kraychik

No, you just let communists like jacee make that claim for you, and then engage in nonsensical argumentation against those like DogOnPorch who challenge that stupidity. You're like a parasitic poster. What about his behaviour since he ceased being a minor eight years ago? Does that matter? Being a minor doesn't absolve one of responsibility for crimes, and Canadian sovereignty certainly doesn't extend past our borders. I guess you want Khadr to be treated in accordance with the Young Offenders Act?

In this video, Sean Hannity compares the two iterations of Obama when talking about race. Fast forward to 10:20 to see the side-by-side comparison of Obama version 1.0 and Obama version 2.0. Nevermind the fact that Obama attended that communist church of hate for over twenty years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efi0bg97T5s

Watch and listen how he plays the despicable political game of telling his audience that the American federal government reacted with less vigour towards Hurricane Katrina than other recent disasters like 9/11 because many of New Orleans' residents are black. This is the "critical race theory" coming out. Nevermind the fact that it's untrue, and as a Senator he probably knew he was misleading his audience. The fake accent is also pathetic. I guess he learned to speak with that (fake) accent in the Indonesian madrassah? Or perhaps he picked it up on the streets of Chicago? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfbNs9VTL34 Here Obama not-so-subtly espouses the Marxist class warfare rhetoric of violent revolution. This is one of the more blatant examples of Obama's subscription to the disgusting politics of jealousy and envy. Think CNN or the New York Times will give accurate coverage of this story? The answer's obvious.

Conservatism and leftism are not mutually exclusive in certain contexts. You can be a conservative leftist (not in Canada or America, of course). You're making the mistake in assuming that conservatism in the context of Canada is part of a universal conservatism (there is no such thing, as the values of conservatism are contingent on context). The ideology of leftism, on the other hand, is universal, and doesn't change based on context. I guess I'm still banging my head against the wall with you.

Yeah, I think it's a lesson that needs to be learned the hard way. I share your cynicism.

Libertarianism is inherently anti-leftist. It always has been. I guess you were fooled when the discourse of popular culture began using the terms liberal, left-wing, and socialist interchangeably. You don't realise that the left-right paradigm doesn't change, it is timeless and the way it is meant to be understood is not contingent on context. You've never studied political science in any meaningful way. It's obvious, I'm pointing it out, and now you're getting upset.

That's not what I said. Conservatism means something very different in Canada when comparing it to conservatism from the Taliban. Why? Because we're each conserving something entirely different. You're so out of your league it's not even funny anymore. I'm not gonna continue with this, either, if you can't understand what I'm saying by now then there's really no point.

He's incapable of serious discussion, and he gets mad when adults carry on in dialogue within which he cannot participate. The analogy I always use to describe people like him is the screaming child at the dinner table. While the adults at the table are talking about something top complex for the child to comprehend, he starts shouting and demanding attention. "Watch me! Watch me! I can tie my shoelaces!". He then proceeds to tie his shoelaces, simultaneously destroying the conversation that was taking place and receiving the attention he needs. All in all, a pretty impressive performance by the (man)child.

It has everything to do with this thread. Do you not pay any attention, at all? The main thrust of this dialogue is that we're importing people into our country that subscribe to a core set of values that are antithetical to Canadian values (which you're unable to articulate, due to your leftist moral/cultural relativism). Where are these core values coming from? Their take on the Quran, taking it at face value. Even when we hold your hand and help you hold the crayon, you still can't connect the dots in the metaphorical colouring book.

Nice strawman argument. DogOnPorch never stated that all Muslims are alike. Neither was it stated that Islam monolithic in practise. All you're doing is demonstrating your desperation to slander us as haters of Muslims. It's pathetic and it shows us how hollow your argumentation and ideology is.

Right, because you think conservatism and leftism are mutually irreconcilable, and they're NOT. The values of conservatism are dependent on context, so a contemporary American conservatism holds values that are antithetical to those of conservatives in Russia in the 1990s. What defines a conservative is the context within which he or she exists, what values are trying to be preserved? The values of leftism, unlike conservatism, are NOT contingent on context. Therefore, you can be a conservative leftist if the values you're trying to conserve are communism or Islamism. I normally assume this is elementary.

That's how I see it. Although this is preaching to the choir, here's a good video about this subject matter that I think you'll appreciate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2AhV-QU1_M You know, one of Truman's grandchildren recently attended a memorial in Hiroshima. What a disgrace. He's basically using his namesake as a cynical tool in the campaign of anti-Americanism from the left.

Exactly. It reveals the bigotry that is endemic of the left. The best phrase I've come across is "the soft bigotry of low expectations". We're also seeing this phenomenon in the thread about the Muslims in Toronto demanding the introduction of blasphemy laws to criminalise speech they view as critical of Islam. These leftists have such contempt for Muslims that they think they're a bunch of animals who just can't help themselves from engaging in mass murder campaigns when they feel that their faith is disrespected, so we should indulge their desires to implement laws prohibiting "defamation of religion" and destroy the most basic freedom in our society.

You just love using nonsensical and contradictory terms to further demonstrate your obliviousness of core political concepts, don't you? "Libertarian socialist", is that a branch of free market communism? The left loves to try to destroy language and coin absurd phrases. Reminds me of when cybercoma started rambling about how he isn't a democratic socialist, but a social democrat. It's stupid enough to make one's head spin.

There's something very wrong with an environment in which a person feels compelled to hide his or her homosexuality for fear of violence. Still, you gotta live in the world as it is and not the world you wish it was, so unfortunately I think I understand where you're coming from, and I think there are plenty of homosexuals out there that are cautious about being open about this part of their lives for that very reason.

Not only is it a lifestyle they don't want to be a part of, it's also a lifestyle they're likely incapable of succeeding in. You probably know this better than most, right? I wonder if this qualifies as a type of natural selection.

That's ridiculous. Although I think there is plenty of evidence to support the view that there are elements on our society that wish to "normalise" homosexuality.

Absolutely, this has been going on for decades. Somehow the left thinks that we need to revisit the family unit and redefine it, and then force society to comply through centralised planning (primarily through control over education of youth). Nevermind the fact that the family unit is a function of biology rather than a "social construct" that the left wants to reshape. While "normal people" is a bit vague, I know exactly what you mean. Leftists are intentionally being obtuse with you, as if somehow two same-sex homosexual women raising children they conceived by browsing a sperm donor catalogue is now normal.

That's my impression, as well. I think this user is just acting the role of a leftist.

You don't even grasp the meaning of basic political terms, I know. I'm not gonna go around in circles with you and play this game.

I'm sure several countries have scary contingency plans. But yeah, millions dead would've been scary business.

So you think the CIA composed the material you're posting because it's linked to the CIA's official domain? In other words, you're trying to assert that the CIA in on-board with your narrative?

I completely reject the "conventional wisdom" of the left which asserts that American involvement was the be all and end all of events as they led up to and unfolded after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. The narrative is that without American involvement, things would have been completely different and likely with better outcomes.

I think eyeball's comment, "Try thinking like an Earthling for a change," might actually be a reference to "global citizen" politics. You know, international communism and all that.

The Taliban are on board with socialists when it comes to economic affairs. Islamism is inherently anti-freedom, which extends of course to anti-capitalism. As far as the conservatism of the Taliban, that's only true in the context of Afghanistan if the country has a history of theocratic rule and/or religious fundamentalism. I'm not familiar with the history of Afghanistan, and of course neither are you, so I'm not gonna take your word for it. In a broader sense, broader than Afghanistan and encompassing "the Muslim world", the Taliban can be viewed as Islamic conservatives. In contemporary times, I think Islamism might actually be an import to Afghanistan.