This seems futile, but it’s a decent point to hammer on. Libs who believe international law means something get put in the uncomfortable position of rethinking that, it’s more grounded than “I disagree with this as a matter of policy,” and you’ll smoke out plenty of people who will show their asses with “that shit doesn’t apply to us” takes.
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
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.
…Nothing in that article says Russia supports the coup government. It doesn’t mention a Russian stance at all; it just says the coup government has asked Wagner for support (which it does not say has been given).
You’ve now ignored for a second time how stupid it is to think Russia engineered this, then simultaneously tried to hide it/paid locals to wave Russian flags around.
I asked you what your theory is on the situation and you responded by putting words in my mouth.
Again, do you think Russia engineered this, only to deny it, only to pay people to waive Russian flags around?
On attempting to enter Russia on July 29, the group of Chinese citizens was “repeatedly” questioned for “up to 4 hours,” according to the statement. They had their tourist visas canceled and were refused entry, it said.
Yawn
So your theory is:
Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought…
Russia is currently stalemated in a limited war against a substantial (but similarly limited) chunk of the NATO arsenal. As a point of comparison, in the last 20 years the U.S. has lost two wars against non-state actors where it used everything but nukes.
The U.S. hasn’t fought a war like the Russian-Ukranian War since Vietnam or Korea, and the results there weren’t a lot better than what Russia is seeing now (despite the U.S. doing far more indiscriminate strategic bombing).
Not to mention, the reasoning for the war has changed dramatically
Is this sarcasm or an honest question?
This is the guy Democrats are “triangulating” towards