bleeding heart

I'm not talking of the profitability of the church or the personal wealth of the preacher. As per Betsy's assertions, I'm talking about what they do--and don't--believe, and preach to their congregations.

Zing.

It would appear, Betsy, that the percentage of "dead churches" and "false preachers" accounts for the overwhelming majority of them.

No, I'm sure you're right.

For Shady, America is what counts. So...you voting Obama or Romney?

Excellent points. Sometimes the obvious gets lost in the shuffle of the back-and-forth.

First of all, a lot of people would argue--are arguing--that the EU is a failure. And the arguments aren't completely without merit, though I guess we'll see what happens. Second, I sincerely doubt there is an appetite for such a monumental re-structuring as you think...and that includes Alberta, of which I imagine the Federalist/nationalist Canadians outnumber the nascent separatists by a factor of a hundred to one. At least. No, if Canada does break up, it will be a long time away. You'll personally never see it happen, that's for sure.

I feel the same way about it. But the point remains: I can see no reasonable way to make such an activity illegal. Simply having an ultrasound prior to an abortion certainly isn't sufficient evidence of sex-selection to stop the procedure. So how could it possibly be determined?

Exactly.

Yes, and it gets worse than that. At least in this scenario, people can claim "mistakes" or "collateral damage," for whatever one thinks such an argument is worth. But there are cases of outright mass murder, outright collusion with terrorism...and these, too, will be defended. Astonishing.

But a woman could simply have changed her mind, after discovering the sex of the fetus...with the discovery having nothing to do with her ultimate decision. Sex-selection may be odious, but there's no way to know for sure that this is the woman's reasoning. Certainly having an ultrasound does not mean she can no longer have an abortion!! I mean...is that really the argument being proposed?

You may well be right. At the very least, the onus is on the powerful and the restrictors to justify their power and restrictiveness. It shouldn't be up to us to say why it's bad, after the fact (though we should certainly do so when it comes to that.) Rather, the use of Power must be justified, and justified extremly well...or else it's not justifiable. This extrapolates to all uses of power and authority, from state to individual.

Her "bigot" self-appellation wasn't meant in the usual sense of that word, obviously. And "religious people with a persecution complex" is a particular group. Which exact brand of Abrahamic offshoot is under discussion is not of the utmost importance for that specific topic. Besides, I have read posts of hers which deride the Islamic use of ancient religious texts to inform contemporary behaviour. She doesn't give any of the Faithful clowns a pass, unless they properly keep their silliness to themselves. Now, my Kimmy-is-Awesome posts are starting to feel a little weirdly obsequious to me, so.....moving on.....

I suspect Kimmy would verbally-surgically remove the nonsense from any arrogant Muslim believer's posts, if she thought it warranted.

And when they come on this forum and start getting all Allah-preachy, we will continue apace with the same discussion. I think I'd start with pointing out that a religion founded by a successful Businessman is going to have some gaping flaws.....

I'm reminded of a "Muslim jihadist" who was here for a short while, talking about how his "three strong sons" would join him in jihad, and of 72 virgins in paradise, and how "Allah will see all you sons of pigs destroyed!" Now that was really obviously bullshit.

No. President Obama is issuing "kill lists," and ordering assasinations, as was "accidentally/on purpose" leaked to the media. He orders them killed--often based on suspicion, not hard facts, a point with which you stubbornly refuse to engage--and then they are killed. In every case? Not only is there no possible way you could know this (bwhich means you're inventing for the sake of "winning" a debate point); it is quite insane that you would take it even as a matter of belief. As we discussed in another thread, we--and even moreso the United States--has been directly, intentionally and unequivocally involved in acts of terrorism and mass murder. We're not talking "collateral damage," either...a coward's term, anyway. When did we suddenly change policy and begin doing everything lawfully and with upright moral reasoning? Seriously; I'm fascinated to hear about our sea-change in behaviour, especially since no President or Prime Minister has, to my knowledge, announced our new direction in foreign policy. Oh, I get your point, I just think it's a joke. How it really works occurs under two different circumstances: one cynical and corrupt, the other laudable and proving the inherent decency and lawfulness of specific individual human beings. (Not The State, or Nations...which have no morality, whatsoever; they're amoral entities by definition.): 1. There's bad press, so the government and military decide they'd better pony up, with money and/or trials, because the PR is bad; this deserves zero credit; 2. Individual members of the military who, to their tremendous credit, sincerely believe in the rule of law, the ROE, rules of conduct, and basic decency...and they expose this or that wrongful action. Sometimes even at career-risk, which I find gratifying and impressive. But it's certainly not automatic. As in an earlier discussion on General Anthony Taguba's investigation into the Abu Ghraib Affair, in which he concluded that torture was widespread, systemic, ordered from the top, and that high-ranking military and members of the civilian administration were guilty of War Crimes...the good General did what was right, he took his reponsibilities seriously. And he was ignored and sidelined, and most media didn't even report it. (And you can't tell me the media avoided it because it wouldn't sell!!!!) In other words, the truth someties gets out. It often does not. For example, were you even aware of the leaked Presidential "kill lists"? Oh, don't worry; the media is just as uncritical of the drone attacks as you are. They're on board. They're with the program, so to speak. Jeez. Are you and Signals going to keep harping on your caricature, of an opinion you attribute to me which I don't hold, and have never held, and have never hinted at in any way? There's another thing that makes accountability very difficult: a White House directive, in the nature of an Imperium (which, for reasons you don't state, you support and defend): that any military-aged male who is killed is deemed automatically guilty unless it is proven (after his death, mind you!) that he is innocent. This is insanity. I understand that you sympathize with the difficulties in precise military operations...I get that. You evince a lot less sympathy for the difficulties of being an innocent person blown up by American weapons. Their life is...a little more difficult than the Drone warriors, I might contend. I have never for one second denied that actual insurgents, "militants," "terrorists," or whatever other conveniently interchangeable term you can think of are targeted and killed. I'm saying it's only part of the story...based on history, which you ignore, and based on leaks from the highest echelons of power itself. That's a stupid question (and I believe I did answer it as such already). The "risk"! Yes, the PResident and the video-game techies playing Drone-kill are taking such tremendous risks. Unlike the weddings and gatherings and so on..... Man, I just shed a tear for these courageous risk-takers! Ahhhh. Then what of that earlier discussion about Canada and the US arming the Indonesians, and knowing that they were slaughtering between a hundred and two hundred thousand inncoent people in East Timor with those weapons? that's collusion in mass murde; collusion in State terror. I mean openly, outright. No getting around it. This is world-class criminality on a world-historic level. It's one of the top ten mass slaughters of the postwar era...no mean achievement. Very few of our terrorist enemies have committed such extreme horrors (though they would if they could, I assume). Perhaps you'll ignore this point as you did last tiume--since, after all, it points to Canada and the United States (among others: Austrailia, the UK, Japan) as being directly and wilfully culpable in mass state terrorism, wars of aggression, enforced starvation, and so on..... But if you don't ignore it, tell me: is that a "grey" area....or were we actually the bad guys? It's a serious question, based on your own criteria. Either way, it destroys your self-serving and masturbatory answer. The last refuge of the scoundrel. Where did I compare the CF to the Taliban? I'm talking about the cold brutality of foreign policy...and that we aren't always in the "right." You diverting it to some insinuation that I'm denouncing the soldiers on the ground is pretty greasy......

As the man said: "the generosity of our allies" must be rewarded.

I think there's a somewhat transparent play at hand here: first of all, as is speculated in the article, Harper might wish to distance the government from the decision itself. Second, he's implying that "I really don't hate science! See?"

Why?

It appears so.

I've been playing what might be a fool's game: trying to decide if you honestly belive the things you continually post, many of which are pure lunacy...or if you're a right-winger trying to make lefties look ridiculous by embracing the most absurd caricatures with which sectors of the right like to impose on the left, generally in straw man fashion. But I still don't know! I do, however, believe you're being provocative for its own sake, in order to rile up posters, get a predictably hostile response, after which you feel justified in acting like a douche. Maybe I'm dime-store psychologizing, but I'm afraid this remains my view anyway.

There would be a glut, in fact, and eventually some sort of lottery. Like you, I would consider it myself (except that I'm profoundly "tied down" as it were, so it would never happen.) Yeah...ten years from now? I dunno.

Ha! One can only dream this, so that the persecution of Christians could finally end.

I'm saying that we should not automatically believe everything leaders tell us. That's an elementary democratic principle. If you prefer reflexive obedience to Power, that's your issue. Further, I said the news media should not act as stenographers, but should view official pronouncements with suspicion. This is doubly true when people are actually getting killed. Interestingly, it is precisely when people are getting killed that the media (and some of the more--defensive members of the public) are least suspicious. And why not? It's not as a country like the United States would ever be involved in mass murder, or support state terrorism with huge casualties. Right? Oh, wait...... Wrong. I said that I don't believe the US attacks random targets just for fun (a stupid question anyway, and not meant to be taken seriously); but no, I did not agree that every attack is warranted. In fact there are only two--exactly two--types of people who believe that every attack is automatically warranted (because they're committed by the US, which does not nothing rotten, ever): 1. Ignorant people who have zero clue what they're talking about; 2. Snivelling little moral cowards, too delicate to even consider uglier possibilities. The technical aspects of the drones is a sidetrack; I'm talking about the political actions of the civilian leadership, and the decisions that are made. .. You are making a claim that everyone killed is where they...well, where they shouldn't be. As determined by the Global Boss, the United States of America, presumably. What's your evidence for this? Please, tell me: your evidence? I'm challenging you. Go ahead. Next thing, you're going to tell me is that you honestly think the "Good" West is merely flitting about fighting "Evil." Or that the "war on terror" could even make sense...as if a leading terrorist state could be committed to eradicating terrorism. And Army Guy, let's not forget how this little discussion (me, Signals, and yourself) began: he talked of drone strikes killing "terrorists," and i merely corrected him, with an objective, uncontroversial truth...that we're talking suspected terrorists, not necessarily terrorists. And you fellows disagree. Because powerful men make declarations...and you must agree with them! Sad.