This is the guy Democrats are “triangulating” towards
This is the guy Democrats are “triangulating” towards
You care more about posting etiquette than you do about Canadian parliament applauding a Nazi.
This story has circulated widely enough (I see multiple articles on BBC and CBS, among other outlets) that they had to issue an apology. I don’t believe you haven’t heard of it, but if you really haven’t, what does that say about where you’re getting your news/what draws your attention?
Do you have even the slightest problem with Canadian parliament applauding a Nazi? You and a bunch of other people here seem to think litigating how to post is more important than the actual issue.
Here’s the news story if you missed the dozen other threads on it and the discussion elsewhere in this thread. Let me know if you need anything else spoonfed to you.
The Canadian parliament gave one of these Nazis a standing ovation within the past week.
The point is that who that guy was should be no surprise to anyone, because this all has been public knowledge since (at least) Windows 95.
This is relevant context to the recent incident of the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation to one of these Nazis.
Holy shit, read what you respond to
The guy criticizing Canada for knowingly admitting Nazis is somehow a Nazi?
Sharp as a cue ball, this one
“I’m lazy” is your argument here? Even the blurb from the start of the article says this immigration happened in 1950.
Did history start yesterday? Are we ever allowed to discuss the background of current events?
I explained why in the comment you responded to, read that lol
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed.
If you’re going to rules lawyer, do it well.
This is very obviously relevant to a recent news story that has had several posts here already.
This is relevant context to the recent incident of the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation to one of these Nazis. The “narrative” here is that that it’s abhorrent and no one in the room has an excuse to plead ignorance as the presence of Nazis in Canada was well-known at least 25 years ago.
To the capitalist, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury.
Marx, I Fucking Told You, Bro
funny relatable memes
I’ll let you know when I see one!
If you don’t generate enough revenue to cover any other business expense, you don’t have a workable business plan (unless you’re a tech grifter gorging on VC money, but that’s another story).
If you don’t generate enough revenue to cover decent wages, you don’t have a workable business plan.
That can be fixed with restrictions on what corporations can get away with
The problem is that capital can and does react to this. Companies will bribe and lobby until they can erode whatever meager guardrails you managed to install, and in the meantime they’ll carefully calculate how much they can break the law before the consequences outweigh the benefits.
As long as capital is the main driver of politics this will keep happening. “Take money out of politics” doesn’t work, either, because capital will erode or evade those laws, too. You do have to look at moving on from capitalism if you want anything more than a small, temporary change.
You’re both right. It’s a salary someone can make in the right field out of college, but it’s also $30K (or more) above what a lot of people make.
Communists do repress some types of dissent once in power (as capitalists also do). But you know what? Fascists shouldn’t get to vote. I don’t give a damn what a climate change denier thinks about energy policy. Some car dealer wants to hack away at worker protections? Don’t care.
“But is there free speech for the fascists?” is not actually a measure of good governance.
In the same breath, libs will thank the Secret Service for immediately killing the shooter and also say “violence is never an acceptable response.”
That’s probably the most succinct way to state the contradiction. You’re OK with taking out an active shooter, but not with taking out someone who (as libs love to tell you) is about to hurt or kill people all over the world?