kraychik

It's not hard to find this stuff, you know? The NDP trips over itself trying to be everything to everyone, it seems. On the one hand, the NDP wants Israel to remove its blockade of Gaza, but on the other it recognises that Gaza is smuggling arms and other tools and materials used in the implementation of terrorist operations. Well, which is it? Either the blockade is necessary to protect the security of Israel, or it's unjustifiable and Israel should just endure more terrorism by ending the blockade. This is directly from the NDP website, and the position is clearly schizophrenic. New Democrats echo the United Nations’ concerns about potential clashes between Israeli forces and the activists, and urge restraint on all sides. The NDP has consistently called for an end to the blockade of Gaza to alleviate the human suffering caused by the conflict. We also recognize Israel’s legitimate security concerns with respect to the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and have called for effective international arrangements to address these concerns. Here is the late Jack Layton playing the moral equivalence game between both Israel and Hamas, which is essentially a pro-Hamas (a subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood, as I stated before) position. Equating the behaviour of a an army operating within the bounds of a moral code of conduct defending a democracy with that of a terrorist organization which is the armed wing of an anti-democratic Islamist group really reveals where the sympathies of the NDP lie. Urgently, New Democrats call on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to join UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in publicly pressing for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. New Democrats are extremely concerned about the loss of innocent civilian lives in both Gaza and Israel. The use of force in Gaza must cease; so too must rocket attacks on Israel. We join with world leaders in describing the shelling of a United Nations Headquarters as indefensible. Here is a story of two NDP participants clearly expressing solidarity with Hamas while pretending to be for "the people" of Gaza: 2 NDP MPs support contentious flotilla to Gaza Here's former leader Nicole Turmel refusing to denounce the anti-Semitic BDS campaign: There are endless examples of this. I'm not sure why this surprises you. You're probably sympathetic to these viewpoints anyways, considering you're a socialist.

Here's an amusing blog post from a passionate NDP supporter and fanboy of el Presidente (who he describes as a socialist). Vacation with Castro.

I never said that the entire NDP membership was composed of communists. That's your hyperbolic strawman.

Do you really want me to post links of the NDP's (in)famous Libby Davies dabbling in 9/11 conspiracy theories? I think I also remember Thomas Mulcair doing the same. To hell with it, I'll do it. Here is Libby Davies calling for an "investigation" into the events of 9/11, as per the conspiracy theorists from "9/11 Truth". Here is Libby Davies endorsing the flotilla and directly supporting Hamas, while hiding behind the cover of supporting "the people" of Gaza. Great photo of Libby Davies. Here's Libby Davies embarrassing herself with the camera in front of her, rambling about the imaginary "occupation" that's apparently existed since 1948 and the "siege" of Gaza. She's essentially parroting the Islamist proaganda of Hamas (a subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood). There are so many more examples I can provide, from Thomas Mulcair's statements to moves from Sid Ryan, but the history of the NDP's sympathies with Islamist movements is symptom of its leftism. This really is just the tip of the iceberg, as the pro-Islamist and pro-Hamas slant of the NDP is really inconsequential in the broader scheme of things, but it does demonstrate the NDP is consistently leftist. To their credit, I suppose?

I got this result after doing a Google search for "NDP communism". This was the second search result. You're right, the ideological leanings of the NDP are no secret, and thanks to the internet's shattering of the old media as the vanguard of the left, it's more difficult for people to hide who they are then ever before. NDP treasury board critic Mathieu Ravignat’s communist past highlighted by Tories

You're right, we do know everything about these things. Does Derek L really not realise that the NDP is completely transparent with its socialist agenda? Yes, they may hide some trivial things like their sympathies for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and dictators like Castro and Chavez, but on balance they're pretty straightforward about their ideology and intentions.

Evening Star and cybercoma are both refusing the acknowledge that there is context here that is relevant and missing. I do not follow Manitoba politics, so I am painfully ignorant about this. However, I do not believe for a second that the NDP lowered the tax rate on small businesses to zero without taxing them somewhere else. If I'm right, it's a wise political move so that leftists can spout the talking point of the NDP provincial leadership lowering the tax burden on small businesses, while ignoring other avenues where they drove up costs for these very same businesses (minimum wage regulation, environmental regulations, licensing, safety inspections, and so forth). If you take ten dollars out of my pocket and then put back five, don't go tell everyone you put five dollars in my pocket while ignoring the ten dollars you initially stole.

Reducing the small business tax rates at the provincial level to zero is good news in an of itself, but doesn't tell us a lot without looking at the entirety of the provincial taxes. In other words, there's missing context. Did provincial taxes compose a larger or smaller share of Manitoba's GDP after the NDP implemented its policies? To address your last statement, I see nothing secretive about the NDP whatsoever. The NDP is clearly very candid about its socialistic leanings, its subscription to the class warfare political and historical narrative, its animosity towards the perceived rich, and opposition to individual liberty in both the social and economic spheres of life. The NDP is very transparent, and I don't see anything secretive about their leftist agenda. They are exactly what they appear to be, and they are exactly who they say they are.

Show me that proposal. That is a complete lie and you're certainly ignoring relevant context.

Discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity is a staple of the contemporary left. For every racist on the right, there are several racists on the left.

So you're arrogant enough to speak on behalf of those men who've been circumcised as their advocate? Show me some Jewish or Muslim circumcised men who now feel violated and wish that the benevolent leftists like you would have spared them from being mutilated as children. Until you can do that, your pathetic moral posturing on the behalf of others who never asked you to speak for them will ring hollow.

Here's what I said: Karl Marx, whether you want to believe it or not, is the intellectual father of contemporary socialism. While today's socialists typically don't openly call for a complete abolition of private property, their false narrative of an inherent class struggle is directly sourced to Marxism. The anti-business and anti-freedom agenda of contemporary socialism has many parallels with Marxism. The parallels between socialism and communism are numerous, and they include support for governmental control either through direct ownership or massive regulation and taxation) of education, healthcare, primary resources, telecommunications (which includes restrictions on freedom of speech and expression), media, and many other sectors and industries. I don't want to go too far off on this tangent, but my point is simple and clear, and absolutely correct: Nazism belongs to the family of leftist ideologies, and the family of leftist ideologies draws heavily from the demented political and historical narratives of Karl Marx. Like I said earlier, conflict between various factions of leftism doesn't mean that these various factions aren't unified with common ideological denominators. So Karl Marx\s despising of socialists, or Hitler's propaganda and war against the communists (who he viewed as agents of the global Jewish conspiracy to destroy the world, he regularly described the Soviet Union as Judeo-Bolshevism, a meme parroted by contemporary Neo-Nazis today), or any other conflicts between various leftist factions is not an argument that disproves the underlying ideological commonalities that unify these various iterations of leftism. All of them believe in collectivisation at the expense of individualism, all are statists, and this mentality is a staple of the contemporary left.

I'm assuming you've met circumcised men who lament having been circumcised as children and now want foreskin?

The character of Omar Khadr is entirely relevant to this discussion and to its participants, and it will also be relevant in the event that he seeks damages from the federal government with assertions that his rights were violated. The character of an individual is always relevant in a discussion about an individual, and is almost always relevant in court.

You said this: I never said that Hitler implemented Marxism. What I stated was that Karl Marx is the ideological father of leftist movements, including Nazism. Nazism borrows greatly from Marxism. Identifying overlap isn't the same thing as stating that Marxism and Nazism are one in the same. All I stated, which is entirely accurate, is that they share much in common and both belong to the leftist family of ideologies. What you're doing, essentially, is erecting a strawman. You're asserting that I said something (which i didn't) and then proceeding to hack away at it. Here is your next sentence, which is clearly your attempt to attack your strawman argument: Again, I never said that Nazism is the equivalent of communism, but that both ideologies belong to same family: leftism. I've also explained why this is the case, which discredit the "common knowledge" of Nazism representing the "far-right".

Exactly, as well as every other parent who ever had a stressful night waiting for a child to come home from a party, and every college or university student that even crammed for an exam.

It's actually the exact opposite, Khadr became one of the religious leaders at Gitmo due to his sufficient command of various languages and his familiarity with Islamic religious practises. He also radicalised even further while in Gitmo, evolving and "maturing" (for lack of a better word) as an Islamist terrorist. Some of this is touched on in the PBS Frontline series "The Al-Qaeda Files", drawing from interviews with one of his brothers who rejected Islamism and Jihad, Abdurahman Khadr.

Omar Khadr was subjected to sleep deprivation for a very short period (I think it was less than two weeks, where he was never permitted to sleep for more than four hours without interruption) of time at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. That does not constitute torture by any reasonable measure.

It's a capital letter, not a capitol letter.

Like I said, Nazism is about statism, which overlaps greatly with leftism (the collective over the individual), while conversely being antithetical to the values of the contemporary right-wing.

Don Cherry would be still be successful in the private sector. George Stroumboulopoulos and Jian Gomeshi would not survive in the private sector.

In other words, you haven't read any of this thread and are going off on a completely irrelevant tangent which also seems to be a strawman argument.

I suppose bleeding heart views himself as a sort of Neo in this Matrix world in which we live. We're all just dumb automatons walking around, but only he and hi Noam Chomsky (Morpheus) has the ability to see through the false programming and get to the truth.

There's nothing "Soviet-style" about a government holding an information session for certain individuals who are free not to attend, who then are solicited by various media outlets to spread their narrative. Nobody is being forced to do or not do anything with respect to this matter. The key ingredient that defined the Soviet Union and continues to define other leftist dictatorships is coercion, and there was no coercion present in this story. It's also ironic for an open socialist such as yourself to be invoking the former Pravda in the pejorative, since newspapers like Pravda would define the media landscape if things were up to people like yourself. Wow, the media withheld relevant context? I'm shocked. How about all the times where various news outlets go after the government, its officials, and its policies (either honestly or dishonestly)? I guess that doesn't fit in with your Marxist narrative of the media being subservient to the interests of the government or the imagined elite, as per your Manufacturing Consent argument. I am not a libertarian, I am a conservative. This is deliciously ironic, as you linking this post essentially shatters your Marxist narrative of the media serving the interests of the elite at the expense of the everyman. The false narrative from Manufacturing Consent isn't reconcilable with a New York Times article doing exactly what it's not permitted to do, according to the false narrative from Manufacturing Consent. If the elite media is wholly beholden to the powers that be and meeting with evil elites in smoke-filled rooms to continually pull the wool over the eyes of the everyman, the New York Times (the epitome of leftist news outlets, in reality) would not dare to compose let alone publish such an article laced with innuendo about malicious and dishonest government communications protocols involving the complicit media. Even better, what the New York Times article you linked actually does is confirm what I said. The New York Times would never run such a piece during the years of an Obama administration, despite the fact that such communications policies are coordination between the government and media in various dimensions is normal and has been occurring for many decades. The NEw York Times article you linked is yet another example of the leftist bias of the newspaper and its sympathies for the Democratic party in the USA. Thank you unknowingly making a post that does two things: shatters your false Marxist narrative of the media being the tool of the elite on the one hand, while confirming the obvious truth of what I've been saying about the leftist bias and support for the Democratic party that is dominant among what's now being called "the old media". Two birds with one stone, as it were.

Fascism is also a leftist ideology, contrary to the prevailing lie of it being a "far-right" ideology.