kraychik

Moonlight Graham likely thinks that the WTC was staffed with "little Eichmanns" when it was attacked on 9/11.

Well said, Islamic terrorists have demonstrated incredible restraint in their completely understandable pursuit of revenge.

Right, because terms like "government subsidies" are honest ways to describe tax credits to incentivise development of a valuable commodity that leads to massively increased government revenues by growing the tax base? I guess the excise taxes on gasoline and massive regulatory departments staffed with paper shufflers tasked with preserving "safety" don't qualify as the exact opposite of a "government subsidy"... The real subsidy is, of course, the massive taxes paid to the government through profits generated via this industry. The industry is subsidising the government. Of course, in cybercoma's socialist fantasy (otherwise known as Bizarro World), somehow the government is subsidising the wealth creators.

Well, if the OECD says so, then it must be true! No organisation is more more committed to honestly advocating for Canada's best interests than the OECD, right?

Michael Hardner's position summarised: "Since your child will live in my community, I have a right to have input into what they're taught." It doesn't get any sicker than that, folks. The solution, of course, is introduce some form of free market principles into education. At the very least, "school choice" in the form of school vouchers. That way schools will be more accountable to parents, and less accountable to rabble like Michael Hardner.

What a shocking and controversial proposition! Revolutionary! Contrast that to the "progressive" cybercoma's proposition: I stopped reading his post right there. It is impossible to have any sort of serious discussion on these matters when the other side is genuinely advocating not only a "no-zeroes" policy, but a complete abolition of any form of testing, whatsoever. This is how deep leftism is in our society.

Why don't we start with the lack of violence from non-Muslims in response to free expression that lampoons their religious beliefs? Where are the Christians storming American embassies when Bill Maher insults Christianity, or where are the Jews doing the same when anti-Semitic messages are presented every hour of every day in Muslim-majority tyrannies? The funny thing is you occupy an island of delusion where reality doesn't exist until it's hammered into your mind. Until an idea is spoonfed to you, it simply doesn't exist, right? You can now resort to page two of your playbook: demanding studies and evidence of everything you're unaware of.

What's unacceptable is that the world's foremost military power, America, is entrenched in conflict with a third-world backwater hellhole for over a decade. Why? Because the American political leadership, beginning with Bush Jr., didn't and still doesn't have the courage to do what's required, instead endlessly using "surgical strikes" that don't win the war. Get in there, beat them, force them to cease their hostilities or destroy their ability to wage war on us, and get out. Unfortunately, leftist politics are determining the method of prosecution of these wars, which is why they seem to be endless. The very "strategy" that you are in favour of is exactly why America and its allies are in this mess. And you love them and cry crocodile tears for their dead, while Canadian soldiers were given ridiculous RoE which the enemy used to its advantage, and then were accused of being "war criminals" by the left via Richard Colvin and his NDP and Liberal allies. I propose a simpler objective: destroy the enemy's ability to wage war against us. They don't need to be Western, although that'd be ideal. That's too ambitious of an objective, though. Agreed. I think there's some truth to that, but until that happens we need to be vigilant. Muslims alone cannot win this ideological conflict.

More importantly, the responsibility for collateral damage lies with the terrorists themselves. The terrorists make a conscious choice to embed themselves with supposed civilians. If I have to make a choice between them and us, I'm going to choose them ten times out of ten. Permitting a terrorist to operate with impunity simply because he or she surrounds him or herself with so-called civilians is not an acceptable option. We cannot accept more victims on our side because our political leadership didn't have the courage make the difficult choice to liquidate the terrorists who use human shields.

Michael Hardner hates open and honest discussion about issues that make him uncomfortable. What makes him uncomfortable, you may ask? Inconvenient truths that are irreconcilable with his utopian and leftist worldview. His brain short circuits and he begins to deride the dialogue as "unsubstantive" and "without evidence".

Of course, because until a group of "social scientists" conduct a poll about Muslim attitudes towards freedom of speech and expression and have it published in a peer-reviewed journal, we can't possibly have any idea what they might be, right? Remember folks, if a tree falls in the woods and Michae Hardner doesn't hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. Right, because in the imaginary world within which you live, all groups are exactly alike with the same proclivities. Do you ever get bored of basing your worldview off of such demonstrably untrue false premises?

It should also be noted that protests, demonstrations, and riots took place in many cities, and most of the Canadian media landscape (primarily the CBC, of course) buried the events. What they did cover, barely, were the events in Tunis, Benghazi, and Cairo. What they didn't cover for transparent reasons were similar events in Toronto, London, Paris, Bern, Oslo, Sydney, and so forth. The CBC deliberately chose not to cover these events. Why? It's obvious to some of us. Apparently this wasn't newsworthy as part of the broader context of the attacks on American embassies and consulates (most of the American media landscape buried these events, as well):

You and I both know who they're voting for, and you and I both know exactly why their political beneficiaries pander to them on these issues.

Nobody has even suggested that anyone's right to protest be removed. Speak for yourself. DogOnPorch, Wild Bill, and myself are all on the same page with respect to this issue. We do not "know" that basic freedoms will be eternally preserved in Canada. The struggle against tyranny is neverending, and within a democratic society is the mechanism for self-destruction if the electorate gets lazy and passive, like you clearly have become. You just take it on faith that basic freedoms in Canada will endure despite a lot of evidence to the contrary. The best example being the (so-called) Human Rights Act of 1977 that built the foundation for the ridiculous provincially-administered (so-called) Human Rights Tribunals. The basic rights of freedom of speech and expression are being eroded in Canada, and they are under greater threat as we continue to import people into our society that have contempt for these values. You're basically telling us that everything's fine and everything will always be fine. That doesn't make for a compelling argument when we see all levels of society, from the rabble-rousing Muslims featured in the video from the original post to academics, media personalities and politicians encouraging us to revisit our basic freedoms and restrict them further in order to acquiesce to violence. What are you talking about? The Charter is regularly being violated via the notwithstanding clause. Consider the ridiculous language laws in Quebec and the kangaroo courts known as Human Rights Tribunals I mentioned earlier. All is not well, although you're trying to suggest otherwise. Unfortunately for you, not all of us are asleep at the switch. Spare us your references to "legal experts" you couldn't even name without running to so an internet search. On the contrary, real legal experts have been warning for a long time that we're eroding our basic freedoms in Canada. Of course it isn't all of them. Muslims are not a homogenous group. The problem is that there is a large proportion of them that are demanding a destruction of freedom of speech and expression. And they're demanding it everywhere: in Canada, the USA, the UK, virtually every other country in Europe, in Russia, and in Australia. Like Michael Hardner, you don't realise that things actually exist even while you're unaware of them. Protests, riots, and attacks have occurred in Toronto, London, Moscow, Baku, Bern, Paris, Rome, Athens, Oslo, Sydney, and many other cities Western countries as a consequence of the agitation from Muslim religious authorities regarding the "Innocence of Muslims" film. This isn't something insignificant that you can sweep under the rug as the CBC and the National Post have done. Ever consider that these threads are specific to certain events, and not a broader discussion about violent riots and protests in general? These events have nothing to do with the 2011 Stanley Cup riot in Vancouver, and you'r desperately trying to dilute the discussion because, like Michael Hardner, the truth upsets you. Nevermind the fact that I have stated repeatedly and clearly that I do not lump all Muslims into one category, despite your desperate attempt to characterise my comments as such. But the opposite is occurring, we're seeing increased radicalism and fundamentalism from younger generations in the West. You're just parroting a myth that assimilation and integration is inevitable, while all the evidence shows us something else. You're essentially telling DogOnPorch not to believe his lying eyes. I don't think he's buying your brand. As I've already explained, this is completely irrelevant, and a desperate attempt by you to derail the conversation in order to shut down honest discussion. What you're doing is assuming that all cultures are equally amenable to assimilation/integration into Canadian (and, more broadly, Western) societies. This is predicated on the falsehood of cultural relativism.

I find your reflexive support for nonsensical and emotionally-based leftist politics thar destroy socieites far more creepy than Mr. Canada's "scientific" approach to meeting ladies. Some of that must creep into your personal life.

Our "forum facilitator", ladies and gentlemen!

Nobody is forcing you to participate in this thread, or even to be here on MLW. If it's that unbearable for you, there's a red 'X' at the top right of your browser window. All you ever do is try to shut down discussions that are in any way related to Islamism or contemporary terrorism. It's so transparent.

So the MTA has responded to these events after being forced to post them by a federal court with new rules and guidelines which are clearly going to be used unconstitutionally, given their earlier decision to reject the ad. The new language in the policy states that future submissions for ads will be rejected if they "incite or provoke violence". Clearly, there is no incitement to violence from these anti-Jihad ads. Of course, that won't stop haters of freedom of speech and expression (such as bud and jacee) from trying to redefine this language either through stupidity of ignorance. This will of course occur either through anti-Muslim bigotry ("Muslims can't help but be driven to violence to violence when they feel offended, because, well, Muslims can't control themselves! They're savages!"), or anti-American bigotry ("Americans are too stupid to know the difference between Jihad and Islam, and will assume that this ad is commanding them to hate and attack all Muslims! And since Americans follow all instructions, they will do so!"). One of Obama's primary SuperPACs is parroting the dishonest narrative that these ads are labelling all Muslims as savages. It's unsurprising that Obama reelection campaign is on the exact same page as the Islamic Republic of Iran. In other hypocritical news, the ACLU has been completely silent on these events. They did address Obama's recent remarks at the UN where he did defend the the first amendment, although this was two weeks after the terrorist attack on the consulate and Benghazi and after a painfully weak and apologetic response from both him and the State Department - where they spent more time and used more severe language criticising the video "Innocence of Muslims" than the actual terrorist attack that murdered Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The ACLU article, unsurprisingly, gives Obama way too much credit for his latest address at the UN. On the other hand, better late than never.

It's pretty clear that Michael Hardner doesn't grasp what's at stake. That's why he remains confounded and demands to know what the problem is, despite it being laid out right in front of him. Even when the spoon is brought to his mouth, he keeps his lips shut and wonders why he's still hungry.

The fact that we have people like madmax who seemed to, in seriousness, try to draw a parallel between those sorts of destructive events (for example, the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots) and what we're talking about here with Islamist demonstrations demanding destruction of the most basic freedoms tells me everything I need to know about the possibility of having a serious discussion with these leftists: It's impossible.

Another example of Michael Hardner using terms he doesn't understand and needing a dictionary.

Look, if you don't get it by now you're never gonna get it. The way these events are related to Canadian politics is that we're bringing in hundreds of thousands of people, eventually millions, and including them into our citizenry, who do not value the most basic freedoms essential to a free society. To make matters worse, they are actually encouraged not to integrate into our societies via "multiculturalism". Anyone can do some basic predictions about Canada's future if this trend continues. This much was obvious in the original post, but not to those people like Michael Hardner.

That's hilarious, thanks for sharing it. Perhaps cybercoma can now come in here and tell us how disgusting, reprehensible, and offensive it is.

We know you do. That's why you've not-so-subtly labelled me, DogOnPorch, and Wild Bill as being Nazi-like. We understand that you don't comprehend the difference between what we're saying and Nazi ideology. No, they are not. Again, we understand that you don't understand the problem. It's tied to every single Muslim in one way or another. Does that mean we're suggesting every single Muslim is the same, or that every branch of Islam is the same? No, although that's what you're trying to suggest. The common denominator here is hardcore Islam, although of course there are other cultures and sets of values (communism, Nazism, etc) that need to be kept out of Canada as best as possible. We get it, you don't see a problem and you want to perpetuate cultural, social, and economic suicide in Canada.