bleeding heart

The bar is set so low that "good leadership" becomes a tautology.

That Huckabee's real message is meant to make children of rape feel better about themselves, or to educate the public about their worthiness? Yeah....it sounds like a bit of a stretch, shall we say.

?? You're now contending that Romney is "almost as sleazy" as what you contend is one of the worst Presidents in US history???

Glenn Greenwald weighs in again...and counters every single argument I've yet heard condemning Assange: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt

Right...the least common type of sexual assault remains the one that many people feel properly describes the whole. Hence the "legitimate" and "forcible" rape "discussions" we've been hearing lately.

Well, there...while this might seem monumentally implausible to you, there are those with whom you disagree who feel similarly, while in slightly different directions.

That's different. Harper is merely the Prime Minister.

So...you're "bitter" towards the NDP? The whole theme is absurd on its face. As is your profound sensitivity about criticism of leaders whom you admire. No, I'm afraid I can't quite get into that frame of mind. But thanks anyway!

There's no question, none at all (or shouldn't be) that if Assange is guilty, he's guilty of one serious sexual assault and one even more serious sexual assault. And certainly "rape" is not an unreasonable word.

You think that criticism of Harper is "bitterness"? Sycophancy is not a virtue, my good man.

Gods, no! Then they were performing a public service! Now, they should learn a little sycophancy and obedience to Power. It's the proper, default position for any Commissar.

Unbelievable. It's practically the single issue that unite (some) conservatives with those who aren't conservatives: the Harper government's lack of transparency. But then, Fletch 27 isn't being serious, but rather trying to be provocative, so it's moot.....

You should inform the Swedish authorities, because they seem to disagree with you. They want him for questioning...whether or not that subsequently leads to charges depends, presumably, on how the questioning goes.

I don't feel like a victim, so am not playing one. I asked only for clarification. That doesn't spell out my "agenda." That spells out that I made an observation abotu another poster--an observation that you contend is not accurate. The worst case scenario is thta I misread the poster...which hardly constitutes some "agenda," now, does it? Yes, okay. I get it. Again: no agenda. Uh, no, I don't. I never have. Do another search and see if you can find an instance. ??? So careful....that I have never do it? Already done. I already never do it...so I"m already "careful." Yet again: wrong. Factually incorrect. Flatly untrue. Yes, and that remains my view. OK, fair point. I suspect you're right. Just so; exactly right. Few of us are angels, so no worries!

That was quite the teaser, for sure. Yeah...maybe under desperation, but otherwise, it's hard to see him abandoning his "Empire" notions.

Agreed. My first impression was of Anarcho-Capitalism (an idea I at least halfway perceive as blind, if not clinically insane). And yet, the poster mentions inconsistencies and contradictions. So what is it, exactly?

Finally we'll discover what the Party has been hiding. Perhaps it's an AIDs epidemic, or an e. coli outbreak among the Party faithful.

I don't know about kimmy--but I'm not buying the pretence. Your remark is not only condescending...it's meant to be.

Yes, but--and correct me if I'm wrong--doesn't Scripture also warn of the Word of God itself being used by Satan, to cast divisions and pain and betrayals? Isn't that the notion of False Prophets...and even of genuine Christians who are misled, and whose good intentions have awful consequences?

I think you're right. (But don't quite know what to make of Barbara Amiel's impassioned defense of Polanski; Amiel's no "Progressive," self-labelled or otherwise.) Amiel aside--and she does sort of see women (girls?) as accessories to powerful men, in a weird way, I think--you're quite right. I especially remember the dyed-in-the-wool Clinton liberals shooting down all his accusers--quite reflexively, it seemed. As for Galloway..he wouldn't be Galloway if he wasn't contradicting himself and putting his foot in his mouth at every opportunity.

Which is why I posted it on this particular forum, of course.

Really? What is my agenda, Rue? Spell it out. As you say, "I challenge" you to produce whatever "agenda" this might be...with due evidence, of course. How about jbg's post #2 on this very thread--directed at the very poster with whom you're having this discussion? How's that...for starters?