kraychik

Actually, whether or not they are murderers isn't contingent on them having a trial, or what a jury or judge determines to be their guilt or lack of guilt after a trial. A trial will determine whether they are convicted of murder or not, but it cannot change what they've done (or didn't do, if you think they're not guilty). Being a murderer isn't always the same thing as being a convicted murderer. Conversely, some convicted murderers are not murderers, having been falsely convicted.

Argus, let me congratulate you on successfully epitomising the reflexive anti-Americanism that is endemic to the Canadian left, despite your attempts to present yourself as something different. The rhetoric about "money buying American politics" (which isn't true in America or in Canada), the implication that the Republican party and American conservatives are anti-black racists, and your pretentiousness in using the British adjective of "bloody" does a good job in exposing the anti-Americanism that is a staple of the Canadian left. I cannot thank you enough. Nothing exposes the left better than the left speaking candidly.

Pretty much. Go for it.

Being a birther is certainly stupid, but being an anti-Semite is much more than just stupid, it is malicious and despicable.

I never said that this Muslim democrat is representative of the entire left. What I am saying is that this sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about 9/11 being an inside job involving the Mossad and the CIA is typically leftist in origin. Admittedly, certain elements of the libertarian movement are also subject to this disease.

Ramadan is an entire month, and I don't think there is a religious prohibition against having a hearing if one is accused during business hours. I could be wrong, but it looks like these Muslim terrorists are trying to exploit the value of "religious tolerance" and makes fools of us by leveraging the left to their advantage. This reminds me of a deliciously ironic story I came across not long ago about a leftist-feminist journalist who was charged with a "hate crime" in the UK after assisting what appeared to be a religious Muslim woman dressed with a hijab unloading groceries onto the the checkout conveyor belt with the cashier. Apparently she was with her husband, who wasn't assisting her (lack of chivalry!). Well, this leftist-feminist journalist wasn't going to stand by and allow this chauvinist oppression to continue unabated, so she chastised the husband and invited herself to begin assisting the Muslim woman load her groceries for scanning. The Muslim woman and her husband protested, and began to accuse this benevolent leftist-feminist journalist of racism. Hilariously, the leftist-feminist journalist lady was charged with a "hate crime". 'I thought the innocent were protected ... it's been a hard lesson': Celebrity photographer kicked by Muslim woman she tried to help tells of pain at being charged as a racist.

That's a really good point. We can build up on it and demonstrate the hypocrisy of certain Muslim groups as well, considering that on the one hand they will state that the terrorists are "unIslamic", while stopping short of excommunicating them (although there is no such thing in Islamic doctrine). Later, they are distressed when these terrorists are perceived to have had their freedom to religious expression curbed. The first example that comes to mind for me was the outrage we saw from certain Muslim groups over Osama Bin Laden's lack of access (for lack of a better word) to a proper Islamic burial. So they sort of imply that these Muslim terrorists aren't Muslims, and then freak out when these Muslim terrorists aren't accommodated in every dimension for their religious desires.

When it comes to the narrative that underlies the statements of this Muslim Missouri Democrat stating that "no Jews died in 9/11", which is essentially one that suggests 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the American government with the Mossad in order to serve as a pretence for war in Afghanistan and Iraq, yeah, that's a point of view that predominantly originates from the left.

In other words, there are still some burning questions that remain unanswered? 9/11 truth now! Thank you for exposing the absurdity of the left. Although 9/11 truthers are also present in some of the libertarian ranks.

I've had this conversation several times before. While the common denominator between the contemporary left and Nazism is the emphasis on the collective over the individual, it is not so broad as to be meaningless. This is really a core philosophical component, and it is the primary bone of contention between the today's left and right. It is also a far more relevant commonality than the parallels you provided between Nazism and the contemporary right, some of which were out of context, some of which were superficial, and some of which were outright false.

What if I hate white people because I belong to the same church as Barack Obama? Should I be forced to hire the white person against my own wishes? Why would a reasonable white person want to work for someone who is racist against white people, anyways?

Perhaps it's none of Moonlight Graham's business who I want to hire and for what reasons I want to hire him or her? This insanity, when taken to its logical conclusion, means that a all sorts of ordinary desires are now criminalised. Here are a few examples of this: A female seeking a female roommate is now illegally discriminating against men. The owner of an apartment building is only renting out to religious Jews who will observe the Sabbath and other Jewish holidays is now discriminating illegally against non-Jews. A Halal butchery or other Muslim organisation (perhaps a Muslim summer camp) seeks to only hire other Muslims due to religious and social/cultural reasons is now illegally discriminating against non-Muslims (religion is a protected ground for discrimination). A homosexual nightclub for men chooses to only hire gay bartenders and perhaps only permit gay men men into the club to maintain its niche atmosphere is now illegally discriminating against heterosexuals on employment and patronage. The examples can go on forever, women's only gyms, men's only gold courses, black only organisations, etc.

Everyone is treated equally today, except for unjustifiably discriminatory practises implemented from the left with so-called "affirmative action" policies and other such quota systems. If it wasn't for the left, we'd have real equality of opportunity in Canada protecting us from widespread discrimination based on protected grounds. I accurately called you out on your own racism, rooted in your leftist ideology. The only way a person can justify so-called "affirmative action" policies in their own mind is if they sincerely believe that certain groups are more subject to unjustifiable discrimination based on protected grounds than other groups. "Affirmative action" policies give certain advantages to arbitrarily-selected groups, at the expense of everyone outside of those groups. This is a zero-sum-game. In order to believe this false narrative, you must convince yourself that the majority of our society, which today is self-identifying white people, are sufficiently racist or prejudiced where they require the correction of a benevolent political system. You cannot justify racism or certain discrimination against certain groups without believing that these groups are engaging in these ills at a high enough level to justify this "reverse-discrimination". What this does is reveal your own racism towards white people. The funny thing is you don't even realise how much you expose yourself when you talk. Perhaps now you will tell me that you cannot possibly subscribe to a racist mentality when you yourself are white, or have white friends, or some other such irrelevant personal detail. Again, thank you for exposing the racism that is so common among the left. So hiring a person based on a stronger command of the English language is now racism? What if the Arab had no accent and the white guy did have a "bit of a foreign accent"? Would I be racist to hire the Arab guy with the better English? Thank you for exposing the absurdity of the left. Nobody can do this better than you, the left in its own words.

The contemporary left is far more comfortable with the erosion in individual freedom in both the economic and social spheres than the contemporary left, therefore my point is simple and valid: the contemporary left shares more parallels with Nazism than the contemporary right. This is a direct consequence of certain core ideological underpinnings that Nazism shares with the broader family of leftist ideologies, which is essentially a subscription to the idea that the (arbitrarily defined) interests of the group trump those of the individual. While it is true that the contemporary right is more concerned with national security issues than the left, this is due to the left's belief that we can "hug it out" with dictators and tyrants. This is one of left's weaknesses. To draw a parallel between the militarism of Nazi Germany and the contemporary right is lacking the context that the Nazis were out to fight imaginary foes, whereas the free world has real enemies. Also, militarism is a core component of today's far-left. See North Korea, China, and Iran. If you want to look into modern history, look at the former Soviet Union. There are elements of the past worth glorifying, namely the fact that not too long ago there was a much greater degree of personal autonomy in both the economic and social spheres. Of course conservatives glorify these components of greater self-sufficiency with less dependence on the welfare state. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Nazi glorification of the past was a glorification of an empire that had much less respect for individual freedom, and was largely fantasy-based in some sense of racial destiny. This parallel you're trying to draw between the contemporary right and Nazism is absurd once the relevant context is provided. The contemporary right does not hate or fear "the other". So this assertion isn't really worth addressing. Ironically, the contemporary left is far more comfortable with discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and ethnicity than the right. Moreover, this type of discrimination has been and remains regularly practised with the far left, including the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and so on. These systems all institutionalized racism, as well. In Canada elements of the public service implement quota systems which seek to give advantages in the hiring process to groups deemed "vulnerable". This is institutionalised discrimination based on protected grounds currently implemented in free societies, and are products of the left. Organised labour isn't oppressed by any means, today. If anything, they oppress themselves with self-destructive policies. They helped decimate the manufacturing industry, for instance. Today's right certainly is more hostile to organised labour than the left, but this is something we should feel sensitive about considering the consequences of today's big labour policies. You're correct that the contemporary right has a healthy rejection of mastermind "intellectuals". We reject the assertion that there exists these ultra-brainiacs who are so gifted, talented, and educated that we should transfer our own freedom to make decisions to them. We recognise that no bureaucracy can outthink the market. Millions of freely-associating individuals who are making decisions in their own best interests every second of every day are infinitely more wise as a group than a leftist "intellectual" mastermind who wants to make our decisions for us. Ironically, the Nazi party exemplified the left's tendency to make gods out of its leaders. The right does not place its leadership on a pedestal and ask for orders, whereas the left does. Where do you think Hitler falls on this spectrum? He was a big thinker, a big intellectual, with grandiose designs and declarations that he, and only he, had the right idea. He could outsmart freely-associating Germans. The right is far more immune to this disease of follow-the-leader mentality, precisely because we believe in the sovereignty of the individual, whereas the left believes in the supremacy of the collective, where the collective's interests are arbitrarily defined by political demigods like Hitler who are there to organise our societies. So yes, we do have a disdain for intellectuals who only deal in the market of ideas, where we trust our own judgment much more than the instructions of a mastermind. We knows what's in our own best interests and don't need an "intellectual" to articulate our best interests for us. The final point to address is what you described as "extreme nationalism". Yes, the contemporary right is certainly more patriotic and nationalistic than the contemporary right. And yes there is more of a parallel to be drawn here between us and the Nazis than between the Nazis and the contemporary left. Still, none of the Nazis designs would have been implemented had it not been for their core beliefs of the subjugation of the individual to the state, which again is essentially the lowest common denominator shared between them and the contemporary left. I don't see nationalism as anything to be apologetic about. Perhaps you are the typical leftist who views himself as "post-nationalistic", and sneers at us lowly folks who believe that being Canadian or American actually means something. That's fine, I expect that from the left.

Look, I am not going to disagree with you that the Soviet Union was far more centralised in its planning of the economy than Nazi Germany, and I will not disagree that this is a primary reason for the difference in production volume that you posted. I'm just saying there's more to it than that.

Their intention is clear, to falsely associate a parallel extreme ideology to the contemporary right in order to balance out their "guilt-by-association" with communism. I was also subjected to this false narrative when I was being educated about politics. It's been a very successful lie, as well, considering a huge portion of people will reflexively describe Nazism as the "far-right".

I understand the point you're trying to make and it's well-taken, but there's much more to it than what you're getting at. The Soviet Union has several advantages over Nazi Germany that allowed it to have a greater output. The first is perhaps the most obvious: its greater population. This greater population also allowed it to feed many more individuals in the Gulag slave labour system. How many slaves were doing forced labour for the Nazis over this period of time? A fraction of the amount working in the Gulag network of prisons. There were also geographic advantages that the Soviet Union enjoyed, one being greater access to natural resources at a cheaper rate and the other being its greater distance from the war. While of course Western Russia/Eastern Europe was consumed in war, Russia enjoyed a certain buffer zone which allowed it to continue its industrial production with less interruptions due to direct conflict/destruction than Germany. There's more to this but I originally typed out a longer post and then accidentally closed my browser window. I am now too frustrated to type it all out again.

I was taught the exact same thing. With communism on the far left with Nazism on the far right. It's a very misleading spectrum considering that statism in today's context is almost a leftist exclusive. Not entirely, but largely.

What kind of person is it that questions 9/11 while stating that "no Jews were killed" in the terrorist attacks? Answer that question and you'll get my point.

Canadian political hit pieces, at least the thirty-second TV spots, are far more slanderous than in the USA. Canada certainly doesn't need any tips from America when it comes to playing dirty politics, which includes outright lying and slanderous innuendo.

Thank you for killing two birds with one stone with this post. In one line you've exposed the anti-Americanism endemic to the left, as well as the left's complete lack of respect for freedom of speech and expression. The best way to expose the left is just to let them talk.

Politics has been a dirty business for a lot longer than cybercoma seems to think. It certainly didn't start with Harper. I don't think we're polarized enough. We need more conservatives drawing lines in the sand between themselves and the socialists and communists that compose much of the left. It should also be noted that Canadian politics are dirtier than American politics, so it's quite ironic when the left invokes terms like "American-style" politics in order to smear an opponent (which they did to each other, for example, during the NDP leadership race) while using anti-American bait to appeal to its base. There is far less respect between Canadian politicians than between American politicians, and far less professionalism.

I reject any concept of "group rights". There is no such thing as "women's rights" or "gay rights". Everyone should be treated equally, no more and no less. Thank you for the second part of your post, which reveals the racism that is endemic to the left. You sincerely believe that Canadian and/or the American society is so racist as to require "correction" through (racist) so-called "affirmative action" policies. What you're essentially saying is that the white majorities of these two countries are predominantly racist, and require government intervention to correct their behaviour. You reveal your own racism with this statement, and more broadly, the racism of the left. Again, thank you for your post. Nobody can expose the left better than its own membership in their own words.

Remember, I am not saying that the Nazis were communists. What I'm saying is they're unified with communists under the broader umbrella of leftist ideology. The belong to the same ideological family. Even if you state the more obvious point of them going to war with one another, which is much more significant that propaganda they each used against the other, it doesn't change the common underlying themes that connect their ideologies. Shiahs have gone to war with Sunnis, but they're connected as Muslims. Same goes for Kurds against Iraqis and Turks. If we go a lot further back we can see a Jewish civil war between Hasmoneans and Judeans. Just because you have intrafactional conflict doesn't mean that there aren't important ideological commonalities shares between the various conflicting factions.

It is entirely relevant, because centralisation of control over society in both the economic and social spheres is what connects Nazism to other leftist ideologies. The broadest measurement of centralisation of government control over an economy is to look at government spending as a share of GDP. What is irrelevant is what the stated objective is, whether is be redistribution of wealth, so-called "social programs", militarisation, or anything else.