Bob

What's the threshold of what you're willing to tolerate? That's the question.

George Bush was a conservative? In name only, perhaps....

Consolidation of government control over the means of production - check. Consolidation of government control over education, media, and all other forms of mass communication - check. Elimination of political freedoms and persecution of dissent - check. Usage of socialist rhetoric for the party platform - check. National SOCIALIST Party - check. Left. Left. Left.

Well, I can't disagree with the Washington Post, now can I? Keep on inciting your "working class" towards revolution....

The only reason I mentioned Thomas Sowell was because of an earlier attempt at an appeal to authority from another poster. I never use the agreement of someone else to support my positions. Frankly, I don't care who does or doesn't agree with me. Now you're harping on the point, seemingly in an attempt to have a pissing contest over who can name more "scholars" who agree with my position or your position on the political orientation of fascism. And after all this time, nobody has even come close to explaining how fascism DOESN'T have much more in common with the contemporary left than the contemporary right. That is my point. You then tried to suggest that I am speaking of a very narrow segment of the contemporary right (libertarianism), when in fact it is the broader right-wing that opposed the very parallels I am speaking about between the contemporary left and fascism (increased government control over most dimensions of life - economic and social).

"Morality-based censorship"? How effective has that been? How strong is that movement among those on the right to censor things based on "morality"? The reality is that it has been the left that has been the most aggressive, and unfortunately effective, in establishing censorship in Canada and the USA. Off the top of my head, the MPAA was founded and run by leftists (Lyndon B Johnson and Jack Valenti, there was a docuemntary-ish film made about its history). Consider the ratings system on video game, the ESRB, another leftist creation. Consider the HRTs in Canada. Again, it's leftism. Censorship in the contemporary West, if anything, is almost exclusively a product of leftism. Adjacent to censorship is government control over content, and in Canada of course the CRTC forces "Canadian content" regulations onto Canadian broadcasters.... another product of leftism (big thanks to Trudeau). And the loudest advocates for the CRTC and such regulation are exclusively from the left. I could go on and on, but it's obvious to anyone with even a cursory review of historical and current examples of censorship organizations and though police in contemporary Western society. And yes, fascism mobilizes control and wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of others. That is leftism. That is socialism. That is communism.

You're certainly free to complain to the moderators if you so wish, but really, who cares? Let bud say whatever he wants. He doesn't offend me in the slightest, because I don't expect anything more from him.

So you're fine living in a city or country where five, fifteen, fifty, or one-hundred percent of women are wearing hijabs?

It's a lot more than that. It shouldn't take longer than about fifteen minutes of driving, in say, Ottawa, and maybe a couple of stops in grocery stores to see many, many more than one or two hijabs. Is there an upper limit in your mind of what percentage of women wearing hijabs you're willing to tolerate? 5%? 15%? 50%?

Ah, the usual communist rhetoric of the zero-sum-game, in all its glory and predictability, where anyone with a dollar necessarily stole it from someone else. I love how communists lack a grasp of even the most rudimentary concepts of economics - namely, in this case, the creation of wealth.

I'm also glad to be here to show an informed perspective otherwise unseen from most Westerners.

My position is, why should we care about what they do to themselves, as long as it doesn't involve us? Unfortunately, of course, it DOES involve us, in several ways... As far as the women, who cares? Maybe a lot of them like the subjugation. Take a moment to ask yourself how many hijabs/burkas/niqabs you see in any given day in your ordinary life. If you live in an urban area in Canada, chances are you're seeing a lot of wrapped up female Muslims. Their numbers are continually growing, and of course all we hear is the deafening silence of the "conservatives" of Canada.

You're intentionally obfuscating differences between Islamist terrorists and "ordinary" folks. I can't be bothered to continually draw those distinctions in every single post I make on these issues. The filth are the Islamists who wish to expand their political Islam beyond the massive territories they already control. There shouldn't be anything controversial about calling these people rats.

Indeed, Hitler was a left-wing fanatic.

I was under the impression that bandwidth limits were almost completely done away with in the USA for cable internet service.

I am as Canadian as anyone else on this board.

I wish these things didn't have to be the way they are, but the world is the way it is, not the way I want it to be. America clearly has no choice other than to defend itself (although one could argue that America was late to the party, considering anti-Western Islamic terrorism certainly didn't start on 9/11). The terrorists are worse than simply not valuing our lives, and I don't expect anyone to value my life except myself and those close to me. The terrorists take it a big step beyond that - wishing for and working aggressively towards destroying my life and the lives of those close to me. How can you not see the difference between me not caring about the people of Afghanistan (and I certainly don't give a damn about them), and the Islamists who actively work towards murdering us? Indifference is one thing, and malice/hatred is something entirely different. This isn't an issue of nuance, either, these are significant differences that you are obfuscating. You're literally trying to draw a parallel between my sentiments and those of Al-Qaeda. Give me a break. I wish the people of Afghanistan could be left alone, but that's obviously not an option, is it? Their inability to manage their own territory to a minimum standard has forced the USA and its allies to move in. And I don't care what happens to them as a result of that. I won't shed a tear for any person from Afghanistan or Iraq or any other place like that.

We live in an interconnected world, and this interconnectedness tends to grow as time moves forward and we improve our technologies. Just because the West has had various types of relationships with various governments/dictators/groups in the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim-majority world over time doesn't make us responsible for their diseased cultures. If anything, Western involvement in these areas has reduced the ill of that world. They are responsible for themselves. It is not our fault they engage in honour killings, are highly uneducated, live in closed and tyrannical societies, are deeply religious and intolerant of dissent, misogynistic, underdeveloped in every way, tribal and close-minded, and every other bad thing you can think of. You just reflexively defer back to your standard position - that these animals would've been some glorious and democratic and prosperous society without the evil of the West. Please. The women wrap themselves up by their own volition. Families murder their females when they stray from the path laid out for them, not because Kissinger tells them to do so. They murder members of opposing sects (Shia vs. Sunni, as the most prominent example) because they've been doing so for centuries, long before "Western imperialism". You act as if peace, freedom, democracy, and prosperity are the default state of affairs for all people until outside forces (again, the evil West) come in and mess everything up. In fact the opposite is true, where beautiful things such as peace, freedom, democracy, and prosperity are the exceptions to the norm.

I agree with you, segnosaur, on the issue of the CBC's bias not being the most important problem with the CBC. It is the public funding that goes to the CBC. The CBC can be as biased as it wants to be, but it should stand on its own two feet. As usual, we're not seeing any courage from the CPC regarding defunding the CBC. It's as if we don't have any real conservatism in this country.

What I'm saying is clear, that fascism is not an extreme right-wing idelogy, but rather an extreme left-wing ideology. Most importantly, fascism has MUCH more in common with the contemporary left-wing in Western politics than with those of us on the right. It is the left-wing that wants more regulation and centralized control of all things economic and cultural. It is the left-wing that promotes hollow departments such as ministries for culture and minorities (like Aboriginals). It is the left-wing that wants to censor media and entertainment such as movies and video games. It is the left-wing that seeks to control speech via institutions such as the HRTs. It is the left-wing that engages in social engineering through, for example, indoctrination into "multiculturalism". And that's just the social side. I am certain there will be no debate that it is the left-wing that seeks greater and greater economic intervention from the government to promote "equality" (in other words, theft masquerading as "redistribution of wealth" or "spreading the wealth around"). It is also the left that promotes empty ideas such as positive "rights", where the obligation for the provision and protection of these "rights" lies on the shoulders of others who never consented to the burden. I don't care what this or that scholar says. I am more than intelligent enough to come to my own conclusions. Just because I was lied to in university and high school when fascism was placed on the far right end of the political spectrum doesn't make it so. At the end of the day, and I've said this several times already, fascism has many more parallels with the contemporary left than the contemporary right. It is the right-wing that most aggressively promotes freedom and liberty from government control, in both economic and social dimensions. There's really no point in even debating this as it should be self-evident, and this is true in both Canada and the USA.

I can find left-wing bias in virtually any CBC article or opinion-piece that is at least a few hundred words, as an example. Whether it be biased language, omission of relevant context, or otherwise, it's almost always there. I can do the same for most media outlets, including CNN, BBC, or other Canadian outlets. I see it everywhere I look, it's not some complicated phenomenon that's needs to be described with complex graphs and flowcharts.

Allow me to clarify - we never saw such positions aired on mainstream television news in Canada (until recently, with the arrival of Sun News). I've been opposed to the idea of state-media as long as I've been politically tuned in. But that opinion never received any serious airtime, is my point.

Here. Just for fun.

This shouldn't surprise anyone, majority Muslim countries are almost exclusively barbaric religious societies.

Who cares what the state said during those times? Clearly Germany was living in a totalitarian dictatorship during those times, and Nazi Germany hardly operated in the best interests of Germany. Rather, it operated in the perceived best interests of the Fuhrer. You drone on and on about Nazi this and Nazi that, as if anyone here has ever said anything remotely resembling a desire for the extermination of a a race or ethnicity. There's no more shock value left in your pimping out of the N-word, you use it in every other post in a sad attempt to smear those of us who reject "Palestinian" claims to statehood and shed light on their track record.