Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I don’t know… I’m just joshing around.

Removed by mod

Wouldn’t money laundering result in the casino making more money than it should?

Did he put a rock in the snowball? Everyone knows that’s against snowball fight rules… straight to jail!

Tankies attacking the political opposition to the fascists rather than attacking the fascists themselves. Again.

Do the arms of tankies ever get tired from constantly carrying water for fascists?

Did you miss me?

This is weak sauce. So… whatever LOL.

This is obviously weakening Trump, so it’s killing two birds with one stone. You never know Americans seem to love him no matter what, but it looks like he’s lost a lot of support. So the Ayatollah is dead and maybe Americans will get their head out of their asses and actually vote for the political opposition.

Do you think of the massacre of women and children to be a game? I consider the actions Hamas commuted on October 7 to be genocidal, not a game.

You a disgusting person to think of genocide as “a game.”

You’re a genocide denier then.

You don’t care about genocide, so long as it’s the people you hate being killed.

What are YOUR feelings and thoughts about the real, actual genocide of Palestinians in Gaza/West Bank that has been ongoing for several decades?

I actually do think what happened on October 7 was a genocidal act. The people that deny it are actually disgusting to me. You look the other way when Jews are massacred because you’re antisemitic. A war targeting the perpetrators of a genocidal act, that’s what you label as genocide instead.

You bought into the bullshit about Hamas being freedom fighters. When they committed a genocidal act, you’re too narcissistic to admit you were wrong to ever support them. So you needed to “both sides” actual fucking genocide. You’ve weaponized the word genocide. You don’t care when actual genocide occurs in Sudan. You look the other way when the Ayatollah butchers over 30,000 people in a span of 48 hours. If someone hates Israel they’re your ally and you’ll look the other way on any atrocity they commit.

If you actually cared about Palestinians, you’d hate Hamas. They’ve only ever made things worse for the Palestinian people. But you look the other way when Hamas tortures and executes Palestinians. You’ll look the other way on any atrocity, as long it’s done by those who hate Israel. If Hamas survives, another generation of Palestinians may be indoctrinated into their system of hate and sent into the meat grinder so Hamas can profit. You don’t care about Palestinians if you make excuses for Hamas.

If you were to admit that Hamas committed a genocidal act on October 7, then maybe I could think “this person applies the word genocide way more easily than I would.” But you don’t. You do not consider deliberately massacring women and children to be genocide so long as those women and children are Jews. That’s antisemitism.

This isn’t the first time antisemitism has been popular. You’re not the first one that just went along to get along. Look in a history book you’ll find many examples of people rationalizing their hatred towards Jews. You’re not the first ones to come up with a different term for Jews so you could deny being antisemitic. “Rootless cosmopolitan”, “Globalist”, “Zionist”, it’s all the same scam decade after decade. And you fell for it.

The Jews outlived the Nazis. They will outlive you. Iran’s propaganda machine is getting shut down. How long will you continue to be angry that the Jews outlived the people trying to kill them? You kind of get a pass for being upset when you’re seeing imagery being put in front of you by a propaganda machine. But if you continue to hate Jews (even if you’re careful to always use the word Zionist, that’s obvious bullshit) after the propaganda machine is shut down, you’ll be in some very bad company, historically speaking. There’s signs the “anti-zionist” movement will be folded into the post-Trump fascist movement. How far are you going to go down this dark path you’re on?

Like…I haven’t seen you say anything in favor of having a king, or of having this king in particular?

I have but you haven’t been paying attention. If you don’t have a King, people will create one. The US technically doesn’t have a King, but they’ve created on in Donald Trump in all but name. You don’t seem to think about any potential of a politician doing the things that you mention in all of these hypotheticals, but you worry greatly about an actual King doing them. And that’s the problem, a politician can become a tyrant without anyone noticing. If the King became a tyrant everyone would notice.

You label the King as a “genocidiers, looters, and pedophiles” even though he has not personally done those things. His brother has done some crimes, and he’s being prosecuted. When will Donald Trump or any of the billionaires in the US get prosecuted? Probably never.

And are you accusing the King of everything his ancestors have done? Sounds to me like you really believe in lineage stuff way more than I do. Seems unfair to judge someone for what their ancestors did. If there was no King would you be devoting time to researching what Mark Carney’s ancestors did and unfairly judging him for those things?

The monarchy acts as an emotional lightning rod for many people. All the emotional garbage whether it be grievance over things from the history books, nostalgia, or just a love of pomp and pageantry gets focused on the monarchy who are apolitical. That separates the emotional garbage from politics. Allows people to think about the actual policies the politician is proposing rather than some historical grievance or how “Presidential” they look. Americans keep voting in old coots out of nostalgia for some good times when Ronald Reagan was President. We still get a touch of that with Justin Trudeau benefiting from nostalgia over his father, but you’ll have a tough time arguing people had loyalty to him like he was a King.

Americans feel like they’re supposed to be loyal to the President and because of that they won’t remove a President from office even when he commits egregious crimes. The Prime Minister gets some degree of respect for the job, but a vote of no confidence is something much more likely to happen as it won’t seem disloyal to the country. For those that feel they must show subservience to a person to prove their loyalty to the country we have a King who’s apolitical. In the US, the subservient must show loyalty to the President since they have no king.

There are many many reasons to have a King, not least of which was the reason Pierre Trudeau brought up: It would take a lot of effort to remove the King and it wouldn’t really change anything. Why bother removing the King?

The only reasons you have to go through that effort is hypotheticals (which would also apply to a President) and your belief that there’s something wrong with the Royal lineage. Which is… hmmmm.

It was a massacre of every Jew they could find and couldn’t carry back to their dungeons. Why do you deny that it was genocide?

It seems you’re very selective about what you label a genocide. What criteria do you use?

Do you consider the acts of Hamas on October 7 to be a genocide?

Only idiots brain rotted by Iranian propaganda would be upset by that asshole’s death.

The guy executed something like 30K people in the last month. What kind of shit person supports a guy like that?

INB4 WHATABOUT WHATABOUT WHATABOUT

Fucking noob… a lot of big talk, but didn’t leave the basement of his house.

Are you against the genocide that Hamas committed on October 7, or do you deny that it was a genocide?

To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, if I had more time I would’ve written a shorter comment. Maybe if you were able to engage in actual conversation rather than just making lame insults, I’d put some more effort into proofreading and editing down comments. I get the feeling you’re not capable of appreciating that effort so I won’t bother to make it.

how are you

You’re overestimating the value of laws. Laws don’t create civilization, the civilization creates laws. The jungle is always there, we just generally avoid it because going to the jungle means our survival is down to just our abilities and judgement. It’s far preferable to stay in civilization where we have our best chance of survival.

Your hypothetical examples all depend on people being weak willed in the face of a constitutional crisis. If people are weak, there being a King or not a King makes no difference. The US has no King, but people are weak towards Trump, and it’s the same result as your hypotheticals, just different titles.

And why would the King risk his cushy life to do any of these things? Why would someone who is in a position like that for the rest of his life risk it all for some short term gain?

So corruption can happen in a republican, and it seems to me it’s more obvious when someone doesn’t give royal ascent, and it’s very unlikely a King who has guaranteed housing in a palace for life being waited on hand and foot would risk that for a small bump in his stock portfolio. It seems you’re imagining the King behaving like a corrupt politician, but you’re not explaining how replacing the King with an actual politician makes that less likely to happen? If anything a term limited politician is more likely to do any of these hypotheticals, get that money in the limited time they’re in the position to get it. And the people that voted for that politician are more likely to look the other way than if a King started doing shenanigans.