You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:
I'm sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:
- Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?
Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you're posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.
- Why now?
Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren't necessarily WRONG. Biden's poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.
- Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?
The articles return2ozma shared weren't bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like "beforeitsnews.com", they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.
The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.
Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.
30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.
different levels of hate ≠ being okay with the one you hate less
And I am very curious on which metric you use to say that Republicans are fascists and Democrats aren't.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Which party tried to overthrow the government again? And is still trying to?
The USA's government? You can say that people that call themselves Republicans tried that in January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, not that they're still trying that. (Criticizing the government does not count as trying to overthrow it, even if you're lying to do so. Advancing an impeachment process or taking violent action against the government counts.)
But talking about other countries governments, you know, that ones that you should not intervene, since they aren't in your country, both parties have a history in overthrowing. For the rest of the world, both parties are fascists in this metric.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Lol, so you're saying lying in order to stop the will of the people is not considered trying overthrowing the government? Trying to stop the certification of an elected official, raiding the capital, building a gallow to hang the VP, not to mention trying to activate the national guard to stop the certification process. Not fascist at all, according to you.
There's nothing wrong about critiquing the government, but if you're willfully ignoring everything that's happened even before the 2016 election, you're not arguing in good faith, champ.
Lying is totally a right by the First Amendment, no matter what your goal is with it.
I didn't say in any moment that I don't acknowledge the Republican Party as fascist or the January 6th as a fascist movement. What I implied by
is that you can't say that the "Republican Party did this" when "who did this" were a bunch of civilians who weren't being run directly by the Republican Party. Nor did I say that I don't consider January 6th an attempt to overthrow the government. My parenthesis
talks about considering evidence of "trying to overthrow the government" other actions after January 6th.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I never said otherwise, but they lied and still are in an attempt to overturn the election.
Lowering them goalposts.
You absolutely can, who lead the charge? Who organized the entire rally? Who helped bus in the Republicans from all over the country? The GOP. They are complicit and are the ones who organized the entire coup attempt. On top of being in kahoots with right-wing militias like the proud boys who their leader (who has been charged) also had an active role on J6
Let's agree with you that the Republican Party did it. But back to my starting point:
So you are only fascist when you organize (and fund) fascist militias in your own country? Are other countries fair game?
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Nice loaded question.
How about you ask your own country? Is your country innocent of interfering with other countries?
Let's "unload" then. If organizing fascist militias in your own country makes you fascist (I agree with that, by the way), why doing the same in other countries don't? (if you think it's are still loaded, you may not answer)
I would just like to remind you that you have been running away from the central points of my arguments since the beginning of this discussion, it was you who distorted my speech as if I had said that I did not consider January 6th a fascist movement and an attempt to overthrow the government, and it was you who inserted my country when it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Here's the thing, I don't defend the current political system of my country at all. And when my country was not being interfered by yours, it was interfering at the behest of yours. And not even in the darkest hour was it funding fascist militias in other countries.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
WTF Have you not been paying attention to current events? Support for American values of democracy and freedom.
That must be why they voted to renew the patriot act every 3 years since 2002, because they value freedom.
Please. All the worst legislation is bipartisan. Republicans are just stupid enough to say the quiet part out loud.
Mostly true. Because most of the Republican Party is made up of unamerican neofascists.
both parties claim they are the true defenders of american values of democracy and freedom. is it possible neither actually is?
It is theoretically possible but not in fact the case at all. The War On Democracy always comes from the Republican Party
obama had a kill list and extrajudicially murdered us citizens. bill clinton signed the welfare reform and the crime bill and he signed off on moving the us embassy to jerusalem. under kennedy, we went into vietnam.
democrats don't value democracy. they do what the war machine wants, and sometimes that means having a war against democracy.
Yes. Osama Bin Laden.
WTF none of those have anything to do with democracy. Did you think "democracy" meant "do everything that you personally want"? Do you not get that you are not the only voter? LMFAO.
How is going into Vietnam a war AGAINST democracy. Vietnam does not have a democracy, although South Vietnam had a democracy in 1975. And South Korea has a democracy today, because of the Korean War.
they were all antidemocratic. none of them supported justice. the North Vietnamese wanted communism. denying that using the war machine is antidemocratic.
Dude you are using "antidemocratic" to mean "anything I do not like" instead of "not what the voters wanted". It's kind of rude to pretend that you are the only voter who matters.
How would you know? There was no election. That is like claiming the Italians wanted Fascism. And the reason for the war was to defend that other country of South Vietnam which definitely did not want communism.
something the majority did not choose.
Then all your examples are wrong.
there is a cure for historical illiteracy.
Good you need that.
one of us does.
the supposed reason for the war was the gulf of tonkin, and the real motivation was dominoe theory. don't lie.
So you now admit US involvement in the (2nd of 3) Vietnam wars was not to "spread democracy".
that was my position the whole time: democrats are lying about supporting democracy.
And you've been wrong the whole time.
you just said i was right.
You were wrong about many different things
if that were true you could enumerate them
not just Osama. American citizens.
The same values that are used as justification by the two parties to invade/intervene in any country that has something that interests the US?
And seriously, what democracy? In which you "elect" the president in an indirect system that does not necessarily elect the most voted by the people? In which it is practically impossible for a candidate other than one of the two parties to contest?* I call this a joke of a democracy.
*: That is, who wants to run must pass in the "anything but democratic" primaries.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
No. That that is almost never the US justification for war. But yes, saving South Korea from being ruled by the North Korean dictator was a great thing.
So that is the same as "fascism". GTFO with that ridiculous nonsense.
Because you are not comparing it with the absence of democracy, You are comparing it with a perfect democracy. The absence of a perfect democracy is not a "joke", it is the difference between fascism and non-fascism.
This has been used as at least a minor motive in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, to name a few. The consequences are there to be seen.
At least 3 million of people died in that war, mostly civilians, mostly targeted by USA's bombs (six times more bombs than during the entire Pacific War in a much, much smaller area). No matter what your opinion of the North Korean regime, to praise this war is to praise mass murder.
Not "same" as fascism, but not democracy at all.
What is democracy? It is the political system where the people govern, directly or indirectly. There is no such thing as "incomplete democracy": either the people govern, or the people do not govern. Absence of democracy means no democracy at all. And for me "no democracy" it is as bad as fascism.
Dude nobody is praising North Koreans and Chinese for their war of aggression and mass murder. Also please stop your implied racism against South Koreans by undervaluing their freedom.
Sort of true with Korea and Vietnam. Not true at all with the rest.
Yes the consequences are very apparent. South Korea is a thriving free democracy. North Korea is still the worst country in the world to live.
That's why nobody is claiming there is. There is a measurable scale for how good a democracy is. Starting with the obvious "Is there freedom of the press?" and going to stuff like: Is every vote weighed the same? Is it easy to vote?
Not democracy because votes are grouped by states? How idiotic can you get?
I wasn't talking about North Korea and Chinese actions, I was talking about US's actions. This astronomical quantity of bombs were deployed by USA's air force. And you are praising this war when you say it was "nice".
Here you are just being absurd. Who's being racist? Who values the self-determination of a people? Who condemns the direct interference of a foreign nation in a civil war or who approves it? China only sent soldiers to the war when the "UN army" had already occupied almost the entire peninsula. And yes, I value life over freedom: while there is life, there is hope of achieving freedom, without life, there is no possibility of being free.
Yes it's true, at every one of this wars the media and government talked endlessly about how each of these countries was ruled by a terrible dictator and it was almost the America's divine duty to intervene. The Iraq war in particular was full of videos of Bush talking about how inhuman Saddam was and how the "weapons of mass destruction" (which were not real) in his hands would cause a terrible tragedy. In the end, the only tragedies were the proxy war between Iraq and Iran, led by the United States when they were friends with Saddam, and the Iraq war.
This scale is ridiculous and does not reflect the real meaning of democracy.
Not because the votes are grouped by state, but because:
In addition, since it is impossible to elect (to the presidency) someone who does not belong to one of the two parties, one would expect, at the very least, that the primaries would be democratic. They are not. Superdelegates are not elected.
Here you are, being rude again, for no reason at all. Even Jesus Christ lost his temper, and I am a far inferior person to him. I have no intention of continuing to argue with someone so uncivilized.
North Korea is responsible for the war. The USA and UN is not. Are you saying it would be bad for the US or UN to help defend any country from an unprovoked attack? So Britain and France were responsible for WWII and not Germany? What utter nonsense.
I'm not praising the war. North Korea's war of aggression was terrible and cost many lives. I am praising the United Nation's role preserving freedom in South Korea. The United Nations was authorized by the Security Council to defend South Korea. You undervaluing the freedom of Asians sounds like racism. It's easy for you to say that Asians do not deserve freedom, but you would think radically differently if YOU were the one living in North Korea.
Dude Afghanistan was attacked by NATO because they attacked the USA. Iraq was attacked because Bush was alleging weapons of mass destruction. Democracy was a SIDE EFFECT, the not reason for war.
The pretense that there is no scale and it is black or white is what is ridiculous.
Which makes the US an imperfect democracy, not a dictatorship. It is not all the way to perfect on the scale.
Riiiight. Everything that you don’t like is “fascist” and the bOtH siDeS rhetoric is OLD.