bleeding heart

When people (two posters in this thread, and counting) start calling the Native people "savages," it is they who are throwing down a "race card."

And further, you state that the winner (Romney, in your opinion) will "win by a slim margin"--a normal situation, I agree that far--and yet the hundreds of Americans you work with on a daily basis (are you on the phone or mesenger or email continually, discussing matters work and American electoral politics at a rate of, say, ten or twenty folks an hour?)...why, no "slim margin" there; they all share your opinion of American politics--each and every one--preferring the farther right to the centre right, evidently. This all smells a bit, if you don't mind my saying.

You didn't say he was charged with sexual assault. You said he was guilty of sexual assault.

I was only explaining the argument as put forth by anothe rposter, as I thought the argument was being misunderstood by another. I personally couldn't give a rat's ass about the number of legal firearms owned by anybody.

??? You're mocking your own idea? So much for "small government" conservatives. (Not that I ever bought into that fantasy anyway.)

Your caricature is misplaced. I pointed out that calling those who disagree with energy policy "terrorists" and enemies of Canada and so on is, intrinsically and intentionally, extremely divisive; and also flat out false. I also pointed out what everyone intuitively must know: that those who agree with Harper on these points is a shivering little sycophant. That's all. That's not even a controversial opinion. Anyone not a partisan sycophant would immediately agree with it. And since you're intelligent, and presumably not a servile little moral and intellectual weakling, I take it as a given that you do agree, and misread my post, either through your own haste or through some lack of clarification on my part. If your misunderstanding was due to the latter explanation, then my apologies. There's no conspiracy, Tilter (the bizarre implication of your caricature), and none was even suggested. I don't hate anyone. What was I saying about sycophancy, about servility to power? Cue violins playing a remorseful dirge.

But "secretive"--my (slightly mischievous) proposal, and precisely to which you are responding, is about a cover-up of some kind. Unless we have no need to see where our tax dollars are going.

It's serious in that, in recent years, and thanks at least in part to a thoroughly discredited book by Jonah Goldberg, there has been a revisionist attempt to smear the political Left as the true owners of Nazism, rather than as the largely right-wing phenomenon that it was. (And remains, with its comparatively tepid contemporary adherents.)

Well..."secretive," then, rather than "secret" would have been accurate, I think. Still not too positive.

The question is preposterous in any context except one critical of the question itself; ie, if you were being ironic, and implying, "what a stupid question, eh?"...then that would be an ameliorating "context."

It wasn't that they were broke. It was that they would be broke. Big difference, no doubt.

The conscious and often dishonest attempts at debate-hijacking and too-convenient discussion delineation might be backfiring. (scroll down for article in link) http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175549/tomgram%3A_bill_mckibben%2C_climate-change_deniers_have_done_their_job_well/

First you ask a question which you cannot mean; now you pretend you didn't understand what I was getting at. Why all the pretence? ??? So...he was "close" to doing something with which you disagree; but ultimately you do agree, because, as you say, otherwise you wouldn't be a fan of his any longer.....

???? You agree with AW's self-evidently assinine question about "how many gay organizations" have performed at charity/missionary levels comparable to organized religion? Too bad.

How subservient of you. . "Justin Bieber is soooo dreamy and talented......" Sorry. Not interested in political or celebrity worship; and they both arise from the same impulse. But political worship is obviously far more dangerous. I'm afraid I don't believe this is a serious question.

I'm not sure if the argument put forth is correct or not, but I think you're missing it: if there are more guns easily available (lawfully) it will be easier for criminals to obtain guns.

True...the Albertans survived the threat of Wildrose, so there's room for optimism.

First, though, we're talking about government in the marketplace....without which there is no military. Flat out. As to your point: yes, military people need to run military matters; but at the end of the day, they have to be answerable to a civilian leadership. That's by design, in all the great democracies. It helps avoid the risk of a military dictatorship.

I have no powerful objection to changing things, but I really can't see any point. The current system has a lot going for it, not least a non-partisan, non-regional Head of State; and for those who merely object to the pomp and circumstance of Royalty (which is quite benign, in my view) doesn't need to pay any attention to it. Hell, I don't; I don't care about the last wedding, am not excited nor disturbed by the Jubilee. If I thought getting rid of the Monarchy would improve matters, I'd be all for it. 100%. I just don't see what the improvements would be.

Your claim is that the majority of Harper voters are completely cognizant of everything within the contentious bill. That's a grandiose claim, in fact incredible, so I think you need to find a way to provide some evidence for it. I don't quite know how you could go about this...but it's your claim, so, better get workin.'

Nor mine. But health care and the military, the police, physical infrastructure...I support all these tax-based, government-in-the-market, socialist initiatives.

I did, in fact. Sorry. "Seems"...just so.

Without the goods and services bought in the marketplace by the government, neither entity exists. At all. By definition. They kill spiders?

You want to gut the health care system and the military? It's the same with capitalism, except that the fellows with guns are the authorities, protecting your "betters" from you.

The majority of Canadians, including yourself, don't even know everything that's in the bill, so to say they're "A-OK" with it is only to bemoan Canadian ignorance generally. A pretty piss-poor defense of it.