kraychik

That's ridiculous. It's a mental disorder to think one is a different gender and it should be treated as such. Of course, given our politically-correct culture, we cater to such abnormalities as if they aren't abnormalities.

The altar of Reagan is not worshipped at nearly to the same degree as leftist grovel at the altar of their leaders. There is comparison between the cult of personality around, say, Obama, and admiration of Reagan from yesterday and today. More importantly, however, Reagan was a conservative who didn't want to micromanage people's lives. There's a significant difference between admiring a leader who wants to delegate responsibility to the individual citizens and a leader who wants to rule over the citizenry. This comes down to a philosophical divide between the right and the left, where the left is prone to believing that there are individuals among us who are bestowed with god-like abilities to outmanoeuvre freely associating individuals in a free society. If the left didn't believe that there such magnanimously gifted people among us, they wouldn't be able to reconcile granting certain individuals such a broad degree of control over our lives. Only a demi-god can have such knowledge and wisdom so as to be trust to manage society and outthink millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions freely associating individuals. This is why the left, by design, must prop up its leadership and play this demented sort of cult of personality game. We saw the exact same sickness after the death of Jack Layton. The extreme case would be, of course, Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il.

You have to take the good with bad. We also got Barney Frank, Howie Mandel, Saul Alinsky. Mel Brooks is great, though. Remember pissboy?

Perhaps you can support your moral posturing on behalf of these victimised boys by showing us the troves of circumcised adult men who want their foreskins back and now feel that they have been violated? Not in my entire life have a met a circumcised man who wishes that benevolent leftists like yourself would have sounded the alarm about malicious circumcisions when they were infants, to spare them for the horrors of genital mutilation. Your self-aggrandisement as you pretend to be an advocate for people who don't want you speaking on their behalf is hilarious. Leftists like you make this forum entertaining. Thank you for you verbal virtuosity.

Actually, most countries in the world hate Jews, they only try to mask themselves, as you seem to do, by saying they hate Israel or are "anti-Zionists".

It's not difficult to see a person's ideological leanings. I'm sorry that I have shattered your self-concept of being nuanced, complex, and layered. You're far more transparent than you believe. Your posts clearly demonstrated subscription to leftist narratives (systemic racism and unjustifiable prejudices against women, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, etc against CERTAIN groups and not towards others) to justify racist/sexist and other unjustifiably discriminatory practises such as so-called "affirmative action" that benefit certain groups at the expense of others who don't belong to the preferred group. Only a leftist would sincerely believe this. The only possibility that you are not a leftist is if you were simply playing devil's advocate for entertainment purposes. If you were being sincere with your challenges, however, than you have instantly revealed your leftist ideology. It is you, not I, who supports racist, bigoted, sexist, and other unjusitifably discriminatory practises like so-called "affrimative action". Turn the mirror on yourself. They are excellent examples, actually. The point is simple, that unjustifiable discrimination can and does happen to all sort of people in all sorts of situations. Men get discriminated against in certain circumstances, although you didn't seem to realise that. White people can and do get discriminated against in certain circumstances, just like everyone else. Muslims, Jews, Christians, and atheists are all discriminated against in certain circumstances. Your leftist narrative, however, only mentioned discrimination against women, gays, and blacks, as if all sort of people aren't discriminated against unjustifiably in all sorts of circumstances. The big differences between you and I are as follows: 1. You only believe that certain types of unjustifiable discrimination are worth addressing with coercive government intervention via so-called "affirmative action" policies. Specifically, you are only really concerned about victims of unjustifiable discrimination against women, gays, and blacks. I, on the other hand, recognise that unjustifiable discrimination can and does affects all sorts of people from all sorts of other people. 2. You think you can "beat" the types of unjustifiable discrimination that you are most concerned with (against women, gays, and blacks), because you imagine it happens to them more often, through coercive government regulation imposing hiring standards (quotas) on businesses. I realise that the government cannot effectively address unjustifiable discrimination this way. 3. You have such a contempt for Canadian society (which is predominantly white heterosexuals) that you think these types of bigotries are so prevalent (revealing your racism and prejudice against white heterosexuals) so as to require correction via intrusive government policies. I, on the other hand, recognise that Canadian society is largely devoid of these phantoms that you chase after, and that Canadian society corrects itself without requiring the heavy hand of government. A business or individual that subscribes to such despicable bigotries will not do well once its/his/her bigotry is revealed to society. Marriage law in the USA does not prevent gay people from getting married. A person's sexual orientation does not affect their eligibility for marriage in the USA. If you are concerned about prohibitions on same-sex marriage, which is a prohibition that applies to people of all sexual orientations, that is something else entirely. You pretend to be concerned about same-sex couple not being able to marry the person they love. Would you apply that same argumentative support for polygamous relationships? If three women all equally love one another as well as the male head of the harem, should they be permitted to marry based on the grounds that they all "love" on another? I imagine a leftist like you would be in support of that, though, as you strike me as a genuine leftist grounded in leftist principles.

Is this an insult breaking the rules and guidelines of forum participation? Perhaps I should send a message to Charles Anthony.

You're a communist.

It is obvious you do not have a coherent set of principles grounding your approach to political or economic issues.

Considering that you were in another thread telling us about how you want to broaden the scope of power of the UN and distribute for power over the UN's decision-making process to countries like Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia, I'm not sure you have any respectable conservative credentials. Any conservatism you subscribe to is perhaps superficial and not grounded in well thought out principles.

There is nothing "fanatic" about describing Nazism as a leftist movement, and stating the obvious truth: that's today's left has common ideological underpinnings with other statist (leftist) ideologies such as Nazism, communism, socialism, and Islamism. Leftists like yourself are more prone to this social disease (follow the leader) than those of us on the right. Again, this is grounded in our much greater respect for the sovereignty of the individual, whereas leftists like yourself have far less respect for individual autonomy and wish to place more control into the hands of a government which will direct more of our decisions for us. I've just reminded myself of another telling phenomenon that distinguishes the right from the left, and this is how the left is far more vulnerable to making gods from their leaders. The way the left fawns over its leadership (see Barack Obama for a recent example) completely outdoes anything you'll ever see from conservatives. This is because the left believes that there are individuals among us, so gifted, so knowledgeable, so benevolent, that they can be entrusted with great power to direct societies. They are endowed with special abilities that allow them to outthink the collective wisdom of millions of freely-associating individuals making decisions in real time. This is essentially the socialist viewpoint, where they believe the intelligentsia can outthink markets, and improve efficiencies and quality (see Obamacare for a recent example of this widespread subscription from the left to the mythology of the government being able to reduce costs and increase quality of products and services). A conservative would never believe any of this nonsense, of course, because we know that one individual, or even a bureaucracy of thousands featuring the "smartest people in the world" cannot outthink a free society. This is another factor of the right that allows us to serve as the immunity in society towards tyranny, where the left represents our vulnerability.

I'm not here to win a popularity contest, I don't mind being the only person in the room who understands that the contemporary left has far more in common with Nazism than today's right, for reasons I've already explained. It is not my problem if the truth distresses you.

What you are essentially doing is revealing your contempt for other participants in this forum. You are presenting yourself as some sort of defender (I suppose you appointed yourself to this non-existent position) of other forum users. I am quite sure that other users can decide for themselves what they want to post in here, and do not require your patronising "warnings".

Thank you for the personal attack. I appreciate your insults. I am not a victim that needs your help. I am merely pointing out my observations of the left's lack of respect for freedom of association and expression which is noticeable in politics, as well as in day-to-day interactions including this forum. I've also provided examples of this phenomenon on this forum. I have never accused blacks, homosexuals, or women of portraying themselves as victims. What What I have said is that the left regularly presents itself as the vanguard of the supposedly special interests that these groups are concerned with, essentially portraying these groups as victims that need the protection of the left. You are now blatantly lying about me, and accusing me of making statements that I have never made. Perhaps I should contact the administration of this board about this and other examples of lies from you as well as personal attacks and insults that characterize virtually all of your posts addressed to me. You consistently break the rules of conduct laid out in the rules and guidelines. Thank you for the insults.

In other words, conservatives aren't welcome here. I get the message.

What about this post, is this breaking the rules of the forum?

Is this post a violation of the rules of conduct for this board?

I've explained how there are various methods towards achieving centralisation in one form or another. Direct government ownership over industry is only one way, it can also be done through massive taxation, regulation, and boosting demand through borrowing and spending from the government. The bottom line is that the contemporary left has far more parallels with Nazism with respect to core ideological beliefs than today's right wing. They'd be far more likely to play the "follow the leader" game than conservatives. Essentially, the immunity that a society has to tyranny comes from conservatives. We are the white blood cells and antibodies of a society that protect us from the virus of oppression.

Nobody does. Canuckistani's statement about people retaining memories they're unaware of is absurd. I want to see these circumcised men who are marching for a restriction on this practise because they want foreskin. Until then, it's pretty obvious that this is just more uninvited leftist self-aggrandizement where this guy purports to be the vanguard of victims who never requested his advocacy. It's actually funny.

This is great, you've essentially taken every position possible in the span of one page in this thread. Initially you supported banning the practise of circumcision, then said it's no big deal and would support continuing the protection of parents' freedoms to make that choice, and then said you're comfortable not having any position on the matter one way or the other. You've essentially become a political pretzel on this. It's hilarious.

Nobody said that Nazism was communism. What was said, repeatedly and clearly, is that Nazism is a leftist ideology in the sense that leftism is essentially statism. These are are different strands of the same ideological family. All of these ideologies crush the individual in order to serve the interests of the collective as defined by the political class of elites. This is what unifies communism, socialism, Nazism, Islamism, fascism and other tyrannies under the umbrella of leftism/statism. That's it, that's all.

Is this post of yours a violation of the rules of this board?

After spending a few moments browsing through old threads on this site, I noticed that there was a a detail under every poster's mini-profile in each thread. Some users are indicated to belong to the group "Banned". After looking through about ten users who have been banned and briefly looking through some of their posts I noticed something that didn't surprise me in the least: they were all conservative or conservative leaning. Here are some usernames I encountered that were banned, all of whom seem to be conservative-leaning. Lukin, M.Dancer, Ricki Bobbi, watching&waiting, olpfan1, Bob, mikedavid00, huh, Oleg Bach, Ontario Loyalist, Michael Bluth. The only banned user names that I've come across (although admittedly this wasn't a very thorough review) are William Ashley, and Araf, who are clearly leftists. There was this username, kengs333, who I'm not so sure about, but I'm betting he was banned for something associated with conservatism, as well. From this basic analysis, the bias of this board, whatever its cause(s), is revealed. This indicates one of two things. Either the moderation of this board is leftist, which I imagine to be the case considering this is a Canadian board. Or, perhaps those who complain to the moderating team more than anyone are the leftist, who don't respect freedom of speech and expression and regularly do what they can to silence disagreement. This is likely the case, considering that I have been insulted many times since my arrival here, with at least two leftists (cybercoma and TheNewTeddy) openly calling for me to be censored. I am also dishonestly accused of insulting others.

Muslims aren't a race.

There's a big range between saying government needs to be reduced from its current levels, both economically and socially, and bringing about anarchy. Predictably, you need to use this absurd hyperbole because you cannot really address anything I've said. You're presenting a false choice, between socialism as you see it and complete anarchy. Intelligent forum participants know this is an absurd premise. I do not need to further address false characterisations of my political philosophy.