Mackay Cancells Imam's Speech due to "Extremism"

[Alta4ever]

Mackay is an ass but we all know that!!.

And your a troll we all know that.

[Saipan]

Nope. Most everyone on the left and right would argue, however, that countries like China and the USSR were abhorrations of Marxism.

They were exactly Marxism. There's no other Marxism on the planet anywhere. And that is the problem with theory vs. reality. Which Socialists can't get through their heads.

More shining examples are still Cuba and North Korea. I've seen it up close, day in day out.

"Communism has defeated itself everywhere....

except in American colleges."

- - - Paul Harvey

[bloodyminded]

They were exactly Marxism. There's no other Marxism on the planet anywhere.

.....

More shining examples are still Cuba and North Korea. I've seen it up close, day in day out.

Yeah, that's not a glaring and outright contradiction at all, nope.

[nicky10013]

They were exactly Marxism. There's no other Marxism on the planet anywhere. And that is the problem with theory vs. reality. Which Socialists can't get through their heads.

Yet China and the USSR had completely different systems. So, do two completely different forms of Marxism both of which claimed they inherited Marx's legacy, become Marxist just because they say they're Marxist?

[Alta4ever]

Yet China and the USSR had completely different systems. So, do two completely different forms of Marxism both of which claimed they inherited Marx's legacy, become Marxist just because they say they're Marxist?

Incorrect again Moaism was very similar to to european Marxism its minor difference was;

Maoism departs from conventional European-inspired Marxism in that its focus is on the agrarian countryside, rather than the industrial urban forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism

Edited October 6, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Saipan]

Yet China and the USSR had completely different systems. So, do two completely different forms of Marxism both of which claimed they inherited Marx's legacy, become Marxist just because they say they're Marxist?

China saved itself from Soviet style colapse by adopting capitalist economy while Communists kept holding onto the power.

[Alta4ever]

China saved itself from Soviet style colapse by adopting capitalist economy while Communists kept holding onto the power.

I believe that was in 78 or 79 and was called Xiaoping Theory.

[Argus]

There is nothing more medieval and cultist than Christianity. So perhaps while you are slagging one religion you might just as well slag all of them.

BTW there were more people put to death under Christianity through the ages than any other religion in the history of the world. Hell, the whole movement started with a murder.

It will surprise no one that a guy who signs himself Charter.rights - yet has never bothered to read the Charter, feels comfortable speaking about history while knowing nothing about it.

[Argus]

Nope. Most everyone on the left and right would argue, however, that countries like China and the USSR were abhorrations of Marxism.

Oh not just them. All countries which have gone Marxist or Communist are dismissed as aberrations. Every single one. They just didn't get it right, you see. But some day, we'll see a "real" Marxist communist government. Someday

[Argus]

http://www.theprovince.com/news/MacKay+pulls+plug+imam+speech+defence/3611794/story.html

A disgusting slap in the face to the muslim community. For this government, Islamic Canadians have clearly become a punching bag so Harper and his cronies can appear to be pro-Israeli and tough on terror. These are politically motivated attacks and should be denounced.

This is the group of wackos behind the human rights complaint against Macleans, which the would-be speaker supported. I don't need to hear anything from rigid ideologues like him, and I'm sure nobody at DND did either.

It's ironic you snivel about him not being able to speak when he tries so hard to suppress the speech of others without any condemnation from you.

[nicky10013]

Oh not just them. All countries which have gone Marxist or Communist are dismissed as aberrations. Every single one. They just didn't get it right, you see. But some day, we'll see a "real" Marxist communist government. Someday

No, we won't. Just like we'll never see a pure capitalist economy, either. My entire point in this is that there's only one group left who thinks a pure system is possible. It ain't the Marxists. It's the tea partiers who have just as little idea of how the world works.

[nicky10013]

Incorrect again Moaism was very similar to to european Marxism its minor difference was;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism

That's a gigantic difference.

[nicky10013]

This is the group of wackos behind the human rights complaint against Macleans, which the would-be speaker supported. I don't need to hear anything from rigid ideologues like him, and I'm sure nobody at DND did either.

It's ironic you snivel about him not being able to speak when he tries so hard to suppress the speech of others without any condemnation from you.

They don't agree with you so they're wackos. He's a rigid ideologue...as opposed to who? Harper easily fits into that category.

As for the "irony" two wrongs don't make a right. Even conceding (I'm not) that he wants to supress free speech, which is a giant load of shit, why won't people who support Mackay in this answer the question of why was he allowed to speak at DFAIT if he was so horrible and extremist?

The answer is they can't. They know it's for political expediency, but they just parrot the talking points anyway.

[Alta4ever]

No, we won't. Just like we'll never see a pure capitalist economy, either. My entire point in this is that there's only one group left who thinks a pure system is possible. It ain't the Marxists. It's the tea partiers who have just as little idea of how the world works.

Right so if it embraces Marxist ideals only manages to progress society so far towards the pure system, you are going to tell us well really they weren't maxrists because they couldn't pull it off?

The movement has no central leadership but is a loose affiliation of smaller local groups.[12] The movement's primary concerns include, but are not limited to, cutting back the size of government,[13] lowering taxes,[14] reducing what it considers wasteful spending,[15] reducing the national debt and federal budget deficit,[13] and adhering to the United States Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Now I don't know what you see but I can tell you what isn't there. I am reading nothing that shows the tea party movement of being one that wants to move to a pure capitalist laissez faire fair society.

I think they have a much better grasp on how the world works then you.

[Alta4ever]

That's a gigantic difference.

The ideology was the same, but moa's focus was on the farm, marx's was on the factory.

[nicky10013]

The ideology was the same, but moa's focus was on the farm, marx's was on the factory.

Considering Marx absolutely hated peasant farmers, no, their ideology isn't the same. Marx and Mao were diametrically opposed. Hence the Sino-Soviet Split.

[bloodyminded]

Now I don't know what you see but I can tell you what isn't there. I am reading nothing that shows the tea party movement of being one that wants to move to a pure capitalist laissez faire fair society.

No, they don't. At least that would show some consistency.

They want the socialism they want, and then label the socialism they don't want as..... "socialism"! A dirty word except when they benefit. But they're not liars; they're just confused and ignorant.

They're confused pawns of an internecine Republican battle. The movement has leaders, after all: powerful Republican politicians, and billionaires. Yeah, that's some wise, revolutionary grass-roots movement!

Here's Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi on the subject:

Suddenly, tens of thousands of Republicans who had been conspicuously silent during George Bush's gargantuan spending on behalf of defense contractors and hedge-fund gazillionaires showed up at Tea Party rallies across the nation, declaring themselves fed up with wasteful government spending. From the outset, the events were organized and financed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party, which was quietly working to co-opt the new movement and deploy it to the GOP's advantage. Taking the lead was former House majority leader Dick Armey, who as chair of a group called FreedomWorks helped coordinate Tea Party rallies across the country. A succession of Republican Party insiders and money guys make up the guts of FreedomWorks: Its key members include billionaire turd Steve Forbes and former Republican National Committee senior economist Matt Kibbe.

Prior to the Tea Party phenomenon, FreedomWorks was basically just an AstroTurfing-lobbying outfit whose earlier work included taking money from Verizon to oppose telecommunications regulation. Now the organization's sights were set much higher: In the wake of a monstrous economic crash caused by grotesque abuses in unregulated areas of the financial-services industry, FreedomWorks which took money from companies like mortgage lender MetLife had the opportunity to persuade millions of ordinary Americans to take up arms against, among other things, Wall Street reform.

Joining them in the fight was another group, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the billionaire David Koch, whose Koch Industries is the second-largest privately held company in America. In addition to dealing in plastics, chemicals and petroleum, Koch has direct interests in commodities trading and financial services. He also has a major stake in pushing for deregulation, as his companies have been fined multiple times by the government, including a 1999 case in which Koch Industries was held to have stolen oil from federal lands, lying about oil purchases some 24,000 times.

So how does a group of billionaire businessmen and corporations get a bunch of broke Middle American white people to lobby for lower taxes for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street? That turns out to be easy. Beneath the surface, the Tea Party is little more than a weird and disorderly mob, a federation of distinct and often competing strains of conservatism that have been unable to coalesce around a leader of their own choosing. Its rallies include not only hardcore libertarians left over from the original Ron Paul "Tea Parties," but gun-rights advocates, fundamentalist Christians, pseudomilitia types like the Oath Keepers (a group of law- enforcement and military professionals who have vowed to disobey "unconstitutional" orders) and mainstream Republicans who have simply lost faith in their party. It's a mistake to cast the Tea Party as anything like a unified, cohesive movement which makes them easy prey for the very people they should be aiming their pitchforks at.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=1

Edited October 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

They don't agree with you so they're wackos. He's a rigid ideologue...as opposed to who? Harper easily fits into that category.

Nah...they're wackos...litigious wackos at that. Here's the so-called 'sock puppets' involved with the CIC's attack on McLeans and Mark Steyn.

(5 parts)

[bloodyminded]

That was a preposterous mess, no doubt about it. An injustice.

[Alta4ever]

Here's Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi on the subject:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=1

The Rolling Stone? THE Rolling Stone? Thats like getting the news from Jon Steward or Glen Beck.

[nicky10013]

The Rolling Stone? THE Rolling Stone? Thats like getting the news from Jon Steward or Glen Beck.

Jon Stewart covers things more fairly than most press outlets. Which is sad and scary. However, it's true.

[nicky10013]

Right so if it embraces Marxist ideals only manages to progress society so far towards the pure system, you are going to tell us well really they weren't maxrists because they couldn't pull it off?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Now I don't know what you see but I can tell you what isn't there. I am reading nothing that shows the tea party movement of being one that wants to move to a pure capitalist laissez faire fair society.

I think they have a much better grasp on how the world works then you.

Ah, so they want all the hallmarks of laissez-faire capitalism. However, they just don't call it laissez-faire capitalism. So therefore it isn't. I see how it works. Nominal titles are far more important than substantive policy.

[Alta4ever]

Considering Marx absolutely hated peasant farmers, no, their ideology isn't the same. Marx and Mao were diametrically opposed. Hence the Sino-Soviet Split.

Do you ever tire of being wrong

Maoism

This poster shows Mao Zedong as continuing the legacy set by former Communist leaders.[17]

Maoism is the Marxist-Leninist trend of Communism associated with Mao Zedong and was mostly practiced within the People's Republic of China. Khrushchev's reforms heightened ideological differences between the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, which became increasingly apparent in the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Maoism

". . . the dictatorship of the proletariat — i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors. . . . An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich: . . . and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism."[14]

[bloodyminded]

The Rolling Stone? THE Rolling Stone? Thats like getting the news from Jon Steward or Glen Beck.

So what? Why not look at the article itself before you deign to comment?

[Alta4ever]

Ah, so they want all the hallmarks of laissez-faire capitalism. However, they just don't call it laissez-faire capitalism. So therefore it isn't. I see how it works. Nominal titles are far more important than substantive policy.

IF INDUSTRY IS REGULATED BY GOVERNMENT IT IS NO LONGER LAISSEZ FAIR CAPITALISM. So please point me to a document that shows the tea party is advocating the removal of ALL government regulation over industry.