bleeding heart

I don't know that this is perfectly clear...but maybe you're right. You're certainly right that election rhetoric sobers up quickly sometime every fourth January or so. Yes, I've heard some of the wounded outrage. However, there are two other types of progressives with different views: those who would support and defend Obama even if he slapped their mothers; and the lefties who predicted with varying degrees of negative accuracy--some of it exactly correct--what Obama would be like as President. Along the lines of your own remark, they argued that the institutional factors of the position made broad predictions easy and obvious (there are of course always details that cannot be known). These guys and gals were quite loudly derided by Obama liberals, as "the far left is soooo out of touch, man...so suspicious of Power!" Once proven correct, it only made these lefties more sinister and aggravating in the eyes of the hardcore liberal base.

Ah. So when you elsewhere inform cybercoma that you were openly conceding that you had "neither the facts nor the law...on your side," and that cybercoma was correct...and you were wrong! Have you informed cybercoma of your concession to his superior argument yet? 'Cause I think you have not.

Well, sure I do. And, as is perfectly and unambiguously obvious from the remark to which I directly responded (in fact, quoted) my remark had nothing whatever to do with the Government of Canada, and everything to do with (small 'c') conservatives. After regaling us with fantasies about the moral superiority of (small'c') conservatives, here was what Argus said: I wasn't talking about the Conservative Party, but rather conservatives. So was Argus. I was only pointing out the obvious; in a post about the moral superiority of conservatives, he happened to mention the criminal degeneracy of some conservatives. Or perhaps you two think that the ultra-conservatives are actually lefties?

Sometimes I make an effort to be friendly. Strength or weakness? It's not clear, maybe, but I believe it's overall a positive impulse. It's not related to the insanity of denialists, believe me. I personally know a couple of Creationists who are lovely, lovely people--deluded, even dangerously deluded, as they defend the forces of ignorance over enlightenment...but still, yes, unquestionably, "decent" folk.

Absolutely. This was predicted, with great accuracy, by many on the left...after which the Obama liberals threw (also preditable) tantrums. Yea, who knows? I was just joking, and have no idea what Bush thinks about anything.

Yes, and no one disagrees with this point. The peaceful protesters feel much the same way. Too bad they're the ones who were punished by the police, while not doing anything wrong. So, to recap: you, me, everyone here, and the protesters themselves agree that the violent folks tried to ruin it for everybody, and should be held to account for their actions. Where we depart is that you don't think authorities--the people with power--should be held to account for their actions. Including the authorities. Especially the authorities.

Are you implying that cybercoma is an anti-semite? Because that's a serious charge, and should be backed up with evidence. Just because moral cowards use the term so promiscuously doesn't mean it's automatically a legitimate talking point.

He's not saying anything of the kind. He disagreed with one of your opinions, and he did so respectfully, in my view. You're undoubtedly a really decent man, but you're being a prickly pear on a matter which I think you're misreading.

And? I've yet to see any evidence that the victim is relevant to you in any way, Bill...beyond using the dead body as a club to explain to us what hypocrites we are. Yes, speaking of victims; more right-wing victimology complexes. Since Harper got into poower, it's hilariously gotten worse, I think! You certainly implied it. The implication is the premise of your post itself! Good grief. Is that your position? My position is only that I was responding directly to specific charges you made. For example, since none of us had anything to say about the victim Argus mentioned, and that illustrates that "the left" can be very "hypocritical"...you are implying, quite clearly, that those not on this sinister "left" would have been hanging their heads and sobbing at Argus's touching words [sic]. Which is nonsense... ....as you know very well. Your remarks about "the left," while not achieving the full-blown lunacy of, say, August's ruminations on the same subject, are nonetheless nothing more than highly politicized sniping, and with no substance at all.

And your response here is longer, and, unlike my own, quite empty. Perhaps it's a literary conceit; as you pretend preposterously that you "didn't mean nothin," and that your remark was devoid of politics, and devoid of implied criticism....you analagously demonstrate the total emptiness of meaning by posting a meaningless (if reeking a little of "methinks he doth protest too much") justification. Sweet godzilla on His throne. Whatever you say, m'man.

Yes, but they were speaking of the poster who opined that Liberal failure was somehow symbolized by Trudeau's less-than-professional boxing style. Begging the obvious question about the Conservatives (via the Conservative poster's own formulation, mind). Hell, such a remark in such a coontext as that fight pleads for such a response. It's like when the Simpson kids travel to the next town: "If you're so great, how come we beat you in football nearly half the time?"

I think he means that automatic, habitual partisanship is gross.

Ah, subjective. That makes more sense.

What's most hilarious is that in several respects...Bush did come back! I assume the former President enjoys it, and who can blame him?

In a similar vein, I've never murdered anybody. Therefore, I'm an excellent human being...exemplary, in fact; and I suppose I've earned a tremendous amount of respect (delivered in righteously angry defensiveness, I guess to protect my honour) from the "crack them hippies' heads!" mouthbreathers.

Yep. If people don't agree with Argus, it means they don't care about victims. Well, as everyone knows, there is no hypocrisy on the Right...who are also famous for their compassion and warm-hearted approach to political discussion.

Yeah....those guys sure show us the high standards self-imposed by conservatives, don't they?

Quite true. And in fact, as is to be expected, there are huge rifts among Muslims about what the religion is, and should mean. It would appear that Western policy generally is not concerned with this argument, since "moderate Muslim" quite explicitly means "Muslims who support Western policies," a pretty perfect little tautology. There are plenty of Muslims who, philosophically and ideologically, are aligned with liberal humanism and greater secular influence in politics. Our leaders and policymakers don't appear to show much interest in them.

And in NB, yet!

No, no need to punish MLW with your absence. Those who choose not to vote still get their say (some people disagree with me on that...but I disagree with them!).

You're not kidding. We're a strange little population.

"In New York, in winter, people head inside," narrator-Carrie intones. Hey, another phenomenon unique to that great city. My father used to fashion a skating rink out of our back yard. The neighbourhood showed up. Do people still do this? I like to hope so. I was never a quick skater as a young boy, and I'm still pretty cumbersome. I'm a passable player, if I may say so, but without speed you're simply crippled from ever truly shining. Doesn't matter, because my god it was fun. Fun at the time, joyful in remembrance. Our dog used to skitter out on to the ice, legs trembling, and poop. I don't know why. I think just to be a jerk. There are a lot of Mark Steyns in this world, but we make our peace with their existence. And we even, at times, learn to love them, as with my dog. The ladies onscreen are talking to some guy...that fellow from the old "Law and Order" shows. He's some sort of tycoon. The "Sex and the City" males are walking sex organs who shoot money. This is pop-feminism in the consumer age, the afterbirth of the Clinton conservative era misnamed "liberalism." Wealthy men, masculine but suitably sensitive, and lots and lots of Brand Name-dropping. "The shoes! My Goddess Aphrodite, look at my shoes!" At the south end of my father's property was a little stand of firs, among which we'd drink horrible wine when we were thirteen, and then get sick. Some fun, huh? I kissed my first girl in that place. She wore jeans cutoffs and a t-shirt. Out of my league, I thought then; I don't now. What the?...Carrie and her intrepid gang are in the Arab Emirates, now? I think the ladies have followed their old cougar pal there. Then some other stuff happens. Coincidentally, they meet some guy they know. From Manhattan. In the United Arab Emirates. Nah, can't be a coincidence. I must have missed something when I was thinking of other things, like skating, and wine, and likeable females whom I've known and adored. Willie Nelson sang about this subject, with Julio Iglesias. It was a cover, but they made it their own. I like that song. Then some more stuff happens; then the end credits.

How long before someone says "the sun did it!"?

........

Fine, let's pretend you're obtuse, and really didn't get the point. I'll play along: You asked, in essence, "why protest This...but not That?" The implication is one of politicized hypocrisy. Fine, perhaps a real enough phenomenon...but one that applies with perfect multi-partisanship, multi-ideology; you see, you write letters to reps, and so on. That's political activism. But there are certain specific issues...real ones, important ones--which I daresay you don't bother getting exercised about, for various reasons. I don't consider that a fault, just to be clear. It's perfectly understandable, and all activists--including yoruself--must pick and choose his or her battles. You, however, do consider it a fault. When I mentioned your "hypocrisy," I was not laying my personal judgement upon you (I don't know nor care if you're actually a hypocrite, and wouldn't assume it in any case); I was applying your own judgement to yourself.