bleeding heart

In that order, eh?

I was suggesting that the "Canada is better" theme is implied (at least implied) in Kraychik's post, and that I find it a boring subject.

Don't be mean to the mindless and boring patriotism.

For sure! Remember "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare"?

Cybercoma named that one, Signals.

See ya. Don't let people's objective corrections of your delusional victim status hit you on the way out!

What in the world are you talking about? This very thread displays plenty of "hyperventilating" about what the NDP has done.

Yes, most self-styled "capitalists" despise an actual free market. They prefer semi-monopolies protected by taxpayer dollars. So do their intellectual defenders, under some guise of...wait for it!..."free market theory."

Sure...I'd only add that if the series had ended wit the last season, your question would have been answered already. True enough, that seeems unavoidable at this point. Vince Gilligan apaprently wanted to see how far he could bend audience sympathy for Walt before it breaks. The answer seems to be: pretty damn far!

That you chose not to include the crucial contextual point in your response--the one that openly clarifies from whom the quote is derived--doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're becoming increasingly silly.

That's true. We hear gripes about Quebec like we hear gripes about Ottawa, and about employers, and the weather, and our own provinces, and about how crappy the Transformers movies are. Only the last one is a universal and objective truth, uncontroversial and inarguable......

Which part do you consider an insult?

If I gave that impression, I was incautious with my tone. I put it that way to sound generous. But no, not annoyed, no worries.

Well said. There's a movie about paranoid delusion called Bug, starring Michael Shannon and Ashley Judd (she's very good, I kid you not)...and we see just what you say. In the end, such paranoia is about nothing so much as narcissism. When Judd's character, led by Shannon's, finally recognizes the "truth"....she is transported with a kind of ecstasy. It really is all about me!

Ha! It would seem that political lunacy is a sort of moebius strip, in which the Truly Insightful are forever being exposed as World Order Gatekeepers by the more Truly Insightful. I await the next batch, exposing these fine fellows for being too lenient towards...I dunno...Catholics, or something?

That most certainly was not Betsy's point. I have no issue whatsoever with Religious Studies, of course.

Yeah; like I said, I'm slightly torn. I'm more than happy to see another season, but I think last season's finale is pitch-perfect, and the best ending of any series I've ever seen, period.

Like the kind of guys who write, "OMG!"?

What the heck does that even mean? And again: there are no rules; there's scarcely even civility and decorum (as your snide remarks here underline). What is on the internet forums is what they are; they do "work that way"--by definition--by the simple tautology that what you object to is in fact there.

Of course I was quoting Bush_Cheney and not you; as is perfectly plain: You missed this, evidently. Or you have trouble with the complexities of pronouns.

I don't think you understand the pedigree of the discussion which led to his remark. To sum up, it's that you believe (and always have) that

Sometimes; or the flaw can be in the recipient. An ambitious motivation, but not a likely outcome.

No...the apology part was the openly and genuinely offered apology. (And I don't "expect" nor care if you accept it, though I'm mildly surprised you did not; I only object to your harping on an issue that I had already claimed responsibility and apologized for. Because that's silly.) But...you want me to apologize for your faults, too? I should apologize for your calling me an asshole? I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation. This was already clear, AW. I know that. Did you not read that I understood it? The apology stands (because it's right, not because I think you must accept it): for asserting your agreement with Breivik, which was obviously unfair, and for using quotation marks in a hypothetical, thus foolishly confusing the issue with a direct quote. Also not fair. As to the rest: your own bad behaviour is on you, I'm afraid.

Now you know better, then.

Sure. I have no objection to your style...even when it is friendly and diplomatic. It's your business, as you say. I hadn't seen it, noting that she claims to object on moral principles to bad debating behaviour. But I defer to your judgement.