Bannon Vs Frum

28 Replies to “Bannon Vs Frum”

1. [Liberal MP] Vaughan said offering Bannon a platform won’t help people understand populism…
   Because only listening to Liberals will help people understand things.

2. As usual, Southey is just making stuff up.c

3. The NDP’s Charlie Angus, the hero of Attawapiskat, is the chief spokesman against allowing Bannon to debate.
   I was surprised to see that most of the first ten comments on the CBC site were pro-debate and against the NDP’s attempt at censorship.
   As one commenter said, maybe the NDP’s logo should be a star and sickle.

   It’s notable that the NDP are against a debate, not a speech by a right-wing person they don’t like, but a debate in which both sides of the argument will be presented. Seems the Dippers are as totalitarian as the communists they deny they really are.

4. When your argument is you can’t let them speak, you have already lost the debate and you know it.

   1. Correct. Short and truthful.

5. The organizers, thankfully, are telling the NDP where to go with their supposed concerns. Alas, expect the local antifas to be outside the debate hall to stir up trouble.

   Inside the hall, I hope Mr. Bannon has the opportunity to ask the apostate Frum whether he actually believes the nonsense he types about President Trump or, failing that, how much the Chinese communists (the only victors in the Iraq war, which kept the Middle East and its oil temporarily out of the Russian sphere of influence) pay him to type it.

6. David Frum is rumoured to be a conservative. My take is he’s a communist just like his mother.

7. I’m tired of people using a tragedy (11 dead in Pittsburgh) to further their agenda (shut-down the right). It’s disgusting and it shows an enormous disrespect to those who died.

8. Bannon should show his DNA test showing that he is 1/512th indian and 1/128th jewish, and 1/256th black.
   Then he should demand his victim right’s and proceed to hold the debate at 24 sussex.

   1. Actually he should say he is part muslim. Then he get’s to speak and any opposition to him is Islamophobia.

9. You don’t have to like a person or their ideas in order to realize why it is important to listen to and understand their them. It’s difficult to intelligently counter ideas that you don’t understand.

   This is especially true for the progressives/left/woke. Research has repeatedly shown that conservatives and libertarians more fully grasp the progressive’s point of view and are able to predict their responses. Those on the progressive/left/woke cannot do the same. This puts the left at a severe disadvantage because they end up arguing against a caricature of the right that they’ve constructed in their mind rather than the actual issues (see Peterson’s interview with Cathy Newman). I suspect it ends up being counter productive because the people you’re trying to reach see your ignorance of their issues and topics.

   I think, like others, that a big reason the left tries to silence others is because they fear that alternative ideas will be heard without a PC, identity politics filter. So much of progressive thought is contradictory, hypocritical and not internally/intellectually consistent. When the libertarians and conservatives are heard without a progressive filter they can be very convincing and not so scary.

   1. LC … you are ON FIRE … with your reasoned, intelligent, salient comments these days!!! Your analysis is so solidly on target.
      You simply “get it” and express it so well. Wish I knew you personally.

      1. Thanks for the compliment. Frankly, I couldn’t be any more boring and ordinary if I tried. 🙂
         OTOH, boring and ordinary is under-rated, it’s a great place to raise a family.

10. In support of the fear of debate and alternative ideas point, here’s two Munk debates where the results were unexpected:

    Climate change – Con wins (Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson) Pro loses (Elizabeth May and George Monbiot). Con +8%

    Refugee crises – Con wins (Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage) Pro loses (Louise Arbour and Simon Schama). Con +22%

    In both cases, the con side converted more of the audience to their side. That is scarier to progressives than any Halloween monster or horror movie.

    1. Yes LC. The Munk debate with Mark Steyn may be fresh in the minds of those that oppose this up coming debate. Barbara Kay wrote this at the time…

       **In his opening statement, Steyn reviewed the present tumultuous situation in Europe. He made it clear that the majority of people streaming into and across the continent are not traditional refugees at all, but male economic migrants, mostly not from war-torn Syria. He, and later Farage, painted a grim picture of the impact that culturally sanctioned aggression is having on communities exposed to critical numbers of migrants, particularly on women and young girls — Steyn cited actual disturbing cases — who are bearing the brunt of the radiating anarchic dynamic inherent in the circumstances.
       …Steyn dwelt excessively on the sexual crimes we’ve all read about in Cologne, Hamburg, Malmö and elsewhere. So it apparently seemed to Arbour and Schama, because they mocked Steyn for it in their rebuttals. Arbour sneered at both Steyn and Farage as “newborn feminists” (she got a laugh), while Schama disgraced himself with “I’m just struck by how obsessed with sex these two guys are, actually. It’s a bit sad, really.” (That got a very big laugh.) I took one look at Steyn’s glowering face after that remark — Schama will regret having said it to his dying day, I know it — and I kind of felt sorry for those two liberals, because I knew what was coming.

       Steyn slowly rose and riposted, in a tone of withering contempt, “I wasn’t going to do funny stuff. I was going to be deadly serious. (But) I’m slightly amazed at Simon’s ability to get big laughs on gang rape.” Vigorous applause. He went on, “Mme Arbour scoffs at the ‘newfound feminists.’ I’m not much of a feminist, but I draw the line at a three year old … and a seven year old getting raped.” Vigorous applause.**

       MIKE DROP.

       The NDP don’t want another moment like this and they feel it could easily happen. It’s disgraceful of them though to link the horrible murders in Pitts for their reason for cancelling the event. BK may sum up what they’re afraid of…

       **When Arbour and Schama didn’t like the opposition’s message — no images, just descriptions they interpreted as racist — they chose to shoot the messenger with ridicule, a debating error and an intellectually dishonest strategy.**

       1. I remember that part of the debate with Steyn and Schama. It is disturbing how progressives, progressive feminists and their feminist allies so easily, and often, find women and girls expendable…for the greater good, of course.

          Same as their treatment of the working class. Saviours and partners in rhetoric only, easily diposed of and mocked when they become a hindrance to the left’s political agenda

          1. Good points, LC and Boots both. Might be just selective memory on my part, but every one of these debates over the past years seems to have the progs losing pretty decisively. In fact, one such prog, Mark Jacobson was so repeatedly defeated with his “all the world can be powered by renewables” that he’s abandoned debating entirely.
             https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/965630877995745281

             1. Jacobson also changed his mind about suing critics. Again, like debate, courts require proof and evidence which can be embarrassing when it’s not able to be produced or has holes you could drive a truck through.

11. The left’s stock and trade is rumors, innuendos, and Lies. The LIES told about Bannon’s “anti-semitism” spring from a thoroughly discredited comment from his ex-wife that has been oft-repeated … as … “fact”. It is no such thing.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaign-ceo-steve-bannon-accused-anti-semitic-remarks-ex-n638731

    While touring LA’s Private schools on behalf of their daughters … Bannon is RUMORED to have said …

    Regarding another academy, The Archer School for Girls, the ex-wife claimed Bannon “went on to say the biggest problem he had with Archer is the number of Jews that attend. He said that he doesn’t like Jews and that he doesn’t like the way they raise their kids to be ‘whiney brats’ and that he didn’t want the girls going to school with Jews.”

    No. There is no EVIDENCE that Bannon ever said such a thing. And it should be noted (as stated in the NBC article) that this “story” was ILLEGALLY obtained by leaking confidential court documentation of Bannon’s divorce proceedings.

    But the left persist in smearing Bannon as an anti-Semite … as though he pulled the trigger in Pittsburgh. The utter lack of morality, honesty, and integrity by the Left … makes them appear to be Satan’s spawn loosed on our planet.

12. The media is using what Scott Adams calls “selling past the close”. They pretend that Bannon’s racism is established fact, and the only question remaining is whether to let the racist speak. Because they don’t want you to stop and ask them to prove the premise, which they can’t support.

    1. Something about … repeating the LIE often-enough …

    2. Excellent Kate.
       Would I be correct in pointing out that “selling past the close” is the very technique that climatistas use with regard to Co2 being the main culprit in “global warming”.

13. Totally agree with those who point out that the debate format scares the crap out of the left. The fact that winners and losers actually emerge from conversation among intelligent people frightens them. Why?

    They are very likely to lose in front of an audience with above average IQ’s and education, and they know it!

14. Liberalism is a cult.
    The leadership rapes and abuses the followers.
    Anyone questioning the cult is attacked.
    Anyone trying to leave the cult is attacked.
    Anyone who disagrees with a cult member is mindlessly branded a racist.

    How is the liberal plantation any different from the Scientology cult?
    The media flip out when you mention the word mob or mention NPC.
    The drones accept rape and abuse from the likes of Bill Clinton or Keith Ellison.

    They are right to be afraid of common sense coming from normal people.

15. There is a reason why writers like John Locke is not taught in schools.

    Case in point …

16. I take it that when you say “speech nazis”, you are referring to CBC News, as well as the NDP party.

    1. The only difference between the NDP and the CBC is that the NDP of late isn’t effective in moving the goal posts legislatively, so the CBC is primarily working with the LPC as their next best fit.

       The NDP calling to censor this debate is falling back on their sophomoric ties to totalitarianism and the fact that the more of their ranks that come from such institutions are increasingly ill equipped to handle actual debate as they simply ban them. Looters and thugs – all of them.

       1. John, you get a bingo for that.

          Late to this conversation. Boots, I watched the debates and agree. LC, great points.

          Hopefully the debate goes forward and we are able to see it.