START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

Canadian Liberals Are Nazis

Posted 26 months ago|49 comments|995 views
Socialists
VIDEOS
Written by
On the following website:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/...

it is reported that a crowd of cry baby liberals surrounding a building and made it unsafe for Ann Coulter to carry on a debate on another college campus.

The University of Ottowa was the scene.

It appears the University's vice-president and provost, François (Butt) Houle, may have incited the demonstration and threats with an email to Ms. Coulter warning her that Canada did not have complete freedom of speech.

He warned her she had to watch what she said, or that she could be thrown in a dungeon somewhere.

By the way, one definition of a NAZI is

"a member of the National Socialist German Workers' party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, seized political control of the country, SUPPRESSING ALL OPPOSITION and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Führer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II. "

I emphasized "SUPPRESSING ALL OPPOSITION".

Hhhhhmmmmm. Suppressing all opposition? Hhhhhhmmmmmmm.

EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: I wouldn't go as far as to call them Nazi's. Maybe nazi-esque. As in behaving like Nazi's. Or for that matter, Socialists or Communists. Even a Monarchist. Plenty of people were jailed for speaking their mind against all of these philosophies.

I'm sure there's a list somewhere that has your name on it, RSG, as well as mine. I know for a fact someone at Fort Houachica keeps pinging me.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: To check to see if you are being monitored, set your anti-virus program to ask permission if generic host processes wants to connect to the internet. When it does, do an IP trace. Run it through Whois, and if it comes back Fort Houachica, bingo, you are being spied on.

A couple of times, previously, when I denied permission, my connection was severed, and my IP was blocked from the Internet. So now, I just bounce around a lot.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: http://tinyurl.com/yftqt6h
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: And more.
26 months ago: I think they've figured out I'm no threat.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: It's apparent that Canada has Al's definition of selective free speech - that's unfortunate but come on RSG. Let's not trivialize the genocidal atrocities of the Nazi regime to to this Coulter's dis-invite. She was still able to fulminate in the Canadian media and in effect, the cretin fools at the Univesity gave her a much larger platform (and free publicity) to bash her ideological opposition.
26 months ago: For what little it is worth, I agree. You are correct.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: True that, Markyrn,
And what do you think are the odds that it has been calculated to have such an out-pouring of Anti-Coulter sentiment?

Also, has Boule been reprimanded for inciting threats, and have the actual threateners been tracked down and prosecuted?
Err, I mean re-educated, really, I meant re-educated!
Don't take me back there! I can't take any more!!
I'll be good I swear!!

Hey, I know what state Red lives in.
Take him! I have a family!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
26 months ago: I suppose for Americans who delete all mental information after a five or ten year block this is not so bad. However for those of us who realize it was not that long ago when Americans did not have to ask the government for permission to marry the one they love (I mean really we do have to "apply" for a marriage license, unlike a relatively few decades ago), this is just another sign of the direction we are headed in. I find the left always points to these things as "oh that's not so bad". But in relation to the actual lack of government intrusion on our lives from even seventy years ago yes it is bad. Can you imagine what an American from the 1920's would have to say about of this? I suspect he or she would be jailed for trying to incite a riot.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: ...However for those of us who realize it was not that long ago when Americans did not have to ask the government for permission to marry the one they love (I mean really we do have to "apply" for a marriage license, unlike a relatively few decades ago), this is just another sign of the direction we are headed in...

JAK, where are you dreaming this stuff up? Marriage licenses in the United States were routine by the late 19th century and in fact, "By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a "mental defect." Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce."

Considering the religious right types such as Bob Jones University didn't even allow inter-racial dating until 2000, look in your own backyard if you're point fingers at racist religious busy bodies using the blunt instrument of oppressive government to restrict who you can get married to.
26 months ago: Now, again for what little it is worth, I disagree with you again Mark.

To a liberal, everybody by yourself is a racist.
26 months ago: Thanks Mark for making my point so much more effectively. By the few short decades ago I refer to the federal law. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. Prior to this it was not as uniformly established. In colonial America as well as the west and territories the only thing people did to be married was take their vows before God (in front of a minister who witnessed the vows). As you so eloquently put into perspective the problems all stem from the governments racial and ridiculous intrusions into marriage. Never should have happen and it should get it's big rear out now.
As for the 1920's statement it was in reference to free speech. I suspect even though it is Canada, if an American from the 20's heard the fuss and why they were fussing he or she would be shocked.
26 months ago: "Racial?" You mean, outlawing anti-miscegenation laws?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Oh, I thought a few short decades ago equated to three decades not 80 years plus. But let's not quibble - perhaps we're in violent agreement. If you want the big rear end of the government out of the marriage license business, and you're finally wanting to overturn one of the last vestiges of government imposed religious laws with respect to marriage, that's great!

Gays will finally be able to get married as there will be no license to be obtained. All these right-wing religious zealots hypocritically yakking for small government while simultaneously demanding that an omnipresent government theocracy put it's large boots to the gays will have to shut up and color.

Are we on the same sheet now JAK ? :)
26 months ago: Somewhere, over the rainbow..........
26 months ago: Well Mark the big puss filled sore in American marriages is no doubt the U.S government. It has been for likely, in some fashion or other since this country's inception. Now we have brought this big mess into our health care system, but lets stick to the discussion of marriage.
We in America have become so indoctrinated that we think marriage is a gift from the government that we go ask for and is graciously granted by big Daddy government. Now that we are all brainwashed into believing this with little or no question the gay community comes along and says "hey its not fair that Big Daddy gives heterosexuals this wonderful gift but not us". So they begin to fight for their "rights" for a blessed by Big Daddy government marriage license just like heterosexuals get. Now the problem is that Christians do not condone homosexuality. Christians should not judge homosexuals either but nevertheless judgment occurs from Christians on homosexuals and visa-verse. But if a minister feels he has the authority from God to witness and bless the wedding vows of two men then personally I feel that is between him and God. Yet with the "legalization" of gay marriage comes the problem. Since a "legalized" marriage of gays would make it "illegal" for Christians to say anything which would seem to not condone gay marriage as being the equivalent of heterosexual marriage it would in fact "criminalize" Christians who do not "condone" or accept gay marriage. This is the core problem.
To sum it up. Gays will be gay whether Christians like it or not. Christians are well aware of this. The problem has been and will continue to be government involvement in an institution which should be a personal "freedom" not something we ask big Daddy government if we can do. But now gays want the same "legal" status from government as heterosexuals and by becoming "legal" marriages Christians will become "illegal" in their "choice" to not condone gay marriage as necessarily being "natural".
26 months ago: Oh yea and I said "a relatively few decades ago" (not to quibble though...I'm just sayin...).
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: If we do away with the government marriage business and replace it with a civil union legal declaration, it's a moot point. There would be no marriage license and no state sanction of marriage - only civil unions for the purpose of taxes, estate claims, hospital visitation, etc.

Those who want their civil union to be a marriage in either a religious or social sense, can get married at the Church, drive-thru, or wherever. The issue of Christians or other religionists preaching against homosexuality is a free speech issue but if the government hypothetically makes it illegal, they'll do so with or without the marriage issue.

As long as hate groups like Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church are free to say God Hates (fill in the blank) - Gays, Jews, etc., there's no reason to believe the country is imminently doing away with the First Amendment and I think it's a bit of a red herring to interject it as a lynchpin issue over gay marriage.
26 months ago: Mark, who pioneered this...

..."By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a "mental defect."...

and who are they today? I'm sure you know.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
25 months ago: Let me take a wild guess but I'll let me rephrase the question to who were they back in 1920s. The answer is they were Democrats who's descendants became Republicans and fundamentalist Christians like Bob Jones who's Christian school prohibited inter-racial dating until 2000.
25 months ago: I thought you of all people would know.

Research all of these and see how they are tied together.

Margaret Sanger
Planned Parenthood
Eugenics
NAZI Eugenics
John D. Rockefeller, Jr
Standard Oil
ESSO
Humble Oil
Exxon Mobil

Then get back to me.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
25 months ago: Ah, you're reaching into the religious right grab bag on the Sanger smear:

"The anti-abortion movement seems intent on continually putting out misinformation, distorting facts, rewriting history, demonizing abortion rights supporters and mis-characterizing the work of Planned Parenthood.

Typical of the misinformation being spread by anti-abortionists is a recent propaganda film being shown in anti-abortion circles promoting the absurd proposition that abortion rights supporters are really engaged in a devious and sinister racist campaign to reduce the black urban population and attempt to make their case by what they characterize as documentary evidence. After a showing in my area an anti-abortion activist asserted in commentary written in less than correct English: "Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, whose big idea was the "Negro Project"

Article cont:

http://blogs.alternet.org/christianhuman...

But really, why play this Glenn Beck connect the illogical dots game? Just cite me the religious right websites where I can "learn" that it wasn't really the Bible belt that was chalk full of racist segregationists who eventually had to be forced by the federal government to sit and color.

"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" George Wallace, Governor of Alabama as he stood on gold star marking the spot where Jefferson Davis was sworn in as President of the Confederate States of America.

And yes he was a Democrat but as I said, yesterdays Southern Dems are today's Republicans.
25 months ago: I'm not the one that first stated...

..."By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a "mental defect."...

You were. I only pointed out that you might need to research your statement befor attaching it. Since you jumped the gun and now have brought up Republicans and Christian religion it seems you still won't face the fact that all of the ''Northern Democrats'' and atheists to boot promoted and/or funded the 1920s points you mentioned.

What is it you like to say? Goggle it yourself?

Research all of these and see how they are tied together.

Margaret Sanger
Planned Parenthood
Eugenics
NAZI Eugenics
John D. Rockefeller, Jr
Standard Oil
ESSO
Humble Oil
Exxon Mobil

Then get back to me.
25 months ago: Here you go mark, this is what the BATF and FBI found at the botched DOJ raid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7I99CnYh...

BATF approved at the time of the raid.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
25 months ago: Naw, that's not how it works. In the health care topic, I googled for you and now you can google for me. And since you're posing it as a riddle, you obviously already have the answer. I'll just wait "on the answer from the brain trust." I already wasted time looking up Sanger and found the religious right smear article.
25 months ago: OK, fair enough since. I'll get all of the links pulled together that don't have a republican relgious right smear. Would you at least consider wiki? If you just followed the wiki links it would spell out the links. Or is wiki a religious right republican org?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
25 months ago: An advanced trigger system - lol
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
25 months ago: Give me whatever you got - the source only becomes suspicious when the information can't be verified from multiple sources.
25 months ago: UH, BATF approved?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
25 months ago: Just because the advertiser says it's approved doesn't mean it is but I'd guess that as long as the attachment is manually operated (no electronic switch), it probably is technically legal if not a gimmick.

But what's the implication you're making with these trigger attachments?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
25 months ago: Read all the comments: crappy, worthless, gimmick

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index...
25 months ago: Maybe that is why it was BATF approved.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
26 months ago: " It's apparent that Canada has Al's definition of selective free speech"

I am honored that an entire nation is blessed to share my opinions on censorship but I doubt it is true.

I often advocated the freedom of radical right and left wing speakers coming to speak on my campus. On the other hand I also advocated the right of people to object and to protest, if they differ with the speakers views. (Very much like what the Tea Party is doing). Expressing one's views should be protected as long as no one gets hurt because of it.

My first amendment views are probably much more conservative than most people's though. I don't think those rights should be extended to the right of corporations to bribe officials.

I think that any time a public official advocates violence in a public forum that should be discouraged, but I am still on the fence as to whether that would be a criminal offense.

I think that pornography, especially that showing violence against women or children, should be banned from all sources, and that this is causing the rape and deaths of our young, because some nutcases see this stuff and think it is OK, that Women like it rough and that 3 year old girls are just asking for it.

On the other hand I think that nudity is fine and that it was nuts to fine Janet Jackson half a million dollars because people caught an accidental 1 second glimpse of her breast.

And Yes Red You are wrong to call Canadians Nazis just because they allow their citizens the freedom to express their opinions, just like our allowing the Tea Party to protest.

They would be more like Nazis if they had Not allowed the protests.
26 months ago: Al.


Er....uh....I sort of agree with what you said. (Sssshhh. Keep it to yourself.)

The point is suppression of opposing views. Period.
26 months ago: Your first point Mark, I agree. If people want to have a Justus of the peace witness their vows then fine. That should be the most intervention the government should make. It really is only about two people taking vows to each other. Now if two people from the "Blue Moon Society" wish to take their vows in front of a full moon then so be it. What I ask (anyone not just you Mark) does getting a piece of paper from the government do to marriage? It makes it a product of the government is what it does. Now even though two people have promised before God or a full moon whichever they please that they will stay true to each other, but a few years later they decide they don't like that promise what do they do? They go to Big Daddy government and in front of a judge ask their master if they can break that promise and get a divorce. Yes in my opinion you are correct that all the government needs to know is if two people are married and that is for tax purposes.
Second point. If the government says it is illegal to hate cabbage and you could be thrown into jail for saying you hate cabbage people will still hate cabbage and does this make the law right? Now lets say there is a group of people that do not hate cabbage but have been raised in a manner which they feel cabbage is not good for them so they do not eat it. But along comes the government and makes a law saying everyone must eat cabbage because there is nothing wrong with it. This is akin to the hate laws which gay activists are trying to get passed. Also if gay marriage is passed and a Christian hotel owner does not wish to rent his or her hotel facility for a grand gay wedding and honeymoon he or she will be breaking a discrimination law. Basically if the hate laws continue to be passed it will be and is becoming the Christians who are losing their freedom to choose not to condone homosexuality. A Christian should not in anyway hate a gay person but we do not feel it is right to be forced into condoning it.
26 months ago:

Last point. It is sad that there are hate groups of any kind. Those claiming to be Christians and stating that God hates this group or that group are certainly mislead in my book. At least they are not walking into a group of gays and blowing themselves up but it is certainly wrong. But consider if Christians got together and said "there have been a lot of church burnings and shootings lately, we need special laws that would allow us to practice our religion freely" Now suppose Christians got these laws saying anyone acting as if they hate Christians are guilty of a hate crime and could be punished by law. So during San Fransisco's big "Gay Pride Parade" a group of Christians get a big idea to have all kinds of floats in the parade denouncing homosexuality. By law they would have to be allowed. This is not a fair scenario and giving special laws to protect anyone other than maybe those such as children or mentally impaired is not right. Under these laws groups of gays could go into churches and do intentionally disruptive acts in order to incite the church members to act and get removed from the church. Once they did they would be breaking the law. If you don't think it could happen just look at you examples of Fred Phelps etc. There are gays who hate Christians just as much as there are people who call themselves Christians which hate gays.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
26 months ago: Let's not stretch it. They may be foolish but they never invaded Czechoslavakia or killed six million Jews.

I was a Canadian university student myself at York University, one of Canada's largest and most liberal universities. There was a movement to ban a speaker named Banfield. I can't remember what was wrong with him. Ban Banfield though had a dynamite ring to it. How could I forget that.

A moron in Central Square wanted me to sign a petition to ban him. I supported freedom of speech and didn't want to sign. The moron said, "Would you allow Hitler to speak if he came to the university". I felt manipulated but didn't know what to do. I signed the petition and regretted it before the ink dried. I have since wised up.

From now on people don't become Nazi's until they have first invaded a sovereign nation and killed millions of minorities.
26 months ago: Fred:

I agree, but I was having a bad hair day.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
26 months ago: By the way, no Canadian speaker has EVER been attacked. Henry Morgentaller, our most famous abortionist, had ketchup thrown on him. There have also been a couple of pieings. But no one in Canada has ever had so much as a punch thrown at him or her for saying what was on his or her mind. Ann Coulter I am sure would have loved to have been the first but she did even better by not speaking and allowing others to speculate about what might have happened.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: RSG you really know how to stir up a hornets nest..didn't you learn that when you were a kid..oh hell I enjoy reading it...keep on keeping on..btw I like seeing you are politically correct by defining what a nazi stood for it makes it seem your just not throwing words around. Just like when I call a person a socialist..people often refer to it as a bad term but when you use it in the politically correct sense it is not all so bad, yeah right :D
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: You know rsg after watching that video just shows you how intolerant people are becoming. Say for example if you don't believe that gay men and women should be married it is somehow ok to spit in the face of the one expressing that view. At the same time we have long standing traditions that just say the opposite..such as the contract of marriage..if gay marriage was normal behavior then don't you think that we would not be debating this issue now? Don't you think if being gay in the 1800's was normal human behavior they would have gave them their rights then. On the same hand I do not portend to mix up gay marriage and black men in women gaining their rights so please do not construe or try to carry on that issue, I will simply ignore your comment.

But when we cross into sexuality aspect of gays and lesbians we as society set limits, such as it is against the law to have sex with animals, it is against the law to have sex with children, it is against the law to rape a women,it is against the law to moon people, it is against the law to show your penis in public. Tell me why are their moral laws and those laws are in fact about morals? Could it be the farther society degrades the more acceptable the unacceptable perversions will become? Could it be that just a scant few decades ago it was not acceptable for the movies to show a sexual scene on the widescreen but now we see it everywhere?

I am sorry I draw the line, God defines that line, the brain He gave me has a consciousness and my moral conscious dictates what is right and wrong. Just becuase society accepts something does not mean it is morally right it just means society has quit listening to their consciousness and they definitely quit listening to God.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: ....I am sorry I draw the line, God defines that line...and they definitely quit listening to God...

No, 'god' doesn't say anything. Some religion's bible written by ancients said it; the same ancients who said slavery was a-okay along with slaughtering women, children, and animals.

But that aside, if you don't want the government managing your personal business, stop telling the government to manage other people's personal business. Can't you take your blinders off for one second and see the utter hypocrisy?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Two consenting adults in the privacy of their choosing, let them do what they will. It's their own selves they put into peril. In public, however, is another story. Animals? No, the animal cannot give its consent, although I've seen some dogs that liked human legs enough to be obviously in favor. A lot of people like to go around naked. In private, fine and dandy. In public? I don't know how well that would work. Pornography, if that floats your boat, go for it. Displaying it in public, I think not. Drunkenness is fine for the person who is at home, and can only harm himself, but should be kept out of sight.

OK

Drunkenness
Porn
Nudity
Beastiality, at least where the animal is an obviously willing participant.


Which of the above should considered as acceptable public behavior?
26 months ago: Well said OOTB. There is a level of consideration for the general public. In these considerations we have all the basics we need. The consideration for "free" individuals allows for any person as long as they are not infringing upon the general public's standards and as long as they are not infringing upon an individuals rights they have the freedom to pursue what ever endeavor they wish. As far as religion goes, a most fundamental rule of Christianity at least is free will. This is one reason we were founded on "freedom" and also founded by Christians. The problems arise by pressing government into positions of managing our problems or attempts to regulate ones beliefs over another. Basically what the governments stance should be when people come crying about this or that problem is "he or she is not breaking a law and not hurting anyone other than maybe themselves so its not our problem". But no we have become a nation of wusses to put it politely. Now we have pulled government into all aspects of our life pushing it to fix this and solve that and take care of these people and those people etc. The more government intervenes to solve all our problems the more regulations and attached strings there will be and at some point we will become products of the government rather than free individuals. Though some people seem to think having the ability to choose between McDonalds or Burger King is freedom it is not. For those of us who see with horror the extent that we are already strapped into the system by things such as our new big daddy health care we cringe knowing it is just one more government chain and shackle. Though RSG's rant may be a bit over dramatic it does I believe portray the dark road Canada is headed down and it appears the U.S is not far behind.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
26 months ago: Only way to spot one is to be one!
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
26 months ago: For RedStateGuy-- Howsabout, "University Students of all stripes in all nations are politically naive. The left leaning ones in Canada are particularly irksome." I will agree with that, having been one myself.
26 months ago: I'm sort of rooting for the Iranian students though.
26 months ago: Yup. That's true.

But don't forget the idiot (butt) Houle who probably started the whole thing.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
26 months ago: Let's remember that Coulter made those comments about Moslems going back where they came from using magic carpets for transportation, failing that using camels. She made the comments at a university campus. Those students, at the University of Western Ontario, accepted that even if they didn't like it. I can easily imagine young people wanting justice after that, and picketing. Generally, though, we are not a violent people and there are absolutley no incedents of violents against speakers in Canada. Coulter had her cake and ate it too.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave