Michael Coren & Laura Rosen Cohen discuss the not so tolerant Left (including a reference to Kate McMillan at 7:00) :
h/t Mississauga Matt
Michael Coren & Laura Rosen Cohen discuss the not so tolerant Left (including a reference to Kate McMillan at 7:00) :
h/t Mississauga Matt
Uh oh, it seems that Kate and SDA is in the pocket of “Big Quebecor”.
Heather Mallick is the epitome of the Canadian “tolerant” left.
Just love Sun TV!
What a breath of fresh air, after suffering eons under the leftard elites msm drivel.
Harper, scrap the crtc, and the Completely Biased Coverage (yup, it spells that) network!
You’re famous now, Kate.
More famous than before, I mean….
Yea totally agree trapped, with the emergence of Sun TV, the lefties like Kinsella Martin continue wailing and moaning, their sphincters tightened beyond an exlax exorcism’s ability to help. This “dreadful” Sun TV with Levant/Lilley etc is a worse torture for our consensus media than any water boarding could be, their lies no longer work, OH the humanity, suck it up you previously liberal coddled useful idiots, your time is over, just look at what happened to Carbonites stock today after they dumped Rush Limbaugh’s show to advertise on. This is soo much fun.
Who’s Kate McMillan?
This is on a par with being invited to the royal enclosure at Ascot. But it is quite an honour for SumMedia to be mentioned here too! Trappedintrudopia – Agreed, this is almost too good to be true, wouldn’t be surprised if contracts were put out on the hosts and Palideau. It is ironic that this comes out of Quebec. I love that irony!
Anyone know what Laura’s blog is?
Umm, Bart, Kinsella works for Sun.
I know that lance, but his articles on Nat Newswatch are hardly anything but hate Harper crap. I realize Sun is trying to be balanced, but paying an unbalanced person like Kinsella is something that I fail to see the upside in it for them.
lance…I went looking. It might be scaramouche (linked at BCF)
While listening to this video it suddenly occurred to me why leftists are so hoplophobic. They seem to be the only group who can’t distinguish between a person and their ideas and immediately use ad-hominem attacks as well as calling for the death of people. (They also have difficulty in conceptualizing objective truth assuming that all truth is subjective and arrived at through a consensus of like-thinking people). Maybe, in a moment of sanity, they realize that they should never have access to firearms as, instead of just blowing away the TV as a conservative would do after a few too many drinks, they would actually go out and shoot people with whom they disagree. Under the delusion that everyone thinks the same way that they do, they call for the disarming of the population. Except, of course, for police who, in their ideal state, are the guardians of statist ideals and used to persecute non-leftists.
This might also explain their curious alliance with islamofascists as this is another group who feels that anyone who doesn’t think appropriate thoughts should be killed.
I suspect that the reason Libertarians end up consorting with Conservatives is that both groups believe in an objective reality and have evolved intellectually to a level where they are aware that humans are quite complex organisms and hold contrary opinions that don’t in the least affect how they interact with other people. To a leftist, calling someone “racist” is thought to totally characterize them and leftism is the most absolutist of ideologies. Of course, with their favored primitive defense mechanism of projection, leftists accuse those who don’t think like they do of having all the faults that the leftists actually do. Given the potential world meltdown as a result of cognitively immature people having the right to vote, it would be completely appropriate to only allow people who had reached a certain level of intellectual maturity to be allowed to vote. Based on my experience with people, this would probably involve setting the voting age to about 35 or so, or somewhere in the 90’s for university humanities faculty.
Blank Mumbles
“”””Who’s Kate McMillan?”””””
Lance McMillan’s better 3/4:-))))
Unlike this island of tolerance.
What “island of tolerance”?
Unlike Leftards, SDAers don’t tolerate the intolerable.
“Tolerance” in and of itself is not a useful value. If someone does or says something abominable, tolerance is counterproductive and even evil.
Get a life, Roadside Katie. Better yet, get a brain.
Thanks for making my point.
And thanks for making his.
We need civil rights for conservatives in this country.
SDA Kate is our Rosa Parks, and Stephan Harper is our Martin Luther King.
Let freeeeeeeedom reign!
Gee, nobody mentions Lance McMillan…
Good for our Kate!
trapped well said.
Loki, your clinical analysis of the mindset of the left is perfect. They are tolerant of all who agree with them and intolerant of those who do not. This would explain the Liberal Party thinking they have a divine right to rule and you are a bad Canadian if you do not agree with their non-values.
Can I ever relate to this conversation. I happen to work at a Canadian University. I have learned never to express my conservative opinions in this environment. I found out very quickly that they would be met with anger and hositility.
As opposed to cabinet ministers who say you are in league with child mollesters if you do not support their internet snoop bill?
Loki, well said. Except for the lefties who wander over on occasion, SDA is an island of sanity in the hostile, propaganda-soaked, politically correct ocean of official Canada.
And what Grinches the lefties are! If they can only have 99.5% and not the whole darn thing, they’re furious and feel cheated. Of course, that’s why SDA and SUN drive them even more crazy and nasty than they usually are. What spoiled brat babies these most unpleasant of human beings are.
James Delingpole summed up leftism succinctly in Ezra’s recent interview with him: “LEFTISM IS SPRAY-ON NICENESS”! Way down deep, lefties’ delusional idea of how nice they are is really shallow: so shallow that if you blink, you miss it.
I admit it’s not nice to enjoy the unhappiness of others—“schadenfreude”—but, in the case of the left, this well-deserved pay-back is just too pleasurable to pass up!
Loki @ 2:57:
Quite right, because they explicitly deny the distinction. Their theorists—the Frankfurt School, Richard Rorty, etc.—who do the heavy lifting the left uses to “justify” its views—argue that there is no human nature; that persons are nothing but sets of beliefs and desires (This is incoherent, but that hasn’t stopped them.); and that the most important of those beliefs and desires are the political. Thus, any criticism of one’s politics is a personal attack; that another, whose politics, and therefore identity, is diametrically opposed to one’s own, is an embodied attack on one’s very identity, and therefore ought to be destroyed.
(I’m know I’m something of a “One-note Johnny”, but I think this excellent topic (thanks to Loki) should be filed under “Know Thine Enemy At Least As Well As He Knows Himself”.)
nick, (I’m know I’m something of a “One-note Johnny”,
that is alright, as people need to know and be reminded of just how insidious and destructive the Marxist ideology is.
The upper level Soviets did not even believe the filthy ideology they tried to foist on the their own people as well as import to the west. They have been much more successful with infecting the west through our educational facilities.
Oh, right, she’s that lady who keeps abandoning us for schnauzers. I forgot 🙁
She’s Canada’s most popular fascist.
Posted by: Banned in Boston at March 7, 2012 6:57 PM
Once again, you leftards have no idea what or who a fascist is.
I did not post:
As opposed to cabinet ministers who say you are in league with child mollesters if you do not support their internet snoop bill?
One of the things I have no tolerance for is for people who hijack other people’s identities on SDA.