Plus, some centrist and left wing politicians once said mean things about Israel, which is basically the same thing as violently storming Parliament, so both sides are basically the same.
If you oppose discriminating against people for innate characteristics, you should be opposing women’s spaces, abolishing women’s sports and scholarships, and advocating for unisex prisons, bathrooms and locker rooms. If it’s really NBD, we should be like Starship Troopers and have everyone get naked together. Because all those things are discrimination.
It would be very very bad for women if you ended that discrimination, but that obviously isn’t of any importance to you, since you have declared harm to women to be irrelevant in your decisions.
I’d think they were idiots and should go to prison. But I wouldn’t feel a pressing desire to attack them personally, no. I guess I don’t see it as a real threat to democracy, since they never had any chance of achieving their goal. The loss of trust in society and people disappearing into their own media bubble where misinformation can spread freely is much more concerning, and is what lead to the attack anyway. (And there’s no Governor General in the UK; it’s the Queen who opens parliament, appoints the PM etc. Attempting to kidnap the Queen is probably treason or something.)
Conservative Denialism of Reality in Three Acts:
I mean, they literally cannot manage their lives by their own principles. How should we trust the ideologies shared by Octopus and Scott Apley on anything? If an anti-masker, anti-vaxxer, pro thrift, pro capitalism, anti-immigration, pro private health insurance guy can’t even prove the worthiness of their beliefs in their own lives, why should we trust that ideology with ours?
I assume you mean OANN - Onan is a character from the Bible and the word for masturbation in Hebrew.
Which actually fits quote well with Octopus’ behavior.
It’s not kidnapping, it’s how you get shit done. Ever hear of the Magna Carta?
The entirely mundane point is reminding people who don’t need reminding that political hypocrisy exists on both sides. Another mundane point is that Trump policies were worse when nobody defended Trump’s policies in the post to which you replied. Stop stating the obvious to skirt the actual non-mundane point which is that the Biden administration has struggled with their immigration and border policies and has also kept media from having access to those facilities in the way that he promised he would. And don’t go telling me I’m saying that Biden is as bad as Trump. He isn’t and it isn’t what I’m saying, at all. Maybe start with unhypocritically acknowledging that. Yes, immigration is a long standing issue. Yes it’s a very difficult problem that only seems to be getting worse. But your mundane point about political hypocrisy of both sides is looking awfully like an intentional excusal of failure of the Biden administration and the hypocrisy of the left in failing to address and acknowledge this issue.
Don’t ask me what I think Biden should do about this issue. It’s above my pay grade and asking me (or others who make this criticism) is not a clever retort. It’s a transparent distraction and change of subject.
I haven’t said anything about Biden on this issue. And I have no problem at all with criticizing Biden on this issue. I think your point is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
Yes, you did.
Then you continued to mock and avoid opportunity to engage or at least acknowledge that Sam made a valid criticism.
…
That question was not asked to Sam. That question was asked because I suspected the poster in question was trolling, and I wanted them to actually show they were serious. And, not surprisingly, they demonstrated once again they were trolling.
I didn’t characterize the Biden policy on the border in any way in that post.
I’ll amend my statement - I have no problem with good faith criticism of Biden, on this or any other issue. The post I responded to with that question was not in good faith.
My bad. The question was asked by DT not Sam.
In what way was the post you responded to not made in good faith? (quoted in full below):
The last sentence even addresses what you alluded to earlier with your observation about hypocrisy of both sides.
I only suspected bad faith, due to the poster in question, as well as the lack of specifics. My suspicion was confirmed (or close enough) when they abandoned the issue.
I submit that your response was made in bad faith.
You have every right to respond (or not) in any way you like. But you could have inquired further rather than assume bad faith.
Well, except the bits where she lies about misrepresents what posters say in other threads and when called on it and asked to clarify, crickets
I no longer give people the benefit of the doubt when they’ve demonstrated dishonesty again and again. And I did inquire further. That was the entirety of that post.
As to your accusations about me, fuck off. I don’t care about vague and unsupported accusations when the critic abandons all attempts to gain clarification.
Of course it was. I wrote about the boarder, you wrote about the boarder; Andy has nothing to say so he deflects.
Fuck off, liar.
As to boarders, I’d be happy to talk about them! We call them tenants in the US. We’ve been very lucky in our boarders - they pay on time and haven’t caused any trouble at all.
(this is an example of gentle mockery, for the snowflakes among us)
