu made a claim that the polarization of US poitics was on both sides. My comparison was an answer to your point. The way that you loose the thread of your own point, is a type of shit talk common among lefties dealing with someone who is calling them on their shit.

My point stands. THe left in this country are the ones thaat have gone bat shit crazy. They don't need support by importing more shitty lefties from outside.

4. I explained my reasoning to coming to suspect you of being a commie. That you ignored that and just made up shit, is the type of dishonest shit talk I would expect from a commie.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I don't "want" communists to enter the USA anymore than I "want" national conservatives, or liberals to enter the USA. False premise. Stop inferring some hidden motive and just outright claim it.

And no you didn't. You said that social democrats usually are just deceptive and just ally themselves with communist-adjacent movements. This was completely unargued for and derived entirely from your own prejudiced.

3. But they are not the ONLY form of expressions of political extremism that exists. I specifically gave you multiple links that refer to the current far-right threat within the USA that you just outright ignored.

4. No, you didn't. You simply asserted that because I support the rights of communists that must therefore mean I support the values of communists. This is rooted in your blatant bigotry that tells you that anyone who is left-leaning in any sense, or anyone who defends the *rights* of communists is themselves a communists. And you didn't answeer my other question:

I've also said on a number of occasions that I would object to a hypothetical ban for "national conservatives" coming into the USA. Does that mean I am therefore a national conservative?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Your intent is clear. THe only question is why the dishonesty.

2. LOL!!! Your denial is nothing but gashlighting. You shittalker.

3. I understand. You can see riots and count them easily, and compare and see that the Left is the big problem today, as I said, thus my point proven. So naturally you want to confuse the issue by instead talking about vaguer, more subjective statements from biases sources.

ie more dishonest shit talk.

My point stands. THe left, as a group, had radicalized and gone crazy and violent today.

4. I made no such connection. Indeed I specificly stated that it was your dishonesty in supporting their actions. That you LIED again, makes my point AGAIN.

6. Yeah, at this point, your words have no credibility.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. So you're just going to mindread me, are you?

2. Denial of what?

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist_attacks#2020s

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/domestic-terrorist-groups.html

https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022

https://jigsaw.google.com/the-current/white-supremacy/data-visualization/

4. I don't support any riots from the right or the left. This entire chain has nothing to do with supporting anything like that.

6. Are you accusing me of lying? That really, if I could, I would support a ban on conservatives?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. We've been talking about the issue for days. That I can draw a conclusion from how you conduct yourself is not....unusual. That you pretend it is, is just you being a dishonest shit talking troll.

2. OMG. I number shit so you can look up and follow the points. Are you really pretending that you didn't know how to do that, to just scroll up a bit and see what the point was? LOL. More shit talk from the lefty troll.

3. Yep. Avoid counting something we can all see, and instead try to move the conversation to more subjective claims by other poeple. That is you defending the far left rioters, because you are trying to LIE abou the fact that they are the problem, not us righties.

ONE riot vs hundreds. THe left are the bad guys.

4. If that was true, you would have just admitted that my point about the riots (1 vs hundreds) was valid and started discussing the implications of how violent and radical the left is, instead of fighting me on it.

6. Wow. I'm accusing you of lying about that. Clearly. I explicitly stated that. YOu are just gasighting.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Dishonest about what?

2. You make vague accusations and don't directly say what you mean, you just suggest accusations - so I directly ask you to back them up.

3. The sources have tons of data on them. You refuse to look at them is on you, not me. Does the data in those examples not exist?

3b. A lot of murder, murder attempts, terrorist attacks.

4. Oh, so "You didn't agree with me that the left is the sole problem of everything so therefore that means you are secretly a communist". What is this utterly braindead reasoning.

6. This is nothing but pure projection. It rests on the assumption that I am a mirror of your values. I say again, I want no free speech or immigration restrictions on people just because they are conservative-leaning.

Provide evidence that I support persecution of conservatives. I refuse to answer any further questions until you answer this.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Pretty much everything, but specifically about you wanting commies to enter the us.

2. I was clear as shit, imported lefties will assimilate with domestic lefties. And our domestic lefties are bat shit crazy and violent.

3. Give me a reason why counting riots is not a valid standard of violent, radical behavior. I made a point with that. You have not explained why that point if not valid, nor why my standard is not valid. You jsut want to use another. Without even saying why. The obvious answer is because you don't like how strongly counting riots supports my point.

4. You're refusing to deal with the difference between ONE and FOUR HUNDRED. why?

6. Nope. It rests on your dishonest behavior. I have pointed out your dishonesty many times and cited it as reason for my belief you are a commie and explained my reasoning. And you are now pretending that didn't happen and are instead trying to offer a strawman. What a dishonest person you are.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. No argument given. And I don't "want" communists to enter USA anymore than I do liberals or conservatives, or anyone else.

2. You do realise that many social-democrats are centrists, right?

Not answering (3) and (4) until you answer:

Provide evidence that I support persecution of conservatives. I refuse to answer any further questions until you answer this.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Clearly you do.

2. Said the man that can't admit that 400 is more than one.

3. HA HA HA HA HA.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6357) 2 years ago

You are a joke.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Based on what?

2. Again, not answering until you answer my question about your accusations against me:

Provide evidence that I support persecution of conservatives. I refuse to answer any further questions until you answer this.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Dude. I explained my reasoning to come to my conclusion. It was based on my observation of your behavior.

It would ahve been reasonable for you to try to challenge my logic.

BUt demanding "proof" is just you being a shit talker.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

You are making accusations against me. Multiple.

1. The allegation that I am secretly a communist.

2. The allegation that I wish to censor conservatives.

You have fuck all evidence for either of thme other than your own hateful bigotry. Back them up.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

I already backed the accustations up, when I made them.

For you to ask me to back it up now, is just shit talk.

It's a form of evasion I have seen from lefties before, they think as long as they say SOMETHING, anything, that it somehow "counts" as a counterpoint, even if it is utterly retarded and to say it, they are pretending to be utterly retarded.

It is a form of sophism, I believe. And very dishonest.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>I already backed the accustations up, when I made them.

No, you did not. You just repeated them. I have never said anything supportive of communism on here, and have never supported censoring anyone.

>It's a form of evasion I have seen from lefties before, they think as long as they say SOMETHING, anything, that it somehow "counts" as a counterpoint, even if it is utterly retarded and to say it, they are pretending to be utterly retarded.

This may be a surprise to you, but I am the authority over what I think - not you. I decide my opinions not you. I am outright telling you that I am not a communist, and I do not support censoring conservatives.

I know my mind. I am me, you are not. Therefore you get no say over what it is I think. Is that understood?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Dude. YOu are just shit talking. You admit that we as Americans have the right to control who we invite in, yet are whining about US wanting to ban a group.

That makes no sense. The explanation is, you are lying about your reason.

You are a commie.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Dude. YOu are just shit talking. You admit that we as Americans have the right to control who we invite in, yet are whining about US wanting to ban a group.

As in your lawmaking offices have sovereignty. That you literally *can* pass discriminatory laws doesn't mean I think you should. My own country has passed shitty laws that I don't think we should have done, yet they had a parliamentary majority.

Your inability to understand the difference between what a state *can do*, and what a state *ought do* is noted.

>That makes no sense. The explanation is, you are lying about your reason.

This logically does not follow at all, even if my reasoning is broken (it's not).

As I said: I know my mind. I am me, you are not. Therefore you get no say over what it is I think. Is that understood?

I am outright telling you that I am not a communist, and I do not support censoring conservatives.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Not wanting a shitty group to be part of US, is not "discriminatory" it is just .... normal and healthy.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

They are already in the USA. Native-born Americans are sometimes communists.

And yes, the proposed restrictions are politically discriminatory.

Also:

As I said: I know my mind. I am me, you are not. Therefore you get no say over what it is I think. Is that understood?

I am outright telling you that I am not a communist, and I do not support censoring conservatives.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Yes, we covered that. Clearly communists who are AMERICAN citizens is a whole other problem, so, it was silly of you to bring it up before and down right dishoenst of you to bring it up again.

2. Meanwhile, my point stands. Banning commies from immigrating is just good sense. They are bad people with bad ideas.

3. You have been dishonest thoughout this thread. You clearly have a reason(s) for supporting letting commies into the country, and it must be an ugly one(s) or you would be happy to share it. You being a commie seems most likely. Your denial is irrelevant. You have no credibility remaining.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. My point there was that it is already, in terms of presence, a thing.

2. Some are, some are not. Eurocommunists are nothing like Stalinists who are nothing like Anarcho-communists.

3. I also supporting "letting in conservatives" as I do not believe in political tests for enterting countries. You are assuming I have some hidden motive. You haven't actually provided any evidence other than your own bigotry. Because you are a hateful person who stereotypes anyone who is on the left as being a communist.

As I said: I know my mind. I am me, you are not. Therefore you get no say over what it is I think. Is that understood?

I am outright telling you that I am not a communist, and I do not support censoring conservatives.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Again, we went over that. It was silly of you to bring it up then, and dishonest of you to bring it up again, as though it was not covered completely.

2. Whatever. As a group, they choose to identify with one of the worst ideologies of all time, with a MASSIVE body count and a record of oppression that makes the nazis jealous.

Banning them is just good sense. It was fucking stupid that we had not done that since.... forever.

3. I fully explained my reasoning. That you are now lying about that, supports my conclusion(s) about you being a dishonest commie.

4. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. The way you play as though you are too dumb to get it? Standard far lefty tactic.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

2. They do not regard it was the "worst ideology" of all time.

3. Your reasoning is nothing more than your bigotry, because you are a hateful person who automatically assumes every left-leaning person, no matter what they do, is a communist.

4. So what's the point then? You assume I have hidden veiled motives. I deny them. You assume I am lying. How am I supposed to demonstrate my sincerity?

I can play this game too. You are a fascist who wants to persecute left-wingers. Any denial by you that you want this is merely taken to me as evidence that you do.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Wow. I said "one of the worst" and you have to lie to say " THE worst". Such reflexive dishoensty is typical of the far left.

My point stands. Bad people, bad ideas, stupid to NOT ban them, stupid to whine about banning them.

2. Blah, blah, blah, bigotry. Blah, blah, blah, hateful. Whatever commie.

3. Explain the contradiction between admitting that we have the right to choose whom to invite into our country and you whining about it, when we exercise that right.

4. Except there is no contradictions in my position, nor have I been personally dishonest in our dealings. Your claim of some sort of similarity between us, is you shit talking.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

2. Or even "one of the worst". Given they're communists, they're not likely to view it negatively.

2. I'm not a communist.

3. Repeatedly answered this. In fact, I directly answered it in a post and you refused to address it:

"Your lawmaking offices have sovereignty. That you literally *can* pass discriminatory laws doesn't mean I think you should. My own country has passed shitty laws that I don't think we should have done, yet they had a parliamentary majority.

Your inability to understand the difference between what a state *can do*, and what a state *ought do* is noted."

4. You make excuses for and dismiss far-right acts of violence (I've cited many links that document these) because you are a crypto-fascist who is sympathetic to political repression against people whose views you do not like.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. The commies who identify as commies don't have a negative view of the ideology? What ta shock.

Once again, you post a post, that has the form of a counter point, but actually does NOT make a point. That the commies don't share my adversion to communism is A. obvoius and b. utterly irrelevant.

That you even went there, was you being a shit talker.

2. Says the shit talker.

3. "Discriminating" against bad ideas , is a GOOD thing. That you oppose it, is you supporting BAD POLICY.

A state OUGHT to try to avoid given aid and comfort to the commies already among US.

4. ONE is less than FOUR HUNDRED. Thatt you want to avoid discussing that, and instead change the discussion to a more subjective standard is YOU supporting communism, not me supporting right leaning violence. I'm happy to discuss that subject honestly and clearly. Unlike you that shit talker all the time.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Right, so no reason to have state policy dictated by Corbells personally liked or disliked ideologies in regards to immigration laws.

2. Whether or not I'm a "shit talker" has nothing whatsoever to do with me being a communist or not.

3. Right, and I know this is your opinion - but I explained how it is no contradiction. The US is able to legislate in discriminatory ways, but it also shouldn't (in my opinion)

4. You didn't click any of the links. It refers to many incidents of far-right terrorism and incitement beyond the one incident you refer to.

I'm making the point that if you can just accuse me of being a communist on no evidence, then I can accuse you of being a fascist. And there's nothing you can say that could convince me otherwise. Because my assumption in this scenario is that you are a lying fascist.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Trump is running for office. People will vote for or against him. If he gets in, he hopefully will ban commies.

2. Debatable. I've found hard core far lefties to be deeply, inherently, reflexively dishonest people. And you have been doing quite a bit of shit talking.

3. The idea of being "non-discriminatory" to the point that you don't want to "discriminate" against people that want to committ genocide on you, is quite stupid and/or insane.

4. You are trying to go from a standard that is clear and objective to one that is vaguer and more subjective. You goal was clearly to AVOID clarity and honest debate on the issue. ONE is far less than FOUR HUNDRED.

5. Said the shit talker.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. If it turns out Trump does want to censor communism domestically, as in restrict communist organisations and individuals within the US - would you support that?

2. So you're continuing from your bigotry that all left-wingers are inherently "dishonest" and thus anything they say must be treated as a lie.

3. Not all communists wish to do this at all.

4. You didn't click the links. Why are you talking as if you did? They literally referred to actual terrorist attacks or plots.

5. "No u"

I take it you're not going to answer my posts. Where have I called for conservatives to be persecuted?

And why is it that I oppose CPC China, North Korea and the USSR?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. ALL the talk of censoring today, in America, comes from teh LEFT.

2. And once AGAIN, you are pretending to not understand how to talk about GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Ironically, this is shit talk coming from you. lol. YOu are CLEARLY a shit talker.

3. But it does seem to happen quite a lot with them. AND, the hate they have for AMERICA?... Oooh yeah, they get their way, we are going to see some serious genocide in this country.

4. Because I know poeple like you. That is the ONLY reason you would want to change the standard. To cloud the issue, so you can run away from how clearly RIGHT I am. ie The LEFT are teh bad guys, THe LEFT are the violent out of control bat shit crazy ones.

5. YOur request to derail the thread, to distract from how badly I called you out on your shit, is denied.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/13/1055524205/more-republican-leaders-try-to-ban-books-on-race-lgbtq-issues

https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/with_replies

https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights

https://www.advocate.com/politics/ted-cruz-attacked-uganda-law

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-lawmakers-are-trying-to-ban-drag-first-they-have-to-define-it/#:~:text=A%20drag%20queen%20battle%20has,restrict%20or%20criminalize%20drag%20performances.

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-senator-pushes-law-effectively-outlaw-online-porn-nationwide-1767819

2. I'm an individual, not a representative of a group. You still display bigotry that all left-wingers are inherently "dishonest" and thus anything they say must be treated as a lie.

3. I am talking about contemporary post-communist groupings in Europe? Who do they want to genocide, exactly?

What genocide will we see?

4. Why should it only matter when talking about riots? Why do lone-wolf attacks not matter? Why do bomb plots not matter? Why do mass shootings not matter?

5. Not dropping this. Any further questions by you will be rejected until you answer them.

Why do I not support, and actively oppose CPC China, USSR and North Korea?

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

He is referring to free speech that the 'left' does not agree with.

All those links are about taking a stand against child pornography, pedophilia, child grooming, the sexualization of kids and indoctrination to mutilate/castrate children/minors, but since you support all that, than it is no surprise that you would reference them as a comparison.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>He is referring to free speech that the 'left' does not agree with.

I pointed out that it is not only the left targeting free speech.

>All those links are about taking a stand against child pornography, pedophilia, child grooming, the sexualization of kids and indoctrination to mutilate/castrate children/minors, but since you support all that, than it is no surprise that you would reference them as a comparison.

This is an outright lie. If you continue to accuse me of being a pedophile, I will again try to get the moderators involved.

And no, those links were not all about that at all. You clearly did not read most of them.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

You are comparing the censoring of free speech vs taking a stand against the targeting of children and minors by the trans cult.

You have stated multiple times that it is wrong for us to ban them from our country, so yes; you are a commie that supports that cult.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You are comparing the censoring of free speech vs taking a stand against the targeting of children and minors by the trans cult.

Do you think LGBT people inherently want to 'sexualise childen'?

>You have stated multiple times that it is wrong for us to ban them from our country, so yes; you are a commie that supports that cult.

I've also said it would be wrong for the USA to ban national conservatives. Does that mean I support national conservatism?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

When did I, at any point, endorse censoring conservatives?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Another irrelevant question from you to distract from the point. IE the point being that you equated censorship with banning pornography targetting children.

You refuse to address teh meat of the point. You instead want to just wander off into the weeds down a thread of retarded questions that lead nowhere.

You are a shit talker. My point stands. All the attempts at censorship today, comes from teh Left.

2. That bit where you say that you support conservative immigrating? It's shit talk. As America is a bastion of freedom in the world, there is no place that has teeming masses of what would be American "conservatives" wanting to come here. It is an easy thing for you to say, because it will never become an issue. AND if it somehow did, you would just reverse and justify it with shit talk.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Most of the articles have nothing to do with that specific strawman you just mentioned.

>You are a shit talker. My point stands. All the attempts at censorship today, comes from teh Left.

Except the many examples I just gave that, as usual, you clearly did not read.

2. How is it "shit talk"? It's pointing out that I do not support political tests for would-be immigrants. I have no desire to censor anyone. I have never made any post anywhere on here that suggests any kind of support for censorship, or communism. I actively loathe the largest communist states (the few that remain) on earth.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1.The first one certainly did. And if you want to discuss an issue seriously YOU pick your BEST example so the example can be looked at closely.

The kind of person that throws up a bunch of shit so that it creates the ILLUSION of supporting evidence but it is too much to actually address well?

Shit talker.

That your first example was complete shit?

Taints teh rest of your shit list.

I note that AGAIN, you still have not even addressed the FACT that YOU equated not wanting porn for children IN SCHOOL, with censorship.

So... Christ. You lose shit talker.

2. Because the balance you keep pointing to as your strongest evidence, is an illusion. That's why.

Clearly.

Dude. Instead of asking retarded questions, ADDRESS TEH FUCKING POINT FOR ONCE.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I picked a bunch of examples. And no, the title of the first one is: "More Republican leaders try to ban books on race, LGBTQ issues"

You clearly didn't read any of the sources. Providing a bunch of sources is better than what you do, which is to provide no sources at all.

>I note that AGAIN, you still have not even addressed the FACT that YOU equated not wanting porn for children IN SCHOOL, with censorship.

No, that's the false dichotomy that Republicans suggested in the article. LGBT content =/= pornographic content. And also, I'm not answering new questions until you answer some of mine. I've already told you this.

>2. Because the balance you keep pointing to as your strongest evidence, is an illusion. That's why.

"Illusion" for what? No idea what you're getting at here.

>Dude. Instead of asking retarded questions, ADDRESS TEH FUCKING POINT FOR ONCE.

You refuse to answer this question:

Why do I not support, and actively oppose CPC China, USSR and North Korea?

Where is the evidence that I support censoring conservatives?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Yep. Didn't read it. Assume it is for schools. Did you read it? Oh, you just buy the shit the lefties dish out don't you?

2. The balancing scenarios you suggest, will never happen. So it is easy for you to SAY, because it will never be tested.

3. Those are stupid qeustions that are designed to derail the thread AWAY from the point(s), while my questions you dodge, are actaully focusing in on the crux of the matter(s). Again, you pretend balance when there is none. You seem like a one trick pony.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. So you didn't read it, so you've got no ability to make any observation about it whatsoever. And yes, censoring LGBT content in schools is a form of censorship. Many of the other articles talk about other forms of censorship endorsed by conservatives.

3. They're questions that remain because you hurled unfounded accusations at me. If you didn't make unfounded accusations, I wouldn't insist you answer those questions.

So they remain: Not answering until you answer them. Why do I not support, and actively oppose CPC China, USSR and North Korea?

Where is the evidence that I support censoring conservatives?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Banning porn in a school library is not censorship. You post a list like that, and one bad example taints teh rest.

3. But my accusations were not unfounded. I explained my reasoning each time. If you want to discuss my reasoning, perhaps pointing out something about it you disagree with, that would be relevent. But, that is a direction you didn't want to go, how strange...

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. It wasn't about banning porn. You did not read the articles. You even admitted you didn't read them. You just assumed "LGBT = porn" because you're pretty prejudiced.

3. Yes they are. You've not backed them up at all. I've responded to all your accusations, particularly about your confusion over my point about parliamentary sovereignty (the ability of a nation to pass specific legislation via parliament) and what is the right thing to do (whether they should or should not do so). Which has nothing to do with whether I'm some secret communist or not anyway.

You have not backed up your arguments: Why do I not support, and actively oppose CPC China, USSR and North Korea?

Where is the evidence that I support censoring conservatives?

---

Although again, this is all for nought because I don't need to be "disproved" about what I think. I already know what I think. I am not a communist, and not not wish to censor conservatives. I have the final say over what it is I think, funnily enough. Because I am me, and you are not me.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. I'm already aware fo the issues, and generally the books in question are quite pornographic.

3. I explained my reasoning so I did back them up. That you would claim I did not, is shit talk.

4. You are clearly a fairly standard far left hack.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. You mean the links you didn't click? "Beloved" is a magical realism/racial issues book. It's not pornographic.

3. Your argument (only one was given) made no sense and had nothing to do with the hateful allegations. I now have two more specific questions to ask, which I want answers for:

Why do I not support, and actively oppose CPC China, USSR and North Korea?

Where is the evidence that I support censoring conservatives?

4. Even if I was - "far-left" is not even necessarily communism.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1, Here is the author.

"People keep saying, 'We need to have a conversation about race.' This is the conversation. I want to see a cop shoot a white unarmed teenager in the back. And I want to see a white man convicted for raping a Black woman. Then when you ask me, 'Is it over?', I will say yes."

Yeah, fuck her. And her work. We don't need shit lke that in our schools.

3. Sure they did. Cease your shit talk.

4, Don't care about your irrelevent distinctions without differences.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Are you somehow suggesting cancel culture now? Ironic.

3. No, they did not. And I'll do and say whatever the fuck I want and without your permission.

Why do I not support, and actively oppose CPC China, USSR and North Korea?

Where is the evidence that I support censoring conservatives?

4. This is more your ignorance regarding political ideologies. But then fascists aren't known for their understanding of political and social nuances.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. I don't want the writings of racist anti-American far lefties being taught in public schools. That is not "cancel culture" that is responsible public education.

3. Sure they did. And stop the shit talk.

4. Do you care about my specific ideological self identification?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. So this is right-wing cancel culture. Her own opinions have nothing to do with the content of her books necessarily.

3. No, they did not. And I will say whatever I want. And I've already answered them (you never bothered to acknowledge them)

Why do I not support, and actively oppose CPC China, USSR and North Korea?

Where is the evidence that I support censoring conservatives?

4. Not answering until you answer my question.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. The focus on slavery is to gin up racial hatred in blacks towards whites (and anti-Americanism.

3. Shit talk.

4. Don't care.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. So all fictional media that focuses on slavery should be banned from any educational setting?

Why do I not support, and actively oppose CPC China, USSR and North Korea?

Where is the evidence that I support censoring conservatives?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Also, if I am a communist - can you explain why I am hostile to China, North Korea, and the USSR?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

"Immigration process"?

This is not a question of "process" it is a question of who had the moral and legal RIGHT here.

Do AMERICANS have the moral and legal RIGHT to decide who to accept into their community and who to reject,

OR,

do want a be IMMIGRANTS, have the RIGHT to come here regardless of our wishes?

Clearly I believe in the former, while you believe in the latter.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Do AMERICANS have the moral and legal RIGHT to decide who to accept into their community and who to reject,

You have the ability. You also have the ability to pass laws to persecute communists on US soil. Doesn't mean you should.

>Clearly I believe in the former, while you believe in the latter.

I do believe that there should be safeguards, if they do not exist, to protect against potential immigrants from being rejected on the ground of their political ideology.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Dude. The "ABILITY" is not in question.

Every time you repeat that shit, you are shit talking. It's IRRELEVANT and MOOT.

The problem here is that you INSIST on using language and positions that strongly imply that the commies in question have some sort of RIGHT to come here.

You don't clearly state that, becuase it is clearly a fucking stupid position.

BUT, you KEEP circling around it, and being evasive to avoid being pinned down, while talking shit.

You are a coward.

And commies, should be rejected based on their political ideology.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Every time you repeat that shit, you are shit talking. It's IRRELEVANT and MOOT.

It was exactly what I was getting at originally.

>The problem here is that you INSIST on using language and positions that strongly imply that the commies in question have some sort of RIGHT to come here.

Same right as social conservatives, neoliberals, etc.

"Communism" is just the context of this thread, fascist.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

And you just did it again.

Instead of having the balls to directly state your position ie that you believe that the want a be immigrants have the right to come here,

you make a vague, snide comment that just implies it. So that you can avoid defending your clearly false position.

You are a shit talker.

NO want a be immigrant has a RIGHT to come here.

WE, Americans, have the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, which gives us the RIGHT to decide who can come here.

Address that or fuck off fag.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Instead of having the balls to directly state your position ie that you believe that the want a be immigrants have the right to come here,

I've already said this (as in should be enshrined in law). It just isn't "inviting", nor am I suggesting that the US specifically try to encourage them.

>WE, Americans, have the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, which gives us the RIGHT to decide who can come here.

If by "right" you mean "can pass laws that discriminate" then yes, but just because you can doesn't mean ought.

You still haven't answered my questions about why I don't support China or North Korea, fascist.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

No when I say "RIGHT to decide who comes here" I mean the RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO COMES HERE.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. I said what I said. Address it or fuck off. Save your bullshit questions for your pot head buddies.

2. Because the soviet union is gone. You would support them if they still survived and were good commies. I remember the way you leftards where during the cold war.

3. Fuck off again.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. My query was asking for clarification. That *is* addressing it. You seem to think that any fiction that focuses on slavery in the USA is specifically done to incite racial hatred.

2. No I would not. And I do not support China now. Why do I not support China? Why do I not support North Korea?

And the larger left-wing tradition in Western Europe did *not* support the USSR. Your history is just outright wrong.

3. No. Where is the evidence that I support censoring conservatives?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Also, the USSR (and China) was and is explicitly homophobic. Why would I support that?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1, Bullshit. It was a dodge.

2. Sure you would.

3. Said the shit talker.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Dodge to what? Are you saying would support literature, non-fictional or fictional that addresses slavery in schools?

2. Evidence please. On what grounds would I supposedly support it. And why do I not support China and North Korea?

3. This makes no sense. I asked a question. Where is the evidence that I support censoring conservatives?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Dodge to avoid addressing my point. I like the way you have to pretend to be nearly retarded in order to stonewall like this. It looks good on you.

2. Because you are a clearly a standard lefty hack, adn taht is what you people did, during the cold war.

3. Said the shit talker.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. What point, specifically, is this? That you endorse censorship of specific literature from schools and children? That you ignored all the links that I gave you regarding other instances of conservatives supporting censorship?

2. You do realise there are, right now, "standard lefty hacks" that openly support China, North Korea, Cuba etc. Why am I not amongst them?

3. Are you just going to behave like a little babyman and respond with "nuh uh"?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Listen shit talker. I made my point, if you don't want to address it, just don't post.

2. Don't care.

3. Dude. You are talking shit and doing NOTHING to address my actual points. ALL you are doing is shit talk.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I already did. Your inability to notice that because you can't comprehend the concept of follow-up questions is your point. Conservatives are, in many areas, supportive of censorship in the USA.

2. So if I was a "lefty" as you claim, why am I not supporting those regimes? Why do I detest them?

3. When I get accused of lying about what I think, I tend to stop giving a fuck about whatever the "original points" are (there have been many made here) and change direction entirely.

If you think I lie about everything, then why are you even replying to me?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. No, you didn't. You ignored my reasonable point and asked me a qeustion that took my reasonable point to an aburd extreme. That was you being a shit talker.

2. Don't care.

3. You weren't giving a fuck before that, taht is why I started pointing out that you are a shit talker. The egg came first buddy, and you're teh egg.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I asked you to clarify, and even asked what literature that deals with slavery (fiction or non-fiction) is acceptable in school.

2. Not an answer: So if I was a "lefty" as you claim, why am I not supporting those regimes? Why do I detest them?

3. I didn't realise until a certain point that you were accusing me of lying about what I think.

If you think I lie about everything, then why are you even replying to me?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. No you didn't leftard. You twisted my point into a strawman. Go fuck yourself.

2. I don't believe anything you say at this point.

3. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I literally did ask you that, fascist. You never answered and instead cried that someone was asking you questions. Because you're a fascist who doesn't accept that people have the right to question you.

2. So why even reply to me? I've asked you this repeatedly. Nothing I can say will convince you that I am not lying. So I can just return the favour and assume you're a fascist and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.

Is that fair?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Nope. You created a stawman. go fuck yourself.

2. Because you make leftards like yourself, look like complete assholes, that more you talk.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I inquired, you rejected, so I asked for clarification. But because you're a lying fascist you instead throw a temper tantrum about people asking follow-up and adjacent questions. Because you don't think leftists deserve human rights.

2. So I can just return the favour and assume you're a fascist and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.

Is that fair?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Mmm, I don't think that leftists deserve human rights? Funny, my point has been that they don't have the right to come here, and you've admitted that is true. See that is the crux of your shit talk. You KNOW that they don't have the right to come here, yet you want to have policy as though they do. And you want to attack me AS THOUGH they have that right and I am supporting violating it.

That is you being a shit talker.

2. I'm not the shit talker here, you are.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Mmm, I don't think that leftists deserve human rights? Funny, my point has been that they don't have the right to come here, and you've admitted that is true.

No, I said that US has legislative supremacy - and is able to pass discriminatory laws. Just like the UK has parliamentary sovereignty and can pass shitty bills like the Online Safety Act.

Also, no, my point here is further than that. I think you're actually a fascist who secretly would like it if the US would ban left-wing political parties and political viewpoints from its own citizens. I think you are lying about your true political values.

2. Not an answer to my question, fascist.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1 You also admitted that they did not have a RIGHT to come here. So your behavior attacking US on it, makes no sense.

Unless, you are shit talking.

2. Sure it was. Your conclusion above is WRONG, becuase it assumes that we are the same. Treating people differently based on different behavior, is just adn fair. You are a shit talker, so you should be treated as such. I am NOT, so, NOT.

Dumbass.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I can attack any countries law. Hungary has the RIGHT to pass anti-LGBT laws in the sense that they have a parliament that can pass laws. Doesn't mean I can't criticise them.

2. No, it's not. I think you are a lying crypto-fascist who deliberately avoids probing questions as much as possible as to not reveal how much of a hateful fascist you are.

I think you lie about your political values and actuallywould support a one-party dictatorship, because you are a fascist piece of shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Same reason lefties always did. Becuase you are comfortable with conflicting ideas in your brain.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

And what "conflicting ideas" are these?

I am explicitly telling you that I do not, and would not support USSR. I am me. You do not. Therefore you get no say over what it is I think.

Explain why I am openly hostile to CCP controlled China and North Korea.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1, The two opposing ideas you were just discussing in your question, retard.

2. But you are a shit talker.

3. LOL. It's shit talk.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Except I don't support any state that is openly homophobic (or specifically has homophobic policies). I never have. So I can't remotely make peace with such a contradiction.

Not answering any further questions from you until you explain why I don't support China and North Korea.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. So you say. BUt on the other hand, we both know that you are a shit talker. Soo....

2. you weren't answering questions before. Loser.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Not even sure what "shit talker" means here. If you're just going to assume I am lying no matter what I say, then why are you even replying to me? I am outright telling you that I object to the USSR. Always have.

It's also quite amusing, might I add, the the major boogeyman communist regimes that people like you cry about often have social values more comparable in many ways to the right-wing in the USA. (China, USSR, North Korea are/were socially reactionary). Most communist regimes in history have been openly 'traditional values'.

Not answering any further questions from you until you explain why I don't support China and North Korea. Why don't I support China and North Korea?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. LOL. Again, love the look of retard on you.

2. Interesting claim...wait, no, it's not. It's irrelevant bullshit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

2. It's just a small detail I noticed. All the communist regimes of history (and contemporary, if you consider China communist) have completely different social values to left-wing "communists" in the USA.

Not answering any further questions from you until you explain why I don't support China and North Korea. Why don't I support China and North Korea?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. It's shit talk.

2. LOL. Leftard, i explained my reasoning when many times before. Asking me again is just you being a shit talker.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Making points is "shit talk"?

2. Your reasoning was "Lol ur lying" with fuck all meaningful elaboration, fascist.

And no, you actually haven't explained why I do not support China or North Korea. You claimed I would've supported the USSR but didn't really present any arguments as for why.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

You've admitted that Americans have the right to decide who can or cannot enter, but you whine like a faggot when we do so.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Already answered this, and you've not once acknowledged the points I made here.

And no, you actually haven't explained why I do not support China or North Korea. You claimed I would've supported the USSR but didn't really present any arguments as for why.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Your behavior does not match your answer. If you truly accepted that we as Americans have the right to decide who to invite in or not, then your next step is NOT to attack US for exersizing that right, but to argue how or why commies should be invited in, as that is clearly your goal.

BUT, as we both know that commies and communism sucks ass, that is an impossible task for you. So you are stuck, talking shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Your lawmaking offices have sovereignty. That you literally *can* pass discriminatory laws doesn't mean I think you should. My own country has passed shitty laws that I don't think we should have done, yet they had a parliamentary majority. Just because a country can pass repressive laws doesn't mean I think they should.

Your inability to understand the difference between what a state *can do*, and what a state *ought do* is noted.

>but to argue how or why commies should be invited in, as that is clearly your goal.

No, it is not. Fascist.

I have said I don't think any tests should be set up.

>BUT, as we both know that commies and communism sucks ass, that is an impossible task for you. So you are stuck, talking shit.

How good or bad communism is has nothing whatsoever to do with my position here, fascist

And no, you actually haven't explained why I do not support China or North Korea. You claimed I would've supported the USSR but didn't really present any arguments as for why.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

We are allowed to "discriminate" in favor of GOOD immigrants as opposed to shitty immigrants.

Indeed, we have a responsibility to our fellow citizens and our descendents to do so.

That you think otherwise, si stupid.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. By law (not sure what the constitution says specifically). Doesn't mean it is necessarily right.

And no, you actually haven't explained why I do not support China or North Korea. You claimed I would've supported the USSR but didn't really present any arguments as for why.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

It is wrong to invite in harmful people into your community. You are a shit talker for claiming otherwise. .

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

"Invite" implies outreach. The immigration process is equally accessible to all.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Yes, it is.

2. How?

3. I'll ask whatever the fuck I like.

4. Wanting the state to censor them is. You didn't answer my question: What should happen to communists AND social democrats in the USA? Since you said that social democrats and democratic socialists are also anti-american, and should be blocked from entering the USA - I have to lump them in as well.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. Explain why you feel that.

2. It denies our right of self determination and sovereignty.

3. YOu can ask it. But it's moot. You might as well ask me if I like bunnies.

4. "censor them"? What are you even talking about?

5. They should be called out on their bullshit and shamed. Hopefully someday marginalized. Not sure how this is relevant to the thread.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. No. You refuse to answer my questions. Why should I continue answering yours?

2. Only if enforced by the law. US has a strong historical free speech tradition of allowing hateful and authoritarian ideas to be spread.

3. It's not moot at all - it's asking you how your hypothetical policy is even practical.

4. Trump specifically said a law should be passed for communists and "marxists" already in the USA. You didn't implicitly object to that. And why should social democrats be shamed?

5. Because Trump suggested more than just targeting immigrants.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. I've answer tons of questions from you. I'm hesitant on the ones that seem off topic. But I understand. It is hard to defend commies, with their long blood soaked history of oppression and genocide.

2. Let me be clearer. The ARGUMENT nad BELIEFS of the open border types are anti-American becasue they deny our rights of self determination and sovereighty.

3. i've seen a little how the dept of immgration investigates. They can do it, if they are told to and properly led. It is their job after all. It might be difficult, but that is not a reason to not even try.

4. In context seems like he was talking about immigrants already here. They should be deported.

5. Becuase of their ideas and actions.

6. "SUGGESTED"? lol. You people are hilarious. ALL you have is "gotchas" and half of them are made up. MAKE YOUR CASE FOR UNRESTRICTED IMMIGRATION HONESTLY.

But you can't. So you play debating games, instead of making clear concise points.

Remember when you asked me why I didn't want commies here? I just came back and told you clearly and honestly.

Make your case FOR commies, like that.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. No, you've ignored tons of my questions.

And when did I defend Communists?

2. Not if it's a sovereign decision by US law. People who support open borders don't necessarily want to cause this by force, but through the democratic process. And what does this have to do with marxism (another question of mine you keep ignoring)

3. Most people don't have a public political history. What are even the hallmarks of social democracy?

4. This is speculative. And what about people who have been here since 5 year olds? Should people who have publically campaigned for the Working Families party be deported?

5. So now you agree Trump wants to target more than just immigrants?

6. I've never called for unrestricted immigration.

>Remember when you asked me why I didn't want commies here? I just came back and told you clearly and honestly.

It seems, because you're a fascist who wants to repress social democrats, not just communists.

>Make your case FOR commies, like that.

I'm not a communist.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1, Ddue. Seriously? Are you admitting that they are genocidal totalitarians that it would be insane of US to invite them into our community?

2. That has never been their positions as explained to me. EVERYTIME the argument is some bullshit reason why America or Americans, don't have the moral or legal RIGHT to restrict immigration. Indeed, quite often more "moderate" lefties, those you might call "social democrats" or such, will parrot the same arguments, though reaching slightly less extreme positions.

3. Perhaps. We certainly are not going to catch them all. IMO, that is not a reason to not try. We can ask them on the form, and at least catch the really stupid ones.

4. OMG, coming from you that's hilarious. It's speculative of ME to want to just discuss his STATED policy position, while you want to discuss what he MIGHT have meant? HA HA HA HA HA HA.

5. Dude. Give it up. Stop with the silly gotcha games and just explain why you want unrestricted immigration.

6. HA HA HA HA HA. if you want to allow commies in, exactly what restrictions would you support? i await with baited breath.

7. Dude. Saying some word like "Fascist" might impress your buddies, especially if you've been smoking the mary jane, but at best it will amuse me at your expense and more likely bore me.

8. So you say. You have certainly taken their side here. EXPLAIN YOUR ACTUAL REASONS PLEASE so we can actually discuss the issue without bullshit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. Not all communists are genocidal. At all. Communism is a broad spectrum of ideals.

2. Right, and their goal would be to change the law. To proceed democratically.

2b. And what does this have to do with marxism?

3. What are the hallmarks of social democracy?

4. He didn't specifically say that he was only referring to immigrants already in the USA - that is your interpretation.

5. I never said I did.

6. Typical restrictions that do not rest upon political tests.

7. You haven't explained why social democrats should be persecuted. Also, and you have not answered this: Should people who have publically campaigned for the Working Families party be deported?

8. No, I'm defending their rights - not their views. I've already told you that this is a matter of civil liberties as an end of themselves.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

1. How many genocides you willing to put up with before you start being judgy? Also, thanks for not denying that their system is totalitarian oppression.

2. a Their arguments are anti-American because it denies our rights of self determination and sovereighty.

b. And generally not actually. THey are generally just happy to not enforce the law and let the invasion happen. That way they can avoid standing up for their policies in debate. That has certainly been their methodes over the last 50 years.

c such extreme anti-Americans are generally commies too. Why are you even asking this question? What does it matter? None of this shit is leading to anything.

3. Don't care. The moderates I talk to, still stand with the radicals almost all the time. A point I made before and you did not address.

4. HA HA HA HA HA. Dude. That's clown world level thinking.

5. HA HA HA HA. You just playing silly troll games then? Tto what end?

6. And you dodge. Why am I not surprised? HA HA HA HA. it's cool. I know it is hard to defend lefty positions honestly.

7.Don't know.

8. They have no right to come here. You admitted that before. Sooooooo, you are contradicting yourself now. This is common when lefties are pressed. They talk themselves into corners. So, as I said, you have certainly taken their side in this issue. Just tell us your real reasons now please.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

1. I am very judgemental against theocrats, tankies, fascists. Doesn't mean I want them arrested just for expressing opinions.

2. Not if their proposed open border laws are passed with democratic assent.

2b. Since they are not actually border agents, they're unable to enforce this.

2c. They're actually as likely to be anarchists. It matters because you claimed that open borders = marxism, which is just not remotely true.

3. So you don't even know what it is? Do you think the UK is "extremist"? We're a social democratic system. Do you think all Brits should be banned from going to the USA?

4. How so?

5. Supporting someone's right to call for open borders is not the same thing as supporting their ideas. Do you genuinely not understand the difference between supporting someone's free speech and the content of their opinions?

6. How is that a dodge? I don't support open borders because it's impractical and dangerous. Doesn't mean I support political tests as a part of border restrictions. And plenty of leftists do not support open borders. It is not an inherently lefty requirement.

7. Working Families is a social democratic party active in NY that has associated strongly with the Democrats.

8. I've said that in the sense that the US, as a nation, is able to pass regressive laws. Doesn't mean I am bound to support them, or that they're moral.

What "real reasons" are you on about?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Dude. You are not listening at all. EVERYTHING you say is not addressing my actual point.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What is your point supposed to be at this point? We're down to bullet points and you assuming that my support for the right to espouse communism = supporting communism itself

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

I mentioned that the open border people are anti-american.

You challenge me on it.

I describe how their arguments deny our rights.

You counter that by pointing out that they are not in positions or autority, thus cannot do that, OR that it is ok if they do it though the democractic process.

You completetly ignored that my point was about showing how their IDEAS reveal that they are ANTI-AMERICAN.

And really, what was the point of all fo that? You challanged me on whether they are anti-American, and for what?

Even if at this point, you admitted it, which you won't, what does that matter to the topic? I followed you down this path in good faith, hoping that the questions you were asking would lead to some relevant point of discussion, but that seems to not be the case.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>I mentioned that the open border people are anti-american.

A baseless claim.

>I describe how their arguments deny our rights.

Your argument rests upon the presupposition that open borders, if achieved, can only be achieved via violence rather than the democratic process. You don't have the inherent divine right to specific immigration laws.

>You counter that by pointing out that they are not in positions or autority, thus cannot do that, OR that it is ok if they do it though the democractic process.

Why would it not be okay if done democratically - in a legal sense?

>You completetly ignored that my point was about showing how their IDEAS reveal that they are ANTI-AMERICAN.

No, they don't. You've failed to substantiated this.

>And really, what was the point of all fo that? You challanged me on whether they are anti-American, and for what?

I want to see what being 'anti-american' is supposed to mean, according to you.

I support state funded healthcare. Am I "anti-American"?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

I clearly addressed all those points. You are being willfully ignorant.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

No, you did not. Or not remotely sufficiently.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Sure I did. All you did was ask senseless questions that went nowhere.

I answered them, in good faith that you were leading up to something, but you never did.

The fact remains. Commies are bad people bad ideas and it is our RIGHT to not invite them into our nation.

Anyone that says otherwise is talking shit, and despite talking a lot, cannot defend their position, as you just demonstrated.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

No, you did not.

>The fact remains. Commies are bad people bad ideas and it is our RIGHT to not invite them into our nation.

And you also expanded that (when inquried) to social democrats, and never explained how social democrats are anti-american, or wish to impose on you.

>Anyone that says otherwise is talking shit, and despite talking a lot, cannot defend their position, as you just demonstrated.

Defending someone's rights has nothing to do with defending their position. That this concept is genuinely lost on you about sums it all up. I'm not a communist, and I'm not here to defend communism.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

You want to let them roll in here unimpeded but you refuse to explain why you think it is a good idea.

That is you taking their side.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You want to let them roll in here unimpeded but you refuse to explain why you think it is a good idea.

Normal immigration rules would stand, whatever they are.

Because I don't support political tests and support human rights. I also don't think that social reactionaries should be denied entry to the UK, but that doesn't mean I therefore support social reactionary politics.

>That is you taking their side.

No, it's not. For the reasons explained.

And you also expanded that (when inquried) to social democrats, and never explained how social democrats are anti-american, or wish to impose on you.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Blah, blah, blah.

You are spamming bullshit to avoid giving your reasons for your position on this issue.

WHY DO YOU WANT COMMIE IMMIGRANTS?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You are spamming bullshit to avoid giving your reasons for your position on this issue.

Given them repeatedly.

>WHY DO YOU WANT COMMIE IMMIGRANTS?

Loaded question rooted in a false premise. And you refused to answer my question about social democrats, so why should I keep answering your follow-up questions?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Dude. bored with your shit talk.

You've admitted that we as Americans have the right to decide who enters our does NOT enter our nation.

Yet, you whine when Trump wants a policy against commies.

Your stated reasons for this position, contradict the fact that you already admitted we have that right.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You've admitted that we as Americans have the right to decide who enters our does NOT enter our nation.

In the sense that you are a sovereign nation. All nations are capable of passing laws, some of which I disagree with, others I do not.

>Yet, you whine when Trump wants a policy against commies.

And, apparently, social democrats.

>Your stated reasons for this position, contradict the fact that you already admitted we have that right.

You clearly don't understand terminology.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

We have the right to decide who we want to come it.

Trump says it should not include commies.

You are whining about that.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

We have the right to decide who we want to come it.

Trump says it should not include commies.

You are whining about that.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I am criticising it as authoritarian. Which it is. He also suggested potential laws for those here.

And he suggested more than just communists.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) 2 years ago

Yeah, that's shit talk.

Why you afraid to tell us your real reason?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Where would Communists who are American citizens be deported to?

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

"We’re going to keep foreign, Christian-hating communists, Marxists and socialists out of America." - Trump

No immigration nor tourism from Cuba, China, Vietnam, Canada, most of Europe and most of South America.

I assume he still hates Muslims and Mexicans.

That leaves the Caribbean and a few Asian and African countries for U.S tourism and immigration.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

"I assume he still hates Muslims and Mexicans."

Muslim terrorists, probably.

Illegal immigrants who only come here to take, probably.

In general, no, never did. Stop with the hyperbole.

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

Stop gaslighting! Trump called most Mexicans rapists and banned immigration from several Muslim countries.

It's interesting how Trump and you don't want to ban Fascists, after all they are very fine people.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

That is a media lie, as usual. He said rapists and murderers, along with drug and human traffickers were coming across the border, which is absolutely true. It's even more true right now and cocksuckers like you support it.

He tried to stop travel from certain Muslim countries to abate potential terrorists. Ya know, like those assholes that leveled the World Trade Center?

So you literally support the influx of rapists, murderers, drug and human traffickers and terrorists. Why???

If we ban the fascists, it would be the end of the democrat party.

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

"He said rapists and murderers, along with drug and human traffickers were coming across the border"

That's what I wrote. He called most Mexicans rapists and banned immigration from several Muslim countries.

The irony is Trump is a rapist.

Fascism is right-wing and Trumpites. That's the reason Trump calls them very fine people.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

He did not say all Mexicans were rapists and murderers. Stop with the hyperbole.

"Fascism is right wing" is not your get out of jail free card. If one examines the actual behavior, it's the left that's behaving like fascists. That includes you.

Trump never said that. The media and liars like you characterize it as such for political reasons but like everything else, it's a lie. Unlike you hypocrites, we don't paint with such a broad brush, just because it fits the narrative.

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

"He called most Mexicans rapists"

"An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach."
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095811414;jsessionid=9AFAF6E62B595ECE1C38F237EBCB1D15

rif.org

You're welcome.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

You imbecile, that is a lie. It is impossible to have libertarianism on the same side as fascism.
Fascism has always been and will always be on the left regardless of those falsified sources and links.

There is no such thing as totalitarian right-wing. All government power and control increases to the left where it ends at 100% and zero percent to the farthest right.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You imbecile, that is a lie. It is impossible to have libertarianism on the same side as fascism.

No-one said that it was. Libertarianism is at the bottom-right quadrant. Fascism is at the top-right/centre quadrant (varies).

Your own political compass meter is literal horseshit

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

That quadrant is made up by leftists to brainwash and convince gullible idiots like you to fit their narrative and political agenda. 24+ sources verify and confirm that. Deny it all you want, that fact will never change.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

No reason to believe this.

No "sources confirm this". In all the bile you've ever linked, none of them "confirm" anything of the sort.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

Believe whatever you want, it does not change the facts. You rejected and denied all the sources like you always have. If it makes you feel better to believe "the big lie", than do so.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

No reason to believe this. Just because a webpage exists that makes some stupid claims doesn't make those claims true.

The idea that the oft-used political quadrunt system is some kind of leftist "big lies" is one of the more batshit nonsensical conspiracy theories I've heard in recent times. Mostly because it's so pointless

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

I literally provided 24+ sources that verify and confirm each other and the correct spectrum. Continue to believe whatever you prefer and whatever fits your narrative.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Your sources were basically all opinionated garbage, and many didn't talk about any "big lie", they just proposed your basic bitch ignorant as fuck political line which no-one has any reason to take seriously

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

All historical facts and truth. Your excuses will not change them.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Many of your links were literally just blogs dude or fucking slideshows. They were about as credible as forum posts making claims.

Also you ignored my questions in another chain here: Are you a prude who wants massive media censorship?

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

You continue to make excuses because the truth is unacceptable to you.

I did not ignore the question, you ignored my answer, go back and read it. More proof that you don’t read.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You continue to make excuses because the truth is unacceptable to you.

Anyone can charge this at someone. "You only disagree with me because the truth is unacceptable to you".

>I did not ignore the question, you ignored my answer, go back and read it. More proof that you don’t read.

You ninja edited it. I've now replied to your comment. You never answered my question about whether you wanted obscenity laws.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

Disagree with you? You are just a useful brainwashed idiot for the establishment that fabricated that quadrant and are gullible enough to believe them.

Ninja edited it? lol, You’re the ocd/add that glances without reading.

They are providing children at schools and libraries with explicit and pornographic material, so there should be laws against that obscenity.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Disagree with you? Your just a useful brainwashed idiot for the establishment that fabricated that quadrant and are gullible enough to believe them.

There's no evidence that "the establishment" fabricated (how can such a thing be "fabricated"?) a political compass.

>They are providing children at schools and libraries with explicit and pornographic material, so there should be laws against that obscenity.

That's of course, not the context your quote was referring to:

"Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV."

It was referring to it *generally*. Are you in favour of "obscenity laws"?

--

Also, the second point you highlighted:

"26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

What's wrong with this? Are you against people being allowed to do this?

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

‘Generally’ includes children and minors which is also based in conjunction with #41. (25+41).

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Right, but not exclusively. Are you for "obscenity laws" that target all media generally?

>"26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

What's wrong with this? Are you against people being allowed to do this?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Just because someone plays dress up and pretends, doesn’t make it true.

Pretending *what*, exactly? Who is "playing dress-up"?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

You can lean on the "right wing" reference in that bullshit definition all you want. It keeps you from looking inward to see the fascist in the mirror. It's not conservatives who are demonizing, dehumanizing and silencing the opposition, or persecuting their elected representatives. We believe in liberty for all, even those we disagree with, you clearly do not.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Except Trump who literally proposed persecuting American citizens who are communists (by whatever definition he goes by)

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

You're mad because you wouldn't be able to visit and see Mickey Mouse.

You may have freedom of speech and the freedom to believe what you want but when you actively work to destroy this country, the rules no longer apply.

And you're still just a dumb fucking Brit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You're mad because you wouldn't be able to visit and see Mickey Mouse.

I'm not a communist.

>You may have freedom of speech and the freedom to believe what you want but when you actively work to destroy this country, the rules no longer apply.

Define "actively working to destroy this country". Are you proposing that Communists do this just by espousing communist ideals? What is your working definition of communist, exactly? What should happen to American citizens who are communists?

>And you're still just a dumb fucking Brit.

And you are a fascist who hates freedom of speech for people you disagree with

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......

The people who we both agree are not actually liberals are actively working to destroy our country. Rewriting and/or destroying our history and judging it by 21st century standards. Teaching children to hate their country, that their heritage is something to be ashamed of. Encouraging and rewarding mediocrity. Punishing exceptionalism. Railroading the political opposition and bullying them into submission with nasty labels and cancel culture. Rioting in the streets when they don't get their way. Destigmatizing pedophilia??? Pushing to defund and demoralize the police, literally causing the current rampant rise in violent crime. Effectively destroying a duly elected president because he said things they did not like. What is happening now with Trump and this democrat witch hunt would have the founding fathers rolling in their graves.

No, in fact I am not a fascist. Every bit of democrat/liberal/progressive/communist behavior of the last several years falls under that heading. We all have the right to our opinions and the freedom to express them. However, a line is being crossed that will lead to a very dark place.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......

How do I do this? What have I said that makes me a Communist?

>The people who we both agree are not actually liberals are actively working to destroy our country. Rewriting and/or destroying our history and judging it by 21st century standards.

Holding opinions on historical events = "destroying a country"?

Also, not sure what this has to do with communism.

>Teaching children to hate their country, that their heritage is something to be ashamed of.

Be specific please. Who is doing this? And not sure what this has to do with communism.

>Punishing exceptionalism.

The US history is explicitly exceptionalistic. "Greatest country on earth". Sounds like you think patriotism here is anti-american.

> Railroading the political opposition and bullying them into submission with nasty labels and cancel culture.

Do you reject the right of private individuals and organisations to choose who they play host to? This in itself sounds fundamentally anti-american.

Also not sure what this at all has to do with Communism.

>Rioting in the streets when they don't get their way.

Holding opinions and expressing them isn't rioting. Assume an individual does not riot in this circumstance.

>Destigmatizing pedophilia???

And who is doing this? You do realise that the MAP group is a legal organisation in the USA, and has been for decades? Also not sure AGAIN what this has to do with Communism.

>Pushing to defund and demoralize the police, literally causing the current rampant rise in violent crime.

Are you saying it should be illegal to suggest the police should be less-funded?

Also, Communist regimes traditionally have been very pro police. So not sure what this has to do with communism.

> Effectively destroying a duly elected president because he said things they did not like.

Are you against the free press now?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

As I said, too fucking dumb to even argue with.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So much for actually refuting any of my points. You instead resort to childish insults.

Fascist

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

It's not an insult, my comment above is to be taken literally. You are LITERALLY too dumb to argue with.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I respond in detail to your responses and all you have is one-liners. You are a literal manchild.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

It's not childish but quite the opposite. As I already said, your comments are too dumb to justify a proper response. I can't be bothered with arguing with children.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

"No u"

Literally just throwing your toys out of the pram. I give you detailed responses and you just go "u dumdum".

Pathetic and childish. Literal fascist manchild.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Sorry, I don't argue with retarded children.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So you're back to just hurling insults like a little babyman.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Sorry, I don't argue with retarded children.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Literally out of any arguments and only have impotent insults.

Still doesn't stop you being a fascist apologist who wants to use the state to persecute political opponents.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

There's a difference between persecuting political opponents, such as Trump's witch hunt and prosecuting traitors.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

And all communists and socialists are traitors? Just because of their political values?

Fascism rebrands opposition into betrayal and labels dissidents and opposition as traitors, so this line of reasoning is not helping you at all, fascist.

>We all have the right to our opinions and the freedom to express them. However, a line is being crossed that will lead to a very dark place.

Except it seems that you do not believe that left-wingers have a "right to an opinion".

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

They have a right to an opinion. They do not have the right to destroy our country by eroding its foundation, rewriting history, using lies and deceit to manipulate the ignorant and viciously silencing the opposition. They are the fascists WE are fighting against.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

And according to Skavau, it is wrong for us to defend ourselves against them.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Do you think the US needs to "defend against" communists and socialists publicly, through writing and speeches, expressing their political positions?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Define "destroying our country" in this context. Does a communist or socialist advocating for communism or socialism publicly via speeches, activism, protests constitute "trying to destroy our country"?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Our country is being destroyed, so shut the fuck up. You're a child and Brit and are totally out of your depth.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

That's not an answer:

Define "destroying our country" in this context. Does a communist or socialist advocating for communism or socialism publicly via speeches, activism, protests constitute "trying to destroy our country"?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Already answered. This is why you're a waste of time.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

No, you did not. Not specifically relating to those queries.

Should a communist group have the right to hold a meeting, or rally?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>No, in fact I am not a fascist.

Yes, you are a fascist. You wish to destroy freedom of speech and persecute anyone in the USA who holds any leftist position. You yourself are an anti-american fascist.

You also did not give me a working definition of "communist". You rattled off a lot of positions that have absolutely nothing to do with Communism but simpply describe general modern US leftist-progressive positions that some people in the US may or may not hold to varying degrees* (along with your rather partisan interpretation of them). Some of the positions you held referred to had more to do with anarchism than anything else.

*Except the MAP thing, which is a niche and no-one respects in any sense.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Nothing but lies. I know that's you, Keeliar. Or whatever liberal douchebot you represent.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

You didn't answer any of my follow-up questions. Keeliar is American, I am British. I have never even spoke to them.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

Keeliar claims to be Canadian and 70yrs old. You wouldn't be the first of his socks to get called out.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Do you have the slightest evidence whatsoever that I am Keeliar, or are you just making assumptions?

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

You want me to tell you what you're doing wrong, so you can be a better sock?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What is your evidence that I am Keeliar?

Do you just assume every single left-leaning person on here is one person?

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

Yes, you are a fascist. You wish to destroy freedom of speech and persecute anyone in the USA who holds any leftist position. You yourself are an anti-american fascist.

You have that completely backwards. It is the ‘left’ that has been guilty of trying to destroy freedom of speech…eg - “HB 4474”.

It is the 'left' that has been guilty of censoring, deplatforming, cancelling, and falsely discrediting others….all characteristics of fascism (power and control).

The ‘left’ wants to maintain and increase that ‘power and control’, and just as I have stated, it always increases to the “left”, naturally and historically.

Power and control is the primary reason that they falsely created a bullshit fake quadrant of politics/governments; to deceive gullible idiots that will blindly follow and obey them.

The 'left' is the one guilty of persecuting others while useful idiots like you continue to empathize with them and continue to defend them. Leftists have been exposed for their constant lying, cheating, stealing, and framing their opposition.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>You have that completely backwards. It is the ‘left’ that has been guilty of trying to destroy freedom of speech…eg - “HB 4474”.

I am not responsible for them. I did not vote for that, and have rejected it multiple times.

CraigC is outright openly pro-censorship.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 2 years ago

"CraigC is outright openly pro-censorship."

More lies.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

You wish to use the state to persecute communists, and socialists. Fascist.

reply

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 years ago

You imbecilic Brit; that is what “they” are doing to libertarians, conservatives, republicans, and patriots.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

How are libertarians, republicans, conservatives and "patriots" currently being persecuted, and how is it by communists and socialists?

And how do two wrongs make a right?

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 2 years ago

he truly is a Man For The People

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So you are outright openly against free speech

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 2 years ago

no, i will allow for you to scream at the top of your lungs that you hate Trump and his followers,
no sweat from me

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

But you said that Trump is a "man of the people" here. What's the context?

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 2 years ago

the context is that his rallies dwarf Biden's by a mile

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I hate to godwin's law here, but so did Hitlers in the weimar republic compared to other parties. Having big rallies doesn't necessarily make you a "man of the people"

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 2 years ago

we'll see about that come next year ;)

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Winning an election doesn't make someone a "man of the people" inherently, unless, by the same logic, you think Hitler was when he won a plurality in the Weimar elections.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 2 years ago

you keep on bringing up Hitler as if anything relevant from almost 100 years ago should be included in present time politics

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

My point is that attracting audiences does not make you a "man of the people"

reply