bleeding heart

The place was an American-caused bloodbath quite before the Khmer Rouge took control. "Anything that flies on anything that moves," as Kissinger relayed Nixon's order--he was ordering war crimes, incidentally. (Well, incidentally to those two gangsters, not so incidentally to the hundreds of thousands murdered...which led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge). Heckuva job.

del

del

I think country music fans are a lot more diverse in their opinions than you give them credit for. In a simplified sense, you might argue that country is somewhat conservative...but then, so is heavy metal. At any rate, country music also has a history of populist laments about the plight of the poor, and so on.

The Contras. Ye gods. At any rate, you don't mention Cambodia, which was worse than Watergate by any stretch of the imagination.

If you're suggesting I was being pretentious and patronising in my little (and perfectly honest) review...well, then I'd feel compelled to invite you to perform a difficult and potentially dangerous sex act upon your own person. I'd also humbly suggest that you are not totally aware of the tone and style of your own writing. Though I suppose the key word in your brief biography above is "try."

So, she was part of the club of innumerable hundreds of millions who despised Stalin. If that sets the bar for decency, we're all saved. Ok...Rand wasn't as bad as Hitler.

"Love," yes, a major part of the issue... However, you miss MCC's point: there are, seemingly, two distinct Harpers that you voted for, and they disagree violently with each other. Do you (and the "Majority") "love" the Harper of 2005, or do you "love" the Harper of 2012 that so disagrees with the first one? And how did you vote for these two different men simultaneously?

There were no litigating factors that I'm aware of.

And again: "maybe you could specifically explain what you meant?" Why not?

Your remark about catching a glimpse in a mirror is part of your ongoing complaint about my (along with some others here) believing in one truth, and then mocking others for the same. If not, if I'm mistaken (meaning you retract your intiial accusation) maybe you could specifically explain what you meant?

Ummm. No. you didn't. Because it contradicts what you've been declaring, so you haven't addressed it. You made a remark earlier that you think people should address your actual words, that you write in your posts. Maybe you might allow the same consideration for others.

Peeves: Haiti, 2004, at gunpoint, and with the Americans and the French. You didn't even know this vital bit of Canadian history--that we were involved in the illegal overthrow of a democratically-elected leader, less than a decade ago? Everything you say here is completely irrelevant, and beside the point. I see you're blindly hypersensitive when someone points out the terrorist behaviours of your favoured heroes. Understandable, I guess, but weak. When the US explicitly (ie openly, unequivocally) gave the go-ahead for Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, and then made the 25-years of state terror possible through continued arms supplies (with the help of other Western powers, acting the noble humanitarians) they were perfectly and intentionally involved in terrorism, of the most serious sort; a long-term violent oppression which killed perhaps a third of the E. Timorese population. Do you really, really want to behave as apologist for illegal invasions, mass murder, and attempted genocide, Peeves? Consider it first, and save your reflexive sanctimony for subjects which you've actually looked into. ???? Why, what do you mean? What in the world are you talking about? I'm not defending any of the terrible behavuiours of anyone you mentioned. You're the only one being defensive here...because everyone doesn't moan in pleasure at the magnificence of the state terrorists you admire. I'm aware of the conventional pieties, Peeves. However, your point is becoming clear: we should focus on what we and our allies do right, and totally ignore their massive criminalities in other realms. Hell, you don't even wish to think about what we and our heroic allies have done wrong...and when I say wrong, I'm talking serioius wrongs, not "mistakes" in the usual formulation spawned by doctrinal necessity and moral cowardice. This is nonsensical. And why not compare the contemporary British to their contemporary counterparts? Say, the East Timorese whom the British helped murder? So what? Where am I defending Spain's behaviour in Latin America? ???? You're desperate...and desperately wishing to justify terrible crimes, because, for example, "Spain behaved worse with the Incas." I judge the Western Democracies for what they do wrong; in fact, it's elementary morality (as well as a bedrock of democratic principle) that we should be more concerned with our own wrongdoing than to focus laserlike on the crimes of official enemies...in lieu of self-criticism. Unbelievable. The indoctrination is evidently robust, and "healthy," albeit within lunatic parameters.

Most of the Arabs--a vast majority, in fact--do not consider Iran a threat, and do not think any nuclear ambitions pose a threat. We know this from Wikileaks...from one of the leaks most cited by powerful states and their intellectual commissars, in fact, because they didn't understand what they were reading: In brief, the Arab dictators oppose a nuclear Iran...the Arab people do not. As usual, we side with the dictators.

Then your opinion strays pretty far from what we know...including the fact that the US refused a regulated, inspected-at-will nuclear program.

Evidently you didn't read my post.

No, it wasn't. And don't get me wrong; I don't care if you think this, and I wonder at your monumental oversensitivity about the Monarch. But you're factually incorrect about my intent (based on your psychic powers, no doubt derived from the monarchy in some special Canadian way), and so I'm correcting you.

And a powerful plitical party is profoundly different from an accused individual. Democratic politics needs people forever on the attack.

I agree. At the ripe(ning) age of 45, I have literally never, not once, ever, heard a disparaging word about Alberta, from some sort of regionalist perspective, outside of this very forum. It's just not an issue that most people think about...at all. Schisms between wealth and status, on the other hand....! Hoo, boy.

Are posters here actually drawing an exact equivalence between a powerful political Party accused of political wrongdoing, and a man actually legally accused within the legal system? Does the problem with this truly have to be spelled out?

And the oppressive weak majority; and the oppressive altrusists; and the oppressive workers... Hell, the only people that aren't oppressive to Rand are some of the most powerful people on Earth. Please, she abhorred mankind too...except for the top tiers, whom she rather slavishly worshipped (so much for "independence" and so on). She even expressed profound admiration for a famous child murderer...because he was a "man of will" who didn't let society dictate his mores and behaviours. She was a monumental asshole, in other words.

AW....again, clearly I need to spell this out for you: I am telling you flat-out that I do not "believe" atheism to be "the only truth." And never have.

del

WTF? I have read more than one of August1991's movie reviews on this very forum.

Are you saying everyone should say only nice things about Alberta, because it's Big Daddy Money? Not really a sound principle in a democratic society.