bleeding heart

Maybe, but still...if the information presented throughout this thread is correct, it was more difficult to immigrate here, because our policies were so profoundly racist.

Yes, that's a fair point. I agree. I will add (though I reiterate that I agree with you) that female-female sexuality has never received the lion's share of primal disgust. I wonder if, at bottom, the felt repulsion so many feel (even many inclined to be politically sympathetic) has something to do with the Great Taboo of the "feminized" male. Something about this drives people genuinely and absolutely batty.

Increasingly explicit heterosexual imagery is ubiquitous. Surely you're not disputing that? His use of the word "obscenity" is in direct response to the "gays are gross" theme which is essentially the very premise of most complaints here. You're right about obscenity; but the anti-gay little mouthbreathers are using the word quite... promiscuously, let's say...so there it is. Those aren't so much genuine depictions of female homosexuality as they are a sop to a common male fetish. Though I suppose we could parse such things all day long.

Everybody feels negatively towards the banks. Must not be their fault; must be everybody else's!

And of course we all know, as it uncontroversially the case, that since Thatcher, the UK has been a beacon of decency, pride, and citizens getting along famously with one another.

How the F. could Pride be "apolitical," anyway?

Yes, some people's biggest concerns about the reactionary tendencies of the party have been given credence, and right out of the gate.

I agree. And even if it were, it should have to be outright, explicit, with a credible threat of real harm. When authorities can determine "incitement" at will, an awful lot of opinions objectively less odious and more rational than that expressed above can be deemed "hate speech" or "incitement," and that's a dangerous road.

I agree (though I would add that anti-slavery moral sentiment was alive and flourishing in their times, even in Washington's; so it's not as if they were doing something uncontroversial). At any rate, it's irrelevant, as I wasn't making an anachronistic judgement; I was responding directly to this: Since he brought up slavery, and then performed the conventional piety of implying the inherent moral magnificence of the American Founders....I thought it an apt response.

He's trying, just give him time.

Adams didn't...that's why I said "six of the seven."

Believe it or not, every time you disagree with someone it isn't always because they're being deceptive. You're welcome for the little lesson.

Yes, yes...you're very happy that we can. So am I. However, you don't seem to think we should. On that, we disagree.

I'm sure that's so. Yes, a reason for everything. I agree completely.

No, to your credit. I'm only stating the objective truth that terrorism is a multi-partisan phenomenon, lovingly embraced by Western power interests as much as by their official enemies (those who commit Bad terrorism, as opposed to Good terrorism.)

I've yet to come across any conservatism which is not drenched in political correctness.

My link opens for me, for some reason. But here's more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/page/3/ (Scroll down to second story) Also, some Canadian Liberals met with the designated terrorist group (which is also a religious cult) a few years ago; I'm not sure about the current government. At any rate, they are a terrorist group, and they've got lots of influential and famous pal-ios. Incluidng Tom Ridge, Howard Dean, Rudolph Giuliani, and other (paid) terrorist-supporters.

dbl post

From now on, please preface each post with a Properly Balanced list of all crimes, misdeameanors, and general dumb-assedness of all relevant groupings. You know, like Shady always does.

Like these ones? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/us-supporters-of-iranian-group-mek-face-scrutiny.html

The bottom line is that people in Democratic countries should be criticizing their countries openly--that's part of the democratic principle--without people whining about it like indoctrinated, nationalist little cowards.

"Liars," "idiots," or "ignorant"? Choices are awesome!

Exactly; when in fact, both our fine countries deserve heartfelt condemnation for murderous policies (in the first instance) and deception of their populations as related to it (in the second instance).

No...I was talking about Canada's material, direct involvement in Iraq. It's not that I don't agree with you. I do agree with you. But when arguing Canadian culpability with Canadians who don't appreciate the message, I find it more effective to go for the matters that they can't so easily try to argue away with semantics.

Sure, I can see that. But I was talking about the more direct involvement.