bleeding heart

I'm saying that we should not automatically believe everything leaders tell us. That's an elementary democratic principle. If you prefer reflexive obeience 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 memebrs 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 supprot state terrorism with huge casualties. Right? Oh, wait......

I was thinking that a pissing contest about violence rates between countries is a waste of time, and a sidetrack to the thread. I also see that this is approximately 100% poster socialist's fault. He is trolling. I sincerely doubt he even believes half of what he's posting.

Yes, well, most of us are not sufficiently elevated to make deliriously complimentary remarks about the "masculine will" of a convicted child killer. Rand had no problem with this. Sociopathy itself is a virtue, evidently (individualistic, will-to-power in her cheap plagiarism of Nietzsche)...which begins, I think, to clarify some of her views generally.

I'm tolerant enough to give this some consideration....................... .................nope. After careful thought, I must disagree.

Oh, I'm sure that's true enough. But this is the way it works when money is involved. And it has nothing to do with your political opinions. The "greed is good" Faithful can scarcely fault anyone for adhering to this or that "gravy train."

???? No. I'm saying that official government pronouncements, echoed by media cheerleaders, gives us close to zero actual information. Here's Glenn Greenwald on the subject: I would humbly suggest that this is precisely your own tactic here, Signals. Greenwald then quotes the NYTimes: That's such a jaw-dropper, that I recommend reading it twice. In short, if you are a "military-aged male" and you are killed by a drone atatck...you are guilty, unless you can prove your innocence...after your death. One can scarcly imagine a more perfect tautology, which allows indiscriminate killing without likely repercussions. http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/ Or if you're a male between the age of fifteen and fifty... I mean, that's powerful evidence of guilt, isn't it? In a related story, the administration is considering handing out medals of "bravery" to guys wiping out folks on a video screen. The courage of such soldiers truly is heartwarming, I must admit.

Damn! That is, sincerely, a good question.

Leaving aside the moral degeneracy of Ayn Rand (who after all moaned rapturously about the masculine "will" of a notorious child killer, exposing the sociopathic instincts which underlines her "rich people are superior" thesis); No one is taking them for granted. Hell, we're at a pretty pass when society's richest (who are also, by definition, the most politically powerful) are perceived as being somehow victimized.

But even if I agreed with you, and I don't, what happens when a conservative government takes over the indoctrination of the children, because the damn liberal/lefty parents can't be trusted to inculcate the Proper Values? Be careful what you wish for, in other words.

I'm not even sure it'd be slightly useful, to be honest. (But what's wrong with me in even posting about it? I am so bloody sick of the gun control debate, not least because the people I'm most inclined to agree with can't keep whining and paranoia out of any discussion on the matter.....)

I was responding directly to socialist, who seems to support this sort of idea.

Communists? What communists of actual and demonstrable influence exist in our society?

Oh...since you ignore the parts of my post that are inconvenient to your "argument," such as it is, sure: You haven't mentioned the lobbyists, the industry pundits, the politically active (on behalf of their own tax rates) wealthy...all of whom are, by definition, political activists, though you seem strangely unaware of something any four-year-old could easily comprehend...in short, you're not interested in "following the gravy train" at all, except in the predictable partisan formulation.

No one is "trying so hard" to do so, but merely speculating on what seems a distinct possibility. Even if we're wrong, it's not important. Except to you, for...some reason, unstated.

That seems pretty unlikely. Never mind some meeting of the minds of different religions...even within the same religions, people don't see eye to eye on many issues. For the example we're now speaking about, plenty of Christians do in fact support same-sex marriage. Maybe among the shrinking opposition, it does. For ordinary Canadians, the matter seems pretty much settled. Most people either outright support the idea...or else they don't much care about it. It's fitting that you'd make this preposterous claim in the "persecuted Christians" thread. tha marriage issue wasn't an attack on religion; it wasn't even about religion, until religious opponents made it such. If you really think that the reason homosexuals demanded marriage rights was because they wished to attack religion...then you're paranoid, I'm afraid. Except the right to marry, because....ummm....... But it's not truly their own. that's the whole point. they wish to normalize homosexuality in society, and so demand the right to the conservative tradition of marriage. Better yet, their religious opponents could decide to give way and retract, in the name of harmony. That makes more sense. It is. But once something becomes legally and (more improtantly, perhaps) culturally enshrined, it is no easy matter to retract it. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. The young are far more tlerant and supportive of the idea than are the older generations. Yes. And that's a seaprate issue. Polygamist marriage should be looked at and debated an discussed on its own merits and/or demerits. In exacty zero way. In fact, I shoudl think people are getting tired of talking abotu every damn thing as if it's a "brand." That's not even a faintly good analogy. It's terrible.

I don't think so. If you say so. I don't think it's nearly so clear.

FOX is not too helpful in most cases.

You could be right, sure. And at bottom, yeah, it makes no difference, I suppose; he wanted to kill him some non-whites, and he did so.

Like Canada's Residential School Program! A shining success story all around.

Sure, I know. But if such views were so common, then why wouldn't they hold more appeal for folks here?

Support for their argument which they remain unwilling to produce???

Well, if you object to the "tea-baggers" phrase (a self-imposed label, by the way, until the howls of laughter caused them to abandon it and look hurt)....what of the answer itself, which directly answers your allegations? You know, about conservative activists? "Follow the gravy train" to discover the "whiners"....do you mean wealthy people who remain politically active out of financial self-interest, too? Lobbyists? Paid pundits in service of this or that industry?.... "Activists" coves a lot more ground than left-wing street protests, after all.

Certainly. When they demanded the extremist radical position of being recognized as equal citizens--a point that gets some religious conservatives in a tizzy--they knew full well it would be contentious. And they're winning--they're winning legally, bit by bit, and they're winning rhetorically, very quickly. Hearts and minds, and all that. Hence the backlash by the reactionaries...who, a generation from now, will understand they were mistaken, and for the most part won't even admit to their current stance. In Canada and several other countries, it is already practically a non-issue. And the United States, being chock right to the brim with decent, fair-minded people, is pretty obviously heading in the same direction. (Culturally, America has been crucial in the battle for gay rights.) Why? We don't own the word because we're heterosexual. No one "owns" words. Kimmy didn't say he had no right. But she too has every right to criticize the smarmy little knuckledragger. (And she's done a fine job of it, just as a sort of bonus!)

Point of order: suspected terrorists. (And that's if we give the authorities the benefit of the doubt.) Surely the distinction is of some value.

On the contrary, poster socialist really is very nearly alone in his views on this subject. Haven't you been reading all the lefties' responses to him? So why pretend that this isn't the case?