bleeding heart

Thanks, dre. I keep forgetting that those who most despise wikileaks have approximately zero understanding of anything related to it...except what others, who also hate it, have told them to think.

And...."capitalism"? What the hell are you on about now? Look, if you don't want to have a serious and honest discussion, that's obviously your choice. So why the pretence in the first place?

Yes, no doubt. It's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, maybe.

Agreed.

Agreed. For the record, while I don't agree with everything Bud says, the "we all know Bud hates Jews" theme seems to me extremely questionable, to put it lightly. I don't know any such thing. Yeah, some people believe that a single topic is the debate-ender on every subject. It's a poor way to have a civil discussion. There's no question about it. Even for those who argue that the founding was itself illegitimate...how many countries can claim otherwise, using similar arguments? Canada? the United States? We can't expect Canadians or Israelis to pack up and move away. That's patently absurd. No, you're right, Israel is waaaay out of line, and virtually everybody knows it. Even Canadian and US official policy is that they're behaving illegally. That it is never publically spoken in those terms doesn't change that. A fringe minority remain unable to comprehend the plain facts....amd predictably make observations about the terrible behaviour of someone else....often Hamas. And I agree with them about Hamas; but it doesn't alter the other facts at all.

It's an unreasonable and preposterous demand. Every assertion you make about anything, beyond the strictly and 100% personal, must from now on have addended a chart with stats backing up your claims. Please include ALL "people, nationalities, organizations, religions," and so on. I mean, you wouldn't wish to hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

I believe people are trying to bait you, and using the very sensitive issue of anti-semitism seems like a good way to go about it. For the record (as of course you know) there is not the faintest whiff of anti-semitism anywhere in anything you've written. I do wonder sometimes, however (when I'm feeling a bit mischievous, granted) if those who are most promiscuous about their use of the politicized slur aren't themselves anti-semites, trying to make the self-proclaimed "Defenders of Israel" look bad. If so, it's unlikely to work, thankfully.

You don't think you're fooling anyone, though, do you?

Can't argue with that.

It was a ridiculous response on Shady's part. When talking politics, people engage in all sorts of hyperbolic rhetoric, and the old crooner was having at it in the normal tradition. But claiming conspiracy theories about the President being behind the recent spate of murders--for political gain, so that he can outlaw guns--is a completely different level. "It's not the same ballpark, it's not the same League, it's not even the same fucking sport!" --Jules, Pulp Fiction

.....

You self-evidently don't "got it," since your only method of debate (on a subject which you're proudly insisting to know nothing, astonishingly) is to caricature your opponent's points. In other words, you're arguing with yourself. Since he has repeatedly, both personally and through his lawyers, agreed to being questioned on the allegations, your assertion is false on its face. It's the possible (in fact, likely) estradition to the United States that is at issue. They are less likley, if we use wildly dissenting loony-lefty methods like looking at history. Again, back to the inherent "civlized" nation hypothesis. Which reminds me: you didn't answer my (honest) query about how the UK is more cognizant and supportive of human rights than is Equador. Let's start with the Iraq War, and move back from there. I mean, it's not as if the US, the UK, Canada et al have ever or would ever be invovled in matters like wars of aggression, toppling elected leaders to replace them with pliant dictators....or collude directly and intentionally in massive state terrorism at a level our official enemies have been unable to match. Just like Equador....oh, wait....when did Equador do these things, again? I'm afraid your doctrinal adherence to great Western myths is perhaps polluting your entire view on this whole matter. What do you think?

Plerase. Your entire arguemnt is premised on the inherent decency and honest arguments of two especially violently imperial, lawless states (the US and UK) as well as on Sweden's....with only faith to back you up! You're a Commissar. But he's not fighting the Swedish authorities' right to question him. At all. They refuse to do it...unless he's on Swedish soil. A demand which has no historical precedent in law, especially considering the demonstrable political complications...which the Swedes could have solved at any moment by agreeing to question him elsewhere. Of course he would! They could determine his innocence (or lack of sufficient evidence for charges)...and then send him off to the Americans. What's stopping them? Their history of courage in standing up to imperial powers? No, I'm not at all sure he isn't. Only three people know for sure. Well, four, including yourself. If you're trying to insist that you don't know anything about what wikileaks has published, and the embarassed countries involved, no need; it's quite clear. But your assertion is flatly untrue. Hell, for that matter, the cables about the Arab dictators have been used as talking points for those enthusiastic abotu a war with Iran. These enthusiasts are, to a person, the same ones who think Assange should be arrested (or assassinated, like some US politicians, and our own poster Derek). The hypocrisy and contradictions carry on apace. I suppose the NYTimes should be charged as well; they published the wiki documents...with government "permission." ???? The whole thing is freaking ludicrous. As for Assange's concerns about Sweden, here is Glenn Greenwald on the matter:

It's an "obvious conclusion" to sycophants who, like government officials in so many countries, despise whistleblowers...even when no harm is caused to anybody, and government machinations and deceit are exposed. Right, he's trying to "evade Swedish justice"--in which no charges have even been laid, and he is only wanted for questioning. There is, as of yet, no "justice" which he is evading. Whereas the United States actually has a sealed indictment against him...totally irrelevant, I suppose. I mean, seriously, it's not as if anyone of the critics actually care about the rape allegations. At all. They care about wikileaks...and they don't much like this sort of thing. Upsets the frame of mind that tends towards obedience. The fact is that Swedish authorities have had multiple opportunities to question Assange...which they claim is what they wanted in the first place. They have refused to do so. Why?

Your points were obvious to everyone else. No, he isn't. Just often.

I think PIK meant "leadership at its best" no matter what Harper does.

This doesn't prove your premise. And by the way, since you are admittedly looking at this through a left/right prism, it might interest you to know that some Texas Tea-Partiers have joined forces with Occupy and with Environmentalists...to stop the pipeline! Interesting world..... At any rate, I think Smallc answered your points accurately. In my view, Obama is just barely a Liberal by Canadian standards. Pre-presidential Obama appeared to be quite a lefty, that's true. That doesn't apply anymore. Look at Harper for a comparison; when the "secret agenda" talk was all the rage, people could (very accurately) point to all sorts of specific things Harper said: that Canada was basically another failed European socialist country; that we should have totally privatized medicine; that the Iraq War was a Grand idea, and Canada was a bunch of losers for not joing the adventure....and so on and so on. Anti-abortion. Explicitly opposed to same-sex mariage. Those aren't myths; those were his stated views. But as PM, he simply has not ruled in a manner befitting his earlier, rhetorical self. It wouldn't work, politically. Obama is in precisely the same position. (And if the NDP ever gain Feeral power, they will not be the same party that they have been. That's a guarantee.)

Well done, sir! I might try to read that book (though it's doubtful). But I wouldn't pay a cent for it; I'd illegally download it, in order to rip the authors off.

What? Read it again, but without your own internal voice acting as shadow puppet over what you're reading. Bitsy didn't make any judgements about Rand or about the Church. (She no doubt has opinions on them....but they're not part of her argument here.) She is making a demonstrably realistic observation about Ryan's evident propensity to change his favourite philosopher...as per the admonishment of the Church. It's about the flip-flop...a more than usually obvious one in this case.

Just as a sklight side-note: has everyone here been aware of the magnificently contradictory and bizarre talking point that has erupted against the Democrats--including by "libertarian" tea-partiers and austerity enthusiasts--that military cuts are going to "cost people jobs:, and this is a good reason in and of itself not to make the cuts? Now, I could spell out the illogic of this argument (the internal, by-their-own-standards illogic, I mean)...but I hope to Godzilla that there's no need.

....

There are no charges. There are no charges. how many times does this need to be pointed out? Christ, you little Commissars really have difficulties with the facts, once your need to defend the most powerful entities on Earth grabs you in its alluring headlock.

You can pretend to be this stupid, Argus, but I'm not buying it. He is perfectly willing to make himnself available for questioning by Stockholm. He is not willing to be extradited to the US to face indictments. These are two wholly separate issues. Ah, so you are sure he is, after all, a rapist. But of course, like everyone else (aside from three people directly involved) you actually have no idea. So in fact, it is you are politicizing rape...because of the wikileaks affair. (Pretty greasy of you, but leave that aside for the moment.) Incidentally, not a single case of harm to anyone has been exposed as a result of wikileaks... ...this, despite the many shrieking tantrums thrown by all the shivering little power-sychophants over the matter, which we've all grown so accustomed to enduring. OK...kraychik. You're losing it, man. Get a grip.

You see the UK as a "champion of human rights"? Are you referring to their benign imperial history...or to more recent events like the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people in a totally unnecessary war in Iraq? What's Equador done to equal these glorious paens to human rights?