kraychik

I agree. Still, I prefer my leftists unhinged. Being insulted with nonsense ("racist!", "homophobe!", "bigot!") doesn't bother me.

Because of acquiescence to the left-wing media. Maclean's hosted the first debate, what did you expect? Still, it's no excuse for Harper not to take charge. He's failing Canadians in not having the courage to speak more directly to the demographic destruction being wrought on the country via irresponsible immigration policies. It's sick that the subject is perceived to be so taboo, and it benefits the left.

In your defense, you replied in a knee-jerk manner without reading the article. So yeah, you were speaking about limitations on direct donations to political parties which isn't at all what's being proposed by the former MPP that the article is discussing.

Money (or resources, more accurately) is required to actually facilitate expression. So in a sense, yeah, money is speech. When Thomas Pain distributed "Common Sense", they used a printing press, which required paper, ink, machines, and people to operate the machines, and distribute them, and on and on the chain of economics goes. Freedom of expression is more than standing on the street corner and talking. Sadly, millions of people across the country are willing slaves, as you are, to surrender freedom to masterminds in Ottawa to protect us from ourselves.

So Zionists and Islamists are opposite sides of the same coin?

I agree. Let free speech reign supreme. Let the leftists speak freely, I always say.

"Homophobia". Ah, the lovely lexicon of the left.

Take away character assassination and he won't be able to post. I prefer my leftists unhinged. Let them show who they are. That goes for you, as well. I doubt Argus needs your benevolent protection.

Compartmentalizing people into group delineated by sex and age, and then framing society as composed of competing groups defined by those differences, tells us your political paradigm. That paradigm, while widespread and hugely harmful to society, isn't worthy of serious consideration. That's all I'm saying. Don't try to sell me that poison pill of my interests being at odds with different members of my family and those I care about and love based on differences in our chromosomes and years of birth.

You may very well have an intellect that eclipses mine. When it comes to knowledge and wisdom pertaining to the human condition, however....

"Women And Children's Issues". Only a Marxist divides people along such lines. Only someone oblivious to the fact that the most ubiquitous and sacred institution of humanity across space and time is the family, which, over its life, necessarily includes at least one woman and child. Don't let that stop you from trying to atomize the family into its component parts and pits its members against one another. Just a tip, telling people you're interested in the "issues" of a specific sex or age group is a great way to broadcast that you're unserious about politics.

Yeah. A bit.

This is rich, considering literally minutes ago you were praising a proposal to criminalize political speech across the country not approved by the government.

*Bangs Head Against Wall* I knew there was a good reason I stopped posting here for such a long time. I guess this is what passes for pro bono political dialogue.

I didn't say "political party". Neither does the proposal discussed in the article. It's about all political messaging. Which essentially means everything.

I agree. The Canadian state should serve the interests of foreign refugees (legitimate and otherwise), not Canadians.

I agree. It should be a criminal offense for people to freely donate money and resources to a political cause. The government should be the sole arbiter of funding for all political communications, it shall determine the parameters of legitimate political expression, who qualifies for such expression, and the volume of resources allotted to such persons.

I don't think a policy of silencing people for using a certain term based on the sentiment behind it makes for good moderation. Neo-conservatism is meaningful and relevant term in political discourse. That said, it's entirely possible that G Huxley is clueless as to what the term actually means as uses it as a euphemism for evil conspiratorial Jews who are part of the International Zionist Cabal (most people who use the term "neo-con" fall into that category) to take over the world. I also think describing the term "neo-con" as a "grave insult" is quite dramatic.

Meanwhile, you'll cast your vote for your local LPC or NDP candidate. All while sneering at Americans with unearned arrogance.

The fact that Argus hates people who aren't white? Right. Character assassination is your only card, I don't blame you for playing it.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/21/former-legislator-ban-political-ads-from-canadian-tv-radio/ A former MPP wants the government to destroy freedom of speech and expression - in the interests of "fairness". Now that the LPC is trailing in fundraising for its propaganda, it wants to government to hijack the process of political messaging and campaigning. Naturally, he makes no mention of the over one billion dollars flowing from taxpayers to the left-wing CBC that campaigns endlessly against conservatism and in favor of leftism (LPC and NDP, naturally). The left is so typical.... if you don't like something, BAN IT. If you can't get your way, USE THE IRON FIST OF THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE IT.

Pretty nasty for you to accuse Argus of opposing modern immigration policies because of racist motivations. But hey, you're a leftist - you must see racism everywhere. I also think that Harper has been awful on immigration and "multiculturalism". Unfortunately, the left has been successful in training the sheep that populate our political culture that critical discussion of either issue amounts to "racism" or "Islamophobia" or "bigotry". They've become taboos. Not forever, though. As Ernest Hemingway say, "the truth has a certain ring to it". Keep chasing those phantoms. Keep tilting at those windmills.

Just curious - did you come to this subsection of the forum asking for disciplinary action to be taken by the forum moderator(s) against bush_cheney2004?

I agree with the thrust of that article. I read it earlier today. I think the author of it reads Reddit Canada.

To say nothing of social cohesion or..... what's actually happening.... social fragmentation.