bleeding heart

You really think this response rises to even basic levels of evidence? Or, as Most Outstanding Poster asked this very day:

If the consultants are legitimately required, it's irrelevant if it's public or private sector.

While I object to the very premise here, for the sake of argument I will ask: like who?

Yes, everyone was so offended by it......

But they would never, because the "free market" is inherently "practical" and works on "merit." I see you've abandoned these cherished myths, finally.

Sure it is.

This is a key point, one that pro-choicers themselves often omit or ignore in their arguments. (Much like whether or not abortion is "killing"...of course it's "killing.") If a woman chooses to get pregnant, and then changes her mind, abortion remains a perfectly viable option. That's the point. That some people say "she shouldn't do such a thing" is a separate argument. Then, we're talking about subjective moral arguments; those arguments are fine as far as they go, I suppose, but they don't apply to whether or not a woman should be "allowed" to have an abortion.

Well, this sort of thinking only expresses that the strongest and most predatory convicts will win, and thus in a sense be rewarded.

Who cares about conventional Presidential campaign sloganeering? You haven't answered the question.

Just to get this straight: you think the President of the United States is "anti-capitalist," and "anti-American'?

Some people need to politicize everting, and do it selectively.

Yes, I see now. My apologies.

Well, this is a lot different in tone than yuur initial response, in which "[we] people make you sick." Not that I really give a good goddamn if I make you sick or not, of course.

No. The difficult compassionate stance, by definition, is not normal. Yeah, that's not a ridiculous caricature at all.... That's your issue. I seriously doubt it. I can't imagine why you'd care anyway; why it should offend you that some people use forgiveness as a way of dealing with grief. There are worse ways to handle horrible situations.

I heard two. I believe it takes real strength of character to summon this type of compassion. Compassion is insight. I don't know that I'd be up to the task, personally.

Yeah. I think I'm going to start teaching particle physics, and maybe in my spare time, high finance. That'll improve society tremendously, no doubt.

I couldn't care less about a movie being "disrespectful" of an historical figure (and no one has any obligation, moral, artistic or otherwise, to adhere to "respect"). However, the movie sucks. I agree with that.

Are you kidding? Anti-abortion laws are explicitly, openly, outright "forcing you to do [something] against your will."

Since we all know about these occurrences, it's odd to hear you claim that "nobody is talking about these acts." In fact, every time bad behaviour is brought up, someone points out the evils of others, in the manner of a grand deflection. But the point is moot, because elementary democratic principles demand that we be more concerned with our own behaviour than that of Official Enemies. Of course the head-choppers are grotesque and rotten human beings. See, no one is arguing otherwise. Our only argument, then, is how bad is the behaviour of the Western allies. And for some reason you wish dearly to underplay the severity. Look at the torture issue. You belittle the matter, and say it is "considered torture," directly before listing the atrocities of certain Islamists (again, which no one is disputing). However, you left out some of the rather more severe things that were done, and which General Taguba reported in his investigation (before being shut down for coming to uncomfortable conclusions about war crimes): for example, rape. But it doesn't matter; while some people might "consider" that to be torture, it's far better to concentrate on what the enemy does. Much easier, much less unpleasant. First of all, you seem to take it for granted that the wedding and funeral bombings were legitimate cases of collateral damage...every time? That's not perfectly clear. And even if it were clear, I went on to talk more generally about Western collusion with massive acts of outright terrorism, often at the state terror level. There, the facts are plain enough. The support for Indonesia's decades-long slaughter of the East Timorese is explicitly collusion in state terrorism, at a level exceeding the Taliban's darkest dreams. Why should the West get a pass? Why are we so eager to act as if there's moral and legal justification for the murder of two hundred thousand innocent people (and not a Soviet or Chinese Communist enemy in sight...not that this would justify it anyway). Cowardice, I presume, and an unhealthy dollop of "West-is-best" indoctrination. What else could be the answer? Further, what of the other point I made: that our actions have increased terrorism, not decreased it...and that this was predictable...in fact, widely predicted? If we're precipitating terrorist acts, then don't we share some of the guilt?

....

My wife got taken in by the ads for the new season...so finally decided to watch the whole series before looking at the new one. We're on season 4 right now...and it holds up extremely well under second viewing, I have to say, even without the surprise element. An outstanding series.

What Shady is getting at--in fact, it's his underlying premise generally--is that the roughly liberal/left half of the United States is corrupted, sinister, and world-destructive, and that the roughly conservative/rightwing half is lovely and awe-inspiring. If his positions were precisely reversed, he would be continually disparaged here as "anti-American." Which begs some very interesting questions.

According to Pew Research, since the shooting, views remain evenly divided as before: roughly half agree with you, and half don't. That's how "Americans feel" about the subject. You don't speak for Americans any more than Canadian gun control advocates do, statistically-wise. Put another way: you don't speak for something called "Americans." Americans are as divided over the issue as Canadians are.

Obviously you consider the "war on Terror" to be a monumental sham, then. No worries...I do too!

I do too, which I think is at least implied in my use of the word "nuanced." I only think that blueblood makes a mistake in believing the Conservative Party policymakers and ideologues share his relatively sane vision. Hell, I voted NDP last time around...and I think they're about half as moral and intelligent as I am...and I put myself at about average! (And yes, certainly I think the Conservatives and Liberals are worse than the NDP....)